How to win

If we recapitulate things, it gets interesting.

During the Trump elections, the only significant sources who broke the CIA-imposed information blockade were the Russians (RT, Sputnik, Saker), Alex Jones’ Infowars, and Julian Assange’s Wikileaks.

After the elections, Trump has been systematically isolated and surrounded by people who are essentially his enemies, the Russians have been systematically attacked, sanctioned, slandered and demonized, Julian Assange is about to be arrested, and Infowars was simultaneously banned on all major IT platforms, except www and e-mail.

What this tells me is several things.

First, it confirms that all social media platforms and major IT companies are controlled from a central point. Whether that is CIA or NSA is behind the point, but they all work like a single entity when political action is concerned. We should add financial institutions to the methods of pressure: Paypal, Visa, Mastercard, the banks, SWIFT. Major data centers, where everyone keeps their servers. It’s all CIA controlled.

Second, it tells you whom they see as a real enemy. You attack those who can actually harm you.

Third, it tells us how things really stand. It’s a war that cannot be won by sitting in a chair and posting things on YouTube and Twitter. It can also not be won by violence, because the enemy controls that. It cannot even be won with the help of a benevolent superpower like Russia, because if it attempts to break CIA’s information blockade, it is demonized and threatened with war.

It can be won by passive aggression. It can be won if you understand who is the enemy, what they are trying to do, and you silently subvert them, in your private life. Don’t believe in the leftist bullshit. Don’t believe in socialism, feminism and all the implicit bullshit the media is selling you. Don’t consume the media, and if you do, block their adds. Starve the enemy of money. Starve them of your support. If they force you to do something, formally comply and then don’t do it, or do it so poorly they don’t benefit from it. Don’t give them the excuse to attack you frontally, but force them to spend more resources than they get out of you. If you bankrupt the government, then it can’t afford to spy on everyone and run things from the shadows.

Don’t buy useless bullshit. Buy only the things that are actually useful to you. Protect your interests first, and extend this to the people you care about. Ignore pleas for compassion for people you don’t personally know or care about, because that’s one of the main instruments of manipulation. Do things directly – if you want to do good, help concrete individuals that you know and care about, don’t donate money to some organization. Support the things you love, and resource-starve the things you hate. Don’t feel guilty because you’re indifferent about things you don’t give a fuck about.

If you need something, pay for it yourself. Don’t ask or expect the government to do it. It’s not free. It’s the same amount you’ll pay, plus ten times overhead, and it’s all stolen money.

Don’t use social media. They control what you see. For instance, I have good reason to believe I’m being shadow-banned on everything Google-controlled. It means that I write a comment on a YouTube video and I get no votes or comments. When I do the same on RT, I get lots of votes and comments. It’s not unreasonable to assume that this disparity is due to silent censorship.

Pray to God to deliver us from evil. This life is temporary. This place is not the actual reality. God is. Always have that in mind.

Egalitarianism, and why nobody really believes in it

I’m thinking about the implicit assumptions of egalitarianism, and it seems that those people who advocate for it: the feminists, communists, egalitarians; they all assume a weird kind of power dynamics where those who are superior exploit and abuse those who are inferior. However, things don’t seem to work that way. In patriarchal societies power is always a two-way street. Yes, you are in charge of your wife and children. However, being in charge means you are responsible for their well-being. It is your duty to see that everybody is in the best possible state. Power and duty are well balanced, and it’s actually a male biological instinct, which fails only in very fucked up and psychotic specimens. The problem is, when you give women power, they don’t have those instincts and they treat power as something that doesn’t come with conditions and duties, and as a rule, a woman in power is a monster who doesn’t understand the limits. The Hindus mythologized this very nicely in the story about Kali, the embodiment of female power, which on its own behaves like a blind force of chaos and destruction, and can only be stopped and controlled by Shiva, the embodiment of male power. Essentially, when women are left without men or when they are put in charge, they go crazy, often in very dangerous ways, and I would say the reason for that is they don’t have instinctual genetic guidance for those circumstances, because all functional human societies were always patriarchal, and women always functioned in those circumstances, so that’s all their genetics knows how to handle. You can now say that reason overrides genetics, and I say good luck with this theory, because for most humans reason is what they use to do what their instinctual genetic drives tell them is worth attaining. If you put a woman in power, she behaves like a power-drunk crazy person, on one hand, and on the other hand she feels resentful because she feels there ought to be a superior man in charge of her, and if there isn’t, it’s wrong, she feels like she is forced to do someone else’s work.
So, egalitarianism. Let’s ignore the physical part – even the men who work in construction do it using machines, where you basically pull levers and push buttons, and that’s all the strength you need to operate a crane or a tractor. Women can do it as well, so that’s not the central issue. The central issue is, what happens if it turns out that female hypergamy is a healthy genetic instinct which assumes that a woman must find a partner one step above her own status? What if it proves that men and women are not equal, but in a normal society, for the smartest and most capable woman in the world there will always be one man who is just that much smarter and more capable than her, that she is meant to fall in love with because her place is with him. However, it is also natural that the worst men are expendable. The lowest 10%, or whatever actual percentage it is, are such idiots that it is better to use them as cannon fodder than let them reproduce. That’s why women normally avoid useless men as a plague, and feel offended if they address them at all. That’s because women naturally aim above, they look for a worthy boss, not someone “equal”, and certainly not someone inferior. As a woman, if you are not cared for by someone who is in charge of things, traditionally you end up very badly. So, essentially, egalitarianism is something that is desired only by those on the bottom of the barrel, because it would improve their chances, but it’s exactly for this reason why it should not be allowed. Everybody but the worst human refuse will do better in a patriarchal meritocracy.
It’s interesting how women will say they like egalitarianism, until you point them towards an inferior man and ask them if they would have sex with him, and watch the disgusted expression on their faces. Also, they are all for the distribution of wealth, until you tell them that their sexuality is also a form of wealth and they should share it with those men who are too fucked up, ugly and poor to be able to find a woman, and again, watch the expression on their faces. For the most part, egalitarianism is just a posture, and internally people behave as if they are in a set of hierarchies; women have a hierarchy of beauty, men have a hierarchy of power, scientists have a hierarchy, pilots have a hierarchy, and a meta-hierarchy is called civilisation.

America and the symptoms of breakdown

Someone remind me, why was the Watergate scandal such a big deal? Oh, a running president wiretapped the opposition during the campaign? And why are those who did the same thing to Trump not in serious trouble, fired or jailed?

President Donald Trump has claimed files about his former campaign adviser Carter Page confirm that the Department of Justice and FBI had misled the courts. Separately, he suggested his campaign was “spied upon illegally.”
Donald Trump on Sunday lashed out at the FBI and the Department of Justice, which released over 400 pages of its initial and renewed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requests pertaining to Carter Page, Trump’s ex-foreign policy adviser.
Praising Judicial Watch, a conservative foundation that studied the files, the president tweeted: “As usual they are ridiculously heavily redacted but confirm with little doubt that the Department of “Justice” and FBI misled the courts. Witch Hunt Rigged, a Scam!”
In a subsequent message, Trump suggested his 2016 presidential campaign has been under unlawful surveillance orchestrated by his Democratic contender. “Looking more and more like the Trump Campaign for President was illegally being spied upon (surveillance) for the political gain of Crooked Hillary Clinton and the DNC,” the angry tweet said.
(Link: https://www.rt.com/usa/433944-carter-page-fisa-fbi-trump/)

 

Someone will say, oh, but Trump was suspected of having contacts with the Russians. No he wasn’t – in fact, the entire story started when Hillary’s campaign figured out it would be a good idea to spread this as rumors and even paid for the creation of the “Steele dossier“. So basically the same group of people invented the Russia connection and then had it “investigated”. It’s actually much, much worse than Watergate. It’s outright treason, an attack on the constitution and the way government and judiciary are supposed to work. Essentially, it’s an attempt to prevent the people of America in electing their own president, and then trying to prevent this president from doing his job, by fabricating reason after reason why he isn’t really the president so they are allowed to oppose him.

America’s state of government at the moment is something one can normally see during the early stages of a civil war, where one part of the country claims the government is illegitimate and breaks off. I’ve seen this in Croatia between 1990 and mid-1991. Yugoslavia formally existed and Belgrade was formally in charge, but that existed only on paper. In reality, Belgrade couldn’t implement anything.

Another thing that’s popular in America today is to suggest that everybody who doesn’t want WW3 with Russia is working for Putin. Beside this being obviously nonsensical (if Putin tries to have people not want a nuclear war, what’s actually wrong with Putin?), what’s the actual claim? That everybody who has an opinion that differs from that of the CIA and its hired scum works for Putin? The actual problem is that the CIA controls most of the politicians and the media in the “western world”, and, unfortunately, everywhere else, except for China and, in part, Russia. The Russians have some media presence in form of RT and Sputnik, and those became popular exactly because they are the only semblance of free press that we actually have – everything else is CIA controlled and spouts utter nonsense that fails to bear even the slightest bit of intellectual scrutiny.
The problem is, I’ve seen this kind of paranoia before, in SFR Yugoslavia, where they had labels for people who asked uncomfortable questions, and being labelled “counter-revolutionary”, “reactionary”, “opposing brotherhood and unity of our nations and nationalities” or something similar could make you disappear. This process of labelling took place for instance when the Croats and Slovenians asked where all the money went – they asked unpleasant questions and those who stole the money responded by calling the accusers “enemies of brotherhood and unity”, which is an idiotic accusation, both non sequitur, ad hominem and ad baculum at once – has nothing to do with the issue at hand, but slanders the opponent and implicitly threatens him. So that’s what I see in America today – a crazy society similar to Yugoslavia in its death throes.

Fuck football

With all this football world cup bullshit, I wish there was a nuclear shelter nearby wherein I could lock myself with water and survival rations, because this global bipolar disorder over ritualized tribal warfare thing is getting ridiculous.

Can Putin be compared to Stalin?

I just found a video that plays with this idea. However, it is my opinion that this is completely wrong, and here’s why.

The image of Stalin who inherited a rural Russia, industrialized it, defeated Hitler and brought Russia to space is over-the-top rosy and far from accurate. He actually weakened USSR’s defense against Hitler with his purges. Industrialization was well on its way in the Russian Empire, which is why Prussia felt threatened and this in fact was one of the causes of the first world war. Tsiolkovsky did his work on rocketry in the Russian Empire. Sikorsky did his aeronautics work in the Russian Empire, and later emigrated into America. What Stalin did was kill/imprison the best and the brightest people in the USSR, his experiments at agriculture killed about ten million Ukrainians, essentially he killed as many Russians as did Hitler, and btw the biggest reason the Russians didn’t go to the Moon first was that Korolev, the chief designer, died because his heart was weakened due to years spent in Stalin’s gulag. So don’t get me started about Stalin. Stalin was absolutely nothing like Putin. Stalin was stupid, violent, authoritarian and paranoid. Putin is wickedly smart, competent, calm, peaceful, he convinces people instead of ordering them around, and he pulled the country out of the deep dark place and restored it to the position where it all but exceeds the brightest parts of its imperial and soviet history. Stalin is among the darkest demons of mankind, and Putin is among the brightest stars of politics of all time. There were no purges and gulags under Putin. He does kick ass, but with pinpoint accuracy: just a few worst villains, never the entire classes of people. He is to be admired and his glorious achievements should be studied at universities worldwide as an example of how to run a state optimally.