Vault 7

This most may seem sudden, but I want to share something very important, particularly for my American readership. Last month, Wikileaks released a series of cryptic tweets on their Twitter page regarding the mysterious Vault 7, and until now we didn’t know what it meant. But yesterday, Wikileaks released a document revealing the extent of CIA hacking tools and confidential documents. Vault 7, as it turns out, was the code name for these documents. It revealed, among other things, that the CIA under the Obama administration stole Russian malware and used it to hack into computer systems in order to extract information from them using that malware, and apparently they lost that malware along with other hacking tools.

Given that the CIA lost the malware recently in 2016, this was also probably some time before the election or even around that time (I can only speculate) and that the malware the CIA obtained was from Russia, I am wondering if this has something to do with the theory that Russia hacked the DNC, and why the CIA claimed to have evidence but refused to provide it or put a name to it. I can only speculate.

But it does show that the NSA was not the only intelligence agency under Obama that had been gathering information , and apparently they are doing this as some kind of larger project involving cyber warfare. As if I *needed* another reason to hate Obama.


Vault 7: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/

Advertisements

Time for an update

So here’s an update for the blog that I kind of feel like putting out on a number of subjects.

First, and foremost, of all, I have less than a month before the end of my second term for this year at university. That means I have quite a lot to do and increasingly less time to do it in. The deadline for my major project is March 27th, right before my birthday, and both of the reports that I have to write are due on March 31st. So I might be busy. Maybe not busy enough that it’ll stop me from slacking off during weekends, but busy enough that it might make the rest of my schedule pretty stringent, to the point that I will likely put things off in order to emphasize my coursework, because that has to come first. I may, however, plan for some posts to be written in the meantime, because there are still things I’d like write about.

Second, I plan to talk about current events and politics significantly less than I do now, so that I can detach myself from those things. There’s going to some rants that I have waiting in the wings to be released pretty soon, and obviously there are soon-to-be-current events that I think ought to be covered (for instance, given that it is now March, we’re waiting on the Netherlands and later France to cast their votes in general elections), but other than that I want to begin to distance myself from such subject matter beyond the rants I have coming up this month unless a really pressing or important development catches my attention. The reason why I want to do this is because I am sensing that there is the danger that I’m going to become entirely too focused on such subject matter. And I know that we’re living in some wild times right now, so there’s probably a lot of developments that might show up ripe for analysis, deconstruction or just plain savagery or mockery on my part. But I am beginning to think I’m getting caught up, and that’s bad.

Third, once I have enough free time after the end of my current term, or ideally before that, I’d like very much to revisit the drawing board, and return with a post or two about some reflections on Satanism and other philosophies, as well as what probably be a long post about what I consider to authentic Satanic philosophy (particularly on account of the fact that I’ve criticized The Satanic Temple for not observing). Part of me is thinking that I’ve got my eyes off the ball. I mean I’ve got my eye on the ball regarding my coursework, I believe, but sort of away from the ball in other areas. Maybe it’s laziness in some respects if I think about it, but then that’s surely the sign of another malady in itself. I hope I correct it sooner or later if that’s the case.

The Milo debacle

So recently Milo Yiannopolous has been at the center of a real shitstorm that swept the Internet on Monday. I had intended to write about this on pretty much the night that it happened, seeing as I have spoken in support of Milo’s work here on the Heretical Domain since the summer of 2016 and I felt it would be appropriate to comment. But I had been kept busy by other matters the past two days, and I had been receiving some new information since Monday night.

Here’s the situation as I understand it: some time after Milo made his appearance on Late Night with Bill Maher last week (I’ve seen it, by the way, and it was disappointing on all fronts; all of the panelists could have performed far better than they did), a clip taken from Milo’s appearance in the Drunken Peasants podcast on YouTube from about a year ago, where they talk about a video where someone accuses Milo of defending pedophiles. In the video, Milo states that, apparently, he “gave head” to a Catholic priest when he was 13 years old and explained how he claimed to enjoy the experience and felt that not only can an adolescent consent to performing a sexual act with an adult, but also that sexual acts between 13-28 years was actually normal. I don’t know where he gets this view from, but it is my understanding that he was apparently sexually abused in his youth, and may have been distorted by this experience. Anyways, after the clip was “discovered”, Twitter exploded with tons of people claiming that he defended pedophilia or even that was actually a pedophile, and the mainstream media gobbled it up with many figures showing their virtue in true virtue signalling fashion. He also received backlash not just from the left, but also from the right. In fact, the story apparently “broke” via the Twitter account of a conservative political organization known as The Reagan Battalion – try to remember that little detail for later. Milo had released a statement on Facebook on Monday stressing that he does not support pedophilia, claiming that the clips have been selectively edited. On Tuesday Milo gave a press conference on the whole fiasco, which he also released on Facebook, and he explained it was announced that Milo had resigned from Breitbart News.

OK, now that that’s said, let me just say straight up: I can’t defend what Milo said, at all. I can defend his right to say it, but that’s about it. I think that Milo’s opinions on sexual consent, particularly within the context of homosexuality, is bizarre to say the least. He thinks that the current legal age of consent is OK, but at the same time he feels the general idea of consent is arbitrary and even “oppressive”. If I’m going to be honest, I have to say Milo, that last part sounds like something a Bizarro World gender students student might say. He apparently justified his position on the grounds that some people are more sexually active. But needless to say, it is understandable that the fact he would even have had questionable opinions on the subject of sexual relationships between teenagers and adults would be cause for concern, and it certainly gave me pause when I thought about it. He did release statements clarifying the matter, saying that he is against pedophilia, which I think is good, and on the press conference it seems he has reflected on the matter and it has been a great source of disturbance and regret for him. On that token at least, I think he shouldn’t be treated like some kind of monster to be run out of town with pitchforks, not least because he still isn’t actually a sexual predator – and if his story is to be believe he was arguably a victim. However, when he claims that the clips have been selectively edited, I think that’s open for questioning at least. I’ve seen the clips that got shared around and they definitely didn’t seem edited to me. I think that Milo honestly believes that he isn’t actually advocating for pedophilia, and probably didn’t intend to, but the position he took was simply too dangerous, and to be honest the lines between advocating for pedophilia and defending pederasty seem too thin. The most charitable interpretation of all this is that Milo is advocating for cross-generational relationships, something that one of the Drunken Peasants at least tried getting Milo to admit, but given the generations in question, coupled with his claims about pederasty in the gay world, this doesn’t seem like it’s enough to fit Milo for a halo so to speak. Then there’s the dubious comments about people in Hollywood he made on Joe Rogan’s podcast, where some people think that he was outright protecting the names of pedophiles in Hollywood. Since I don’t know any of the names in question, I unfortunately can’t comment.

So all-in-all, there’s nothing really to defend, so I don’t defend his position, but I’m not going to succumb to outrage either. There’s already too much outrage in the world these days, and no sense in me adding to it. I certainly won’t gain anything by doing so anyhow. Milo, anyways, is at least capable of defending himself. It’s just a shame he couldn’t do so on Twitter due to being permanently banned from the site.

All that said, however, I think there is so much wrong with all of this. For starters, , this is ultimately another case of outrage being whipped over something that, to me at least, was already out there for the public to see when it was new. The podcast was from about a year ago, so where were all the people outraged over this issue in 2016? Why now? Meanwhile, as cliche as this will sound, Lena Dunham talked about apparently inspecting her younger sister’s genitals in one of her books, and she didn’t get run out of town like Milo did – in fact she still got to keep her acting career and remained a prominent face of the Democratic Party in 2016 (which was probably one of the many reasons why the Democrats lost). Second of all, this all seems to coincidence with Milo being invited to speak at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend. The Reagan Battalion posted the clip on Monday, pretty much right after Milo was invited, and after all the Twitter drama and media hysteria, CPAC dropped Milo from their panel. Let me be clear: CPAC is completely within their rights to invite and dis-invite whoever they like from speaking at their conference, and I accept that they think Milo is unfit to represent their views over these comments. But I haven’t got a doubt in my mind that they might not have dis-invited him were it not for The Reagan Battalion spreading that Drunken Peasants clip. And let me tell you about The Reagan Battalion. From what I understand they are one of those conservative groups that really doesn’t like the populist, anti-establishment movement that still gathers around Trump, and they almost certainly detest Milo, and not just because of the Drunken Peasants clip either. They view the populist conservative moment as (that is when  When Milo claimed that the drama was an attack on him by establishment Republicans, I don’t think he was entirely wrong. Also, take a look at what they said on Monday as part of their statement in support of ACU disinviting Milo from CPAC for not only the DP thing but, of all things, they think he’s anti-Semitic:

Free speech is the cornerstone of our great democracy, but giving a platform for hate, racism and intolerance is fortunately not.

Yeah some conservative free speech advocates you are. If that’s the true conservative platform, I’m glad I don’t call myself a conservative no matter much further to the right I may have lurched in recent months. But more to the point, I’m fairly convinced that their motives are just as likely to be political as they are to be merely moral. They wanted Milo to be disinvited from CPAC 2017, and in the end they got what they wanted. Also, for an organization that claims to have no affiliation with the NeverTrump movement, their Facebook profile has a now-broken link to a “Stop Donald Trump” PAC, which is apparently a conservative PAC that opposes Trump on the grounds that they think he’s another liberal.

But there’s another dubious element to this story as well. Someone on 4chan claimed to be an insider on an operation to destroy Milo, in a post apparently published on Sunday night. Here’s the text of that post:

FYI the MSM has a huge fucking media onslaught that is set to go live Monday to scorch earth Milo and destroy him via the pedophile label.

I’m part of a mailing list (not giving my name for the sake of protecting my ass from retaliation) but they have been sitting on the story for a while, because they thought Milo was small fry and wanted to wait until he got big enough a thread to go nuclear on.

The journalists are pissed the fuck off Maher put him on the air and more so, pissed off that his book deal had not been revoked (and some are pissed that Milo got a book deal from the same publisher who dropped Zoe Quinn’s book, along with a larger signing bonus than most of the publisher’s social justice authors).

There are also those who want to hurt him simply as a proxy to hurt Steve Bannon/Breitbart, since their attempts to attack Bannon have largely failed. Not to mention people on the left being pissed off that most people sided with Milo over the rioters. Rioters that were paid for by Soros through a variety of fronts and laundered through companies that can’t be traced back to him.

Expect a steady drumbeat of “Milo is a pedophile” and “Milo must be dropped from CPAC”. The later is especially important, in terms of the divide and conquer long game the press is playing: the press wants a civil war with the McCain/Graham wing of the GOP and the Trump/Ryan wing so as to weaken the Republicans in 2018. The overall plan is to make the Republicans fear social shaming from the media and the left more than they already do their actual constituents who love Trump, in hopes of regaining the House and enough Senate seats to pull off an impeachment of Trump.

Believe it or not, I think it’s entirely possible. We already know that not only is the media generally extremely biased against Trump, but a lot of the media is generally against the GOP, usually out of a deep-seated ideological agenda. And they beat on the Democrats and lost, hard. I’m not surprised if they’d go to any lengths to bring the Democrats back to power, and at any rate I’m not foolish enough to believe that any of the parties in large part are interested in much more than money and power. In addition to this, we know that traditional media is failing in relevance and I think the media at large recognizes that more people trust Trump and his supporters over their word. Given that after The Reagan Battalion “broke” that story the media went into full attack mode it looks like they got what they wanted out of Milo – namely his fall from public esteem – it would seem like either there may be some truth to this or it might be a coincidence. I suspect that the media may have been waiting for the opportunity to take Milo down, given that he has always been such a thorn on their side leading people against the Democratic Party, but any real campaigning against Milo was most likely the work of The Reagan Battalion. That said, none of this changes what Milo said. By all accounts his position at large is still pretty awful by its own merits. The only difference is that there were people looking to use this for their own political advantage. And in the end, if there was a mission from the media to defame Milo and by extension Breitbart, I’d say the mission was very much accomplished. As to whether or not the Republicans will be shamed or pushed into a civil war (as if there wasn’t already conflict among the Republicans) in order to enable the Democrats to win the mid-terms, that remains to be seen.

One thing that is for certain is that the people who think this is the end of Milo’s career, while I’m guessing are somewhat hyperbolic, probably aren’t too far from the truth. His career has been tangibly damaged by this whole affair: not only has he had to resign from Breitbart, but apparently Simon and Schuster have cancelled the publishing deal for his new book Dangerous, and I see many people on the right, even people on the far-right like Richard Spencer, coming out and denouncing him.

Oh, and one last thing: it looks like Bill Maher, the man who put Milo on air, is revealing himself to be an opportunistic pile of scum. It certainly seems that way if Bills think he has any business taking credit for Milo’s downfall. In his half-hearted defense, he did give Milo a lot more exposure in the media, but honestly that’s about all he did, at least beyond incessantly talking over him throughout the show. But what alarms me more is that, if this is true, then guess what that means? During the show itself he claimed that he invited Milo to show that there can be a civilized discussion between opposite points of view (Maher being a New York liberal and Milo the right-wing populist), but after the whole drama Bill Maher went and said “sunlight is the best disinfectant”. If that’s true and he is to be credited with Milo’s downfall, then do you know what that means to me? It means that Bill Maher never cared about open discussion with the right despite his claims to the contrary. He brought Milo on the show so that he can become famous for it, only so he could be brought down by his bizarre opinions about sex from a year-old podcast being used against him. To Bill, this is just another . His talk about reforming liberalism thus now seems to be as utterly insincere unless it’s on his terms. He doesn’t care about freedom of speech and open exchange of ideas at all. He only cares about bringing Americans back to the fold of the Democratic Party, and no one can convince me otherwise. Fuck Bill Maher and the late night panel show he rode in on!

The discrediting of the media

Well, that’s it. I guess we’re all Nazis now. You, me, everyone. We’re all Nazis because at some point in our lives we looked at footage of Adolf Hitler giving a speech somewhere. That’s what the Wall Street Journal seems to have implied with their hit piece against a world-famous YouTube star called Felix Kjellberg (a.k.a. PewDiePie). And yes, unfortunately we’re at a point where I’m talking about him, even though before hand I never gave too much of a shit about him. Only I’m not talking about PewDiePie himself per se, but rather the shitshow that has resulted from a joke he made that was deemed to be anti-Semitic, or jokes he made that involved references to Nazism.

The thing is, that’s all they were. Jokes. It was a kind of edgy but ultimately silly form of comedy. Otherwise, he has no known affiliation with any anti-Semitic movements. But it was on the basis of some jokes and some comedy that he got labelled a Nazi by the mainstream media. The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Guardian, Salon, Vox, lots of mainstream media outlets went on the attack, and the Internet took notice and I’ve seen nothing but people calling them out on their obvious bullshit. And then The Daily Stormer went and seized on this by, for a short period of time, declaring themselves to be the number one PewDiePie fan site (now they call themselves the number one Wall Street Journal fan site, in reference to the three “journalists” who wrote the hit piece on PewDiePie to begin with).

There’s not much for me to say on this matter other than this is pure hysteria. One that, in my opinion, should be familiar to those who might be older than me, old enough to be far more intimately familiar than I with the demented moonscape that is the mainstream media. The media always either looks for some kind of panic to spread or outright fabricates one of their own. And why? For attention of course, which likely results in attaining not just revenue but also societal relevance, people hanging on their every word. Once upon a time this was seen as the game of some right-wing Murdoch media or some shit, but now we see it as the game of progressive media, with almost everyone outside of alternative media playing along, and I hope that by the end we start to this for what it is – a game of cynical corporations and delusional ideologues on both sides of the spectrum who are less interested in the truth and more interested in influence and a paycheck. And for me that’s all there is to it. PewDiePie and his allegedly anti-Semitic content were just the next target of an ongoing hysteria, in concert with the reign of political correctness I should add.

The beautiful destruction of the alt-right

Last night I saw one of the most glorious things on the Internet: YouTube creator Sargon of Akkad triggering members of the alt-right with interracial gay porn.

For those who don’t know what the alt-right is, the alt-right is a loose movement of right-wing ideologies united only by a certain commitment to hardcore ethnic nationalism (as well as their support for Donald Trump, due to his attitude towards illegal immigration and radical Islam). A lot of them can accurately be described as white nationalists – believing in a state that preserves the native ethnic culture (or white identity in the case of the West) – but they also have a unique reputation for their deliberately subversive and provocative character to the point that they are often trolls. They also have a tendency to believe that culture and race are inseparable. They despise not only egalitarianism and liberalism, but especially what they deem as “establishment conservatism” because, in their view, they are willing to sacrifice conservative principles or the national interest either for the sake of political correctness or expediency or because they value the free market first – hence the term “Cuckservative”. They have been described as staunch supporters of freedom of speech but, for reasons we’ll get into later, they actually only care about freedom of speech when it suits them or because their enemies in the far-left are so openly against their own freedom of speech and expression and in general they aren’t going to value things like individual rights and freedoms more than the preservation of Western or white European culture or the interests of the nation.

Now, I don’t know if this is down to racism or just generally having thin skin, but they got pretty mad at Sargon for posting a tweet saying “I’ve learned that the alt right don’t like it when you reply to their tweets with interracial gay porn.” and showing an image of a Nazi Pepe with a black Pepe standing behind him. In response, Sargon tweeted images and videos featuring interracial pornography, most of which happened to be gay. It was hilarious to see them get triggered by it. I mean why the hell are these people so easily offended by pornography, let alone interracial pornography? They denounced Sargon entirely over it, dismissing him as a cuck and calling him “quadroon” or “nigger” (which is pretty weird because Sargon is an Anglo-Saxon individual). The triggering that ensued was an awesome spectacle. It was pleasure to discover how up their own asses those alt-rightists were about their own ideological sensibilities.

Beyond the high I got from seeing a bunch of hardcore racial nationalists get embarrassed by a liberal (a moderately left-leaning and anti-SJW liberal no less), I saw quite a few of the alt-right people acting like the very people they would mock. Remember when Hillary Clinton chose to make a speech all about the alt-right and make them an election issue, thereby doing the main thing you aren’t supposed to do with trolls? Well now the alt-right have essentially taken the bait and in the process revealed themselves to be either anti-porn or really ideologically triggered by interracial lovin’. Sargon was basically just trolling them, and they fell for it. In the process, we have a perfect example of how members of the alt-right can be just like the SJWs.

And I’m not kidding when I say that. I’ve seen one of them say “In a sane world, you would go to prison (or worse) for posting that Sargon”. Yeah, that’s totally defending freedom of expression in true alt-right fashion. Right Milo? One even went so far as to imply that members of the alt-right would keep the pornographic videos and images and send them to his family and kids whilst saying “industrialized rape is no joke”. Industrialized rape? Is that how think of interracial gay porn? Holy shit! Not only are they are they vehemently against interracial gay porn, but I’m pretty they think pornography is rape, which is tantamount to what feminists and SJWs tend to say.

This, I think, proves two things. First that people on the alt-right are not so different from the SJWs (in fact I am almost prepared to call them right-wing SJWs at this point), and secondly that they only seem to care about freedom of anything what it suits them or when it’s against SJWs and the left in general.


Some archives (NSFW):

https://archive.is/j1gsm

https://archive.is/wazis

https://archive.is/ml79L

YouTube is circling the drain

YouTube has recently put out a new set guidelines aimed at ensuring that the videos that get uploaded by users are more “advertiser-friendly”. This means that people on YouTube can get videos de-listed for monetization, meaning they will be unable to generate ad revenue for those videos, because those videos aren’t considered “friendly” to advertisers.

Below is a list of content that YouTube deems inappropriate for advertising:

Content that is considered “not advertiser-friendly” includes, but is not limited to:

  • Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor
  • Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism
  • Inappropriate language, including vulgar harassment, swearing and vulgar language
  • Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use, and abuse of such items
  • Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown.

What this ultimately amounts to is that your videos can be de-listed for monetization if you  not only talk about the wrong things (like social justice warriors, terrorism and Hillary Clinton) and possibly hold the wrong opinion but even so much as make a raunchy joke or shout “fuck”. This can’t be good for the AVGN I assume.

It’s not even a level playing field either, as the likes of CNN can still generate ad revenue from videos that surely violate this policy. I suspect this is an attempt on the part of YouTube to discourage those who generate income from YouTube videos from holding the wrong opinion or saying the wrong things, or just to create a nice habitat – nay, safe space! – for advertisers.

Not to mention, here’s an example I found of just how insane this policy is.

I would also like to address the inevitable “YouTube is a private company therefore they can do whatever they want”. Can big private companies do whatever they want? I’m not so sure of that, even though I identify as a libertarian. I would think that there are certain things that private businesses and corporations aren’t allowed to do. After all, are they not subject to the law just as private individuals are?  And the thing is, I don’t think the people who are defending the right of big social media companies to ban people for having the wrong opinion or talking about the wrong sort of subject matter would be so keen to defend Chick-fil-A for refusing to serve gay people because they don’t believe in same sex marriage, or McDonald’s for allowing people the choice to eat unhealthy fast foods, or GM for making veritable death cabs and selling them on the market, or companies like Halliburton for being able to profiteer off of the Iraq War, or big tech companies that dump hardware in places like Ghana where it creates e-waste that releases toxic chemicals when burned in landfills. It seems fairly obvious, then, that the people defending big social media only do so out of convenience, based on the fact that the people being censored, delisted or banned are usually people with opinions they don’t like.

I am of the opinion that social media companies need to uphold the freedom of speech of all its users for the simple reason that they are a very large platform for speech. Millions of people around the world use YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, and they need it in order to connect with others in the modern world as well as to succeed. I, personally, need Facebook in order to stay in contact with my fellow game design students when I am at home so that we can discuss the project and help each other do our work. They are that important to everyday life nowadays, and they create a massive platform for anyone to express themselves freely. When you remove people for wrongthink on your social media platform, you end up creating a culture of censorship on that platform. At that point, it’s only a matter of time before people start leaving that platform. This has already been happening to Twitter, and I am convinced it will happen to Facebook and YouTube as well. Not to mention, a culture of censorship is cancerous to a free and open society. People will be afraid to think for themselves and express themselves openly, while an increasingly authoritarian or at least soft-minded culture will eventually influence the government to cater to its whims and erode the freedom of society as a whole. I do not want to see this happen. At all.

So, no. I don’t think big social media companies should be allowed to get away with this.

A decline of reason

I think future historians may yet look at this decade as utterly connected yet hopelessly divided – this is but a charitable description that I would offer for this current age.

Recent events concerning campus policing of speech and political expression, the police arresting people like Matthew Doyle for speaking “offensive” thoughts rather than committing any actual violations of other people’s right to life and liberty, and the media response to the transformation of Microsoft’s “chatbot” Tay from friendly artificial teenage girl to Nazi sexbot, among other phenomenon, have me pretty damned convinced that the Western world is going in a worrisome direction – one that will depart from the flame of intelligence.

With Tay specifically, I have to wonder who thought it was a good idea in the first place. But when I see the Guardian implying that the Tay fiasco justifies censorship, claiming that the internet is full of “the kind of material all genocides feed off” and “awash with anger, stereotypes and prejudice” and denouncing the right to offend as “a culture that sees offensive speech as a source of  amusement”, it just makes me think that certain people spend their miserable lives trawling the ugliest side of the Internet with no regard for the rest of the net. Also, I have to repeat myself, who thought Tay was a good idea anyway? Who thought that a “chatbot” learning AI on Twitter – freaking Twitter! – would be a good idea? The Internet may be full of nasty people, but the problem is not the Internet being uncensored but rather the fact that people are just awful anyway. With Doyle’s arrest, I see nothing more and nothing less than another chapter in the rise of mob mentality, the kind that we saw in the wake of one dentist killing a lion named Cecil. Only now I see that British law enforcement are not simply facilitating mob mentality – in this case at least, they’re actively sustaining themselves with it! I can see the death of justice arriving in a world that endorses mob mentality as justice, because justice is perverted, raped, and sacrificed because the people have deemed mere offensive speech a criminal act. Democracy in action, right?

It’s a disheartening phenomenon that Man tends to march towards group mentality, and now, in a world connected by computers and information, Man is more enamored in said group mentality than ever before –  and also, more enveloped in the foulest poisons of herd mentality. The human race in its current state is the largest herd in the entire animal kingdom, and those who try to exist as individuals or simply contradict that hard may lead difficult lives as the herd punishes them for their dissent but not for committing any actual crimes or violations of the right to life and liberty. In my opinion, this is all fueled by misinformation, ignorance, and a majority decision to not think for oneself, and I believe it can be fueled by much consumption of misinformation that isn’t processed by reason or an individual relationship with the information presented before them.

Be under no illusion: if I am right about this new direction, then this new direction is entirely at the behest of Man itself, rather than the work of shadowy forces seeking to undermine our species. We’re all too familiar with the notion of shady government conspiracies working to dumb down the mind in order to keep it under control. But in my eyes, this is what the people seem to asking for. They now choose weakness, rather than the individual pursuit of strength and balance, and decide that the world must protect their fragile being – having to grow strong on their own would probably kill them! Enlightenment would probably kill them! Man can be weak and ignorant enough as it is, but what we as a species are going through is frankly sickening. We can blame the media, the government, and the world all we like, but in truth the way we are going is Man’s fault. We have the freedom to choose our way, to move towards freedom, but we choose ignorance and the perpetuation of our own weakness instead. And why? Because we aren’t conscious of what freedom means. We aren’t conscientious enough to hold ourselves accountable and responsible, and that’s not good: because it’s only in a world where we are conscientious, accountable, and responsible that liberty can survive. I don’t just mean the government, I mean the people. In a world where we expect the world to protect our own weakness, we lose that conscientiousness, accountability, and responsibility, and with it we will inexorably lose our freedom.

All because Man too often does stupid things, and then when we do them we blow them out of proportion. All because we are somehow convinced that we cannot function as adults with being coddled by a “good shepherd” or by guardians of all that is good. All because we are weak in the face of aggression from those who we clearly have the power to ignore and cry to the world instead of cultivating the strength to keep it together or rise above it, let alone fight back. And in this age we will not succeed in achieving a safe, friendly world. All we will do is either create a sanitized world where there is no liberty, or simply bring malignant and destructive habits upon our world – and we know for a fact that this is not the whole of what Man is capable of doing.