Category Archives: politics

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.

 

Dangers of AI

Posted on by
2

There’s been quite a bit of talk recently about the dangers of AI technology – from human jobs being replaced, to terminator-like robots killing all humans.

My take on this, after having seen some of the AI achievements, is that the name “artificial intelligence” is a misnomer – “artificial stupidity” would be more appropriate. Those things are essentially stupid as fuck, and have some extreme limitations, but they do have the ability to quickly iterate across datasets in order to find a solution, if there is a clear way of punishing failure and rewarding success. That’s basically all they do.

I’ve seen neural networks being trained to win in computer games, and the end-result is amazing and exceeds human ability, simply because it’s a scenario where there are clear win/loss events that enable the neural networks to be trained.

In essence, yes, those things can replace a significant number of human jobs; everything that has to do with data mining, pattern recognition and analysis, trivial but seemingly complex work such as programming that consists of finding and adapting code snippets from the web, or iterative “art” that consists of modifying and combining generic tropes – that’s all going to be done with AI. Engineering work that would require too many calculations for a human, such as fluid mechanics solutions – turbines, rocket engines and so on – are all excellent cases for neural networks.

Unfortunately, military use is among those cases, where it is quite easy to create loitering munitions – basically, drones that hover in the air – that can be sent to scan enemy territory for everything that moves, then recognise targets to identify the priority ones, and crash into them. Ground weapons that recognise human targets and take them down with some kind of a weapon also fit this category, as well as underwater drones that use passive sonar to scan for exactly the kind of ship they want to sink, and then rise from the sea floor and hit it from beneath. This is all trivially easy to do with pattern recognition of the kind that exists today, combined with the kind of hardware that exists today. Imagining killer drones as the humanoid terminators is silly, because such a form would not be efficient. Instead, imagine a quadcopter drone hovering above in scan mode, seeking targets, and then using some kind of a weapon to take them down – a needle with some kind of venom would do. It’s all technically feasible.

The more dangerous thing is a combination of neural networks and totalitarian-minded humans, and by that I mean all kinds of leftists in the West. An AI can data-mine the information sources in order to tag “undesirable” humans, and then this tag would be acted upon by the banks, governments, corporations and so on, basically making it impossible for one to send or receive money if not compliant with the current ideological requirements. This already exists and it’s why we must look for all the things the governments attack as “money laundering friendly” and adopt them as means of doing financial transactions, because if it’s “money laundering friendly”, it means the government can’t completely control it, and if the government can’t control it, it’s the only way for us to survive totalitarian governments aided by neural networks. Have in mind that the governments talk about controlling all kinds of criminals and perverts, but what they really mean is you. Targetting universally hated groups is merely a way to get public approval for totalitarian measures that will then be applied universally. What we will probably all end up doing in order to evade fascist governments is transact in crypto tokens, and settle in gold and silver, in some kind of a distributed, encrypted network that will be incredibly difficult to infiltrate or crack.

Basically, the payment and financial systems have been modified to accommodate totalitarian intent for decades already, to the point where now even the common folk understand that something is not right, but they cannot even imagine the danger. If someone restricts your ability to conduct business and purchase goods and services, and connects that to your political attitudes, you can kiss every idea of freedom and democracy goodbye, and that’s exactly what the American “democratic” overlords have been quietly doing, both at home and in their vassal states. Unfortunately, Russia and China are no better, because government power over the populace is just too tempting for any government bastard to resist.

So, basically, I’m not really afraid of AI. I’m afraid of AI being used by evil humans to create a prison for our bodies and minds, and only God can save us from this hell, which is basically why I think a nuclear war that would decapitate all the governments and destroy the technosphere that gives them infinite power is a lesser evil. The alternative, unfortunately, is much, much worse, because a logical continuation of “business as usual” is being completely controlled by the madmen who will cull the population every now and then to “save the planet” or whatever makes them feel good about themselves, and control us to the point where even saying the word “freedom” would put you on some list you don’t want to be on.

Ukraine war status

Posted on by
Reply

The Ukrainian “offensive” went about as well as I predicted; after a month of hard work and losing a big percentage of their men and equipment, they are still in the minefield zone in front of the first Russian defensive line, which they haven’t even reached.

Also, there is a NATO summit in Vilnius July 11-12, and Ukraine is acting as if it desperately needs to show some progress before then, because they have probably been told that if they don’t demonstrate the ability to take back “their” territory by then, they will be faced with the very real possibility of having to negotiate a settlement with Russia whereby they would have to cede territory in exchange for survival.

As a result, they have been preparing the public for an attack on the Zaporozhye NPP, which of course they will blame on the Russians, and they are making up stories about having destroyed all kinds of Russian equipment (which is very easy to fake by just taking pictures of their own destroyed stuff or just making stuff up like they usually do) .

The Russians, on the other hand, had very strange developments with Wagner, which is still too weird for me to make sense of; the obvious explanation is that Prigozhin got greedy and lost, but it is still possible that it was all a ruse of some kind I don’t understand. Also, the weather is now ideal for the Russians to go in with full force.

Essentially, heads up.

Offensive

Posted on by
30

There’s been all that talk about the upcoming Ukrainian offensive, and I keep waiting for people in the West to figure it out, but I’m afraid it’s not happening, so I’ll describe why such an offensive is simply impossible. I mean, it’s possible, but it’s an incredibly suicidal idea.

To put it simply, the way Ukrainians fought this war so far can be divided into two main tactical modes. The first is to dig into concrete installations surrounded by civilians, and make themselves extremely hard to dig out, and force the Russians to kill their own civilians in the process. The examples of this are Mariupol and Bakhmut. The second tactical mode is to use American satellite imagery in order to see what positions are poorly defended by Russians, and make a breakthrough there.

Both tactical modes are the result of battlefield realities: first, the Russians own the sky, they own the option of heavy bombardment, they see everything with satellites, AWACS planes and drones, and facing them in the open means facing a superior army without an element of surprise, which means annihilation. The second battlefield reality is that Ukraine consists mostly of vast empty landscapes – both forests and agricultural land and fields. Those vast swathes of land are basically indefensible, you can’t have enough military coverage to be able to protect every spot against a concentrated attack, and to add insult to injury, the Russians tend to be using extremely low numbers in this war, and I guess it’s called special military operation for a reason, because they aren’t using troop concentrations sufficient to make it a proper war, and on the other hand it’s not a police intervention either. This means that the Russians can’t defend the entire length of the front against a concentrated pin-point attack, and both sides need to give up open land immediately, because any non-fortified static troop placement will immediately find itself under enemy fire. This also explains why the Russians chose to withdraw from certain positions; open land is costly to defend, and you gain nothing except the ability to brag about controlling more land. The corollary is that the war is about controlling key fortified junctions, and after those fall, you also lose huge swathes of land that surround them. Also, the two sides see the war differently; the Ukrainians try to control as much land as possible in order to present this as a victory. The Russians, on the other hand, intend to destroy the enemy, and see control over the land as a result of that; controlling much land before the enemy has been destroyed isn’t necessarily something that incurs benefits, especially if you have a large “fifth column” to contend with on the territory you control, as they did in Kherson city, where a significant minority of the population is virulently pro-Ukrainian and created so much problems for the Russians that they decided to give the city up and destroy the concept of Ukrainian state and nationality first; policing crazy people at this point was more trouble than it was worth.

To put it in simple terms, the Ukrainians want to take the land and genocide the Russians from it. The Russians want to destroy the genocidal Ukrainian ideological leadership and pacify the country so that it is no longer a threat.

This makes any Russian withdrawal a moral issue, because the Ukrainians will kill all “collaborators” (read: normal people) on this territory. This happened in Bucha, it happened in Kherson city, and in many other places. Also, at any point where the Ukrainians get close enough, they will deliberately target Russian and pro-Russian civilians; they even targeted their own prisoners of war in order to discourage surrender. Wherever the Russians take control, they try to establish normality and civility; however, the part of the population that has been infected by the mental virus of Ukrainianism constantly create trouble there, and the Russians have no clear idea of what to do with them. They don’t want to kill them, and nothing else seems to work.

What does this mean to the possibility of offensive warfare by both sides?

As for the Russians, I’m not even sure that they themselves know what they want to do. For them, it’s more about what they don’t want: they don’t want the Americans to continue occupying and indoctrinating increasingly closer countries and installing virulently anti-Russian “democratic” zombies there, not to mention American bases and nuclear-war installations. They also don’t want to cause a nuclear war with America. In addition, they don’t want other countries to dictate what they can or cannot do in their own sphere of interest, for instance trying to restrict trade and the flow of money. Other than that, I’m not sure that they either know or care. They are in the process of figuring out what they are, and so far they can’t decide between the Imperial/Orthodox past and the Soviet past, trying to own the legacy of both, and integrate it with what they see as the good things that came from the West – capitalist economy, freedom of expression, democracy and so on. Unfortunately, this process of figuring out what they are is being interrupted by the West, which would prefer Russia not to be at all, which unfortunately makes it all-but-certain that the most radical, violent and determined fractions within Russia will prevail, because that’s what happens when the country and nation are under attack by a foreign enemy. This means that the goals and methods used by Russia in this war might suddenly change, from the current careful and indecisive approach, to a sledge hammer of genocide that will simply wipe out everything in its path, when they have had enough of this bullshit. This means that the Russians are exclusively limited by political will and ideology, and militarily they can do whatever they want, when they decide that they want it enough to pay the price required for freedom.

The Ukrainians are a different matter. Ideologically, they have no problem with any kind of murder, torture, genocide or plunder required to attain their goals, which are to kill all Russians and create a Ukrainian fake nation with a fake history in their place. Their problem is that they have no military or industrial capacity for any such thing, which necessarily makes them an instrument of the West. They also sustained heavy losses and simply don’t have the manpower left for offensive warfare. They supposedly have 12 brigades trained by the West, in reserve for the “spring offensive”, but if you have in mind that they lost 35 brigades in Bakhmut, and they presently don’t count brigades at more than 50% of conventional numbers, it becomes obvious that they can’t perform serious offensive actions against any position the Russians are willing to defend, and the Russian goal won’t even be to defend a position, as much to kill those 12 “brigades” of virulent Nazis, and once this is done, simply march to Kiev and take over. The Russians won’t fight the Ukrainians over some field, they intend to destroy the hostile Ukrainians, and the easiest way to weed those out is to wait for them to come to you with guns and try to kill you. Then you turn them into graves and repeat the process until they stop coming. At this point you march to Polish border and establish the Democratic Republic of Ukraine as a member of the Russian federation, the way it historically always was.

So, why exactly is it technically impossible for the Ukrainians to perform an offensive? First of all, they don’t have the high ground, which at this day and age means supremacy in space and air. In space, the Americans provide the Ukrainians with all the data, but the Russians see everything as well, so things are equal in that regard. However, the Russians control the air, and for all intents and purposes, the entire Ukraine is a Russian-managed no-fly zone. Whatever flies there is either Russian, or a target. To prepare for an offensive means to stage fuel, weapons, ammunition, food and men close to the point where you want to make a breakthrough. As you do the staging, the enemy does the watching, and when your warehouses and barracks are full, they blow them up. This is what’s been happening in the recent weeks, to great effect, and to a point where the Ukrainians no longer have anything to do the offensive with. Also, when you assemble all those troops, tanks and stuff, it’s very visible from orbit, and a very nice and fat target for the Russian cruise missiles and airforce. On the other hand, the Russians can assemble whatever forces they want in the background, and the Ukrainians can’t do anything about it. This means that the Ukrainians can’t technically perform significant offensive operations, and the Russians can, but whether they actually do it depends on their strategical assessment of the wider war with the West, and their intents on the international scene.