Category Archives: politics

Told you so

Posted on by
2

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

A new study conducted by a Finnish research team has found little evidence to support the idea of man-made climate change. The results of the study were soon corroborated by researchers in Japan.

In a paper published late last month, entitled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’, a team of scientists at Turku University in Finland determined that current climate models fail to take into account the effects of cloud coverage on global temperatures, causing them to overestimate the impact of human-generated greenhouse gasses.
…
Given the evidence presented in the study, the Finnish team rounded out the paper by concluding “we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” adding that “the low clouds control mainly the global temperature.”
…
The results sharply cut against claims put forward by many environmentalists, including US lawmakers such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who argue not only that climate change is an immediate threat to the planet, but that it is largely a man-made phenomenon. Ocasio-Cortez, better known as ‘AOC’, has proposed a ‘Green New Deal’ to address the supposedly dire threat.

I had a simple anecdotal method of figuring out there’s no climate change. Like, watching things for 40 years and noticing that nothing changed. Sea level rise estimated from tidal markings on known places: zero. Average weather patterns: the same. If not for the hysterical communists, one would see no problem whatsoever.

 

About identity

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
8

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

Posted on by
Reply

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?

Posted on by
Reply

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.