I like the concept of email. The rest annoys me. I think, in an ideal world, I would have done better with a kind of MILNET setup, just a few long-term researcher nodes with controlled gateways, discrete, fully decentralized, and something for long form reports (almost akin to controlled chain letters at times; my free serial ‘novels’ for the very busy) more than five-line fill ins and filesharing. It would be nice to have a quiet, civilian parallel to the NSA’s ICREACH search engine also, facing the other way. Wikipedia and LinkedIn aren’t enough for me, and I find the minimal Wikispooks stubs to have quite a political bias at times, an amateurishness and paranoia, and a lack of a sound internal reference system. That said, it’s not as if I naturally trust the public whistleblower perspectives either, and who knows what manufactured bullshit they’re fed as ‘leaks.’ I’m not entirely sure now how one would orchestrate such a thing. I’ll probably end up cribbing on Michael Bazzell books, and some more sophisticated tomes. It wouldn’t be enough.
It's a shame about Facebook. My pen-pal friend is okay with it, and is reluctant to email these days, preferring to just type and chat on the Facebook interfaces. If I want to speak to him at all, I'm obliged to set up an account profile on there. Though he has some sympathy in places, a “f**k you, silly system, we’ve got your number!” attitude like the resigned pseudo-dissent Rothbard mentioned in his Anatomy of the State essay, and tries to tolerate my consistent grumpy complaints, he doesn't really, at root, seem to understand what I feel reluctant about, at least not anywhere near to the same level. I just can't understand why people use it, given the record of the company for poor data practice, and draconian censorship, as well as their general hostile attitude towards people who do not think in either a liberal, or an 'everyday' way, which is a misnomer as those who make a point to see themselves beyond classification or just 'apolitical/normal' are, most definitely, fairly liberal anyway.
I don't understand it. Do they realise that they are being political by this very act? Everyone is subject to severe social engineering propaganda, and they don't even notice. It's the same with the surveillance - I don't find it funny. These people are f**king criminals, of a serious sort, and it's just brushed under the carpet. I can only conclude that the user-base are just not soulful people overall, if not in entirety. As usual, convenience above decency or critical thinking. I wouldn't readily want to use a platform if I knew its owners were as unscrupulous as Mark Zuckerberg and his employees. I don't like the very concept of social media anyway. Get out and meet each other properly. Pull your finger out. Unless they're on a different continent or something, or completely out of range, why go there at all? Do something better with your day.
Do you really need to check in with each other 15 times an hour in full public, fretting, ensuring you are presenting well, dwelling on the best way to put a witty expression, hoping it’s still acceptable somehow, monitoring ever last insipid detail of mental vomit in the hope that someone further alters your cluttered visual presentation – and not much else – with the graffiti stamp of a toddler-happy emoji, or a little red heart (and certainly not a day-ruining angry face, at 28 x 28 pixels), having devoted your life to the authoritative character assessments of wingdings?
That said, I feel for the huge swathes of people who have been humiliatingly removed from his platform, slandered in their absence, or subject to intense pressure to check their own thoughts for Orwellian 'wrongthink'. Do the other users just not care about them, provided they themselves are untouched, having never stepped above the parapet? Do they not understand the significance and lasting psychological damage of sitting by as government-tech alliances wipe out the warning contributions of multiple segments of the population, the cranks as much as the genuinely concerned and elucidated? Is there never any doubt in them that they might be incorrect, or ignorant on something? They're participants in totalitarianism. In the death of knowledge.
At some point, opinions cease. One cannot equivocate the validity of every held belief given their sole basis that these beliefs can be believed at all. This assumption of a sacred right to be respected for a viewpoint that one cannot adequately defend, and yet no-one else can question. At base, something is correct, and something is incorrect. This requires evidence and discussion. It must at least be investigated. Always an inability in them to differentiate between an informed suggestion, from years of arduous study and observation, and sheer brainwashing, ignorance, and dogma, even to their long-term detriment. Afraid to think. Afraid of the consequences if the boat is rocked. They are closer to the political abusers than to the complainers.
Political conversation – or any conversation of European society and civilization, at adult level, with adult realism – is serious conversation. If not in the public square, even in overview, as legitimately seems best most of the time, then where? I get annoyed when it is always pushed underground. I suppose I am to conclude that most people are not serious and cannot be serious. If one is placed in difficult existential-threat circumstances, a tangible threat, there is a scale of importance. Beyond that, some topics defined as "bad politics" by the majority masses are not really that at all. It’s not even politics, let alone any pejorative moral qualifiers after that. Everything in art, or culture, or history is processed through a liberal lens into a sick, stupid mind, that finds the themes and modes of thinking of a good, real, strong civilization difficult to handle, and shies away from them.
They have no interest in their ancestors, in their countries, or in the direction their countries are going, in any good art or high cultural drives, or, really, in the outside world at all beyond a very narrow bandwidth of mundane, superficial considerations and 'common sense', and yet they plead for democracy and worship it, and plead to be allowed to discuss inconsequential things, and share out their inconsequential thrusts of ego and ambition, their finger paintings on the classroom wall, and put their foot down, and have the environment in their favour to do that.
They might as well be under National Socialism. What is the point if they don't care deeply enough about anything? What, exactly, are they so worried about by that worldview (not that they are even aware of it as a worldview paradigm at all, much as some can be genuinely aware of the mere historical events of Hitler’s Germany and his Third Reich in the Second World War, and all would at least know of the latter as something to dread and condemn)? They are already living in a ruined totalitarian anti-civilization. Their current existence is worse that the Hollywood fiction they attribute to his society. That sort of passionate spiritual approach to regenerative, nourishing value re-evaluation, if understood properly, a great, true, noble European spirituality, a racial cohesion, a raising of our race's soul to its strength and honour and beauty, healthy, aligned with Nature, blazing out across the future. Not just tit for tat diatribes on how many Jews were murdered in The Holocaust, or screams of mewling moral outrage for the deaths of our many millions of enemies, and silence, and dispassion, and low, feral, gibbering mockery for the extinguishing of greatness, the unforgivable death of Germany, still unacknowledged, the blood on so many Allied hands, and their feeble, sickly, ridiculous nations now, in arrogant disarray, having hewn each other down to preserve those who were not of their kind, and who were, and are, indifferent to their suffering, those that would allow them to facilitate their own full destruction in aftermath.
It is grotesque. Often, I do not think it would really matter even if we did somehow raise enough children to replenish our numbers. Unless they are tutored by good parents, nurtured from their childhood to understand this worldview, in full detail, for what it is, really, and what it means, and what it represents, and can live in accordance with it throughout their lives, no mere patriotic 'racial realist' nationalism is enough. That is not what will do alone. That is not what is at stake. The point is completely missed.
I use the term 'politics' as others use it around me... although I never quite know what they mean by it, as I am not dealing with party campaigns, or specific politicians, or the flashiness of current affairs news and journalism, or daily updates of nigh-on exactly the same thing, as it is addressed constantly by the prim, lurid vulgarity of the British media. I do not really think it is the same definition. For how long will they be chatting about bands they like and swapping witty, deadpan one-liners, like f**king pigeons, as the dark closes in? How f**king selfish are they?!
I have never understood small-talk and have no aptitude at it, and I have no interest whatsoever in consumer entertainment escapism. Am I to conclude that most people are buried headfirst in the sand, total nihilists, or otherwise thoroughly dense? Yes, I am. Does this slave conformism really represent the best they can do? It seems to. It is indeed the phrase "all that you can be", popular in American armies, and that terminal "all" is just that, no need for the desperate, self-promoting protestation and compensatory denial that accompanies that bold optimism of the stupid, the militant soul dead. Beyond that limit, there is absolutely – a physical world biological absolute - no more that they can achieve. It makes no linguistic sense, even. Maybe a handful of Europeans. A handful, in many millions.
I see what my friend means saying that they shouldn't really talk about politics on there. It's just, since they're going to anyway, they could at least recognise that their constrained ignorance renders them complicit in this overarching repression. The phrase "don't discuss politics" generally means "don't step outside our universal utilitarian ethics paradigm."
My Dad's closer to that stance. I say to him "you're basically a Marxist." He says "rubbish, stop labelling me." Then I look up every belief key to Marxism, written by self-proclaimed Marxists themselves, and match them against his beliefs, and about his thoughts on society's management, and find a total point-for-point match, and get confused.
If I invent a machine that sprays liquid cow dung on progressive timewasters, I can't say to someone I'm not an inventor, just because I don't consider myself one, or because, for some reason, I do not know the term inventor, or words synonymous to it in translation, or synonymous as historical time passes.
I should re phrase it with him "okay Dad, you're not a technical Marxist, you just put forward every belief they do and disagree with everything they disagree with." I think this seemingly brutal labelling action of mine is known, in English, as calling a spade a spade. Yes, he's not a raving activist with a book of weird theories, and there are certainly other ways one could put him also, given that he uses the egalitarian morals of Christianity, but I always associate liberals with a certain dopiness, and he is more driven, like a full-on academic radical. He just can't think for himself, and passively soaks up all the bullshit in the environment, trying to be upstanding and not step out of line. That I suspect, from long interaction, that his IQ is a good two standard deviations above mine, if not more so, does not make this any easier. It seems a modern luxury to deny reality in his case.
I've often sensed subtly that that he doesn't actually want to talk to me too much about anything complicated or highbrow, much as he does seem to know a good deal more than he lets on, as would make some sense historically, given his carefully worded employment history stubs, as he considers me an idiot, and a dunce, and thus intuitively tells himself that there is no point in him engaging with me as I will invariably ‘get it wrong’ and waste his time. Perhaps the same harrowing, depressing sensation I get being around everyday people, experiencing their sheer ignorance and small talk and bold errors and lower IQ cruelty is something he himself gets around me. An awful lifetime in the company of morons, all about, having to listen to them be morons, having to know their cruelty and crass overconfidence.
It’s still not a very good excuse, given his own cruelty. I don’t think (and I could very much be short-changing them on this) guinea pigs are the sharpest tools in the box. That doesn’t mean I’d break their will to pieces for their entire sorry lifetime. He genuinely does have a deliberate choice hermit loner mentality, despite my mother's presence, and has never struck me as a happy man in himself. Bar a standard selection of repeat use anecdotes, I know absolutely nothing about his life, as he has never told me anything, nothing of his childhood, or teenage years, or university years, or anything of his career really bar an occasional 'office-cooler moment' work joke, and I've never heard him say it out loud to anyone else either. That acknowledged, he's at least consistently patient, polite and in some way invested in all those other people, in a manner that he certainly isn't with me, pretty much from day one, although again, as with Abby, he is better at superficial conversation with them, always keeping others at arm’s length.
Oddly, given his (self-)crucifying intellect, I've been able to win against him at Chess since about the age of 10, having been introduced as a late toddler. That was then though, and I'm not claiming I could have winning streaks now. It's a shame we don't play anymore. I very much enjoyed the pre adolescent games and I think he did too. It occurred to me many years later, in my early adulthood, that he could have been letting me win. I'm genuinely not sure. One never knows if he would say. I've never really enjoyed playing the game of Chess against anyone else, and keep away from it, even if offered (if actively “playing” is even the correct understanding, as after a while of having matches one senses that Chess seems more like a process, or a mathematical algorithm that pretty much runs itself somehow). There was something sacred to those shared family moments and, despite a few informal shots at a university Chess club, or to introduce a new acquaintance, or with some drunk in a bar, nothing of the outside could ever once provide them. My father was my family. It brings immediate tears of loss to remember any of it at all.
It gets extremely lonely trying and failing to communicate and will probably put me in an early grave through the level of stress and sadness it causes. Sure, I can talk at people, as I tend to do. It's not the same though. There's a definite psychological need to talk about light-hearted subjects. Still, I pity the totality of it. I imagine that in the dark, painful future people will speak of nothing else but frivolities and will long have lost the means to consider and communicate otherwise, even if they wanted to. They (too) are the handful then. Occasionally, for a few picoseconds, it may jam into them that there is something odd about this. It's okay though, there is laughter beyond, and smiles, and an opportune mirth, and the good, helpful hoses will be turned on later, as they are every night, as if by magic, to wash away the irritating smell of blood.
I thought a little more about what I wrote recently on the sheer disappointment of modern Europeans. No, I certainly don't think 'race realist' Nationalists are exempt from this. The Americans and the English who refuse to take the time to explain out loud the true nature of the Second World War, refusing to defend Adolf Hitler in public, in case their little political activist groups do not look 'wholesome' enough are complete cowards. They have no integrity, only a crass, blunted, ignorant thirst for control. The matter is too important. The generation that fought in that war on the Allied side destroyed the hope of European civilization and have doomed us to our present conditions. It should be recognized without lies, or brand maintenance face-saving. It was their fight on European soil, and their 'hellstorm' of agony and destruction and needless pain that enabled the egalitarian revolutionary uprising of the Civil Rights conflict across the 1960s, the beginnings of a revolution still present today to unite anti-white forces against the very best, and the very last of our race, with only the second best we have still alive now. Judeo-Anglo Globalism, with the minds of capitalist Christians.
It should be spoken forever as warning to the rest of us, and as an echoing, permanent shame for future Europeans to learn from if we are ever to hold an unviolated racial consciousness. We cannot pass the buck on this purely to selfish, paranoid, insular elites or to Jewish Power, absolving ourselves of responsibility, not if we still cover this history over, smartening our ties and talking of sensible pragmatism, and a reasonable strategy, gleaming with sweetness to look good to our own folk, and better, to appeal, and to be right, and to achieve our power (and that seems tellingly important). You truly think this is acceptable? You are rats, and you are weak, and indeed you are traitors and subhumans, liars already, old liars in public places, in that botched civilization. Morons with lowbrow passions, and tasteless, giddy words. How can you defend our former culture, you have none of it. Modern tastes, modern hubris. Your pride is limitless and forever unchecked.
What will you do with that power, once it is there? Will you tell your folk you lied, and will you tell them why it was okay, brushing it again under the rug as a necessary evil at the time, with the private planning and guile always ready, and your pompous gestures of dismissal, and your sighs of ridicule at that familiar old canard of the simple people, and your new Police forces standing by, with all the might of a new State, to ensure that this delayed explanation is met with order? Or will you remain liars, and die as them, for "the greater good"? You have no cause for rousing camaraderie and political back-patting. You are ugly inside. No different to the other useless eaters that frustrate you.
I would expect that you will continue to make excuses. It has been the unerring pattern thus far. The snarling petulance, and the chittering mob anger, conferring, and plotting, and rushing to negate me on this does nothing but display your characters in bare, illuminated clarity. You understand that I am telling the truth.
Comments