Sign into an existing account

The propaganda is needed to stay the course, but they aren't using it because they are currently losing.

On the contrary, they are currently winning. My purpose is quite the opposite from demoralizing you, i want to keep you from getting complacent, I want to motivate you to do your best and give them hell.

I can accept my people fighting the best they can before going down, raging against the light's fading, and making one last big bang as we go out in flash of spectacle, befitting the honor our people and their wonderful legacy.

I can accept an end like that.

But what I could never tolerate is us going down quietly, slowly dading away into darkness, with nary a whimper to mark our slow descent into oblivion, that is a fate that spits upon our peoples honor and is disgraceful to their legacy.

If we are to make an exit, may it be swift abd loud, abd bright, let people know we are exiting the stage in a glorious fashion that will be remembered for as long as there are people to remember it.

More than anything, I want us to win, and i feel as though if we were to merely fight in organized capacity, we would win, and do so easily.

All this constant pressure and slow boil is unbearable, it would be better if something were to explode and set off a chain reaction by crossing the line that can never be walked back from.

I want to die in a war. Not a spiritual one, a real one, where my mettle as a man is tested, and where legends are forged.

I want the unexpected over the predictable, the exciting over the mundane, and the interesting but dangerous over the safe but soul crushing.

We've been domesticated against violence and unlawful rebellion, especially on the right wing of politics, even on the furthest fringes of it, we got people talking about what options exist, and called a glownig the momment they suggest anything that crosses those lines.

If we were to be combined with livestock, we'd be the variety that may dig their feet into the ground so we'd have to be dragged reluctantly to our doom, but we would never actually think to attack the ones leading us to the slaughterhouse, perhaps the man killing us would give up once we give him too much trouble, perhaps we could convince him to spare us with our unintelligible sounds, perhaps that other farmhand standing next to the one killing us would take over, and spare us from this fate.

There is always some glimpse at the illusion of hope, it keeps us pacified, we could end all the trouble right now if we just did what our ancestors would have done in our situation, in fact, the sooner we'd have turned to that kind of solution, the easier it would have been to solve our problems and recover from the damage that was done, imagine if we had fought against our governments in 2015 - we'd have not had to deal with this plandemic, the race riots, and there'd be far less invaders and occupiers to remove from our lands, things would still have been hard, but they'd certainly be a lot easier than what we are going going have to deal with if we started this uprising right now, as time goes by, we lose the ability to use this last resort effectively, and there'd be more to do to fix or replace what had been broken.

But in 2015, we had the alt right and the alt lite, Trump and Brexit, LePen and AFD, Golden Dawn and EDL, we got these seductive players in politics who seemed like thet could make real difference within the system. We could win without fighting, after all, hooray!

In fact, we better not fight or else these guys couldn't do their jobs as effectively on our behalf. Let's be extra good so that our designated champions could fight to defend our honor.

Yeah, that's what happened, we trusted them, on part because we were lazy, in part because we were weak, and in part because we were scared, we weren't stupid or gullible, that wasn't truly the case, we allowed ourselves to be fooled, because we wanted to beleive it was true.
Even for us, the heart leads the mind to the preferred conclusion, the job of the mind is merely to find ways to justify the path the heart had led them down in a pretense of rationality.

It was also around this time when the q anon phenomenon dropped, the ultimate embodiment of our vain hopes serving to constrain us from doing what needed to be done at the time it was most demanded of us.
Q didn't even tell us anything except what we wanted to hear, that there was some unknown people within the system formenting change from within, and all we had to do was nothing but sit back abd beleive.
An irresistible offer that we took up in a second. A Faustian bargain where we sold our children's future for self serving fantasy, just as we criticized our parents for having done in the days before us.

The enemy knows that hope keeps us in our place, they know that without it, we becone desperate, and it is desperation that would lead to taking action that would threaten them, and create meaningful change, not this two steps forward, four steps back nonsense we are currently invested in.

This is a tangent, but related to the topic, the topic of this post is that we like to delude ourselves to justify our laziness and selfishness and cowardice to ourselves by pretending that doing nothing is actually doing something.

We say that doing stuff which has the potential to make make difference is bad because it "gives them the excuse" to do what they are already having no problems doing already.

If they wanted to do something, it's clear that they are far past the point of having any need of public approval to do it, I'm fact, they can dictate what the public thinks about whatever they decide to do at this point.
It's crystal clear that all the loudest people on the planet are perfectly content to allow the media mind manipulators dictate to them how they feel about virtually anything at this point in time.

The media personalities and their ardent promoters are the heads of our new religion.
These are the priesthood, and they are the ones who direct our culture, which feeds into our politics.
A Christianity without Christ, a new cultural marxism by many other names, where everything is inverted, the accusers and their crimes, the words and their meanings, etc. the slave morality problem of the right left dichotomy identified by Neitzsche as a Mortons fork

Doing nothing isn't doing anything, it's doing nothing, and even if they needed an excuse, that's what false flags, framing, hoaxes, and other ways of making shit up are for. Even without any actual events to point at, they could just use their control of the mass consciousness through the media media start up some campaign of fear mongering or moral panics thst virtue signaling fucktards would jump all over each other to use as a cause to take away more of your rights.

You don't make things worse at this point, in fact, things are getting worse on their own without requiring anything from you but inaction, and the worst thing you could do is continue to allow things to keep progressing as they already have.

People have lost the chance of evasion and ability to organize, everything is tracked and surveilled so any rebellion is suicide rather than just high risk. We're decades past the point when anything could have been done.

Realize next that there never were any rules, you have always been as free as you've ever wanted to be. Such as it is for everyone else.

Everyone, yourself included, already has every right and freedom conceivable, including the right and freedom to infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others.

Everything is already yours, you merely have yet to possess it, possession is inseparable from ownership. But the same applies to all others.

You have absolute liberty, as does everything else, and when you look around, you see the world that absolute liberty has created.

Its all self imposed, the biggest prison anyone gas to escape, are the ones they've unknowingly erected around their own minds, once you are free from that, what is left to do?

The answer is to get to know yourself, truly know yourself, for the first time ever, decide what kind of life you want to live, what goals you want to accomplish with your life, and what kind of rules you want to impose upon yourself.

You've them truly embodied the self made man, who takes ownership of his mind, and is one with himself.

Who follows rules they set for themselves, towards a goal they set the course for, their morality is finally theirs, self made and self imposed, they own it.

Not a prison, but a home.

Realize that being free doesn't mean being some degenerate libertine monster who makes a beast of himself, you likely would not be interested in such a life, abd if you were to pursue it, it would likely cause you more ill than good.

Instead realize that all actions are selfish, a purely selfless act is impossible, for any action is motivated either by a desire attracting you toward actualizing some positively anticipated consequences to your actions, or by a fear repelling you away from actualizing some negatively anticipated consequences from your actions.

Also realize that selfishness is not always bad, wanting your lived ones to be safe and free and healthy and happy because of the positive feelings it elicits in you is a very noble desire to have, the selfish element of it, that it majes you feel good and brings you satisfaction, is not a bad thing, it does nothing to cheapen it.

Learn about evolutionary biology, and evolutionary psychology.

Read "the selfish gene", and learn about game theory and Hamilton's laws of kinship selection.

Read Neitzsche and (((Rand))) and resolve the jewery of the latter by applying the thinking in it to your genes and memes rather than to (((the individual))).

Lastly, follow some nationalist and capitalist philosophers, and learn about tribal preference from the first, and about emergent complexity (order from chaos, short term suffering for long term strength, delayed gratification on a collective level) from the second.

You could also read about other concepts like how your unique essence is your genes, and because of that, you are literally composed of your ancestors, you are made of them and they are a part of you, a composite of their unique essence is what your unique essence is created from.

Or how free will doesn't exist, and your every action is just as much a product of your genes and experiences as anything else about you. Therefore it is irrational to hold you to account for what you do, while arbitrarily refusing do so for what you are. What one does is morally equivalent to what one is, both have the same origin, and both have the same level of intention and conscious choice behind then.
Everything about you is a trait emerging from your genes and experiences, with knowledge of both these variables, everything you do immediately after could be predicted with perfect accuracy. But since genes determine how your experiences affect you, genes ultimately form the foundation of who and what you are, they are the essence of your identity as a unique organism.

Or how the nature of consciousness is the mere reception of conscious experience, nothing more than the part which bears witness to existence.
It could further be stated that objective reality exists, but your subjective experience of it is different, in that you cannonly perceive things through a filter of your senses, objects are unable unable be perceived directly, instead they appear to you as a collection of various properties that, put together, created a bundle that you attach some identity to, everything is naught but a recipe of observable characteristics.
Meaning that if something is a duck, it is because it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, not because it has some intrinsic platonic quality of "duckness" to it that would identify it as being a duck, even if all defining aspects of "duckery" were removed from it.

I got one more for you: The meaning of life.

Since gene centered evolution is the source of all morality, we should use it as the standard of our morality.

The conclusion is that the purpose of life, is achieving the goals of genes in this model, the purpose all our ancestors had evidently fulfilled (judging from our existence as their descendant). The goal being to serve the role of an organism as a vehicle by which their constituent genes could propagate copies of themselves in other organisms to the best of our ability.

That is, because ultimately the meaning of life is to maximize the number of organisms with copies of your genes, to maximize the number of copies of your genes that exist in those organisms, and to maximize how far into the future that copies of those genes could be passed on.
This goal could be fulfilled both directly, by having grandchildren, and indirectly, by helping other organisms with copies of our genes to have grandchildren.

It follows from the above that normative ethics are insufficient, or are immoral and should be rejected, as they do not take into account the relationship of the moral actor to those who their actions have an effect on. I'm normative ethical systems, be it deontological or consequentialist, the identity of the individuals and their relations are not important, all are of equal moral value to one another, obligations are uniform, everyone is faceless, interchangeable, and expendable. It's a very marxist way of seeing morality, and it is for that reason that normative ethics has flaws that always lead it to failure. Identities and relations matter, ingroups abd outgroups matter, any good moral system must be partial, and truly relativistic, A Functional Morality requires partiality and relativism.

Does this mean that two sides could be in conflict with o e another and both be morally correct in doing so?
Yes, good morality embraces conflict, furthermore, it gives you a standard by which ones opponent could be judges as being worthy of respect (being ruthless opposition for the right reasons relative to themselves).

Does this mean that a good act and a bad one depends on the people involved?
Yes, it does, the identity of the people affected, their relationship to the actor, and the way the action affects all involved is of great importance.

Evolutionary morality requires that a moral hierarchy be made by which ones obligations towards other organisms could be comparatively quantified, based on the number of genes held in common between you and the organism, and the potential of the organism to create other organisms which also bear copies of your genes, and how far into the future they could potentially spread your genes.

You infant son comes before your wife both because he has more genes in common with you, and because his potential to produce offspring is greater than you wife's (he's yet to enter his fertile period, and thus has all of it available to him, while your wife has already begin her fertile period, meaning that she doesn't have all of it left at her disposal), and he's got more life to live, thus more ability to positively contribute (in a direct and/or indirect manner) to the propagation if copies of your genes further into the future.

Combining all this together, you get a very good sense of how things work between people.