I am a Radical Centrist.
What that means is simple: fuck the Right and fuck the Left.
There is no little hack, rule, mask, or script that you can steal and use to find The One Rule That Explains Everything.
So what is a radical centrist?
Someone who has two eyes and uses both of them at the same time.
And what is an ideologue?
Someone who gouges out the Left or Right eye of someone else, and then tell them whatever they ever saw with that eye is wrong, anyway; so the person should be grateful the gouger took out that pesky eye in the first place.
This is how barbaric the West has become.
We have losers telling the little people that is a great and glorious thing to be a propagandist, which is of course, an ideological eye gouger.
Your right eye is not superior to the left, and the left eye is not superior to the right.
It is optimal when you have both, and that is reality.
To be focussed, balanced, and informed about your surroundings, you use both your left and your right.
The radical centrist is not going to gouge out your eyes.
They are not going to tell you to gouge out your own eye, either.
They will dope slap you and call you a fucking gullible and lazy worthless moron if you start looking with one eye instead of two, and they will call you out on your bullshit when you point out all the things you see with one eye that they have already studied with both of their own eyes and they don’t applaud you and point out everything you missed because you closed one eye to look.
Because half a truth is not a whole truth, and do not try to play manipulative games with someone who sees the whole picture.
You cannot hide a lie behind a truth, let alone half a truth.
You are still dishonest.
And don’t try to twist logic to pretend your half truth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because then it is a lie and you become a fucking liar.
So don’t go there.
Because while a centrist sits on a fence and hedges their bets, the radical centrist tears down the fence and hovers above the rigged board and sees the big picture.
They see the players and the pawns. They look for the playbooks and the manuals.
They walk back in time to the past and remember the old games, and then they observe the ones in the present to compare and contrast them because moving ahead to the future to test their hypothesis, modifying their theories as they get facts that confirm or refute their initial theories.
This sort of active and critical thinking is frowned upon in the West because it is based on a Patriarchal model of only allowing one side to be the Good Guy who is the Winner and winner takes all.
The rig is to hoard the spoils.
It is a competitive model of human interaction and relationships where there must be a leader who is the player, and a flock of followers who are the pawns.
It is an incredibly simple endgame and it is elegant and effective, but the dynamics of manipulation to ensure this simple and simplistic structure stays dominate is tangled and complex, and is so by design.
But it is also intuitive.
You do not need a vast and diabolical global conspiracy. You need one domineering control freak to set the tone, and rather than it just being a game of chess or go, it is also a game of dominos where one taunt or move triggers everyone to fall into place.
Get people to run on a hamster wheel, and they will die on it, refusing to get off of it.
You see it with spouses.
You have a husband or wife who plays games with their mate: they make demands, set the bar for happiness at something that is high, unnatural, and most importantly, not a goal the one spouse needs or actually wants. Then they forever remind the person of their fake inadequacies as the person is drawn into the game and is fighting a losing battle. The goal posts are always moved, and the pigeon always loses because the game is designed with a narrative that the manipulator is superior and is The One Who Must Always Win By Domination.
Because their feelings, values, decrees, and beliefs, and ideas are innately superior to their mark’s.
The abused spouse wins by calling the manipulator out as a manipulator, decrees their standards to be garbage, are inferior to every one else in the universe because if they were all that, they would have already obtained all of it by themselves, and then laugh and walk away from the person, admitting to the world they made a huge error in judgment, and now have moved on.
And then spend the rest of eternity ignoring their taunts to pull them back in and moving on with their lives.
But there is no need for a conspiracy: you can have that game with only two people.
Or you can do the same thing with 7.4 billion.
There will be conspiracies and collusions, but manipulators will backstab their allies just as easily as their targets.
The world can be a schoolyard where bullies push around the empty-headed cowards who don’t walk away and tell the bullies to fuck off and get a life.
You do not have to be liked by everyone, and, in fact, it is advantageous to be hated by people who are morally bankrupt and exploitative.
I learned this lesson when I was a child. I learned the slight inconvenience feeling of being isolated and ostracized for doing what I wanted and needed to do was far better than caving in and compromising to fall in line to what a bully decreed I should be doing and saying.
The bullies didn’t care if I was happy and thriving; they wanted me to be miserable and fail so they would feel superior to me. They wanted to feast on my soul, but my soul wasn’t up for sale, and I still have it all intact.
So I am going to what? Give in to peer pressure so I can fit in with people who do not have my best interests at heart?
But Western Patriarchal goes out of its way to have people allow themselves to be bullied and compromise, all while pretending that is not what they are doing.
In order to get mass compliance, you have to find ways of legitimizing both sacrifice and derision.
And controlling the flow of information is a biggie.
Journalists are the bullies who give tiny snippets of information, but as they are not the generous sort, they package it in spin and narrative to try to force people to interpret that information in a specific way, and to see it any other way must be ridiculed. You cannot allow original thought that evolves over time. It must be static and never-changing.
Us Versus Them, with Us naturally being the superior tribe, of course.
But not everyone is going to buy this bullshit story. Sometimes the person just happens to be independently minded and has sharp critical thinking skills and can smell bullshit a mile away.
Sometimes the person is just contrarian by nature and will always take the opposite side to stand out.
And other times, the person just so happens to be a designated Them who happens to walk among Us.
With me, it was all three at the same time. I am an active critical thinker by nature. I questioned my own family when I was barely two years old, perkily telling my mother who had a bad day and yelled at me that it was all right, she could say the same thing nicely, and I’d do it anyway.
To both of us, it was a watershed moment in very different ways.
I didn’t take her anger as a sign of me being in the wrong, nor did I see her as being bad. I just offered a helpful suggestion, and let her know exactly how I felt.
So much of me is made to question authority.
But I am not a follower, either. I will go against the grain because stagnation brings in more than unnatural routines and habits, but also a distorted sense of reality.
You take the wrong things for granted and assume that reality can never change.
For example, some people are only nice to you when you do everything they want, and if you always stay on their good side, you may come to believe that person is a friend who cares about you.
But when the chips are down, and you seek their kindness, you find out too late that it doesn’t actually exist.
They were merely using pseudo-kindness to manipulate you into being an effective tool for them. Once you become a liability, they ignore you.
Stand up for yourself early on by not going with the flow, and you gain valuable insight to your surroundings.
Many a promising romantic relationship were scuttled because the guy I had a date with got upset at me because I was one minute late.
I did it on purpose. I was respectful of a person’s time, but I was not going to break my neck being there early.
Let’s see how you behave when I am not the first one there.
It was never, “Are you okay?” or even not mentioning my insignificant lateness.
The first words were, “You’re late.” More than once.
And that probe told me everything that I needed to know about this person. It was always going to be a fight, and if my coming a couple of minutes later was going to be an issue, then what about my numerous eccentricities and idiosyncrasies?
Would they be bugging me because I read comic books or played the Theremin or boxed or blared out the Hives or wore mismatched shoes of the same style but different colours or go to a Secret Theatre at the Shaw to see some obscure avant-garde play?
Would they understand my need to go out spontaneously to a restaurant in another city because the idea popped into my head? Or that I wanted to just go to Chicago and take a nice long stroll down Michigan Avenue to contemplate the deepest truths of the universe?
I am not a good little girl. I am woman.
When you do not compromise, nor expect someone else to compromise for you, many people get angry with you because (a) you are not going to transform into something unnatural for them, and (b) you have now given someone permission to be themselves, and they have been compromising for so long, they do not know who they are anymore, and they are angry that your easy-going ways have drawn attention to it.
So that’s another layer I know.
But then there is the matter of me being of Eastern European heritage in a Western society, and when the civil war in Yugoslavia broke out, those in the West made it clear that my people were to be seen as a barbaric and demonic faceless enemy.
And you never get over that decree. It is truly traumatizing.
Back in 1995, the CIA had a bullshit report decreeing that Serbs were “responsible” for “90%" of war crimes”, which would be very interesting as I had seen countless footage of Serbs getting slaughtered by the other warring sides.
But this was in the days where the US and Saudi Arabia were allies.
Fast forward to 2018 where there is now a rift with a prince who didn’t roll the way his predecessors have for decades, and now the US is very, very angry.
And with that rift, suddenly we discover that, lo and behold, that same CIA was deliberately hiding all of the times the Serbs were the victims of war crimes, and that 90% number was a lie.
But back in 1995, CIA stenographers the New York Times were gleefully appealing to authority instead of doing actual research.
I knew it was a lie from the start. I knew it because no eighteen-year-old should have to get her hands on video footage filmed by psychopathic soldiers and mercenaries torturing Serbs to death on camera as they were smiling for those cameras.
And no, those torturers were not Serbs.
And when I had telephone fights with Western news producers, flat out telling them what I had and that I could give it to them, they said, “So what?”
They didn’t want it. They didn’t care.
And you never get over a cold, psychopathic comment like that, either.
So, as a teenager, I knew the score. I knew that Western journalism was a sham. If they are fucking Serbs, they are fucking other people, too.
The only reason these things are getting out at all is thanks to a miscalculation by a Saudi prince who thought he knew how to play the game.
He disrupted the rigged board. He went against what was sanctioned, and slowly, the Serbs are becoming the beneficiaries of that tiny little crack: it all depends on how they take advantage of a rare opportunity.
As I was reading about this latest discovery, I came across this article. The way I research is to find every direct, indirect, and tangent reference to the issue and its players in the press first.
Not everything you read will end up being accurate, of course. I separate facts into various categories and then keep refining it. The end result will not mirror the original take or spin. It never does.
You can have all the right facts, but, for example, the spin on them is wrong, or those facts need other facts to place it in the right context. This is a laborious and thankless process.
But the article makes mention of a source that I decided to google to see what is their background, and what is their point of view because you can have the correct facts, but those speaking for or against it may not be the best ones to do it.
A website called Source Watch made the decree as they do with others, telling the little people who they are allowed to trust and who they must shut their brains and either ignore or belittle.
And does Source Watch have qualifications to make decrees?
No, it is not some sort of official governing agency.
But they are from a group that I do not consider credible, either.
The Centre for Media and Democracy.
They decreed said source of the above article was a horrible person. That may be the case, but the Centre are horrible themselves, and they are dishonest from the get-go.
They have their own “PR Watch” and the aforementioned Source Watch, which give themselves a glorious seal of dishonest approval:
The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a non-partisan progressive watchdog group
No, no, you are very partisan. Nice try on the wiggle words, assholes.
Looking at Source Watch alone tells me just how partisan they are: they give approvals to Left-wing sources, and not Right-wing ones; so the claims of being “non-partisan” are bullshit, and as the center’s credibility hinges on being balanced — their profound lack of balance voids their self-proclaimed status.
And yet empty-heads see nothing wrong with their parsing words, and doublespeak is a huge red flag that they are not honest:
The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a non-profit watchdog organization dedicated to exposing PR “spin.” Though the group is officially nonpartisan, it labels itself as “progressive” and avoids criticism of liberal organizations in its publications.
Memo to Activist Facts: when someone tries to say they are progressive non-partisan, they are partisan. You cannot be both. They cannot avoid the criticism because their description is an admission of ideological bias. Do not start off not questioning their gambit and then expect people to read further or process the information of their wealthy Left-wing donors in the way they need to do so.
When the same people who fund partisan propaganda outlets also fund you, you are not to be trusted.
It is not as if the ones funded by ideological rivals can be trusted by default.
A radical centrist knows trust must be earned.
We are in an Age of Propaganda and we have people constantly bombarding us with propaganda, hoping you will completely discount the monsters on the other side as you pledge allegiance to the monsters on their side.
Let the monsters get off their arrogant and lazy manipulative asses and do the work themselves. Fuck them.
But propaganda requires more and more layers to seem credible. You have PR firms spewing shit, and then you have journalists parroting it, and then you have fake watchdog groups telling you that the other side are spewing, but their side will do all the thinking for you so you never make a mistake, be wrong, or be humiliated in public for being wrong.
You haven’t lived a life unless you have learned to walk against the grains of your own in-group.
You haven’t contributed to society unless you learn to walk among the out-group to understand what it is like to be the outsider.
You haven’t faced reality unless you break away from the propagandistic messages used to distract you from seeing that you are running on that hamster wheel in the first place, get off it, and then knock it down so no other empty-head runs on it, either, usually your own children.
Because you haven’t lived a moral life focussed on the future if you teach your children to seek refuge on that fucking wheel.
Because you have never learned to be brave in a world that is made of uncertainty.
What is safe? Nothing.
What is bravery? Everything.
The West has become domesticated caged animals who no longer know what it is like to be free from cages. They fear the beauty and the adventure of the outside, thinking living in deaden cages is the truth.
It’s a lie.
And just because your Authority captors tell you it is a good thing, along with their mouthpieces and their enablers, it doesn’t make it any less a lie…