Living in Decay

The massive, monumental, very large falsities about how things have been and how things are seem disgusting, and are disgusting, in the same way that poop and corpses are disgusting.  You don’t want to touch them; don’t want to be around them.  If you see someone wearing a smile as they chew vigorously at a turd and insist that it is good to eat turds, that everyone should do that, it is revolting.  What they are doing is wrong in the sense that it is not good for what they perceive as their desires.  

Think of someone assuring people of the goodness of, taking an action to cause, and so forth, something bad, such as the heterogenization of a homogenous society.  "Diversity is good for us."  That is not true, just like saying you have an invisible friend in the sky who cares about you, and it is destructive, but people keep doing it.  It is like happily eating a turd--it is directly, literally, completely bad for that person but that person is doing it anyway.  That is how you can tell that people are aspects of the environment causing that environment to cycle.  For over a thousand years after rabbi-worship, Europeans saw their continent let in immigrants--just a little little bit at first, then a bit more, a bit more, and now it is a lot.  Yet, there are still Jesusians!  They have forgotten the times before worship of a foreign official wise man, discarded the history of their own forebears, and things get just a teensy bit worse, little by little, until the badness is very big.  

You are not going to stop that person from doing that.  It is like trying to prevent flies from landing on poop or corpses: you can spray some poison, some preservatives, and maybe that works for a while but then 10 years pass.  100.  If you are not sure, or if you in any way doubt, that decay is an absolutely mandatory process as part of any environment, then try not to poop for a month.  

See?  It’s mandatory.  It has to happen.  It will happen.  

Whatever waiting you try, however stern or smart, clever or vigilant, you are people will keep trying to destroy that environment.  Whatever reassuring fantasies they have constructed to believe they're doing good things are just that: reassuring fantasies.  That is why when you try to explain to some socialist/open borders advocate that every single managed economy ever has collapsed completely because there is then no profit motive, or that if you let everyone in there is no society and everything crashes for even those people, it fails.  The fantasy is yours, too: that the people like you, including you yourself, think things because they are independent products of those brains.  Again, the delusion that the sense of self is generated by the brain--the brain-generated soul--is a fantasy to which even you cling.  When you appraise various idiots doing the same old thing again and again, there is something to learn about yourself.  That is why what we're doing here is helpful to you: not because Yoogleyfoma, or whoever else, is a better deity than any other, but because what we're doing is something you can do yourself so it is something you can know to be really true.  

Two difficult truths here rear their heads: the impossibility of convincing people that they should see things differently, and the fact that you yourself approve of decay.  Both are very difficult to digest, particularly if you believe that citing proof, or being completely disgusted at the behavior of filthy things, can change the process of decay.  

You cannot convince pieces of an environment—people—to see things they cannot see, which they often say are not there.  It is like how when many hours pass without you having any food you might think you want to eat something, and then, when more hours pass without you having any food, you might think you want to eat it even more.  That desire is as “from you” as any desire at all, but it is not really an independent conclusion of yours based upon your rational assessment of variables.  The desires to have sex, acquire money, acquire other things, etc., are the same.  

The idea that humans are rational creatures of independent thought processes, where the things they think are based upon evidence, is a flattery; an incorrect one.  Humans are components of the environment; of Earth.  They like to consider themselves as being like rugged, independent, cowboys; free-thinkers, objective evaluators, but they are not.  The compulsion of the vast majority of them to participate in decay is unstoppable.  Unstoppable.  

The way that people vote politically, on juries, and the way that they buy things, have created jobs where people thinking because of their environment, rather than independently, is known.  Marketing and politics are fields where are learned some of how people make decisions.  

So if you, for example, challenge people on the conventional narrative of some very popular aspect of history, you are not interacting with the independent evaluators with whom you can flatter yourself you are interacting.  Many political arguments are thus, and many people have been confused by the strange passion exhibited by some during such arguments.  Such passion arises because those confused people are not interacting with the independent evaluators with whom they flatter themselves they are interacting.  They are instead interacting with a person who wants very badly to believe that she or he has been removed (saved or liberated) from the life cycle.  Because the life cycle includes death, such people can become very passionately interested in believing they are or will be saved/liberated.  I.e. they can argue about a politician or a policy as though they are defending themselves responding to something like a threat.  They can come away from interactions feeling—not in words, but feeling—that that person with whom they were interacting was very bad.  

An incredible supermajority of people—like, over 90%—literally cannot believe that certain things were a certain way.  You can have them look at a very important piece of proof, show them three—a dozen; however many—such important proofs, and it will not matter to them because they cannot believe that certain things are a certain way.  Cannot should not be taken lightly.  Many people have tried to convince many other people, have failed, and come away from those interactions believing that consensus, rather than evidence, is what motivates those people.  It is true that consensus is pleasurable to those people—far more pleasurable than evidence—but consensus is not what motivates them.  Rather, they are motivated by—they think and they behave because of their relationship to—the environment.  They are creatures of Earth.  

(And that’s part of the environments of planets, of stars, of galaxies, of clusters of galaxies, etc.  That is a separate subject; we’re focusing here on Earth.  Call it geocentrism; haha.)  

1,000 years later, people whose farparents (distant ancestors) were from Earth may have grandparents who were, like they themselves, born on spaceships.  However, those people will have a genetic code containing components that were favored to interact with the environment on Earth over the course of more than 100 million years.  They would be, therefore, Earthlings even though they are not Earthlings!  I.e. they would be Earthlings in one sense and not in another.  

Concluding that discrimination is wrong, that decay is wrong, is not only illogical and in error, but contra your own private wishes.  It seems very distasteful—utterly, rampantly filthy and wrong—to see disgusting things happening; to see the effectors of decay doing their thing.  You have to pay V.A.T. or your 1040 in order to make sure that someone can buy part of a fighter plane that will drop bombs on little kids, which is filthy and wrong.  Those taxes are skimmed by legions of despicable people who produce nothing of use (but who are very good at skimanaging that money), and that is also disgusting.  Those things are disgusting, and from that it is easy to conclude that decay is a bad thing.  

However, posit that there are 100 viable planets spread across many galaxies in a few dozen million galactic clusters somewhere.  Now, imagine that every society that formed on those planets never ended.  Their buildings did not crumble; their societies did not die out; their people did not change ideas; etc.  Because of this horrible failure of those environments to be environments, a million really great symphonies, really great movies, really great people, etc. were never created.  

Imagine that you had a treasured friend among those million great people, and that this treasured friend was never born because that environment could not act like a good environment.  Do you see how important decay is?  

That is why you like decay.  When you see filthy agents of decay doing their thing, when you see idiots saying they believe decay will help their society, it seems disgusting but it is actually a good thing.  Like watching leaves change color, die, and fall from a tree, like a tree in a forest dying and being this ugly dead trunk for 50 years or so, it is a good thing.  The components of a human society—like the components of that dead tree—will become a part of the forest.  In fact, they already were a part of the forest.  It is a narcissistic delusion that they ever were not.  

So, living in decay is really just living.  

If you can see the ugliness, the badness, of the ideas associated with people saying they are free of the life cycle--pedos, crossdressers saying their clothes and actions replace a few trillion chromosomes, welfare for the lazy, etc.--then you can see why trying to be separated from the life cycle in another way is not at all a good thing.  I.e., seeing the nastiness of liberal policy, the bad things it makes happen, can help you learn to see that saying you're saved from the life cycle, and liking a savior from the life cycle, is just a different version of that same icky badness.  The many, many centuries of homoerotic pedophiles leading worship of a single storybook character--a man who created life without a woman--and the way that trains no eye people currently (2025) dramatize their supposed separation from matter, can help clue you in: separation from the life cycle is bad.  Big heap bad.  Not in the slightest, tiniest way good.