Notes On The Far-Right In Europe

Posted: February 16th, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: Anarcho-Nihilism, Anarchy, Current Affair, Far-Right, Generation Three, Iteration Three, Leftists, Liberals, News, Next Generation, O9A, O9A Nine Angles, Occultism, Order of Nine Angles, Order of the Nine Angles, Phase Three, The Sinister Dialectic, Third Iteration | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Notes On The Far-Right In Europe

.:.If some kind of data or information needs to be brought to my attention for whatever reason, Providence and/or the Library Angel somehow gets such data into my face.

Hope Not Hate has published a Report about the Far-Right in Europe, which includes data on the Pandemic and its effects on said Far-Right groups, as well as country-to-country statistics on Right Wing groups. I love statistics: they help you think and formulate ideas. The Report can be obtained here: Report Launch: State of Hate: Far Right Extremism In Europe 2021.

There was one part of that Report which should be highlighted and considered carefully:


Two main factors are primarily responsible for the evolution or transition of groups/organizations into movements and transnational movements: 1) the aging and fading out of Baby-Boomers and Generation X from the social and national spheres of influence and the rise of Generations Y & Z to take the helm of social and national influence & 2) the internet and the “shrinking world” effect the internet has on us, where familiarity with others develops online and where information travels instantly.

Therefore, because of those two factors, HnH is correct in saying that we live in a Post-Organizational world. This is a concept that most Baby-Boomers and X Gen just simply don’t understand. This is a good thing and a bad thing: bad for them because such older generations of people have brains that are working with 1980s and 1990s Mind-software, where they can’t help but always think in terms of Groups, Organizations, Structure, Leaders. Good for the evolving Far-Right because such Baby-Boomers and X Gen people who dislike such Far-Right movements, due to their old thinking, have no understanding or means to counteract the growth of such Far-Right movements and transnational movement: how do you stop something which you simply don’t understand? A movement is not like a group: there is nothing there to ban, there are no leaders to work on removing, it’s not centralized where you can implant agents to sow seeds of discord to break up: because it’s already broken up.

Furthermore, these Baby-Boomers and X Gens don’t understand how to use the internet. There was a time, when those stupid X Gen Satanists laughed at o9a people for utilizing the internet to spread o9a, where o9a people back then created massive amounts of WordPress blogs, PDF texts to pass around and circulate. And back then, those stupid X Gens said that because o9a was an “internet phenomenon” that it was fake and their Satanic organizations were real. That way of seeing things is the exact same line of reason that someone born and raised in the age of Radio would say [talk shit about] people who used Television to broadcast their views, opinions, ideologies, and so on: it’s silly and stupid. Why so? Because Radio became outdated, and during the peak of Television [and cable networks] Politicians fought each other for air time on TV networks, and the bulk of a nations propaganda used TV, because TV reached a huge audience/population.

A decade later, and the Left, the Baby-Boomers, and X Gens are literally crying about and afraid of the growth and rise of the Far-Right. How did the Far-Right grow and expand so quickly to be cried about and afraid of? Simple: by having a massive presence on the internet and using the internet to propagate their memeplex! And so whose fucking fault is it that the Far-Right is growing and has been growing at such alarming rates? It’s your fucking fault! And so, as a stupid Baby-Boomer and X Gen person who has no understanding of the internet, no understanding of how Y & Z Gen uses the internet, who doesn’t take the internet serious: how do you counteract and stop the growth of Far-Right movements?

You guys are stupid enough to not understand or take the world wide web serious. Like how Radio Generation people laughed at Television. Here’s a prediction for you dummies from that old generation: in 25 years the Internet will be King Maker. The internet will make and give power to politicians, forge political alliances, politicians will be fighting each other for face-time on the internet to reach huge audiences, political platforms will be passed around the internet, the internet will be the main nexus of collecting new members for political parties, the internet will be the main means of collecting financial support for your political endeavors. Mark my fucking words!

The world wide web is Pandora’s Box. Some stupid person opened that Box a long time ago: and now there’s no turning back. The Internet will fuck up the world order that those post-WW2 Baby-boomers and their X Gen retard kids have built and created. We saw the power of the internet last decade, when the “Arab Springs” revolutions took place: they were movements of young people [of our generation] who used the internet [facebook and so on] to organize riots, revolts, uprisings, protests, and collect social and sentimental support. Much of the coming World War 3 will be fought in ciberspace by state hackers working for governments. The last decade gave us a clew/clue, an intimation, of things to come. And this decade will be the beginning of the end of the World Order that Baby-boomers and X Gens have worked to built. And the world wide web [ciberspace] will play a central part in the death and destruction of their world order. There’s no going back. Those people, governments, agencies, and groups and movements who are savvy with the internet, from hereon, will have the most influence in how the world will change.

The Future Of Politics

HnH’s Report provided statistics for Far-Right groups in each European Nation, how many are active, how many internet vectors each has, how many followers each has, and how many seats – if any – each has in their respective national governments. Although the numbers are better than the last decade, I found the current numbers to be unsatisfying and in want, as well as inefficient. There is an ineffectiveness to how the Far-Right groups are doing things. Things can be Opimalized.

The fundamental behaviour of political groups [left or right] is Fractal in Principle: Competition. All things – plants, insects, animals, religions, ideologies, nations – compete. It’s a core element of evolution and incremental permutation. Therefore, political parties in Europe [and anywhere] compete with each other. And so, the way the Far-Right is competing with the “traditional” political parties is ineffective. By “traditional” political parties, I mean to say political parties that are groups, organizations, with leaders, which have been around for decades and have had many seats in governments.

In order for the Far-Right to effectively compete with the said traditional political parties, it will have to fully embrace the concept of a movement to the full extent. Movements are the future, and the internet is the means of growing and expanding movements.

Therefore, a more Optimal way for the Far-Right movements to compete in Europe first is to eventually establish a kind of umbrella entity that takes on the form of a political party. This umbrella entity would be a pan-European conglomeration / alliance of all Right-Oriented movements, loosely conglomerated together to Focus and Concentrate their effort, time, people, votes, money, etc towards several individuals chosen to be political members of said umbrella entity. The inefficiency is that you have a huge mess of many Far-Right little groups and movements who are competing with big, established traditional political parties. The Principle [law of nature] in play is: Coherency overpowers Incoherency. A huge mess of many Far-Right groups and movements is incoherent and is in principle: powerless.

A second thing the Far-Right would need to understand and work with is a concept called “Propinquity.” Power and Domination actually transcends ideology, doctrines, sentiments, race, and views. Because the idea of “power” and “domination” are reific nouns. Reific, meaning Reification, which is when you treat something to be concrete when it is not. Power is an abstract noun which you can’t touch or poke. When we say “power” what we in actuality mean is: People in a Coherent condition, where they are coherent enough to express and actualize their Will to affect change. Affect and change a people, nation, civilization, society, etc.

Propinquity is the idea that Familiarity is born from Proximity, be that proximity physical or psychological. For example, when two people live in the same apartment/flat complex, such two people are said to be in “propinquity” with one another. When people attend the same church, such people share a propinquity with each other. Two Chinese men, share a propinquitous rapport and connection with each other: their common racial/national background. Ideas/memes travel faster via propinquity. In the very same sense that a virus is more contagious in a group of people who are close in proximity to each other. A meme is a mind virus and thus, follows the same principle of viral transmission and contagiousness.

And so, things such as far-right ideology, racialism, identity based on race, conservative or liberal views, economic views, etc, are all actually a means a group of human beings use in order to establish propinquity. The propinquity itself, is what creates Coherence/Coherency.

In the old days, such things as Traditional Religion, Traditional Families, Traditional Culture were the powerful means of manifesting propinquity in a people, in any given nation. After WW2, the Left worked to dismantle and destroy that Traditionalism, which is why I personally dislike the Left: Divide & Conquer. You get rid of the means of said propinquity, and the people have no more social glue to hold them together, and thus, a coherent government and corporations can then overpower them.

And so, what the Far-Right needs to try to understand is that it is Power that is desired, Power to make policies in a given nation. And therefore, in order to compete with other political groups/parties, effective means of propinquity must be used, that are inclusive enough to establish a pan-European alliance of all Far-Right groups in Europe, in order to manifest Coherence, Focus, and Concentration of effort/money/influence/etc.

In that regard, the use of terrorism, which is to say: the use of lethal violence against fellow Europeans and civilians, as well as government people, is an ineffective means of propinquity, because it ultimately causes your group or movement to become volatile. A volatile movement or group simply does not last long enough to produce any lasting change in a nation or civilization. Your Far-Right movements, if such is desired to last long enough to grow and gain Power, must not be volatile and self-destructive, which is common sense actually. This was a mistake that Hitler made. His government did not nurture National Socialism in the people, across generations: it was too martial, and thus, too volatile, and self-destructed in circa 12 years.

Martial Force, belongs to the military and militias. Once you have gained Power in a country: then it becomes perfectly legal to use Martial Force. All current governments use Martial Force legally: America dropped two atom bombs on Japan, killing over 100,000 innocent civilian lives. Stalin and Mao, once in Power, used Martial Force legally to slaughter millions and millions of people. Once you gain Power, then you can use Martial Force against your perceived enemies legally and without restraint.

Despite the West’s glorification of violence in movies and video games, violence is actually not what gives you Power. Violence is simply a means to get rid of the people and groups of people who have vested interest in a given nation who are unwilling to give up their vested interests. For example, the American Revolution was when a bunch of colonialists, turned rebels, made war with their British Government. In our modern terminology, we’d classify such rebels as “terrorists.” The terrorism of the American colonialists did not give birth to America and did not give them power. What gave those historical rebels power were ideas, ideals, visions of a better nation, and propinquitous elements that collected those colonialists into a coherent social order. The same goes with Stalin and Mao. What gave birth to their Power were ideas, ideals, and propinquitous elements that collected the incoherent proletarian [farmers and workers] into a coherent social order. Power is not martial force: it is Coherency. This is a simple fractal pattern and principle that can been seen anywhere in nature: army ants do not dominate the forest because of martial force [violence] it’s because said army ants are incredibly coherent.

You shouldn’t use Radical Islam as a model, because, what is happening to Islam is very different, than politics and the endeavour to gain Power. The case of Islam is that, it is a dying religion. Why is it dying? Simple: generational transition. The Baby-boomers and X Gen of Islamic Countries are the ones that are religious and hold onto power. They are growing old and will dies soon of old age. The new generations of Y & Z in such Islamic countries are not sectarian, do not want to live under theocratic tyranny and oppression. Thus, because of that generational transition, Islam, in that civilization is dying. And in the dying and decline and death-throws of Islam, it becomes volatile, agitated, aggressive, and violent, as a means to try and struggle to live longer, to force itself onto the next generation, and to try and force itself into new markets [new potential adherents]. You should not use the tactics of a dying theocratic religion as a way and means to give birth to something in Europe. Dying and Birthing are two entirely different things in the cycle of life. And all things, including civilization and religion, have cycles of life and death.

The internet will be King Maker. Power is Coherency. Propinquity generates coherence. The internet is a very effective medium of manifesting that propinquity. The groups, people, and movements that become savvy with the internet, will dominate and influence the future.


The Great Rat Panic

Posted: February 14th, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: Anarcho-Nihilism, Anarchy, Current Affair, Far-Right, Generation Three, Iteration Three, Junk Journalism, Leftists, Liberals, News, Next Generation, Nihilism, O9A, O9A Nine Angles, Occultism, Order of Nine Angles, Order of the Nine Angles, Phase Three, Reports, Satanic Heresy, Sinister Japes, The Sinister Dialectic, The Sinister Game, The Sinister Tradition, The Sinisterly Numinous Tradition, Third Iteration | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Great Rat Panic

.:.The simple psychological games the FBI, CIA, MI5, blah blah blah, plays on groups and organizations is simple, but effective, and fun to witness and watch.

It’s a simple technique intelligence services/agencies have been using for decades, since even David Myatt’s time, when he was younger and into the Neo-Nazi scene himself! You just make a few informants, or plant an agent provocateur, sow seeds of distrust and discord: and let Human Nature take care of the rest of the work.

I personally prefer this method on a few counts: 1) Since the group eventually fractures and nobody trusts each other anymore, the group is Neutralized & 2) it saves money, time, and court cases because after such groups have been fractured and neutralized, most of their membership doesn’t get busted. It’s a “friendly” way to break up and neutralize a group or organization.

The funny thing about this technique of neutralizing groups and organizations is that for decades and decades, these X Generation guys are so dumb, that they keep on making the same mistakes over and over again: they keep making groups and organizations and have leaders. They don’t learn!

There are two very easy ways to fix or remedy this problem, which many people of my generations [Y & Z] have learned: 1) don’t have groups or organizations, instead have a decentralized leaderless movement & 2) don’t use lethal violence against others.

The problem with any group, neo-nazi or radical Islamist, which uses lethal violence is that such groups are highly volatile. Volatile meaning that such groups self-destruct very quickly because its members go to prison for lethal violence.

Street gangs are violent. But, there is an important differences between a street gang and a radical Islamist group: a street gang’s raison d’etre is not to use and inflict lethal violence against civilians, whereas a radical Islamist group has as its core doctrine and function [raison d’etre] the use of lethal violence against civilians, hence they’re called “terrorists.” I know of plenty of violent street gangs and skinhead gangs that are very violent [like 18th Street], but they are not labeled and considered as “terrorist” organizations. We all know that mafias are also violent, but I don’t know of any mafia [Italian, Sicilian, Chinese, Russian] which is considered to be a “terrorist” organization. Motorcycle gangs [like the Hell’s Angels] are also violent, but they aren’t labeled by governments as “terrorist” organizations.

A volatile group, does not have the capacity to achieve anything aeonic, because they self-destruct or are neutralized very quickly. It’s actually an oxymoron to believe that anything volatile will last long, even in science: something volatile like nitroglycerine by nature will not last long! It’s a simple fractal principle. And during their brief life-time, they objectively achieve nothing productive. It’s something to think about if you are an o9a initiate who understands that o9a is an aeonic occult movement, with very long-time goals and objectives. Why not follow the example of things that have successfully existed for decades and have continued to grow in membership: mafias, skinhead gangs, street gangs, the KKK, the Catholic Church, religion, cultures? Why continue to make the same mistakes over and over again, decade after decade? Doesn’t being “intelligent” mean that you are smart enough to learn not only from your own mistakes, but from the mistakes of others also? Isn’t the core concept of Evolution: Adaptation?

My favorite antagonist(s) on Star Trek is The Borg. I love them! One cool thing about the Borg is that they are extremely adaptive. You might be able to shoot a phaser gun at them once or twice and destroy one or two, but they will adapt to your phaser very fast! Why? Because their minds are merged into one vast collective hive mind: they are incredibly intelligent! They learn from each other.

Right now, is a bad time for The Proud Boys to be fracturing, because they got dumped by Trump and will be taking his rap. There are many weaknesses with the design of groups and organizations. One weakness is that such groups need internet infrastructure, meaning forums, social networks, websites, etc., in order to find and collect new members. Taking out such a group would be simple work: plant agent provocateurs, use informants, sow seeds of discord, and take away their internet infrastructure.

O9A is different: every human being who has ever been influenced or inspired by o9a can vanish tomorrow, and o9a would still exist: because the o9a is 5000 pages of the “Anton Long” Corpus. All it takes is just one person to read that corpus, initiate themselves, and put its occult traditions into practice, and the o9a is re-born. No infrastructure or structure or leader or group or organization is needed. Mind you now, most of that 5000 pages of stuff is firewall, mythos, stories, a maze of fantasy: created to keep out the Mundanes.



Trump Acquitted

Posted: February 13th, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: News | Tags: | Comments Off on Trump Acquitted

.:.Former President Trump has just been Acquitted by the Senate! I thought Mr. Van Der Veen’s closing statements were on point to reason and doctrine. God I hate the Left, and those Democratic Managers: what a bunch of intellectually dishonest power whore cons.

Now that Trump has been acquitted and not guilty/convicted of inciting “insurrection,” the Left and their Journalist fake-news propaganda machine will be looking for blood from the Right! During the next few weeks, we’ll see the Left and its power take their thirst for blood on The Proud Boys.



Trump Trial Final Round

Posted: February 12th, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: News | Tags: | Comments Off on Trump Trial Final Round

.:.Regading the Democrat’s entire case: “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.”

Excellent work! The Trump Team put forth their defense in circa 3 hours! What a brilliant show! My favorite Trump Lawyer was Mr. Van Der Veen, who I thought was a great thinker. I loved the look of distaste and contempt he had for the Democratic Team. There were times when Mr. Van Der Veen took his glasses off to look at the Democratic Team to emphasize his condescending contempt.

The best part about Mr. Van Der Veen’s defense was that, in contrast to the entire case of the Democratic Team’s case, Mr. Van Der Veen use Logic, Reason, and Doctrinal Text. Doctrinal Text here meaning texts such as those from the US Constitution and text from court trials clarifying laws and precedents.

My favorite point in Van Der Veen’s defense was when he cited the Brandenburg case, which clarifies the difference between the Free Speech we all enjoy which is protected by the US Constitution and what exactly is “incitement speech.” The Brandenburg case has three holdings/criteria which must be met in order for a statement – spoken or written or otherwise – to qualify as “incitement speech,” where “incitement speech” here means speech used to incite unlawful acts, crimes, and so on. The three holdings/criteria of incitement speech:

Mr. Van Der Veen showed that Trump talks and verbal expressions and the words he used was not incitement speech, made to incite the protesters to become violent. Van Der Veen made sure to also place emphasis upon the word “imminent” per the third criteria. This is very important regarding the chronology of the events of Jan 6th: there was already a crowd of protesters at Capitol Hill, becoming aggressive and violent a full one hour before Trump even came out to make his speech that day.

The Trump Lawyers also showed that Trump, even as president, does still have his freedom of public speech protected under the First Amendment, which the Democratic Team denied. Therefore, we learn that the US Constitution protects everyone’s freedom to speak their views, opinions, beliefs, feelings, conscience, etc – social, political, or otherwise – regardless of how passionate, radical, unconventional, inflammatory, or hateful, such speech or text may be; even if your speech and beliefs regard the destruction of the government.

The Trump Team also showed that a certain section of the protesters that day of Jan 6th had planned some kind of violent attack on Capitol Hill independent of any incitement on Trump’s part.

All-in-all, the Trump Lawyers did exactly as I had thought/predicted they would do. I’m very pleased with their defense. It was a pleasant contrast to the Democrat’s case where the Democrat’s case was 90% silly Appeal to Emotions and trump’s words taken out of context. Whereas the Trump Team used doctrinal texts, past precedents, logic, and reason.

My predictions:

  1. Trump will be acquitted. And if he runs again in 4 years, he may just win.
  2. A group will take the rap for the protest at Capitol Hill.
  3. When the Leftist Journalists and Leftist Media learn that they will not get their desired Trump sacrifice, they will focus their attention on a scapegoat:
  4. Therefore, the Left and the media will most likely turn their wrath on The Proud Boys, who will be the group that takes the rap.
  5. Thus, more fake-news/propaganda against the Right will be coming soon.

And so, o9a should be prepared to get sucked into the Leftist media’s wrath again. Thus, if you are Right leaning, or if you are an associated with o9a in anyway, I highly suggest that you watch the three hours of Trump’s Lawyers talk their case and points, regarding Free Speech, your rights, your right to say and write what you want, regardless of whether such things you express are passionate, radical, unconventional, racist, violent, deranged, malicious, etc.

Watching this Senate Trial has taught me two valuable things: 1) That I really do hate the Left & 2) I now understand my Constitutional Rights.




Trump Trial Round 2

Posted: February 11th, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: News | Tags: | Comments Off on Trump Trial Round 2

.:.So “round 2” of the Senate Trial is when the Democratic Team goes on the offense and actually present their case. Round 2 took two days, yesterday and today. I found both days to be very interesting. I really enjoy watching people formulate a thought process and trying to use their thought process to try and convince an audience to see things their way.

So, the case the Democratic Team is making, which is to say the story or narrative or quilt work or patchwork, they are putting together is when the Democratic Lawyers take tweets that Trump wrote and juxtaposed said tweets to videos of the so-called “insurrection,” and as they juxtapose the Trump tweets in chronological order with the video of the days and hours leading up to Jan 6th and the moments during the so-called insurrection, said Team proceeds to narrate, which is to say to tell their audience their stitch work version of the story.

The essential argument of the Democrat’s case is that Trump incited an “attack” or “insurrection” against Capitol Hill. As such, the Democratic Team, being on the offensive, is playing the role of the Prosecution. And so, as the Prosecution, it is their job and duty to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the suspect had the Criminal Intent to perpetrate the alleged unlawful act or crime. In Trump’s case, the Prosecution must prove beyond any doubt that Trump indeed had the intent/intention of creating an actual insurrection against the government of the United States, or they have no real criminal case. The presence of intent is important. Regarding the importance of intent, the following article should be read carefully, in order to understand Legal Thought Processes:

And so, we see in the case of Dominic Pezzola of The Proud Boys, that his actions that day of Jan 6th at Capitol Hill was not manifested [committed] because of “criminal intent” but out of “Conscience.” Therefore, the note to be taken into consideration is that one’s Conscience, and the actions and behaviour one does and commits, out of one’s Conscience, be such conscience warped and misguided as such may be, does not constitute criminal intent, meaning the actual, willful, intention of committing a crime of some sort.

Therefore, the Prosecution must prove that Trump had the actual intention/intent to do what they narrated he was doing. My assessment, after watching their two-day argument and case presentation was that the Democratic Lawyers spent very little time and effort trying to prove and show that Trump had the criminal intent to manifest an insurrection. In two days, consisting of hours and hours of talking and video sharing, the Democratic Lawyers, barely brought up intention/intent.

Instead the Democratic Lawyers spend 12 hours a day, stitching together a flimsy story, a literal story mind you, where their case was like as if they were showing videos and slide shows to grade schoolers. The Democratic Team’s case was literally: “This was what Donald Trump wrote in a Tweet and now watch this video… his tweet and the actions of the insurrectionists are clearly connected!” That’s their narrative, literally for the past 24 hours to trial sessions.

My first contention is with the Democratic Team’s insistent use of the weasel word “insurrection” to describe the large group of people that stormed Capitol Hill:

An “insurrection” by definition is when a person or group of people use force and violence against an authority or government. And so, by definition, those people who stormed Capitol Hill were not “insurrectionists.” Why not? Because the “government” of the United States is an entity composed of three branches, and the “government” of the US does not live in the Capitol Hill building. Trump, when he was president, along with his cabinet constituted a third of what is the US Government, and the Supreme Court is the other third part of the same said Government, and Congress is the other third part.

The people who stormed Capitol Hill, did not use force against the president and his cabinet, nor against the Supreme Court, or even against members of Congress. They didn’t even use force against the police of the Capitol Hill building. When a few Capitol Police held a few of the Protesters on the ground at gun point, you can see hundreds of other Protesters simple walk by and do nothing against those police officers to even free their fellow Protesters.

Objectively speaking, those people who stormed Capitol Hill were simply Protesters, whose emotions were stoked and hyped up, who acted on their emotive beliefs and emotionally driven Conscience and they took their Protest down to Capitol Hill and into the building. If anything, their presence in the said building was unlawful, because they did not have a permit to conduct their protest in the Capitol Hill building.

The Republican Lawyers can easily tackle the Democrat’s shabby narrative [their case] by dividing the Democrat’s case into two halves: 1) What Trump said or tweeted/wrote & 2) What the Protesters did.

Once the case is divided in half, the Republican Lawyers can then attack the two halves separately. First by using the First Amendment to show that Trump has the right, just like any American to say what he wants or write what he wants, and that just because Trump says things that are disagreeable, strong opinionated, etc, does not mean that he speaks and writes such things with the actual intent to produce an insurrection or a coup. Secondly, the Republican Lawyers can work to show that the people that stormed Capitol Hill were not insurrectionists by definition, but merely angry Protestors, who unlawfully took their protest into a building they should not have been inside of. Thirdly, the Republican Team needs to show that the Protesters, and that’s all they were, were not at Capitol Hill for a planned insurrection, but they were there because of misunderstandings and misguided Conscience. And fourthly, the Republicans Teams needs to divorce Trump and the Protestors apart from each other, meaning that they will have to work to show that what the Protesters did was of their own free will and accord, that what they did was born from heated emotions, and not actually because Trump instructed and controlled them.

I personally found the Democrat’s Case presentation, by all of its Lawyers to be barfy [meaning makes you want to vomit]. Their case was so dumb and melodramatic and theatrical, it made you want to puke. It was also hypocritical, because they would spend long moments talking about how the Cops at Capitol Hill suffered so much from the evil insurrectionists… but yet, last year, factions in the Left-Democratic Party stoked and encouraged the BLM and Antifa protests, which resulted in not only vast/mass assault against cops, but police station were also actually burned down! 90% of their case was a fallacious appeal to emotions. The Democratic Team have clearly abandoned any attempt at trying to convince the Republican Senators to convict Trump, and they’re focusing all of their energy to the American People’s emotions.

There was a point in their case presentation when it got so cheesy, so melodramatic, that it was offensive. This was when one of the lady Lawyers came up to continue their case, and at the end, this lady had the nerve to try and insinuate or equate the Capitol Hill Protest with September 11th! Where the lady said, roughly: “24 heroic Americans died on September 11th, when they laid their lives down in that airplane headed for this very building. Those heroes save our lives. And I appreciate the heroes [Capitol Hill cops] who risked their lives to save ours that day of the insurrection,” and the lady proceeded to produce a very fake and insincere look of sadness. There was no reason whatsoever to bring up September 11th with the Capitol Hill Protest. The two had nothing to do with each other. It’s a dangerous non-sequitur, to imply that the 911 terrorists and the Capitol Hill Protesters were the same breed of violent people: terrorists.

My last thoughts on the Democrat’s case is the amateurish nature of Trump’s so-called “insurrection.” Those Democrats tried really hard to make the Protesters look like terrorists, where they used inaccurate descriptions such as “armed to the teeth,” and “50 feet away from us all being killed.”

Trump’s problem is that he confuses soldiers with protesters with guns. A militia [survivalist enthusiast with guns] and trained soldiers are two very different breed of people. A soldier is first of all professionally trained in and out of the battlefield to be an effective killer of enemy combatants. And out in the battlefield, when enemy soldiers are shooting at you, as a soldier being shot at, you have no choice but to use deadly and lethal force to protect yourself and fellow soldiers.

Whereas a “militia” or a group of right-wing guys with scary looking rifles, who spend their time in the woods target practicing, who have never been trained to kill, who do not possess the mentality and psychology of a killer soldier, who is not being fired at by enemy combatants, who has never killed anything in their lives, who have never seen anything killed in real life before, regardless of how angry and hateful their speech and rhetoric may be: simply does not have the Nature and Ethos of a soldier and simply cannot psychologically and emotionally get themselves to intentionally kill anyone. The intention/intent to actually commit murder was not present in those Protestors, and neither was the correct Nature and Ethos present in those Protestors: they were not at Capitol Hill to intentionally harm anyone with lethal force. Yes, their language was angry and violent and at times hateful, but they were not “insurrectionists” by definition, nor by Nature & Ethos. They are simply and mostly undereducated people who really liked Trump, who believed Trump’s fabrications of stolen votes, and who were ultimately used and duped by Trump and his Friends as pawns and patsies. A guy who looks scary and who spews right-wing stuff, who has a rifle, and who has only ever used said rifle to shoot at empty soda cans and use said rifle as photo-op props for social media to look cool to their peers is not a killer and does not have the skills or capacity to take down a government. Which should be obvious, because the Protest at Capitol Hill was in no way coherent or planned: those people had no idea what they were doing or where they were going. They were just angry, and were venting their anger.


Trump Trial Round 1

Posted: February 10th, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: News | Tags: | Comments Off on Trump Trial Round 1


.:.I unfortunately find boring trial things to be cool and interesting, because I like watching the lawyers think, reason, and use their art and science of jurisprudence. I’ve been watching Trump’s Impeachment trail from the beginning, and will most likely watch the whole thing till the end.

I like Jurisprudence. As a Buddhist, sectarian/religious/doctrinal jurisprudence is very important. For example: Is it “lawful,” for a national “soldier” of a Buddhist country such as Thailand, who is a “professed” “Buddhist,” to be a soldier, carry weapons, and use such weapons to “kill” enemy soldiers? On the one hand, the Buddhist soldier kills enemy soldiers, which causes Dukkham in the family of the killed enemy soldiers. On the other hand, if the Buddhist soldier, does not kill enemy soldiers, the citizens of his country may suffer, should they be enslaved or tyrannized by the aggressive enemy nation.

The first round I think went to the Democrats. I’m a registered Republican. I only vote for Republican candidates. I thought the Democrat Lawyers had a very solid and well structured and well articulated case and set of arguments regarding the legality and constitutionality of trying a “former” elected official in the Senate. I really enjoyed watching the democrat team present their arguments and data. What I didn’t like was the use of that video because it can be used as a tool to appeal to the emotions. I also disliked the intentional use, on the democrat teams part, of the word “insurgence;” and I disliked their intentional pre-conviction language and vocabulary they used where they talked about Trump as being the person and source of the alleged “insurgence” and “insurrection.”

Unfortunately, the Republican Team of Lawyers, during that first round, seemed to be goofballs. The first Republican Lawyers, Bruce Castor, had a very incoherent “argument,” or “arguments.” I had trouble understanding what exactly his case was that he was trying to present. It’s more effective if and when you present one argument at a time. Like how the Democrat Lawyers did it. The Democrat Team focused on whether or not trying a former president in the Senate was legal and constitutional.

Whereas Bruce Castor rambled on and on and was all over the place. In the beginning he mentioned the idea of the First Amendment, where he said roughly that people have the right to express their opinions and speak their mind, even if such opinions are strong political views, and even if other dislike such strong political views. Which I agree with. Just because a person, or group of people, have strong political views, such as the case with many of the Capitol Hill rioters, does not mean that such people will physically use force and violence to perhaps physically express their views and opinions.

For example: you have worked long hours at your job and are driving home and are stuck in traffic, and a person cuts you off, you get angry and vocally express that the person who cut you off should die or that you’d like to kill them. Just because you vocally said that, and just because you had strong emotions, does not mean that (A) you have the intent to commit a murder & (B) that you will murder the guy who cut you off. And so therefore: just because an individual may be racist, or harbor discriminatory feelings and opinions about other races, and may be a self-identified “neo-nazi,” does not mean that such people are criminals or terrorists. They right to possess their own thoughts, and even express their thoughts in word or in writing is protected by the Constitution.

But then Bruce’s argument menders in all sorts of directions, and he begins to talk about a Speculative/Rhetorical argument, where he basically said: If this trial goes forward, it will set a new precedent, because if Trump is tried when he is out of office, then it could be that in the future, any former officer the “other party” doesn’t like can be impeached and barred from holding office just because the “other party” doesn’t want them in office. Rhetorical and Speculative argument don’t belong in court cases, simply because they are speculative and not factual arguments [arguments based on known facts and precedents]. It becomes a logical fallacy if and when you judge or deliberate a case by pondering on speculative arguments, because Objectively, a speculative argument simple does not exist in the real world.

What I liked about Bruce Castor was his calm demeanor, and his ability to engage contact with his audience via eye contact and body language. The second Republican fella, David Schoen didn’t have that calm demeanor, and lacked the same body language and eye contact. David Schoen kept his eyes mostly on his papers.

I found David Schoen presentation of argument to be troublesome for a number of reasons. He first reminded me of a bald Woody Allen. Secondly, he had this gross habit of licking his mouth and teeth like an old man or a lizard. And thirdly, he had this bizarre habit of putting his hand on his head each time he drank water. His carriage and demeanor was so odd, that it distracted you from what he was trying to say. I was so curious as to why he had to touch his head every time he drank water, that I actually don’t remember what David Schoen’s arguments were.

I was one of the ones who thought David Schoen was trying to keep a toupee on his head from falling. So, I spent my time looking at his head to see if I can see a toupee. Fortunately, the internet told me what this fella was doing. I hypothesized, when I was watching the show live, that this guy was a practicing Jew and that his strange habit was most likely something Kosher and Jewish. Boy, Trump really knows how to pick a defense team doesn’t he!?

The unfortunate thing about trials is that not only is your argument important, but your presentation, body language, and demeanor are also important as well, because your job as a lawyer is to try and convince other people to accept your argument and case. And, from a perusal of this first round, it appears Trump has a couple clowns on his defense team.

Despite his two clowns, Trump may not have anything to worry about, because the Senate’s Republicans are in the majority still behind him. And so, in all intents and purposes, this “trial” – insofar as the trial in the Senate goes – is a kangaroo court. The Senators are not a jury proper. A jury is methodically picked, questions, examined, and vetted, before they become members of the jury. What’s happening in the Senate is more properly a “Peer Review Process,” where peer public officials are judging a fellow peer public official [or former public official]. Therefore, this Senate “Trial” is in actually a Political Show: a TV show, where the arguments and cases being presented are in actuality being formed and presented for the American Public.

Being such, you can then see or discern the subtextual strategy the Democrats and their Lawyers are trying to use: The Democratic Team presented a solid argument and case, and used video footage as a means of appealing to emotions not to convince Republican Senators, but to present such to the American Public. Meaning that, what the Democrats are doing is they are trying to apply pressure on the Republican Senators where the Democrats are basically saying to said Republican Senators: “Look here… we’re presenting our case to the American people, and we’re going to manipulate and appeal to their emotions by showing videos of this insurrection, by displaying empathy, by using language and vocabulary of treason and insurrection, such that, if you Republicans do not convict Trump like we desire, then you Republican Senators and your political careers may be at risk, because the American People will lose faith in you, corporations that financially support you will distance themselves from you, blah blah blah.” It’s a sly move. What’s interesting is to watch to see if those Republican Senators will cave in out of fear, or if they will stand ground and maintain their defiant position.

The Republican Party and the Republican Senators have very little choice but to maintain their position, and try and show support for Trump. Why so? Because, all things are a product of its environment, and the social and ethnic topography and demographics of America is changing. In two generations, Latinos and African-Americans together with other ethnic minorities will be the majority.

What does that mean? It means that politics will look like it does in California and New York. California is virtually a one party system where Democrats control the California State Government. In such context, the Republican Party risks becoming irrelevant within a couple generations [circa 60 years]. Irrelevancy for a political party means loss of power.

Therefore, the Republican Party has two primary options it will have to take: 1) Begin to present their platform to the conservative and traditional sectors of ethnic races & 2) follow Trump’s lead, and continue to establish connections with Trump’s marketbase and audience, who are mostly Right wing oriented.

Given the said conditions and cultural circumstances the Republican Party is in, my hypothesis about this Senate Trial is that: (A) Trump will not be convicted, and he will be acquitted OR (B) if Trump is convicted in the Senate, then such conviction will be accomplished by a narrow majority where a small minimal amount of Republican Senators will defect; which is to say that the majority of Republican Senators will stand ground as a way to appeal to the marketbase and audience.

In the End, whatever the case may end up being in the Senate, the Democrats will win the cultural sentiments of the American Audience, and will gain further financial support from corporations, because big corporations are by default Left oriented, being that such corporations desire to make large profit/money, and so the majority population is were such money comes from, and if the majority population is non-Whites, then you as a corporation have little choice but to be Left.

I’m trying very hard not to be divisive. I’m Republican, like my whole family is. But I’m trying to be fair. Culturally speaking, the Democrats will win. The Democrat Lawyers had a very good, coherent, solid argument and case. The Republican Lawyers were so far clowns, to my personal dismay [and amusement]. Logically, my intellectual opinion, based on the given context and parameters, is that Republicans should acquit Trump. But Emotionally, I feel that it’s sad and disgusting that Trump and Friends can manipulate their fanbase, groupies, and supporters, to have them be Pawns and Patsies who then stormed the Capitol, and then said people are discarded like used tampons and disowned. But I know that emotions are just that: emotions. And emotions are strong and irrational by nature. And one should not govern a country or one’s life, with strong and emotive beliefs.

Lastly, I don’t believe that the Government of the United States is sinister or nefarious and so, I do not believe that the Government will convict and charge the majority of those people who stormed Capitol Hill, because the majority of them are not criminals. The majority of those people where acting on strong, irrational emotions. Yes they may have broken laws where they breached that building and destroyed property, but the intent/intention to actual engage and manifest a coup/insurrection may not have been present in the hearts and minds of a majority of those people. Regardless of what journalists in their sensationalistic articles say: journalists are not judges, they are not courts of law, they are not a tribune, they do not make verdicts and judgments, and do not have legal power to declare a person or group of people to be criminals and terrorists. Due Process is still Constitutional, as some of the Senate Lawyers stated and re-affirmed, and people/suspects are still innocent until proven guilt in a court of law. Journalists are not courts, judges, lawyers, or members of a jury. I hate journalists for this reason: that they present themselves to be some kind of legal authority who can dictate criminality in people just by writing an article.




Transgression, The O9A, And Infiltrators

Posted: January 31st, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: Church of Satan, Far-Right, Howard Stanton Levey, Labyrinthos Mythologicus, Leftists, Liberals, Media Attention, National Socialism, News, Nihilism, O9A, O9A Nine Angles, Order of the Nine Angles, Psychic Readings, Reports, Satanic Heresy, Satanic Polemics, The Sinister Dialectic | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Transgression, The O9A, And Infiltrators



[Originally posted at: ]


Transgression, The O9A, And Infiltrators