Just More of the Same

I don't like Liberalism ... or Islam ... or Putin for that matter.

I was gone for a few days, but I spoke to Riley in that time and he told me that he is preparing an extensive timeline mapping out the Crocus attacks and the inconsistencies in the narrative around them. I figured I’d wait for him to do that before speculating more on my own.

Besides, there is other news coming out of the Slavlands that is still worth covering.

I do want to point out that even though this is the second worst terrorist attack in Russian history, there was remarkably little written about it in the English pro-Russian media. I believe we saw a concerted conspiracy of silence and an attempt to prevent people from talking about it coming from the spook narrative-handlers. Compare this to the discussion stimulated by the Las Vegas shooter. Or the alleged Sandy Hook massacre. These shootings were discussed for months afterwards (with the conspiracies getting more and more far-fetched as time went on, admittedly).

For our purposes, this attack was clearly extremely embarrassing for Putin and for his government’s policy of maintaining open borders with the hostile Swarth World during a giant WWI land war being waged in Ukraine. It was also an indictment of the FSB which either allowed the attack or failed to prevent it.

The military response to this attack was … oh wait, there was no response whatsoever.

Unless you count an impotent wave of missile strikes hitting empty buildings and some power transformers in Ukraine, of course, which has happened each time that Kiev has struck a blow against Russia. Will this change anything? No, of course not. See the 12 other times that this happened and nothing of any value ended up getting hit and no one of any value ended up dead.

Although, I ask again: what is even the proof that Kiev planned this attack other than the FSB saying so? Luka doesn’t seem to think its Kiev’s fault and he has a far better honesty track record than Putin so …

Meanwhile, Putin has been out stumping for non-Russians and victim-blaming Russians for wanting to live in a safe, Russian society. In Putin’s own words, the greatest threat to Russia, in the wake of a deadly attack carried out by Muhammaden migrants, is Russian nationalism. Here:

Statements by jingoists in the spirit of “Russia is only for Russians” can lead to the collapse of the country, the president believes (https://t.me/rusbrief/214991). Also, at a meeting with military pilots, he stated that it is necessary to take care of the unity of the Russian people. Putin’s words are intended to reduce the potential growth of xenophobia, discrimination and other intolerant attitudes against the backdrop of the terrorist attack. This is perceived as an area of serious risks, as a harbinger of rampant nationalism. What can be used by enemies as a tool to destabilize society.

What he really means to say is that the greatest threat to his clique of cosmopolitan spooks and oligarchs is a Russian populist movement. Globalism is just a euphemism for an oligarchy that has decided to go global. Any idea or person or proposal that stands in the way of this project gets smeared as pure evil.

Now, in Russia, literally no one besides the migrants themselves and members of the media and the government support mass muslim migration into Russia. Even the big city liberals are quite fed up with the migrants. They blame this all on Putin, but, if their preferred candidates took power, they would do more of the same and the Liberals would either shut up about the issue or start supporting it. But, because Putin is pursuing such an unpopular policy, literally all political factions in Russia loudly denounce Putin’s government to score easy points with the electorate.

In the West though, there is a faction of the population, mostly criminals, educated White women and non-White men, that has always supported mass migration and makes their demands known in the media quite vocally. Thus, despite the fact that the policy of flooding, say, America with non-White migrants have been generally very unpopular since its inception in the late 60s and 70s and its acceleration since then, the media and the political class can always pretend that they are simply answering the calls of their electorate by focusing in on the vocal minorities.

In Russia, where the media operation is far less sophisticated, and the ability to insulate one self from the effects of diversity much more limited, there isn’t even a democratic fig leaf to hide behind.

Again: no Russian demographic supports these policies.

Not even dumb college-educated hoes.

And yet, it is rammed through anyway.

This should reveal to us that there never really was an opportunity to debate or dissent against these measures in a “democratic” or “civil” way. From Gorbachev onwards in Russia, the plan was to democide the population in the name of Antifa values, depopulation, and Convergence.

The illusion of consent is important to foster and maintain, but it is unnecessary, as it turns out. The Trotskyites can simply arrest anyone speaking out against mass migration, outlaw all public gatherings in the name of public health (COVID is still raging in Russia, doncha know) and then, as a follow-up, in the wake of a massive terrorist attack, they can blame the victim and start bullying the natives even more.

And the reason why they can get away with this insanity is because the natives are totally helpless.

We’ve all been conned into weakness and complacency which was sold to us in the guise of good citizenship. That was the end goal of Liberalism, and its various offshoots in the centuries since. You can read the agenda laid out in Hobbes. Yes, Liberals make a lot of noise about supposedly defending individuals’ rights, but it is the state that is supposed to be doing the defending, which is where the con comes in. See, to be able to defend these rights, the state first has to take them all away, monopolize the violence AND the organizational capabilities of the population.

Once that done, the rest is just ideologizing and moralizing to justify a power grab.

The natural human tendency is to tribe up, to create clans, to form warbands. This is how people protect themselves, create social safety nets, deal with/fix problems. But the Liberal state outlaws all of this and says, in exchange, that it will guarantee safety, social safety nets, and create mechanisms by which problems can be addressed. In other words, to maintain a Liberal society, the host population has to be reduced to being individuals, who are kept as individual political units by the state, which is the only cohesive, organized institute capable of dealing out violence.

For the last point, power is essentially “rented out” from time to time via the democratic process.

First, the state become all-powerful by destroying the organizational capabilities of non-state actors. Second, if you win the game of politics, you get to wield this awesome power for a round or two. To prevent abuses of the power of the state, there are many rules, written and otherwise that try to limit the retribution that different oligarchal factions can mete out at one another when their time comes to wield state power. Any attempt to build parallel structures or communities is then crushed by the state.

But there are exceptions.

In actuality, tight-knit ethnic minorities or occult/spook organizations or crime operations are able to abuse the system. If we apply the heuristic known as “The Purpose of a System is What It Does” to the situation, we find that all Liberal systems lead to minority domination over a vast, but politically inert majority. I am not the first to notice this — see Mosca’s Law. These types of organizations are able to reap the benefits of maintaining group cohesion in a society where everyone else has been atomized. History has shown that once a society has Liberalized, it was easy pickings for organized ethno-criminals and spook/occult networks to take over the system.

Is this not then the purpose of Liberalism if that is what it has always lead to?

And is it not the purpose of Communism to reduce the common man to little more than an indentured slave? Is that not what has always happened?

Yes, if we look past the labels of Liberalism and Communism we see perennial systems of exploitation given a new paint job and an ideological justification to cover up for the fact that Liberalism is just rule by international oligarchs and Communism is just a giant slave colony operation run by xenocrat overseers.

And that is why these organized foreign minorities advocate for the imposition of Liberalism everywhere, or, Communism, which monopolizes even more political and social power.

Before Liberalism though, there was Christianity, which laid the path down for Liberalism. The emphasis of morality and its substitution with genuine spirituality was an innovation as well. It was Platonic at its very core, as I have explained before. Within Christian ideology the individual and his relationship to the Church replaced the individual as part of an extended family (his clan) or his tribe. Judeo-Christian ideology was intended as a slave religion (Noahidism) for all non-Chosen humans, resulting in a doctrine of moral egalitarianism and universalism and individualism.

Back in the day though, people used to care about metaphysics and so ideas had to be justified metaphysically first before they would be accepted and implemented in society. It seems strange to us now, living in post-modernism, where only power and propaganda determine what is “true” and may even be capable of altering the fabric of our reality through shared and sustained delusion …

But I digress.

Power is a zero sum game, which means that there is no way to “grow the pie” of power to share. If one group gains power, a close-knit minority that has taken over the state, they take that power from everyone else. And to keep that power, it is vital that the “citizenry” never becomes tribal and closes ranks around its own identity against the minority in power. For a people to remain free, access to weaponry is important, yes, but far more important is the will to use that weaponry, the ability to self-organize around a shared identity (not a shared ideology) , and the mindset that allows them to see through the religious/moral/ideological smoke screens thrown up as a distraction to prevent them from seeing the power struggle clearly.

If we declaw and defang or de-tentacle (that works better) the “Leviathan” state then the obstacles to self-organization will be removed. Like-minded or similar-blooded groups will form to recreate smaller, more organic, more grounded, localized communities that will quickly take on the nature of different tribes. Now, the ideologoyim get all huffy and upset when I mention ethnos or race, preferring to advocate for communities of morality or ideology. But this is really a silly distinction to make because, in reality, people from the same ethnos will also embrace and be drawn to the same silly ideologies.

Paradoxically, the most homogeneously European communities that I have been a part of have been various hippy circles. It is almost the lily-white, elf-looking, higher than average IQ and hyper-conscientious types who are drawn to that sort of thing. Of course, if I ever actually admitted to them that I see things through a “ethnicized” lens, or pointed out that they themselves seem to gravitate towards their own kind, I would be exiled from the group for BadThink, of course. But, I’ve found that if I just keep quiet and just chuckle from time to time at the absurdity of these silly huwhytes and their ideological hang-ups without getting too upset about them, I can enjoy the benefits of being in a community free of diversity without having to pay top dollar for a gated community, which I simply won’t ever afford in this life.

Theoretically, the “anarchist” ideal is essentially ideological communities of shared values living in a kind of commonwealth with other ideological communities that do things their own way. Paradoxically, these anarchist types would balk at what I will say next, but it doesn’t make it any less true: healthy people will naturally be attracted to people who are ethnically similar to themselves and their ideology will taper to match the ideology of their ethnic in-group. And, people naturally want to be able to self-segregate, whether for ideological or other, more real reasons, because this combats and arrests identity dilution, an element of near-constant entropy in this material world.

And fighting a losing vanguard battle against entropy, dilution, erosion, decay, degradation, and finally, death itself, is the prime directive of all life.

In contrast, it is the Leviathan that wants to force us all together, that prevents us from creating our own communities, to mix us up so that our organizational cohesion is undermined. Because we could become a threat to the Leviathan down the line, potentially. It is the same principle behind why Sephardic slave dealers in the Americas made sure to mix Africans from different tribes together so that they could not rebel. The Carthaginians and Ottomans did the same thing before them. Plato approves of the practice, and even advocates starving the slaves of meat to make them more docile.

Putin’s nu-Rossiyans

I’ll get back to covering the news tomorrow.