When humans are said to be 'rational animals' it isn't a comment about the supreme intelligence and reasonability of every person, just that people are using their intellect, no matter how dim, in their actions and behaviour. This man wants to eat a cake so he uses his mind to think about how to get a cake and then he puts his plan into action. Furthermore he can lay out his plan logically through speech. That's "rational". If he's obese and if eating a cake will give him an express ticket to the next life we could say it's unreasonable, but his mode of behaviour is not a contradiction of man's "rational" nature. The stricter meaning of that word is no less valid just because there are other meanings more widely used for the same word.

So, after several more Twitter Files™ drops confirming what everyone with a brain already knew — the FBI and the Democratic party used Twitter to interfere in the 2020 direction and censor unapproved information — what's the real takeaway?

Well, I think any reasonable person can agree that, in a legitimate and fair system, lots and lots of people would be going to prison for a long time.

But the Twitter Files™ themselves are proof that we live in a fundamentally unfair system. None of the people implicated in the Files™ will be held accountable because they're all responsible for holding each other and themselves accountable.

These people are clearly guilty of various crimes, yet there is no viable pathway to hold any of them accountable.

What is the obvious conclusion that we must arrive at? That the system is fundamentally corrupt and illegitimate; that there is no official means by which these people will be or even CAN be held accountable for any of this. Further release of the Files™ only vindicates this view more and more.

Now look at what the people hyping the Files™ are saying: they are engaging in fantasy football plays of what "the Republicans will do in the House" and so on and so forth. Spoiler: they will do nothing because they are also implicated to a lesser degree.

Anyone offering any Twitter Files™ take other than "the system is illegitimate" is running a grift. Any personality still saying that we can vote or discuss this corruption away is outing themselves as a scam artist.

Expectations and reality are two other things to consider when discussing the merits, or lack thereof, of apps like telegram.

What I say might upset some people, but it’s just how I see things. Maybe I’m wrong. But here’s the rub: there isn’t much of a movement and you shouldn’t expect real world action to come from online poasting.

More often than not, real world action, the kind we want, is undertaken at a microcosmic, localised level: Think of examples like when disturbed parents confront the teachers who are pushing tranny nonsense at the local school. The influence we online poasters have is to simply alert as many people to the problem. If you’re blackpilled about the futility of being online instead of “in the real world”, just remember to keep your expectations balanced. The point of all the blogs and posts and livestreams is to educate and inform. Many times, all we can do is simply identify and diagnose the problems. As Devon Stack put it, we are the building inspectors, not the builders.

Stack and others have taken real world action by deciding to homestead and distance themselves from the system. A good and worthy endeavour. Others have created publishing houses to give our ideas a more professional and “real” feel. Others have tried their hands at forming political movements, most of which have failed completely. My point is, when we talk about “IRL” action, it’s worth noting that that means different things for different people and will probably mean something different for you too.

But if you’re upset because you think we’re wasting our time on telegram when we could be out there “doing something”, I think you’re burdening yourself with unrealistic expectations. Some of what we oppose is inevitable. Sorry to say it. I really wish it wasn’t so. But take a look at history and you’ll see that as far back as ancient times, people have found themselves in the same struggle we are in. It is the cycle of all civilizations. Accepting that some of the damage can’t be undone and some of what’s to come can’t be prevented might take a load off your mind.

Everything else is such an unknown, nobody can predict what will happen. Will there be a revolution? Will the tides shift, the tables turn? Maybe. Maybe not in our moment of the cycle. All I’m saying is that the situation you and I are in right now is very, very bleak. I wonder sometimes if the DR truly appreciates just what it’s up against and how far back our enemies’ designs truly go. I’m not saying to give up though. Just the opposite. I’m saying not to have an emotional breakdown because telegram is too stressful or because there isn’t enough “action”. Neither you nor anyone else has much chance of taking on the forces which oppose use, so don’t expect it. Instead, take advantage of what is available to you and do what you can with it.

Marshal McLuhan said World War Three would be an information war, with no distinction between combatant and civilian. You may think that what we do online seems insignificant, and much of it probably is, but read a memoir by soldiers who fought in bygone wars and you’ll find that they felt the same about being in the trenches: they had no idea what it was all for and it was usually very boring most of the time.

C’est la vie. ??‍♂️

So collectives were being invoked in order to justify things which if performed by private civilians would be called criminal acts.

You take from Peter to give to Paul because Peter is from a privileged collective and Paul is from an underprivileged collective and that's not good for the collective of humanity (cue the oppression Olympics). Or you smash the windows of the German bakery owned by Fritz because his home country is at war with your country and as a member of the (real) collective of Germans whose name is invoked by an enemy government you consider him to be outside of the protection of the law, even though he personally has done no wrong (much worse actually happened to Germans in the United States and many other Allied countries, by the way).

The contrary of that idea isn't that collectives don't exist or are separate from individuals but that they aren't the starting point of any theory of law, justice, society, or economics. The claim that people are "individuals first" stems from a desire to emphasise, on account of some misguided people who preach the opposite, that human activity is primarily the activity of unitary persons (individuals, undivided, indivisible, etc) seeking to improve their lives by producing and consuming and forming various kinds of associations (familial and racial included) in order to effect that improvement. People are autonomous "nodes"; their actions and interactions are not moved by some greater power, be it class or nation, moving them like dolls to some definite end goal. But individualism in that sense already implies the existence and interdependence of collectives with individuals. Groups are made up of several people, and people require the co-operation of others in groups (firstly families and tribes) for survival and success.

The idea of individuals being only out for themselves, and the idea of collective interests being supreme over all individual interests (implying that there is a difference between them), are both retarded and destructive. There is a reason why it became a conversation in the past, and it should probably still be a conversation today if people still don't "get it".

The idea of "hyperindividualism" is nothing but gibberish which it seems to me stems almost exclusively from Jewish libertarians who liked to emphasise the personal over the social (selfish), initiative and creativity (meaning breaking traditions and doing new things for the sake of their novelty), and "freedom" (in the sense of "do what you want"), and who loathed "repressive" and "rigid" social structures to which the Jews were so well accustomed under the iron rule of the rabbis in the ghettoes of Europe.

The typical European outlook welcomes initiative, but is not so brazenly self-seeking and greedy, and appreciates innovation and creation but is mindful of preserving the stability of a traditional way of life. European "individualism" is the rather simple realisation that the units of people walking, talking, and breathing all around us, do actually have their own thoughts, feelings, opinions, wishes, goals, and interests (however manipulated and misled they may be), and that social life is best served when everyone realises that fact and considers it in all their actions. In other words, our common interests are best served when people treat others humanely and with respect and consideration, when they are social with others rather than anti-social.

The European distaste for "collectivism" is a distaste for the mob rule directed by certain people to the detriment of innocent and law-abiding people. The Jewish distaste for "collectivism" is a kind of raging rebellion against some imaginary harsh authority, they being the eternally oppressed people yearning to be released from the shackles of slavery, represented initially by their own rabbinical authorities, and ultimately by any dissenting view or any inconvenience (I digress).

Individual and collective interests don't even contradict each other. It's a false dichotomy. "Individualism" versus "collectivism" is a nonsensical argument. Collectives must necessarily recognize individual interests in order to function and individuals…

Individual and collective interests don't even contradict each other. It's a false dichotomy. "Individualism" versus "collectivism" is a nonsensical argument. Collectives must necessarily recognize individual interests in order to function and individuals are dependent upon collectives in order to develop and survive.

The idea that individuals and collectives can be decoupled and thought of as entirely separate is Boomer nonsense.

This is the text of the English Bill of Rights 1689 titled "An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown"

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

I dont really have much to say about it other than that the task of preserving the peace and liberty and very existence of our folk has been ongoing for many generations, indeed since the dawn of time, and that progress is not always made with any new insight or some great profound and esoteric teaching, but instead is made by people sticking to good old virtues and smartly gathering their forces to put those virtues into action wherever they can. Sometimes you really don't need to reinvent the wheel and imagine that our survival and success would be better served by anything other than what we had before when we were building toward the peak of our greatness. Isn't that one of the key things that define the attitude of traditionalism?