Raches on Money

In another thread, discussion diverged into a tangent on money, monetary policy, central banking, the history thereof in various countries, and the application thereof in present-day American politics.  As I thereby observed, my own views “are rather nuanced:  As an admirer of Hitler’s régime (and of Schacht’s work at the Reichsbank), I obviously do not have an absolutist principle against fiat money—and as a Bitcoiner (and a bit of a goldbug), I obviously have no great love for the U.S. Federal Reserve scam.”

Fiat money and central banking are powerful tools.  Although some tools are more susceptible to abuse than others, categorically praising or condemning tools in absolutist terms is usually a mark of simplemindedness.

The tools at hand can be used to help revive an economy that is in such dire straits, the gold standard is not even a practical option for want of gold reserves; that was the case in Hitler’s Germany.  Or they can be abused to skim the cream off the top of an economy for the delectation of bankers and corrupt governments; that is the case of the U.S. Federal Reserve, a system that was substantially born into American law together with its twin, the Marxist progressive income tax.

The American implementations of central banking, fiat money, and the income tax work in tandem, as an integrated extractive system, to reduce the American livestock to slavery-by-another-name.  Indeed, the typical American now has far more real value extracted from him than a Roman household slave—and unlike the latter, the American can never hope to buy his emancipation, as some Roman slaves did after saving up their own money.  That the American people accept this is conclusive proof that they are natural born slaves—most likely with that tendency bred into their genetics.  —This is an observation of reality.  It is obviously not much of a libertarian argument, if I find Hitler’s central banking and taxation perfectly acceptable.

Gold is generally sound money; and moreover, the American government’s policy towards gold much reveals the nature of its tyranny.  When Roosevelt seized the American people’s gold bullion in 1934, the result should have been immediate armed revolution—if the American people were not natural born slaves, as aforesaid.  For the American government to forbid its people from owning gold for the next four decades shows the hollowness of America’s pretense at being a “free country”.  Oh, “the Land of the Free”—where the government can treat gold coins and bars as “contraband”!  And in substantial effect, the Nixon Shock did to other (ostensibly) sovereign governments what Roosevelt had done domestically.[1]

Bitcoin is sound money.  Its nature is frequently misunderstood; that is unsurprising, for it is the invention of a totally new form of money.  Its implementation is free speech:  The unrestricted, permissionless communication of financial information—which I argue must perforce be protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, thus subjecting any American regulation thereof to “strict scrutiny”.[2]  Its fundamental value derives from the financial consensus by which, as a new form of money, it facilitates economic activity which would otherwise be inconvenient, expensive, or totally impractical.  This is no mere theory:  I have seen productivity happen, which would not have happened but for Bitcoin and Bitcoin’s monetary characteristics.  And with a supply cap as a part of its consensus, Bitcoin is an excellent store of value.  In future Proems, I will elaborate on my theory of Bitcoin’s nature, its characteristics, and its value fundamentals, in addition to technical discussion.

But I do not idealize these forms of money as the best in all conceivable circumstances.  Indeed, I wish for something better.  Gold markets are susceptible to manipulation—much to the profit of Jewish bankers, as seen in history.  The scarcity which helps to make gold valuable can itself cause economic problems—which can be manipulated to feed into wars and revolutions, as also seen in history.  And Bitcoin suffers some of gold’s problems—in addition to the obvious problem that it depends on the existence of a technological, industrial society to support the Internet.  I do not idealize deflation; I actually dislike deflation, although I prefer it to the inflation which punishes savers.

Upon analyzing these problems, I have tried every which way I can imagine to design a Bitcoin-like new money with better economic characteristics.  I ultimately conclude that the ideal money requires a trustworthy government.  In the absence thereof, I much prefer goldbug economics and anarchic cypherpunk money.

By analogy, consider censorship.  Censorship, like central banking and fiat money, is a powerful tool.  I would willingly accept, and even prefer to live under the censorship régime of Reichsminister Dr. Goebbels.  If I did, then I may need to abstain from saying some things I want to say—for the greater good; that would be acceptable to me, if Dr. Goebbels shuts down the liars, mass-manipulators, and culture-distorters.  By the same light, I would accept fiat currency issued by a government which genuinely cares about the economic well-being of the people.  The same considerations apply to taxation, and to numerous other aspects of government.

Liberty and Authority

On a related note, I think that intelligent libertarians are closer to authoritarians than seen by those who see only the surface.  In America, much of what is now called “libertarianism” would have been called “conservatism”[3] eighty or a hundred years ago; that political heritage has been corrupted and distorted by pot-smoking hippies and raving lunatics, but it is still there beneath the surface.  And the deeper tendencies of a conservative may turn to what Professor Oliver called a “rational authoritarianism”; he himself was a liberty-oriented conservative, an admirer of Albert Jay Nock, before he turned to praise Adolf Hitler.  Adjusting some of his own terminology, I call the Oliverian political trajectory the “Cicero to Caesar Pipeline”—a much more refined, aristocratic version of the so-called “libertarian to alt-right pipeline”.

I myself am an authoritarian with some libertarian sympathies.[4]  I do not see any contradiction in that:  Just as my extreme long-term individual selfishness leads me to a worldview centered around connections to others, so do I realize that my deep desire for personal liberty can be manifested and defended only through a hierarchical, authoritarian group.  Amongst one’s own,—together with others, there is a freedom that can never be had by individual atoms floating in an anthropoid sea, each alone in the crowd—each a slave of the ochlocratic mass, in the universal slavery of each to all.  I diagonally cut the “libertarian-authoritarian spectrum” to shreds.

Although libertarianism, and also U.S. electoral politics, are not the primary topics hereof, these subjects will inevitably arise in a discussion of money and monetary policy.  I will therefore permit such discussion in the comments, as long as it more or less relates to money.

Whereupon I invite Unz Review commentators to talk about money. ®

Notes

[1] It also showed, yet again, that an American promise can never be trusted—a principle already well-known to anyone who had been paying attention.

[2] To my knowledge, this argument is original to me.  I hope to see others take it up.

[3] I did specify:  In America.  In Europe, “conservatism” has always had a different meaning, often related to monarchism.

[4] I do detest the stupider breed of libertarians, who tend to rant and rave and spout lists of quotes instead of presenting logical arguments; but that is a problem with many ideologies, not only libertarianism.  It is especially bad anywhere at the political fringes.

The Big Data Soul-Market

A thousand times, I would rather be her than a Gmail user.  She still has some private thoughts.  (Jean-Léon Gérôme, Marché romain aux esclaves, c. 1884.)

If you fail to resist this—if you fail to reject it—then you are a slave of the soul subsisting in a global panopticon.  Your life, your personal relationships, and your very thoughts are not your own:  They are property owned by others, stored in databases and managed by robots.  You are soulless anthropoid livestock that exists for the pleasure and profit of your owners—and at their mercy.  A slave-girl seized in war and sold at auction has more inviolable dignity than you.

I am the free, the proud, the inviolable—the untouchable.  My soul belongs to me. ®

The Mass-Rape of Souls

What is best called a “soul”, if we avoid any mystical propositions of immaterial beings that cannot be observed?

Your innermost thoughts, your dreams, your most secret fears and hopes.  Your fantasies—and your most private realities.  Your closest and most intimate connections with other people.  Your own perceptions from the cradle to the grave, looking outwards from inside yourself—and looking into yourself, from within.

Your psyche.

Nowadays, you ask Google Search the secret thoughts and questions that you would never reveal to your spouse, your clergy, or your psychiatrist.  If you lie awake at three in the morning with some hidden preoccupation, and you want to put your mind at ease, you ask Google for the answers.  If you heard of some erotic diversion that you would never admit to intrigue you, and which you perhaps may not ever intend to do, you ask Google to sate your idle curiosity.  Your medical condition, your financial plans, and most all else about you is revealed to Google by your queries.

Google Search is the most powerful psychological interrogation and profiling tool ever invented.  The record of your queries gives Google a record of your thoughts, almost as if by mind-reading.

If you use Gmail, then Google also has a complete record of your intimate communications and your inviolable personal relationships.  And the same principle applies in different degree to any unencrypted, insecure email.  —And the same principle applies to all unencrypted electronic communications.

Imagine someone out there having a transcript of all your discussions with your wife or husband, your parents, your children, your best friends…  Then, realize that someone does have that, more or less.

Now, consider your phone.  You carry it everywhere.  Around 2012, I put on my “evil hat”, imagined being the NSA, and asked myself what the most important ways would be to watch everybody all the time.  One of my top answers:  Location.  My conclusion as such was vindicated by the Snowden revelations in 2013.

I mused that in modern times, a stereotypical psychotic delusion is the belief that the government or space aliens has implanted a person with a tracking chip—in the manner of tracking cattle.  Whereas now, in reality, the anthropoid herds voluntarily carry the tracking devices—and they even pay for the privilege of carrying a device which is not only a location-tracker, but a network-controllable bugging device.  Your phone can unobtrusively capture audio—and nowadays, video; and it can be controlled by hackers, whether those hackers are called “intelligence”, “police“, or “criminals”.  It also hooks you up to a 24/7 propaganda stream via the Facebook app, the Twitter app, and the apps or websites for your favorite sources of “news” and other entertainment.

Without exaggeration, you are choosing to carry with you the v2.0 upgrade of an Orwellian telescreen—with location-tracking.

Now, let me not even get started on the state of privacy on the Web; I must reserve that for future commentary.

I must emphasize that plutocratic corporate mass-surveillance, “surveillance capitalism”, is of even greater concern to me than intelligence agency mass-surveillance.  Of course, I am worried about the NSA, et al.  But what is worse, much worse in practice, is the unbounded hunger of surveillance capitalists to tap, track, trace, data-mine, and manipulate Big Data for commercial gain.  The tyrants of corrupt governments are primarily interested in preventing threats to the state—and to that end, they have at their disposal raw power beyond the wildest fantasies of Stalin’s NKVD.  The Big Data surveillance capitalists have an insatiate lust to steal the soul of each and every individual on Earth, because “data is [sic] the new oil”.  And the latter feed the former, too.  Every which way, for those who seek privacy on ideological (or even religious) grounds, or for a simple desire for human dignity, corporations are the primary threat.

The Hidden War

Against the thieves of souls, who rob you of your privacy and violate every intimate detail of your life, there is a hidden war, a Crypto-War, in which the free and the proud must use every tool at their disposal.  And it is not a war of “left” versus “right”.

Those who duly appreciated Philip Giraldi’s recent article on Julian Assange will be unsurprised to find me going full cypherpunk here.  By historical analogy hereto:  Assange and Timothy C. May were basically on “the same side” about privacy and encryption, even though May was an elitist and Assange is an egalitarian believer in democracy.  Although I will assuredly beat good old T. C. May hands down for political incorrectness, the same principle hereby applies.

To Touch the Untouchable

I believe in praxis.  Ideology must be lived.  The political is personal.

Thus, synthesizing the thoughts that I have expressed, plus my dream of establishing an intellectual aristocracy, I reach the following conclusions:

1. If I represent hereby any truth, I must be hard to get.  (That blog post on “Truth Wisdom” was originally the beginning of this post.)

2. My private communications must be kept private, as always they are:  My soul is inviolable.

This is consistent with my general policy in life.  I always want to make new friends—but quality is more important than quantity; and I am not desperate for fan mail.  I always encrypt all of my electronic communications, absolutely without exception, to the maximal extent that is feasible.  I dearly appreciate eloquent epistolary exchanges with people who are not stupid and not lazy.

Wherefore to reach me, you must at least minimally qualify.  My criteria:  A modicum of knowledge, or a modicum of effort to attain new knowledge.  Also, as another selection filter, my contact information is buried at the bottom of an essay where only my regular readers will find it, unless I “deep link” to it from elsewhere.

(Note that this policy may change.  Depending how my blog goes, for practical reasons, I may need to put out an email address someday.  If so, I will edit this paragraph, and the relevant sections below; but I will leave the rest hereof for historical reference.  Of course, I will always minimize or refuse unencrypted personal contact.)

Raches versus Email

Being so selective cuts spam, and makes email tolerable to me.  Whereas email is so disruptive that some people altogether eschew it.  Most famously, Professor Knuth, the scholar of computer science, has an essay on his site titled “Knuth versus Email”:

I have been a happy man ever since January 1, 1990, when I no longer had an email address.  I’d used email since about 1975, and it seems to me that 15 years of email is plenty for one lifetime.

Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things.  But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things.  What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration.

[…]

`I don’t even have an e-mail address. I have reached an age where my main purpose is not to receive messages.' --- Umberto Eco, quoted in the New Yorker

A recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education provocatively entitled, “Is Email Making Professors Stupid?” (February 12, 2019) is inspired by Knuth; and it opines:  “Email has become a kind of digital water torture for the scholar struggling to think without interruption.”

If I did not so treasure the secret exchange of encrypted letters, I may agree with Knuth.  I do mean letters.  Outside quick memoranda, I treat writing an email in the same manner as I treat writing an old-fashioned letter.  It is a good mental model for enjoying all the good characteristics of email, without its disruptive effects.

The Rules of Secure Communication

In brief hereby—to be elaborated in future Proems:

1. Never send anything in unencrypted email that you would not snailmail on a postcard.  This is a very old rule on the Internet.  The fact that so many people have not learned it makes me pessimistic for the future of the world.

2. All nonpublic communications should be encrypted all the time—no exceptions.  If you distinguish between “really private stuff” and “eh, I’m not encrypting this”, that has three problems:  You flag to any observer the particular messages that may be “interesting”.  You misjudge between the two categories—inevitably; you cannot always predict what may be “interesting” in the future.  And you develop bad habits.  You need to set yourself up so that encryption is convenient, so you can use it for everything.

3. First contact is oft the most important to secure.

I do mean that I encrypt everything all the time.  If I want to send one of my friends a cute cat photo, I encrypt it.  If I want to discuss recipes for chocolate-chip cookies, I encrypt it.  This takes no effort.  I am properly set up so that encryption is automatic; once I have a correspondent’s key in my system, all that I need to do is to keep out a vigilant eye to make sure that the system continues doing what it is supposed to do.

Contact

For the above-stated reasons, this is how to contact me:

1. Use the below PGP key, which does not include an email address, to encrypt a message to me.  If you do not know how to use PGP/GPG, this is your opportunity to learn.  Do some research—or just wait for me to blog an introduction to PGP, as I intend sometime to do.  Don’t avoid it; if you don’t invest the modest effort to get up and running with PGP, then you may later suffer from what I call Greenwald’s Regret.
2. Leave the encrypted message in a comment on this thread, with no other text.  Comments that contain any unencrypted text may be published.  Just slap in a blob of ASCII-armored PGP-encrypted gibberish—that’s it!
3. I will receive your message in my moderation queue.  It should not be published—but if it is by accident, the damage is limited:  It is encrypted.  You should always assume that anything entered in the comment form is not private.
4. Inside your encrypted message, be sure to include your email address and your own PGP key, so that I can reply.  I will not reply without encryption.  As an exception to the above rules, you may include your PGP key separately from your message if you find it too inconvenient to put inside; however, this is not preferable.  (Those who use Protonmail may omit their keys, which I can easily obtain myself; but Protonmail is not preferred with me, although it is acceptable.  I can also fetch keys via WKD; but if I have any difficulty finding your key, I will not reply.  I will not search keyservers.)
5. Be sure to check your spam folder.  If I reply, I may reply from an anonymous throwaway address that tends to get messages eaten by a robot.  Spies who solicit contact here to discover my email address will be sad to discover:  I use no-value throwaway addresses, and I change them more often than most people change their socks.
6. If you fail to encrypt your message properly (so I can’t decrypt it), or my reply is lost in the mail, then unfortunately, I cannot do anything about that.
7. Unencrypted comments may be published, even if they express a request not to publish.  To contact me privately, you MUST use encryption.  DO NOT say anything unencrypted here that you would be upset to see published to the whole world!

PGP Key

Last modified:  2021-10-11.  Subject to change; always check back here for the current key, unless or until I declare a key stable.  For usage, read the above instructions.

pub   ed25519/0xA93EEAE36F060709 2021-10-11 [SC] [expires: 2022-10-11]
      Key fingerprint = 4BFE 86C5 2A9C AB1D 93D7  CD2E A93E EAE3 6F06 0709
uid                   [ultimate] Raches (https://www.unz.com/proems/untouchable/#contact)
sub   cv25519/0x708430F2EB7B8585 2021-10-11 [E] [expires: 2022-10-11]

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

mDMEYWQ7ARYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAVgnYPCerYaN1CFXzBbGFZJ2cU2P78vIoSACe
96pA0H60OFJhY2hlcyAoaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudW56LmNvbS9wcm9lbXMvdW50b3Vj
aGFibGUvI2NvbnRhY3QpiJEEExYKADkWIQRL/obFKpyrHZPXzS6pPurjbwYHCQUC
YWQ7AQIbAwUJAeEzgAILCQMVCggFFgMCAQACHgECF4AACgkQqT7q428GBwlASQEA
xcC8ObugiplA5AnYHNBaLnX0BqLuBlntfON8k2GB5ToA/20tsWZTA9z+y8YOgd9B
Uij9IzF6JwDsiJ+LwFakF1wHuDgEYWQ7ARIKKwYBBAGXVQEFAQEHQGhxQsPfWeCZ
B1WwtVuTvGk2lxNUbTtKv5zaEnpOlroIAwEIB4h+BBgWCgAmFiEES/6GxSqcqx2T
180uqT7q428GBwkFAmFkOwECGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQqT7q428GBwk24wD9GVXatfHo
F33HM7QA+hcc7GmmqI+OhqVOwNY1Pir0F0oA/jWjU1UsbjQWZDGZiTvVbd58ovtK
6HUY0Kvi5YalWEgN
=GVOt
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Seducing Truth

Vorausgesetzt, daß die Wahrheit ein Weib ist—, wie?

As his setup for going Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche asks:  “Supposing that Truth is a woman—what then?”  In his own way, he then observes that, in substantial essence, philosophers are clueless, clumsy, cowardly beta-boys who do not know how to win a woman.

Thereupon, he, as an alpha-philologist, moves in on the philosophers’ turf to get the girl who has rejected them.  With casual contempt, he dismisses all of the luckless wannabes who have been trying and failing to bother her; thus does he demolish three millennia of Western philosophy.  Having gotten Truth alone, he takes her out on a date beyond good and evil.

This wooing of Fräulein Truth follows the course set in Nietzsche’s previous book, Thus Spake Zarathustra:

Courageous, unconcerned, scornful, coercive—so wisdom wisheth us; she is a woman, and ever loveth only a warrior.

That is one of the most famous Nietzsche quotes; but I think it is mostly misunderstood, reduced to a cheap platitude by the brain disease of liberalism.  What does it mean to be “mutig, unbekümmert, spöttisch, gewalttätig”?  I will speak boldly what none dares think, I don’t care what anyone says, I contemn my critics, and I will force my way—I don’t take “no” for an answer!  Some of my detractors in the comments here exemplify how modern society sees this.  Idly contemplating their impotent bile, I pause to wonder:  Can wisdom be had any other way?

Eternally Untouchable Virgin Wisdom

According to my esoteric interpretation of the Greeks, perhaps wisdom cannot be had at all.  She is untouchable.  Athena Parthenos, Athena the Virgin, is, in my opinion, very different from the Christian notion of a virgin goddess (or quasi-goddess, as the Virgin Mary).

Classicists may scream Gewalt![1] at my coercion of the exoteric canon, but I will be “unbekümmert”.  I see Athena as that hot girl with a cold attitude, whom you never dared to approach when you were a teenager.  She shoots men down in flames with an icy glance.  In this case, she truly is too good for you—and for everyone else:  An aristocrat of her sex, who stands apart even from her divine peers.  She is the archetype of the fate that oft[2] befalls extremely smart women, who face the choice between loneliness and “settling”.  A woman needs a man who can exceed her; for the Goddess of Wisdom, there is none, even amongst the gods.

Although Sex loves War, virgin Wisdom may only be known through War.  Wherefore Athena Parthenos is also Pallas.

Wisdom personified:  She is untouchable and unapproachable.  Have not the hubris to presume that you may ever know her intimately. ®

Notes

[1] German Gewalt—here, echoing the above “gewalttätig”—as distinct from the word’s bastardization as Yiddish gevalt.  My musing on these words will be a subject of future Proems.

[2] Either that, or the opposite extreme.  I have another theory about this; but I hereby omit it, lest I be accused of sockpuppetry.

Judge This Book by Its Cover

It is everywhere.

The Female of the Species, by Rudyard Kipling

When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
’Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man’s timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn’t his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husband, each confirms the other’s tale—
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger!  Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells.
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate!
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

So it comes that Man the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract justice—which no woman understands.

And Man knows it!  Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

Sources

Originally written in 1911.  Reprinted hereby from The Years Between (London, 1919).  A copy with the cover; a clearer scan of the text.

The Dangerous Sex

This poem was, of course, a favorite of Professor Oliver’s.  I have no doubt that Nietzsche, too, would have loved it; by his lights, I think it would have been a moment of an Englishman escaping cultural mediocrity!

Kipling clearly wrote the above words to urge against women’s suffrage.  But the poem is a double-edged sword—and Kipling here recognized an essential truth, an ancient truth,[1] that has been buried beneath modern ideas.  Neither “the weaker sex”, nor peaceful angels (!), women in their inner natures are gloriously undomesticated and undomesticable.

Women are the dangerous sex.  The natural fanatics.  As religionists—“the religious sex”, as Professor Oliver fondly said.  The instinctive sex, with a nature “more natural than that of man”, as Nietzsche observed.  The furious sex:  Wiser men of wiser times perceived the Furies as female.  In personal affairs, the extremists of love and hate.  In politics—the natural radicals.

There is thus in womankind a source of power.  Contrary to the mythology of some quarters of the far right, the Jews did not invent feminism:  The modern ideology that we now call feminism was substantially invented by degenerate Aryan men in alliance with degenerate Aryan women.  But organized Jewry seized upon it,[2] for they recognized that an organized, countercultural women’s movement had the power to burn traditional society to the ground.  Against this, conservatives and traditionalists have perennially tried to put the genie back in the bottle.  Now, look to the results!

Perhaps if Ludovici’s incisive antifeminist works had been heeded, some workable semblance of traditional rôles and relations between the sexes could have been restored as recently as seventy years ago.  Now, such a prospect is as hopeless as it was in Germany in the 1920s to roll back all that had passed since the revolutions of 1848.[3]

At this late date, already in a New Dark Age, there is nothing left to conserve.  Cultural traditions have been so thoroughly annihilated, those alive today cannot imagine what a “traditional” lifestyle really meant—and even those who claim to recognize this tend to fall into the trap of equal and opposite errors.  The “inner experience”, the Weltanschauung of past cultural traditions no longer exists; and those alive today have no organic connection to it.  The clock cannot be turned back by even a paltry hundred years—let alone by millennia, as I myself quite frankly would prefer.

The answer is a new radicalism:  A new way inspired by the best of the past, and most of all by classical antiquity, to build a better future.  Only thus may the lies of modernity be torn out root and branch.

And such an historic enterprise needs the uncompromising, pitiless Law of the convictions of the dread and deadly Female of the Species. ®

Notes

[1] Observe that whereas ancient gods were fearsome warriors, many of the most terrifying rôles were reserved for divine women:  Nemesis—and the Erinyes, the literal Furies.  Tyche, oft called the Empress of the World, whose fickle whims set and reset the destinies of men and of nations.  Eris.  This list could be much extended…  Even the goddess of wisdom was combined with the goddess of war—and made an untouchable virgin, whom even the gods could not intimately approach; Athena Pallas embodies in philosophy and in the affairs of men what Artemis, the Huntress, personifies in Man’s contact with Nature.  And even the erotic Aphrodite loved war—both in the myth of her tryst with the god of war, and in her blessings of her warlike mortal son.

All of these goddesses were worshipped in a society so extremely patriarchal, its relations between the sexes are unimaginable to those worldview has been turned upside-down and inside-out by many centuries of Christianity.

[2] Cf. the insight at The Antichrist 24.

[3] 06e1abae1321f4cf9243102a83f3df2e1ff60ce6c222835d8854a9063b18d159

In reply to a German-hating commentator, another commentator recently remarked:[1]

Your whole argument on Germans reminds me of a guy who answered someone who said that the accomplishments of Germany are “mindboggling”. This guy answered somewhat reluctantly, “They make good cars!” lol

As I have previously commented upon, and will blog more about in the future, the Americans bragged about how they looted the brains of the Germans—by unavoidable implication, the Germans’ superior brains.

Quoting ultra-mainstream, classy (for an American magazine) Harper’s, C. Lester Walker, “Secrets by the Thousands”, October 1946:[2]

Someone wrote to Wright Field recently, saying he understood this country had got together quite a collection of enemy war secrets, that many were now on public sale, and could he, please, be sent everything on German jet engines.  The Air Documents Division of the Army Air Forces answered:

“Sorry—but that would be fifty tons.”

Moreover, that fifty tons was just a small portion… […]

In Washington, the Office of Technical Services [] reports that tens of thousands of tons of material are involved.  It is estimated that over a million separate items must be handled, and that they, very likely, contain practically all the scientific, industrial, and military secrets of Nazi Germany.

One Washington official has called it “the greatest single source of this type of material in the world, the first orderly exploitation of an entire country’s brainpower.”

Read the whole article, weep—and be fired with wrath.  For the Americans to rob the Germans was an act that speaks for itself—for them to brag about so robbing the achievements that they themselves could never make was sick, sick, sick, as sick as it was for them to publish a photo of an American woman collecting a “Jap skull” in the manner of a serial-killer trophy, as “Photo of the Week” in so-called “LIFE” (!) magazine.  No wonder the Americans have such a fetish for lurid fantasies about Germans gassing Jews, stuffing Jews into ovens, melting down Jewish bodies and making them into soap:[3]  It is called psychological projection.

America has the culture of a gang of deranged criminals; no wonder the American people accept literally being ruled by gangsters as their so-called “government”.  And when Americans speak of “liberating” a country, as I recently remarked, they mean it in the sense that shoplifters speak of “liberating” goodies that they want—except that the Americans are orders of magnitude more violent criminals, and instead of only stealing material stuff, they steal achievements, they steal glory, they steal culture—they steal souls.  By comparison, how innocent were the old Vikings, who made merry by pillaging gold and women!

The Americans violently robbed the Germans of superior German science and technology.  The brain-leeching American pirates also took for themselves some of the best German scientists on offer you can’t refuse types of terms, used them to put on the moon an ugly American flag[4] (which should by right have been a Swastika flag), and then viciously persecuted one of them to please the Jews.

So, yes:  By the undeniable admission of their own acts, the Americans proclaimed to history that the Germans were incomparably superior to themselves.  Seething with jealous hatred, the Americans coveted German superiority:  They had to destroy it, and they also had to steal as much of it as they could.

Of course, echoing my recent quote of Professor Oliver, “I do not mean that individual Americans approve of all the work of Liberation.  In fact, I am sure that many individuals disapprove of such details as I have mentioned.  That may be unfortunate.”  Professor Oliver himself was a great American patriot—a proud Southerner whose heart was always in the South, although he spent most of his life in Illinois—and most of all, an honorable man:  A man of conscience, who came to express guilt and shame for his country. ®

Notes:

[1] Dr. Charles Fhandrich.  I consign his name to a footnote not to slight him, but because I do not want for his remarks to be misinterpreted out of context.  I hate out-of-context misquotes; and I am accordingly careful not to flip someone’s intended meaning upside-down with even an accidental cherry-pick.

[2] Other sources of this article:  Harper’s website (paywalled), Unz Archive (not publicly viewable at present), and the pertinent pages, pp. 329–336, in the Internet Archive’s copy of Harper’s Volume 193.  My thanks to Herr George Dietz, a most excellent American immigrant who settled in West Virginia, for having reprinted this article verbatim in Liberty Bell, March 1992, pp. 22–32, where it came to my attention.

[3] A small personal footnote:  When I first dared to dig into historical revisionism, I was shocked to learn that even Yad Vashem had disclaimed the “Jewish soap” tale.  Shocked—because it had been repeated to me so many times, as an established, indisputable, unquestionable fact that showed German character.

[4] Obiter dictum, I remark that the famous C.S.A. battle flag is much more aesthetic than the U.S.A. flag.

Of Good and Evil, Love and Hate

When I was a child, I had my first experience with Communism.  I did not yet know it.

It was a popular fashion amongst ejucaters[a] to assign shared projects with shared grades to pairs of students.  Of course, the smartest kid must be paired with the stupidest kid.  Equality!  The smart one shall not be heard to complain:  That would be “arrogant” and “not compassionate”, and it may even be a symptom of psychological problems.

This is, of course, no different than tying an Olympic athlete to a congenitally deformed cripple, making them run a three-legged race, and then preaching to the athlete that he had better understand:  He is no better than his fellow human being.

Up or Down

When faced with something superior to yourself, there are only two options:  Look up to it, or try to pull it down to your level.  As a believer in the virtue of inequality, I am not ashamed to admit that in some important ways, some people are better than I am.  For example, Olympic gymnasts are stronger, more agile, and in many cases, also more beautiful.

These people are bodily so superior to me, they may as well be of a higher species.

Racists like to point out that Aryans were building moon rockets, at a time when some tribes of Congoids in Africa still had not yet figured out how to use wheels for transportation.  I am a racist—and I am a fancier of human breeds, in the manner of a dog fancier or a cat fancier.

As such, I recognize that the Germans were one of the finest human breeds that has ever existed.  In most every realm of achievement, in art, science, and technology, they had few competitors as a nation that produced historic greatness.  To acknowledge this is no different than to see that Europe generally has much higher achievements than Sub-Saharan Africa.  And the Germans were beautiful people—collectively, generally.  For one with an eye for beauty, it is impossible not to notice that Hitler-era Germany had an abundance of human beauty, in both sexes.

Admire them—or be jealous of them.  Either-or.

To the Bad, Good is Evil

The Germans, those “evil” Nazis, were attacked for being too good.  Nietzsche will explain that:  Good, according to the morality of the best, is called “evil”, according to the morality of the worst.[b]  The Germans had such great goodness, their “evil” must be defiled, defaced, defamed, and destroyed.

And so it came to pass that the Americans, a nation of hate half-founded by the runaway dregs of Europe, did even worse to the Germans than they had to America’s foundational other half:  The Southern gentlemen and ladies, whose antebellum cultural superiority was an affront to crude fanatics who descended from the Puritans.  The culturally aristocratic South, a young country which was maturing to be almost European in outlook, had to be broken, violated, and cast down into the mud.

Take the so-called “Reconstruction”, Second “Reconstruction”, Third “Reconstruction”, and more “Reconstruction”—exponentiate those horrors inflicted on the American Southerners—and you may thus approximate what is, quite fittingly, sometimes called the “German Reconstruction”.

By American Diktat,[c] in a country that is still under military occupation to this day, this:

Germans.

…was and is being forcibly “Reconstructed” into this:

Official advertising of a “Familie Deutschland” campaign, by the “German” Federal Government (2001).  Photograph by Herlinde Koelbl for the “German” Federal Press Office (Bundespresseamt).  Source of information on a graphic that took some effort to identify: See Figure 1 (Abb. 1) and the accompanying text under heading, “Fotografien in der erziehungswissenschaftlichen Forschung”, in this article.

No viler and more jealous hatred has been seen in this world since the time when Roman Christians desecrated temples, smashed statues, and burnt books they deemed “pagan”.

When the great Norwegian author Knut Hamsun visited America in the 1880s, he concluded, “Instead of founding an intellectual elite, America has established a mulatto studfarm”.  What have the Americans established in Germany—and in all of Europe?

On the nature of the Second World War

Although I am a proud, unapologetic racist, I am not a racial reductionist.[d]  To deny the importance of race is to lose all else that is important—but to reduce all to race is to lose all else, too.  It is another instance of equal and opposite errors.

By any reasonable definition, the German National Socialists were racists.  But they were not racial reductionists.  That is why they could form with the Japanese not only an alliance, but a cross-cultural friendship.  Two aristocratic nations of different races could recognize each other, and deal with each other inter pares collectively as aristocrats always have individually.  Nobility knows its own.

White racialists should perpend the above juxtaposition of photos, and realize that that is the result of the Japanese loss:  The loss of Germany and her allies.  The historical logic is ineluctable:  To save the Aryan race, to save Aryan Europe, it was good and necessary to support warfare by non-Aryans against the racially Aryan Americans.  Similar considerations apply to the Axis plan to support Subhas Chandra Bose, which would have knocked out what the Anglophile Hitler had previously called the “pivot” (orig. “Angelpunkt”) of the British Empire—to destroy the global structure of what had been seen as “white supremacy”.  Although judging by his looks and his behavior, Bose himself was of substantial Aryan stock, his army would have consisted largely of dark men killing whites of Albion with Japanese weapons.  And if all of this had saved the cause of Germany and her allies, it would have saved the Aryan race!

New “Europeans”.  Proximate cause:  Germany and her allies lost the War.

Except insofar as it was a war of Jews against Aryans, the Second World War was not a race war:  It was a war between aristocracy and degenerate democracy, between the Herrenmoral and the Sklavenmoral, between the native spirit of Europe and the Judaeo-Christian spirit—between vitality and decadence.  The nations of caste and culture[e] were attacked by the spiritual-Chāndāla alliance of Judaeophilic Capitalist Americans and Judaeo-Soviet Communist Bolsheviks, who thereafter divided between themselves all Europe as spoils.  The Jews mastered the decadents of the white race, worst of all the Americans, just as the Jews always master decadent movements; as Nietzsche observed,[f] the Jews themselves are the opposite of decadents, but they use decadents as their source of power, a weapon against those who say Yea to life.

The German revival led by Hitler was a radical repudiation of decadence, and one of the greatest Yeas to life that this world has ever seen.  And for this, the Germans are hated.

I conclude this thought with an excerpt of someone else’s article; indeed, it may be said that all I wrote above was merely a preface to the following.  The predictions at the end, which I hereby omit, understandably failed to foresee the collapse of the Soviet Union as a political entity; this does not tarnish the author’s appraisal of the recent past, with which I wholly agree. ®

Why Germans are Hated

 By Revilo P. Oliver
 Liberty Bell, November 1989, pp. 10–11.

I recently talked with a Rumanian who had been a young man in 1944 when the Germans, after their catastrophic defeat in Russia, had to retreat from a country they could no longer defend against the Americans’ Soviet allies.

In the hurried retreat, there was some inevitable disorganization and some units of the German Army became separated from their commissary.  The hungry men dispersed and in small groups went to the homes of the peasants and asked to be fed.  The peasants, although they disliked the occupation of their country by foreign troops, prepared food for the Germans, who, after a meal on peasant fare, scrupulously paid for it, and with courteous words of thanks in German went on their way.

Now wasn’t that just awful?  The Germans, who didn’t love Sheenies, obviously had not assimilated Jewish ethics and the Jewish Weltanschauung.  Is it any wonder that the democratic Americans help their Jewish government hunt down those dreadful War Criminals?  In fact, a nation that behaves like that should be exterminated, shouldn’t it?  If not exterminated by the method proposed by Kaufman in his once popular Germany Must Perish (1941)[1] then exterminated in some other way, perhaps by miscegenation.

After the Germans retreated, the Americans’ Army of Liberation moved in.  It is properly called the Americans’ army because it was equipped and financed from the United States, which was a great industrial nation at that time.  Furthermore, it was in the service of a régime that had been imposed on Russia chiefly by the United States, was then carrying out the plans of the foul and diseased monster that then ruled the United States from its lair in the White House, and was able to invade Rumania only because the United States and its puppets were attacking Germany in a war of total barbarism.  It was a relatively unimportant detail that the hordes invading Rumania were almost entirely composed of hybrids of Slavic and Mongol blood with a dose of Tartar thrown in for seasoning.

The Liberators moved through the countryside that was the home of my informant, who somehow managed to survive the Liberation.  The invaders took the women out and gang-raped them, forcing the fathers, husbands, and sons to watch the merriment.  When tired of intensive rape, they usually shot the women or cut them up a bit and left them to bleed to death, and then machine-gunned the men.  Ah, that’s more like it!  No wonder the Americans are proud of their success in promoting democracy throughout the world.

To be sure, Russian generals and colonels, full of Judaeo-Soviet culture, did not behave as did their men.  They selected the best houses in a town, magnanimously gave the owners two hours to get out, and occupied the premises.  If they felt.a need for amusement and recreation, the most attractive females of the town were dragged in to show their gratitude for the glorious Liberation.  When the Russian officers moved on, the owners, if they had not been killed in the meantime, could resume possession of what had been their home, which had been completely stripped of every portable object, including even the doorknobs.  The empty shell, however, would protect them from rain, although there was no way to replace the broken windows.

Such were the blessings of Freedom that the Americans bestowed on Rumania.  Is it any wonder that they are proud of their achievement and humbly grateful to the Master Race that taught them how to work for One World?

Of course, I do not mean that individual Americans approve of all the work of Liberation.  In fact, I am sure that many individuals disapprove of such details as I have mentioned.  That may be unfortunate.

Notes

[a] An Oliverism, to distinguish the ejucaters from genuine educators.

[b] See Beyond Good and Evil 260; and The Genealogy of Morals, passim.

[c] To avoid, on the one hand, some potentially unsupportable conspiracy theories floating around on the German Internet—and on the other, complicated German legal arguments beyond my competence to assess—I will simply note that Germany is, in fact, still under military occupation by a hostile foreign enemy that entered as self-declared “conquerors”, is ruled by a government that was instituted strictly under that same enemy’s control, was initially occupied with explicit declarations that the occupation would continue “for a hundred years, or forever” if necessary to conform the occupied to the occupier’s expectations, and is still held under an “enemy state” threat by that same foreign enemy.  These are indisputable, well-known facts, not “conspiracy theories”.  Anyone who claims that the American occupation army in Germany is there in “friendship” to “protect” the Germans is either too stupid to be worth talking to, or a malicious liar; and it is the nadir of naïvety to fancy that the Germans have any significant long-range control of their government, in any matter that the Americans consider important to the American global-international agenda.  The usual American propaganda trick of establishing an American puppet-state in a country under military occupation, then having its stooges “agree” to a permanent “friendly” American military presence, is so transparently dishonest and hypocritical a ploy as could only be conceived in the brain of an American.  Mutatis mutandis, I likewise dismiss anyone who claims that the current “Iraqi” government is fully sovereign and independent of America—although judging by its behavior, the “Iraqi” government is somewhat more Iraqi than the “German” government is German.

I will return to this subject in future Proems.

[d] Here, I may depart from some of my primary influences.  My evaluation at this section is closer to being Nietzschean, although I oft criticize Nietzsche for ascribing insufficient import to race, than Oliverian.  I follow no party line; I am an independent thinker.

[e] Cf. the famous passage in The Genealogy of Morals I.11, at which in giving examples of his archetypal Blond Beast “aristocratic races”, Nietzsche includes the Japanese nobility (and also, the Arabic nobility) together with the Roman nobility, the German nobility, the Homeric heroes, and the Scandinavian Vikings.

[f] The Antichrist 24.

[1] A reprint of this classic of Jewish thought is available from Liberty Bell Publications, \$4.00 + postage.  [Footnote is historical. —Raches.]

“They are too good for the world that will comé after us.” — Frau Magda Goebbels.

2. Oktober 46 – 1. Mai 56 (JdF)

“Helga, Hilde, Helmut, Holde, Hedda, and Heide symbolize to me all of the millions of Germans who died in the War and its aftermath.  I wish that I could memorialize the dead each individually.  I take these six as their special representatives.” — Raches.

They all died the same day.  Therefore, I also give them individual, and collectively symbolic memorials on their respective birthdays.

I do this every year.  —And now, I have a blog.

Memory is important.  May Helmut Goebbels, his family, his nation, the brilliance of their lives, and the tragedy of their deaths be remembered forever.

Candle lit. ®

Hate against the Nations of the Free World

According to Time.com, the following photo was published in Life magazine, May 22, 1944.  The caption visible in the image reads, “Arizona war worker writes her Navy boyfriend a thank-you note for the Jap skull he sent her” (click to enlarge).

How must divine retribution repay the Americans?  Perhaps with pyramids of American skulls piled to the heavens, for such a sight as would sate the primaeval bloodlusts of Hulagu, Tamerlane, or even Americans.  Should the Americans be heard to complain?

According to Time.com, that photo was “taken by Ralph Crane (later a staff photographer for LIFE)”, and was featured as “Life’s” (!) “Picture of the Week” (!!) with this accompanying text:

When he said good bye two years ago to Natalie Nickerson, 20, a war worker of Phoenix, Ariz., a big, handsome Navy lieutenant promised her a Jap.  Last week Natalie received a human skull, autographed by her lieutenant and 13 friends, and inscribed:  “This is a good Jap—a dead one picked up on the New Guinea beach.”  Natalie, surprised at the gift, named it Tojo.  The armed forces disapprove strongly of this sort of thing.

The Life editorial staff tried thereby a disclaimer, and made only a worse admission.  If armed forces “disapprove strongly” of their soldiers’ activities, that is why they have something called discipline—including courts martial.  On disciplinary grounds alone, to say nothing of how the too-merciful Führer condemned such savagery as undeutsch, any hypothetical German soldier who sent enemy skulls home as psycho serial-killer trophies would have learned the meaning of “Nazi” discipline.  Whereas the Americans pseudo-judicially murdered top-ranking German and Japanese military commanders for real or imaginary failures to keep discipline amongst their low-level soldiers.  What did American General Douglas MacArthur, who in 1944 was the Americans’ Supreme Commander in the Southwest Pacific Area, deserve for this highly publicized skull-collecting—according to the standards which were imposed under MacArthur’s authority on Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita?[1]

War is Peace.  Freedom is Slavery.  Death is LIFE.  By American standards, what should I call a “good American”?

America is a nation of hate.  Its culture and its genetics are irreparably, incorrigibly suffused with the hatreds and jealousies of degenerate, low-class religious fanatics, who fled in patricidal hatred from the order and culture of Europe.  Their fratricidal scions then murdered, defiled, and enslaved their better brothers to the South—primarily Americans who journeyed to the New World for better reasons, the Americans who were essentially European in outlook—the brothers who were growing up to be too much like Daddy.  With hate thus a hegemony in America, the Americans then invaded Europe twice, destroyed the European fatherland, and commenced the long-term mass-homicidal spree which has made America the most despised nation on Earth.

Now, let us see the images of a nation of peace, love, and friendship between nations and races.

Here is some Nazi propaganda, in which a Jap—by American standards, not a “good Jap”—teaches her blonde Nazi German Nazi friend how to use those artful little sticks that perennially bemuse and befuddle Westerners:

Framegrab by Raches, from the scene starting around 01:04:44 in Die Tochter des Samurai (Japanese release title: “新しき土”, ‘The New Earth’), a joint production of J.O. Studio (Germany) and Towa Shoji G.K. (Japan), 1937.  Left:  “Mitsuko Yamato”, played by Setsuko Hara (原 節子).  Right:  “Gerda Storm”, played by Ruth Eweler.

According to the IMDB,[2] this blonde was not so lucky as Death-magazine skull-fetishist Miss “Natalie”:  Fräulein Eweler died October 1, 1947[3] at the age of 31, in “at this time notoriously underserved Berlin”, for reasons “not known”.  With a shudder, I do not wish to speculate on the prospects for a beautiful blonde film star in Berlin in 1945–47.  Well, she was a Nazi German Nazi with a brother in the SS; she must have deserved it.  She was evil—so evil that she played a starring rôle in a respectful, affectionate positive portrayal of foreign culture to Europeans.  Instead, she should have turned her movie-friend into a “good Jap”, and collected her skull like Miss Natalie Nickerson.  The racist, fascist Fräulein Eweler was a Nazi, totally against the American way of “LIFE”!

As I have said before, Adolf Hitler was the leader of the free world.  And National-Socialist Germany, the free and independent Germany, was also the great builder of a nondestructive harmony amongst races and nations:  Interracial friendship without deracination, international peace without international Bolshevism, the respectful building of cross-cultural bridges without the countercultural mass-destruction of so-called “multiculturalism”.

Thus, no matter what race I myself may be, no matter whence I hail, I dearly wish that I had been born into a world in which Germany and her friends had won the War—instead of the US-USSR Alliance of Hate.

Ultra-Nazi propaganda presented side-by-side in four languages, bearing the distinctive signature of Reichsminister Dr. Goebbels himself, in which the evil Dr. Goebbels proclaimed that the 1936 Berlin Olympics were “a real Festivity of Peace”, “in world history [] an event full of happiness and peace”, “a new epoch of true peace in all those fields of activity which join nations together.”  (This is just a teaser; I may someday return to this subject in these pages.)

Of course, the Americans, those Great Masters of the Big Lie, will accuse the Germans of having done what the Americans actually did:  Preach “peace” as a falsehood, while rampaging through the world with murderous bloodlust and grand-scale massacres.  America, the Nation of Hate, is also the nation of hypocrisy, chutzpah, and the trick of accusing one’s own victims of the crimes that one commits against them.

Thus the Germans, who foremost dared to love themselves, love their race, and love their traditions, are accused of “hate” by those who preach love while practicing hatred:  Americans, for whom hate is practically a national religion.  And the Germans are frequently accused of having contracted a military alliance of mere convenience—by those who cannot imagine taking an interest in other peoples’ cultures without a two-faced, underhanded, do-gooding meddler’s cultural imperialism.

The Germans’ sincere overtures of friendship to other civilized peoples were reciprocated.  East and West joined in cultural harmony…

Source:  A now-disappeared image in a forum thread.  See below.  My objective hereby is not so much to teach, other than to taunt ignorant Americans:  I seek to learn.

…as they joined politically and military in an Anti-Comintern Pact.  “Comintern” was the Bolsheviks’ own abbreviation for Communist International.  As what were then the most powerful of the free nations, Germany and Japan united militarily in common defense of their own freedoms.

And the Axis of freedom went much farther than that.  Amidst China’s multi-way civil war, both Germany and Japan reached out in friendship to the Chinese leader who had been most successful in fighting off British influence—a free and independent Chinese leader, whom the Maoist and American “history” books insult as a “puppet”.

Far from being a “puppet”, Wang Jingwei was, at the time, the only credible Chinese leader who both (1) was under neither Soviet nor American influence, and (2) governed any significant amount of Chinese territory.

Wang Jingwei (汪精衛; 1883–1944), Republic of China, receives German diplomats in 1941.  Via Wikimedia Commons.

Germany, Japan, and Wang’s China also allied with the great Indian Nationalist leader, whom Indians still revere to this day—he whom, despite deep philosophic differences, Mahatma Ghandi called “the Prince of (Indian) Patriotism”:  Subhas Chandra Bose.  The plan was for the Japanese to train and to arm an Indian National Army in Singapore, so that Bose could invade his own country from the outside, overthrow British rule, and join free India with free China and free Japan in a pan-Asian power bloc.  With this Eastern bulwark aligned with Aryan Europe under German leadership, the free world would have been saved from the tyranny of Soviet-American globalist-internationalist conquest.

L-R: Hideki Tojo (Japan), Wang Jingwei (China), Subhas Chandra Bose (India).  1943.  Via Wikimedia Commons, allegedly from an interesting Indian Nationalist-looking blog that seems to have disappeared.

It was a beautiful world that could and should have been.  That world was destroyed by the Jews’ Janissaries:  The Americans, who can no more pass off the guilt of their own crimes on the Jews they made their masters, than a goy hitman can pass off all blame to his Jewish boss who ordered a murder.

The Future of the Free World

The free world led by Germany is lost.  Corruption and tyranny now rule the world.  We are now in a New Dark Age.

For my part, I do not hate any race except for Jews, Americans, and rhymes with triggers.  I wish to extended my hand in peace and friendship to the decent peoples of this world, in the hope that a new free world may be built in the future.

In no particular order of precedence (and without hereby opining on the tragic tensions between some of these peoples), I respectfully invite to Proems Japanese, Chinese, Hindu traditionalists who have watched their culture destroyed by American-led Western liberal influence even after “Independence”, Arabs who respect Europeans’ right to their homelands as much as I respect Iraq and Palestine, Iranians, Afghans, and of course, Europeans who wish to restore European blood, honor, and territorial sovereignty—Russians who will understand that my War-born wrath is directed primarily at the Soviet government, which was imposed on Russia by Americans and dominated by Jews—and dissident individual Americans who agree with that greatest of American patriots, Professor Revilo P. Oliver:

The German writer correctly describes the aggression against the Southern states as “one of the most dreadful wars in the history of the world,” and he is almost always right about the recent past, when the Americans, mentally rotted with the deadly virus of Christian righteousness, permitted themselves to be made the judges and policemen of the world for their Yiddish masters…

Such was our folly. Our guilt is undeniable.  It cannot be palliated.  We made the Yids our masters, and it was our power that consummated the Suicide of the West.  And it is only natural that Europeans now take satisfaction in the decay and coming dissolution of the contrivers of their ruin.

[Liberty Bell, February 1992, p. 7.]

In this article, I have shamelessly copied Japanese and Chinese names I cannot read—not from pretentiousness, but in the hope of attracting search hits.

I have only a fragmentary knowledge of some important perspectives on this history, which are hidden from me by very difficult language barriers.  It would be my pleasure to discuss these subjects with those who have native knowledge, obscure information, and different perspectives.  And I have somewhere[4] scans of relevant historical texts, seemingly rare, which I downloaded from long-disappeared websites, which I have no realistic hope of even minimally understanding anytime soon; if or when I can find those, I should like to share them with people of the nations whence they came, and ask their opinions.

And culturally and politically, I seek to bring together the good and aristocratic peoples, and urge unity against the American monstrosity of hate, greed, and megalomania that has all but destroyed the whole world.

I come in wrath.  Welcome in peace to my Proems. ®

This article took on a life of its own, after it grew out of a tangent in a forthcoming future article about how the hate-filled Americans waged feminist-democratic Christian jihad against the national goddess of Imperial Japan’s masculine warrior-culture.  Now, consider that to be the second part hereof.

Notes

[1] See Chapter 8 of F.J.P. Veale’s Advance to Barbarism (Devin-Adair, New York, 1968), and the United States Supreme Court dissents of Mr. Justice Murphy, In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 26 (1946), and of Mr. Justice Rutledge, id. at 41.

[2] Beware that at the time of this writing, the IMDB page for this movie states a grossly misleading plot synopsis.

[3] By coincidence or by destiny, 74 years ago today, as I complete and publish this article.  In memoriam—for all Germans who died in the War and its aftermath.

[4] On a misplaced backup disk, unfortunately not accessible at present.  I will search for this.

A Doc Bug that Hurts Usability

A common canard in Bitcoinland:  “Blocks take about 10 minutes.”  This is wrong—factually wrong; and it is a practical problem, not an exercise in pedantry.  The distinct statement, “blocks take 10 minutes on average”, is strictly correct in a mathematical sense; but in practice, it is no less misleading.

When people are told this misinformation, they reasonably expect that they can predict when the next block will arrive—and that it will take “about ten minutes”.  The resultant confusion is bad for users, and it’s bad for Bitcoin.

“TL;DR” for people who just want to send and receive money:  The majority of your transactions will confirm faster than 10 minutes; sometimes, your confirmations will be slower; and there is no way to predict this.

Abstract for the technical readership:  You are promoting a form of Gambler’s Fallacy.  Stop it.  Just stop it.

N.b. that the principles herein set forth may be adjusted and applied, mutatis mutandis, to any cryptocurrency which shamelessly rips off flatteringly imitates Bitcoin’s block generation algorithm.

Bitcoin Block Generation Times and Gambler’s Fallacy

Imagine a gambler playing a simple game with a six-sided die.  Each roll of the die picks a uniformly distributed random integer between 1 and 6, inclusive.  On average, no matter which number the gambler bets (and no matter if he changes his lucky number from bet to bet), he will get a “hit” once out of every 6 rolls.  However, it is fallacious for him to act according to the expectation that he is “due” for a “hit” after “about six rolls”.

This is classic Gambler’s Fallacy—the same fallacy that Bitcoin FAQs, user guides, and wallet UIs are preaching, when they train users to expect confirmation to come due in “about 10 minutes”.

The Practical, Nontechnical Explanation

Foremost, let us look at this from the perspective most useful to those who ask, “When will my transaction confirm?”  To that end, let us first get our definitions straight—without being overly technical.

A liberal, altogether too-charitable reading of the phrase “about 10 minutes”, or “approximately 10 minutes”, is that it means “most blocks will happen within 10 minutes ±10%”—i.e., between 9 minutes and 11 minutes.  To claim that the figure needs more wiggle room than a whopping ±10% would be to declare, “I am waving my hands with no idea what I’m talking about.”

According to the maths briefly described below, only about 7.4% of block times fall within that range.  This means that about 92.6% of blocks violate user expectations, when people are told that blocks take “about 10 minutes”.  Indeed, 59.3% of blocks will take less than 9 minutes—and 33.3% will take more than 11 minutes.  For people who are just trying to send and receive money in real-world scenarios, the “about ten minutes” guidance is worse than useless.

More importantly—and in practice, to Bitcoin’s favor—the median block time is about 7 minutes.  The figure of 10 minutes is based on the mean—and the mean is practically meaningless for nontechnical explanations, because the block times follow a probability distribution that violates normal human intuitions.

Looking at the fastest quartile, we find that 25% of blocks take less than 3 minutes.  Those blocks are not surprisingly fast.  It is expected that half of all blocks will take less than about 7 minutes, and half of those will take less than about 3 minutes.

On the other hand, there is the slowest quartile.  25% of blocks take more than almost 14 minutes.  This is expected.  The slowest 10% of blocks will take more than about 23 minutes.  5% of blocks will take more than about 30 minutes.  1% of blocks will take more than about 46 minutes.  0.1% of blocks will take more than about 69 minutes.  And 0.01% of blocks will take more than about 92 minutes; at about 144 blocks per day, that means that, on average, we will see such a slow block once every few months.

The good news:  About 10% of blocks will occur within about one minute!

Although the majority of blocks take less than ten minutes, the long tail of very “slow” blocks drags the average, i.e. the mean, up to ten minutes.  But this “average” is worse than useless for those who are simply wondering when their transactions will be confirmed.

The best answer to that question:  It is unpredictable.  It will probably be pretty fast—but it may be slow, if you are unlucky.  Although it seems like a vague answer, it is much better to tell the truth than to set expectations wrongly.

The “average time of 10 minutes” is, and only is, a mathematical average across a large number of blocks.  Users who do not know the underlying maths should ignore that average.

“From when?”

Astute readers will note that I just stated a bunch of times, without stating when the times start.

The answer:  Whenever you choose to start counting.  Just like that classic roll of a die, Bitcoin block generation is a memoryless system.  The probability of the timing of the next block applies from any arbitrary point in time—not only from the creation of the last block.

It does not matter if the last block happened one minute ago, ten minutes ago, or an hour ago.  Starting from now, whenever “now” may be, the average time to the next block is 10 minutes—the median time to the next block is about 7 minutes—there is a 1% chance that the next block will take more than 46 minutes—and there is a 25% chance that the next block will arrive within less than 3 minutes.

This is all counterintuitive; for my random god, the son of Tyche, recks aught of the intuitions of mere mortals.  (The link is a teaser as to a forthcoming future essay; it does not yet work, as of the publication hereof.)

The Maths

Bitcoin block generation (“mining”) is a pseudorandom process, which behaves a Poisson process:  Block arrival times follow the exponential distribution.

As a model of real-world behavior, this is an idealized abstraction.  It ignores hashrate variability.[1]  In practice, however, it is a close approximation for how Bitcoin actually behaves; variance in hashrate usually seems to have an almost negligible effect.  (Verifying this empirically is left as an exercise to the reader.)

Accordingly, given the rate parameter \(\lambda = \frac{1}{10\ minutes}\), Bitcoin block arrival times have the probability density function:

\[\lambda e^{-\lambda x}\]

…and the cumulative distribution function:

\[1\ -\ e^{-\lambda x}\]

…and the quantile:

\[-\frac{\ln(1\ -\ p)}{\lambda}\]

With these and other bits of MATHS!!! from any textbook, you can calculate all of the above-stated numbers, and many other useful numbers besides.  For example, to estimate the maximum time that the fastest 10% of blocks will take, plug this into your handy desktop calculator:[2]

\[-\frac{\ln(1\ -\ 0.1)}{0.1} \quad \approx 1.0536\dots\]

The median block time:

\[\frac{\ln(2)}{0.1} \quad \approx 6.9315\dots\]

75% of blocks will occur within this time—thus implying that 25% will take longer:

\[\frac{\ln(4)}{0.1} \quad \approx 13.8629\dots\]

The percentage of blocks that will actually occur between 0 and 10 minutes from now, starting at any arbitrary moment:

\[1\ -\ e^{-0.1 \times 10} \quad \approx 0.63212 \quad \approx 63\%\]

STOP HURTING THE KITTENS, YOU BASTARDS: STOP IT RIGHT NOW!

As you can see, the figure of “about 10 minutes” is worse than useless for setting real-world expectations as to the confirmation time of any particular transaction.

Beware, lest thou be damned!  This kitten’s tears shall bring down the wrath of the gods on thy Gambler’s Fallacy.

Thus remember, every time you repeat the “about 10 minutes” canard, you commit a cryptological sin that makes kittens cry.  In turn, crying kittens make Raches very angry.  Don’t do it.  I am protective of the poor, dear kittens. ®

Notes

[1] I also hereby ignore the potential argument that in absolutely ideal, unrealistic conditions, the Bitcoin block generation process could be theoretically characterized as a discrete-time process, not a continuous-time process.  This potential objection is not only overly pedantic, but fallaciously so, to the point of hypercorrection.  I will therefore consign the argument to a footnote, and otherwise ignore it.

[2] Engineers who may lambaste me for sloppiness with my notation of units:  I am not as bad as most.  I will hug you, then slap you and tell you to shut up.  Those who really want to understand this should work through in detail exactly where the units fit, where the parameters with units cancel each other out, etc.

Although Because it’s racist for me to rhyme, I must quote Nietzsche, The Gay Science, “‘Jest, Ruse and Revenge’. A Prelude in Rhyme”, #31:

Der verkappte Heilige Daß dein Glück uns nicht bedrücke, Legst du um dich Teufelstücke, Teufelswitz und Teufelskleid. Doch umsonst!  Aus deinem Blicke Blickt hervor die Heiligkeit!

The Disguised Saint Lest we for thy bliss should slay thee, In devil’s wiles thou dost array thee, Devil’s wit and devil’s dress. But in vain!  Thy looks betray thee And proclaim thy holiness!

Thank you, Herr Professor Dr. Nietzsche. ®