Some thoughts

I’ve been thinking about several things that are difficult to categorize, so I’ll write about all of them at once.

Why smart people make mistakes, for instance people predicting collapse of the global Dollar-based economy for years already, and evidence appears to contradict their predictions. It’s quite simple, really. They understand the deep underlying reality of the situation, but they underestimate the significance of other factors, such as meddling and interventions of very powerful players who desperately try to at least postpone the breakdown, if not completely alter its form. It’s only logical, if you assume the prediction is correct. It then also follows that the people in power will see what’s going on, and they are not going to take it sitting down. They are smart, and they have huge means at their disposal, and they have absolutely nothing to lose. They will print tens of trillions of fake digital dollars that will buy out the dollar bonds and then annihilate both. They will print a hundred paper-gold bonds for each gold bar, and sell them quickly to induce panic, and then when people start selling the actual physical gold, buy it with the fake Dollars they printed out of thin air, and then justify the printing of those Dollars with the newly acquired gold backing. Print trillions of dollars but suppress the price of dollar-backed oil, among other things by faking the existence of supposedly huge shale-oil supplies which are in fact thin air. Cripple the rest of the world with artificial roadblocks infiltrated into the payment system so that everybody else is fighting an uphill battle compared with the American companies. Print huge amounts of fake money and infuse them into your own technological companies to give you the upper hand. Print huge amounts of fake money and invest them into equally fake companies just to get them an IPO and bloat the GDP, retroactively justifying the printed amount with GDP numbers. Emit huge amounts of cheap credit into the economy to keep it on life support, while making the rest of the world pay for it, and if someone objects, threaten them with sanctions and war.

Most smart economists understand that the foundations of the Dollar and the American economy itself are untenable, and yet they fail to understand the lengths to which the players who created this system will go to defend it. Also, they see that the collapse will be a great disaster, yet they fail to actually use this as a premise and think from the position of the people in power who see the same thing, but also have the mechanisms at their disposals to do the otherwise unthinkable things – create a war that will hide and transform the collapse, from the “emperor is naked” testimony of fraud and theft that is the basis of the modern America, into a completely different narrative, that of “evil enemies of democracy” who attack and subvert America at every angle, to the point where they caused the great economic collapse itself, at which point America had no choice but to retaliate with nuclear weapons, but alas, it incurred heavy casualties, and all this chaos and destruction is actually someone else’s fault.

I actually think everybody was right – the people who see the geostrategic situation and understand that it is precursory to nuclear war, the people who see the foundations of the Dollar economy and understand that it is untenable and collapse of the debt economy is inevitable, the people who sense unclear doom and prepare, the people who fear the technocratic surveillance state, the people who fear the collapse of the Western civilization and its moral and intellectual foundations. They are all right, and it’s all happening on the same vector. It’s just that they underestimate the people who are actually guiding the process.

They are not stupid, and regardless of what they are telling you, they themselves understand perfectly well what’s going on, they have excellent analysts, military strategists and economists at their disposal and when they make and implement plans, they are incredibly more far-reaching and layered than most people are willing to accept. Imagine what would be going on if I was in charge of this thing, and if I had the wealth and power of America at my disposal to implement everything. I would be playing at 20 chessboards at once, with hundreds of people as smart as myself delegated to specific tasks. If you think you would be able to see what I’m doing from the outside, or predict events based on some part of the pattern you’re perceiving, then you’re naïve beyond belief. I would cook up specific points of chaos in order to divert attention of all other players, play feints and counter-feints intended for obscuring the sight of their analysts, introduce dozens of legitimate issues they can’t ignore while not being sure which one is the real attack-vector, and I would have a perfectly calm mind while stirring up the fogs of war that increase other players’ emotional potential, making their thinking slower and more inert, more prone to distraction.

That’s why smart people make mistakes. They don’t understand the power and ferocity of the guiding intelligence of the enemy. Sure, it’s easy to say it’s naïve to perceive the economy in the state of deep manipulation for decades and pretend there’s nobody at the wheel, that it’s just instinctual trading, reflex of self-preservation of the bankers, greed and power, but it’s actually emotionally preferable to the recognition that it’s all the result of people smarter than yourself at the wheel, with all the power in the world at their disposal, and that most of the events that seem unrelated are actually intelligent moves, most likely aided by artificial intelligence which simulates moves and their likely effects for the players, so that they can pick the best strategy against the simulated rational self-serving opposition.

If you gave me a trillion dollars, that’s what I would do – have the game-theory experts design and supervise the acres of supercomputing technology running AI software, and have it running a very detailed simulation of the real world, displaying the probable responses of all the world powers, set up the scenario very similar to the actual state, and then run millions of various scenarios, until you map out those with the highest probability of you ending up on top. If you think they are simulating the climate, and not simulating this, with all the computer game technology being there for decades, where you can run a combination of Civilization, Sim City and Starcraft on computers the size of a smaller city, running tens of thousands of teraflops-level computation units in parallel, well, let’s say I’m not betting high by predicting this. The thing is, human emotional responses are easy to predict, and it gets easier the bigger the group, so it actually gets easier when you’re trying to work on a nation-level. You give the computer the option to tweak variables, and it will end up with something that will look very weird, disconnected, not at all like figures on the same chess board, the way computers come up with weird optical designs when you apply them to making lenses. However, when you actually grind that weirdly looking piece of glass into the aspheric shape recommended by the computer, you see that it actually works.

That’s my problem with the AI. The computers themselves are incredibly stupid, and are no danger. However, when you take those computers, with their enormous quantitative power of simulating trillions of outcomes and pruning the tree of options until you get something that’s useful, and give them to extremely smart people, who work for extremely evil people, you end up with a nightmare of incredible proportions.

Liberty and safety

Whenever a government introduces some totalitarian measure that infringes upon liberties and freedoms of all, they justify it with “safety for you and your children”. Every single restriction introduced, from speed bumps and surveillance cameras to financial restrictions, is justified with either “need for law and order”, implying that only a criminal would oppose it, or “safety of your children”, implying that you must be incredibly irresponsible and callous to oppose it.

My comment on that is very simple. Regarding “safety” I will quote Benjamin Franklin:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Regarding criminality, people implicitly act as if the laws introduced by the state are the laws of God, not something voted on by a bunch of incredibly corrupt people in the parliament. Every evil thing imaginable can become a law, and actually was law at some point in time. In America, the blacks were counted as three fifths of a person and were legally considered property. In the Third Reich, the Jews, Slavs and other “undesirables” were legally stripped of all rights and property and “disposed of” in death camps. It was all perfectly legal, so you might understand my cynicism regarding human laws. I might obey them for fear of reprisals, but I have little inherent respect for them.

Regarding surveillance, I urge you to study the history of the Hollerith (IBM) punch card computers in the Third Reich. Please do, don’t take my word on it. People didn’t object to the census performed by the Nazis because they implicitly assumed that it would be impossible to analyze all those mountains of data and figure out whose third cousin is a Jew. Unfortunately, they didn’t understand that the Nazis had the technology to do just that, and with very little work. They categorized the data in computationally-friendly forms and used the mechanical punch-card computers to do the work. After that, they very accurately knocked on people’s doors and brought their precisely targeted victims to the death camps. But don’t believe me, because apparently nobody does, I’m supposed to be the one everybody doubts. Just do your own fucking homework and understand what those cameras on the streets, “for the safety of your children”, are actually for. And understand that “money laundering” is a code for “saving your money from forced confiscation by the state”. Every single measure against “money laundering” and “financing terrorism” will be used against you, when you try not to pay the 75% tax, or when you are designated a “right-wing domestic terrorist” because you don’t want your children to be indoctrinated with pro-Muslim or gender-fluid brainwashing at school.

But first, you need to be ready to sacrifice your lives, and the lives of your children, for liberty. Remember that there are no human rights. It’s a “social construct”, as the leftists like to say. There are now “human rights” because the law says so. The laws are changed in “emergencies”.

So, if someone wants to introduce some restrictive measure for the “safety of your children”, and you say “no thanks, I’ll take my chances”, do you understand what kind of hell will break loose?

Told you so

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

A new study conducted by a Finnish research team has found little evidence to support the idea of man-made climate change. The results of the study were soon corroborated by researchers in Japan.

In a paper published late last month, entitled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’, a team of scientists at Turku University in Finland determined that current climate models fail to take into account the effects of cloud coverage on global temperatures, causing them to overestimate the impact of human-generated greenhouse gasses.

Given the evidence presented in the study, the Finnish team rounded out the paper by concluding “we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” adding that “the low clouds control mainly the global temperature.”

The results sharply cut against claims put forward by many environmentalists, including US lawmakers such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who argue not only that climate change is an immediate threat to the planet, but that it is largely a man-made phenomenon. Ocasio-Cortez, better known as ‘AOC’, has proposed a ‘Green New Deal’ to address the supposedly dire threat.

I had a simple anecdotal method of figuring out there’s no climate change. Like, watching things for 40 years and noticing that nothing changed. Sea level rise estimated from tidal markings on known places: zero. Average weather patterns: the same. If not for the hysterical communists, one would see no problem whatsoever.

 

About identity

There’s another thing where I can’t find much commonality with the right-wing politicians, and that’s identity politics.

You see, they either say it’s a terrible thing and the political left is wrong to embrace it (often citing Martin Luther King as someone who was against it), or they embrace their identity as White Europeans, with a possible addition of Christianity to the identity-definition.

I lose them in both cases, because my primary identity is spiritual. It’s not that I don’t understand or have the lower kinds of identity – as male, white, European, Croatian – but frankly, I would feel immediate identity-level kinship with a black or Asian woman who has a vajra-level soul type, meditates on Shiva and practices sophisticated yogic techniques, and I am surrounded by white male Croats whom I see as basically cattle, empty soulless things bred by Satan in his contempt for God and everything that is holy.

So yes, I practice “identity politics” on a very instinctual and practical level on a daily basis, but my understanding of identity has nothing to do with any physical or even civilisational or cultural traits. It doesn’t even have anything to do with intellect, intelligence, education, or anything of the sort: all my enemies, who worked day and night for years to harm me in every possible way, all share the same superficial identity as my physical body – all being male, white Europeans – and I feel nothing for them but hatred, disgust and contempt.

Most people I felt deepest kinship with are either women from Europe, or men from India, long dead. So this right-wing notion that I should somehow identify with white Europeans against other races, or MGTOW notion that I should identify with men against women, is something that feels incredibly alien. I can identify with St. Augustine, who was a Berber from North Africa in the late Roman Empire, with St. Theresa of Avila who was a woman from the medieval Spain, with Ibn Tufayl who was a medieval Muslim, with several yogis from India, with Buddha or Jesus, but I feel absolutely no common identity with a white male from Zagreb, who is a piece of shit soul spending his worthless life scheming, plotting, gossiping and basically doing everything in his power to harm me, because through me he saw God whom he bitterly hates with every kalapa of his worthless being that is sentenced to eternal damnation in hell, where he belongs for all eternity.

I will rather live in harmony with people who are of different sex, race, culture, religion and intellect, who don’t even speak my language, but whose souls are immersed in meditation on God, than have to bear the hateful existence of people who share all kinds of superficial traits with my physical body, and yet they hate and oppose everything I love and hold dear. So, yes, I’m a racist; deeply and to the core, but I care primarily for the hardness and nature of the soul. Secondarily, I care for virtues and their manifestation in the world. And all that because I care only for God.

You therefore need to understand this: when I express contempt for the Arab and other immigrants into Europe, this contempt is not based on the fact they are Arabs, or that they are Muslim. It’s based on the clear understanding that they are human garbage devoid of all virtues, who came here for free money and easy pussy. However, when I would pick who goes to hell, or whom I would like to commune with in eternity, physical or cultural traits would not even come into consideration.

Failures at the right-wing

There’s no reason for me to criticise the left-wing politics any more. They are so obviously insane that nobody in his right mind needs any kind of argument regarding this. However, I am increasingly troubled by the right-wing apologists, and I’m going to explain my reasoning here. However, this might be difficult since I’ve been thinking about this extensively and the depth and scope of my true analysis will certainly exceed the limitations of a single article. For this reason, I’ll try to start with the conclusion, and then branch the argument further until I get something usable.

The conclusion is that they have nothing to offer that hadn’t been tried already, and the attempts to fix the problems that arose in the historical attempts to implement their ideas gradually produced the mess of a political scene and, on a more profound level, a dysfunctional civilization in the process of collapse.

They offer nationalism as a remedy for globalism, secularism as a remedy for the infiltration of Islam into the social fabric of the West, occasionally they resort to some sort of a spiritually vapid form of Christianity as a remedy for the even more spiritually vapid secular atheism, they assume that the separation of Church and State is the way to go, democracy is implicitly assumed as a superior solution, they never question the concept of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of specific individuals, they never question the concept of shielding oneself from the corruptibility of individuals by resorting to impersonal bureaucracy and legislature, they never question equality of individuals before law, and so on. However, we already are very close to the end-result of following those implicit premises to their logical conclusions, into madness and evil.

What the right-wing apologists are saying now is that they would like secularism and separation of rule from person, but that’s how we got the slaughterhouse that was the French revolution. They say that nationalism is preferable to globalism and internationalism, but nationalism resulted in two world wars of the 20th century, and internationalism and globalism were thought of as remedies for the evils and extremes of nationalism. They ridicule the leftist gender bullshit and extreme egalitarianism, but all those things were the result of accepting the assumption that Hitler was wrong in the core aspects of his politics, and that he was defeated in the second world war because he was wrong, not because he had weaker military and less resources. You can’t be both virgin and fucked. Hitler came to power as a remedy for the leftist madness of the Weimar republic, which was very similar to what we are having today. What the right-wingers of today are tiptoeing around is the fact that Hitler was more right than he was wrong. He was wrong about solving problems with genocide. He was wrong saying that the Germans are a superior race, and then in the same breath saying they need help competing with the Jews in a meritocratic society. He, too, tried to have it both ways – if the Germans are superior, then you don’t need genocide, racial laws, and segregation of the “inferior races”. If you consistently implement meritocracy, the superior ones will win, however the results might not be neatly aligned across racial and national lines, which is why Hitler couldn’t allow it; the results would contradict his ideology. He was right about opposing degeneracy in art, culture and science. He was right saying that the nature and the environment must be protected. He was right stating that the races and people are different and that there are superior and inferior ones, he just couldn’t bear to act as if this was actually a fact and introduce completely meritocratic laws. He was right stating that the genetically defective humans should not reproduce and that human reproduction should conform to eugenic guidelines, he just forgot that implementing eugenics without regard to compassion and love would produce a dysgenic human race. He was wrong about many things, but he was also right about enough things that he ought not be dismissed out of hand without carefully considering his arguments, and he was certainly not wrong enough to be used as a standard for evil and wrongness. However, if there’s something both left and right of today’s politics agree on, it’s that Hitler was evil and that the “good guys” won the second world war. Also, they agree that the right side won the French revolution, and that all basic precepts of secularism are valid. This is why the political right of today is unable to offer solutions that don’t consist of performing a rollback to some already tried and failed state. They have no original, new, radical solutions. Nothing that hasn’t already been tried, and nothing that hasn’t already failed so badly that it produced the main-stream politics of today as an attempted solution.

It’s interesting how the Jews act as if Hitler was more right than he was wrong; they accept the fact that there are races of different value, they just think they are the superior race. They accept the fact that a superior race can use genocide and violence against inferior races and peoples that threaten it, and they use those measures against the Arabs. Basically, the only thing they have against Hitler is that he was on the opposite side and a threat, but they accept his basic assumptions and methods. If they can do this, and they would in theory have every right to assume he was wrong about everything and accept him as the etalon of evil, where opposite of Hitler is good, there is obviously something quite not right about the European right-wing in their willingness to accept the assumptions that Israel, despite all reasons for the opposite, was unwilling to accept. That’s why Israel is, in my opinion, a spiritually much healthier society than Europe. They, at least, are ready to accept the premise that they are the best, that they are worthy, that they have the right to assume supremacy and rule over others, and if something is different from them, it’s probably because it’s worse. If a civilization is unwilling to accept those premises, it ceases to defend its right to exist and to fight others for supremacy and, even existence. If a civilization, or a person, approaches life from a position of cynicism and scepticism towards oneself, it is by definition degenerate and in the process of extinction. If you don’t think you’re the best, you are basically calling others with less scruples to wipe you out and take your place. That’s how things work. You can’t have a healthy, or even sane society if you are unwilling to accept the fact that the same fair rules must apply to everyone, and that those who succeeded under those rules deserved to succeed, and those who didn’t most likely deserved to fail. And you also can’t have a sane and functional society if you are unwilling to inspect those who failed and determine which ones failed due to no fault of their own and help them as a community, and which ones failed because they are no good, and allow them to suffer the consequences of their poor choices and serve as a reminder to others.