Category Archives: society

CIA controlling your sources and money

Posted on by
2

There is strong evidence that CIA is editing the Wikipedia.

However, if you think it’s the only source they are manipulating in order to provide you with their “facts”, you are too naive for this world. You see, what is usually called the “main stream media” in the West, is basically the CIA. They give you the “main stream”, and if you want actual facts, you need to carefully sift through “discredited conspiracy theorists”, of which some are crazy, some are giving you the truth, and some are both.

The political class in the West, both opposition and the government, is pre-selected by the CIA, except for the politicians and parties that are laughed at and discredited by the media – those actually represent your interests, but if you vote for them, like people did for Trump, nothing will come of it because the actually elected politicians are sabotaged and the next election is carefully rigged to remove them from office, and then possibly imprison or kill them.

If you want to know what’s actually in your interest, make an intersection of all the things main stream media tells you is bad, laughable, ridiculous, criminal and dangerous, and go for it, because that’s your only hope. If they say only criminals would use encryption, use encryption. If they say only criminals would use crypto, use crypto. If they say only criminals would use gold, use gold. Those people divide people into three groups: sheep that trust them and are exploited and occasionally culled, when it’s good for the environment; “criminals”, who are the competition and who act independently; and sheep dogs, the police and the military, that keep the sheep obedient and “criminals” controlled. They have only two weaknesses: they are sensitive to revolution, which is why they try very hard to brainwash the sheep and keep them docile, playing video games in virtual reality and not paying attention to the physical world, and feeding them propaganda about the next group they should hate. The other thing they are traditionally sensitive to is running out of money.

The present situation, as I see it, makes all the governments in the West highly sensitive to bankruptcy, because they have been persistently eroding every productive force in society and feeding parasites and madmen for quite a while, in their anti-meritocratic, anti-capitalist policies, and this genuinely looks like they forgot how and why things work, which is good because it imposes a limit on their efforts of eliminating individual freedoms. You can’t finance the giant oppressive system that feeds useless immigrants if you’re broke. However, before they go bankrupt, they will do their best to completely drain all the useful resources from the system, and impose unseen methods of totalitarian control. Imagine a credit card that is rejected if you’re not sufficiently vaccinated, chipped, or if you didn’t make enough public displays of support for the current thing. Yeah, not hard to imagine because that’s how things work now, it’s just that now you have alternatives, such as cash. However, cash is being increasingly limited because “it’s good for money laundering”, which means it’s something you can use to escape totalitarian control, so they are working on eliminating it by making steps toward some central bank digital currency that will be controlled from a central place and all alternatives will be outlawed.

That’s their most vulnerable point, because if that digital currency is not adopted, and people start transacting in gold-backed stablecoins, they are fucked, and that’s exactly what we need to do – face them with a situation where over 90% of population is non-compliant, because they can’t deal with that. They can only deal with situations where 90% is compliant, and they violently oppress the rest. When nobody accepts their shit, there’s nothing they can do. Furthermore, people only use their fiat money due to inertia, because that shit isn’t backed by anything and has no actual value other than people accepting it out of habit, because it all works. However, since the governments have inflated the fiat currencies to the point where this system will break, they intend to replace it with another system, which will give them totalitarian control over whether you eat or not. Basically, obey or starve. You see, Bitcoin is shit represented by a gold coin, but why not use crypto that’s actually redeemable in gold on demand, eh? Something that’s actually a pointer to a gold coin. Yes, it’s excellent for money laundering. It’s even better for blocking totalitarian, anti-democratic shadow world government that works on your enslavement and extinction.

Transact in crypto. Settle in gold.

Political induction

Posted on by
Reply

There’s an interesting socio-psychological phenomenon I noticed in Western politics.

As time goes by, official narratives about things are first accepted unconditionally, and then as things move on, they are discredited and what used to be considered an extreme conspiracy theory turns out to be the truth.

However, nobody in the media or the political circus ever connects the dots, and concludes that if something is true for element x and for element x+1, it will most likely also be true for x+2, x+3 and so on.

No. Instead, every new “thing” is treated as if it exists in a vacuum, and the official narrative is to be unconditionally trusted. Also, reasonable people in the West who know that their media aren’t to be trusted with anything, unconditionally trust the official narrative about China, Russia and so on, and believe that every country the West wants to go to war with is a dictatorship ruled by a corrupt tyrant who oppresses his own people and something needs to be done about it. Also, induction is never applied and each new case is treated as if there were no precedent.

The problem, of course, is the emotional cost of the logically correct conclusion, because one would have to accept the fact that the media are controlled by an invisible ruling oligarchy, that the visible politicians are mere puppets, that we are not free, and there is no obvious way out. Also, the more one is invested in the system through “education” etc., the greater the emotional cost of realising it’s all based on deception and indoctrination and is not qualitatively different from the North Korean regime.

 

Why Apple and not Linux?

Posted on by
Reply

I am aware of all the problems with America weaponizing IT by spying, withholding access to technology to those who defy them, and so on. So, why did I not migrate away from American technology, for instance by migrating everything to Linux?

I considered it, but eventually concluded that it wouldn’t solve anything, and would just make things difficult for me in the time before everything collapses anyway.

Let me show you my line of thinking.

I live in Croatia, which is an American vassal state. The government, police, military, courts and news/media are tightly controlled by America. In a best case scenario, I could have a computer that is not controlled by America, but the computer is the least of my problems if they really want to deal with me, as the example of Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan illustrates. They, too, lived in an American vassal state and thought they could be independent, sovereign individuals, and they were proven wrong quite easily. I am perfectly aware that the Americans can at any time pay or pressure any number of local corrupt bastards to plant fake evidence, purchase fake witnesses and lock me up indefinitely on fake charges, if they really found me a threat. They don’t, because I don’t have a significant audience, but they could. Migrating my computers and phone to Linux would not solve any of those issues. If doing it would actually contribute to my safety from any kind of oppression, I would have done it already.

The second argument is that having a technological setup that depends on being able to log in to a cloud service in America might make it all defunct if something happened to either America or the Internet. If that happened, I guess I would have bigger things to deal with than the computer, but I do, in fact, always have alternatives. I have an old laptop with Linux/Windows dual boot, everything on it is up to date, and I can open it at any time, boot into Linux and, in case Microsoft and Apple do some kind of a lock-out, I can still go online and access everything. It’s not like I would have to learn Linux from scratch or anything. I also have a spare Xiaomi smartphone with a spare SIM card, in case my primary phone ceases to function. My main worry in case of a major Apple/Microsoft denial of service is inability to contact people or perform basic tasks, such as the access to Internet banking, mail, ssh, web and so on.

The third argument is that the operating system is actually the least of my concerns, as all hardware seems to be designed with back doors in mind, such as the Intel management engine (ME), which is an ARM core on every modern Intel CPU, that listens to the ethernet port and seems to be designed to wake the computer up on remote command, and perform tasks below anything the user can see or control. Above that is the UEFI/BIOS, which is also proprietary technology that does who knows what, and only then we get to the operating system. The entire palimpsest of technology is so complicated and convoluted that I freely admit inability to secure my computer infrastructure in any meaningful way, because the American back doors are installed in every aspect of the infrastructure. It’s as if the primary purpose of it all was to extend American power and influence, and everything else, such as utility, was a secondary concern, or merely a way to market it. The way they went nuts when Huawei started to out-compete them in selling infrastructure was telling; basically, they couldn’t order the Chinese to install all the back doors and spying tools they install through the American/Western/vassal companies, and every Huawei infrastructural device meant loss of control for America.

So, I could dedicate quite a bit of my personal time and effort to attempts of securing my personal IT sphere, and it would all probably be for naught, so I shrugged and decided not to even try – instead, I decided to secure my money by keeping it almost completely out of the state/bank system, keeping connected just enough to make it easy for me to pay the bills and purchase goods and services in the system before it all fails. You see, there are several levels of true sovereignty. The first is the level of physical power and invulnerability. The second level is money and influence. The third level is all the unimportant stuff people fuss about. I don’t have anything to protect me against the first-level threats. I have enough money on the second level to make me a hard target; close my bank account and I’ll laugh. Try to cancel my credit cards and you’ll find out I don’t have any. Try to make me default on my loans and see I don’t have loans, I do everything cash. I have debit cards because I have to pay for the online stuff, and that would be a problem. I do use communal infrastructure, like water and electricity, and I’m sensitive to interruptions there. I also buy food, so I’m sensitive to interruptions in supply. As you can see, I thought things through and decided that computers are a luxury that works in the present-day environment, which is quite fragile, and it might all blow up at some point, in which case I am prepared to deal with all kinds of contingencies, but migrating to Linux? Yeah, if in some unlikely case in a world without Internet and American services I need computers, I am sure I will be able to patch something together well enough to serve the purpose, but I am more concerned with water, electricity, food, antibiotics and so on. Essentially, it’s a non-issue.

A constructive approach

Posted on by
Reply

There is, of course, a legitimate undertone to all that positivity/negativity talk, and it’s the same thing Jesus mentioned in his “log in eye” parable – basically, stop finding faults with others, because other than signalling your own supposed virtue, it only makes other people feel bad and accomplishes nothing good or useful.

This is a very real issue that needs to be addressed, especially in the age of the Internet and the social media, where everybody tries to make themselves artificially important by making loud and extreme claims that are meant to elevate their voice above the noise floor, and as a result, there’s a lot of hysterical shrieking about every conceivable topic, and any measurable effect of it all is markedly negative. Since it is not a new phenomenon, somebody already noticed it and, basically, stated that one should mind their own abundant flaws before addressing those around him, because, although everybody will always claim that there are more important issues in the world than fixing their own problems, this has always ever been but a way to avoid dealing with one’s own issues. Yeah, there’s plagues and war and climate change and pollution and what not, and there always will be, but how about you learn how to be polite, useful, responsible and honest first, instead of yelling about global warming and accomplishing nothing, eh? The world is perpetually unfixable and, by the way, it’s of no concern to you. Your job is to have a good relationship with God, and then externalize this by being God’s presence in the world, for the benefit of others. Nothing else matters.

Also, in dealings with others, if you have nothing constructive to say or do, it might be best to at least avoid doing harm, and the best way to do that is not to disturb people with critical opinions nobody asked for. Essentially, you need to understand that criticism comes with responsibility, because if you’re observing a problem, criticism must exist in the context of willingness to engage in solving it. If you don’t care enough to engage yourself in solving the problem, it’s obviously something you should not concern yourself with and remaining silent and minding your own business might be the best course for you. For instance, if you observe signs of poverty in your neighbour or a relative, the constructive way to approach it would be to tactfully ask if there’s a problem, and if there’s something you can do to help. Criticising or gossiping is neither constructive nor helpful, and you might instead take a big cup of STFU.

This is what someone probably meant by “staying positive” and “avoiding negativity”; basically, keep your nose out of other people’s business unless you are there to offer help. However, like all things, it was generalised way out of its area of usefulness, and caused a different set of problems.

Positivity

Posted on by
Reply

I was just thinking about all the virtue-signalling and posturing that is currently in vogue, and remembered that I’ve sen something similar before: the “positivity” trend of the 1990s.

Positivity actually has a legitimate purpose in psychology, as I would know, having been proficient in autogenous training, which is a form of self-hypnosis, where positive formulation of suggestions is paramount. By “positive” mean statements such as “my hands are warm” instead of “my hands are not cold”, and so on. It seems that human mind doesn’t really work well with avoiding undesirable outcomes; basically, if you tell it what you don’t want, you’re not really telling it what you do want, which is very much like telling your driver to go “not to London”. That’s hardly a useful instruction, because “not London” is quite a large place.

So, positive suggestions such as “drive me to Bristol” or “get me coffee” work, and negative suggestions such as “drive me away from here” or “get me something other than tea” don’t. However, a whole movement of abject charlatanry developed around those basic truths, and “positivity” and “negativity” became amoral substitute for good and evil, and right and wrong, in a moral framework that tried to avoid such designations at all cost, in order to avoid any notion of religion.

You see, there’s a problem with rejecting negativity in expression. While it is true that you need to positively formulate your ultimate goal in order to be able to get there, it is also true that we often don’t have enough knowledge of the goal at the beginning of the journey. For instance, let’s say that you want to reach God, but what is God, exactly, to someone who is a mere beginner? God is something awesome and magnificent at the very extreme end of a multidimensional coordinate system of values – greatest consciousness, greatest truth, greatest power and so on – but what does that actually mean? Here, negativity plays an important part, because you can see all kinds of evil and depravity and say, “I don’t know what God is, exactly, but let’s assume he’s in the opposite direction from this”, and such a statement will, of course, not lead you to God directly, but if you practice the virtues that are opposite to the wicked depravities that are abundant in the world and easy to perceive, it will certainly help to move you from the starting point, and trying to imagine virtues by rejecting sins will give you some idea of where you want to be, which is of course not perfect, but “not perfect” is much better than “horrible” already, and as long as you understand that this is a transitory position and not a destination, I see nothing wrong with it. Hate and disgust directed at evil things imply some sense of goodness and virtue, and this can later be properly formulated, but as beginnings go, hatred and disgust are effective and dynamic enough to give you some momentum. Certainly, that’s not where you want to be stuck permanently, and you do need to transition your understanding from, for example, “I am revolted by all the perversions in modern society”, to “those things are instinctively revolting because they lie in the direction opposite of God, who is truth, reality and fulfilment”.

My problem with the positivity movement is not as much that it is wrong; it’s an ideological poison, akin to the modern variety known as “tolerance” and “diversity”. Positivity on its own can actually be extremely harmful, if it stops you from recognizing and changing things that are obviously wrong; likewise, tolerance for bad things isn’t a good thing, and diversity on its own doesn’t mean anything good, because is it really preferable to have many different bad things, and not one good thing? If you have many things, is it preferable to see them all as equal, or to choose between them based on some criterion of merit? It all looks like some kindergarten ethical philosophy of “nobody is wrong”; in fact, everybody is wrong, and everybody stands to improve, and stupid flattery is of no use whatsoever.

Without an ethical framework based upon the referential target of the Absolute, all quantitative and qualitative designations are pointless and worthless. What is right and wrong without God as the referential truth? What is good and evil without God as the referential goodness? Of what use is positivity without a referential absolute target? Also, if you understand that a statement “Satan is beautiful” is positive, and a statement “Satan is not beautiful” is negative, it becomes apparent that the entire thing on its own has no moral reference, and is a mere linguistic gimmick. Positivity starts making sense only after you obtain your actual moral reference from a worthwhile theology.