"Free speech" lol.
Yes, I receive shall we say "special" moderator attention. I am, after all, special.
Unz, as with all government employees, is kind of incompetent. He let this slip through the cracks: "The Hutu-driven genocide was an obvious CIA op." Whoops, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. His moderators had no idea that this apparent schizo nonsense is different from the other schizo nutjobs he allows to post on his site. That's the problem with NGO employees, you can't read them into the conspiracy or you perforate the public/private illusion...just look at the twitter files...
Result: another sitewide ban. (Triggered very weirdly and suspiciously - a special-cased, unprincipled Alrenous privilege ban.) Because it's obviously true, and Unz is obviously there to defend CIA interests. He can't delete the comment post-facto without revealing his hand (not so incompetent he hasn't heard of Streisand) but he can stop me from supporting or expanding on it. "Clandestine" operations, see? Why, perhaps I'm just lying about the ban...it just says "take a break" after all....
"Plausible" deniability lol.
I would guess he's the employee of a minority faction. Regular Byzantine snake-pit infighting stuff. My second guess is that it's a backstop; if you don't buy the first-tier misinformation you get trapped in the second-tier misinformation. Can't have any actual information on your CIA misinformation site. They genuinely react to veritas like vampires react to garlic.
The moral here is a) you can trust your gut and 1) you can always force these idiots to reveal themselves. Because Unz is just a lying liar, you and I can always inhabit the delta between his professions and the truth, forcing him to either "betray" his "principles" or betray his employer - which means we can force him to reveal who his employer is. On a budget of $0.
Also 2) yes, everything in America is a corrupt conspiracy. Sailer is allowed on Unz precisely because he's harmless to the Regime. Sailer is not a dissident. BAM is allowed on Amazon because BAP is harmless to the Regime. No genuine dissidence is allowed, as per Tocqueville. Tate is threatened with the Assange treatment so they can get him alone and quietly tell him where the line is - don't worry, he toes it religiously.
Concretely, we must ask: who else has unprincipled sitewide bans? As I said earlier, memejojo is allowed to say anything he wants...precisely because he sounds like an idiot and discredits everything he touches. Perhaps meme himself is a CIA employee, and his job is exactly that. P.S. Check out this amazing CIA humblebrag. https://www.unz.com/article/how-the-cia-destabilizes-the-world/ Yeah you're so cool and competent and scary, CIA... See how the game works?
I am genuinely curious. Can Unz normally rely on self-filtering? That would be why he hosts so many dumbass authors: to set the tone, to repel anyone of sound mind. How much active censorship is required to maintain the illusion of free speech?
Though, come to think, everywhere else requires industrial quantities of censorship. Even 4chan is heavily censored. (National Socialism is harmless to the Regime. On the contrary.) It would be a remarkable outlier if Unz did not have to frequently manipulate procedural outcomes.
CIA agents, like all government employees, are incompetent. Their spies are bad. They can't blend in due to fatal tone deafness. This explains Unz comment sections: CIA agents can only blend in with dysfunctional deviants, in other words, when nobody blends in. They always sound like trolls so they need the internet flooded, without exception, with trolls.
The true story of Rwanda is that the CIA's ""clandestine"" operation was common knowledge as per usual, but someone decided to fight back for a change, so the CIA got their ass handed to them by poverty-stricken African cowherds. Couldn't even outsmart Cushitics. Everything since then has been covering up the embarrassment.
I rather suspect Kagame went into the Congo for the same reason Putin had to go into Ukraine: underground CIA terror bases just across the border, launching ""clandestine"" acts of war into anti-Fascist territories.
Now Kagame's Rwanda is having an El Salvador effect: it's showing that total African dysfunction is a symptom of UN occupation, not of African occupation. (Well, maybe Bantu occupation. The UN loves subsidizing Bantu, who would otherwise get knocked over at the touch of a feather.)
Check: Rwanda-Chinese ties are extremely healthy. "Rwandan President Paul Kagame
stated that China's investment in African infrastructure meets the
needs of Africa and has been well-received by governments and private
enterprises."
Kagame kicked out the UN and banned UN propaganda, such as racial hatemongering. This is a problem for folk like Unz.
Out of everything that wins you a ban, Rawanda? They actually care about what you post about Rawanda?
ReplyDeleteRwanda on top of already being identified as a threat.
ReplyDeleteConsider the compliment: "What you say matters. You don't sound like the raving homeless bum. If you embarrass us, we have to worry about it."
ReplyDeleteGovernment employment is a mental illness. Almost all governments have the same illness. Perhaps put it this way: every single one thinks he's Caesar. From long experience, it's easy to understand the alternative they use in place of thought processes.
Well I can confirm you do not in fact sound like raving homeless bum. Black government being what it is, I've been contemplating moving some where more geographically secure. Do you have any thoughts on where in the country would be a good place to relocate for the next 100 years? Obviously putting down roots in an area is not a flippant decision, so I've been seeking wise council in the matter.
ReplyDeleteI'm considering Hungary, Luxembourg, Moscow, Singapore, and maybe Japan.
ReplyDeleteNobody talks about Luxembourg. That's a good sign. And immigration isn't impossible. Singapore has the advantage of being basically Anglophone. However, the climate...
I think 100 years is ambitious at this stage of history. I recommend thinking about the tradeoff between empires of space and empires of time. Large human institutions die quickly. The 4D volume seems relatively constant - consider a very small area, as small as possible, explicitly to make it agile and robust.
In this spirit, rather than putting down roots geographically, consider temporal and cultural roots.
Ideally one would form a nomadic clan, and when it came time to move, send out scouts. Have someone specifically chosen for investigating and understanding other cultures, so they can competently assess distant prospects.
Home is where the family is. Ideally it's the ancestral homeland that one has been physically adapted to, but certainly for me that's not a live option.
Okay so you're approaching it from the complete opposite direction than I am. My thought process was to grab ahold of a piece of terrain, and gradually develop it over multiple generations. Figuring out how to stack gained advantages over multiple generations appeals to me.
ReplyDeleteI'm familiar with Peter Zeihan's work, and while I don't agree with many of his conclusions, I do believe that geography is hugely important in human development. So far what I've been able to work out on my own is that I'd definitely want to move somewhere mountainous, it's much easier to secure your shit in the mountains against collapse. Chattanooga, TN fits that bill, while also being a large city with the benefits associated with that. It's also on the Tennessee river which is a tributary of the Mississippi, basically S-tier logistics network.
Its only an hour and a half away from both marble quarries in Tate Gerorgia and Talladega Alabama. Working stone would be a great character builder for kids, and it's something that scales well the more people you have doing it. You can also pass on the fruits of your labor to future generations in a direct fashion. Side note if you haven't seen Creole Marble, it's beautiful as a building stone. I've also thought about Northern Italy, for hitting much of the same veins.
But maybe I'm being too autistic about it. You've given me something to think about, I hadn't considered the nomadic option at all. It would definitely require a stronger emphasis on cohesion in order to keep the clan unit from spiraling out into atomized individuals.
Anyone in Ukraine had to leave. If you're in France when the French Revolution beckons, it's time to go.
ReplyDeleteThere are no guarantees anywhere. Every place is mildly threatening to become Ukraine in the short (100 year) term. Unless you're Spengler and can nail dates 50 years in advance, the only solution is to be prepared to skip town.
I suppose you could set down in two places and just accept that one of the families is probably going to get slaughtered. It's fine if you have a backup.
Or setup in two places and be prepared to skip over to the other one. Maintain dual citizenship.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious about you're thoughts on temporal and cultural roots. Any culture/ practices that you admire? (Excluding the Amish, for reasons you've already expounded on at length on. Very squared away bunch)
https://twitter.com/GiveMeRumRaisin/status/1488427200760074240
ReplyDelete"In fourteenth-century Japan when civil war divided the nation into forces of the samurai regime and forces of the imperial court, it was common for members of the same clan to take opposite sides deliberately. The intentional division of allegiance within a clan did not rest on conflicts of principle; the division was aimed at guaranteeing that one part of the family would be on the winning side regardless of the outcome of the civil war. The strategy was to leverage risk by siding with both rivals. Despite apparent family breaches, split families shared an understanding that the conflict was superficial."
also from japan: up until macarthur occupation, the imperial family was more than one nuclear family, for the purposes of securing a good successor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Cke
So find not one but TWO non-peasant wives?
ReplyDelete