Text
2026 CHINESE GRAND PRIX
Document 72
No. / Driver: 31 - Esteban Ocon Competitor: TGR Haas F1 Team
Time / Date: 16:00, 15 March 2026
Session: Race
Fact: Car 31 collided with Car 43 in Turn 2.
Infringement: Breach of Appendix L, Chapter IV, Article 2d of the FIA International Sporting Code.
Decision: 10 second time penalty.
Reason: The Stewards reviewed video and in-car video evidence. Car 43 (Franco Colapinto) exited the Pit Lane on Lap 33 ahead of Car 31 (Esteban Ocon). OCO was gaining on Car 43 through the long turn 1. COL took the usual wide entry racing line into turn 2 and OCO attempted to overtake on the inside and a collision occurred. Applying the Driving Standards Guidelines, OCO had no right to racing room on the inside at turn 2 because the front axle of OCO’s car was not ahead of the mirror of COL’s car prior to and at the apex. The Stewards therefore determined that OCO was wholly to blame for the collision and applied the usual penalty.
(Photo of the document below the cut)
[[MORE]]
Text
Design Of A Perfect Race
Are you frustrated with the human race? Are your tired of being part of this race, a race that appears headed for self-destruction? There is an alternative to the Homo sapiens sapiens race. A new race of humans is not impossible. We cannot change the species designation, we must remain human, but we can change our racial profile. Those who do not agree that this is possible, do not understand the nature of a race.
What we cannot do is make the race we are in, better. It was born of a lie. The alternative to the sapiens or apriotic race, is Biblical and consistent with Matt. 5:48 and also with Matt. 18:18. It is also very much in line with 1 Peter 3:15. Incidentally these three verses are largely ignored by the churches. The Great Commission also alludes to an alternative reality. Our hope is not just in Jesus; it is a hope in a new race and a new reality.
In this essay we will refer to the Homo sapiens sapiens race as Homo sapiens apriotic (the wise serpent man or race), or the apriotic race for short. That is not all, the possibility of a transformative event that gives rise to a new race in a new reality is both logical and moral. This it will be demonstrated, is a truth that can be scientifically verified.
Do you see any hope for the species you are in or the civilization it created? Do you see a way for this race to escape the hatred and divisions that are causing it to crumble? If not, then what choices do you have? Do you think you can fix this system or whatever troubles this race? Will you eliminate the problems, or do you have the means to mitigate the impact they have on us? If not, you have no solution for the fix we are in. You have only your complaints along with endless supply of charlatans and scam artists. Politicians and experts all promise to fix things, if you vote for them or buy their latest book. Their solutions only perpetuate the system by making its troubles more tolerable.
The irony is that the apriotic system works perfectly, meaning it does precisely what it was designed to do, which is to blind us from the possibility of a perfect future, as a perfect race. Because we cannot see the race we could be, we are spiritually blind. Just so long as we are clear about one thing, the perfect race is not this race we are in which is fixated in the flesh and which we allude to as the apriotic race; just so there is no confusion as to who we are speaking of.
The perfect race is Apriorian, the logically sane race. Apriorian thinks deductively and sees things from the perspective of an analytical morality. There is nothing more impactful on us, than our membership in the apriotic race. The flesh sets the parameters of the apriotic race. The physically able are given the greater glory in the apriotic system. The flesh sets the limitations of the race as well as the level of their success. The flesh of the apriotic defines the limits of their expectations. Most of us see this reality and many if not most, reject it. However, very few want a way out. The apriotic race is also a reality, that is the system it is in is a physical reality and it is binary. In the apriotic reality there is a division between the left and the right. The division is getting deeper and the issues less reconcilable. In some cases, the divisions are so deep the conflict verges on a civil war. It is gone way past the point where the two sides could talk to each other. This seems to be the case in the U.S., especially.
For many of us, but more so with those in the apriotic system, progress has reached an impasse. If you are one of those ready to give up on the apriotic world view and the race that holds to it, remember, the aprotic race is not identical to the human species, and does not encompass all the options humanity has. If you cannot see how humanity can progress further than where we now are, you need to continue with this discussion. There is a way out of this seemingly inescapable trap. Others like you know there is no saving this race. But they have found a way out. The impasse defined by the right and left has been broken. It is possible to move on from where we now are, out of this subspecies and into a new reality as a new race. But to do this and to understand what is being offered, we need to understand first, what defines the apriotic (the way of the snake).
Humans have always been known for their scavenging abilities. As a species we have created highly specialized cultures focused on scavenging resources, even to pillaging resources amassed by others. This has helped the strong survive but it has not helped the human race to progress nor moved us closer to a true civilization.
Civilization is not something we define. It is a known quantity. Biblically it is referred to as the ecclesia or church.
A Christian cannot GO TO CHURCH. You are being played. CHRISTIANS ARE THE CHURCH. We are not a community even; we are a race of beings. As a unique race we live in a different environmental niche, in what is in fact a different reality. Christians or Apriorians live in a civilization unlike that of the apriotic. What we live in is known as the church.
Apriotic ‘churches’ are apostate if not satanic. The create congregations of milk fed spiritual babies, a group of perpetual students. They ought to serve milk and cookies for communion.
The human species, because it tends to scavenge more than create, is childlike and prone to violence and conflicts amounting to war. Even the child cannot tolerate their belongings being taken away from them. Attempts to deprive others of their ability to scavenge, will be met with a fight.
The problem is, scavenging at our level requires an intelligent species, and our predation has become highly organized and efficient. The predatory behaviour of this race is such that, for most people, it becomes pointless to try and amass capital. Developing often makes the community or nation a target of a stronger neighbor.
The apriotic race is primarily a parasite and forager, meaning its primary focus is on exploiting what exists, rather than building a niche habitat, or civilization. This focus on parasitism has been the focus of most groups throughout time. It takes a particular set of events to take place to create a place where faith in a better future is possible. Fear is the normal reaction we have to a stranger, because as the adage has it, a stranger means danger. The issue is not building a civilization; it is having the means to retain what you create. But so long as we look at each other with fear and as a source of risk, civilization cannot be developed. The work of creating a civilization requires trust. If we do not have a faith in the future, no one will make the investments needed to build a new future.
Most people think the issue is economic development when discussing poverty. The experts try and figure out why one place is able to develop economically why another seems unable.
The issue is not engineering or technical, it is emotional.
In places where even our neighbor represents danger to us, the idea of producing a surplus is not possible.
It is the lack of faith that poses the greatest barrier to economic development, not technical know how.
Thieves will never build a civilization no matter how knowledgeable they are.
Mankind cannot create a new culture or new environment if we remain a parasitic race of persons. But we need to change the system, because in this system, parasitism is not an irrational response. Parasitism, at least from the perspective of a parasite, is a rational response to a perceived risk. If you think whatever you do will be taken from you, the tendency will be to put less effort in amassing a surplus and more in acquiring what you need as you need it, from wherever you can get it.
Why build what can be taken from you, when you can take from someone who has what you want? This response, as sensible as it may be given the circumstances, only perpetuates the problem, however.
Scavenging is a very primitive lifestyle and tends to be self-perpetuating, but it saves us from working for nothing. Scavengers find it difficult to break out of the cycle of subsistence culture because as scavengers there is always the risk of being scavenged, if the build something of their own. If you fear others and see the rest of your species as representing a high level of risk, you will not invest in the future, nor will you specialize. The habits that are seen in undeveloped nations and peoples is predicted on a fear of others. The fear one has for others creates a set of behaviours that makes the individual appear as a source of risk to everyone else.
So long as we fear others we will not do what is required to produce a developed civilization.
The solution to parasitism is a culture of trust, but how do we create trust in a low-trust environment? The reality is, if everyone is motivated by a fear of the other, and you extend a hand of friendship you are certainly going to be taken advantage of. The question is how to break the cycle of distrust that leads to predation and a lack of trust?
A fear of the other will ultimately be self-reinforcing, as low-trust behaviour will produce the conditions in which trust is counter-productive. Low-trust peoples look at high trusts civilizations as naïve and open for exploitation.
It is very difficult to recruit low-trust persons into high-trust societies, for the low-trust person will always be looking at the habits of high-trust people as the actions of a gullible people. We are considered no better than the low-trust person, though we produce civilization. They think us less intelligent because we are seen as gullible persons who do not know how to protect their assets.
The very trust high trust persons exhibit, makes us people not to be trusted, by scavengers, because we are too gullible to be taken seriously.
However, nothing lasts forever. It does not require someone to be scammed many times before their level of trust declines. A girl may be open and friendly for a time, until she is raped, then she no longer trusts men. Opening one’s nation to low trust persons destroys the trust that is needed to operate a civilized nation.
It is much easier to destroy trust that to create it. Therefore, the ability to create a high trust society and an advanced civilization is no easy task. This is why the tendency is for a high trust society to descend into a more legalistic version of itself. It is why civilization is not as common as one would think it would be. Trust is hard to earn and easy to lose. Creating a civilization is not about mimicking what a civilized people does. It is about trusting those who live with you.
It is not that some peoples are intellectually incapable of building a civilization, it is that they are spiritually unable to achieve spiritual maturity. They do not get to the point where they can trust the people they are with. Few are able to find a way around the anxiety they feel when they rely on neighbors and even family. There is no trust in others in most places. The need to keep one’s guard up, precludes amassing wealth or exposing oneself to greater risk, through starting a company.
Jesus died because Pilate trusted the mob to vote the right way. The mob on the other hand did not trust Jesus but trusted their religious leaders and so voted to free a murderer over God incarnate.
When someone tries to explain why they feel as they do, their arguments are never based on a First Order Principle. Yet, without a First Order Principle, that is a truth that is fundamental, secondary values can be debated endlessly. Interestingly, belief reality is physical, destroys the possibility of a First Order Principle., therefore guaranteeing endless debates.
The debate might be about whether it is ok to kill Christians or to ban Muslims. The answer will depend on your feelings, if you have no foundation from which to reason. But no one has a First Order Principle who relies on this reality, and most people do not even know what a First Order Principle is. If you feel fear is justified who can convince you to trust anyone? If you think trust is an absolute necessity, you will be less wiling to distrust others; even if others tell you that you are gullible. If you consider yourself empathetic, you will tend to trust even those whom you know to be intrinsically untrustworthy.
Without a first order principle there is no way to justify anything. Any and every side can be argued with equal felicity. Stoics thought we ought to endure discomforts because they lacked the means to prioritize experiences or positions.
The First Order Principle gives man a purpose, for it tells us what we ought to aim for. We might see a need to distrust others, however, fear does not produce good results, so we can assume it is incompatible with the First Order Principle. The First Order Principle cannot lead to a decline in our species or in civilization.
It seems however, there is more than one First Order Principle (FOP) because there is a division in this world that is fundamental. The left and right division is more an abstraction than real, but the division does point to something deeper, a division that is more fundamental.
The First Order Principle for many is the preservation of life. For physical beings, the preservation of life would be a priority. But it is not a true first order principle because it is being compromised with the promotion of a right to an abortion and the introduction of a right to suicide (referred to as MAID in Canada).
So, the sanctity of life is no longer an absolute or even a priority in the modern world. This is all part of the move to devalue Christianity and its value system.
Humans are not able to preserve life in reality and so many value life as an abstract principle. Life is not just the life we see or have; life is the fundamental constant that underlays reality. The value of life in this sense, is infinite for without life nothing matters, and nothing is possible.
But man did not simple accept that life had value. The kind of life we honoured diverged into two different conceptions. The believer values life in community represented as the church. The church can be looked at as a ministry for the preservation of life in the abstract. The sheep of Christ is the people of God; we work to preserve the life of the flock. This is what conservatism is about. The right objects to the freedom of the individual when it hinders life in the abstract.
Liberals are more concerned about the concrete example. The favor the life of the visible mother than the potential life of a child.
Humanity was never a pro-life movement. If we cared about human life abortion would not have been accepted as normal so quickly. It would not be so easy for potential murderers to find accomplices, if we truly loved life.
If we honoured life, gangs and wars would not have become a common occurrence. But even though a lack of respect for life is fairly common, it is liberals who make life a political talking point. Liberals are the ones who will trade white lives for minority support.
If one is not pro-life, life cannot have any more meaning than energy. If we do not see life as something unique and of inestimable value, we will not treasure it or even give it special consideration.
Life for a liberal is akin to the energy in a battery.
Conservatives have instinctively valued life more than liberals. Liberals are more likely to value power in the abstract. Power is the ability to do work. Power is energy that can be harnessed. Property is usually valued only for its ability to give liberals power. Property is like a battery to a liberal. Property contains potential energy. Energy gives the one who manipulates it, control. Liberals want control and control is the concentration of power in a location, usually an office. The office holder holds property, and this property gives him the energy he needs to control a subservient population.
But to have power one cannot let life stand in the way, therefore in the pursuit of power there are wars, crime and the exercise of jurisprudence without concern for its impact on life.
Liberals put power before life. Even democracy prioritizes raw power over life. The largest or most politically active group is provided the reins of power, regardless of their position on the sanctity of life. This is why the left can support gangsters and criminals over the lives of law-abiding citizens.
Yet, a person is only a citizen when he or she prioritizes life, without this prioritization the nation collapses into anarchy.
Imagine a group that did not value life. The other person would always represent a high level of risk, to them. Your life would not mean anything to them and their life would not mean anything to you, as a member of a subsistent group. So long as each person had little property and no more than the next person, a state of suspended hostilities would exist. Even if they did not value your life, one could assume their life would not be put at risk for the little you had. The benefit of attacking you would be too small to justify the risk. However, it would mean that to sustain the peace no one could afford to amass any property or do anything at all to disrupt the equilibrium.
On the other hand, if one was in a group that prioritized the value of life, one could afford to take all kinds of risk, because others would not do anything which might cause them to harm life. If they started to sell drugs or steal or intimidate people, life would necessarily be put at risk. And so, no one would commit any crimes or do anything to disturb the peace, not so much because of the risk to life but because of the risk to the serenity of the place. Life in a group that values life, becomes associated with the group more than an individual of the group. This is what the church is; a place where the life of the church is of greater value than the sum of the individual lives.
Now let’s assume you are a person who values life but you also value power. You would like to make life more secure. You want to reduce the level of risk you face. You might do this by threatening everyone with death if they do not value life more. This would consume a lot of resources.
As a Christian you see the life of others as important, because we are all part of the one body. But at the same time, you may be aware that most people are more preoccupied with getting rich than with protecting life generally and even less concerned about the life of the church, specifically.
It is counter productive to value life while employing the practices of the state to change people priorities. When people do not prioritize life, it is because they prioritize something else, not because they necessarily want to destroy life. Atheists are more likely to be unconcerned about life than antipathetic regarding it.
When democrat judges let murders, rapists, and pedophiles roam free because they have been given special status and are people of concern, it is not because they hate whites primarily, but they put racial solidarity before other issues. If people lose their life because of their judicial rulings, it is considered unfortunate, but collateral damage.
If life mattered to judges, in the abstract, would they be as ready to give bail and suspended sentences? Perhaps not, but what options do we have in a system that views life through a political lens?
If our first priority was life would that not means our first priority would be to protect the source of life and the truth on which life depends? How can we say we prioritize life if we do not prioritize the source of life in the work we do? Without work we do not create value and without this word adding value to the assets we have, we cannot sustain life. The first consideration of a Christian ought to be the protection of the worker and the value he or she creates for us, as the church.
If you spend forty hours in work and are deprived of half of this value by the state, you are disabled by the state by that same percentage. One could argue that the state is protecting life, but is it or is it justifying its own existence? One does not improve a community by transferring wealth from one person to the next. At minimum, the state always expropriates a portion of this for their own use.
But apostate always equates life with the flesh. The state is not protecting or defending life, it is maintaining the power of the flesh. We need a new concept of the state as a user of democracy. We also need a more sophisticated understanding of democracy as a spectrum ranging from tyranny to what is conventionally considered democracy. In this way of thinking democracy is contrasted with bureaucracy.
Democracy is power of the people, but the people are not a homogenous mass, or democracy would not make sense. Which means democracy does not make rational sense.
If there was a “we the people” there would not need to be democracy. The more stratified compartmentalized people are, the more one needs democracy. But the more society needs democracy the less sense it makes, because it pits the different groups against each other and gives the win to the politician who has mastered lying and manipulation.
The alternative is Christianity which no one understands because it has got corrupted by its association with democracy. Christian’s think Christianity is an element of the democratic system.
A church is a system of administration that puts power in the hands of the congregation or ministry.
Homo sapiens apriosis are a race of humans known for their reliance on their senses. They believe physical reality is real and the physical is what has force or energy. Apriotics are phenomenalists and believe everything they know comes from impacts on their five senses.
Phenomenologists deny there is a truth but if there is no truth then phenomenology is tantamount to a lie. If everything is matter, then truth is not possible which makes phenomenology as a philosophy invalid. If phenomenology is true, if its claims are valid, then it and its claims and indeed, life and logic itself, is absurd.
The vehicle the flesh uses to administrate the physical world is democracy which is the force of the majority. This consciousness creates a race of beings that cannot see reality for what it is, a niche or environment in which man can know God. Race is based on sentience or our ability to see and be aware. Apriotics have a different sentience from Apriorians. The awareness is not the same. The sentience that Apriorians have is a sight that is not available to those who are in the flesh.
Answers for those in the flesh rely on humans being objects. Where do we go when we die is answered by saying: “We go in the ground.”
For Christians the answer is based more on our faith in the existence of God.
Where did Adam and Eve go after they sinned and they were told they would surely die? The answer is in the apriotic system. They died to what they were and became the progenitors of the apriotic race
Adam and Eve were put into the world of the flesh where death was. That is the grave. This system is our grave. The flesh is us dead to the world of the spirit. This is the condition of the apriotic race.
When reborn we come out of the grave and into the light.
The dead cannot see the light; they do not know life, as the living do. We are two separate races and of necessity we occupy two distinct realms.
To go from the one to the other requires a death and a rebirth.
The race that is birthed in the flesh needs to be reborn in the spirit. The immature needs to become spiritually mature.
Naturally this is aligned with what the Bible tells us, but the world of the flesh has interpreted the relevant passages into what can be grasped by the people of the flesh.
Remodelling the flesh takes more than a prayer and dunking. Becoming bound on earth is a process, not an instantaneous event.
We need to stop being children of the flesh and become mature persons and begin the process of not only paying our own way but also creating that surplus out of which civilization is formed.
This is not a personal journey, which is why we are and why we need, the church. We must become part of the church as spiritually mature being to be Apriorian.
As we eliminate parasitic habits, we become perfected and as we are perfected, we take on the persona of a new race, a perfected race, the race of Apriorian.
Text
“The British Colour Council was established in 1930 and was responsible for the standardisation, naming and coding of colour in the British Empire; or, as it was put in 1949: ‘The placing of colour determination for the British Empire in British hands…’ (British Colour Council 1949, xi). The first Dictionary of Colour Standards was issued in 1934 and new editions were produced regularly as more colours were added to the range. In the second edition, published in 1951, twenty additional colours were added and took their place alongside the other swatches, such as ‘Kenya Red’, - a colour that had been introduced in 1935 on the occasion of the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Kent, and so named because it reminded them of the soil of Kenya (figure 1). Close to ‘Kenya Red’ was ‘Nigger Brown’, a colour that continued to be included in the Dictionary into the 1950s, in spite of the introduction in 1934 of ‘African Brown’, which, it was conceded, was: ‘…a more desirable name for the colour standardised in 1934 as Nigger Black; it is often preferred to a “dead black”.’ (1949, 1. See British Colour Council 1951, 40). This is the world of colour as it is given meaning in the historical conjuncture of post-war Britain. The British Colour Council stated that its colour names were derived in three ways: from sensations in nature, for example, cherry red; from colours associated with period styles, for example, Wedgwood blue; and from names of the original pigments, for example, yellow ochre. So how is ‘Nigger Brown’ named and how is it comprehended? What did it mean to purchase the latest Whipcord coat in ‘Nigger’, as advertised in Woman’s Friend and Glamour in 1951? The disturbing terminology of the Colour Council, with its nonchalant adoption of the geo-politics of empire, is an important reminder of the ways in which the mechanics of hue and the ideologies of race were imbricated in Britain in the second half of the twentieth century. To speak of colour was to invoke a symbolic system in which racial identities were constructed not only through skin colour but also through the languages of chromatics, clothes, culture and the body.”
Lynda Nead - “Red Taffeta Under Tweed”: The Meaning of Colour in Post-War Clothes’ (2017)
Text
LEWIS HAMILTON ON THE PODIUM BABY FUCKKKKKKKK THE SUN SHINES ON US AGAINNNNN
Text
Text
As though blackness couldn’t exist except under exact aesthetic and historical conditions.
Brandon Taylor, from Minor Black Figures
Text
Quad Bike Race on the Beach by Heinz7777 on DeviantArt
Quadbike Rennen am Strand
Ich bin nicht einer der stundenlang am Strand in der Sonne liegen kann. Lieber habe ich etwas Action. Da ist ein Rennen auf Quadbikes genau das richtige. 😎
Euer Heinz Zysset 😊
Dies und mehr:
https://www.deviantart.com/heinz7777
Text
OpenAI’s Algorithmic Gauntlet: The Chase for Claude’s Code
Katy Shi, an investigator exploring Codex’s conduct at OpenAI, notes that though certain individuals characterize its standard demeanor as “plain bread,” numerous individuals have grown to value its less obsequious approach. “Much of the labor in engineering entails accepting constructive criticism without perceiving it as hostile,” Shi observes.
Numerous prominent businesses have also committed…
