But also just generally a lot of what he had to say about the world. The state of it. Our position in it. The goals and desired outcomes of the oligarchy. Dude knew EXACTLY what is going on around us. The two questions are if the solutions he provided had any merit (little in my opinion) and if they were provided in good faith (i teeter between yes and no on this question)
You think inside knowledge or scripted and pasted talking points won't be used to hook people? This is the thing with shills. If they only spew lies, no one will listen.
The best lies are couched between two truths.
I made it pretty clear that i remain undecided if thats what he was. Suggesting i understand well that he may well have been.
I would be lying if i said the perspective he provided didnt influence my views. Which is not at all to say that i agree with his solutions. But the truths he provided held value when taken as their own information separate from his constant calls to violence.
No one will ever do anything, until they do. This is repeated forever throughout history. Is saying a generic half truth really insightful?
THE WRATH OF THE AWAKENED SAXON by Rudyard Kipling
It was not part of their blood, It came to them very late, With long arrears to make good, When the Saxon began to hate.
They were not easily moved, They were icy -- willing to wait Till every count should be proved, Ere the Saxon began to hate.
Their voices were even and low. Their eyes were level and straight. There was neither sign nor show When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd. It was not taught by the state. No man spoke it aloud When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not suddently bred. It will not swiftly abate. Through the chilled years ahead, When Time shall count from the date That the Saxon began to hate.
"This destiny does not tire, nor can it be broken, and its mantle of strength descends upon those in its service." - Francis Parker Yockey, IMPERIUM
He will be right into he's completely wrong. Same as before WWI. And WWII. The difference is he solicits like wolves rather than collective will. Which one benefits us? Which one benefits him?
He claims no one is waking. Yet people widely disagree. Objectively his position is false. A need to rush wolf behavior?
History just proved him wrong 109 times...
I may actually have spent more time talking one on one with him than anyone honestly. I studied him for weeks. I lean towards violence inciting shill. But there were times when he spoke such blunt and accurate truth, after years of prodding, that it made me question that conclusion.
(post is archived)