Updated: Apr 19
I don't think truth is dead, nor do I think it has always been a fiction. I think an objective reality is firmly there, with its foundational systemic axioms of moral and decent behaviour. Just because the entire power-group that composes the governance of this planet is comprised of pathological liars, and just because these days a frankly huge number of our citizens appear to be thoroughly ill mentally, or otherwise totally psychopathic and criminal, and just because all these individuals are, to some degree, supported, shaped, and validated by that original, intrinsically corrupt power group, does not mean than there are not also sensible people, and good people. I would be loathe to throw them out with the bathwater, so to speak. Rather than retreating from truth as a concept altogether, I tend to recognise that the number of humans on the planet still able to recognise it is fiercely diminished. To level the playing field into an equal mass of wrongness seems to remove the idea that some things can be worse than others, and prevent investigation into who has made it this way. The opposite is akin to shooting down a room full of people then legalizing murder so 'no one is guilty', or stealing £1,000,000 from a pensioner's house you broke into and claiming we all all to blame for this, one as much as another, because your next door neighbour's toddlers once stole a couple of gummy bears from the local corner shop.
A. If one group contains 500 good people, and 3 lying murderers, those murderers have certainly tarnished the group.
B. If another group contains 200 good people, and 20 lying murderers, the same conditions as above apply internally.
However, in comparison, one whole group of people appears slightly better off.
If group B, however, has a monopoly of control over group A, they are not going to draw attention to their 20 murderers, as much as big up their 200 good people whilst focusing exclusively on the 3 lying murderers of group A. They may even start to skew the data. I would think a reason for this decision would be their higher initial number of lying murderers in the first place, as well as the monopoly of control in place that will let them get away with this. Ironically, they might even possess this monopoly in the first place on account of being more equipped with lying murders, much as psychopaths naturally succeed in the world of big business, and thus rise to the top.
I have always been rather loathe to dismiss objectivity. I've never understood why someone will read one book claiming to be facts, and accept it all, and then totally dismiss another book claiming to be facts, without simply examining in impartial detail the proposed facts themselves, and the logic, science, and cohesion of them, rather than the power/control level of whoever owns the publishing company. Rather than completely dismiss the existence of facts at all, it seems my position to instead understand that a great machine of all-encompassing systemic lies is still a machine of lies. Lies being by definition untrue suggests the existence of truth, otherwise the concept lying also loses its meaning. In the face of this flux of existential counter-epistemological relativism, I feel compelled to cling to some form of Traditional absolutism. Thus, I would prefer to slowly chip away at that machine, with the aim of eventually shattering it.
With regard to left and right, you are correct. Intrinsically, some people are psychologically 'left' and some are psychologically 'right', to varying degrees along a mental spectrum. However, it is still worth mentioning that, regardless of conclusive moral correctness, the left still controls the entire debate in the Western world, as it controls the power structure, whereas the right is viciously stamped out and dismissed wherever it is found. To play devil's advocate to them, it is worth noting than anti-objective absolutism theories are historically leftist in origin, even if they are also adopted by the non-political sometimes, and thus the right, thought unpalatable under their framework, is not untrue in its statements, as, by them, there is no such thing as truth. To argue otherwise suggests a spark of objectivity on their parts, albeit one rooted in exclusivity. Meanwhile, the right argues that truth exists, and that the left is merely incorrect, or perhaps deliberately making it as difficult as possible. I often ask these types if they'd like to show me how they walk through walls. The wall appears to be quite thoroughly there, and so if they try they will bash their noses. They can, of course, claim the wall is not there to their hearts' content. Their noses still remain sore. They may repeat the process as many times as they like (and it would entertain me to watch that, admittedly).
In conclusion, my approach to all this could generally be described as "Uncovering the Ruins of Inconvenient Walls".
Much as we are all distinct individual units of soul cloaked in genetic material, some of that genetic material is more similar to some distinct units than it is to other distinct units. Thus I tend to group these similar distinct units together, for simplicity. Aside from genetics, they also seem to have cultural factors in common, arising from genetics in the first place. I feel myself somehow closer to them than other more distant individuals with greater genetic difference who are also of a more distant cultural perspective. This is akin to understanding that though I generally like people, I prefer my stepchildren to other people's young ones, and prefer Abby to other people's significant others, and prefer my parents to other people's parents. I suspect this is because of genetic similarities. That said, even some of those other people will be quite close on the scale. There will, at least, be others who are much further away on both counts. For the sake of obviousness, in this example, I would define this broad group of immediate family, incorporated family, and surrounding kin as my immediate priority. As a working model, they are generally defined as 'White' people i.e. Caucasoid genetic lines established across the UK, Europe, Russia, America, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. Black people, and others, are most certainly welcome to do the same with regard to prioritizing, as indeed they do.
It's just that the left these days won't let 'White' people do that. I suppose, to remove that hatefully vague term altogether, what I mean by 'left' is, basically, beyond political labelling, merely anti-White traitors. Communism isn't a very helpful ideology in the long run, but I certainly acknowledge than American Republicans, British Conservatives, and all fence-sitting centrists of 'xyz Party' are not much better. As usual though, I return to my initial thrust: for all their wrongdoing, the right has severely limited power. It is the left that controls the current world paradigm. Judging my by original essay's ["The Beat"] contents, I would judge that they are not doing a very good job of it.
As a White person I don't say this out of hate for others as much as for love for my own people. I think the core problem of the entire human struggle has always been coming to terms with the reality of race. The vicious drive to deny race exists, and simultaneously, the labour to enforce total equality worldwide does nothing to reduce the cold, hard fact that by the end of this century, at current rate, White people will deliberately go extinct.
Teaching people at school that every single person has won the competition so as to big them up and not hurt their feeling removes the entire purpose of the game. Someone wins and the rest lose. That person who won is, in whatever category is selected, objectively better at it than the other students. By definition, that is inequality. The idea is that the others see this advantage and try harder to catch up, whether this is possible or not. The false dogma that they've all won already can be no more than total utopian fantasy, and severely disadvantages the naturally bright and talented students, dragging them down to 'dur...' level. To go one step further and actively punish them for being bright, whilst constantly bolstering the thick people as top dogs does not seem a kind and moral strategy.
These days there are far more ignorant and inept students. They pretty much run the entire school. The bullying is out of control. I hold out a small hope that their deceit, cruelty, madness, and constant passing of the buck does not end the entire Western world. In the meantime, I also practice my own fierce words, walk softly, and carry a large twig.
Thank you for referring to my previous analysis as 'profound'. I read it back over, and felt it was merely acceptable, if rather verbose. Sometimes I seem to adopt the writing style of a 19th Century analytical philosopher when pondering these matters, replete with little logical analogies as examples. I decided it might need some further context though, to render it specific, as I was also rather vague. Back into the sewer we go.
I have often considered that the Post-WW2 world was the start of a completely new era, totally distinct from what had come before, perhaps on account of the doctrine of Postmodernism, sometimes referred to as post-truth, or indeed, with less accuracy, as post-reality. That, in combination with the swift rise of Globalism, otherwise known as a system for World Government and the dissolution of all historical boundaries, totally defines the dystopian world we find ourselves in today.
It is no hidden secret that I wish the Allies had not won that war. However, my dedicated interest in the idea of National Socialism rests more on the theory itself than any particular worship of Adolf Hitler or the complicated history of the NSDAP.
As someone of exhausting political enthusiasm, this fondness for what is, at root, a nationalistic development of German Idealist philosophy, arises out of the fact that secretly I think I am a Classical Liberal in terms of my underlying moral framework, or at least some type of small 'c' conservative. Consequently, I do not self-identify as an 'anti-Semite', which I have always assumed translates as 'someone with an irrational hatred of Jewish people'.
In similar fashion, my interest in historical revisionism, referred to by the media as 'Holocaust Denial', though also covering several other historical topics, did not arise out of an underlying desire to confirm and bolster any previous ingrained hatred. In short, I developed an interest in 20th Century war history some time before I developed my political directions.
Much as I don't think it's fair to irrationally hate anyone else, I think it is acceptable to develop a rational distrust based on one's knowledge and research. To be honest, I am still not entirely sure on every last detail of the matter, as this field of historical enquiry is absolutely vast, and there is a lot to work through. I don't readily recommend it to others, unless they are prepared to follow it through, as it was extremely disturbing for me at first to have my preconceptions utterly shattered, and my entire historical paradigm totally shifted. The more one looks into it, the more grotesque and huge the machine of lies seems to be, and it can beggar belief, straining incredulously to assimilate that any books on history written by the mainstream - and taught to generation after generation of schoolchildren, for at least 75 years - are malevolent propagandistic fantasies, without imploding in cognitive dissonance at the sheer scale to with Western people have been manipulated by their governments. I had always heard the phrase that "history is written by the victors" throughout my life, but it had never sunk it in fullness quite what that could actually imply.
As it stands, I don't deny the Holocaust. Jews were rounded up and placed in camps, having been thoroughly stripped of all power as former citizens. A good number of them died in those camps under appalling conditions.
What I am guilty of questioning is the numbers, having since found Red Cross reports of the time stating that the death figure is closer to between 271,300 and 500,000 Jewish internees. Of course, this is still a great many people, being 500,000 too many, but it was still a red flag for me, as I realised that even though I was relieved it was not 6,000,000, and thus more lives were saved, I also realized that I had been lied to.
My next logical question immediately afterwards was to wonder how many casualties on all sides that WW2 brought about. I discovered that the number was up to 18 million if one considered combatants, and up to 60 million if they included civilians also. There is still much debate over this, so I would recommend these figures as rough approximates. Much as one life is as worthy as another, and I did not wish to suggest that only Jews should have died, whilst everyone else was saved, I realised that I was, up until that point, completely unfamiliar with those two numbers, having never been taught them, or heard them in passing off others. I did realise that I was already familiar with the 6,000,000 number though (which made the paragraph of discovery above worse on my mind) having had it repeated to my often by others. I concluded from this observation that, somehow, it was considered more important than the other two figures, and thus more worthy of being taught. I wondered why that was, as I was not Jewish, and neither were my history teachers. I browsed a great many Jewish organizations, and noticed that they did not reference a full casualty list either. Eventually, it dawned on me, with considerable sadness, that they did not care about the other groups. Bizarrely, the descendants of the others groups nowadays did not seem to notice this, and there was a distinct lack of intellectual curiosity. Even if 6,000,000 were killed, they would remain 10% of the overall casualties. For them to actually be closer to less than 1% of the casualties, and yet claim exclusivity and privilege over the matter is disturbing. It strikes me as odd that there are so many survivors, given that we are told Germany had constructed "death camps", and not merely work camps, or transit camps. Red Cross census statistics taken pre-war and then post-war show a rise in the Jewish population.
After a few months of this I did some more research, changing tack into the cyanide-based delousing agent Zyklon B and typhus, and the structural and logistic integrity, both economically, medically, and in terms of food distribution, of Germany at the time the camps were active, to try and work out how poor conditions were for the internees, and how horrible it must have been. I was displeased to discover that as the Allies began to win the war, internal conditions in Germany deteriorated, and there was mass civilian starvation, disease and death in the cities, as British aircraft routinely conducted devastating bombing raids, and strafed supply convoys so as to cut off the spread of survival materials and impede the war effort. Winston Churchill's direct plan was targeted against civilians, in an effort to make the country give up quicker, in preparation for an unconditional surrender. At some point I no longer remember, I came across documents showing that the Royal Air Force had also strafed supply convoys to the camps, severely disadvantaging those stationed there. It was approximately then that I realised the issue of how complicated this topic is. Previously, it had always been taught to me in black and white, as good against evil.
I spent a while longer on this general theme, wondering about the behaviour of the Western powers, and their Russian allies. I can't really discuss that, as I am aware that you are not a fan of gore, sadism, or horror. Suffice to say, shortly after this point I snapped completely, as, more than just the occasional small lie, accidentally distorted by time and failing memories, I began to assimilate the nature and scale of what I define as nothing else than a cold, scheming, barbaric hypocrisy, driven by propagandistic jingoism and absolute hatred. At that point I was ashamed to be English. At that same point, my own conditioned hatred of WW2 Third Reich Germans faded completely.
Not too long after I meandered off into a more modern reading on the world, encountering the United Nations, and Israel, and the ADL. There has been so much more. I have read a good few hundred revisionist books, as well as many primary sources, and classified documents, and censored period literature, and surveyed a great many unpleasant photos. I reviewed history from the point of the English Civil War until at least 1970, in as much detail as I could afford to dedicate the time to.
I don't really know when I began to consider myself a National Socialist, but I imagine it was around the point that I began to study NSDAP documents, and philosophy tracts, initially in order to understand the German perspective also, and what drove them. It seemed to make some sense. I don't often mention it to people I know though, as I am aware of the concept of 'optics', and I do not suspect it is easily possible, if possible at all, to openly promote this position to others, and I cannot imagine many people would have the time, or even the open-mindedness to not react with knee-jerk horror and immediately form a judgement and switch off. That's terribly frustrating, really. Unfortunately, it is too late, and one must be realistic. Europeans have been brutally conditioned and depatterned, long term. I have even wondered before if there is an epigenetic factor, and this conditioning cannot be undone fundamentally, at least without re-breaking the ego, in a similar manner to the original brainwashing, and I do not think this action would be moral.
I've been quite vague in this. There is quite a lot more that I am aware of. I understand, I think, why the world is as it is these days. Still, part of me never understands how it was allowed to happen that way and how we could have been so stupid. Over 75 years later and every aspect of our society is totally wrecked. It all just gets worse and worse.
I still refuse to hate Jews. They certainly suffered. What I cannot refuse to do is to point out, as much as I can now, that they are not immaculate though, or totally stainless in the aftermath of this suffering. Antisemitism is now the worst crime on the planet in the eyes of the powerful, swiftly followed by Racism. Somewhere along the long march of time we, as non-Jews, have erred though, and been taken for a ride. More and more I notice that, to the Jewish race, antisemitism no longer means 'irrational hatred of them'. It now means 'disagreeing with them'.
If you point out to them that they have total power in society, they will call you a 'lying antisemite', and then destroy you utterly, as only those in total power could do. I often wonder now, as a side effect of both these interpretations, if the only 'antisemitism' definition that makes any sense of this topic is the one that defines it as 'truth'.
I will never reconcile myself with the belief, though I know there is some truth to it, that this many people of another race can conspire to lie about their experiences to this grand a scale, if they are even fully aware of them at all, and then craft every single last bit as a long-attempt to destroy their noble, and yet gullible enemies, even as those enemies think they are friends. I think once this may have been because I didn't think they'd be like that. Now it's more the case that I can't fathom how they could get away with it so easily.
I think most Western people are gullible. It just means kind and trusting at times, and welcoming of outsiders. Wanting to see the best in people, and cherishing fairness and honour, and the keeping of one's word. No part of me thinks they are our friends. I think that's the entire curse of Westerners being kind. In his own ruthlessly pragmatic and efficient manner, beyond the realms of comprehension for other Western nations at the time, I think Germany's Fuhrer had a certain rugged and yet exquisitely honed morality also. He had seen something coming, having known it before, and tried to warn us, in the only way he could, but we didn't listen, and couldn't understand, and so he carried on regardless in a different way despite us, and was annihilated, and by then it was all done and dusted, and much too late.
Of course, it's not solely Jewish people, as the Russian government, and the Chinese government, and the American government, and the British government, and the EU (and all the world government factions above that level) are all out to get us one way or another, as are a great many of the normal citizens who hang on their every word and directive, acting as unwitting accomplices through their ignorance, by always conforming and complying, and by acting as State informers against their neighbours, as well as by electing corrupt politicians, even before one considers the mentally ill Leftists who act directly to undermine their own long-term interests. just as they sabotage ours. I would suggest that there was some aspect of fundamental psychological instability to someone who was quite prepared to destroy their own people.
I'm just left wondering if this would have been the case regardless, or if it's simply that the entire system has been raised on the wrong history books, as have their parents, as have their grandparents, and as have their great-grandparents, for that matter. For all Hitler's faults, he did not set out to destroy his own citizens. He was too kind, at times.
I'll never understand anything probably. The world is too sad. We won the war, and thus ensured, whether by incompetence or cruelty, that everyone else ever born would lose.
I hope that rounds off my other essay point. I also hope I do not come across as bigoted. In a better would I would have liked to become a professional historian. In this one I would merely be sent immediately to jail.
The only way I can really describe the emotional torment of having one's foundational illusions shattered is through music. If you feel you'd be able to, I suggest listening to the musical tone of Blind Blood Yards in entirety, and then the entirety of Sleep Passage, the album I wrote immediately after it. In between my periods of study, I spent weeks unable to leave my bed, not just in catatonic depression, but also physically so tired than I could barely stay awake for more than 2-3 hours a day, all the while wrapped in agonizing existential pain. Reality had literally broken me. At some point the physical tiredness just dissipated, and I finally got out of bed. I knew there was no return at that point. The mask had slipped, and the emperor had no clothes.
I suppose that's generally why I don't like lies. It is my personal belief that Putin must tell his own people of what the Bolsheviks actually did, or they will never heal from the cruel compound shellshock of a century of imposed trauma, and instead become empathy-burnt psychopathic animals. I think the British government has a lot of apologising to do also. The US government, at the point in history, remains the most evil system on the planet and is probably too far gone and thus beyond redemption. I have no idea about modern Germans as I think they have lost all sense of self. I pity those lesser Jews who do not know the truth either as they too have been lied to by high-ranking Zionists, from the inception of that cursed movement, and most are now subverted to it. If it wasn't constantly drummed into them also, they might eventually get over it, and stop blaming the entire world. Since the end of 'the good war' there has been no forgiveness, and thus no recovery. Confronted with the truth, people of good soul recoil in pain, and then forgive themselves, and, with diamond clarity, recognise who their enemies are. Beyond a game of 'who has the best country', we much recognise, collectively, what real Europeans, in totality, did to each other also, having been forced into combat without ever really knowing why. It is sad, always, when brothers kill brothers.