What do I think about the “current” conflict in Israel?

I think it’s a logical consequence of ideological stubbornness and bad ideas that are consistently applied, resulting in a seemingly unresolvable nightmare. But let me elaborate.

At one point in time, the European Jews concluded that their religious and national identity will be gradually assimilated into the wider, secular Europe and that they need to do something about it, and they decided it’s time to return to Palestine and create a Jewish nation-state.

Of course, the idea of moving from a sophisticated and advanced Europe into some middle-eastern shithole wasn’t very appealing, and so the Jews in charge of the project probably thought they had to prod them somewhat, which explains why big Jewish banks financed Hitler’s ascent to power, which is a piece of information that would otherwise be unexplainable. Basically, someone had an idea that inciting antisemitism in Europe might motivate the Jews to find moving to Palestine a bit more appealing, and of course, as with all such plans, it went to hell quickly and likely resulted in more Jews being killed than emigrating.

Of course, the Arabs who lived in Palestine didn’t like the idea of Jews moving there, because their false scripture teaches them that Jews are inferior to them and need to be subjugated. As the state of Israel was politically established, the Jews correctly understood that peaceful coexistence with the Arabs will not be possible because the Arabs would prefer to just kill or enslave them, so they responded with outright genocide, purging the Arabs from Israel. The surrounding Arab states didn’t like that very much and all tried to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews, which failed, because Arabs proved not to be very good in a modern warfare against a determined enemy, even when the Jews were not well equipped.

Every now and then there were attempts to broker peace, but the Arabs think they can do better if the conflict is prolonged until the Jewish state eventually runs out of American support and the situation changes in their favour, and they ideologically oppose accepting the very idea of anyone but Muslims having sovereignty anywhere, let alone in the middle east. The Jews on the other hand have profound spiritual identity bound to that piece of land, which they inhabited for thousands of years, until their ideological stubbornness pissed off the Roman empire to the point of crushing their rebellions and completely uprooting them as a nation and exiling them from Palestine forever. They appear to have forgotten this unpleasant episode which came to be because they arrogantly claimed God to be on their side and have given them this piece of land. They also forgot that they were once arrogant enough to not pay tribute to Babylon because they thought God was on their side, and they were collectively taken into slavery. Instead of embracing the humble conclusion that God doesn’t like arrogant people and will side with their enemies to teach them a lesson, today we again hear this stubborn, arrogant claim that God gave Palestine to the Israelis and it’s theirs to defend.

So, now we have the Arabs (who deceptively call themselves Palestinians, although they are by no means native to the land; they immigrated there from the Arabic peninsula during the spread of the Islamic scourge throughout the region) who claim the land as theirs, and think God gave them the entire Earth to rule, and for generations already they teach their children to hate and kill the Jews, and then we have the Jews, who have created a modern European country in that desert, and are trying to defend their existence there, and keep the Arabs confined.

The greatest irony is that the Arabs, who always refused any kind of a definite peace with Israel, keep whining to the international community about how bad they are having it, when it’s obvious that they don’t actually know what to do with peace if it somehow happened; their entire political structure is predicated upon war with Israel, and if Israel somehow vanished into thin air, their entire “nation” would collapse. Without hating Israel, they have no other purpose or national identity, and in order to survive, their political leadership would have to find some other overpowering enemy to hate and kill and be eternally oppressed by and whine about their victimhood. It is clear why the Israelis se no chance of peace, because the other side has absolutely no interest in it, and in fact would see peace as a national disaster.

So, now we have a situation that can apparently only be resolved by destruction of one or both sides, which brings us back to my original statement. I think that the Jews made a strategic mistake to return to Palestine at the present time, because they are surrounded by enemies whose power is magnified by the petroleum-based economy, and the soft-hearted and soft-headed liberal ideology of human rights is making it politically impossible for them to implement any kind of a solution. An additional problem is that the Palestinian Arabs will never be motivated to broker a peace while the non-Palestinian Arabs keep supporting them, because they intuitively don’t see themselves as a separate entity, they see themselves as merely few drops in the ocean of Islam, that will eventually overwhelm Israel as a unified force. So, strategically, Israel has a rather desperate problem and it’s no wonder that they resort to extreme means, but on the other hand I can’t get around the fact that this entire quagmire is a result of their poor initial strategic choice, because now that they are there, they really have no option other than to defend their identity by force. However, in all this their identity will eventually degrade into something more similar to that of their Arab enemies, than the sophistication and culture of the European civilization they embraced throughout the centuries, so they will lose even in victory.


Watch this first:

There is a serious problem with identifying the leftists as “liberals”. A liberal is someone who minds his own business and does his own thing, and expects others to do so as well, the only limitation to freedom being the point where you infringe upon the freedoms of others. In that sense, I am a liberal. They are not. They are outright fascists. There’s no place for verbal ambiguities there. They have massive overlap with movements like the Khmer Rouge, the Bolseviks, Maoists, Sendero Luminoso, and the NSDAP. The only reason why they don’t actually commit genocide is that they are still in the process of maneuvering into the position of power where they will be able to do so with impunity. I am absolutely convinced of that, because I have historically seen such movements and all of them were outright murderous and genocidal. Calling them “liberal” is such an incredible misnomer, one can only facepalm. They are the exact diametrical opposition to liberalism.

However, to be honest, when I called myself a liberal that was true only to a point, because my personal worldview is nowhere near as relativistic. If I would have to qualify it more precisely, I would say my worldview can be summed up by “do what you think is right, and pay the price”, because I don’t believe there is such a thing as a right to free speech, or that there is free anything, for that matter. If you speak lies, there will be consequences – your consciousness will drift away from reality, and your outward situation will reflect that. Also, if your lies offend people, they might do something about it, which also limits the concept of “freedom” of whatever is it that you want to do. If you speak the truth, there will also be consequences – basically, your consciousness will be more aligned with reality, but you might also offend liars and those who believe in falsehoods; and they, too, might choose to do something about it. The only way to avoid consequences is to live an utterly inconsequential life, but if you think that isn’t a consequence, you are sorely mistaken. In my worldview, you are judged by the harsh light of reality, and that which is of God will share destiny with God, while that which is false and evil will share destiny with nothingness. I always had contempt for the religious zealots who believe they have to kill people because they are the “enemies of God” as they see those things, as if God is powerless to kill his own enemies so they have to help him. That’s incredibly ridiculous. God has ways of dealing with scum. Trying to help God with justice is like trying to push Earth in order to help it spin. God doesn’t need you to help him with implementing justice. You need God in order to be aligned with justice. It’s impossible to be righteous if your consciousness isn’t in God. That’s the fundamental flaw of all those false moralists who are all basically atheists, and who in their conceit think they can be moral without God, and even want to kill everyone who disagrees with their pathetic “moral” views, usually based on “equality”, as the most pathetic of all concepts, because that’s what you come up with when you lack any moral compass whatsoever. So, my “liberal” approach is to tell you that you are free to explore reality and choose whatever path, but God is reality and illusion is deadly, and whatever you do, there will be a price. Offend evil by choosing God, there will be a price. Offend God by choosing evil, there will be a price. Try not to offend anyone and you will be inconsequential trash that will be taken out and recycled in the end.

How we lost freedom

It was a slippery slope.

Initially we had freedom of speech that was the core value of our civilization.

Then they came and said that isn’t right; if there aren’t limits on the freedom of speech, should the Nazis also be allowed to speak? Should holocaust deniers be allowed to speak? There should be limits to freedom.

Then laws were introduced that limited free speech for Nazis, holocaust deniers and “hate speech”, which was initially defined as calls for violence against groups of people based on their collective identity.

Then the “Nazis” were defined as “anyone who doesn’t agree with me”, the concept of “holocaust deniers” was expanded to encompass “deniers” of any kind of “accepted truth”, however flimsy, in order to protect weak ideas and beliefs from need to be defended by reason and evidence. “Hate speech” was extended to mean “any kind of speech that makes anyone feel uncomfortable”.

So now we no longer have freedom of speech, and soon we won’t have freedom of any kind, at all, because we are already locked down, and anyone speaking out is a “denier”, and apparently to deny the official narrative of corrupt politicians, journalists and “scientists” who are a propaganda arm of big industry, that’s a thoughtcrime comparable to eating small children.

Imposing any kind of limitations on the freedom of speech was a terrible mistake. Nazis are fully within their right to say what they think. You are fully within your right to disagree with them. Also, if someone verbally commits something that is an actual crime, prosecutable by actual laws, for instance crying “fire” in a theatre, or inciting a crowd to murder someone or damage his property, those are not things that need to be solved by restricting freedom of speech. They can be easily dealt with using normal laws. If normal laws cannot be applied, it means it was impossible to demonstrate a causal relationship between verbal incitement and actual physical harm. Also, it is very difficult to categorically state that it is universally wrong to preach against entire groups bound by similar characteristics. If we can see logic in preaching against drug cartels or totalitarian states, we can also see why this should be extended by allowing one to preach against any kind of life-choice, behavioral pattern or in fact religion or race. As far as I’m concerned, KKK is fully within their right to preach against Africans, and Africans are fully within their right to prove them wrong. Nazis are fully within their right to preach against the Jews calling them an inferior race, and the Jews are fully within their right to show them the stats about Nobel prize winners per race, which demonstrates that, if anything, they are the superior race. That’s how the marketplace of ideas works – you say something, and then someone else counters your arguments with something that’s either correct or foolish, making you look either like an ass, or like someone who actually has a point. If someone thinks his arguments are too weak to win against the Nazis and the holocaust deniers in the open marketplace of ideas, then he’s the one with a problem, because if they are so wrong that they should not be allowed to speak at all, then it should be very easy to let them speak, and then expose the facts and make them look like complete fools.

After all, it’s not like “hate speech” is something that is universally abhorred. It’s perfectly allowed, as long as it’s against the “right” target. The movie “Lethal weapon II” is pure hate speech and slander against the Republic of South Africa, probably devised because America was having a financial problem with RSA selling the enormous amount of gold from the Witwatersrand Basin, which amounted to 22% of all the gold ever mined, in the history of mankind, on the world’s market, in form of Krugerrands. From what it looks like to me now, the entire “apartheid” issue was a CIA active measure against RSA, to limit their access to the world’s market and the resulting change of balance in the financial sector, since America moved away from gold in the 1970s and had a problem with its resurgence, especially if someone else controlled it. This is a very cynical interpretation of American “fight for human rights” across the globe, and postulates that whenever America wants to suppress an economic or political adversary, this or that human rights violation will be invented as a justification, in order to rally the well-meaning idiots behind its imperialistic cause. It’s always some children that will cry unless America bombs some state or prevents it from selling cheaper gas, oil or gold to the market where America wants to sell their overpriced goods. Basically, Krugerrands are racist and Russian gas is not democratic.

So hate speech is obviously fine – you are allowed to hate the “Nazis”, the “racists”, the “deniers” of official ideology, the Chinese, the Russians and the white people. You’re just not allowed to hate the people in power and their ideology, because that will get you “deplatformed” and “un-personed”.

So, tell me, how many of you have heard of the Witwatersrand Basin and how much gold was actually found in there? I knew there was lots gold in the RSA, of course, but I had no idea how much until very recently, and then it clicked – the time that gold was massively exported abroad coincides exactly with the time when the entire media industry and all sorts of celebrities started making propaganda about poor black people being oppressed in the RSA and calling for international sanctions against the “corrupt” and “racist” regime there, presenting it as if the blacks were the indigenous people of the RSA, and the whites came and robbed/enslaved them and it’s a huge injustice. In fact, nobody lived there before the white people came. It was a wasteland. Then the Europeans came, made it into a paradise, found ways to mine useful minerals, grow food and basically make it look like Europe, and it created so many jobs that the blacks from all parts of Africa migrated there because the living conditions were so much better. The Europeans didn’t like the concepts of all those black overrunning the little paradise they made for themselves there, and made rules that allowed the Africans to work there and be paid fairly, but were not allowed to participate in politics of what was basically a white European country, which was all very much in line with the politics that were in place in the American South in the 60s, implemented by the Democratic party (which BTW is to the KKK what Sinn Féin is to the IRA). Then they made a mistake of exporting too much gold in form of Krugerrands into the world market, the CIA didn’t like it, did their psyop, RSA government tried to appease them by removing the apartheid measures, and now RSA is in the process of devolving into a typical African shithole run by corrupt tribal fuckwits who think AIDS can be treated with garlic and raping virgin girls, and all their problems can be solved by robbing white people.

So, how did we lose our freedom? Was it when we decided that “Nazis” should not be allowed to speak, or was it something deeper, more insidious, like accepting the concept of universal human rights as a supreme civilizational value, when it was in fact pushed – if not outright invented – by the CIA, as a method of pressure on the rival powers? Or did we lose our freedom by blindly following the propagandists who took over the emptied platform once occupied by the Church? In any case, as in any totalitarian system, we are free to criticize the enemies of the regime in power all we want, and we are free to praise the ruling ideology all we want. For anything else, we will be swiftly and cruelly punished. And oh-by-the-way, we now also aren’t allowed to work, move freely and are basically under house arrest, because someone’s granny will die and children will look at us with tearful accusatory eyes if we drive cars, have money, or in fact exist.

Lights off, but buy a Tesla

The EU is implementing new 2016-2019 laws, designed to “save energy”, among other things by turning off the lights in businesses overnight. To quote a site that commented on it:

“The European Commission’s snappily-titled “Ecodesign Working Plan 2016 – 2019” will require all light fixtures and accessories sold after September 2020 to meet improved efficiency targets. In the previous version of the rules, studio and theatre lighting was exempt from the targets, as long as the lights designed for this purpose were not used domestically. But this exemption has now gone missing.”


Basically, replace all the tungsten filament light sources with LED because nature and ecology and electricity is precious, but we are supposed to believe their propaganda about switching our ICE cars to electric. Let’s all buy electric cars, because electricity is green and abundant, and fossil fuels are evil.

If you believe they won’t pass a law restricting private ownership and use of electric cars, being the worst “pollutants” and “waste” of energy as soon as people transition to them, you obviously haven’t been paying attention.