Starliner astronauts stranded in space

The official truth, blasted from every media, is that they are not stranded — NASA and Boeing just want time to run some more tests.

The astronauts were supposed to do to space walks, but the space suits did not work either. Which is a problem because the space station needs some external maintenance which can only be done by people going outside in space suits. So everyone on the space station is currently trapped in a container with life support that depends on stuff outside the container, which stuff is unreachable.

The reason they want to run more tests is that most of the engines are not behaving as they are supposed to, and one of the engines has failed completely and they do not understand why. It is probably not a good idea to attempt re-entry with humans on board if you have misbehaving engines and you do not understand why they are misbehaving.

These engines have been misbehaving for years, to which Boeing has responded with denial, rather than any real attempt to understand.

Musk says that the reason is non technical management — that Boeing has managers that understand spreadsheets, but do not understand rockets. This is undoubtedly true, but evades a bigger unspeakable truth — that that these non tech managers have been firing white males and replacing them with Shaniqua, replacing real engineers with experts in race and sex grievance mongering, with people who have affirmative action degrees in engineering from elite universities, but were not trained in engineering, which they would not have been capable of understanding, but in race, sex, and sexual preference.

Boeing’s reaction to these failures has been similar to the reaction that led to the Challenger disaster, a fact that someone at NASA is aware of and is kicking up trouble about. Whoever it is that is kicking up drama will probably get fired for whiteness, maleness, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and hatred, not because of any race or sex thought crimes, but because noticing problems with woke science and technology is thought crime adjacent.

In the lead up to the Challenger space shuttle disaster, people became aware that an O ring was failing, allowing burning hot gases to flow where they were not supposed to. But no one was allowed to notice or think that the special super duper high tech O ring materials was a piece of $#!&, because it was an enormously expensive special material that had been subjected to an enormously expensive qualification process — which was a piece magic high tech decoration, a cargo cult ritual applying the magic symbols of technology in place of actual technology. They should have used silicone rubber like everyone else, but saying that, or even thinking that, was like doubting that the jab is safe and effective. They were unable to diagnose the problem, because thought crime, and because thought crime, were unable to accept that the problem was a problem, because noting that it was a serious and gravely threatening problem was adjacent to the thought crime of noticing that their magic super duper high tech O ring material was just flim flam, the symbols of high tech without any real substance, that it was grossly and dangerously inferior to what everyone else uses — silicone rubber.

Boeing was obviously taking a wildly dangerous risk by sending up a manned mission without first having a single successful unmanned flight. But neither Boeing nor NASA could notice this, because thought crime adjacent. Noticing that this was wildly reckless behaviour is adjacent to noticing the reasons for this wildly dangerous behaviour, which reasons are thought crimes. After the the Starliner went up, someone at NASA has noticed.

Boeing wants to fly the astronauts down on the Starliner. Their rationalisation that this is safe is the same as the rationalisation that sent them up without first doing half dozen successful unmanned missions, and the same as the rationalisation that burning hot gases flowing where they were not supposed to was not a problem for the Challenger space shuttle.

Even if Starliner returns to earth safely (and the Challenger space shuttle performed many missions with a dud O-ring before the dud O-ring finally caused it to blow up) it will leave behind people on board a space station on which they can no longer perform needed maintenance for lack of a working space suit.

Which brings me to Göbekli Tepe. The people running our society do not believe that reality is real, that existence exists. They think the narrative is reality. When God’s reality intrudes on their narrative, they react to it as a status challenge by a low ranked ape. They react to reality’s failure to comply not as the will of God who cannot change and cannot lie manifest in his creation, but as a social challenge from a rival ape of lower status who is challenging their superior priestly status. Starliner’s connections between helium pipes have been failing in the same way at about the same rate for years. Switching to a different connector is submission to a rival ape. Worse, the rival ape in question is the man who fixes their hot water system — the man who has thirty years experience in connecting pipes so that the connection does not fail.

How is this about Göbekli Tepe, I hear you ask?

Well for some time it has been completely obvious that there were people in Egypt, the megalithic builders, who lived many thousands of years before the literate dynastic Egyptians, who had big machines that could cut and place gigantic stones, move gigantic stones long distances, cut very hard stones with extraordinary precision, and also move the debris from excavation long distances if they found it inconvenient or unsightly. One of the items of evidence for this is differential erosion of stones — you will see megalithic stones eroded almost beyond recognition as human made, while a very short distance away there are stones of ordinary size that look almost brand new, cut from the same stone from the same quarry by dynastic Egyptians. It is completely obvious that many of the megalithic structures are enormously older than dynastic Egypt.

The people who built the megaliths found it cheaper to cut and move a small number of gigantic stones, than a large number of smaller stones. So they had machinery. But they did not have metals or writing. Among their many enormous excavations, we don’t see mining of metal ores, and on their many great works, we do not see ancient inscriptions, though inside the gigantic tunnels and vast underground rooms that they built, inscriptions would have been preserved against erosion. And pottery scraps seem to be later than megalithic buildings, though we lack reliable dating. Certainly the people who built Göbekli Tepe could not make pottery, and the creation of wonderful stone objects performing jobs better done by pottery suggests that the Egyptian megalithic builders, who had way better and higher precision machines, and bigger machines than the people who built Göbekli Tepe, could not make pottery either. No pottery found inside the vast tunnels and underground chambers cut by the megalith builders.

If they could build big machines and move big stones, they could build big ships, so it makes sense that we see megalithic buildings that obviously used much the same technology in both Eurasia and South America.

Göbekli Tepe is the only work of the megalithic builders whose date is reliably known. It is not nearly as impressive as other works, which clearly required enormous high precision machinery, but obviously work of the same people, either in their early days before they developed machinery with greater capabilities, or in their later days as their civilisation was collapsing. My wild assed guess from the erosion on some of the Egyptian megaliths is later days as the civilisation was collapsing, a settlement by refugees from the wild climate changes of the Younger Dryas event. Its date is reliably known because it was deliberately buried.

Of course official science has reacted to this with ridicule and censorship, and the usual army of shills trying to poison the well. But also they reacted by trying to lower the status of the physical and material Göbekli Tepe.

This is noticeable with the deliberate burial issue. Official science proposes that it was buried by a landslip. But a landslip requires a slope steeper than the angle of repose, and leaves behind a slope near the angle of repose. If it was buried in a landslip, a mighty big hill would still be there. There is no hill. They don’t like the deliberate burial, because it implies the people considered the city high status and worthy of preservation, and official science wants it to be low status, not because of any rational reason, but because they perceive it as a rival ape. Denying the deliberate burial of Göbekli Tepe resembled Xerxes having the Hellespont whipped and fetters thrown into it. Which is the reaction of NASA and Boeing to Starliner and space suit problems.

They don’t want to believe in early agriculture around Göbekli Tepe because that contradicts the narrative about the development of agriculture, but they don’t want to believe in deliberate burial, because they see the city as a rival ape and are trying to deny it status.

Ninety percent of the charcoal at Göbekli Tepe is from food bearing trees, and the people there left lot of grain processing debris, making it obvious that the region was under intense agriculture. How else could you support a twenty acre city? Wild grain is an absolutely insignificant part of the diet of hunter gatherers and survivalists trying to live off the land, because there is not much of it, and what there is contains very little calories, and obviously all trees in the region were orchard trees — they cut down all the wild trees and replaced them. But official science proposes that they lived by hunting and gathering. And built a twenty acre city? The reason hunter gatherers are nomadic is because in two or three weeks, they have exhausted all food resources within walking distance of the camp site.

They also argue Göbekli Tepe is misdated due to the old wood effect. People use old wood in buildings because they recycling older buildings and material from older buildings. They don’t use old grass to reinforce plaster, and they don’t build new buildings out of old wood taken from the forest, because it is much easier to work with recently cut live wood.

So, to summarise: Starliner and the space suit crisis is partly a result of management by finance guys rather than tech guys, partly a result of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and in substantial part, solipsism substituting for science and technology. Which solipsism you can also see in America’s foreign policy. They don’t believe that war is real, that Russia is real, that nukes are real, that reality is real, that existence exists. When God’s reality intrudes on their reality, they react to it as a status challenge by a rival ape, and attempt to lower the status of that ape by denigration and gaslighting.

107 Responses to “Starliner astronauts stranded in space”

  1. When will Shaniqua be charged with a crime for deaths, injuries, etc. in Boeing?

  2. NatFil says:

    Alternative explanation of ancient Egyptian technology[*deleted. If you want to comment, just take the shill test. Your comments will then come through unmolested. Anyone can pass the shill test described in the moderation policy and get white listed.*]

    • jim says:

      I suspect that the geopolymer theory is just shills trying to muddy the waters, like the flat earthers. “See, everyone who does not subscribe to the official scientific consensus is obviously idiotic”

  3. alf back end says:


    Your comment filter seems to be going into overdrive. I have approved comments by the following posters which it suddenly blocks: DH, FrankNorman, mister grumpus.

    • jim says:

      I don’t know what is going on. Trying a few random things to see if it makes a difference.

      • jim says:

        Turned off the spam filter — now filtering solely on default wordpress.

        This will result in a huge amount of utter rubbish showing up in the moderation queue.

        Unfortunately it is probable that wordpress itself is at fault.

  4. Pete says:

    The current day Egyptians are very ego-invested in the idea that they are the descendants of the indigenous people who built the Pyramids and the Sphinx.

    Are they really the same people, now that the Arabs conquered the land and raped babies into all the women? That’s a different conversation.

    But in any case, the idea that there might have been some other people in Egypt BEFORE them, who created architectural wonders interesting as the Pyramids, is going to be furiously rejected by modern Egyptians. It attacks their egos and their shared idea of themselves as a people.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      As long as there’s no past to sanity-check for guidance and advice, the Eschaton is forever and plausibly just around the corner. “No more East Berlins”, but across time as well as space.

    • someDude says:

      Are you sure modern Egyptians care. Even if they do care, they have to pretend not to care. As far as they are concerned, before the light of Islam shone on their land, everything Egyptian was Jahiliyyah (barbaric) anyway.

      Thats also the official Persian viewpoint of their pre-Islamic past

      • jim says:

        Yes I am sure Egyptians care a lot. You get in trouble with Egyptian government for doubting the official narrative.

        • someDude says:

          Then their government does not take Islam seriously. Like the Indian and Turkish governments, it is a secular government. I’m sure secular Egyptians, like Secular Persians care as well. But what about religious Egyptians. Do they care?

          • The Cominator says:

            Islam like all religions has softer and harder versions. Egyptian Islam is traditionally a bit softer than that of the Arabian peninsula or Chechneya. The problem is Islam can always spiral into a hardcore version of Islam because part of the Islamic religion is the pure muslims are supposed to conquer or kill the lukewarm muslims as kaffirs and infidels.

    • skippy says:

      Egyptians have become gradually admixed with Bantu over the millennia. Ancient Egypt pre-dates the Bantu expansion reaching the Nile.

      The Egyptians are not significantly peninsular Arabian by descent.

  5. Mister Grumpus says:

    Gobelki Tepe is just down the road from where Father Abraham was born, according to both Jewish and Islamic tradition. It’s also where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers come quite close together (Asia Minor is Mesopotamia also).

    A coincidence I’m sure.

    Some kind of seriously deep shit going on here. Way back to the beginning. Before the “official” beginning, even.

    • DH says:

      They object most forcefully to the Biblical Joshua narrative, because if the Joshua narrative is true, then monotheistic or semi-monotheistic patriarchal warriors established the Israelite civilization, while their preferred view is that no significant military conquest of Canaan took place, and the Israelites directly descended from Canaanite child-sacrificing demon worshipers.

      They want all the credit to go to the brave and beautiful Moloch worshipers, whose superior and civilized demonic enlightenment helped restore civilization after the Bronze Age collapse (which is blamed on the seafaring warrior bands of the Sea Peoples and related groups), and to prevent any status from accidentally falling upon patriarchal God worshipping warriors taking Canaan by force and defeating the local Moloch priests. Hence their embrace of Biblical Minimalism, intended to discredit the Biblical narrative, and their rejection of Biblical Maximalism, for if the Maximalist view is correct, then the Joshua events happened, and the Israelite civilization was not established by Moloch worshipers, was not a mere extension and continuation of a demonic civilization, but rather it was established by warriors who defeated and displaced the Moloch worshipers and built in their stead a patriarchal civilization with a patriarchal God at its center. Harvard wants the Bible standing on the shoulders of child sacrificing demoniacs bravely and beautifully running the culture from their sacred Temples of Moloch, rather than telling the story of inferior Moloch worshippers being conquered and uprooted by Joshua’s patriarchal monotheistic warriors.

      Their narrative is that Moloch is necessary for civilization, that there is no civilization without Moloch and a myriad other demons at its center, that child sacrifice is indispensable, and that it’s warriors (whose masculinity is toxic) who threatened and collapsed civilization. They abhor the opposite view, that Moloch and the demons caused the collapse, and that God worshiping warriors re-established and re-built civilization on Moloch’s smoldering grave.

      • jim says:

        Because moderation is broken, adding you as user. Your password is user_to_avoid_moderation

        Change it, but your real password is your fake email, so change it to something trivial.

        Adding every profilic based poster as user when I have to manually rescue their posts, because the moderation queue is broken.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        People reject stories that feature warriors slaying hundreds of enemies, but ignore that this is entirely believable if you can imagine an elite modern fighter (Tyson Fury etc) fighting complete bums spread out over many years.

        They imagine war as highly ritualized, with big infantry formations and big battleships etc. They don’t think about independent mounted nomads and pirate frigates ambushing and chipping away at the great monuments of military might. And if they do, they absolutely cannot imagine those barbarians actually being the good guys.

        It’s worth thinking about because it’s as true today in Russia vs Ukraine as it was in the days of Joshua.

        • DH says:

          People reject stories that feature warriors slaying hundreds of enemies

          “People” do not reject anything like that.

          Progressives reject it, because they hate warriors and masculinity, and see themselves as being in a status competition with the warrior class, particularly with aristocratic warriors.

      • Pax Imperialis says:

        AF (pending moderation) responded to you with:

        >People reject stories that feature warriors slaying hundreds of enemies

        Good progressives live in a completely different world. Where the heroic are scorned, the strong despised, the beautify hated, and the good burnt.

        It’s so objectively wrong but they can’t see that from their ever shrinking leftoid bubbles.

  6. L says:

    Allow me a moment to gloat: we’re gonna rig the election, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Just to give one example, check out what just happened in Wisconsin.

    • jim says:

      What happened in Wisconsin was for the first time in recent history, a Dem was convicted of election fraud. This is a remarkable and extraordinary event, which tells us that Thermidor is running dead on stealing the election.

      Presumably you are referring to Wisconsin supreme court declaring ballot box stuffing to be legal. But this is pushback against it being made illegal — that there is a struggle going on in Wisconsin at all is an extraordinary change.

      • L says:

        I am indeed referring to that. The vote count is whatever it is decided to be.

        As just the latest example, check out Britain. Leftist chads once again enjoying a total, unreserved victory. Immigration is gonna double again, lmao.

        • The Cominator says:

          You are not who you say you are. I asked you why the elite is essentially sawing off the branch they sit on and you didn’t know why. I agree we have a cartoonishly evil elite but even Satan thinks he can overthrow God. Evil is supposed to be a MEANS not an end in itself.

          • jim says:

            Because moderation is broken, adding you as user. Your password is user_to_avoid_moderation

            Change it, but your real password is your fake email, so change it to something trivial.

            Adding every profilic based poster as user when I have to manually rescue their posts, because the moderation queue is broken.

            • The Cominator says:

              Um was I the person you were supposed to respond to with this???

              • jim says:

                Yes, you, the Cominator, just went into moderation again. This is intended so that you can login and avoid this mystery WordPress bug which has suddenly started tossing everyone into moderation, and thus save me the effort fishing out real contributors from moderation queue.

                • The Cominator says:

                  How do I become a “user” though… do I use the same fake email… I’m not clear on what to do.

                • jim says:

                  You are already a user. You just have to login. Tell me how the experience went.

                  You don’t have to register, you are registered. You don’t have to sign up. You were signed up. I am registering everyone I am forced to fish out of moderation.

                  Your fake email is your real password. I assign everyone the same widely known password, and they can change it, assuming their email is secret, and I have devoted a lot of work, hence my whining about PHP, to trying to make sure everyone’s email does remain secret.

                  A time will come when PHP is a language for which new code is only written in hell.

                • jim says:

                  You are already a user, under your existing username and existing fake email.

                • The Cominator says:

                  So I use the same fake email I’ve been using or do I need a different one… I’m just unclear (forgive my autistic literalism) where I put “user_to_avoid_moderation” so this goes away.

                  If this post goes through without putting me in moderation again feel free to ignore it.

            • The Cominator says:

              Ah Jim so am I supposed to use a different fake email… what is going on?

              • jim says:

                You are supposed to use the same fake email, same username, the temporary password user_to_avoid_moderation
                and login through

                Tell me how the experience goes, or, better, write up instructions for the next person to try it and I will add your instructions to my post

        • jim says:

          Not total.

          Before the election, the uniparty held every seat, and the outer wing of the conservatives, having campaigned on the usual conservative rhetoric, proceeded to implement the radical left program: Globalisation, mass immigration huge tax rises, and deliberate de industrialisation. A change in the faces presented by the uniparty makes not the slightest difference to the policies actually implemented.

          After the election, non uniparty MPs are in parliament. There is now a real opposition in Britain. This is a huge change. The change from conservative to labor is no change at all. Actual opposition, non uniparty members in parlament, is as shocking and outrageous as Trump coming down the escalator.

          Of course the opposition will not be allowed to get anywhere until the Global American Empire collapses, but the Global American Empire is collapsing. (Or likely the election of Trump will be permitted, in which case he will attempt to organise an orderly and dignified retreat.)

          The uniparty still rules Britain, but it lost Russia in 1999-2000, then it lost Afghanistan, now it is about to lose the Ukraine and Hungary. The outer provinces of empire are becoming unruly. Poland is becoming truculent. This starts to look like a Soviet style unravelling.

          After Globohomo retreat or collapse, either the real British opposition gets places, or there will be coups, which will eventually result in warrior rule.

          • Pax Imperialis says:

            What do you think happens to the royal family if coups? Western Shogunate?

            • jim says:

              Seems like a good idea. Worked for the Japanese.

            • jim says:

              Because moderation is broken, adding you as user. Your password is user_to_avoid_moderation

              Change it, but your real password is your fake email, so change it to something trivial.

              Adding every profilic based poster as user when I have to manually rescue their comments, because the moderation queue is broken.

    • Pseudo-Chysostom says:

      All state democracies are fake. Saying that an election is going to be rigged in some way is just being redundant.

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        >[radical autonomy] is the removal of all legal, moral, and even all biological and scientific constraints and consequences in the world that hinder in any way the expression of the will.

        But then again, the only way any will can find actual expression in the first place is if it does so in accordance with the matter of Creation, or else it will fail to have any expression, or to the extent something is expressed, it is not in accordance with what was willed.

        The stunted spiritual manchild don’t want do stinkin’ rules; but in order to have power, he needs to follow rules.

        Bit of a problem.

  7. FrankNorman says:

    Odd that I’m being asked to pass the test after posting here so long. Oh well:

    Jesus Christ is Lord and King, both Divine and human, God from all eternity, human from His earthly mother’s womb. Born in Bethlehem, died in Jerusalem, risen from the dead three days later, ascended to Heaven and sitting at God the Father’s right hand until He returns to judge the world.
    God is Three and God is One.

    The Jimian position on women is that they are driven by instincts that are incompatible with civilization, which lead to them all trying to get bedded by the most Alpha male around. Civilization requires that women be subject to their husbands, and punished if they commit adultery.

  8. DH says:

    Saying that a rival religion or culture is “late” is discrediting it, so goes their thinking, and Harvard Progressivism, the faith of globohomo, seeks to discredit all rival religions and cultures. For instance, take the example of Biblical Maximalism vs Biblical Minimalism (Maximalists maintain that the Bible is relatively early, Minimalists maintain that the Bible is very late). The adherents of the former view generally hold the Bible in high esteem, are usually the more religious and conservative scholars. The followers of the latter view, however, usually hate the Bible, and went into Biblical scholarship to discredit the Bible. It’s probably the same dynamic here. Progressives just don’t want to give credit to their rivals, antique as they may be.

  9. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

    Göbekli Tepe was a city that was deliberately buried.

    Now, that’s something that sets one’s instincts off. Hairs on end, if you will. What would drive a people to do such a thing? It stinks. Stinks of powerful spiritual forces. Malign ones.

    The subject of moral degeneration, of multi-polar traps, of social entities in history dying from *subversion and defection*, is a topic that harvardian factotums don’t like touching with a ten foot pole. Much safer to publish the umpteenth book about the price of wheat in BCE whatever and how climate change due to volcanoes led to Kingdom XYZ collapsing.

    My suspicion is that the nomeklatura acting with inchoate antipathy in the attempt to figuratively bury the investigation, that they don’t want anyone looking too deeply into it, is that they fear that uncovering that which was buried, could very well unkindly reflect ancient echos analogizing their own malignancy.

    • alf says:

      they fear that uncovering that which was buried, could very well unkindly reflect ancient echos analogizing their own malignancy.

      That seems to be the obvious explanation. Like looking into a mirror and seeing your own demonic visage.

      A great deal of maintaining their current gravy train and self-image depends on them maintaining the narrative that if sh*t is hitting the fan, which it is totally not, but hypothetically speaking, if it would be, then it is most definitely the fault of global warming, racists, and/or unexplainable forces, and most definitely not the fault of the usual entropic forces echoing through all of history which they so unabashedly represent.

      • Rux says:

        If those at Narrative Control enjoy such percipience then I haven’t been giving them enough credit.

        Thought provoking responses to a great post. Thank you.

    • Humungus says:

      The runes carved into the stone remind me of that depicted in ancient Egypt and even Mayan culture and could have served as inspiration for some of the H.P. Lovecraft works.

      I think we’re dealing with something very ancient.

      • Hesiod says:

        Lovecraft and his pen-pal Robert E. Howard had a wealth of information at their local libraries that made its way into their writings. Nigh a century later, our local libraries are troon temples.

    • jim says:

      Burial of a person was imagined as a way of setting up someone ghost in its proper place in the underworld, and that otherwise he would wander around in distress and cause troubles for the living.

      Burying Göbekli Tepe sounds very much like an effort to put its Gods to rest. Which would suggest that the state religion turned demonic, much as ours has.

      However the Christian approach to this denies the power of demons. We don’t want to do anything that acknowledges demons are real, or, if real, have any power except over wicked men. So the Christian approach has been to build Churches and Cathedrals, to repurpose the holy places of the old Gods as churches, and repurpose the customs and rituals of the old gods so that they are done “unto God”, removing any wicked acts from those customs and rituals.

  10. TheDividualist says:

    >The official truth, blasted from every media, is that they are not stranded

    No? Even NPR is sceptical if one reads a bit between the lines:

    “Instead, a series of leaks and malfunctions have caused NASA to indefinitely delay the duo’s return.

    Just whatever you do, don’t say they’re stranded.”

    “Even before the latest press conference, news media was speculating that Williams and Wilmore might be stuck aboard the station. It’s a claim that Boeing, in particular, seems to bristle at.”

    This is not that hysterically fake-confident believe-experts tone we are used to. This is a “Yeah, suuure…” tone, with a lot of distance-keeping.

    • Aidan says:

      That is the “space travel is an evil waste of resources when there are blacks to feed and fags to buy Prep for” left talking. The sufficiently left can criticize science and technology all they want.

        • yewotm8 says:

          How naive am I for expecting him to start playing the piano instead of the bongo drums?

      • DH says:

        Yes. See also “muh cis-het white male billionaires in silicon valley invest in radical life extension technologies when what we really need is MO’ MONEY FO’ DEM PROGRAMS.” Karen wants to abolish science and technology because all wealth must be redistributed from white male capitalists to brave and stunning single mommas in Africa.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Infinigger will eat the entire world, or has Putin stopped that too? What can’t he do?

  11. Karl says:

    Boeing was obviously taking a wildly dangerous risk by sending up a manned mission without first having a single successful unmanned flight.

    The astronauts obviously took a wildly dangerous risk. Boeing only risked some equipment that cost a fraction of Boing’s cash flow – hardly a dangerous risk.

    Fining a manager who allows the mission is easly, but how did Boeing find astronauts for such a mission?

  12. TheDividualist says:

    20th century science used to think civilization is young. Aryan traditions that show up almost identically in Greek and Indian texts, said civilization is old and used to be better, golden/silver/iron ages, Kali-Yuga and all. Recently I noticed new and new discoveries are coming, pushing back the age of civilization significantly.

    • skippy says:

      The ancient Sanskrit texts were first studied by European science in the 19th century, which is also when modern archaeology began on Sumeria (~4000BC).

    • Aidan says:

      I consider it quite possible that Aryans built the first complex society, very early on, and it was drowned in the Black Sea Deluge. Pre-dynastic Egypt may have been refugees from this society, or a peripheral colony that suddenly became important, while others took to the steppe and became nomads.

      Every Aryan myth says that they came from an advanced society, wandered around, and then settled down where they conquered. Well, there is nothing under the grass of the steppe, but nobody wants to scan the floor of the Black Sea with advanced imaging techniques. Strange lack of interest in if the Black Sea Deluge happened or not, and what might be on its former shores if so.

      • jim says:

        The Black Sea rose in the course of a year. Sounds very Noachian.

        If there were cities on the coast, relying on rivers for transport and irrigation, and if their technology was centered on efficiently cutting stone with precision, the cities, the monuments, the quarries, and the aqueducts are going to still be there.

  13. TheDividualist says:

    Hi Jim,

    I am a bit confused now. What are they trying to hide about prehistory? Aryans superbuilders? 1930’s archeology said the Aryans had average material intelligence, average material culture, high verbal intelligence, complicated language. There is not much to suggest Andronovo/Yamnaya/Lithuania bred great builders. Surely they had to have some great poetry tho.

    Your account of Göbekli Tepe reminds me of very precisely cut Inca stonemasonry. I guess what I am trying to say is that it is not as simple as white man smart, brown man stupid. Looks like there were smart Inca brown men, and then they went through some version of dysgenic decline.

    • jim says:

      I too am confused. I have no idea why this is so sensitive for them. It is completely obvious that the structures attributed to dynastic Egypt were built at vastly different times using vastly different technologies, and their rationalisations about Göbekli Tepee are silly, desperate, and do not make much difference to the facts — that the city is very old, twenty acres, and the builders could cut and move big stones.

      They are acting like apes facing a status challenge, but I do not see any status challenge, any reason they should care. We know agriculture began at roughly the time of Göbekli Tepe, they agree it began at roughly that time, what difference does a thousand years here or there make? Yet when I hear the official media talking about Göbekli Tepe, they sound like the official media talking about the Ukraine. They are outraged by agriculture at Göbekli Tepe the way they are outraged by battle reports from the Ukraine and just as they assure the Russians are making human wave assaults equipped with shovels, they assure us, in very much the the same tone of voice, that a dozen hunter gatherers could have built a twenty acre megalithic city in their spare time.

      The Ukraine is an existential threat because they cannot bear anything outside a globohomo world. But agriculture being a bit earlier than they thought? Who cares when exactly agriculture began? Maybe it began in some places earlier than others. Maybe it began a long, long, long time ago, but went away because the original agriculturalists suffered social decay leading to population decline?

      Why is this an issue? It is as strange to me as it is to you.

      • dharmicreality says:

        Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make insane.

        One of the signs of insanity is being too sensitive or fussed about highly irrelevant issues while completely ignoring reality staring in the face.

        The Globohomo elite are collectively insane. And their insanity spreads memetically rather than genetically.

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        I get it. Mainstream historians and archeologists have been defending their grand narrative of human history against cranks, weirdos, pseudo-scientists, grifters, religious nuts, and even Afrocentrists for decades on end. Most of these narrative deniers are both low-status losers and completely and obviously wrong. Worse, the general public often finds the deniers’ narratives interesting and plausible. Arguing with the deniers is frustrating and rarely accomplishes anything, no matter how badly they’re beaten. So, the mainsteam developed a simple heuristic: criticism from outside the mainstream can be dismissed immediately and is unworthy of consideration or debate. Now, any questioning by outsiders, even if you have good arguments and excellent evidence, and even if the alternative isn’t really all that damaging to the grand narrative, reads to them as low-status and wrong. Any questioning by an insider reads as outsider infiltration that somehow snuck inside and results in banishment to the outside. The narrative is frozen. Tiny incremental refinements are possible, but paradigm shifts and grand discoveries are ruled out a priori.

        The narrative became a tribe, and any doubt in it is an attack by an enemy tribe, and a weak enemy tribe at that. The same thing happened with vaccines and vaccine-deniers long before COVID, which is part (and only part) of what made the medical system so arrogant, high-handed, and easily misled during the pandemic.

      • Fidelis says:

        Probably related to Atlantean red-headed 6’6″ cromagnons. They were in the Americas, China, and after the flood appeared in large numbers in the Basque and Crimea with animal husbandry and metalworking. It conflicts quite heavily with the Who Was in America First narrative, and makes whites look like the founders of all advanced civilizations, so of course they hate it.

        • TheDividualist says:


          Atlanteans, nope. Please, let’s not get into Atlantis. It was an educational thought experiment coined by Plato and no one took it seriously until the 19th century con woman Helena Blavatsky started talking about an Atlantean root race, and 100 other but equally stupid things.

          • Fidelis says:

            Yeah yeah, and Troy was a made up place and the Romans didn’t actually arrive in Italy from Anatolia. We’ve heard it all before. Look at where the red headed mummies show up, look at where metallurgy and animal husbandry mysteriously arrive simultaneously, and look at where RH- blood just drops in out of nowhere.

            • The Cominator says:

              Yes assuming ancient writers are in all cases totally full of shit has a bad track record. Thus I do assume that the founding stock of Rome (at least the Patricians though the Romans themselves said the rest of the population who moved in were fugitives bandits runaway slaves etc from surrounding areas of Italy) were indeed descended from those who survived the sack of Troy and that there was indeed an ancient advanced civilization/city state that the people who conquered Greece in its Dark Age referred to as Atlantis.

          • Alfred says:

            It’s an absurdly detailed “thought experiment” that appears in two separate works of Plato, and which a number of other Greco-Roman writers treat as plausible. The date of destruction also lines up remarkable well with the probable Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, another hypothesis which makes archeologists and geologists incoherently angry.

            There is also the fact that Plato seems to reference the Americas in describing the continents beyond Atlantis, which is a curiously accurate description for a “thought experiment.” Many Aryan mythologies as well as the Egyptian gesture at the west as containing some realm of the gods, as well.

          • DH says:

            I don’t have a position on the Atlantis Question in particular, but Harvard historiography is designed to discredit the notion that warrior bands (such as the Sea Peoples, who some hypothesize as originating from Atlantis) are capable of establishing stable kingdoms, because they are allergic to warrior rule in general, they seek to minimize the achievements and the creative potential of small-scale white male militias, and insist that demon worshipping priests, centralized in and ruling from a Temple of Moloch or similar demons, must always be at the epicenter of civilization.

            If warrior bands can build advanced and sophisticated cultures, can conquer and keep territory, can maintain their cultural cohesion and homogeneity over time, then sacrificing children to Moloch may not be so indispensable to the development of culture, and may even be detrimental and destructive, oy vey. Harvard’s strategy is to either present ancient warriors as demon worshippers — they must have sacrificed to Moloch, and so should we, or else the sun won’t shine ever again — or to deny and denigrate their cultural achievements, since only demon worshippers can pull stuff off.

            What bothers them is civilization not centered on Moloch worship, civilization advanced by white male warriors rather than by a demon worshipping priesthood standing atop vast and towering mountains of skulls of children sacrificed to Moloch. Harvard wants the collapse of civilizations to be blamed on unruly white male warriors misbehaving, rather than on Moloch worship and demonic contamination. They do not principally object to a glorious demon infested Atlantis, and might gladly entertain the notion; they object to a seafaring warrior empire Atlantis acting independently from Moloch priests, and especially if the late adoption of institutionalized demon worship might prove to be one of the causes of the collapse of civilization, rather than the reason for its success and flourishing.

            It matters a whole lot what caused the Bronze Age collapse, evil uncivilized Aryan militias or civilized beautiful progressive Moloch worshippers who are in fact decent human beings. They want the blame for the collapse to fall on the former, and the credit for building civilization in the first place to belong exclusively to the latter, rather than vice versa.

      • Aidan says:

        I think the hysterical defense of the narrative regarding ancient civilizations is twofold. One, they want to deny that civilizations decline and fall. That comes close enough to wrongthink that it’s painful for them. Two, they want to deny militarism. The myth of an egalitarian past has become interwoven with their intellectual legitimacy.

        I am not fully on board with your estimation of a younger dryas culture that had no metal or pottery but colonized huge swaths of the world. The artistic motifs on Gobekli Tepe’s stones look like they concern hunter-gatherers. Lots of wild animals, and men with animal heads, etc. Yet it was permanently occupied and people were engaged with agriculture there. I suspect that in the earliest settled societies, a slave-class of agriculturalists was protected by an upper class of hunter-gatherers, or a confederation of hunter-gatherer tribes. Gobekli Tepe looks like it was first a small temple or altar, that many nomadic tribes considered sacred, or used as a meeting-place to resolve disputes without war, that acquired a permanent residence by priests, and a caste of farmers to feed those priests, and became a city in nearly the same way that Greek cities became cities.

        That it was intentionally buried suggests that it was conquered by somebody who thought it was really evil, the home of bad gods.

        • someDude says:

          If they want to deny that civilizations decline and fall, then it means they are terrified that they themselves have been declining for a while and are now precipitously near a fall. The world of archaeology is littered with fallen civilizations that reached great heights.

        • skippy says:

          “I think the hysterical defense of the narrative regarding ancient civilizations is twofold. One, they want to deny that civilizations decline and fall.”

          I agree with that. Their view of evolution is one of steady, continual improvement, perhaps with temporary set-backs. The Spenglerian view, on the other hand, is of sudden appearance, gradual decay, and then disappearance of types, with improvement over time requiring a succession of increasingly superior types. This is a much deeper objection than any other, but they cannot even spell out that this is something they object to, because even describing the alternative position gives too much away.

          • jim says:

            Ah this makes sense. They really do not like that history shows civilisation is fragile, and even less do they like that technology can be lost.

          • Aidan says:

            They still believe that history is continual improvement, with setbacks caused by either climate disasters or evil reactionary forces. They do not like the fact that technology and engineering had been stagnant in Rome for centuries before its conquest and fall either. Rome had an Industrial Revolution, had manufacture on a massive scale, but never took the next step towards *energy use* despite all of the pieces being in place, having industrial coal mining and knowing about the ability of heated water vapor to provide force and motion under pressure. Spengler is of course vindicated.

            The current narrative is that evil backwards christians killed the progress of science and technology in Rome, and whites had to be re-taught civilization by the enlightened Muslims who had inherited Rome and Greece, whereupon they went abroad and stole the secrets of science and technology from Shaniqua.

          • skippy says:

            One can also see this battle in the academy, where the Spenglerian theory of evolution has essentially been admitted as correct, but is not what is taught to school children, and the people who advance it today as if it were a new discovery (decades after its original advocates) are forced to make all sorts of aesthetic concessions to the ‘continual gradual improvement’ theory.


        • TheDividualist says:

          But isn’t the decline and fall of Rome one of the best known stories? But you do have a point: they like to present collapse as mere change, living on but differently.

          As for militarism, if you mean the myth of the peaceful egalitarian, hunter-gatherer, this has always been accepted that it ended with agriculture, settled farmers had hierarchy and war?

        • Alfred says:

          But if the abode of bad gods, why not utterly destroy it as the Sea Peoples did so many evil cities during the Bronze Age collapse? Burning and trampling seems much easier than filling with stones and earth. The latter seems more like what you’d do to a time capsule.

      • someDude says:

        The narrative now seems to be that Gobekli Tepe is not a city, it is a 22 acre religious or ceremonial site. Why someone would build such a large religious site is not answered or sounds nonsensical or makes wild assertions

        They are making their stand on not finding residential areas and not finding roads in their denial that it is a city. But they admit to finding pathways but insist those were ceremonial too. So essentially, they are holding on to not finding anything that adheres to their definition of residential structures

        • Aidan says:

          Coulanges tells us how a small religious site grows into a big city, and archaeology of Ancient Greece confirms his account. You start with a sacred place where nomadic or semi nomadic tribes can get together and have a big feast and solve their problems without violence. Over the generations, you appoint priests for the site, farmers hang around to feed them, you need some warriors hanging around to protect the farmers, so the clans rotate in watching the site, and eventually the elite start spending more and more time hanging out around the temple; clan leaders cohere into an urban aristocracy, delegating watching over the flocks to more distant relations, and the center of political gravity shifts to the growing city.

          Gobekli tepe looks like it was on its way to becoming a city-state when somebody conquered it and buried it under a mountain of dirt.

          • jim says:

            Burying it seems strangely laborious. Why not smash it up? Burial seems respectful. Maybe a place sacred to gods they did not want around any more, but did not want to piss off either.

            Maybe the latter day priests told them gods built this place. They looked at it, figured men could not have built such a place, did not like the priests or their gods, but the gods looked mighty due to their might works, so they respectfully buried it, putting the priests out of business.

            • Aidan says:

              Indeed. Ancient man did not like pissing off the dead, even if they were enemies. Burying the temple seems to say “you old gods, your time is over, live under the earth with the rest of the dead”.

              The burial at Toumba in Lefkandi seems to be of a similar nature. A king whose line had ended was buried in the floor of his longhouse with all of his treasure and his horses, and potentially his wife, and then his house, which was extremely impressive for the Iron Age, was laboriously buried in its entirety under a huge mound of dirt. When something’s time was over in ancient times, men liked to bury it respectfully, or fearfully, and this seems to be an impulse that cut across cultures and races.

              • jim says:

                Obviously Göbekli Tepe was a center of government. Governments are apt to become burdensome. It takes a larger population than hunter gatherers can concentrate to bury a twenty two acre city. Maybe the farmers decided they did not need a city. Maybe they got in a King who promised much cheaper government. But, since priestly government, destroying it disrespectfully would be troubling.

                And then the farmers found they did need a government and a state faith to secure property rights and orderly succession of Kingship, and farming stopped being viable.

        • jim says:

          A twenty two acre religious site would seem to require a quite remarkably large congregation.

          It is true the first cities arose around temples. When you want order over a large population, need a synthetic tribe, a faith. So probably the government was priestly, and into big impressive religious symbols. But a twenty two acre temple? Compare with the pantheon, Westminster Cathedral, etc. Compare with Putin’s Great Cathedral.

      • TheDividualist says:


        Perhaps the classic Thomas Kuhn type of problem? If you want to prove the leading experts wrong, they will see it as a status challenge, simply because of that fact. They wrote a zillion papers on when agriculture began, and proving them wrong in any direction is a status challenge. The difference it makes is that it proves their papers wrong, that’s it.

        Perhaps, we don’t have those big generalists in the past, who knew a thousand things and if one of those was proven wrong, there was still 999. Perhaps they are one-trick ponies, highly specialized in a narrow field, perhaps those who research the beginning of agriculture don’t know anything about anything else, prove them wrong on that and they have nothing left…

      • Epimetheus says:

        What we call progressives are really people who are attempting to build a global sex/death cult concentration camp, whether they realize that consciously or not. Perhaps they don’t like any suggestion of vast ancient possibilities on the Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft line because that sort of thinking is actually extremely powerful – dangerously powerful.

        They don’t want their would-be concentration camp inmates looking up at the stars or back into the age of legends with wonder in their eyes. That sort of thinking is dangerously adjacent to hope, and thence to rebellion, even if it’s just the spiritual rebellion of the soul against their master, the Father of Lies.

        We are meant to be stewing in the same old tiny little box of guilt & shame about slavery, the holocaust, colonization, and all the rest of the increasingly low IQ psychological warfare intended to keep the white man (and everybody else) down. History has been rewritten by these people as non-stop demoralization campaign, with constant shitting all over everyone’s ancestors. We all know what it’s like to be “reminded” our ancestors were slaveowners; can you imagine being “reminded” that your ancestors were all buckbroken slaves?

        In other words, they’ve spent decades trying to prevent history from inspiring the soul and enlargening the spirit. Megalith builders, Göbekli Tepe, Atlantis, Forerunner Egyptians… these things inspire childlike lighthearted wonder where they wanted infinite guilt, shame, and despair.

        • Hesiod says:

          Tolkien, in his essay “On Fairy Stories”, rightly dismisses the accusation of escapism as applied to fantasy literature as being the talk of jailors.

          Jim’s musings fire my imagination and I fear indulging too much in fanciful speculation, but there’s still part of me yearning for answers about the ancients. Those who would keep us in the dark are wicked, indeed. They aspire to dwell on Olympus but draw ever closer to Tartarus.

          • jim says:

            Repeating: It is completely obvious that an extremely ancient people, vastly older than the dynastic Egypt that built the pyramids, could cut enormous stones with sub millimetre precision (though it was cheaper for them to cut them with a few centimetre precision) and move enormous stones big distances. The underlying principles of megalithic architecture reveal what was costly and what was less costly. And it was less costly to cut and place a small number of enormous stones than a large number of smaller stones. Precision facing the stones for aesthetic, rather than structural, reasons, was something they sometimes skipped. They would sometimes build with the faces on the outside rough, and the faces between stones, and the faces on the inner (more aesthetically important) surface, cut with sub millimetre precision. They could cross oceans better than any people until the fourteenth century. They could also move bulk material over land better than people could until the second millennium of our lord, as indicated by their choices. Their stone cutting and stone assembly technology was better than ours, their ship technology was comparable to fifteenth century of our Lord, but there is absolutely no indication of a whole lot of other technologies, such as writing, pottery or metal refining.

            And official consensus science does not want to know.

  14. alf says:

    Just so I get the facts right. What you say is:

    Before the Egyptian pharaoh civilization built the pyramid of Giza in ~3000 BC, there were other (possibly related?) Egyptian civilisatons that built large stone structures. You hypothesize that those same people build Göbekli Tepe in ~11.000 BC in their later years, and because a city cannot sustain itself by hunting and gathering, that there have been very ancient agriculturally based civilisations that in certain ways were pretty technologically advanced. But, because of envy, when they fell, they were destroyed.

    So the supposed 10,000 years agricultural revolution might have been an example of us reinventing the wheel.

    • jim says:

      To have agriculture, need order. The farmer will not plant, if he thinks that a gang will drop in and harvest. Order is fragile, and our ability to maintain it has not substantially improved.

      • alf says:

        The fragility of it all is astounding. Even with Christianity as social technology, Christian England from 878 AD to 1832 AD has not even outlasted the Roman Gods.

        • FrankNorman says:

          Ancient Rome diluted it’s culture when it became an Empire, int the long run fatally.

          Christian England in the Middle Ages suffered the Norman Invasion.

          • alf says:

            Christian England in the Middle Ages suffered the Norman Invasion.

            It is my impression, and do correct if wrong, that the Norman conquest in terms of long term effects almost played out like an internal dispute. More like the war of the roses than the rule by Danes, so to say. I of course attribute this to both sides of the channel being Christian.

            • Aidan says:

              The Norman invasion is politically contentious even today. My simplified take on it is that the Normans took over and began treating the karl class of armed freemen as serfs after exiling the nobility. The Karls said “no, we’re a military class, not thralls” and proved it to the Normans through resistance and rebellion. Eventually, England’s new ruling class compromised on the rights of armed freemen, which is evident from the office of Yeoman and the continuity of local Saxon institutions such as the Sheriff. And England enjoyed the military advantage of having an armed and trained caste of commoner infantry for centuries as a result.

              This compromise made everybody happy, and produced good things, so anybody trying to relitigate it today is stirring up trouble.

              • The Cominator says:

                This is kind of my impression as well with the compromise occurring roughly around the time of the Magna Carta (even if the Magna Carta was technically about restricting the king from absolute power over taxation, legislation and condemning people without a trial).

    • Alfred says:

      I was under the impression he counted the Giza pyramid as one of these structures. If I remember correctly, it has no inscriptions within and has oddly precise rock cutting evident in its stones. But maybe I am mixing up my pyramids.

      Tangentially, I read a probably wrong but interesting article that identified the biblical Job with Cheops (Khufu’s name rendered in Greek by Herodotus) as the builder of this pyramid. It was somewhat more plausible than you’d think. The pyramid being a monument he built to the One God during his rule over Egypt, which explains why it is totally bereft of reference to Egyptian polytheism. There are also some folklore/legends that characterize him as a king of Egypt, which originate in the century before or after Christ.

  15. skippy says:

    This is a story I have witnessed, without safety implications, first hand. Scientists simply forgot what their field of study has actually discovered, instead simplifying it into a bunch of inaccurate hagiographies of ‘famous scientists’. I don’t think this is ideological. It is just human nature. As science has expanded, it has filled up with normies. Many of these people are white, men, etc., many even have high IQs, but they are social mimic apes, not ‘autistic’ reality-seekers. Science is more about psychological outlook than IQ, although IQ can limit the level of sophistication of a hypothesis.

  16. Alistair Hermann says:

    In similar ‘thoughtcrime adjacent’ manner there is some evidence that many megaliths which are nominally cut with immense precision and places together, were rather, with immense but distinct precision, cast in place using technology analogous to modern geopolymer.

    In terms of open thoughtcrime: people develop over the course of their life through distinct, distinguishable strata of capacity for dealing with complexity. People do this at extraordinarily different rates. Higher strata implicitly provides capacity for a man to lead another man, by providing them with the capacity to give context to those beneath them, in language structures that those without their strata cannot match. While intellect grows to adulthood and then stagnates, strata continues to develop for those so blessed throughout their life. Women do not naturally inter work in the same manner.

    • jim says:

      I am suspicious of the geopolymer story, because very plainly most of the megalithic stones were cut from the rock, and because a lot of very very old megalithic structures have been repaired with modern concrete to prevent them from falling on the tourists. If geopolymer, it would be provably different from any natural stone in the vicinity, and I am not seeing any such proof.

      Also, if geopolymer, going to need forms to give it shape. Which forms would leave gaps between the blocks. Why form it into a bunch of perfectly fitted blocks? Instead you would just keep adding more geopolymer, until you wound up with the whole building as one continuous piece of stone, which is how moderns and the Romans use geopolymer. It is a lot easy to do it that way, and you wind up with a stronger structure.

      If the ancients had concrete or some other geopolymer, would not have built the way they built. They cut big stones, and the cut grip points into those stones for a ridiculously large and strong crane to pick them up, and then perfectly fitted them together. If concrete or some analogous geopolymer, why the grip points and why the seams between blocks? If perfectly fitting seams, cannot be geopolymer.

      I am also suspicious of the geopolymer story because I see a lot poisoning the well shill activity around megalithic civilisation. Some elements of the regime are acting as if the existence of an ancient megalithic builder civilisation is some kind of threat, though I cannot see any sane reason why it could possibly be a threat. Perhaps it is just that peer review sees it as a potential threat to official science.

    • jim says:

      As soon as you said “geopolymer”, the shills showed up with ancient aliens, black Egypt, and the rest, and suggested that I am prejudiced against geopolymer because prejudiced against aliens, black Egypt and the rest.

      • FrankNorman says:

        Funny how that happens – just mention a topic, or even just use a specific term, and suddenly they just show up.

        It tells us that what gets posted here is being watched, perhaps by an AI, perhaps by people.

        Testing: World Trade Center real events? Can jet fuel melt geopolymer? Oh and something about the Holodomor.

        • jim says:

          Mentioning the Holodomor is shill repellent. And the World Trade Center shills have not been around for a while, though this might cause them to pop up again.

      • FrankNorman says:

        What system does all the monitoring for keywords, I wonder.

Leave a Reply