Category Archives: society

Some hindsight

Posted on by
Reply

In my first book, I addressed the ecological issues caused by negative anthropogenic influences on the world, namely:

  • pollution of the soil

  • pollution of the waters

  • pollution of the atmosphere

  • damage to the ozone layer

  • the glasshouse effect

  • damage to the food chain and the ecosystem

  • electromagnetic pollution

  • acoustic pollution

  • mental and spiritual pollution

  • moral pollution

So, I think it would be interesting to go back to that list and see whether I understood the problems correctly, in the sense that I called out the actual ones, and if so, have they been remedied or exacerbated since the late 1990s.

The first thing I notice when I read the book again is that I made significant improvements in depth of understanding of the issues since then; basically, I would make a much better analysis today. However, much of it is not actually wrong.

Pollution of the soil was a real problem and actually got worse – for instance, the Americans started using hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) as a method of extracting oil and gas from the ground, by pumping all kinds of toxic chemicals into the ground, contaminating ground water and creating whole lakes of toxic sludge. This is by no means an improvement. The attempt at recycling served to alleviate the guilt of the people but did little to reduce the amount of trash produced, mostly because plastic can’t actually be recycled and it’s all a fraud.

Pollution to the waters was a real problem and it also got worse. The oceans are seriously contaminated by all kinds of plastic debris that gets into the food chain, and then there are the chemicals that get dumped into the oceans, also accumulating in the food chain.

Atmospheric pollution was masked by moving industry to Asia, so that the Europeans and Americans don’t have to see it, so it got better in some places and worse in others.

Damage to the ozone layer was put under control by replacing harmful propellants and refrigerants with non-harmful ones. I guess it will take time for all the harmful stuff to filter out of the atmosphere but it no longer seems to be a serious issue. This seems to be an actual case of a climate alarm that was justified, produced a constructive response, and the issue was put under control or resolved completely.

The glasshouse effect, meaning the anthropogenic CO2 dump in the atmosphere, was an opposite case, where alarmism grew as the predictions were increasingly falsified. Basically, the predictions of the climate alarmists were falsified to such an extent, that I’m no longer sure if any of it was ever justified; there was no increase in sea levels, the increase in global temperature was so small it doesn’t justify any alarm, and the positive effects of increased atmospheric CO2 were noticed on plant life, because apparently the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was normally so little, it was a limiting factor of plant growth, so there was a noticeable greening of previous deserts. However, as the problem turned out not to be real, the hysteria of the climate alarmists reached incredible proportions and became increasingly unhinged. For instance, in Australia the “green” idiots outlawed clearing the brush because CO2 and stuff, and this provided abundant fuel for wildfires, which were then blamed on global warming. This kind of idiocy is becoming more common and is typical for crazy ideologies when they are disproved by reality, and their proponents are simply unable to accept it. For instance, when communism in the Soviet Union failed, this failure was blamed on “saboteurs” and “reactionary influences”, triggering purges.

Damage to the food chain and the ecosystem is still a problem. I don’t know whether it got worse, but it didn’t get better.

Electromagnetic pollution got worse. We are immersed in microwave noise across the spectrum and the consequences of this are not properly researched. My hunch is that some parts of this noise is harmless, because it’s not much different from the natural background, and some parts influence the cellular anatomy that normally deals with interconnectedness between spiritual and material realities, basically saturating with noise the exact parts that are necessary for normal functioning of the subtle spiritual senses.

The acoustic pollution remained the same, however “noise” became a worse, multi-spectrum issue.

The mental and spiritual pollution was a problem then, and absolutely exploded with social media and smartphones that made the connection to the Internet ubiquitous, and made it possible for everybody to be constantly brainwashed with the same, very narrow profile of stuff. It is my estimate that this is probably the worst development since I first addressed the issues, because it turned mankind into, for all intents and purposes, a singular mental entity, and this entity is an imbecile.

The moral pollution was a real problem then, and it got much worse because of all kinds of false morality and virtue signalling. The spiritual space normally occupied by a sense of right and wrong based on transcendence was supplanted by all kinds of false concerns and hysteria, and it all seems to come down to replacement of the traditional concept of human duties with the false concept of human rights.

There are also issues I didn’t address then, because they didn’t look like a problem at that time. For instance, the nuclear standoff of the 1980s seemed to be permanently resolved so I felt no need to address it in 1999, however the Americans mishandled the peace so badly, that most of the world, lead by Russia and China, seems to be permanently done with it, and as they reject American rule, conflict seems inevitable.

As a conclusion, I would say that my analysis from 1999 was mostly correct; the only thing that proved to be a non-issue is the glasshouse effect due to CO2 emission, which is hilarious considering the amount of alarmist hysteria about it. On the other hand, I never anticipated the level of mental devastation caused by the social media and the mental monoculture it created.

About conspiracies

Posted on by
Reply

I keep hearing people talking about conspiracies, and they are obviously something they are fond of – they give the powerless the illusion of having power, in a sense of at least understanding what’s going on in the world. However, since their reasoning power and understanding of the world are usually poor, the “conspiracies” they come up with are invariably false. No, the Earth is not flat, and people really did land on the Moon, and two planes did indeed crash into the WTC. However, there are some conspiracies that turn out to be true – covid is an American bioweapon, for instance. America blew up the Nord Stream pipeline. Some “conspiracy theories” are branded as such probably only because the official history is counterfeit for political reasons.

However, I think people have a fundamentally mistaken view of conspiracies. They think the conspirators must be some powerful elites, the invisible secret societies that pull the strings of history, and it’s either the Illuminati, or the Templars, or the Freemasons, or the Jews. They think the conspirators manipulate the events to their benefit, and to the detriment of others. I think this view is fundamentally mistaken.

Yes, there are conspiracies and conspirators. They do make plans and execute them. They frequently manage to do great harm and change the course of history. However, even when their plans are successful, I don’t think they fundamentally change the conspirators’ strategic position.

I will cite two examples – the assassination of Julius Caesar and Lenin’s revolutionary movement. The conspirators against Caesar wanted to stop Caesar from concentrating power in his person. They succeeded and Caesar was killed. The civil war ensued, and ended when Octavian, the ultimate winner, proclaimed himself emperor and concentrated all the power of the state in his person. Caesar was killed, lots of other people were killed, and nothing strategically changed for the Roman state, because concentration of power in the Emperor was actually the logical solution for the problem of the state’s fragmentation of power at that point, which Marius, Sulla, Caesar and ultimately Octavian merely had taken advantage of and solved.

Lenin’s success in spreading the communist propaganda in the Russian empire was the result of a conspiracy of the German political leadership to finance Lenin, whom they saw as a disruptive element that would destabilise Russia and make it exit the war. They gave him tens of millions of marks, which was sufficient to finance the huge and ultimately successful propaganda effort. The conspiracy was successful, and Russia surrendered and exited the war, had a terrible internecine civil war, and its historic progress was degraded. However, none of this helped Germany – it still lost the war, had a terrible period of poverty that caused the meteoric rise of Hitler, which caused the second world war and Germany’s ultimate destruction by the hand of those very Russian communists they helped create.

Basically, what we see are two examples of conspiracies that are a tactical success and a strategic failure – they accomplished the immediate goal, but failed to achieve the actual goal.

What does this tell us? First of all, it tells us that people are mistaken in their view that great historic trends can be changed by influencing one thing – for instance, if you killed Hitler in time, there would be no WW2. This is the mistake the Caesar’s assassins made, thinking their problem was Caesar, and all they did was get themselves eliminated, get a lot of people killed, and promote Octavian to Caesar. If you killed Hitler, the problems that made him rise to power would make someone else rise to power, and that one might not have had Hitler’s weaknesses, making the problem potentially worse. What we see is that conspirators are often successful, but short-sighted, and with a flawed understanding of the issues at hand. They are not some all-powerful, all-knowing cabal ruling mankind from the shadows; they are just men with flawed understanding, who use their power to succeed tactically, get many people killed and often cause terrible suffering for many more, and still fail to accomplish their actual goal.

An example of this are the Jews, with their Zionist efforts. Every single move they made seems to have been successful – get the state of Israel, move there, protect it using the power of America, make it modern and powerful. However, strategically they painted themselves into a corner. They have the worst piece of real estate in the Middle East, which is mostly desert and doesn’t even have oil. They don’t have the majority there because they couldn’t get rid of the Arabs, who hate them and perpetually conspire to destroy them. Their international protection is America, whose power is waning. Essentially, they managed to all move to a single place and make their collective destruction more likely, while still failing to accomplish a Jewish-religious state populated only by Jews, that would be safe for them and allow them to practice their religion and maintain their society, and not assimilate.

Sure, we must be mindful of conspiracies, as history teaches us that they exist, and can produce great harm. However, history also teaches us that conspirators don’t really benefit from their actions, and often succeed tactically only to be doomed strategically.

The ultimate lesson is that if you don’t know what you’re doing, being able to actually do it successfully can be more of a curse than a blessing.

Futility of pretense

Posted on by
Reply

I was recently asked how I can manage it; knowing that the global economy is in the process of controlled demolition, that a major world war is unfolding and it’s just a matter of time before it goes nuclear, and the global “elites” have plans to kill half of us and completely subjugate the rest.

My response was “what’s the alternative?”

I can pretend everything is fine but that takes away my power to do what little I can to be aware and prepared, essentially to watch for the direction of the falling tree before I start running. I cited the example of a leaky window frame – I can either pretend there’s no problem, and ignore rainwater seeping into the wall and the black mould colonies, I can be aware of the problem and do nothing about it because it’s not my problem to fix, or I can be aware of the problem and do something about it. The only options that include any agency on my part start with awareness. Sure, it’s not very comfortable to know that the world that we know is pretty much doomed. But what is the alternative? Live in an illusion? What problems does that solve? It’s like having a brake light on my car turn on, but I say it’s fine because the brakes haven’t failed yet. Yes, fixing the brakes is a hassle – get an appointment with the mechanic, wait, travel there and back and spend some money. But what’s the alternative? Wait until the brakes fail completely, hope you don’t wreck the car when they do, and then still have to fix the problem, only with an undriveable car so you have to have it towed. How would that be helpful?

With the civilizational collapse, the matter is different only in the sense that one can say we’re doomed anyway and no degree of preparation can help, so it’s better to just not get stressed over it, but that is a fallacy right there. Let’s assume the worst-case scenario – total doom, and nothing you can do can save you. Oh, really? You can’t meditate, you can’t pray to God for guidance, you can’t resolve your attachments, you can’t put your affairs in order? You can do many things, because souls do survive the death of the body, at least for those who in fact have a spiritual core worth speaking of. Let’s say there’s a nuclear exchange, and it kills the total of 3.5 billion people, which is more-less the worst-case scenario estimate. With today’s world population of 8.1 billion, this means 4.6 billion survivors, which is more than the world population was in the year 1980. There would be no nuclear winter; that’s known to be pseudo-scientific rubbish. Sure, there would be some dust injected into the high layers of the atmosphere, but no worse than the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, which puts a definite upper limit on all my estimates, and the global climate effects of that were trivial. Radiation will be really bad in hot spots, but those will be the exact hot spots where the likelihood of surviving the nuclear explosions and their aftermath will be lowest, anyway, so it’s like shooting a corpse; not really adding to lethality. If you’re not in one of the directly impacted zones, you will likely not even know what happened because there will be a total or almost total loss of communications. There will definitely not be real-time reporting on the Internet or the cable TV.

Let’s say it’s just the economic collapse and the war threat fizzles out for some reason. Economic collapse looks like Yugoslavia in the 1990s, only everywhere, and there isn’t a stable foreign currency to use, because everybody is impacted at the same time. If only one could have known in advance and bought gold and silver to trade with. Oh wait…

Knowing what’s about to happen might not change the outcome, but it gives you some degree of control over your situation, it gives you time to spiritually prepare for death, and it gives you time to prepare for a survivable bad situation in ways that can possibly mitigate the hardships, and even if it doesn’t help in the end, you feel better knowing you at least did what you could.

Honestly, I’m not sure what good my preparations will do, if any, because every single actual hint I got “from above” was about the “other side”, afterwards, and it felt wonderful. I wasn’t warned to stock up on canned beans because I’ll have to survive a nuclear holocaust or something. I was told that this nightmare will end for me. So, why am I still buying gold coins, fixing my car, fixing the leaky roof window and buying a new computer? Why am I not just letting go and letting everything turn to shit? Because that’s not my style. When the end comes, it will find me firmly in control of things, acting as if everything will go on forever, with car serviced, phone batteries charged and with enough gold to ride through a really bad shitstorm, God willing. And at every single second of dealing with things as if they are to go on forever, I will be ready to go at any moment.

Woke

Posted on by
Reply

I find the term “woke” disgusting, because it’s an English agrammatism, used by people who are unable to say “awakened”, because education is apparently racist, and speaking English poorly is apparently a matter of culture.

However, when we try to define what it means, in practice, it’s quite hard, because one would be tempted to write down the entire syllabus of neo-Marxism that underlies it, which would be a lengthy and impractical endeavour.  I thought about it, and here’s what I came up with.

“Woke” is a state of willingness to substitute reality with illusory beliefs whenever truth hurts. Basically, it’s rejection of reality in order to pander to affectations.

The fundamental attitude of science is to carefully measure the facts, and then allow them to lead you wherever reality is. To be “woke” is the exact opposite of that – you start with ideology, and if the facts refute it, the facts are “wacist”.

There is a definition of mental illness as a state of mind that is in disagreement with reality, and that, apparently, is what being “woke” is – an affirmation of mental illness as a legitimate take on life.

 

Tools and signals

Posted on by
12

I saw a comment by Jordan Peterson recently, stating that tools are inherently “magical”, because our brains re-wire themselves in order to encompass the tool as part of personal identity. This rings as very true, from things such as swords and spears, to cars, computers and smartphones. When a good driver drives a car, his identity is so merged with the car, he for all intents and purposes is the car. When a swordsman wields a sword, his self is the sword. If you treat the sword as an outside entity between you and the threat, you won’t live long.

This is something that has long been the object of my interest, as I’ve watched videos of people talking about their tools – from axes and kitchen knives to guns, smartphones, computers and, yes, dogs.

What I found interesting is that people’s relationship with tools seems to be gender-specific. While men will merge self with their tools and project through them in the world in order to accomplish tasks – the tools being things such as axes, swords, guns, cars and computers – women will see those things as mere things that accomplish tasks; there is no extension of self through them and outwards. To a woman, a car is merely a thing that goes from A to B, a computer is merely a tool she uses to communicate or whatever; there is seldom any interest in how it works, or desire to invest effort in proper maintenance. There are exceptions, of course, but those make the rule. What women identify with, extend through and project into the world are clothes and accessories to their body: makeup, handbags, shoes and so on. Women will extend through those things with as much focus and force as a lumberjack through his chainsaw or a racing driver through his car. I would say the difference essentially comes down to the fact that the men’s primary focus is on accomplishing goals in the world, and their tools are the instruments of projecting self into the world and controlling it. If you want to fell a tree, you might not care what your clothes look like, but you will care for what your chainsaw does, because your life depends on it. A woman, however, seems to be primarily inward-oriented, where self is completely immersed in the body, and the tools serve the purpose of amplifying the body and signalling-towards, essentially advertising body-self as attractive and desirable, which then accomplishes the primary life goal of attracting a desirable mate and starting a family. Basically, a man projects self outwards and modifies the world to make it liveable, and a woman attracts a man towards body-self and tries to wrap the world around self in order to create a protective and controlled nest. Interestingly, there is very little self-awareness in all of this; people just do it and seldom think about what they are doing.

Not me, though. I usually give quite a bit of thought to things people just assume, or not even that. For instance, I observed how I identify with and extend through my tools, and how I feel computers differently, depending on whether it’s a laptop or a desktop. It’s much easier to envelop a laptop into self, because it’s one thing. A desktop computer is different, and I form contact with the peripherals – keyboard, mouse, monitor – while the computer itself is somewhere behind all that, a box with wires that is out of sight and out of mind, however I extend into the filesystem, the drives, the directory structure, the network connections, the software tools I use, and through that into the Internet, and there’s always the question of where exactly is my self when I’m on the Internet? It’s certainly not in the physical room, in the body that sits behind the desk. It’s in some forum, forming connections and interacting through the existing ones. I wonder what the actual topology of this would look like in the global astral – Internet “places” would probably look like those maps of illumination taken from Earth’s orbit, where more light means more human activity and presence, and ideal concept such as “brands” would be points of convergence, things people brush against to acquire their “scent” and project such “scented” self outwards, into the places where others come, so that they are perceived as “enhanced” and “accomplished”. The entire thing is probably quite comparable to dogs wallowing in shit in order to change their scent.

It’s not just brands, however – it’s a more general thing. It’s about being perceived as having the right attitudes about things, not just being properly accessorised. That’s why people virtue-signal on the Internet; they basically wallow in “right” kinds of shit in order to smell “right” and be acceptable and, hopefully, popular, in their desired social circle. Unfortunately, there is very little conscious thought involved in all of this; just social animals scent-signalling and marking territory, or declaring self as marked territory, in submission – I belong to nation, I belong to religion, I belong to “climate change social justice believe everything the authorities say” cult. Inject yourself with bioweapon in order to signal submission to the authorities and belonging to the main stream of the herd in order to claim its protection, and the sense of superiority to the “others”. Believe every kind of nonsense you are told and still declare yourself to be a free, liberal person, because that’s a thing you have to believe if you’re “normal”.

However, if you actually use your critical faculties to process the world around you, the silliness of it all is greatly outweighed by tragedy.