top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

Προφητεία (171)



“That’s socialism for you. Socialism privileges people who can work round bureaucracies and manipulate waiting lists—sneaky people and, I suppose, intelligent people. Marginal people are always losers under socialism.” I said that in 2019, found it in a screenshot on the Internet—so I thought I’d revisit it to see if I’ve developed from there. 

 

I’ve done things like listen back to my voice before. People hate to listen to their own voice, so I made myself listen to my own voice as a discipline. The reason people hate it is that it objectifies them. In your head, you have all these wonderful possibilities and freedom—you’re disembodied and so you could be anything or do anything.

 

But if you hear your voice, not your internal monologue, suddenly it’s fixed and pinned like a butterfly. Suddenly you’re shown “what you are”—you’re a thing like that, but in your mind you’re not “a thing”, other people are “things” (“He’s that type of person, you know” “Oh, I know—I hate people like that!”). Well, there you are—that’s how you appear to others, in one respect, and whether you like it or not you’re self-conscious now, you’re just “a thing”; and you hate it.

 

It’s actually vanity—it’s vanity not to listen, because you want to preserve an image in your head as regards what you are; and it’s so clean and perfect—but the voice you hear is not. When you hear it outside yourself you’re repulsed by it—this “thing”, this “thing” that I am and cannot change.

 

Well, I’ll listen to my own voice—and, like here, I’ll read things I’ve written and said in the past. What people say if you present them with what they’ve written in the past is “oh, that was such a long time ago”. It means nothing—what is “a long time ago” is subjective; to a 15 y.o. two years ago is “ancient history”, to a 70 y.o. the 1990s “aren’t that long ago”.  When people say “it was so long ago” it’s just to distance themselves from the objective form—that’s not me

 

To be seen is to be vulnerable, to be unselfconscious is to be vulnerable, so we’re self-conscious about everything, we camouflage everything. That includes statements from the past—“Oh, I was a different person back then” or “It was a different time.” Actually, although people grow in terms of their views (well, some do—most don’t) your character doesn’t change, so you are still you 20 years ago (now and forever).

 

So what I said then…well, I’d say it’s a manipulative statement. It’s an attempt to say “the real victims exist under socialism”, the vulnerable are really victimised under socialism. There’s some truth to that—from the NHS to the gulag, socialism is brutal; contrary to its claims, it actually produces this “law of the jungle” situation where everyone is struggling over the scraps, because nothing is decided by the market—it’s all waiting lists or queues for the soup bowl, and it’s about whether you can elbow people aside or “know the right people”.

 

Systems that talk about “equal treatment for all, especially the poor and vulnerable” see the poor and vulnerable crushed without remorse—with ideas like “Christian charity” thrown out the window, and everything decided on a “rational basis”. It’s projection—socialism is dog eat dog, not capitalism (it has to be—if you don’t eat the dog, there’s nothing else to have).

 

So, yes, under socialism cunning, sneaky, and intelligent people will do well—although not all intelligent people are cunning and sneaky, which I imply (to knock intelligent people down a peg). So I agree with what I said in 2019, but I wouldn’t put it that way today. 

 

It was a debate on Twitter with a socialist guy who was very depressed—showed me all his medications for depression. I suppose I altered the point to make him see the situation from his “victim-centred” perspective, that was how the manipulation came into it. He liked to talk to me, even though he disagreed with me (pretended to), because he was starved for truthfulness, starved for reality. 

 

All this business about “being against the NHS”, the point under discussion, was about his own need to be taken care of. He wanted someone to take care of him, and he thought that someone was the NHS. 

 

So he posted a picture of all his medications for depression and I said “this is courage”, meaning “it’s courageous to post all your medication in public” but I wouldn’t say that today. I would say, “Throw them away, you don’t need them—speak the truth and you will be free.”

 

Leftists don’t really have mental illnesses, as rightists gleefully proclaim when new studies claim that, they have narcissism—they unconsciously invent mental illnesses because they can’t speak the truth, because to be “a victim” makes them feel important, and because the truth they often want to speak is “I want to be rescued”.


And it would be a step forward if they said that, because at least the person they said it to could say, “I can’t rescue you.” (full answer: I can rescue you, if I can show you that if you can be like me, without coercion, you will not need to be rescued).

 

However, it’s not “made up” as some rightist say, to delegitimise them, as if they are malingerers—it’s that the illness they have isn’t the illness they present as, the illness they have is they lie about what they really feel.

 

He needed to realise that he didn’t need “a carer” or “a welfare state”—he needed to speak his own truth, then he’d throw away his pills. And today I’d say you can’t manipulate someone into that perspective with reason, even if what you say is true, because it’s about self-realisation—so today I’d go right for his psyche, for the jugular, and set him free.

 

 

109 views

Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas

Comentarios


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page