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.

Fake people

I can’t decide whether this AOC crazy person is funny or depressing, but take a look at this:

Fake person having fake emotions over a fake scene in order to create fake news in a fake world.

Because empathy is very useful as a tool for manipulating fools into tyranny. Fake pain results in fake outrage that results in actual laws being passed that will make you even more of a slave, and all “because children”.

What about Iran?

If my analysis from the previous article is correct, the question isn’t whether America will destroy Iran or not. The question is really when and how, because they can’t afford to let it be.

Imagine for a moment that America had its breakdown, and it’s reduced to the state of the Russia of the 1990s. It can’t influence the events in the world in any way. It can’t feed its own military, or its own people. It’s the world’s greatest consumer of humanitarian aid, provided by China, Russia and Europe.

It can’t provide any kind of aid to Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Israel is at that point hugely threatened and has no great probability of survival unless it literally nukes everybody around them, and still they would have no long-term chance of survival, which is why I think the creation of Israel was a very dangerous project, from the position of the Jewish people. It basically puts them all in a single place, surrounded by enemies who want to kill them, and makes them dependent on their influence in America. The Jews were in a better strategic position as a dispersed minority in other nations. As things stand now, they regressed to the point of endangerment that existed directly prior to their Babylonian captivity. They had a state, but it was indefensible. So, Israel wants to act preventively and destroy Iran before it finds itself in a situation where it can no longer count on American military to implement its political goals. Notice how I didn’t mention Saudi Arabia or other Arab states as a threat to Israel; that’s because they are not. Without America and Russia fighting for influence there, the Arabs would be a non-entity. Saudi Arabia wouldn’t survive without America for two weeks; it would be absorbed by the resurgent Turkish caliphate, which would absorb all the Sunni states. From Israeli perspective, Turkey is not dangerous because it has other business, like the Kurds, to preoccupy itself with. Iran, however, would most likely absorb large parts of Iraq, large parts of Syria, and Israel would be swatted like a fly along the way. The Middle East would be divided among the Sunni Caliphate under Turkey and the Shiite Republic under Iran. The Kurds and the Jews would most likely be exterminated.

This outcome is strongly opposed by two major forces in America. The first and obvious is the Jewish lobby. The second are the strategic planners in Pentagon, CIA and similar places. They will try to set the board in such a way that all other players are preoccupied with survival, infighting and wars that weaken them, on a low technological level that makes them a non-entity to an advanced technological civilization or a state. Essentially, reduce everybody to the level where they can’t produce advanced weaponry, where they are economically bankrupt, societally fractured and ideologically and genetically weakened, and make sure no powerful and technologically modern power can emerge and spread across the world during America’s absence. Essentially, they are intentionally harming and weakening the rest of the world and reducing it to chaos, and all in order to buy themselves the time to “reboot”. They saw the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resurgence of Russia under Putin and they know how long the process takes. If, for instance, Iran grabs the Middle East during those 15-20 years, that part of the world will become inaccessible to America. If China absorbs East Asia, that part will be inaccessible to America. If Russia absorbs Europe, that part will be inaccessible to America. And all those regions will accumulate so much power in the meantime, America might actually never re-emerge as a great power, just like Britain didn’t after the WW2. Those are smart people and they know their history, and they know their geopolitical strategy.

Those people are in the positions of actual power since who knows how long. Definitely through the Bush era, when they started implementing the process of reducing the Middle East to chaos. None of that happened by accident. I’ve seen Russians comment it as if this chaos was the result of American incompetence and carelessness, but I see no validity in this line of thinking; I see it all as intentional. A country that is reduced to chaos, and ruled by gangs of thugs, is no threat to a modern technological state, or at least that’s how they see it. I see it differently, because the greatest threat to civilization isn’t another civilization, it’s chaos. Chaos is to a civilization what cancer is to an organism. Chaos is the force of entropy, something that continually attacks and degrades the sophisticated mechanisms that make a civilization work, until it nothing remains but chaos. That’s why chaos is such a dangerous thing to play with, because it has a nasty habit of not remaining safely contained, especially if your own civilization has already been weakened by the mental virus of tolerance and diversity, whereby it was rendered incapable of self-defence against inferior elements. The analysts in the American think-tanks think that if they reduce the Middle East to the level of Libya and Syria, it becomes a non-entity, but that’s not how it actually works. You get chaos, terrorists, fanatics, despair and suffering that breeds more suffering. In fact, a state full of content people is more of a non-entity than a territory filled with desperate fanatics. Chaos tends to produce unpredictable side-effects and it’s impossible to plan for.

To conclude, America doesn’t want to conquer Iran. It just wants to degrade it to the point where it can no longer support a nuclear, space and information technology, and is busy rebuilding its basic utilities (water, electricity, sewage treatment, medical facilities). This is the point from which they expect Iran to require more time to rebuild than America, and that will satisfy them. I can’t see any situation other than Russia preventively nuking America, that would save Iran. If America isn’t stopped, it will keep checking its geostrategic boxes until they get everything to the state where America after 15-20 years of recovery is still in able to resume its position of a world leader. This means Europe needs to be reduced to a shithole, Iran needs to be degraded to the point of having to rebuild power plants and provide water to its population, and, unfortunately, Russia and China need to be reduced to a glass parking lot.

Why Huawei was banned

The American version of the story is that Huawei can’t be allowed to install 5G infrastructure because it’s connected to the Chinese government and will build in back doors and spyware.

However, the American version is also that Iran is aggressive against America by bringing their country too close to the American aircraft carriers which threatens freedom and democracy.

I have a version that is much more likely. So far, America had complete technological supremacy, both on the layer of infrastructure and the layer of consumer electronics. Non-American products used key parts that were either produced or designed by America, and America had the ability to completely control the entire technological layer, either for spying or for denying access.

For the first time, America lost the technological supremacy on the infrastructural layer, which would mean, if free market rules applied, that the Chinese who were the first to market with 5G, would install their own technology across the world. This would mean two things. First, the Chinese could now put their own back doors and spyware in the infrastructure, and this is at least formally the reason for all the noise. Second, and most important, the Americans couldn’t put their own back doors and spyware in the infrastructure. This, I think, is far more important. In all the places where Huawei installed their own 5G routers, America would not be able to collect, store and analyse user data without control or supervision, the way it is used to. They would be forced to actually respect other people’s privacy, if not by choice, then by limitations of technology.

Let’s put 5G concerns aside for the moment and forget that the 5G band contains frequencies that were patented by America as weapons; this is important, but it is not the reason America has their panties in a bunch. They would be perfectly fine with installing weaponized microwave technology on each building in each city, as long as they control the technology. The problem is, they don’t. Which brings us to the next point.

When someone is a technological leader or has the strongest economy, he advocates open borders and free market. When he loses that position, he introduces tariffs and sanctions in order to protect himself. Notice how the roles have reversed between USA and China?

So, it’s not about Huawei, and it’s not even about China, or about spying. It’s about America losing technological and economic supremacy. If America was a normal country with a normal economy, that wouldn’t be so bad. It could fall behind, then get stronger and leapfrog the competition, the way it happens in sport all the time. The problem is, America isn’t a normal country. It’s a country that managed to abuse its dominant position after WW2 in so many ways, from currency to economy, technology and culture, and by abusing I mean thoroughly depending on the fact that it can force other countries to finance their debt, and infiltrate their intelligence assets into vassal countries’ press, politics and education, to the point of total control. America got so dependent on printing trillions of dollars out of thin air and passing the bill to the rest of the world, and using aircraft carriers if anyone had a problem with that, it became a cornerstone of their economy. Their entire economy is based on printing money, using VC funds to pump it into startups, overhyping and overinflating their value at the IPO, and using the GDP data obtained from the stock market to print more money, because American economy is so huge. Most of that economy is nothing but air. That’s why all those comforting stories Americans keep repeating, about Russia having economy the size of Italy, are profoundly misleading, because something must be very wrong about those numbers, because they don’t explain the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is that America is hugely in debt, and the expectation is that countries that are truly technologically and economically powerful have a huge economic sufficit. That’s how America used to be, how Japan used to be until recently, and how China is now. Economically powerful countries create new and abundant financial assets and use them to go around the world and buy. They don’t create debt, they lend money to others and put them in debt. The fact that America is tens of trillions of dollars in debt, and that’s only the actually declared part, makes it obvious that its economy is not real, because real economies create wealth. This means America can’t afford to let go of the dominant position it’s been abusing since the end of the WW2. Their entire country would collapse. It’s not just that they wouldn’t be able to finance their military. The entire structure is built upon foundations of debt and illusion. If their economy collapsed to realistic proportions, based only on what they could actually make and consume without magic tricks of printing tons of aircraft-carrier based money, it’s their economy that might prove to be quite modestly sized. And that’s the reason why they are fighting this process, tooth and nail. They literally can’t afford to lose the dominant global position, because they won’t just be leapfrogged by China or Russia, then do better and leapfrog them back, as a healthy country would be able to do. No; if they lose the no1 position, they will crumble into post-apocalyptic rubble, and take the whole civilization with them. That’s why it’s so difficult for me to explain what I see to other people: because they don’t understand those facts. That’s why my analysis can sound crazy and yet be supported by the events. The way the world actually works and the way people think it works are two vastly different things.

So, when you understand that America can’t afford to lose the dominant position, and yet it is in a position where they can’t maintain it because they already bought themselves some time by removing all rational restraints on money printing in 2008, they got their economy addicted to injections of free money just to keep it going, they impoverished the rest of the world by exporting their inflation overseas (because other countries have to buy dollars with real assets in order to buy oil), and they understood in 2008 that this game is over, and all they could do is buy themselves some time in order to have the collapse on their own terms. All those sanctions and restrictions are merely stop-gap measures. What they are actually doing is destroying the potential competition that could arise in the years of their absence from the dominant position on the world scene. They are preparing the ground in such a way that everybody else is in a worse mess than they will be, so that when they recover, they can just assume the mantle of a world leading power. They destabilized the Arab countries in order to force them to spend all the oil money they accumulated, so that they can’t use it for increasing their control of the world in America’s absence. They destabilized Europe by importing all kinds of worthless human garbage there, so that it turns into an African hellhole mired in endless civil wars and poverty, and forced it to degrade relations with Russia because Russia was a huge market for Europe, and that threatened America, because an alliance between Europe and Russia would have naturally formed in America’s absence and would have taken over the mantle of leadership of the Western civilization. And, unfortunately, the plan for dealing with China and Russia is a nuclear war. They will turn China and Russia into a nuclear wasteland, and put an end to competition that way. That, at least, is what they seem to be planning. However, it is my opinion that they miscalculated. There will be no recovery.