Remember Your Own

Drones are flying around spying on people. I’ve heard on the news that one town is even offering people hunting licenses to shoot down drones. The government sees almost everything we do on the internet and hears everything we say on the phone. The government says it is doing these things for our protection, but from whose point of view do they mean that? Do that mean they are doing it for our protection as in “we the people”?

No. The government, when it says it does these things for “our protection”, means it in the way that a tyrant king might claim to be doing things for “our protection” – “our” in this case really just means the ruler. Said ruler may sometimes use the plural first person when referring to himself because he is supposed to represent himself as well as the state. So when the government says they are doing things for “our protection” they mean it’s for the protection of political puppets and their masters. And, quite frankly, these people aren’t of great importance.

This is because they are not America and they are not America’s government. Since the United States is – at least in name – a constitutional democracy, that means the people are the government. The people are the ones who are supposed to run things. Not lobbyists, dogs and their owners. And it should be mentioned that as long as they do what they’re told they WILL stay in government positions either by means of the “revolving door” or by just hanging around in the shadows in the back where no one can see them and whispering pretty little lies to the people who – we are told – run the show.

So if the government is doing things to protect itself from its own people, that means they must be afraid of us. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have allegedly passed a law that allows them to kill us whenever and wherever they want just because we might be “terrorists”. Naturally, they can easily abuse this (just as some abuse the phone tapping opportunities the government provides by putting them in that position) and start to kill people just because they don’t like them. But I digress. If they are afraid of us, then they must have a good reason. They must know that we are not happy and they must expect that people are now realizing that they are traitors who do not work for us. And they are trying to make another revolution impossible by creating a population so heterogeneous that we cannot possibly unite against them as well as by passing laws that let them do whatever they want and which leave us completely defenseless.

It is only a matter of time before they make it illegal to even talk about how unhappy we are and why we do not like what is happening. Sure we may have the First Amendment, but Americans are still in danger of being arrested and executed for saying the wrong thing. All someone has to do to make it happen is to twist words in the person’s mouth to make it look like they might be planning a revolution or something similar (“revolution” is the appropriate word in this case while the phrase “terrorist attack” is not because the people who think they are the government are the ones spreading terror by killing us, taking away all our money – sometimes for themselves and other times to fund foreigners overseas that most of us don’t even care about, locking us away in prisons where they feed people food labeled “not fit for human consumption” et cetera) and then the person who only wanted to say something is thrown in prison or killed. Of course they can do this now and they don’t even have to give any evidence to do it, but they don’t have enough of a legal safety net for the case to hold up in a fair public court if it ever went public. It wouldn’t, but they are still afraid.

Once they get that going, people will be thrown in jail left and right for speaking their opinion or even for speaking the truth. Take it even further and you can get a case like a recently-started one in France where one man has simply been pointing out differences between different groups of people and facts about Pagan Europeans, Muslims, Jews, the Holocaust, eugenics and so on, and the media has been trying to create an imaginary link between him and another Norwegian (one who the former said should drop dead) who massacred some people on an island not too long ago so they can keep him in jail longer once he is sentenced. Yes, they’re trying to throw him in jail for stating facts and opinions.

The jails will naturally be even more overcrowded after a very short period of time if that happens. When it becomes apparent that people will continue to talk, “the government” (alias of criminals with positions in the apparent government) will start shooting people down immediately after accusing them of “planning a terrorist attack”, or even before officially accusing them by means of drones, because there will be no more room for any new prisoners. When that is over with, no nation will have a gadfly to sting it into action and progress. When no actions are taken and no progress is made, anyone left will no longer see a point in life. When people no longer see a point in life, they become depressed, and (some) depressed people kill themselves. There will no longer be anyone to stop tyranny because everyone who used to speak out will be dead. Everyone else will die as consequence for the reasons already mentioned.

It will not do to not speak out just because you are not the one getting harassed, imprisoned, or killed. When the silent majority remains silent, “the government” may chip away at subgroups until no one is left to stand up for you.  This is much easier now since “the government” has been trying its hardest to make a heterogeneous population – one that cannot unite and one which says “well, I’m not in that group, so why should I say anything?” Not feeling the desire to defend someone you are not close to in any way is one thing, but you should at least stand up for the defense of your own people.

When I was in school, they taught everyone an old phrase people said in another time like this – a time when people had to unite to defend justice and their rights as human beings, and there was a monarchy involved then too (but the current one is “ours” and admittedly metaphorical). It is high time for a reminder of how people used to join together with their kin and proclaim their loyalty to their own by saying:

“United we stand, divided we fall!”

Intelligence, Money, Education, and Injustice

I find it odd that no one can seem to agree on what intelligence is. the meaning I’m accustomed to is based on IQ test scores. However, I’ve heard that in different cultures it can be something completely different. For example: far north of here where there is more snow and people live more “primitive” lives, intelligence is supposedly measured by how good someone’s eyesight is (better sight means better results when searching for food, and therefore more intelligence). A common factor between the two seems to be that it helps the person with more intelligence live a better life and survive. Could this then mean that CEOs are more likely to be intelligent than their lower-level worker cogs? Perhaps we could skip a step and measure intelligence by how much money someone has. This would surely anger the people who can’t make a decent living.

It would also be blatantly incorrect. This becomes obvious when you factor in  all the people who, for example, inherited their wealth. Even saying a CEO has more university degrees than a normal worker doesn’t matter regardless of whether it’s true because they could’ve either cheated through college (“survival of the most cunning” instead of the healthier “survival of the fittest”) or they could’ve been allowed to get the degree because whoever was running the university was afraid of the bad publicity or anonymous kinds of ruin they might experience if someone of that nature (one might also say Asiatic religion) did not earn the degree they wanted. As this computer gives one of the synonyms for “intelligence” as “cleverness”, it is clear that these “clever” people have been allowed to continue getting degrees they haven’t earned and rising through the ranks undeservedly (side note: this computer gives a synonym for “undeservedly” as “excessively” even though the Second College Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary sitting in my lap says the definition of the former is “unfairly or unjustifiably”, and the dictionary definition is the correct one while the computer is obviously too incorrect for what it said to actually be a synonym of the word in question). As these people also run industries, the education system, et cetera, let us continue into the labyrinth using their apparent definition of intelligence: money.

In theory, once someone has enough “intelligence” (money), they could then buy more by paying people for it. They could finance educational ventures and institutions, medical discoveries, entrepreneurial exploitation opportunities provided to them by an open market, independent researchers, und so weiter. With their newly-gained “intelligence” they could then gain more and more until they become so rich that they control everything using financial influence. Of course, they wouldn’t want any competition, so they’d finance things like the Board of Education, thereby giving them control over what people learn and how useful it is.

As it stands, what we learn in school isn’t much and almost all of it is useless. This is consistent with the idea that whoever is at the top of the pyramid wants brainless workers instead of intelligent thinkers. We are not taught the difference between versed garbage and elevated poetry worthy of the heavens. We are not taught the shades of gray in ethics or the mysteries that lie beyond what we experience in our controlled daily lives. We are not told both sides of the story when learning about war or other things in history class, and we certainly aren’t encouraged to find out. These things are unfortunate because learning about these and other similar topics are important steps toward reaching an elevated level of intelligence. But like I said, the few with the most “intelligence” don’t want any competition.

Because of this we learn to follow rules and to never stray from the norm lest we be laughed out of the room, irreparably and eternally damage our reputation, and are shunned as a stupid and possibly insane black sheep for the rest of our lives. Persistence in this sort of unconventional (in this case – actually old-fashioned, healthy and progressive) behavior can affect the person’s ability to get a job (largely thanks to the internet), as employers more often than not do not desire these off-putting black sheep or the thought of having to deal with them on a daily basis.

Another thing we learn is that differences are to be feared (except the different races of course, seeing as how anti-white propaganda is shoved down our throats starting the day we are born). Instead of trying to find out why someone looks or acts in a way to which we are not accustomed, we flee and try as hard as we can to avoid them. In this manner, we willingly deprive ourselves of the opportunity to gain new knowledge. We shun, ignore, and claim the person to be a lunatic, but in the act appear as a close-minded and stubborn ass which refuses to stop lounging about to pull a cart.

Again: denial is our downfall and self-imposed stupidity is our suicide. This ensures that the people currently at the top of the pyramid will stay there and sleep comfortably in the money and “intelligence” that rightfully belongs to us – the ones who work slave jobs and try to drink from the well of knowledge which, as previously mentioned, is being denied to us on an abominably large scale by the unworthy few who have seen fit to steal it for themselves. Instead of acting like honorable human beings (mostly because they aren’t honorable human beings), they treat us like cattle (“goyim” is the Yiddish/Jewish word for both cattle and non-Jews) that they can milk and force to work for them with threats of death and poverty whenever they desire more money, more power, more control, and ever more injustice.

Us And The Others

We as humans find it difficult to distinguish between individuals of another species and determine which individuals are attractive (things members of the other species don’t have trouble with). This difficulty comes from the fact that we are not the same species and are not naturally equipped with those abilities when looking at a  creature that we do not identify as human. Interestingly, we also have trouble with distinguishing between members of racial/ethnic groups of which we are not members. This could be because we don’t spend much time around people of those other groups or because of a similar reason to why we have trouble telling animals of another species apart, or possibly some combination of the two.

On a loosely-related subject, there is now genetic testing that can determine which part of the world one’s ancestors were from (the options are: Europe, Asia, and Africa), and this is the reason why we know the ancient Egyptians were European and not African. If it is now apparent that these genetic origins have produced such unique results to the point that we have trouble distinguishing between members of different racial/ethnic groups, and if there is testing that can divide us genetically into those same groups, then we should recognize that those groups really do exist and that we actually are genetically different from each other on a racial level. We aren’t all the same and ignoring that fact will result in the loss of diversity that we have at the moment. there are better reasons to stop breeding like there’s no tomorrow, but this should at least be a reason to preserve everything we’ve worked for.

More than that, it’s a reason for people to stay in their homeland and improve on the home they already have instead of running from their problems to another country or continent. Cowardice is not looked up to and neither is laziness. Running away instead of trying to fix things is an example of both. It helps nothing and causes people in the person’s new-found location to have to deal with new problems like loss of jobs and taxpayer money going to immigrants both legal and illegal (and the rest goes to corrupt government officials who then import more of these immigrants because they know that if these people get citizenship, they’ll get the immigrant vote as well as the opportunity to pocket more of everyone’s money for their own personal uses).

Only when there is an immediate and physical threat to someone’s life (and often not even then because it goes against the old rule of “survival of the fittest”) should this be a solution, and then only temporarily. Wanting to live in a mansion where one can watch 200 television channels simultaneously is neither a good, nor appropriate reason to emigrate out of a place. It is also a virtually impossible and obviously unrealistic fantasy, and anyone who immigrates somewhere expecting to find and partake in  such a lifestyle should either seek professional help or receive a firm and possibly loud smack to the head. It would take a while to look over every side of the immigration issue, but mass immigration in any case has the potential to affect the culture of the destination place on a noticeable level. This is not necessarily bad, but “brain gain” always comes at a price. Unfortunately, immigrants don’t always bring about this rise in the average intelligence. It’s a simple matter of being more or less selective about what kinds of people are allowed to immigrate into a place.

The Black Death

Rome is lettered with ancient public baths. These are remnants of a culture some modern people view as decadent, as it certainly was at some point. The public baths are also a sign that hygiene was important in their culture. Unfortunately, that sign went unread for quite some time after the beginning of the Dark Ages.

Some time later, Catholicism was sweeping the land and forcibly uniting unhappy people under the hypocrisy as well as the iron fist of this Asian-born church. Their missionaries traveled far and wide destroying any culture that wasn’t theirs and demonizing everything the Pagans held in high regards. This eventually worked to their disadvantage because one thing they noticed about the Pagans was that they were actually clean due to their washing on a regular basis. What they should’ve done was take note of the fact that both ancient and (then) modern cultures viewed good hygiene as an important aspect of daily life, and they should’ve then come to the conclusion that there must be a connection between the good hygiene and good health of the Pagans.

What they did instead was outlaw such practices because of their association with Paganism as well as their reasoning that it is morally and spiritually wrong for people to touch themselves even while cleaning. People obeyed out of fear of torture and death, but starting around the mid 1300’s that’s exactly what happened anyway. They called it the Black Death and said it was a plague sent by their god to punish people for being sinful. It is said that in those days a man could’ve seemed perfectly fine at breakfast and be dead by dinner.

Still, people made no connection between the sweeping death and their bad hygiene. It was ordinary to be covered in fleas, surrounded by rats, and to have to pour copious amounts of cologne over oneself to cover the stench caused by not washing on a regular basis, so perhaps it seemed so normal to them that the thought just never occurred, and if it did, whoever thought of it probably would’ve been burned to death for voicing it anyway. So they continued dying in their own filth and blaming sinners for this “Plague of God”.

Ironically, that’s basically what it was because if they’d kept their own religions and cultures, they probably wouldn’t have had such a terrible flea problem and the Yersina pestis wouldn’t have been spread around so much and so quickly. In this way, “their” god and “their” religion (in quotes because they were mostly following an Asiatic religion – the European religion is Paganism) did and still do hold partial responsibility.

However, one part they got wrong was that they thought the plague was sent because of Catholic sinners. Actually, the pious would’ve been more susceptible because they washed the least. They failed to learn from the past and so doomed the future. There is also a theory that their wells were poisoned by the immigrant/formerly-enslaved Jews who had created and helped to spread Catholicism in the first place. This is supported both by the almost completely plague-free Poland where many of the Jews lived as well as the fact that the Jews were killed and forced en masse to leave the countries in which they were staying, reportedly because the Jews had been tried and found to be guilty of putting something in the wells before the plague had broken out (as reported by people who witnessed them doing so). However, this theory will not be discussed here… any more than it already has been.

German Grammar Practice

I was cleaning my closet last night and I found this nifty little piece of paper with links to some sites where one may practice German grammar stuff. The links are for the following…

Verbs: http://www.quia.com/jg/903436.html

Simple past tense verbs: http://www.quia.com/jg/903438.html

Perfect past tense verbs: http://www.quia.com/jg/903440.html

And a scatter game: http://quizlet.com/3452376/scatter/

The links worked when I tested them. You can do word search stuff and card flipping things… You know – if you get bored. I’ll try to find more game links later.

German Nouns and Articles

As is customary, I shall start with the nominative case. As is even MORE customary, I shall now interrupt myself before even just starting to explain to mention that all nouns in German are capitalized. It doesn’t matter if they’re in the middle of a sentence. Also, “ich” isn’t capitalized unless it’s the first word in the sentence or being referred to as an object as in “the self” not as in “I”. Apart from those two exceptions, you don’t capitalize it. Just say no. And now we move back to the point.

Nominative case is for the subject of the sentence and has four articles: “der” for the masculine, “die” for the feminine, “das” for the neuter/neutral, and “die” for the formal “you” as well as the plural. Adjectives take different endings depending on the article of the noun to which they refer. That just makes it all the more important to memorize the articles of nouns when you write down vocabulary terms. You don’t want to be writing about a piece of “wichtiger Papier” when it should be “wichtiges” because paper is a neuter noun. As you may have noticed from that little side note, the adjective endings take the last bit of the “the” article of the noun with which they are paired. The nouns of the last category on the list are written in the plural form (ending in -en, may take umlauts) and the other nouns stay the same. And now for the Akkusativ.

The accusative case is used to indicate the direct object of the sentence. Once you have the nominative case memorized, this one is actually pretty easy. “Der” changes to “den” and the rest stay the same. Yes, that was another rhyme I learned in school to aid in the memorization process. The -er ending for masculine adjectives changes accordingly to reflect the new word, but the noun doesn’t change into the plural form just because the “the” ends in -en. Masculine accusative and plural nominative are totally different. Moving on to the Dativ…

The dative case indicates the indirect object of a sentence. It has been described as “the thing that’s getting thinged”. In other words it’s “to whom, for whom something is given, said or done”, and that’s directly out of my grammar book, so it’s probably right. Anyway, “der” becomes “dem”, “die” (feminine) becomes “der”, “das” becomes “dem”, and the other “die” becomes “den”. The adjective endings are again changed in accordance with the new articles. And now on with the thing hardly anyone uses anymore: Genitiv.

The genitive case is the “of the”, a.k.a. the thing indicating the possession or relationship between things. An English example is “soup of the day” – auf Deutsch = <<Suppe des Tages>>, in which you can see the afore-mentioned “of the”. In this case “der” becomes “des”, “die” (feminine) becomes “der”, “das” becomes “des”, and the other “die” becomes “der”. As always: adjective endings, new articles, changing. Yes. But you don’t have to worry about this case very much because, as I mentioned earlier, hardly anyone uses it anymore. People would rather say “the man’s house” than “the house of the man”, and the equivalent naturally exists in German. Just leave out the apostrophe before the “s” being used to indicate possession and KAPOW! Instant genitive case substitute!

Before you go off becoming a skilled grasshopper all by yourself, I will give you a chart to make this lesson easier to remember. Yes, I took the notes for you. You’re welcome.

Nom: RESE  Akk: NESE
Dat: MRMN  Gen: SRSR

German Grammar: Present, Simple Past and Perfect Past Tense

I’ve looked into a few different language-learning methods (on the internet, audio CDs and in several classrooms in junior high and high school), and one thing I noticed about language lessons geared toward people with no foreign language experience is that two thirds of the time they initially skip out on verb conjugations, so I’ll start with that in the present tense. First person singular (“I” in English, “ich” in German) takes -e at the end of a verb instead of ending in the infinitive -en, e.g. “springen” becomes “springe”. Second person informal singular (“you” in English, “du” in German) takes -st instead, e.g. “springen” becomes “springst”. Third person singulat (“he, she, it” in English, “er, sie, es” in German) takes -t. First person plural (“we” in English, “wir” in German) has the -en ending like the infinitive form of the verb “springen”. Second person plural (“you guys” or “all of you” in English, “ihr” in German) takes -t like third person singular. Third person plural (“they” in English, “sie” in German) takes -en like first person plural, as does the formal version of “you”, which is “Sie” with a capital “S”. Notice that there are three sie’s: one means “she” and takes -t, one means “they” and takes -en, and the last one (used to address someone formally until you’ve known them long enough to use the informal form, like addressing someone as “Sir” or “Ma’am” in English – although it’s worth mentioning that children are addressed informally even when you first meet them) has a capital “S” and takes -en. When I was in school they taught us a song to help us remember how to conjugate our present tense verbs. It’s sung to the tune of “Mary Had a Little Lamb” and goes like this: “ich” takes “e” and “du” “st” / “er, es, sie” / “t” all three / “wir” “en” and “ihr” takes “t” / “sie” and “Sie” “en”.

There are multiple kinds of past tense verb conjugations. The simple past tense has no helping verb, and the way the verb is conjugated depends on whether it is a strong or weak verb. The weak verbs follow the same pattern as the present tense except with an added “t”. This is the result: “ich” -> -te, “du” -> -test, “er, es, sie” -> -te, “wir” -> -ten, “ihr” -> -tet, “sie” and “Sie” -> -ten. Notice that the first and third person forms are the same. The strong verbs don’t follow the present tense ending pattern and change stems, e.g. the stem “spring” becomes “sprang”. The first person singular and third person singular have no ending (so “sprang” stays as “sprang”), and for the rest of the endings one need simply add the present tense ending to the changed stem, e.g. “du springst” becomes “du sprangst”. There are seven classes of strong verbs as well as a class of irregular verbs, a class of mixed verbs, and the list of modal verbs. I’ll come back to those another time, but they’re important to memorize so you know how to change the stem when using the simple past tense.

The Perfekt past tense uses a helping verb (either “haben” or “sein”). “Haben” is the more common of the two in the perfect past tense, while “sein” is used to indicate movement or a change of state/condition. The “full verb” (not the helping verb) goes to the end of the sentence, and the helping verb takes the second grammatical position. Example: “Ich bin nach da schon gefahren” in which “bin” is the helping verb in the second grammatical position. (This is different from the simple past tense, which keeps the verb in the second grammatical position like the present tense as in the sentences, “Ich gab dir die Welt. Du wolltest sie nicht…”) The helping verb is the one that’s conjugated. The perfect past tense does three things to “full verbs” depending on whether they’re strong, weak, or mixed. The strong verbs have a “ge”, then a stem change, and end in “en” (e.g. “gegangen”). The weak verbs have no stem changes in the participle, so they start with a “ge”, then have the stem of the verb, and end in “t” (e.g. “gespielt”). The mixed verbs start with “ge” and end with “t” and may or may not have a stem change. When a verb has a separable prefix, it is connected to the verb before the “ge” (for example, to say “depart” or “drive off” the separable prefix ab- is added before “fahren”, so in the perfect past tense “he has already departed” becomes “er ist schon abgefahren”, whereas in the present tense the separable prefix goes at the end of the sentence independent of the verb). Here’s a list of some separable prefixes: ab-, an-, auf-, aus-, ein- and vor-. There are also inseparable prefixes. These have no ge- prefix in the perfect past tense, so it’s just the inseparable prefix before the stem regardless of whether the stem changes or stays the same. Here is a list of inseparable prefixes: be-, ent-, er-, ge-, ver-, zer- and miss-. A few prefixes can be either separable or inseparable. It changes depending on the meaning of the verb, so do your best to memorize any exceptions such as this that you find.