Monthly Archives: August 2018

The facts are always in dispute

Posted on by
Reply

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. (Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

I’ve seen this quote thrown around frequently, in the recent “fake news” argument, and honestly, I always found it disturbing.

You see, the whole point of a discussion is that both sides have different perception of what the facts are. If you’re having a discussion between an egalitarian and a meritocrat, of course the egalitarian will think that it’s a fact that all men are equal, and the meritocrat will think it’s a fact that there are scientifically proven differences between races and genders, and in a liberal society those differences will significantly influence the outcomes of those statistical groups.

The same thing will happen when you have a discussion about the existence of God between an atheist and a religious person. A religious person will cite his personal relationship with God as evidence of God’s existence, while an atheist will consider this a non-fact and will cite absence of material evidence of God. They do indeed have a difference of opinion, but this is just a surface. Underneath, they also have a profound disagreement about the nature of reality itself, and they will selectively accept and deny certain pieces of evidence that attempts to establish what the facts are.

The difference between the “main stream” and “alternative” media is not about interpretation of facts. It’s a fundamental disagreement about what facts are established, what evidence is credible, and about the moral nature of the forces in the world – who is good, who is evil, and who is irrelevant.

That’s why the “fact checking” services are nonsense. Depending on their political and religious bias, they will cite as fact the things that agree with their worldview, and mark as false the things that put their worldview into question. The only truly unbiased fact-checker is God, because He knows what is actually true and real, and what reality is objective. Everybody else is an interested party, and not an unbiased, nonpartisan fact-checker. So, if there are discussions about what the facts are in science, where the scientists often vehemently argue about this, how can a politician state that facts are something that exists in some realm beyond dispute?

I still have problems with the second world war, because the facts were so obscured by propaganda, it interferes with my ability to pass moral judgment – if I don’t know what the actual facts were, and I don’t know in what situation someone made a certain decision, how can I judge him? That’s a serious problem. You can’t just say, a person X ordered the Y number of people to be killed, so he’s evil. Maybe the choice was such, that he had the option to kill those people, or the complete destruction of all civilization, at least in his mind. What would you do, if your options were to, for instance, either use a time machine to kill an innocent man, or wait for that man to grow into a serial killer who will kill 60 innocent people and do nothing good at all in his life? If your options are to either kill ten million people, or have the entire civilization descend into savagery, what would you do? The concepts like “violence is violence” and “love is love” are the pastime of idiots. You can’t judge someone for killing ten, hundred or ten thousands people until you know the reasons and circumstances. Maybe he’s a serial killer. Maybe he’s a war hero. Maybe he accidentally turned off the coolant circulation pump in a nuclear reactor. Maybe he’s a psychopath who seduced millions of people into evil and made them kill the other half of the country. Maybe he motivated the nation to kill an evil invading horde that would destroy everyone if left unchecked. Until you know the facts, your moral opinions are essentially worthless.

So, my problem here is that the “main stream” media basically tries to eliminate anyone who would dispute the kind of propaganda they are distributing, and which they peddle as “facts”. If I have so many questions about what the facts are, I seriously doubt some politician or a journalist is in a better intellectual position.

How to win

Posted on by
Reply

If we recapitulate things, it gets interesting.

During the Trump elections, the only significant sources who broke the CIA-imposed information blockade were the Russians (RT, Sputnik, Saker), Alex Jones’ Infowars, and Julian Assange’s Wikileaks.

After the elections, Trump has been systematically isolated and surrounded by people who are essentially his enemies, the Russians have been systematically attacked, sanctioned, slandered and demonized, Julian Assange is about to be arrested, and Infowars was simultaneously banned on all major IT platforms, except www and e-mail.

What this tells me is several things.

First, it confirms that all social media platforms and major IT companies are controlled from a central point. Whether that is CIA or NSA is behind the point, but they all work like a single entity when political action is concerned. We should add financial institutions to the methods of pressure: Paypal, Visa, Mastercard, the banks, SWIFT. Major data centers, where everyone keeps their servers. It’s all CIA controlled.

Second, it tells you whom they see as a real enemy. You attack those who can actually harm you.

Third, it tells us how things really stand. It’s a war that cannot be won by sitting in a chair and posting things on YouTube and Twitter. It can also not be won by violence, because the enemy controls that. It cannot even be won with the help of a benevolent superpower like Russia, because if it attempts to break CIA’s information blockade, it is demonized and threatened with war.

It can be won by passive aggression. It can be won if you understand who is the enemy, what they are trying to do, and you silently subvert them, in your private life. Don’t believe in the leftist bullshit. Don’t believe in socialism, feminism and all the implicit bullshit the media is selling you. Don’t consume the media, and if you do, block their adds. Starve the enemy of money. Starve them of your support. If they force you to do something, formally comply and then don’t do it, or do it so poorly they don’t benefit from it. Don’t give them the excuse to attack you frontally, but force them to spend more resources than they get out of you. If you bankrupt the government, then it can’t afford to spy on everyone and run things from the shadows.

Don’t buy useless bullshit. Buy only the things that are actually useful to you. Protect your interests first, and extend this to the people you care about. Ignore pleas for compassion for people you don’t personally know or care about, because that’s one of the main instruments of manipulation. Do things directly – if you want to do good, help concrete individuals that you know and care about, don’t donate money to some organization. Support the things you love, and resource-starve the things you hate. Don’t feel guilty because you’re indifferent about things you don’t give a fuck about.

If you need something, pay for it yourself. Don’t ask or expect the government to do it. It’s not free. It’s the same amount you’ll pay, plus ten times overhead, and it’s all stolen money.

Don’t use social media. They control what you see. For instance, I have good reason to believe I’m being shadow-banned on everything Google-controlled. It means that I write a comment on a YouTube video and I get no votes or comments. When I do the same on RT, I get lots of votes and comments. It’s not unreasonable to assume that this disparity is due to silent censorship.

Pray to God to deliver us from evil. This life is temporary. This place is not the actual reality. God is. Always have that in mind.

Egalitarianism, and why nobody really believes in it

Posted on by
9

I’m thinking about the implicit assumptions of egalitarianism, and it seems that those people who advocate for it: the feminists, communists, egalitarians; they all assume a weird kind of power dynamics where those who are superior exploit and abuse those who are inferior. However, things don’t seem to work that way. In patriarchal societies power is always a two-way street. Yes, you are in charge of your wife and children. However, being in charge means you are responsible for their well-being. It is your duty to see that everybody is in the best possible state. Power and duty are well balanced, and it’s actually a male biological instinct, which fails only in very fucked up and psychotic specimens. The problem is, when you give women power, they don’t have those instincts and they treat power as something that doesn’t come with conditions and duties, and as a rule, a woman in power is a monster who doesn’t understand the limits. The Hindus mythologized this very nicely in the story about Kali, the embodiment of female power, which on its own behaves like a blind force of chaos and destruction, and can only be stopped and controlled by Shiva, the embodiment of male power. Essentially, when women are left without men or when they are put in charge, they go crazy, often in very dangerous ways, and I would say the reason for that is they don’t have instinctual genetic guidance for those circumstances, because all functional human societies were always patriarchal, and women always functioned in those circumstances, so that’s all their genetics knows how to handle. You can now say that reason overrides genetics, and I say good luck with this theory, because for most humans reason is what they use to do what their instinctual genetic drives tell them is worth attaining. If you put a woman in power, she behaves like a power-drunk crazy person, on one hand, and on the other hand she feels resentful because she feels there ought to be a superior man in charge of her, and if there isn’t, it’s wrong, she feels like she is forced to do someone else’s work.
So, egalitarianism. Let’s ignore the physical part – even the men who work in construction do it using machines, where you basically pull levers and push buttons, and that’s all the strength you need to operate a crane or a tractor. Women can do it as well, so that’s not the central issue. The central issue is, what happens if it turns out that female hypergamy is a healthy genetic instinct which assumes that a woman must find a partner one step above her own status? What if it proves that men and women are not equal, but in a normal society, for the smartest and most capable woman in the world there will always be one man who is just that much smarter and more capable than her, that she is meant to fall in love with because her place is with him. However, it is also natural that the worst men are expendable. The lowest 10%, or whatever actual percentage it is, are such idiots that it is better to use them as cannon fodder than let them reproduce. That’s why women normally avoid useless men as a plague, and feel offended if they address them at all. That’s because women naturally aim above, they look for a worthy boss, not someone “equal”, and certainly not someone inferior. As a woman, if you are not cared for by someone who is in charge of things, traditionally you end up very badly. So, essentially, egalitarianism is something that is desired only by those on the bottom of the barrel, because it would improve their chances, but it’s exactly for this reason why it should not be allowed. Everybody but the worst human refuse will do better in a patriarchal meritocracy.
It’s interesting how women will say they like egalitarianism, until you point them towards an inferior man and ask them if they would have sex with him, and watch the disgusted expression on their faces. Also, they are all for the distribution of wealth, until you tell them that their sexuality is also a form of wealth and they should share it with those men who are too fucked up, ugly and poor to be able to find a woman, and again, watch the expression on their faces. For the most part, egalitarianism is just a posture, and internally people behave as if they are in a set of hierarchies; women have a hierarchy of beauty, men have a hierarchy of power, scientists have a hierarchy, pilots have a hierarchy, and a meta-hierarchy is called civilisation.