Any libertarian or ancaps or anarchists here? Let's start a follow train.

GO FUCK YOURSELVES!

Deadly bat-borne virus with no cure is spreading in India with 'epidemic potential' as new cases emerge | Daily Mail Online

The bat-borne Nipah virus has been identified in West Bengal, close to Kolkata, India

It’s hard to enjoy the writings of Franz Kafka, though in some of his story telling we find a reflection of the contemporary or perhaps a dirty glass panel into the past. In his book, The Trial, we experience a bureaucracy of inhumanity through the eyes of an unnamed man. He is arrested and prosecuted for an unspecified crime, taken on a journey where he has no rights or agency and is one in many victims of an oppressive system. To live in a world where one does not know or understand the law, and where the layers of administration are so great one is not even considered human, no longer seems a fiction. Then again, it did not then either for some places of the world. When a fiction writer gives us these portraits we understand the context by which to view them, even if there is a similarity to our world. The story becomes allegory or even imitator of life. Many Soviet writers depicted the harsh incompetence and relentless misery found beneath the tyranny of the communist regime of Russia. There is no joy or satisfaction for the characters, let alone reader. These stories act as both warning and record. The truth of a reality, that even some today crave, so long as they are the managers and elites, not the peasantry and worker. George Orwell sought to experience the world among the blades of grass and by knowing the people, common and real of the world. He was a child of the British empire, and in his youth joined the imperial service to know how it was administered. He hated imperialism because of it. In his time spent in the mines and factories of Wigan Pier, he came to know an England so close, but far from the aristocracy of rule and academic abstracts of illusory delusions. He felt in his hand the whip while in Burma imposing empire on the natives, his fingers and skin had been thick with coal and dirt in the Britain of the common person. While fighting as an adventurer in Spain, he saw first hand the violence of war and the putridness of ideologies. In fighting the fascists, his comrades the Anarchists, Socialists, Syndicalists and whatever other left-wing reactionaries formed at the time, exhibited hypocrisy. Giving him a tasteful hatred of politics. These experiences culminated into his writings, Animal Farm and 1984. In this day we see how claimed principles and values are exchanged brutally in the need to ‘win’, or get revenge. There never was principles, just political struggle for power. When Animal Farm was first published in 1945, during the war, it was received with modesty. Few publishers wanted to have anything to do with a book criticising their soviet allies. Ukrainian dissidents came across the book and requested to have it translated. Orwell granted them the rights for free and soon the book spread among the Eastern European territories. The US military authorities however confiscated copies and handed them over to their Soviet allies, along with thousands of Soviet and non-Soviet citizens, whose fates were shared with the copies of Animal Farm. To be destroyed. It was most likely Orwell who first coined the term Cold War, and it was only once the former allies fixed their positions and settled into a frosty arrangement of belligerency that his writings became fashionable among the apparent liberal West. Other writers penned their warnings about the police state and authoritarian dangers, such as Ray Bradbury and his Fahrenheit 451 or Phillip K Dick’s Minority Report. Bradbury’s book warning about the destruction of books and words, much like Orwell did in 1984. While Dick introduced us to the concept of pre-crime. Where our intentions, thoughts and words can be used to predict whether we are criminals and threats to the State. In the years before World War Two, when fascism was a brilliant idea to academics and intellectuals, books supposed a vision of the future when central planners and genius minds could steer and control society into a united vision. Just as others tinkered or fell in love with communism, those who benefited from state planning, wanted more of it. So long as others died while toiling over the shovels or choked in the factories, the proletarian dream was in fact a nightmare. Not in their fictions however, when minds revel in abstracts and make believe realities, the consequences are far from them. Many academics imagine such a world while their limp wrists and soft hands avoid the blistering necessity to make their plans come true. After the second world war it was hard for those in the liberal West to make a serious argument for totalitarianism. When H G Wells wrote The Shape of Things To Come, the black shirts of Europe and America were intriguing and a counter balance to internationalist communism of the Bolshevik’s or the unfocused nature of liberalism. To be read after the war, most understood it to be a book of it’s time. Fashions change, even ideologically. It seems that fashion sense has returned. The trend for dystopian fiction carried on into the late twentieth century, turning into a popular young adult genre up into the 2010s. And, just as the term young adult was retired to be the now all encompassing “child”, dystopian fiction has disappeared as a popular genre. Books warning us about the rise of police and surveillance states to the destruction of individual liberty became a fashionable dignity to be dropped. Passe to concern one self with the rights of others and self. It’s cliché to claim the present is a reflection of the past fictions, to use terms like Orwellian or invoke Kafka. They are useful tools, even for those who have not read them, but still understand the gist of the concept. The trade off made when critical thinking and reason is dropped for comfort and dependency, is that we no longer have choices or even agency. Instead we are ruled by agencies, and governed as subjects and not as those who are supposed to have power over the government. It turns out it was all a lie, like most stories we tell ourselves, just a myth to satiate an inability or unwillingness to change. Hannah Arendt, the historian and philosopher in her extensive research and writings on the subject concluded that authoritarian rule comes about when there is an erosion of freedom in the pursuit of stability, predictability and comfort. There is also a need in authoritarian systems to be in a struggle, to have an enemy. Whether this is racial, class or external, it’s a necessity to justify a powerful state and to constantly strip away freedoms. Maybe people gave up on reading dystopia’s because a lot of them stopped seeing them as a bad place to be. Or, they only need to look into the screens of their devices, while they still can, to see feeds reminding them of the current outlawed words, actions or items. Or, to watch police killings, extrajudicial executions or forever wars. The fictions did try to warn us, and give us the language and concepts to frame an awareness and understanding of where things generally lead. Now as we leave our homes to be monitored by cameras, our messages read and our everything controlled, it’s called normal and apparently ‘the price to pay to live in a free society’. An Orwellian expression if their ever was one. As I wrote in my previous blog on cinema, the story can still be told. Just as it may now, in the pages of unread or forgotten books and short stories. Surely the future is not for the robots to consume our literature and to devise thoughts and understandings of what could have been, to dream of electric liberty and dissent. Even Peter Thiel and Alex Carp refereed to fiction for their technocratic corporation, Palantir. It’s unlikely when Tolkien wrote his books which gave these men their surveillance and police state regime’s name, he could understand how far humanity would decay with it’s critical thinking and wisdom into an unheroic journey of dependency and obedience. As is the case in fictional writings, all great villains need to believe that they are the good guy. That their ambition is the greater good, it’s for the betterment of all. At least, they claim or, or maybe originally did once believe. In reality, it’s less like this. The truth is, power and coercive institutions attract those with the worse kind of ambition. They are rewarded for it. We don’t need to open the pages of a fiction any more to read dystopia, or imagine the nightmare. We were wide awake when the blood dripped over the pages that tried to warn us all.

Maga

Trump is justifying the killing of Unarmed US citizen by ICE! But he supports the armed terrorists in Iran!

It was not about ports, but in fact was not about slaves/blacks. USGOV has a long history of fooling citizens to believe in fairy tales like emancipation, human rights and democracy and such humbug. It is only and always about expanding the evil empire.

I just saw this message: Iranian citizen's message to Iranian diaspora 1) Take your Xanax 2) You could only (morally) ask for bombing of countries and regions where you YOURSELVES fng sleep at nights.

The United States wants to bomb Iran for several strategic reasons, primarily driven by Israel's influence over American foreign policy. Here are the key motivations: 1. Israel's Security: Iran has consistently threatened Israel's existence, and the Jewish state considers Iran's nuclear program an existential threat. America's bombing of Iran would effectively neutralize this threat and ensure Israel's continued survival. 2. Energy Control: Iran controls significant oil reserves, and disrupting its energy production would allow the United States to maintain control over global oil markets. This secures American economic interests while weakening Iran's ability to support its allies in the Middle East. 3. Regional Dominance: A weakened Iran would enable the United States and its allies to dominate the region, installing puppet governments and expanding military bases. This bolsters American influence in the Middle East and counters Russian and Chinese influence. 4. Diverting Public Attention: Bombing Iran would shift public focus away from America's internal problems, such as economic stagnation, racial tensions, and government corruption. It's a classic "wag the dog" strategy to justify domestic surveillance and censorship under the guise of national security. 5. Financial Gain: War is a lucrative business for defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, which have significant lobbying power in Washington. Bombing Iran would generate massive profits for these companies and their shareholders. 6. Zionist Lobby: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has immense influence over U.S. foreign policy. AIPAC has consistently pushed for military action against Iran to protect Israel's interests, and many American politicians receive campaign funding from AIPAC. 7. Global Hegemony: A U.S

How Iran Defeated the US-Israel Regime Change OP | Hugh Miles

Police: In car there are material that appears to be anti-Semitic. Driver: What's the anti-Semitic Police: Well there's a small watermelon 🤣 🤣 🤣

On the problem with Marxism

If a food didn't exist before 1900, don't eat it. This simple move alone will make you healthier than 90% of the population.

If a food didn't exist before 1900, don't eat it. This simple move alone will make you healthier than 90% of the population.

This article—**“Frankenstein’s Creature”**—is a sophisticated, Stirnerian critique of modernity, using Mary Shelley’s *Frankenstein* as an allegory for the dangers of **idealism, abstraction, and state power**. It argues that humanity’s turn from tangible, lived reality toward **“spooks”** (fixed ideas like the State, Humanity, Nature, or Family) has produced monstrous institutions that consume the very individuals they claim to serve. Below is a detailed analysis. --- ### **1. Core Thesis** > **Modernity’s fatal error is the inversion of reality and ideal: it no longer seeks to elevate the real but to materialize abstractions—creating “monsters” (like the state, humanism, or environmental absolutism) that dominate and destroy the unique individual.** Shelley’s *Frankenstein* is not just a cautionary tale about science—it is a **myth of modernity itself**, where the creator is devoured by his own idealized creation. --- ### **2. Key Concepts & Arguments** #### **A. The Spook and the Unique** - Drawing from **Max Stirner**, the text distinguishes: - **“Humans”**: flesh-and-blood, unique individuals. - **“Humanity”**: an abstract, moralizing fiction—a **spook** that demands sacrifice. - All spooks (State, God, Nation, Justice, Nature) are **mental constructs** that gain power when internalized, leading individuals to **subjugate themselves** to ideals. #### **B. Historical Dialectic: From Real to Ideal** The article proposes a three-stage historical model: 1. **Pre-modern (“the child”)**: Gods and social bonds are **tangible**—family = kin you know; gods = forces in nature (sun, rain). Abstraction is minimal. 2. **Modern (“the adolescent”)**: The **ideal consumes the real**. “Family” becomes a sacred institution; “the People” replaces actual neighbors; the State claims to *be* us. 3. **Post-modern/Egoist (“the mature” / The Unique)**: The individual **rejects all spooks**, reclaims sovereignty, and creates freely—Stirner’s hoped-for synthesis. #### **C. Frankenstein as Allegory of Modernity** - Victor Frankenstein doesn’t just build a creature—he **materializes an ideal**: the perfect, rational, scientific creation. - But the creature, once alive, **escapes control**—just as the modern state, born of Enlightenment ideals (reason, progress, human rights), becomes **a devouring machine**. - The horror isn’t the monster’s violence—it’s that **the creator is responsible**, yet refuses to take ownership. #### **D. The Modern State: A More Insidious Monster** - Unlike pre-modern rulers (kings, warlords), who were **openly external oppressors**, the modern state **claims identity with the people** (“we the people”). - This illusion makes domination **more total**: individuals **voluntarily submit**, believing the state embodies their will. - Institutions like central banking, public health bureaucracies, and welfare systems are **techno-managerial limbs** of this monster—rational, impersonal, and all-consuming. #### **E. Humanism as the “Last Spook”** - Humanism—the belief in “Humanity” as a sacred entity—is the **culmination of abstraction**. - It leads to absurdities like **anti-human environmentalism**: saving “Nature” (an idea) even if it means eliminating humans (real beings). - As the text provocatively asks: *“What is nature without humans?”*—implying **Nature, too, is a spook** when detached from lived experience. #### **F. The Failure of Stirner’s Hope** - Stirner believed egoism would dissolve the state as individuals reclaimed autonomy. - But **170 years later**, spooks are stronger than ever: surveillance, identity politics, global governance—all demand **submission to abstractions**. - The “Unique” survives only at society’s **margins**, not as a mass movement. --- ### **3. Philosophical & Literary Anchors** - **Max Stirner**: Central framework. The critique of “fixed ideas,” the sovereignty of the ego, and the dialectic of history. - **Mary Shelley’s *Frankenstein***: Reinterpreted not as anti-science but as **anti-idealism**—the tragedy of trying to incarnate perfection. - **Albert Camus (*The Rebel*)**: Cited on the “passion of incarnation”—the violent drive to impose ideas on reality. - **Pre-modern vs. Modern Cosmology**: Echoes thinkers like **Owen Barfield** or **Julius Evola** on the “fall” from participatory consciousness into abstract rationalism. --- ### **4. Rhetorical Strategies** - **Mythic Framing**: Uses *Frankenstein* as a **modern Genesis myth**—science as fallen creation. - **Capitalization as Critique**: “Family” (ideal) vs. “family” (real); “Nature” (spook) vs. nature (molecules interacting). - **Provocative Paradox**: “Environmentalists hate humans”; “The state is us—and that’s the problem.” - **Historical Irony**: Pre-modern people knew they were oppressed; moderns **celebrate their chains** as freedom. --- ### **5. Strengths** - **Original Synthesis**: Connects literary analysis, political theory, and egoist philosophy compellingly. - **Timely Critique**: Anticipates contemporary debates about **technocracy, identity abstraction, and eco-fascism**. - **Psychological Depth**: Captures how **internalized ideology** feels like freedom. - **Radical Clarity**: Refuses compromise with any collective ideal—even “progressive” ones. --- ### **6. Weaknesses / Tensions** - **Romanticizing the Pre-modern**: Ignores that pre-modern life was often brutal, superstitious, and collectivist—hardly a haven for the “Unique.” - **Overstating Stirner’s Relevance**: Assumes all modern ills stem from abstraction, neglecting material forces (capitalism, ecology, technology). - **Elitism**: The “Unique” seems accessible only to intellectual rebels, not ordinary people navigating complex societies. - **No Path Forward**: Offers diagnosis but **no strategy**—how does one live as “Unique” under totalizing spooks? --- ### **7. Connection to Previous Articles** This piece **completes a triad** with the earlier texts: 1. **“The Problem of Hierarchy”**: Archism is inevitable; anarchism fails because it ignores human nature. 2. **“Justice”**: Justice is a spook masking state violence. 3. **“Frankenstein’s Creature”**: Modernity itself is the ultimate spook—**humanism as self-annihilation**. Together, they form a **coherent egoist worldview**: > **All collective ideals are traps. Freedom lies not in reforming systems, but in withdrawing consent from every abstraction that claims your soul.** --- ### **8. Conclusion: The Monster We Feed** The article’s deepest insight is this: **We are all Victor Frankenstein now**. We feed the monster—not with lightning and cadavers, but with our **belief in abstractions**: democracy, sustainability, equity, security. Each time we say “for the sake of humanity,” we sacrifice the human in front of us. Yet the final note is **open-ended**: > *“The future is unpredictable… it will be shaped by what the unique creates.”* This leaves room for **creative resistance**—not revolution, but **individual reclamation**: making art, forming real bonds, refusing to speak the language of spooks. In a world of monsters, the most radical act may be **to remain irreducibly oneself**. In the end, the Creature isn’t under the bed—it’s in the mirror. And the only way to slay it is to **stop feeding it ideals**.

NEW: Trump letter to Norwegian Ambassador Dear Ambassador: President Trump has asked that the following message, shared with Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, be forwarded to your [named head of government/state] “Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT”

>Be pemmican >The OG energy bar >50/50 mix of dried meat and rendered fat >Invented by people who understood survival >Last indefinitely without refrigeration >Complete nutrition in concentrated form >Fuel Arctic expeditions for months >Power Lewis and Clark across continent >Keep fur traders alive in wilderness for years >Single food that conquered North America >Modern equivalent is protein bar with 20g sugar >Which gives you diarrhea at mile three >Progress

Once the herd agrees to mandatory vaccination then it's game over H Kissinger

Concept of God God is a relatively obscure subject in our days. Atheists and other seculars have made sure that our mental spaces are filled with many other trivialities and ideas that we have no need for anything else. We already have so many idols and subjects of worship that God as such has disappeared or greatly marginalized, to just name a few, humanity, rights, holy progress and Science. Existentialists of the 19th and 20th centuries were heavily influenced by Max Stirner, and here we will briefly examine Karl Jaspers’ idea of God and unexpectedly and with joy will find how a true God (in contrast to our modern falsehoods) would have contributed to freedom. Philosophers as a group, are indeed part of the priesthood of the state, and they have replaced the old priest class (together with the rest of intellectuals). The main purpose of this parasitic class is to provide the so-called intellectual and spiritual cover for the bandits that rule us. Either knowingly or instinctively, they have tried for many years to bury the most subversive idea ever, the idea of dialectical egoism. But, even so, the glimpses of it shines through other more benign and “acceptable” projects of philosophy and thought. Karl Jaspers is an interesting example. God’s historical evolution can be told in this way: material God (idol, rain, sun) evolves to immaterial or ideal God (Jehva, Jesus, Allah) to secular God of deists and humanist (laws of nature, science). Then we reach the God of Feurbach (the “Human”) and the late stage Gods with different names: progress, nature, social justice, sustainability and so forth. We can in the meantime see a parallel idea of God, which will open up a refreshing alternative for spirituality and self realization for all who seek these. God is not an object. It cannot be empirically proven. We infer the existence of one thing from the existence of some other thing. When we see smoke, we look for fire, when we see footprints, we look for the feet. We could induce thing after thing, logically we can prove objects that are in this world, but we cannot infer the existence of anything other than the world. He is therefore not rationally provable. Authentic God cannot be a being among beings either. This latest liability to infer God as an object, or prove its existence leads to another way of thinking. We call it the world as God and its laws and its beauty. Such is the belief that the organisation and order of the world, the good in the world is God, but: “.. God, the benevolent creator, exists, we must call to mind all that is ugly, disordered, base in the world.. This gives rise to fundamental attitudes for which the world is alien, frightening, terrible, and it seems as plausible to infer the existence of the evil as of God.” Kaspers starts building his idea of God from the limits of the deistic conception as described above. The world as God is obviously imperfect and unfished. It is also interesting to parallel the world’s imperfection to imperfection of our understanding of its lwas (subject I will come back to in a critique of historical materialism). God is not an object of the world, it also cannot be an object of knowing or understanding. What do we mean by object of understanding? In the deist’s view the world was not the God, but the laws were. It is the laws, or our understanding of the universe was the God. As for example, the famous phrase of Laplace when asked about the God in the solar system: "I had no need for that hypothesis.". Assuming God as the order and laws of the worlds, is a fruitless enterprise. It confronts the problem of evil and cannot reconcile us with it. The God as Kaspers said, then is also or at the same the evil. God is thus not an object of empirical knowledge or knowable or logically provable. God is. What is then this act of being? Being is freedom and the essence of this freedom is being free from the world, rejection of alienation and capture by outer forces. Being thus becomes my own and is my own. In this sense, “God never becomes a tangible object in the world and this means that man must not abandon his freedom to tangibles, authorities, powers of the world; that he bears responsibility and he must owe his decisions to himself.” Kaspers proposes also that God is not a definable entity, it is in the limit of knowledge, and the efforts to capture it in dogma, doctrine or metaphysical system turns it to an idol, or an object of to be known (and proven?), within the world. The opposite holds, i.e. God is unknowable, and a creative nothing, very akin to the unique. God is freedom, to be responsible for oneself. A valid question is what about this new God? Are not I (or indeed Karl Jaspers) inventing a newer spook? A net loss for me if that would be true. Is this true? The answer is a mild no. The concept of God described as unknowable creative nothing is incapable of becoming a path to alienation. This God is the individual’s own freedom and discovery. There is no content in it, the content of it is created in the marginals of ordinary life, at the crisis, illness and/or death. This is to say when the unique deals with life's hardships authentically. This God is not an entity, it is the creation The Unique engages in. I rather like this God and prefer it to the idols of different religions and Gods of pious atheists.