Politics

Neither of us have a political position, as a political position requires relatability to people of a certain country or group.

We began to be significantly exposed to politics in early teenage years.

I never significantly adopted any domestic political position, as I had already been turned away from all people from my country in secondary school and no longer found people from my country relatable by around age 15.

As described on Other features of our lack of the social mindset, at age 15, immediately after leaving secondary school, I suddenly embarked on a massive research spree of politics and world history that gave me coverage and perspective on virtually all areas of these subjects.

By around age 18, I had progressively lost all remaining political positions as I continued to learn about politics and history and stopped relating to peoples of the rest of the world as part of the progression of my loss of the social mindset.

Despite retaining my political knowledge, my attention shifted to the human social mindset as a whole rather than social groups within it as I began to study genetics and neuroscience at age 19.

At age 16 (2015), I stated to my friend:

‘I have Facebook friends from Australia, Pakistan, India, the US, South Africa, Vietnam, New Zealand, Italy, Germany, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Sierra Leone, Japan, Russia, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Britain, Belarus, France, the Philippines, Finland, Brazil, Serbia, Latvia and now Afghanistan.’

I later stated, ‘I was just telling [my girlfriend] how although no one understands me, I have friends in countries from Serbia to Latvia and Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan and India to Russia, most [in the latter] posing on Facebook with their arsenal of guns in front of a Soviet flag. They all have a revolutionary spirit.

The Latvian was talking to me about the problems people in Latvia have about non-citizenship; due to the struggles of post-Soviet states and ethnicities, many are left with no citizenship and no legal opportunities, and a vast population of these make up Latvia.

In Vietnam, people tell me how their country has turned away from its past and become corrupt. In Russia, many people send me pages supporting the rebellion going on in Donetsk, and of course, I have closer friends of the English language.’

My friend replied, ‘What does [your girlfriend] say to this?’ I replied, ‘She replies ambiguously and strangely, probably not taking it seriously, I assume. I don’t know. She has no knowledge of politics. She knows nothing of how people assume power.’

At age 17, I stated:

‘He’s from Ghana. I could tell by his name, Asante. Asante, or Ashanti, are the main ethnic group of the Akan in Ghana and had a large and powerful kingdom there. I was right; he is from a town called Berekum in south Ghana.

I guessed that a Lemchi Chidi was from a central or West African non-Bantu country, and he was from Lagos, Nigeria. I guessed that a Yeda Budaye was from Nigeria, and she was. I guessed that a Sotonye T. Charles was from Nigeria, and she was.’

At age 17 (2016), I stated:

‘Ah yes, the FBI Clinton scandal, at an opportune time. The BBC is trying to make it sound like the FBI director “may have broken the law”,^[1] clearly Clinton-leaning, has been from the start.

Trump and all he stands for goes against modern “British values”, because Britain requires people to tolerate the immigrants for it to survive in the state it’s currently in, so there’s a civic religion of multiculturalism and tolerance.’

My friend replied, ‘What are values? I have my own values.’ I replied, ‘Nonsense, nothing. I have none.’ My friend replied, ‘Yes, well my values are do whatever I want, and controversy doesn’t exist.’ I replied, ‘Yes. Value has no meaning for me. I study facts, and I base my views on what I’ve studied.’

I later stated at age 18, ‘It’s funny how terrified the BBC are of Le Pen winning [the 2017 French presidential election].’ My friend replied, ‘Why don’t they want her to win? Who cares? Not the BBC’s country.‘ I replied, ‘Because she’s anti-EU and anti-immigrant, and the BBC is in favour of those two things. The BBC represents metropolitan London interests.’

At age 16, my friend stated:

‘A boy asked the form tutor a question: “I’m conducting a study in American culture; do you have any words to describe America?” I spoke over: “postcolonialists”. The form tutor started saying “freedom”. I said, “No; they killed all the natives. Doesn’t sound very free.” “Prosthetic society”, “plastic buildings”.

I replied, ‘Hahaha. I would’ve lectured them on the Timucua, all the countries the US invaded, all the authoritarian puppet leaders it propped up: Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines; Syngman Rhee, Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan of South Korea; Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam; the Somoza family of Nicaragua; Fulgencio Batista of Cuba; Augusto Pinochet of Chile; the last Argentine junta.’

At age 18, in response to a BBC News article titled ‘The day Boris Yeltsin said goodbye to Russia’,^[2] I stated:

‘Extremely pro-Yeltsin and anti-Putin, and they supposedly say the BBC has to be “objective” and “neutral”. That’s what my sociology teacher always says, anyway. I confronted him about it, but he said it again this lesson.’

I then sent another BBC News article titled ‘Vladimir Putin: Russia’s action man president’^[3] and stated, ‘Compare that to this article. Stupid.’

At age 18 (2017), I stated:

‘There is a tension in Cameroon between the majority French-speaking part and the small English-speaking part near Nigeria. The BBC is heavily on the side of the English-speaking Cameroon.^[4] French Cameroon cut off its Internet.

They like English-speaking Cameroon because it speaks English like the UK does [and is a former British colony]. This means business with the English Cameroon is easier. It also has an active secessionist movement, therefore this article serves to add fuel to the flames, in favour of the UK.’

At age 18, I stated, quoting an excerpt from Wikipedia:

‘”The concept [of a charity supergroup] dates back to at least 1971 when George Harrison and Ravi Shankar organized The Concert for Bangladesh. …”^[5]

I already know why they held a concert for Bangladesh, because I already know that 1971 was the year Bangladesh fought a war and became independent from Pakistan and that Pakistan allegedly committed a genocide in Bangladesh.

This is what I mean; I already know the reasons for things, basic things. I see the world a whole lot clearer.‘

At age 17, my friend asked:

‘Also, how did the colonisation of Trinidad take place, and finally, what is this crisis in Myanmar?’ I replied, ‘Trinidad and Tobago was one of the early places to be colonised, like the rest of the Caribbean.’

I continued, ‘It was inhabited by Arawak and Carib peoples, then one of the Spanish European explorers “discovered” it, then it was ruled by various European powers then finally Britain and must’ve achieved independence from Britain in the 1970s or something.

I actually know next-to-nothing about Trinidad, but I’m deducing this from what I know about other Caribbean colonies like Hispaniola and Grenada. Let’s see how right I was.

It was inhabited by Warao and Carib peoples. Christopher Columbus “discovered” it in 1498. It was ruled by Spain from 1592 to 1797 and Britain from an invasion in 1797 to independence within the Commonwealth in 1962 then full independence without Queen Elizabeth II in 1976.^[6] There.

Former colonies have such ridiculous placenames. Trinidad and Tobago is literally named after the Holy Trinity and tobacco, by Columbus,^[6] named after European interests.

Myanmar crisis: I will assume you are referring to the “Rohingya crisis”, since that’s the only one that makes Western headlines.’ My friend replied, ‘Yes. Continue. Give me history, so I can conjecture. I want it to become obvious why the crisis is happening. I just need the gist. I thought it was called Burma.’

I replied, ‘Burma is the name Britain gave to it when it colonised it. It is named after the Burmese people, “Bamar“. Myanmar is the more modern name the military government changed it to in 1989. It also derives from the name of the ethnic group. Bama was a corruption of Mranma. Both names are used.^[7]

The official name of the country now is the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. It was previously the Union of Burma.^[7] Bear in mind that “Union” was the name given to some British post-colonies that kept the monarch, like the Union of South Africa.

Myanmar was so disorganised that they didn’t change it until 1989, and they just added “Republic of” in front of it in 2011. Myanmar’s disorganisation is the same reason it never officially adopted the metric system of measurements and remains one of around 3 countries that have not done so, the others including the US and the US’s former-slave repatriation colony in Africa, Liberia.

Myanmar really is an anomaly. Rohingyas: they are an ethnic group currently present in the Rakhine State of western Myanmar. They are Muslim and speak a language related to Bengali of Bangladesh, part of the Bengali–Assamese branch of Indo-Aryan.

The “crisis” arises over the fact that the Buddhist-dominated, Burmese-dominated government denies them citizenship. They weren’t always present in Myanmar. They started migrating from the Chittagong division of southeast Bangladesh in modern times [during British colonisation].^[8] Myanmar considers them Bangladeshi illegal immigrants. The UN and Human Rights Watch are all over the Rohingya, crying and pleading about them.

There is also a Rohingya insurgency, one of the many ethnic conflicts currently ongoing in Myanmar, collectively called the Burmese Civil War, which has been ongoing since independence in 1948.

Britain really fucked up when they drew the borders of Myanmar. ARSA [the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army] is the main Rohingya insurgent group, and as you can see, Islamists were helping it. No wonder Myanmar is cracking down on them. The centre of the country, including the capital and largest city, is conflict-free, because it is inhabited by the Bamars. The conflict is on the outskirts.

The West dislikes the Burmese government. It used to be socialist and part of the Eastern Bloc. It essentially hasn’t changed since then, same military leaders in power, even though the military dictatorship officially ended in 2011.

I think the West thinks that helping the Rohingya cause is their best hope of establishing an entity in Myanmar with friendly relations, but the Rohingyas are tiny in comparison to the rest of the country, and the country is mountainous and harsh. They are even now scolding the pro-democracy “human rights activist” they supported so strongly [Aung San Suu Kyi], probably because she’s a Bamar.’

My friend replied, ‘Or clearly because they didn’t understand her initial motives, and they happened to coincide with what the West thought.’ I replied, ‘It’s just because she’s not conceding to the West’s wishes regarding the Rohingya.’

I then sent a screenshot of the Wikipedia article for Burmese names, in which they have no surname and can change their name at will without government oversight. My friend replied, ‘Chaos.’ I replied, ‘Yes, as I say, nothing like Western traditions. It was a very hard country for the British to conquer. They had many wars and only succeeded in 1824 [in contrast to colonies such as India].’

My friend replied, ‘When you do fully understand something, the facts around it fall into place and are impossible to forget.’ I replied, ‘Exactly, like when I learnt about the individual Indian communities in former British colonies.’

I continued, ‘When I read about the first ones, I was so confused, but after about half, I started to realise they had a connection. Turns out there are Indian communities in almost every former British colony, brought over as indentured labourers from British-ruled India.’

At age 18 (2017), I stated:

‘I knew from the start that there is nothing Aung San Suu Kyi would or could do about the Rohingya crisis, and I knew she’d get slandered for it.

The Western world thinks presidents or world leaders are the masters and can do anything. They simply can’t in countries like Myanmar, where parts of the country are almost not under government control, because of stupid colonial borders that the West themselves imposed and the dissection and lumping of ethnic groups.

They think every country is like the UK or US, saying it like she can do anything. She can’t. It’s an inherent product of the borders of Myanmar. Do these idiots not know that Myanmar has been in civil war since independence in 1948? Do they not know that the Rohingya insurgency is just part of this war and has also been ongoing since 1947–8?

Apparently, there was a major coordinated insurgent attack just on 25 August 2017, which killed 71 people,^[9] and these idiot Westerners think the Burmese government is just going to pacify this region in an instant and stop the flow of refugees? They’re off their head. It’s that simple.

They’re ignorant; they don’t know. Either by circumstance or by will, they haven’t made the choice to know, to learn more, to get smart about any situation they see in the news.

The Rohingya aren’t even a majority in the state they’re in. They’re dwarfed by the native Rakhine people, who are part of the Sino-Tibetan family. That already makes the situation next-to-impossible to control.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes, they are [ignorant].’ I replied, ‘Yes. They can’t make a judgement on the news. No one can, unless they know the background of the situation, otherwise their judgement is flawed, based off fluffy codswallop, the face-value shit they see on the news. That’s all they’re going on. You find out that there’s way more to it when you look further, important information.’

I continued, ‘The UK’s being the worst about this. They think they can still tell their former colony what to do or something. They briefly mentioned this attack, right at the very bottom of the article.’

At age 18 (2017), I stated:

‘You can see Somalia’s transition into American influence by just looking at the presidents’ education. The 1969–1991 socialist president was Italian-educated (due to Italian colonisation) but obviously spent time training with Soviet officers.

The 2000–2004 president was Soviet-educated. The 2004–2008 president was Soviet-educated. The 2009–2012 president was Egyptian-, Sudanese- and Libyan-educated, but the 2012–2017 president was American-educated, and the 2017–present president was American-educated, even more so, and he holds American citizenship.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes. Always tells me when a country is Western-aligned or not when the president was educated in America or went to an American university.’

At age 18 (2017), I stated:

‘Apparently, Mugabe’s resigned. BBC is jubilant, calling him a “brutal dictator” and ruling with a “rod of iron”, whatever the fuck that means.’ My friend replied, ‘Nonsense. Of course they are, the man who foiled their Southern Rhodesia.’

I replied, ‘BBC is in fact only showing the jubilant Zimbabweans, not all Zimbabweans. Hahahaha, the BBC brought on a ZANU-PF member of parliament, expecting him to be happy at the resignation, but he’s sad and saying that half of the parliament was in tears.’ My friend replied, ‘Of course they would be in tears.’

I then sent a screenshot of a Zimbabwean woman being interviewed by the BBC and stated, ‘She’s lived in the UK for 10 years, and she’s from Bulawayo, the capital of the Matabeleland region. The Ndebeles of Matebeleland were the ones oppressed by Mugabe. The Shona of the east supported him.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes. It is just ridiculous. They can just pull the renowned arch enemy of the person they’re trying to slander and then successfully make it seem like they represent all people, because people in the West think the news knows more than them.’

At age 18 (2017), my friend stated:

‘I successfully remembered the Ogaden conflict. I think the other was Osomo or something.’ I replied, ‘The Oromo people, yes, Cushitic people like the Somalis, vs. the Semitic Amharic people.’

My friend replied, ‘Remember the Ethiopian prime minister talking about the West on that audio, because of the conflicts going on, ones that the West don’t understand, and they’re picking on it in order to get control?’

I replied, ‘They don’t pick that much on Ethiopia. Ethiopia rarely makes the news. If they were enacting an agenda, Ethiopia would be in the news. There were the Oromo protests on at one point.’

My friend replied, ‘It’s passive at the moment.’ I replied, ‘Yes, passive. I believe they are inclined to ally with the insurgents of Ethiopia, but I’m not sure. Yes,^[12] last year, see?’

My friend replied, ‘Do you like to find things like that out, who allies with who?’ I replied, ‘Well, actually, it becomes obvious. Knowing alliances is only the end result. It’s the history knowledge that has allowed for it, and the current-affairs knowledge, where there are insurgencies.’

I continued, ‘You can clearly see the bias here.^[13] I was right. Ridiculous. What’s wrong with the Amhara? They are the most powerful group in the country. Well, there you go; the BBC and US are pro-Oromo and anti–Ethiopian government.’

My friend replied, ‘What does it actually have to do with them? It’s so annoying.’ I replied, ‘Exactly. That’s what I’m trying to figure out.’ My friend continued, ‘Who gives a fuck who expresses a concern? It’s not them or their country. They have a big enough country as it is. They’ll never be happy.’

I replied, ‘The one main reason I can conjure is that it will allow the US-/Western-aligned Somali government more influence in Ethiopia.’ My friend replied, ‘Yes, obviously. Non-aligned; it’s all about that, aligning the countries.’

I replied, ‘Back in 2011, they said this,^[14] so they’re supporting the Somalis in Ethiopia too.’

I later stated at age 21 (2020), ‘Oh for goodness’ sake,^[15] now the Tigrayans too?’

At age 18, I stated:

‘You know what’s annoying? The habit of immigrants to America anglicising their names. I’ve seen this a lot now. “His maternal grandfather, Daniel, had changed the family surname from “Verovitz” to “Verne” some time after 1940.”^[16] Stuff like that.’ My friend replied, ‘Stupid.’

I continued, ‘”Anglicization of family surnames occurred frequently among American born children of German immigrants.”^[17] Not to mention the horrible way English colonists anglicised native names.

[Kickapoo] pisses me off, and [Lushootseed]. Americans will actually think it’s made up of the words “shoot” and “seed”, but it’s just a horrible transliteration of the native pronunciation, xʷəlšucid, dxʷləšúcid.

Another annoying example is how they did it in the British Indian subcontinent. Pashtun is the spelling in Afghanistan, but as soon as you cross over into Pakistan, it becomes Pukhtoon.^[18] You get spellings like Naypyidaw, the capital of Myanmar, horrible transliteration of the native name, [nèpjìdɔ̀].

It’s a good job the Indian subcontinent changed a lot of their horrible colonial placenames. Thiruvananthapuram used to be called Trivandrum. Bombay became Mumbai, Calcutta – Kolkata, Pondicherry – Puducherry, Bangalore – Bengaluru, Mysore – Mysuru.

Mysore sounds disgusting, makes me think of a burn sore. It’s just so silly seeing how the European powers used their own phonetic spellings for their colonies. It’s the reason Burkina Faso’s capital is spelt Ouagadougou [as a former French colony] instead of Wagadoogoo.

Speaking of “Wagadoogoo”, that’s how Australian Aboriginal terms are spelt; British colonists.’ I then sent a screenshot of several anglicised Australian Aboriginal placename spellings such as ‘Woolgoolga‘, ‘Wooli’, ‘Woolloomooloo‘, ‘Woolloongabba‘, ‘Wongawilli‘ and ‘Woodenbong‘ and stated, ‘Just a joke. It’s like they’re trying to take the piss. They dumbed down the spellings so their fellow colonists could understand it.’

I then sent a screenshot of the Wikipedia article for Boonoo Boonoo National Park and stated, ‘Are you serious? Just spell it Bunu Bunu, ffs.’

At age 18, my friend sent a world map of countries shaded by what country their people hate the most, most of which were shaded with the US and most Western ones of which were shaded with Iran. I stated:

‘The YouTube comments on that were American idiots who couldn’t understand why Kenya chose Somalia. I understood instantly.’ My friend replied, ‘I don’t, but I’m not confused by it. It’s clearly something that’s going on that I haven’t yet researched, because I’m not onto those 2 countries yet.’

My friend continued, ‘Is it because of al-Shabaab?’ I replied, ‘Yes, and because the entire east side of Kenya is populated by Somalis, and Kenyans think they’re bringing terrorism in.’

At age 18, I stated, ‘Brits call The Guardian “left-wing”, but it’s completely against socialism, communism, Russia, Venezuela, etc. It’s only because it’s pro-LGBT and pro-multiculturalism.’

At age 19, I stated, ‘BBC hates Serbia. Western countries hate Serbia. This is the running rhetoric, because Serbia is like a mini Russia in Europe, same orthodox religion and allies. NATO fought against the Serbs alongside the Bosniaks and Croats in the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s.’

At age 19 (2018), in response to a news article titled ‘Telegram told to give encryption keys to Russian authorities’,^[19] I stated:

‘Russia wants the keys because Pavel Durov is effectively a dissident, so they think he’s allowing his app, Telegram, to facilitate discussion about dissident activities against Russia, and indeed, the app is used by predominantly dissident citizens of Iran, of Russia, etc.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes. I don’t know why so many dissident Russians use Telegram, but there you go.’ I replied, ‘Because of its status as an app espousing privacy and encryption, and its founder, and the fact that it’s generally been safe from national blocks, unlike other social media.’

My friend replied, ‘Estimate the year of the revolution [in Russia].’ I replied, ‘If there is to be a revolution, it will be a classic “colour revolution” in exactly the same style as Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, etc.’

I continued, ‘It’s hard to estimate the year, but it’s easier for me to say I don’t think the handover of Putin’s or Putin’s successor’s power will be peaceful.’ My friend replied, ‘In comes another Medvedev. Question is if Putin will go again, for a 5th term, after.’

I replied, ‘All it takes is for the Russian older generation to die out enough and for the younger generation to becomce large enough in proportion, then it’ll all fall apart, so it’s about predicting the year for that. All we see right now is Western over-inflations of what’s actually going on in Russia. They highlight every little protest and disturbance.

But the key thing to note here is that a figure like Alexei Navalny is getting repeatedly jailed and barred from elections, and no force is countering that. That’s what you see before a major political change, usually.

The repeatedly jailed figure’s support base grows enough for it to become a force, and he becomes a star with real power and has a full frontal role in the regime change. It will take several years at this rate, but I’m fairly certain it will happen.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes, well they’re all fake opponents, and some real ones, and then your Medvedev, which is really Putin.’ I replied, ‘Yes. There is no real counter to the main figure, except him. All of them are showpeople, like here in Britain, except Navalny, who is a representative of the West, a pawn of foreign power and its interference. In Britain, there is no pawn of foreign power. Everyone is showpeople. Russia doesn’t have a pawn politician here.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes. Most of the candidates are showpeople.’ I replied, ‘Yes, or are just a laughing stock with no real reason to vote for.’ My friend replied, ‘I wonder who else is having this conversation; likely, not enough people, an alarming lack of people.’ I replied, ‘Not enough at all.’

I continued, ‘Yes. [Medvedev] was just the United Russia party successor because Putin couldn’t run for more than two terms, so yes, there’ll be some Medvedev figure in 2024, maybe even Medvedev himself [or Putin since the 2020 constitutional reform].

There’s unlikely to be any major change to this party, and all opponents are laughable, except Navalny or whoever becomes the prominent Western pawn at the time; will probably still be Navalny, unless he’s killed, and I’m expecting that if he isn’t allowed to run or is jailed in an election in about 10 years time or so, people will revolt with effect, not like before, where it’s just overblown mini demonstrations.’

My friend replied, ‘And then the government will respond, like in Syria, and will the West dare to intervene in the scale that they did in Syria? They may.’

I replied, ‘It’ll be a matter of which side is more powerful, and I expect it to be bloody, yes, because it’ll be like Yugoslavia; two camps slowly converging in their power.’ My friend replied, ‘Well, we all know that the West is more powerful. They currently don’t have a way to justify an invasion, but that’s all it needs, and they’re building up to it, clearly.’

I replied, ‘It’s not that simple. It depends on the location. There’s a reason Lebanon was torn apart by the forces of the Cold War, but Yugoslavia wasn’t torn apart until after it. Yugoslavia was well under the protective blanket of the Eastern Bloc. Lebanon was stuck in the middle.

It’s a combination of the makeup of the native populace (their ethnic, religious or political allegiance) and the location of the major powers outside of it. They’re not confident enough that the youth generation is big enough and will get behind them with enough strength, so they’re just screaming and wailing and crying about it.’

My friend replied, ‘Well, it would be world destruction. It wouldn’t be smooth.’ I replied, ‘Of course. If the US invaded Russia now, they wouldn’t win. It would be an awful, awful mistake. Most of the world would turn against it after seeing how badly it would go.’

My friend replied, ‘I’ll rephrase; there is no way to do it yet, no way to smoothly invade.’ I replied, ‘Yes, but it’s not merely about justification. There’s a real physical basis to it, a basis within the makeup of Russia’s populace. The West knows it won’t succeed until it can be sure that makeup will be in its favour. It’s an information war right now.’

I continued, ‘Countries don’t go into war without reasonable belief that they will succeed, hence the entire Cold War, where two superpowers did not go to war with each other, because they both knew it would be the end, but instead went to war in smaller countries, where they had reasonable belief they could succeed without as many adverse effects.

There’s a good reason the US isn’t invading Iran or something right now. When I say countries act in their interest, they really do. Why would the US directly invade the the country with the most powerful military in the Middle East?

Instead, the West keeps up an information war as strong as it can. It’s the most it can do without having adverse effects. It won’t back down from this, because it’s not in its interest, but it won’t escalate, because it’s also not in its interest.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes, like with Russia now. It was Gaddafi’s grave error, one that Kim Jong-un won’t repeat.’ I replied, ‘Yes, same reason North Korea hasn’t been invaded yet.’

I continued, ‘I found it funny to hear [a former friend] talking about carpet-bombing the Middle East and all its inhabitants into oblivion. It’s something we would’ve heard in 2014. It’s like he’s stuck in the past.

The UK’s actions against Russia really are just part of this information war. It’s doing the most it can without escalating it militarily. It’s doing the blame game, so that all British people have a sentiment against Russia. I mean, it’s not going to blame itself, obviously.

It’s not even a governmental thing at this point; it’s the collective mindset of the country. You can be assured that if Theresa May had said the [Salisbury] attack was not the Russian government’s fault, the UK populace would be confused and disagree. The government follows the collective mindset as much as the collective mindset follows the government.‘

My friend replied, ‘[The former friend was also talking about carpet-bombing] North Korea.’ I replied, ‘Yes, but Middle East even more, because he demonstrated that he knew fucking nothing about it by just grouping it all together into one lump.’ My friend replied, ‘Yes, exactly. It makes me angry. It makes me research more, just to distance myself further.’

I replied, ‘Yes. Russia’s doing the same [information war], obviously, and nothing is going to change until the makeup of the populace changes enough, and at this rate, before anything else, Russia’s youth replacing its older generation will have the first and most effect within the context of this conflict.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes, because they’ve already been built up to believe this. Once again, it’s a guilt game as well as a tactical one.’ I replied, ‘Exactly. It’s the older generation and the younger generation.’

I continued, ‘The older generation is stuck in the Cold-War days, so that’s all our British younger generation is hearing about, but in Russia, you’ve got open access to the Internet, where Russian youth are hearing all this stuff. It’s a wound in the country.’ My friend replied, ‘[Look at] the rap and the hair. Wait until that becomes an adult. It’ll just be another Western country.’

I continued, ‘We open the Internet, and all we see is what America, the pioneer of the Internet, and its allies have to say. It’s a starkly different case to Russia. People have to understand that the Internet isn’t the same everywhere. It isn’t this global, universal tool; it has a makeup itself.’

My friend replied, ‘Which is why it’s blocked in North Korea and why it was blocked in the DDR [East Germany].’ I replied, ‘Yes, and everywhere else have you.’ My friend continued, ‘No wonder the Stasi and the border control rules were so strict.’ I replied, ‘Yes, before the Internet; great days for non-Western information.’

My friend continued, ‘The Internet was a bad invention for this situation.’ I replied, ‘It’s not bad, but it was invented by one group and pioneered by one group, but it is being talked about as a universal thing.’

I continued, ‘Who else but America to pioneer the Internet when you live in a wasteland where everything’s spaced out; where information and population transfer is hard over the long distances, almost no train infrastructure; where you use guns instead of knives; where you use cars instead of walking, and cars are automatic instead of manual to make learning easier because of how necessary they are?

It all makes sense. No wonder it was America to invent that and have a need for it, and by a government agency, no doubt. Inventions come out of a need.’

My friend replied, ‘I wonder how aware Theresa May actually is of this situation.‘ I replied, ‘Likely not very. She’s probably like any elderly person in this country, had a privileged upbringing, obviously, sheltered, didn’t have the experiences we had, the information access we have.’

My friend continued, ‘I often wonder if she is fully aware of the information war and Russia’s actions or if she’s totally unaware, and people are just pulling the strings, and is as stupid as the public.’ I replied, ‘Your point about these officials telling the lies so often that they convince themselves is a good one.’

At age 18 (2018), my friend asked:

‘What happened in 1986?’ I replied, ‘[Gaddafi] added “Great” to the name [of his country].’ My friend replied, ‘I didn’t know about the bombings that happened that year.’ I replied, ‘Oh yes, the US bombing. Well spotted. That’ll be it then, the reason for the change. “Gaddafi announced that he had ‘won a spectacular military victory over the United States’ and the country was officially renamed the ‘Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah’.”‘^[20]

My friend replied, ‘Do you think Gaddafi had more power and involvement than he claimed to have?’ I replied, ‘No. The jamahiriya system wasn’t just Gaddafi. It didn’t take just Gaddafi to enable this system or allow it to continue.’

I continued, ‘Power is never in the hands of one person anywhere. It needs a support base. Gaddafi could’ve betrayed his ideals at any moment, suddenly supported al-Qaeda or the West, and his support base would’ve not changed. They would be rioting, calling him a traitor, putting someone else in his place.

It’s a greater power dynamic. The only reason he fell is because of a domino effect of revolutions, a huge shift in global power dynamics, a vacuum for NATO to gain a foothold.’

My friend replied, ‘Gaddafi always seemed to claim that he was not a leader, which fits with the ideology. At the same time, it didn’t compute that he had no say or executive power of some description.’

I replied, ‘No one said he had no say. Obviously, he had his support base, who would listen to and carry out what he said, because they supported the ideology and anti-Senussi unity.’ My friend replied, ‘Is the Senussi clan back in control now? I know 0 about post-2011 Libya, other than when they attacked the US base and the 2014 civil war.’

I replied, ‘No, but the current leader of the eastern government [Khalifa Haftar] was born in the east.’ My friend replied, ‘What do you think of him? I’ve read up on him. He just seems to be a Libyan businessman.’

I replied, ‘He lived from 1990 to 2011 in the United States and supported American attempts to overthrow Gaddafi.^[21]‘ My friend replied, ‘Oh dear. Well, wouldn’t expect anything else. How did he get into power? I suppose the UN put him there.’ I replied, ‘Because of his role in overthrowing Gaddafi, leader of a military group, I presume; naturally turns into the political leader of that group’s territory.’

My friend replied, ‘Another thing I’d like to address is, Gaddafi says that it was al-Qaeda who was taking advantage of the uprising; why would it be in al-Qaeda’s interest to see more Western presence in the Arab world? I would have thought that they would have supported Gaddafi in that situation. Then again, look at Syria and ISIS. They didn’t exactly support the government there.’

I replied, ‘One thing I know: the West helped facilitate al-Qaeda and Islamic terror’s rise. The West makes a huge media deal out of Islamic terror; the West supported Islamist rebel groups, which include a former al-Qaeda splinter,^[22] in Syria.’ My friend replied, ‘Which one precisely came from al-Qaeda? I’ll look it up.’ I replied, ‘It was Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, formerly Al-Nusra Front.’

My friend replied, ‘It’s funny how Serbia is now supporting the Syrian government.’ I replied, ‘Of course.’ My friend continued, ‘Yes. The West doesn’t like Serbia. Why does “international community” come out of all of their mouths?’ I replied, ‘Because they talk rubbish.’

I continued, ‘When [Gaddafi was] asked what he’d say about Westerners who consider him a fearsome person and an enemy to democracy, he said, “I forgive them. They were ignorant.” It’s exactly what I say now. It just shows I’ve accumulated his political knowledge of 70 years in about 19.’ My friend replied, ‘Wrong; 3.’ I replied, ‘Yes. I was going to type 3 but changed it.’ My friend replied, ‘It’s only fair to say 3 and 54.’

I continued, ‘Resounding support in the comments of all these interviews. It shows the politicians’ true colours rather than a Western-skewed media image.’

At age 19, I stated, ‘I don’t consider [articles] calling these foreign leaders dictators as that big of a problem. It was one reason why I saw through it all. Through my reading, I saw how many were called dictators, effectively all that were anti-West, and it just became apparent that it’s a buzzword.’

At age 19, I stated:

‘If you look at the video on YouTube called “North Korean-South Korean translation”, North Korean has words for things, but South Korea just uses English, like ice cream: “aisukrim”. Same story with Japanese.

They’re really just giant American military bases; that is all. The US military held onto the southernmost Japanese islands as their own land up until the 1970s, and now, Okinawa of the Ryukyu islands is overflowing with US military bases.

“Although Okinawa comprises just 0.6% of Japan’s total land mass, about 75% of all U.S. military installations stationed in Japan are assigned in Okinawa. Currently about 26,000 of the U.S. troops deployed in Japan are based in the prefecture.”^[23]

At age 19, I stated:

‘I click with foreigners, because I understand their country and society more than they’d ever expect a person from my country to, 100x more, at least. I guess their ethnicities, and then it just hits off from there.

Who else can say they’ve spoken to not one but multiple forcibly migrated Korean descendants in Kazakhstan? There’ll be that one oddball who’s a journalist for a living, then for everyone else, it’s a no, especially everyone my age, in which case I think it’s literally a no for everyone in this county, at least.

I’d consider myself probably one of the most unique people in the world, given everything. Even you have had more socialising than me. If you consider a remote tribal person, they’ll still be like their fellow tribe members, and if you consider someone with a rare disease, they’ll still be like the few others with that rare disease, unless they’re literally the only person with it.

But then you’ll see them being made to assimilate to society, wearing jewellery and “normal” clothes, and then there’s me, so that’s my basis for that. All my interests throughout time, how I use my tools, my knowledge, etc. considered, it’s not like anyone else I’ve ever known, except yourself. You’re obviously the closest node to me.’

My friend replied, ‘It’s funny how I corrected that Facebook article written by probably a native Kazembe–Lunda or Bemba or Chokwe themselves about their own history.’ I replied, ‘Yes. I’ve done that, corrected things done by their own people, like that pop-song producer, all the YouTube videos I correct, everything, that South Sudanese girl who knew nothing about South Sudan. Granted, she was an immigrant.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes. There is nobody like you, which is why I’m not making friends, because I haven’t found someone who is the same distance away from society. They all have one commonality or some view.‘

I continued, ‘The sexuality problem: even you don’t have that, and there are ways I am more like normal people than you, such as online; I just don’t think it adds up high enough to outweigh.’ My friend replied, ‘It’s all trivial. We don’t have any of those issues that everyone else has.‘

I had previously stated, ‘Most people don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to anything. They just don’t. They don’t have that mentality to fact-check or, even better, to dive in and investigate. I’ll do it to literally anything. Any inconsistency will be researched.‘

My friend replied, ‘Yes. [The former friend] had a very British mindset.’ I replied, ‘Hahaha, his anti-immigration. At this point, I see any anti-immigration as a huge red flag for pride in one’s nation, and I have none of that, which is why I don’t care about immigration.’

I continued, ‘One shouldn’t care if they don’t have the nation’s wellbeing at heart, so if they do care, they do. Even if I acknowledge all the negative effects immigration has, unlike the left, I do not wish to resist against it in any form, unlike the right.’

My friend replied, ‘He is angry because I’m not anti-immigration, but it’s too complex. My view is too complex for British politics to understand.’ I replied, ‘Exactly. Ours are too complex for any fucker to understand.‘

I continued, ‘It’s funny. It used to be that the main reason I didn’t care about my nation’s wellbeing was its awful foreign policy. That was reason #1, the invasions, etc., but now, it’s become simply that I have nothing in relation to the British people. Unfortunately, I carry that same view for almost all peoples of the world, but it’s because I live here that it manifests with Britain the most.’

My friend replied, ‘You’re the only person I could ever talk to about history that would actually know the history or have enough knowledge to understand. Nobody is even on the same page.‘ I replied, ‘Hahaha, it’s the fact that’s only one of the many unique points about us, so what you said is a hilarious understatement.’

At age 19, in response to the girl in our group chat stating, ‘It’s important now, you know, that they are trying to impede on our freedom of speech‘, I stated, ‘As if we even had freedom of speech before. In reality, you can never say what you want in public. There’ll always be some cunt who takes it one step further and reports you.’

At age 20, in response to my friend’s ex-partner stating, ‘My family eat a lot of foreign food’, I asked:

‘What type of foreign?’ She replied, ‘Indian: tikka masala, korma, tandoori.’ I replied, ‘Come on; Indian food is the British national dish.’ She replied, ‘Essentially.’ I replied, ‘And do you know why that is?’

She replied, ‘Because we went nuts over there and started using them as slaves, hence tea.’ I replied, ‘That’s one reason.’ She replied, ‘I didn’t do any further research, so my knowledge on this is low, but do enlighten me.’

I replied, ‘Reason number 2 is, after Indian independence in 1947, tonnes came to Britain and brought their dishes with them, so now there are like a million Indians in Britain, same with Pakistan in 1947, same with Nigeria in 1960, all former British colonies.

Same thing happened to France and its colonies, so now there are over a million Algerians [since 1960] and Moroccans [since 1956] in France.’

At age 20 (2019), I sent a screenshot of an online Q&A question I’d answered at age 14 that asked ‘How do you think the world will look in 100 years?’ to which I had replied, ‘Hopefully better than it is now.’ I stated:

‘My answer now would be more analytical, after my enlightenment. I would be inclined to say that America wouldn’t be the world power anymore.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes. You don’t know, though. It could last 1,000 years, for whatever reason, like the HRE [Holy Roman Empire]. It is heading for disaster, but with the new modes of communication and unity, possibly.’

I replied, ‘But you have to think about other factors, the timing. Back in the HRE, foreign immigrants weren’t such a thing. The birth rate was almost entirely composed of those ethnic groups that lived there.

The birth rates in the West are flooded with immigrants.^[25][26] They’ll become much larger and possibly a majority by 100 years time, drastically changing the voices that dictate the government. That’s not even the case in the East. There aren’t so many foreign immigrants, because they didn’t colonise the world.

I strongly believe now that the shattering of the Western power bloc will follow a very typical empire style. I believe it will shatter like the Mongol and Islamic empires, where numerous successor powers claim to uphold the original legacy and take their own spin on it.

You see what’s happening to the Internet as American/English dominance diminishes, and other languages and peoples begin to populate it more, and their music genres become more popular; take the Latin pop example, or the fact that an Indian YouTube channel is now the second-most subscribed user, and many of the others are Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking.

They’re immersed in this American-founded Internet influence and are utilising American concepts. I’ve no real idea which way it’ll go, how the government will change. I’ve no idea if the white cultural influence will have affected the other groups so much that nothing much changes or if the government will take a drastic change.’

My friend replied, ‘Like I said, there are reasons why it may last a ridiculously long time, like never seen before, and then there are reasons why it could end quickly.’ I replied, ‘I know some reasons why it would last a ridiculously long time. One is the mere geostrategic advantages Western countries have. I believe it’s the main reason they became powerful.’

I continued, ‘Western Europe is on the edge of a peninsula, and Britain is an island. America owns a whole continent from east to west. Australia’s a massive island, and New Zealand is two. Obviously, these are advantages that were useful in old times, but it’s given them their status today as powers.

Now, it doesn’t matter as much, because of the Internet and technology, like you say, but I believe it’s what gave them this path. Their isolation is a perfect justification for developing things like the Internet, so of course they started off with the upper hand in dictating Internet norms and influences.

Now, that’s waning as others get more access, but those others are continuing a legacy. The Mongols’ power waned, and their empire shattered, but numerous other empires claimed to continue their legacy, even when they were populated by other ethnic groups, like in Persia or the Turks of the Golden Horde.

I learnt a lot about Russian youth from [a girlfriend]. I learnt what they’ve done to Western memes. They’ve twisted and deformed them into something different and then claimed it as their own.

Looking at Russian Internet culture is like looking at a copy of American Internet culture that has been glitched. I can give you some perfect examples: you might know the forum 4chan; [she] always tells me about “2ch“. It’s basically the same thing.

I’ve already told you about that Pepe thing [which she had an illustration of on her wall]. She had absolutely no clue on where it came from or its association with the alt-right and support for Donald Trump. Then one time, she showed me a VK group she used to post to; she had posted screenshots of Bill Wurtz without knowing where they’re from. I asked her if she knew the two 40-million-view videos he posted; she didn’t know him or the videos at all.

I see it all from a third-person perspective. She once posted someone who’d tweeted lyrics from a Justice song without knowing what they were. The origins of most things in Russian Internet culture have been fucked off into oblivion. They’ve warped it and claimed it as their own.

Another example is a gif she posted of an Asian girl. I recognised the girl as British-Chinese YouTuber Xiao Rishu, but she told me the caption says, “Japanese tries learning Russian”, and she didn’t know who it was.

All origins are discarded and made into something else. I’ve seen numerous other deformities of Western Internet icons that guarantee the posters don’t know the origins or what they’re posting. There was something in the group about Kaiser Wilhelm II. I was dumbfounded. She didn’t post it; one of her friends at the time did.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘Although I recognise that all countries commit “bad” acts, I only appear to take most issue with those of the West because it’s what’s been shoved down my throat as “good”. It’s a reaction to what I’ve been brought up in.

I’m always told that bad acts of Russia are bad, but bad acts of the West are good. I’d want it to be a neutral playing field where I could say that all countries do good and bad, but I have a vested connection to the situation I’m in currently, where I and others around me are being forcefed propaganda, so I have to counter it by saying it’s wrong, which makes it look like I think the other side is all good.’

At age 20 (2019), I stated:

‘The US military is in the Persian Gulf; gets flanked by Iranian boats; the headline was how Iran is provoking the US [a 2020 example^[27]].

A US jet was in the Gulf of Finland bordering Russia; Russian jet flies past; the headline was how Russia is provoking the US.^[28]

US ships and jets were in the South China Sea; a Chinese jet broadcasts a radio warning telling them to get out; headline is China is provoking the US or essentially being silly.^[29]

And let’s not forget the bases the UK has in the Indian Ocean territory, Cyprus and Gibraltar.’

At age 20, I stated, ‘Interesting: the West supported an attempted overthrow of the Burundian government in 2015.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘I’m actually sick to death of this climate-change hysteria, for a very logical and practical reason: so what? Birth rates are out of control. There’s hardly anything we can do about that. The population is multiplying, and conserving energy/waste is going to be exponentially harder.

Populations will still hit a peak, and then there’ll be an insufferable decline, which itself will result in less anthropogenic climate change, but climate change will accelerate the progression to that peak, so ultimately, it’s a good thing, or at least, there’s nothing bad about it.

Either way, humans will grow out of control and quickly suffer. Nothing we do about climate change will change that. It’s either making a small delay in the inevitable or just accepting the inevitable. Either way, it’s inevitable, so what’s the point?

By the way, veganism or vegetarianism as a means to help animals is also dumb; the domesticated-animal populations are thousands of times higher than the wild ones.

They need to be decimated. They are out of control. They were made by us for us. They are breeds existing specifically to be eaten, so let us eat them, and protect the real animals, the wild ones, the ones in actual danger, though in reality, they’re fucked as well.

I don’t know what it is about humans. Animals have been going extinct for hundreds of million years. It’s normal. What makes them think they have some god-given duty and power to prevent the extinction of certain species?

It’s not going to work. There’ll always be the regular people doing what’s best for them, which encroaches on the habitat, and they will go extinct eventually, because the slightest uncontrollable things can kill off species: ice age, meteorite. All they can do is slow it down.’

My friend replied, ‘Like I said, we are currently in an ice age. Wonder what they would have been saying 50 million years ago, after the Karoo ice age, when the average earth temperature was 20 degrees higher than it is now.’

I continued, ‘The main aim should not be to prevent extinction; it should be to study before something goes extinct and build a preservable bank of knowledge and specimens about them. It’s the same as death. No one is going to prevent death; that shouldn’t be the aim. The aim should be to build a preservable form of knowledge in some way or another.

Those people should look up Milankovitch cycles. They should look up the effects of drastic biome changes on the atmosphere. They should look up solar flares, asteroid impacts, all these things we have no control over, and most importantly, they should look at the history of the earth’s mean temperature and how it’s always been changing, out of any human control.’

My friend replied, ‘And like I said, 20 degrees higher than what it is now.’ I continued, ‘Yes. They don’t know what they’re talking about.’ My friend replied, ‘But they don’t look up. It’s as simple as that. There is no looking up.‘ I replied, ‘Yes, exactly. They do not know. They don’t know what they talk about.’

I continued, ‘They forget that the inevitably growing population will probably use up much of the plant material left on earth, for living space and for food, leading to higher CO₂ levels and therefore more global warming.

That’s probably part of what will make us reach our ceiling. It’ll be a race between a set of factors, one of which is global warming, another of which is sheer sustenance capability of the arable land surrounding populated areas.

If we somehow miraculously manage to surpass both of those, we’d just end up so densely packed together that we’d all be living in squalor and dying at unprecedented rates, and all of the results of our huge densely packed population will just contribute towards more global warming and that being the thing that probably forces our population into a decline.

It’s a race between plant species as well. They’ll have to quickly adapt to the rapidly changing environment. I imagine there’ll be splinter groups that survive and probably find a way to be very successful. It’s also a race of how much human ingenuity and technological progress can shield us from the effects of the inevitable overpopulation, underground living or something.

People who are paranoid about climate change think humans have some kind of agency or free will to just stop it at will, if they so choose, but they don’t. They behave like bacteria. It’s part of why I don’t have that paranoia, because I know how inevitable it all is, how nothing we could do could stop it, only slow it down, and not by much.

As the population multiplies, the population of people not participating in eco-friendly behaviours also multiplies, simply because there are more people, and you can never outrun it, until the earth itself does and puts a stop to it by making it a living hell for us humans, raising death rates.

And that’s not even mentioning that those who are eco-friendly are never zero-emission or zero-waste. Their efforts are tiny dents. Humans are and always will be producing waste, whatever they do, waste that contributes to global warming, whether it’s by energy extraction or by merely farting. You cannot outrun global warming. You just can’t.’

My friend replied, ‘It literally doesn’t bother me, because I’m going to be dead when it all kicks off.’ I replied, ‘And many people are going to die inevitably, regardless, when the dense squalor ensues – when, not if.’

At age 20 (2019), I stated:

‘Haha, China and Russia are trying to get the UN out of Sudan.^[32] I’ve been trying to work out what Russia’s position on the current state of Sudan would be. [They have] an unstable position on Haftar.^[33][34] It’s all a mess.

Gaddafi’s Libya supported the rebels in Sudan [in the Second Sudanese Civil War], and of course, Russia and China supported Gaddafi, but supposedly, Russia and China support the government of Sudan, which is strange, because Russia also supported Haftar sort of,^[35] who is enemies with the government of Sudan and supported by the rebels of Sudan.^[36][37]

Meanwhile, the West supports the shrinking government of Libya,^[38] but right now, the West is going mad over the plight of the protestors in Sudan, so clearly, not only did the West hate Omar al-Bashir, but they also hate the current government that replaced him.

The US did deals with Bashir in the 1990s to get him to hand over information about terrorists,^[39] and when he did, they bombed his capital. He then got his ICC [International Criminal Court] conviction and request for extradition in 2009 or whenever it was, which Russia and that harshly criticised,^[40] and Bashir himself said that ever since the West betrayed him, he’d looked to the eastern countries.^[41]

It’s just odd how the same countries support entities that are enemies of each other, which would ordinarily make both entities turn against the country, so I have to be sceptical of the BBC’s support of protestors in Sudan and instead be more confident in the government, which has been accused of mass rapes and throwing bodies in lakes with bricks.

It probably did happen, but you wonder why the civilians are protesting that hard, even now that their “dictator” has been overthrown. It means something else is going on. Either they are actual non-Arabs or sympathisers with the Darfur/Kordofan/Blue Nile movements, or there is some Western subversion going on, i.e. they are sympathisers directly with the West for whatever reason.

I’m betting on the first one, because usually it’s ethnic/religious, and they want the West’s help. It’s still ultimately help to destabilise a country.

Sudanese Arabs who want the rebellious regions of the country to succeed are ultimately traitors to their country. They ultimately have their interests somewhere else in some other country or culture. It’s the case across movements in history, so there’s definitely something fishy going on.

There isn’t even much information yet on the Wikipedia pages for al-Burhan and other current Sudanian leaders. Half of the coverage is slander. There’s been a big campaign, mostly by Sudanese nationals, no doubt, to cover all pages relating to current Sudanese events with accounts of the “massacres” that have happened. They were even describing the victims as “martyrs”. It was quite shocking, even coming from me. Very fishy.

I can’t really ascertain [the new government’s] policy, except that it’s clearly Sudanese nationalist and pro–Sudanese Arab, but not much about their foreign policy.

You’d think the overthrowers of the longtime “dictator” would be friendly to the West; clearly not, in this case. Even if they were intending to be, they won’t be after this slanderous coverage of a “massacre” under their leadership.’

At age 20 (2019), I stated:

‘Yes, the Iran threat is the new thing to be overblown, wildly so. It’s an absolute wild overblowing of their world presence, which is vastly inferior to the US’s or Britain’s.

They have new outposts in Syria and support Iraq and the Houthis militarily; that’s about it. But of course, the West doesn’t like that, Iran having influence in the Middle East, as if it’s the West’s back garden and not Iran’s.’

At age 20, in response to my friend pointing out how no political movement ultimately succeeds in establishing their ideal society, I stated:

‘It falls back to power, like I said. It falls back to how much you can influence and encroach, and currently, the US has that power.

You know, it’s the exact reason some of these things are so strongly enforced in 3rd-world countries. I mean, it’s blatantly obvious that being a journalist posting disparaging media about the government is going to get you locked up, because in these countries, that actually poses a threat.

It’s a real threat, because of the power dynamic. In the US, the most powerful country on earth, a journalist criticising the government barely poses an actual real threat to the stability and continuance of the country, because of how powerful it already is.

These foreign countries are under the yoke of larger powers. The populations have bigger divides. The reason it’s such an issue is because it indicates you are allied to a foreign power or foreign agenda, and that being right in its front doorstep poses an actual real threat, because the foreign power, usually the US, really is that powerful.

Meanwhile, another country, like Iran, isn’t as powerful. Iranian media in the US isn’t as much of a threat to the US.

These people who blather on about human rights and democracy: some of them have actually said even more directly that other countries should have a more Western form of government. They don’t actually realise that that is a threat to the very existence and independence of the nation.

They don’t realise that’s a direct threat to the composure of the nation and culture and a direct call to Western expansionism. It’s typical old empire conquest. It’s nothing more, because when you do that, you bring along a torrent of Western influence and culture that practically eradicates the native culture.

It makes the nation no longer the nation. It makes it a diluted, Western version. It’s the exact manifestation of imperialism. It’s exactly what provinces of empires are.

It’s because they expect it to be possible in 3rd-world countries. They don’t realise the power dynamic, because they’re retards. They just expect that things as they are in the West should be the way they are in the rest of the world and that if they aren’t, there’s something wrong. It’s simply not the case.

You just have to remember that the reverse was true in 1000 AD. Things in the West are as they were in the Arab world then. There’s absolutely nothing holy or superior about the West as a timeless concept. It’s purely another empire’s golden age. There’s nothing inherently superior about the West. Imagine if they were saying the same back then; they’d be retarded.

Other parts of the world absolutely do not have to conform to what the West wants. It simply doesn’t matter what’s going on internally within their country. It doesn’t matter to the Westerner, shouldn’t matter. They have the right to preserve and defend it.’

My friend had previously stated in a voice message at age 19, ‘[People on social media] would be saying, “Oh, how brutal the Sudanese government are being“, “Oh, the people should have a say. They should have a democracy.”

It’s the same old buzzwords that the media come out with; it’s a mouthpiece of that, but in reality, obviously, what they’re actually saying is, “Our government needs to install a Western-friendly government in the region.”

They come up with this pro-democracy stuff, but they don’t actually know what it is they’re talking about. It’s the fact that they’re advocating the implementation of this classic Western model, and they have no idea of the implications of it and what it actually is.

It’s just this buzzword, “democracy”. It’s not democratic at all, and yet, people still advocate this model of democracy blindly. They don’t even think about it and how it’s just another model, a disguise.

It does remind me of the DDR [East Germany]. Let’s use the example of Democratic Kampuchea: imagine that there was an election between three people, and one of them was Pol Pot; the other one was Khieu Samphan; and the other one was Nuon Chea.

It’s literally that, and no matter who is elected, it’s still going to be the exact same. It’s selecting between three people, and it’s a lucky selection. It means nothing. It’s still going to be the exact same government, the same format. It’s just putting this layer on top of it, this illusory layer that there is some democratic process, and that’s what happens in this country. You’ve just got a figurehead.

It doesn’t matter who is going to be elected as a Tory prime minister. It doesn’t matter which party is elected.’

I replied, ‘It’s the fact democracy doesn’t even exist in Western countries. It’s exactly like other ideologies like communism, capitalism, human rights or god. It doesn’t exist in reality, but it’s promoted as something that either does exist or should exist.

Any time a semblance of any of it exists, it’s chance and fleeting. The fact is, elements of some of those ideologies exist. It’s never that the concept exists in its entirety.

Sometimes, “human rights” are obeyed; usually, they’re not. Workers take the form of cooperatives all the time, and industry is never fully accountable to private individuals. It just isn’t. It’s only in name. Workers can revolt or strike. If a supermajority suddenly decided they didn’t like how things were being done, they could even spin off into their own company.

It’s just like how dictators don’t actually exist in reality. It’s only relative. It’s propped up by the mass of society, often a majority, otherwise the dictator cannot rule.

You cannot have free speech without ostracism anywhere, let alone the West. It’s not possible. Free speech is a fake idea. It’s more propaganda. You cannot live saying everything under the sun without someone killing you for it or ostracising you.

It doesn’t have to be state-mandated for it to be de facto a societal ostracism. Just the fact that most people in a given society would ostracise you for some belief you have makes it a non-free-speech state, non-free-speech society.

You don’t even need to get started on first-past-the-post; voting is a sham, and no matter who you vote for, your beliefs will not withstand in government. Stupidity and passivity rules the country. 2 parties is a flaw.’

My friend replied, ‘Well, 600 representatives is not democratic, all arguing amongst each other and voting.’ I replied, ‘Yes. You can’t change the system, and they decide our participation in global organisations or indeed global warfare, so it’s all bollocks.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes. It can’t exist at all. There is no solution that accommodates everyone. There will always be protests and coups.’

I continued, ‘Literally the only thing that remains true throughout geopolitics is power. Relative power and war is what affects everything. Ultimately, that stems from economic prosperity and the chain reaction going back millennia from when we used to hunt and farm and pillage.

The relative prosperity of states now was determined then. Everything is a chain reaction. Golden ages of civilisation: that is what remains true. The West has been having its golden age. Previously, there was the Islamic golden age, the Roman golden age, the various successive Egyptian and Chinese golden ages.

In 1000 AD, the Islamic world was exactly like the West now: accommodating to immigrants, flourishing with science, economically prosperous, while Europe and much of the rest of the world was warring and poor.

It didn’t mean either had any less “democracy” than the other. People’s will was still determining everything, the will of the people under their chieftains or the will of the people under their monarchs, whom they supported.

Like I said, stupidity and passivity rules countries now. People only don’t overthrow the British government because they like and relate to British people and British culture and British traditions.

They are trapped in that box, because they are cognitively more passive and haven’t experienced ostracism. They haven’t experienced ostracism because they are cognitively more passive and haven’t had any controversial views or behaviours. They’re diluted people.

The people who overthrew the Umayyad Caliphate were the non-Arab Muslims, surprise surprise. Everything I’m saying works out perfectly. It’ll probably be the immigrants who overthrow the British government, if anyone.‘

At age 19, my friend stated:

‘I also wonder why ITV News is pushing anti-gun sentiment. They’re putting so much emphasis on it.’ I replied, ‘It’s obvious. They want as much as ever to keep British sentiments for gun ownership as low as possible.’

I continued, ‘The funny thing is, it’s not America’s gun laws per se that cause the rise in shootings. I’m pretty sure they were less strict before the rise of shootings and have only got stricter since.^[42] Murder rates are not caused by gun laws. There’s a different dynamic behind them that has to do with state legitimacy and cultural cohesion.

The Caribbean has some of the highest murder rates in the world, followed by Latin America, South Africa too.^[43] It’s a social problem. It’s when the state has less legitimacy or influence that people start taking matters into their own hands.

Russia’s murder rate skyrocketed after the fall of the Soviet Union but has since dropped right back to where it was.^[44] It’s all social and economic, not about gun laws, and Russia’s gun laws were always stricter than America’s, like the rest of the world.

It’s so obvious, though, that the countries with the highest murder rates are the ones with the least justification for existing: Caribbean former colonies, Latin American countries.

All the stable nation states of the Old World have low murder rates. Even Burkina Faso has a murder rate comparable to the UK’s,^[43] because of the Mossi majority around Ouagadougou, for example. Most of the terrorist attacks are at the frontier with the Tuaregs and Mandinkas in the north.

Countries bound by a single exclusive ethnicity tend to have the lowest murder rates, with a few exceptions. Hahaha, Palestine’s murder rate is half that of the UK’s.^[43] Just proves what I said a few years ago about [the YouTuber] H3H3 going on about Ramallah being full of terrorists; I said back then to the effect of it being one of the safest cities in the Arab world.

It’s hilarious to me how all the former British East and South African colonies have incredibly high murder rates. Even Somalia has lower. Somalia has a lower murder rate than the US, though.^[43]‘

At age 19, my friend stated:

‘It’s a fact that Western values appeal more to [young Russians] rather than older-generation Russian values.’ I replied, ‘Yes, but that’s not exclusive to the West or now. Remember: the West hated tattoos and piercings 100–200 years ago.

[“By the 19th century, tattooing had spread to British society but was still largely associated with sailors and the lower or even criminal class.”^[45] “By the early part of the 20th century, piercing of any body part other than the ear lobe had become uncommon in the West.”^[46]]‘

I continued, ‘It’s something to do with the size and scale of the civilisation as it’s got now, unprecedented. There’s nothing genetic about white people or Western Europeans that suggests they should be more emotional than others, necessarily. It would be an entirely relative and power-based reason why their values align with emotion now.’

In response to voice messages from my friend, I stated, ‘No; it’s power-based, primarily. The real practical factor is the power play. Any culture could’ve had the more emotional values. That’s absolutely nothing specific to the West.

If it were Russians in global power, they could easily have the more emotional culture. It’s not a correlation to the West; it’s a correlation to power. The real root culprit is that, because nothing else is different.’

My friend replied, ‘So you’re saying, if it were the other way around, and Russia was the global superpower, and Russian inventors invented the Internet, Russia as that global superpower would have been espousing similar values to those in the West today?’

I replied, ‘You have to look at what’s different. As I said, the West was far less tolerant a few centuries ago. It’s absolutely correlated with the massive interconnectivity that the West has facilitated through the Internet that has led to the spread of piercings and tattoos and outrage culture.’

My friend replied, ‘Exactly, condemn culture, controversy culture.’ I continued, ‘So exactly; it could easily have been Russians doing that if they’d invented the Internet and got there first, been the predominant userbase of it, but it was set in stone from the start, their paths of development. The US was always going to do it first.‘

My friend replied, ‘Do you think Russian values would have turned into what the Western ones are now and would have become more tolerant in the same way? Do you think that’s the natural course of action, the ultimate utopia for emotional people, the emotional human species?’

I replied, ‘It’s less of a utopia and more of a natural consequence of massive interconnectivity and population. It’s just a silly result. People are essentially bacteria. I see no good or bad in their paths of development. I look at it all from a stone-cold third-person perspective.‘

My friend replied, ‘All throughout history, there has been dissatisfaction with the current government, and then it gets toppled, as people emotionally want change and have been galvanised by some propaganda or hearsay, and it just changes superficially, a different configuration on the most superficial layer.’

I replied, ‘No; sometimes, the leader is a literal puppet and reflection of foreign control, like in Iran [the Pahlavi dynasty]. They’re not toppling their government; they’re toppling foreign control. It’s a literal change of global power, or they’re toppling native control in the case of installation of puppets.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes, but it’s the same old stuff throughout history. I always wonder how it will go now with West with the support of the Internet and its sheer size, whether it will follow historical axioms or not.’

I replied, ‘Everything we know to get worse will get worse. The global population will probably rise way past all predictions but will eventually stall as we enter the inevitable squalor, and then we’ll see what happens. That’s when things will get interesting.

With the way Russia’s youth generation is going, it’s not unreasonable to assume there’ll be a one world government soon, in essence. There almost is one already, but it will only grow.’ My friend replied, ‘Mass extinction event.’ I replied, ‘Yes; only a mass natural disaster could stop it.’

My friend replied, ‘And possibly not due to geological factors. Humans could wipe themselves out.’ I replied, ‘I doubt any pathogen will be a risk to the human race until the population plateau, then it will be.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes, when there are 25 billion people or more. Never before has a single species dominated the world in such extreme population relative to size.’

I replied, ‘War between humans is very unlikely to have an impact on the human race, in my view [as it never has, and all-out nuclear warfare is too indiscriminate to be a) an appropriate military strategy or b) used for ethnic cleansing/genocide, which usually has the involvement of civilians without such capabilities]. Whatever ends us will most likely be environmental. Meteorite is a certain possibility.

In actual fact, I don’t see any reason to assume the population won’t just continue to fester at the plateau stage and not necessarily decrease. Death rates will be high, but without the increasing burden of people, resources will be left to spare.

You can imagine the leftover resources and houses and crops remaining at a constant level. Additionally, with the massive population and technological advances, it will be much harder to permit a population decrease.

We’ve already established that human civilisation was set on an exponential course from the moment the social mutation happened. Everything from that point on was essentially a set-in-stone chain reaction that only continues to feed.

It triggered a cascade that is destined to build, because it’s permitted the exchange of knowledge between individuals and therefore the better ability to sustain humans and procreate, and with more humans come more knowledge and quicker advances, so it all becomes easier for humans to live.

So global warming activists can do nothing. We will continue to procreate until it ruins us and ruins the earth.

It’s actually quite scary when you look at it from above, when you see satellite imagery of urban areas or shipping lanes. It’s scarily like microorganisms without developed brains. It proves what we already know.’

My friend replied, ‘Well, humans came from them. It’s nothing special, so I don’t know why people think humans are so advanced or individual.’ I replied, ‘Yes, but it’s scary how much it represents the hive mind and lack of individuality and how people still don’t see it.’

My friend replied, ‘Like I said, we were like chimpanzees 4 million years ago, Australopithecus afarensis. Humans are not advanced. It’s obvious why there’s still so much similarity between people. Individuality hasn’t existed for billions of years, apart from mutated specimen.’

I replied, ‘I think it’s obvious for now that Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis went extinct in the same way indigenous ethnic groups go extinct now. They still had language. There can’t have ever been that many of them anyway, prehistoric population figures.’

My friend replied, ‘When I see a human, I see a species. I immediately think of human evolution. There is literally no emotion involved, whatever emotional shroud people are trapped under, their little world where they see babies as beautiful and don’t ever think about the bigger picture.

When I see a baby, I immediately think of embryogenesis. My mind wanders. I think of a very emotionless process, a very mundane and expected result. When I look at photos of humans, I imagine they’re photos of Homo habilis.

I wonder what particular environmental conditions were required for the mutation to only occur in that species and not other Hominidae. Surely language would be just as beneficial for chimpanzees in their environments.’

I replied, ‘Yes, exactly, but that’s the thing: mutations don’t arise out of whether or not they’re beneficial; they sustain out of whether or not they’re beneficial. They arise randomly. That’s why I said that’s not even the question.’

At age 19 (2019), my friend stated:

‘Technically, the whole of America could suddenly march on the White House, and the state would end.’ I replied, ‘Exactly. That’s why no dictator has total power. It’s entirely conditional. All leaders have conditional power.‘

My friend replied, ‘You can’t arrest everyone, because the state wouldn’t exist. The police would have to kill everyone, and then there’d be no people left, so it would be barren land, but obviously, police would be outnumbered first.’

I replied, ‘Yes. There aren’t enough police to arrest everyone. Those sorts of thought exercises immediately dispel a lot of the myths about states.’

My friend replied, ‘Reminds me of school; imagine everyone in assembly stood up and masturbated or did the most disgusting and derogatory thing, or even illegal.’

I replied, ‘Exactly. You said that before: everyone suddenly pissed themselves, or pissed on the floor, or pissed on each other, or suddenly brandished an indecent photo.’ My friend replied, ‘The school would close, probably.’ I replied, ‘Hahaha.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘Global warming will benefit Russia greatly, because it will free up the Northern Sea Route for trade. No more need for icebreakers.’ My friend replied, ‘Good point, very good point. You’re exactly right. Remember the Russo-Japanese war?’

I replied, ‘Yes. Meanwhile, much of Florida will go underwater lol, so the US’s territory will decrease in size while Russia’s accessible seas increase in size.’ My friend replied, ‘Yes, but they forget that it’s bollocks, that it will happen regardless, but it certainly won’t end the world.’

I replied, ‘It’s the fact they think they can do anything about it. The best they can do is slow it down a tiny amount, a dent. It’s such an attempt at grasping for straws. It’s pathetic, really.

I only just noticed that because I was looking at nuclear-powered icebreakers, which Russia has the only ones of; world’s only active ELF [extremely-low-frequency] transmitter and only nuclear-powered ships [excluding aircraft carriers and submarines]. One of them was the first surface ship to reach the north pole.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘These countries are free for the people who can and want to integrate into the social identity, whether it’s US culture or North Korean culture. The West only pushes North Korea as not free based on the people who potentially don’t want to affiliate with its culture, the dissidents, basically, but the fact of the matter is, people who don’t want to affiliate with Western culture in the West are also not free, like us, so it’s hypocrisy.

But it’s the same across the world. You are free and can prosper if you integrate into the social identity of that specific place and culture, not a foreign one, so the only ones getting punished in North Korea are those with warning signs of betraying the national culture and security, and that’s a big deal there especially, because North Korea is not a strong state and is under threat.’

At age 20 (2019), I stated:

‘Turkey’s calling their invasion [of Syria] Operation Peace Spring, and it’s top BBC headline.^[47] They want to use it to muster up support for US re-intervention in support of the Kurds or general Western/British support for the Kurds, to maintain the Western sphere of influence in Syria, which Turkey is now threatening, despite being in NATO.

You can only pick one side in geopolitics, which is why the Soviet Union switched from supporting socialist Somalia to socialist Ethiopia, against Somalia, because it was a more valuable country to have on their side, and obviously, the same dynamic is at play here.

Turkey is already the West’s ally, but Syria has always been their enemy. They want to gain a new foothold in new ground, a new client state in the heart of the Middle East. Yes, as expected, the US are in reality defending the Kurds, regardless of rhetoric. The invasion starts at Akçakale and the bordering Syrian town of Tell Abyad.

The US is fucked, the SDF [Syrian Democratic Forces] realising they have to choose Syria over being annihilated by Turkey, Iraqi Kurds choosing Russia. “The presence of [the American al-Tanf] military base in Syrian territory remains a controversial topic as both the Syrian and Russian government consider the U.S. presence in al-Tanf illegal.”^[48]‘

At age 20 (2019), in response to a news article titled ‘UN investigates alleged use of white phosphorus [by Turkey] in Syria‘,^[49] I stated:

‘The West doesn’t know what to do. It’s ruined its chances now, because the Syrian government is against the Turkish invasion, obviously, so they are inadvertently helping the Syrian government, which is backed by Russia, so they are helping Russian influence.

They failed spectacularly. They are grasping for straws, hoping that riling up a defensive attitude for the Kurds will help maintain their sphere of influence there, but the Syrian army is now in Kurdish territory helping them, so it’s all in vain, and people are about to essentially see Russia save the Kurds by helping the Syrian government, who is helping the Kurds.

Basically, the sphere of influence is gone. It’s caving in. Kurds will not maintain control over their territory, the reason being the larger powers clamping down on top of them.

These small states like ISIS and Kurdistan only appear when foreign influence breaks or reaches a frontline, but now the West is gone, only Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria are left. ISIS will be flattened, and the Kurds will not be allowed to have an independent state.

Remember the Bronze Age collapse, Egypt losing control over Israel so it becomes a country for the first time ever then quickly disappears when other empires take over like the Neo-Babylonian?

Remember the Yugoslavia collapse, the Soviet Union losing influence over Yugoslavia so it becomes countries again? The frontline remains between the West-supported Kosovo and Russia-supported Serbia. That’s the only reason Kosovo exists. If Russia had more influence, Kosovo wouldn’t, and if the West had more influence, all would fall under the sovereignty of the European Union.

So basically, the world map is wrong. It only shows the 2nd-level divisions of the world, if you like. The superpowers and their influence are the top-level divisions. They’re the ultimate control, ultimate authority.

No other look is good for [the West]. Turkey is in NATO, but they won’t support Turkey and gain a sphere of influence there, 1) because it’s an outright invasion, 2) because there are jihadists. Same reason Trump ended support for the Islamists [in 2017].^[50]‘

At age 20, I stated:

‘Just found a BBC article^[51] on the Malay Muslim insurgency in southern Thailand. Checked to see what side they were on; turns out it’s the Malay insurgents’ side.

See how there’s so much hypocrisy? They’d criticise Brunei [for its homosexuality laws^[52]] but support the Malays and Rohingyas [and Xinjiang Uyghurs] and the Syrian Islamist rebels and criticise Russia for its fight against Chechen Islamists.’

At age 20, in response to a news article titled ‘German leader asks Poland’s forgiveness for WW2’,^[53] I stated:

‘Still banging on about it.’ My friend replied, ‘Hahaha, Holocaust, Israel.’ I continued, ‘It’s obvious why they do, because civilisations revere the founding event that led to their rise, like Jesus or Muhammad, and so the EU and NATO Europe revere WWII, because it’s what caused their rise.’

I continued, ‘It’s their foundation. It’s all they have to go on and bang on about to reinforce why they exist, to give them legitimacy, just like North Korea and Kim Il-sung, Taiwan and Chiang Kai-shek, the Soviet Union and the October Revolution, the US and its revolution and constitution.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘Antisemitism being a big thing is obviously WWII stuff, power-bloc-founding stuff. On the face of it, it would look like there’s no basis behind it, behind the emphasis on anti–this specific group, but the only way it could be that way is WWII and the constant reminding of it.

All the globalist organisations that trace their founding to the US and allies were created after WWII and hold it as holy, including the UN. It’s like Kim Il-sung in North Korea, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam.’

I later stated, ‘It’s funny how anti-Semitism is so overblown purely because it’s what constituted the founding of the current Western power bloc, WWII. It’s part of the myth, the lore, the legend. It has to be remembered, but it backfires by making it look to some people like the West cares more about Jews than its own people.

Anti-Semitism is almost seen as worse than Islamic terrorism, same with white supremacy, because the West cannot survive if it bases its existence on whites. It goes against the multicultural, colonial way it is now. To maintain that sphere of influence, white supremacy has to be suppressed, to keep all those non-whites on their side.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘I’m sick of hearing about racism as discrimination “based purely on the colour of your skin”. It’s discrimination based on genetics and ethnicity.

It implies they’d hate Europeans if Europeans were black and Africans were white. They don’t hate the colour; they hate the race/ethnic group.

Chinese are an entirely different race to Arabs; racism between them isn’t based on the “colour of their skin”.’

At age 20, my friend stated:

‘I often wonder why so many doctors [in Britain] are Indian.^[55] I’m not sure what the root cause is. The root cause of everything is the social mindset these days. It could be a cultural reason, but it also could be literally that Asians have higher IQs than British people, making them more likely to be oriented towards that.’

I replied, ‘No, it’s not [ethnic groups having higher IQs], because it’s Jews as well, and Chinese, everywhere [such as in Malaysia]. It’s a global effect of immigrants.

It’s the converse of the evolutionary effect that leads [often native] subjugated populations to become genetically unintelligent, which I postulated was because the ones who fight and resist get killed off, so only the weaklings are left, and also that only the ones who accept influence will survive, only those who assimilate. Those who resist assimilation will be eliminated or die off.’

My friend replied, ‘I suppose that only the families with money to emigrate will have more intelligent children that will be looking at more academic jobs, not more intelligent but more exposed to the education system, more exposed to the academic culture and higher qualifications.’

I replied, ‘I was going to say, part of it is that only those with the money to immigrate will do so, but it doesn’t explain [the relative lack of] Nigerians. There is an element of truth, but it’s not all there. It is why brain drain can happen.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes. It’s definitely one of the most significant phenomena that I can’t immediately explain, biggest statistics-to-support-wise.’ I replied, ‘Yes, and we can’t ask an Indian doctor, because he’d just say, “It’s what I wanted to do”, like a stupid person. We have to study it objectively, analytically and statistically to even have a hope of coming to the answers.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes. What it looks like is this: it looks like Indian doctors want to work in the UK by virtue of what they are neurologically and culturally (and it follows the general colonies-wanting-to-emigrate-to-the-parent-land, like in Africa), and the number outweighs the number of people who want to become a doctor in Britain. It’s sheer population there vs. population here, 1.3 billion vs. 60 million.’

I replied, ‘Good point.’ My friend continued, ‘Yes. I just assume that those who want to become a doctor in India want to become one in Britain, because the neurology is linked: wanting to help people, social mindset, Western world.’

I replied, ‘That too. It [applies to] all immigrants, but it’s South Asia the most, because of the population, but you see immigrants from all countries in healthcare: Romania, Poland, etc.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘Actually, that reminds me: I remember when my parents were scared of me putting my political views on Facebook, saying someone might want to harm me because of them.

It basically proves what I said about only being free if you integrate into the social identity of the country and us not being free because of that, just like a North Korean dissident, proving that whole free West vs. non-free non-West paradigm to be bollocks.

Basically, they pointed out how my political “views” might get me harmed, just as I myself am aware of how my views on taboos and laws might get me harmed, but it extends way beyond that. Basically, any little thing we say or do could get us harmed and has made people assume bad intent or conspiracy among us.

Literally, it’s the entire site at this point. Every section of the site has a point about people assuming offence or assuming intent to harm. We’re surrounded by schizophrenics.

My parents were right, though, because I still remember that interaction I had with my main primary-school friend at age 16, in which I let him into some of my political knowledge and views, and he was unnerved, felt threatened, basically. He was unnerved by my choice of words.

And this is the same caricature who is all about the NHS and all about Labour and LGBT, so he’s firmly integrated into the British culture, so that’s why it unnerved him, because I was outside that, just like the site will unnerve everyone who reads it, because they all have the social mindset, and I don’t, and I don’t belong to any of their cultures or norms, and they don’t know how that’s possible, can’t fathom it.

Well, it requires them to have a neurological condition and me to lack it, me to be closer to other animals. It’s really simple, not hard to understand at all. It is for them, though, of course, because they’re impaired in that area [of awareness].’

At age 21, my friend stated:

‘I wonder how many politicians are actually aware of that [friendly-government-installation] motive vs. how many are blinded by the guise of human rights. I actually think that 100% of them are under the delusion of human rights, and by some divine way, it happened to be in their interests and always happens to be.’

I replied, ‘We know now that they think they’re doing right. That’s the only way it could be, empathy for the far-flung people. It exists, of course. Think about the British public, people our age; they genuinely feel it, sign petitions.

It’s actually in all the Western population’s interests, not just the government. Government and people are one and the same. People rise up to make government. It’s not something that “happens” to be in their interests; it’s a bacterial motion.

It’s a greater thing that they can’t see from a third-person perspective, because they’re part of it, a node in that mesh, a bacterium in that colony. They’re within it, so all they see is their motivation for being a part of it, not it as a whole and what it looks like from the outside.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes. It’s scary imagining that, imagining not being able to think anything other than the social mindset and those same phrases and words. It implies a lack of a mind. I picture a mind wildly different to mine. They’re taking a set of inputs and producing the same outputs.‘

I replied, ‘Yes, well it’s a mind that’s stuck in that perspective, hence social mindset, can’t see out of it. They literally can’t imagine seeing any other way.

Anything we are saying or describing them as right now is taken through that lens, through that perspective. They’re responding to it emotionally via those goggles, applying predictions to us based on those goggles, assuming things we might think, and it’s all happening right now as they read it.

And they can’t control it, and they can’t stop it, and they can’t snap out of it or see out of it. It will always be there for them. They’re trapped in it, and we’re outside it, which they can’t fathom or imagine.

To them, we’re in it like they are, because they literally can’t see any other way, just like animals are in it like they are, nature is in it like they are. They literally assume nature has the social mindset, which is wild, but it proves their delusion anyway, how it’s a delusion detached from reality that they can’t snap out of.

And no matter how much you describe or drill it in, you can’t dispel it away. We look like people they know, using words. Those memories are triggered. We look like them, using words, so they see themselves in us, even though it’s far from reality.

They assume how they’d behave if they were us, the misery they’d be in. We’d be in misery if we were like them lol, being depressed or feeling worthless or whatever, so they’re wrong, but they can’t and will never see that.’

My friend replied, ‘Well, like I said, there’s a dummy representation of us within the social mindset. There’s someone with the social mindset that is an impostor version of us, and that’s who they assume we are when we say what we do, because that’s the only time they’ve seen someone say that thing.’

References

1. ^ "Clinton emails: FBI chief may have broken law, says top Democrat". BBC News. 2016-10-31. (Archive version from 2 November 2016.)
2. ^ "The day Boris Yeltsin said goodbye to Russia". BBC News. 2017-01-25. (Archive version from 17 October 2020.)
3. ^ "Vladimir Putin: Russia's action man president". BBC News. 2020-07-02. (Archive version from 27 September 2020.)
4. ^ "Google coding champion whose Cameroon hometown is cut off from the internet". BBC News. 2017-02-10. (Archive version from 10 February 2017.)
5. ^ "Charity supergroup". Wikipedia. 2016-11-19.
6. ^ ^{a b} "Trinidad and Tobago". Wikipedia. 2020-11-05.
7. ^ ^{a b} "Names of Myanmar". Wikipedia. 2020-11-03.
8. ^ "Rohingya people". Wikipedia. 2020-11-06.
9. ^ Naing, Wa Lone, Shoon (2017-08-25). "At least 71 killed in Myanmar as Rohingya insurgents stage major attack". Reuters. (Archive version from 26 July 2020.)
10. ^ "Beslan school siege: Russia 'failed' in 2004 massacre". BBC News. 2017-04-13. (Archive version from 26 September 2020.)
11. ^ "Beslan school siege". Wikipedia. 2020-10-08.
12. ^ "Ethiopian forces 'killed 400 Oromo protesters'". BBC News. 2016-06-16. (Archive version from 10 November 2020.)
13. ^ "Oromia: Stampede at Ethiopia protest leaves 52 dead". BBC News. 2016-10-03. (Archive version from 31 May 2019.)
14. ^ "Ethiopia denies troops killed by Ogaden rebels". BBC News. 2011-09-02. (Archive version from 16 August 2015.)
15. ^ "Ethiopia crisis: Tigray leader vows to keep fighting as government advances". BBC News. 2020-11-18. (Archive version from 18 November 2020.)
16. ^ "James Franco". Wikipedia. 2017-12-27.
17. ^ "Anglicisation of names". Wikipedia. 2017-10-28.
18. ^ "Google Trends". Google Trends.
19. ^ "Telegram told to give encryption keys to Russian authorities". ZDNet. 2018-03-20. (Archive version from 20 March 2018.)
20. ^ "1986 United States bombing of Libya". Wikipedia. 2018-03-03.
21. ^ "Khalifa Haftar". Wikipedia. 2020-11-09.
22. ^ Reuters Staff (2015-09-26). "U.S.-trained Syrian rebels gave equipment to Nusra: U.S. military". Reuters. (Archive version from 20 September 2020.)
23. ^ "Okinawa Prefecture". Wikipedia. 2018-05-20.
24. ^ "Okinawa Island". Wikipedia. 2020-11-26.
25. ^ "Demographics of the United States § Births and fertility by race". Wikipedia. 2020-10-27.
26. ^ "Demography of the United Kingdom § Fertility". Wikipedia. 2020-10-27.
27. ^ Borger, Julian (2020-04-15). "Iranian boats come 'dangerously' close to US navy warships". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. (Archive version from 13 October 2020.)
28. ^ Solovyov, Andrew Osborn, Dmitry (2017-06-06). "Russian fighter intercepts U.S. bomber over Baltic Sea". Reuters. (Archive version from 10 September 2019.)
29. ^ Blanchard, Ben; Shalal, Andrea (2015-10-27). "Angry China shadows U.S. warship near man-made islands". Reuters. (Archive version from 18 October 2020.)
30. ^ "Inside China's 'thought transformation' camps". BBC News. 2019-06-17. (Archive version from 4 November 2020.)
31. ^ "Your Credit Score Should Be Based on Your Web History, IMF Says". Gizmodo. 2020-12-18. (Archive version from 18 December 2020.)
32. ^ "China, Russia reject calls for freeze on UN pullout from Sudan". France 24. 2019-06-14. (Archive version from 15 June 2019.)
33. ^ "Russia disowns Libya's General Haftar". Middle East Monitor. 2019-04-06. (Archive version from 6 August 2020.)
34. ^ "Russia blocks UN Libya statement singling out Haftar's forces". France 24. 2019-04-07. (Archive version from 1 November 2020.)
35. ^ "EXCLUSIVE: Russia's secret plan to back Haftar in Libya". Middle East Eye. 2017-01-30. (Archive version from 9 July 2019.)
36. ^ "Sudanese rebel group acknowledges fighting for Khalifa Haftar’s forces in Libya | The Libya Observer". The Libya Observer. 2016-10-10. (Archive version from 31 August 2020.)
37. ^ "Sudanese rebels are fighting alongside Dignity Operation in Libya’s Derna | The Libya Observer". The Libya Observer. 2018-06-17. (Archive version from 7 September 2020.)
38. ^ "World powers prepared to arm UN-backed Libyan government". The Guardian. 2016-05-16. (Archive version from 8 November 2020.)
39. ^ "Omar al-Bashir § Engagement with the U.S. and European countries". Wikipedia. 2020-10-18.
40. ^ "International Criminal Court issues arrest warrant for Sudan's leader - 2 | Top Russian news and analysis online | 'RIA Novosti' newswire". RIA Novosti. 2009-12-17.
41. ^ Dealey, Sam (2009-08-14). "Omar al-Bashir Q&A: 'In Any War, Mistakes Happen on the Ground'". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. (Archive version from 19 February 2020.)
42. ^ "Gun law in the United States § History". Wikipedia. 2020-09-01.
43. ^ ^{a b c d} "List of countries by intentional homicide rate". Wikipedia. 2020-11-30.
44. ^ "Crime in Russia ̣§ Murder". Wikipedia. 2020-09-13.
45. ^ "History of tattooing". Wikipedia. 2020-10-16.
46. ^ "Body piercing". Wikipedia. 2020-10-02.
47. ^ "Turkey launches ground offensive in northern Syria". BBC News. 2019-10-09. (Archive version from 9 October 2019.)
48. ^ "Al-Tanf (U.S. military base)". Wikipedia. 2020-08-21.
49. ^ "Investigation into alleged use of white phosphorus in Syria". The Guardian. 2019-10-18. (Archive version from 18 October 2019.)
50. ^ Sanger, David E.; Schmitt, Eric; Hubbard, Ben (2017-07-19). "Trump Ends Covert Aid to Syrian Rebels Trying to Topple Assad". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. (Archive version from 15 October 2020.)
51. ^ "Thailand judge shoots himself in court after criticising system". BBC News. 2019-10-05. (Archive version from 5 October 2019.)
52. ^ "Brunei implements stoning to death under anti-LGBT laws". BBC News. 2019-04-03. (Archive version from 16 August 2020.)
53. ^ "World War Two: German president asks Poland to forgive Nazi 'tyranny'". BBC News. 2019-09-01. (Archive version from 2 September 2019.)
54. ^ Ruptly (2016-11-24). "Russia: Putin quizzes child prodigies at Russian Geographical Society awards". YouTube.
55. ^ Esmail, Aneez (2007-10-01). "Asian doctors in the NHS: service and betrayal". British Journal of General Practice. bjgp.org. 57 (543): 827–834. ISSN 0960-1643, 1478-5242. PMID 17925142.

< Back to Presentation and progression