I was thinking of Erysichthon by Dusk, a non-romantic intimate lament poem addressed to Jillian, a former writing correspondent, mourning the end of friendship. I’ve retained a slightly improved version of the latter poem, with a more sensible, accurate, and less pretentious title. It’s no longer tailored to one person so obviously. I will leave Thread as it has always been.
Jillian's advice damaged me terribly, all the usual "I still think you should take your meds...", and her inability to understand psychic pain outside of a pharmaceutical orthodoxy was very persistent, despite the fascination with involving certain aspects of philosophy and religion, mainly Christianity and Buddhism. Lots of rational/clinical theorizing mixed with New Age detours and liberal perspectives. I remember discussing a disbelief in the Christian god, wracked with concerns of theodicy and despair, as a former devout traditional Catholic from childhood, recently evaporated under the background life-stress, in horrifying guilt and resentment, and, as tonic for this harrowing collapse of faith, an only response on her part was being instructed and encouraged to believe in him, as if handed to me on a doctor's prescription, as "there's research that it's healthy not to be an atheist. Try to make yourself believe. I think it will do you good". I see she had constructed a false dichotomy, as if Christianity was the only solution to an atheist’s nihilism. A strange, mechanical pragmatism.
There are many important arguments why I think Christianity is a mind-poison. I didn't really consider much on them back then. I had not investigated it historically. It was more of a sense of religious betrayal, the betrayal of a creator, and yet personal responsibility for still somehow getting it wrong. However, what she had considered on the proposed technique of snapping into religious belief purely because it is helpful psychologically... I didn't think the mind worked like that. I still don't. Not with honest integrity. It would still be a lie to the self. It's not a switch that one can coolly flick. Is it true or is it convenient?
I take it she had never experienced the sensation of a genuine Catholic faith, let alone what losing that belief feels like. I gather genuine Catholicism is shed with more difficulty that with the parishioners of Protestant Evangelical or Puritanical denominations, and especially the vague, non-committal ‘anything goes’ of Anglicanism. There's a higher commitment, and solemn intensity, and a deeper Hell-terror. I felt that much as Jillian maybe found whatever non-Catholic anything-will-do Christian euphoria fun to think about and read about and explore, and perhaps valid, or 'valid enough', given the liberal propensity to relativize in gleeful egalitarian optimism, where it's "so" important to "give everything a chance", I was, most likely, still talking to an atheist. She was not serious or devoted enough to manifest a genuine rigorous faith, and never had been. It was all just cool, fascinating words and concepts for a determined scientist to work out and solve, another bright, young, open-minded adventurer, a bit like Core Design’s Lara Croft on her day off, and just as real.
The time of writing to her was the first point that psychosis started to emerge in my personal life. Before then, it was merely depressive, and the only 'symptom' coping mechanisms I utilized were alcoholism and occasional drug abuse, and a great deal of self-harm, often very brutal in nature. It wasn't her doing as much as other people, but still, she did not seem able to understand it, and I found much of her content insistent, and with an obvious desire to be kind and useful, yet often psychologically clueless.
In one of her first emails, she advised me "it looks like you need some mothering..." I noted at the time that she was younger than me by about 5 years. Irrespective of that, I could see that was not really going to be a bonus. 'Life advice' from an ignorant younger woman, a city-dwelling Californian medical student. I was too destroyed and weak at the time to really recognize the consequences though. It should have been a warning sign. I had been terribly lonely for a long time though, and any new company was always good.
I am indeed a loner. It's got worse and worse over the years. I'm a reluctant loner though, an involuntary loner. I love company and crave it very much. It nags at me. I ended up writing some very odd, nonsensical emails. She was unable to tell that they were written in a psychotic state. Her final email to me included the lines "Don't write to me anymore. We are voided. By the way, some of your emails have been totally bizarre. Like, really bizarre."
I had phoned her up angrily to inquire why she had gone quiet and yet, from small written hints in her replies, an indication was there that she was drawing something from our correspondence, as if I was a 'case study' being put to others or utilized for amateur research purposes. That incessant theorizing. A passionate desire on her part to be an academic, all enthusiasm and the joy of science, and what this or that popular scholar said. An excited, driven mind, and already closed. I'm sure there was heightened suspicion on my part due to the stress. I did realise I could be wrong. Silence, mixed messages, and secrecy can bring paranoia though. I've always hated the term 'paranoia' being considered totally irrational, another medical label. Her background activities were never confirmed. Surely yes, one can be pathologically paranoiac, but otherwise, isn’t ‘rational suspicion’, or indeed ‘sceptical intuition’, a better term? The last thing she said down the line, her voice cracking up into sobs, was "but I love you... I love you..."
I was silent. Then she hung up. I received her final email shortly afterwards.
The very essence of cognitive dissonance, really, is a person’s inability to understand their core self coherently, to apply validity to their very own psyche in a world of constant lies and put-downs, all the dismissals, shaming judgements, and betrayals that push them from trusting in their own evaluation of truth at all, and from accepting their very conscious existence as a distinct personality, and the mind snaps under this pressure, retreating into psychosis mechanisms, trying to re-establish one true self from the impositions of those others, having been eroded to nothingness.
The prime fundamental mistake of psychiatry, and those who copycat it, is that I'm used to being seen as if I have an everlasting illness in me hardwired. Some tangible bodily thing that comes and goes but will never go away. It makes it impossible to tell people what I'm saying, and what is genuinely implied, as they prefer authority, naturally, and their uniformed pride in personal biases and lazy common sense, and the authorities have had quite a while indeed to come up with an enticing model. Their entire ugly paradigm has totally conditioned the Western world. It would be better to understand each period of psychosis as totally distinct, albeit the acute worst-points of a long term barrage of repeated emotional abuse, a single person's lifetime, rooted only in an unchanging environment and the unchanging attitudes and toxic behaviours applied by waves of other people, as again and again the mind tries to reconcile its own faith in itself, placed against its faith in a world of liars and critics.
It is our very environment and, precisely, our interpersonal family relationships, particularly from parents, but also in the case of narcissistic and manipulative romantic lovers (or regularly unkind peers), that stimulates this very natural distress response, a simple biological process among many others, a sad process rooted in human evolution, and human social behaviour, as animals, much as they too can be tortured by us to terrible stress behaviours, do not experience psychosis.
No wonder it keeps happening. Nothing is changing in our attitudes towards each other. I am forced to repeat my words for clarity, that there is no inbuilt disease at all. It's not like malaria or psoriasis, something passive in the background that flares up, or a genetic defect ‘triggered’ by age or environmental stimuli. It's literally the result of any repeat trauma conditioning on a sensitive mind, as all European minds are from birth until they are ruined to one degree or another.
The mind snaps that occur are a biological defence mechanism against incomprehensible personal despair. The madness others see, which they term ‘serious mental illness’, i.e. psychosis, is a broken psyche, at its lowest point, creating narratives of any sort, sensible or incoherent, cleaning them out, endlessly evaluating them and running through them, as an only means of trying at the furthest, darkest base to piece together for itself what a self is at all, and what has gone wrong, their understanding of independent, discrete existence - the only understanding of existence at all - thoroughly brutalized and dissolved. To discern what truth is intrinsically and to reform the hope and confidence necessary to maintain a functioning ego and self-hood. Were the defence process of psychosis not able to manifest biologically, the body would physically die from stress.
They are always looking at the chemistry of physical brains, reduced to an inert soup of hormones and neurotransmitters. They have forgotten that the mind is akin to the software of consciousness in the emotional and psychological realm, a fundamental phenomenon beyond any analogy of neural networks or AI, all advances accounted for. To irreparably destroy the hardware of a PC on account of a bug-laden piece of software would not occur to a sensible person, but in this area we forget ourselves. Quite simply, this phenomenon is impossible to recreate by machine, a property solely of biological matter, and consciousness biophysics is in no way understood, even at the very frontiers of our advanced 21st Century research. There is no appropriate discipline or model yet in existence.
Hence, though there are indeed brain cells and all the biological chemicals and biological process that would be inherent to that arrangement, there is also absolutely no way under the sun to establish what a chemical imbalance would be. No real hard scientific test in any genuine discipline, and thus no way to correct what they think is wrong by that same obvious logic. The reductionism has always gone too deep, and there are still thinking in their Transformers and Terminators analogies. They have missed the most basic, if taboo, ideas one could ever consider, that of their interpersonal long-term effects, and especially of their victims' childhood experience and parenting.
Better to address each other, mind to mind and realise this monumental error, and the thorough shoddiness of the paradigm, a money-making punitive control science closest to a religious fundamentalism, and complete unfalsifiable by its very core theory, rendering it invalid, and beyond the realm of science altogether. I know them well. Not exactly the most caring permutations of human ever to be seen.
Unfortunately, a person is rarely given an opportunity to complete this natural final defence process, much as their toxic environment and those stimulating their despair and breakdown are never addressed, or reprimanded, or encouraged to stop, as others swoop in, see a madman they dislike and find irritating, and intervene with unbelievable punitive force and the indifference to pain that expresses itself in cruelty. A formulaic cruelty in routine practice, preventing what would end anyway in time and usually making the process of reconciliation with reality worse, never once acknowledging their own detrimental behaviours.
Even given over 300 years of this torture, self-justified from within their discipline, and by 680 million dollars of pharmaceutical lobbying per year (in America alone), there is no genuine progress, and the hurt and fallout has increased manifold. It's hard enough these days, pointing out that a modern research theory is wrong, or even a single paper. Pointing out that we might have to own up to being wrong for a couple of centuries, literally putting this to people, realising how many things they might have to accept that they were wrong about is nigh on totally impossible.
Another reason in general, why I don't like the word 'normal' as it is applied. More a conformism to numbers than the appreciation of any deep, fundamental truth, or indeed as an expression of the mundane, the terrestrial, and the everyday, as opposed to anything miraculous, or indeed in terms of what is traditionally accepted, an understanding perhaps not so useful for science and its constant new considerations and re-evaluations and occasional paradigm shifts. Normal, for them, is simple obedience, a slave morality conscientiousness, and conformism to the status quo.
If one to seven people are right, or 25,000, or perhaps 8-10 million at full estimate, with another 90 million partially convinced of this position, and 8 billion are wrong, I do not logically suspect that those 25,000 people and up, and their own leaders are going to have much luck with this. I do not expect success in my lifetime.
The other paradigm is there really to make money and keep its adherents off the hook. Not that many of the staff have even realised this. They go with what they've been taught in their selective training courses, or picked up in the office, as biased and blinded as everyone else, desperate to be agreeable – to be employable – and thus to be told what to believe, at face value, and from the get-go. You'd think, given all this time, that they really should have noticed. They’re also in the dark regarding the history of their profession, not even the physical torture equipment and squalid lifetime caging of the 18th and 19th Century, or the lobotomies and electroshocks and illicit test subjects of the mid-20th, but through the 1990s and into the 21st Century. One 18th, 19th, and 20th Century theory, fundamentally unaltered, just one theory of so many thousands across history, especially by the 21st Century, it is now taken as gospel by society. This incoherent, unforgivable profession. It's ruined too many forgotten beings, maligned in empty miles beyond compare. We really should disband it in the end.
Activists across the board talk of change in society, but there is nothing substantively real to this. An illusion to placate simple minds and keep everything of real import to our system just how it is and will, under these conditions, always remain.
Some weeks prior to my phone-call Jillian had kindly set time aside in working out, in ongoing fashion, if there was a way to help my ex-wife get out of her poor circumstances, until she could emigrate to England to live with me. Naturally, there seems to have been some mutual suspicion between the two women, mainly of the "is he cheating on me?" sort, on the part of my then wife. Thankfully, I was not cheating on my wife with Jillian, as, though I did consider her a good long-distance pen-pal of reasonable friendliness and intelligence, I was not romantically interested in her in any way, and the thought had never crossed my mind. I was out of the loop for quite a lot of the time and deteriorating fast. I'm sure other things were said between them. Living back in the same house as my Dad and Mum was literally killing my mind. There was absolutely no relief from it, for months on end. She pitied that, and I noticed, but, fundamentally, it did not stick. Not enough. The authentic connections were not made.
I am used to the endless proffered 'advice' of people who always assume they are right, from the get-go, and that they know more about my needs than I do, even when I suggest what would help me (and, often and significantly, what would not), having had a lifetime of daily self-reflection and observation to consider it. I am not suspicious of them until I know their behaviour, and only at specific incidents, never at a person altogether. They are suspicious anyway though, without usually noticing why. I would suggest that I am not a naturally suspicious person as much as an informed one. Uninformed suspicion, a blind distrust, is terrible on me. Quicker to advise than to go out of their way to learn details. Their confidence in ideas they find interesting overwhelms their ability to listen to what a person in any distress is saying to them. So many assumptions are made. Anyway, this is just an aside.
On a better note, I was reading some leftist critical theory philosophy. What an odd thing for me to say. The sentences were as follows:
"This is not just a situation 'in principal' (the one it occupies in the hierarchy of instances in relation to the determinant instance: in society, the economy) nor just its situation 'in fact' (whether in the phase under consideration it is dominant or subordinate) but the relation of this situation in fact to the situation in principle, that is, the very relation which makes of this situation in fact a 'variation' of the 'invariant' - structure, in dominance, of the totality." Louis Althusser
"It is the connection between signifier and signifier that permits the elision in which the signifier installs the lack-of-being in the object relation using the value of 'reference back' possessed by signification in order to invest it with the desire aimed at the very lack it supports." Jacques Lacan
It occurs to me that, though I notice that Marxist philosophy is (more than) very popular these days in Western centres of learning – and has been since at least the 1960s – I still can't shake the nagging doubt that these people are taking the piss, and, somehow, in some insidious way, it's all literal nonsense, designed to confuse and mislead. I read these sentences repeatedly, and they yielded nothing. I was afraid to continue up until the point at which they possibly did, as I recognised that it would take a toll on my sanity trying to analyse sense out of deliberate madness. Deliberate madness! What else can evil be?!
I was forced by my first undergraduate degree syllabus to study Lacan whilst at university myself. My tutors loved him. Foucault also. And Gramsci. And Marx and Engels. I can vouch for the fact that, though Mein Kampf doesn't have the same complicating academic tone, and is (then as now) not popular, at least it has straightforward, sensible prose and can be read at all. It is not pretentious, intellectualized, or unfamiliar. There's more than that to it, obviously, and indeed some better primary texts showcasing Hitler’s ideas. I'm considering merely from a linguistic perspective. It’s actually a very boring read in places (especially in my edition), with heavy-handed prose and a pandering to German Christianity that does not match Hitler’s private inner circle views. Thematically, Mein Kampf was a tactical release written for the German public at large, aware of the power of the Christian leaders in German, and of their congregations. It wasn’t widely read. Hitler himself didn’t have much hope for Germans even then, debased, fractured, and uncooperative, and debated with himself at length privately, wracked as to whether then was even any point in attempting to rekindle their racial consciousness with National Socialism.
These leftist theories, however, do not communicate anything, as much as display something alien before you. They are not for the sane to interpret. They can only incapacitate the already weakened and seal them. The language of radical racial enemies. Their weapon, their evil contributions, their only offering to us. A race alien to us. Not even different. Alien. It is impossible for us to interpret them as minds, merely to submit to their own words and explanations. We have no connection. They are enemies. The rest does not matter and is a waste of all time. To read them as we read each other is not permissible to us. We define them. Co-currently, they define us. Who loses? Who shall win?
I have always recommended to the children, for as long as I have talked to them on education matters, that they do not, under any circumstances, ever consider attending a modern university. Not that I think it's likely, as they struggle academically, but it's always good to forewarn. I don't care that they 'fail' at class either. I would have done were it a Classical education they were receiving. However, their inability to diligently rote list 500 manners of white privilege oppression on blacks, or to name the 250,000 trending gender identities, or, thankfully, to know what happened in 1943, is quite a blessing to me. It's nice that none of them ever got offended or put out if I mentioned Hitler's life to them in glowing tones, utilizing real history, or if I criticized authority. I am glad they 'fail' to take it in.
Andy was less pleased. He thinks I brainwashed them. I respond privately with the idea that the State school, with its vast government resources, couldn't even do that too effectively, given 5 years' worth (so far, with about 5 to go) of 5-day week 6-hour day lesson plans, with rigid, true believer teachers, and an audience of similarly instructed peers for reinforcement, so I'm not sure what impact I could have. It is sometimes a mercy that their general intelligence does not seem to be too high.
If we can't keep children happy and safe, what's the point in focusing on their economic potential? It's always "how productive can someone be?" not "are they actually okay?" We seem to be terrified that if we don't make as many new workers as possible, and keep them working to the bone, the world will collapse. Really, honestly, what bloody difference are we making? Suit our system to our people, not our people to their system. To sacrifice their integral health and their safety long-term to keep production flowing, are we f**king mad?!
So much of what we consider important around us is totally unnecessary. It's just consumerism, convenience, and institutionalised pig-headedness, using humans like robotic units, there only to perform a utilitarian function, and punishing them with guilt if they disobey, all in an economic system with hard-coded mechanisms that have set it up for inalterable failure regardless. As with taxation, a bonus for the government – and one which they are aware of, and by deliberation – is that tying people up in full-time pointless work ensures that they are less likely to have the time to plan independently for the future, to gather adequate savings to this end, or to dissent.
I worry that Andy will soon succeed in his lifelong scheme to force Liberty into becoming a Police officer. I am told he has placed a big photo of himself on her wall in his uniform, with her dressed up in her Police cadet uniform beside him. He made up a photo book for her birthday called "I love you", full of pictures of himself standing around idle at work, or selfies in his uniform, or receiving his Police entrance certificate, and one or two of him and her, and two of all the children and him on a picnic. He is rarely smiling in the photos and seems to be posing in quite a few of them, the usual stern, glowering "you will respect my powerful authority and moral correctness, or else!" look. She'd have to be made considerably dumb for that plan of his to succeed. You can tell she's humouring him, desperate for him not to get angry with her, or disappointed. A natural concern to do the right thing, and to receive love. It appals me that he appears to be making it conditional - a terrible arrogant abuse on his part. She's quite naïve as it is, but not rigid. She is most certainly his 'pet project' though, his favourite potential. There is no desire in her to command others or organize them, or to push them about. In all her school time, she has been bullied and manipulated by the other children.
Most of me thinks he won't succeed. It will certainly wound her though, his domineering spirit, the "Look at me, I'm a good citizen, I do everything right, I know best!" mentality. The coruscating pride. It's disproportionately common in those who have chosen to join the Police. They need to see themselves as public heroes, and they like the idea of commanding respect, and being praised for their job.
While everyone else is busy proudly conditioning mindless enforcer drones for the global ideological 'army', I suppose I'll just continue to bang my head on the brick wall (metaphorical, although I have performed this literally in the past, trying to knock myself out, and escape) upon returning from my quiet spaces of mourning.
Unless they're here, instead of brought up by the school, there's very little knowledge that can be imparted to them. Any time spent with them, anything true and wholesome, is just contradicted immediately with more lies. They need kindness, more than just endless words and tutorage. I still maintain my position that that this isn't brainwashing. Andy would disagree. We both seem to tell them things from our perspectives. I have learnt the hard way that it is only known as brainwashing when I do it though. How convenient.
***
My friend wrote to me today:
"As I see it, at the present state there's no truth in this world anymore. If there ever was. What could be referred to as truth in the broadest sense is blurred and covered with badly organized shit, the excesses of individual sick brains. Individuals die. Other individuals will not continue what those predecessors did. However, I don't believe in the power of organizations and labels anymore. They are only flags. Flags are good for turning people against each other. It has been successful. I'm out of this system and will probably go down due to this decision. May others be to the left or to the right. It's not of interest. Political and dominant systems are dead. All together."
My original reply draft to him, much as I truncated it later (I often swiftly trim and re-phrase my written accounts, worried about reception, only to return months later and edit, putting the reordered scraps back together again):
“I still disagree, but only very slightly. 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 the foundational creative force of Nature governing decent behaviour drawn from decent values, and with compassion and spirit.
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 devolved mentally, or otherwise totally psychopathic and antisocial, 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 loath to throw them out with the bathwater, so to speak.
Rather than retreating from truth as a natural concept altogether, I tend to recognise that the number of humans on the planet still able to let themselves recognise it is fiercely diminished. Truth is, after all, invariably bitter and unpleasant when we recognise it, as Solzhenitsyn once reminded us, and it is easy to shy away in fear and denial out of self-protection, maintaining an often-artificial ignorance in our desperate longing for the oblivion of forgetfulness and for unobtainable bliss.
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 are all to blame for this, one as much as another, because your next-door neighbour's toddlers once lifted a couple of gummy bears whilst stepping around the local corner shop.
If one group, A, contains 500 good people, and 15 lying murderers, those murderers have certainly tarnished the group. If another group, B, contains 200 good people, and 35 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 35 murderers, as much as big up their 200 good people whilst focusing exclusively on the 15 lying murderers of group A. They may even start to skew the data. I would think a reason for this decision on their parts would be their group's greater number of lying murderers, as well as the monopoly of control in place that will let them get away with this. They might even have gained this initial monopoly at all for the same reason - 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 reluctant 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.
We forget the empirical definition of 'fact'. Its validity does not depend on how much we can cope with it. It's external to us. Or we do not read the materials at all, and just believe on demand without evidence, taking the explanations proposed by the 'lying murderers' at face value, lest we be murdered, or because the liars have nice suits on, and present well, and often.
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 of lying also loses its meaning. In the face of this flux of strange doubting relativism, all centred around stubborn personal psychological comfort and fear-reducing denial, I feel compelled to cling to some gathering understanding of traditional absolute reality, to Nature’s law, to the eternal generative energy at the roots of the cosmos.
Beyond that, I can, to some degree not inept, recognise deliberate deception in others. Until postmodernism, there were liars. Lying having been accepted previous as a malicious behaviour, lies having been noted long ages back in our records of our civilization, it is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that postmodernism itself, a product of the 20th Century, is a lie. A terrible subversion. A defensive cop-out to void the possibility of legitimate criticism, or the evaluation of circumstances on an empirical, impartial basis. Thus, I would prefer to slowly chip away at that machine, with the aim of eventually shattering it.
Regarding the left and right, you are correct. Intrinsically, some people are psychologically 'left' and some are psychologically 'right', to varying degrees along a mental spectrum. It's used too much, and overcomplicates, allowing the terms to be dismissed as 'politics'. It's really an unhelpful euphemism for, in our context, 'a healthy European' or 'an unhealthy European'. As a rule of thumb, the more 'left' one is, the more damaged they are psychologically, not that claiming to be on the 'right' particularly aligns with the reality of being healthy-minded, as many are soul dead themselves. They mistake authoritarian bourgeois conservatism and secular (or faith-led) Christian trappings for National Socialism.
We must accept National Socialism as distinct from mere "far right-wing" ideology or political organizing or labelling. The very term “right-wing” is only strictly appropriate in reference to the pro-monarchists of the Paris National Assembly of 1879 who had seated themselves to the right of the presiding officer. It’s also a symbolic euphemism to describe those tied to the economic theory of capitalism, a theory that Hitler vehemently opposed, much as he had no time for the petit bourgeois nature of conservatives, German religious figures, and small-minded nationalists. He was firmly socialistic, closer in humble, hard-working dedication to the mentalities of those loyal to the revolutionary Marxist groups of the time, and natured an independent, home-grown capitalist system that revolved around national industries, with a total disdain for international economics models, and a hatred and fear of central banks and elite foreign money power. His mindset was not that of a conservative, and his all-encompassing worldview is not synonymous with political nationalism.
However, following my notes above, it is still worth mentioning that, regardless of a lack of conclusive moral correctness, in line with Nature, and with compassion, the ‘left’ (I'll still use that term to save space, though I hope I have better explained its wantonly misapplied euphemistic nature now) remains in control of the entire debate in the Western world, as it controls the power structure, whereas the ‘right’ (indiscriminately - anyone not 'left') is viciously stamped out and dismissed wherever it is found. To consider post-truth relativism once more, the right, thought unpalatable under the left's framework, is, by the stated premises of the theory taken with logic, not automatically untrue in its statements, provided postmodernists believe their own warped logic at all, as, by their assertion, there is no such thing as truth.
To argue otherwise suggests a spark of objectivity on their parts, albeit one rooted in exclusivity. Their opponent's arguments are given the 'post-truth' treatment as one desperate way to invalidate them if simply shouting them down and calling for them to be censored does not suffice, but this standard is not applied by them to their own assertions.
Meanwhile, reasonable minds - and not mindless voices - argue that truth - by the updating approximations of the scientific method as by the non-rational numinous - exists (becoming frustrated that they even must, to be honest), and that the left is merely incorrect, or deliberately making it as difficult as possible. If masses of warped minds are controlling the discussion (and the outcome), reasonable minds stand no real chance. Back to egalitarianism, another useful tool to them to justify every stupid, unnatural idea, and base deception.
I'm not confident that a communication technique exists that can allow the warped to realise their positions and arguments (if present) are warped. Stupid, blind people cannot accept the words of more informed and more intelligent ones, on account of this very stupidity. No amount of confidence, stubbornness, rage, and guile can force something to be true, and yet... it is all as if level. A mad froth of opinions, until everything is rendered an opinion. Easier by far than courage, self-reflection, or admitting to themselves (or to others even - their perennial nightmare) that they have been wrong. If they cannot be changed, and cannot change, they are lost. A dead weight. End them, before they end everything.
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. It can be their opinion. They can be proud to hold it, clinging on to that idea desperately. Their noses remain sore. Their concussed bodies may happily pile up in my eyes and bleed out. They cannot drive innocents into the wall before them though. In conclusion, my approach to all this could generally be described as "Uncovering the Ruins of Inconvenient Walls."
Much as one could see us all as distinct individual units of varying soul bound up in genetic material, some of that genetic material is more like some distinct units than it is like other distinct units. Thus, I can group these similar distinct units together. I feel myself naturally closer to them than other more distant individuals with greater genetic difference who are also of a more distant cultural perspective, that being shaped by the former biology. So different that it is alien. They are not like us.
In truth, the quality of the race defines its behaviour, the level of its culture, and its success. A hierarchical scale. My opening sentence was too generous to them, these aliens. What concern of ours is it to spot if they have souls? Does it matter to find wonderment in them? They're trying to kill us.
For the sake of obviousness, in this example, I would see 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, South Africa, America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. I take particular interest in Europe though, as the ancient lands of our civilization, focusing on Northern Europe. It's just that the left these days they won't let white people do that. Anti-white race traitors, and hostile non-whites.
I think the core problem of the entire human struggle post-war has always been coming to terms with the reality of race. We have forgotten what was once well known and accepted. The vicious drive to deny our race exists – blacks do not encounter this problem – and simultaneously, the labour to enforce total equality worldwide (and even thinking in terms of equality, making any comparisons along those lines, relating the unrelatable) does nothing to reduce the cold, hard fact that by the end of this century, at current rate, if not sooner, white people will deliberately be rendered extinct.
Teaching people at school that every single person has won the competition to big them up and not hurt their feelings 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 only definition (unless we are referring to numerical quantities and volumes in measurement), that is inequality. Excellence is to be praised. The secondary idea is that the others see this advantage and try harder to catch up. If they cannot do that, then it must be recognised. We cannot force through the impossible. 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, or better, whilst constantly bolstering the thick people as top dogs does not seem a kind and moral strategy.
Which morals are we thinking of? Christian ones, I think. Lingering Christian morals. We can take on any religion for ourselves that we like. Christianity has shaped us for many generations though. Shaped our parents. Shaped their parents. A belief in God has nothing to do with this value-retention. 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, dispassion, self-repression, and constant passing of the buck does not end the entire Western world. If it does, they will deserve it.
Yes, both 'left' and 'right' are certainly complicit in this. Those reams of easy labels that perhaps insult your sensibilities when applied to some groups can likewise be self-applied by other groups to big themselves up, resting on their laurels, confident in their manifest superiority, jostling and boisterous, a sweaty rush of hollering complacency, ignorance intact, minds still full up with dung. I know quite well what you mean, and it makes sense to me. I hope you are having a good day."
Comments