[Far-Right Sage]

The best opportunity for the British far-right was in Jonathan Bowden, in my opinion. If you are an English adherent of the New Right/the Third Position and you know of any of his younger followers (from his time as cultural officer in the British National Party or otherwise), I would make a serious effort to contact them.

There are some interesting ideas in the anti-globalization, anti-Marxist, and pro-ethnocentrist/tribalist elements of National-Anarchism, as well as Troy Southgate's alliance with the Russian Neo-Eurasianists of Aleksandr Dugin and certain Muslim factions (Geydar Dzhemal). This is also tied in with Natella Speranskaya's Global Revolutionary Alliance which, while have many interesting thoughts to contribute and an interesting media format for young participants, has also taken too many questionable stances, such as the defense of the Second Spanish Republic, Ernesto Che Guevera, and Malcolm X. Ultimately many in these movements are wasting time.

They should be paying attention to what is occuring in France and Greece.

Tribbles, Fascism is not dead or radically different, but finding new outlets to tackle new problems.

[Benjamin Noyles]

The best opportunity for the British far-right was in Jonathan Bowden, in my opinion. If you are an English adherent of the New Right/the Third Position and you know of any of his younger followers (from his time as cultural officer in the British National Party or otherwise), I would make a serious effort to contact them.

While liked as a talker, Bowden's plan basically amounted to desiring some kind of intellectual student elite, which as the new right is trying to create now is totally absurd. If you are going to get into the technicalities someone of the old new right like Michael Walker was at least more down to earth. Bowden made nice talks about comic books and nationalism and stuff, but it is really just entry level material, if you look at it there isn't really anything you can do with it.

There are some interesting ideas in the anti-globalization, anti-Marxist, and pro-ethnocentrist/tribalist elements of National-Anarchism, as well as Troy Southgate's alliance with the Russian Neo-Eurasianists of Aleksandr Dugin and certain Muslim factions (Geydar Dzhemal). This is also tied in with Natella Speranskaya's Global Revolutionary Alliance which, while have many interesting thoughts to contribute and an interesting media format for young participants, has also taken too many questionable stances, such as the defense of the Second Spanish Republic, Ernesto Che Guevera, and Malcolm X. Ultimately many in these movements are wasting time.

The thing is an absolute train wreck of lies, government funding, distortion, and the current movement favourite; autism. Dugin himself is on the gravy train, he has been given his own university department, and Putin make reference to his ideas in his speeches. It is chaff, check, and counter balance. The Eurasianist movement itself is basically a far-Right version of Nashi, and the politics reflect that. the Iran axis, 'anti globalism', support of middle east regimes is all in line with kremin security in the same way RT does.

The by-product is it siphons off followers from other nationalist groups and promoting this 'intellectual weapons' concept that turns their followers into evolafags and therefore too soft to fight or have a coherent or consistent position. Have you even looked at Natella's Global revolutionary alliance news? monotone french noir readings about occupy wall street in a style reminiscent of the opening cut scenes of a Soviet Command and Conquer level.

Latching on to third worldist and other movements is completely fucktarded, and it is at this point that you lose any way of connecting with your own people. For thirty years far right parties in Europe and the US have been trying to link up with Islamic movements, not once has this ever yielded anything in return (not that anything was given in the first place).

Find some legitimate Russian nationalists and they will set you straight on the utter despair they are in over their insane and chaotic political movements. NAM, is in my opinon an attempt to replicate the conditions of Russia here in Europe; gravy trains and hordes of spastic art students - except Europe isn't Russia and we don't have elites who are even willing to manipulate far right politics, and all the useful idiots are on the left.

They should be paying attention to what is occuring in France and Greece.

They should. Nobody won in France and Greece by being intellectual. It was appeals to popular sentiment and hatreds, it was boots on the ground, and campaigns of attack.

[Benjamin Noyles]

If I am not mistaken, this is the queer subsection of N.A:
http://queerna2.blogspot.no/

Christ almighty I missed this though I am not suprised given it is in their manifesto:
"Our vision, in a nutshell, is one of small village-communities in which people occupy their own space in which to live in accordance with their own principles. These principles depend on the nature of the people forming the community in the first place, because the last thing we wish to do is impose a rigid or dogmatic system of any kind. In theory, therefore, National-Anarchists can be Christian or pagan, farmers or artisans, heterosexual or homosexual."
It is hilarious to bring this to the light of its followers who do not tollerate such insanity. It is disgusting seeing all these modernised nationalists standing with gay pride banners, the point of nationalism of any kind should be to stand against degeneracy. isn't that right?

Everything you write becomes pointless and sad as long as you have the massmurder in your signature

Had it been anyone else I would have asked the moderators to stop it, but since it is you, it does serve a purpose.

"The abscess on the sick body of the nation must be cut open and squeezed until clear, red blood flows. And the blood must be left to flow for a good, long time till the body is purified..." – Capt. Gerhard Rossbach

[Rei Murasame]

I don't support national anarchism at all, for a variety of reasons, but this is a question that keeps coming up all the time:

the point of nationalism of any kind should be to stand against [homosexual] degeneracy. isn't that right?

Why? Also how?

It's not from lack of trying, that everyone keeps 'failing' to remove the so-called 'degeneracy', it's that there is something about human society and human biology which makes this happen, and there is something about fascism - and in fact politics in general - which keeps bringing in people who have these feelings.

There are a lot of people who are willing to follow you to the gates of the underworld for their ethno-racial group if need be, and they will promote and champion the economic programme and the philosophy of fascism -- just they also happen to be men and women who have a strong attraction to people of the same sex for as long as they can remember, and they are not going to be able to stop feeling that way just because you give a speech about how it is "degenerate".

All that approach creates is the following:

• 1. Secrecy within the movement, since people will try to avoid being outed, and will be gleefully outed by liberals (and the usual other suspects) in any given argument because it just becomes a 'vulnerability' that is so rampant that they can find it everywhere.
  
  This is highly annoying to see, whether the accusation is truth, lies, or even merely guessing. It's like painting a giant target over the head of all fascists, over which is inscribed the maxim: "Call me gay or lesbian and I'll freak out and be trolled IRL".
  
  
• 2. The possible exclusion of really committed perpetual 'bachelors' and 'bachelorettes' who you might turn away because they know that you will purge them for those feelings, no matter how good a thinker or activist they happen to be.
  
  
• 3. A scenario where you end up attracting a gaggle of useless social-cultural conservatives who are more interested in preserving heterosexual privileges than actually preserving their ethno-racial group now and into the future.

I could give some anecdotes about point number 1, but I'll pause here and let you guys respond first.

[Tribbles]

Christ almighty I missed this though I am not suprised given it is in their manifesto:
"Our vision, in a nutshell, is one of small village-communities in which people occupy their own space in which to live in accordance with their own principles. These principles depend on the nature of the people forming the community in the first place, because the last thing we wish to do is impose a rigid or dogmatic system of any kind. In theory, therefore, National-Anarchists can be Christian or pagan, farmers or artisans, heterosexual or homosexual."

Anarchist is an interesting idea, but most real anarchists believe that anarchism can work even without splitting our current infrastructure into small village-communities. I am not one of them, as I don't think we can do away with all forms of central government.

It is fun to debate capitalism and anarchism and bolshevism and whatever, but not always with "national" in front. Why bother with it? Guarding the boarders that makes a nation takes central planning anyway.

On the gay stuff I am undecided. A classic conservative would probably say "no public sexism" and "marriage is between man and woman"

[Rei Murasame]

A classic conservative would probably say "no public sexism" and "marriage is between man and woman"

Yes, fascists should really discuss whether it is a good idea to pander to 'classic conservatives' at all. As soon as we open the door to classic conservatism, all that happens is that we end up elevating - and pardon me for saying it - neoliberal Zionist Christian-appeasing Jews to a position of moral authority over us.

That is basically what happens. I have actually had opponents such as that, just randomly 'accuse' me of homosexuality without actually knowing any facts, to sow discord, while having a debate that has nothing to do with sexuality in the slightest (a debate I was obviously winning). Why? Because they know that a lot of right-ists lose the ability to think rationally as soon as the word "homosexuality" is spoken, because of social conservative losers filling their heads with nonsense.

And in fact, in the anecdote I am conveying to you now, the Jewish fellow who used that ridiculous tactic on me even gloated to me in private later: "I don't know anything about your preferences, I just threw that out there to put you on the defensive, because I hate you". Of course I was not prepared for that tactic, so it had not gone well for me.

In a sensible movement, that stuff would not be able to work, but it causes problems and paranoia because of all this absurd pandering to social conservatives.

The anti-gay stuff is exploitable, and our opponents love and enjoy exploiting it.

[Potemkin]

And in fact, in the anecdote I am conveying to you now, the Jewish fellow who used that ridiculous tactic on me even gloated to me in private later: "I don't know anything about your preferences, I just threw that out there to put you on the defensive, because I hate you". Of course I was not prepared for that tactic, so it had not gone well for me.

This reminds me of the time Lyndon Johnson was smearing one of his political opponents by accusing him of being a pig fucker (literally). When one of his advisers told Johnson that he didn't believe the guy actually did fuck pigs, Johnson replied, "I know that. I just want to hear the sonofabitch deny it."

[Far-Right Sage]

How many actual Fascists here give a damn about social conservative mores however?

Also Reiko, check your private messages.

[Rei Murasame]

When one of his advisers told Johnson that he didn't believe the guy actually did fuck pigs, Johnson replied, "I know that. I just want to hear the sonofabitch deny it."

Epic. Well there we go then.

Plus, with the homosexuality exploit - unlike that one LBJ used - it has a high rate of success because there are a fairly sizeable number of people who have indeed actually had same-sex relationships and will then be seen to deny it and then end up being exposed later as having really had same-sex relationships.

How many actual Fascists here give a damn about social conservative mores however?

That's true, there are a lot who don't care, but I'm noticing a resurgence of anti-gay rhetoric so it's still a mixed field out there.

Also Reiko, check your private messages.

Okay, will do.

[Benjamin Noyles]

I don't support national anarchism at all, for a variety of reasons, but this is a question that keeps coming up all the time:

Why? Also how?

It's not from lack of trying, that everyone keeps 'failing' to remove the so-called 'degeneracy', it's that there is something about human society and human biology which makes this happen, and there is something about fascism - and in fact politics in general - which keeps bringing in people who have these feelings.

There are a lot of people who are willing to follow you to the gates of the underworld for their ethno-racial group if need be, and they will promote and champion the economic programme and the philosophy of fascism -- just they also happen to be men and women who have a strong attraction to people of the same sex for as long as they can remember, and they are not going to be able to stop feeling that way just because you give a speech about how it is "degenerate".

All that approach creates is the following:

• 1. Secrecy within the movement, since people will try to avoid being outed, and will be gleefully outed by liberals (and the usual other suspects) in any given argument because it just becomes a 'vulnerability' that is so rampant that they can find it everywhere.
  
  This is highly annoying to see, whether the accusation is truth, lies, or even merely guessing. It's like painting a giant target over the head of all fascists, over which is inscribed the maxim: "Call me gay or lesbian and I'll freak out and be trolled IRL".
  
  
• 2. The possible exclusion of really committed perpetual 'bachelors' and 'bachelorettes' who you might turn away because they know that you will purge them for those feelings, no matter how good a thinker or activist they happen to be.
  
  
• 3. A scenario where you end up attracting a gaggle of useless social-cultural conservatives who are more interested in preserving heterosexual privileges than actually preserving their ethno-racial group now and into the future.

I could give some anecdotes about point number 1, but I'll pause here and let you guys respond first.

If you are only holding a position on something because you believe it will give you some kind of advantage, it shows you have no principles - and it is such people who are in fact being used, and not the other way around as some might like to think. It is being a whore; someone like David Duke is a prime example, his shrivelled heart bleeds for Palestinians and Utoya victims because he thinks he won't be opposed and he wants to get in good with Liberals, Anti-war Paultards, and especially Muslims - people really, that he should be standing against. It is criminally calculated and reeks of such insincerity that to the ordinary people he looks like a porn star smiling for the camera. You should have seen his interview with Phil Donahue, he was slurping on him so hard that Phil was physically shocked by what a pushover he was. Nick Griffin his euro equivalent adopted this strategy as well, thought of all the clever popularly received things he would say - but look how that turned out. we are in a clash of opposing world systems, and I have said it before, you can't get anywhere by being liberal. If you can get by taking the easy road it wouldn't be called a struggle; and those who got nowhere their whole lives are the ones that have done what is easiest.

Yes, there is dysfunctionality - I KNOW THIS VERY WELL, and can provide an example of my own; The glorious NSM is literally disintegrating right now because its leader and his wife have 'race mixed' (and the organisation is full of criminal scum) - NOW that isn't an argument against miscegenation per se, but what it did show is those people were totally unscrupulous and ideological failures. In this sense both the uber moderates, and the cultural conservatives are same; they are both fake.

Don't mistake MORALISM for MORALITY. The groups you gave example to are moralists, but all of these groups shut their eyes to the realities and truths and outcomes of the society to avoid taking on the responsibility. What we advocate is action and doing something about it - we oppose this system because our society says "it's ok to be a genderfluid-transfag-gender-gender who fucks his dog - but not a nationalist". You can debate whether it is wrong or not but it is used by the enemy, at least as a surrogate, to undermine or destroy the society.

Principles - REAL principles of any kind which are expected to be fought for frighten people - and it is those people who are frightened by principles who are not the sort who are going to be useful to anyone. My position has always been that people will decide what they will and will not tolerate, but first they need someone to take leadership on issues, this has been an example of that.

[Rei Murasame]

But I think you are sidestepping my point a little here. You keep making this association between "having had same-sex relationships" and "liberalism", where is that association coming from? Why is it that people who call themselves fascists, happen to care about this more than liberals do?

It is really interesting to note that none of the people in opposition to us (liberals, socialists, etc) actually care who we are or are not having sex with. It's a non-issue to them. The only reason that they pretend to care is because they know that you have some principle about that, where you seem to be saying that homosexuality is 'inherently bad', and so all that happens is that they just goad you into destroying your own side over it.

Homosexuality is not like some sort of ethnic/racial treason, nor is it like any kind of illegal or despised subculture. But our opponents can cause us to rip our own allies apart for their amusement, simply by raising the subject of who is or isn't homosexual.

Example, in the anecdote I described earlier, you'd have actually turned on me at that moment no matter what my reaction to the accusation was, right? All they'd need to do is make it sound convincing and talk about something like "stuff people allegedly have seen or heard about on Friday nights", or "I remember what she was like in secondary school, she was always a little uncomfortable in the changing rooms".

It could be totally made up nonsense, it could half-truths, it could be full-truths, but just by saying it, they can get you to have a conflict with me over it, while they sit in deck chairs on the side-lines.

Over an issue which does not even undermine the social or economic basis of fascism in the first place, thus causing us to waste energy. If homosexuality doesn't harm the cause, then why be opposed to the existence of homosexuality?

[Tribbles]

Yes, fascists should really discuss whether it is a good idea to pander to 'classic conservatives' at all. As soon as we open the door to classic conservatism, all that happens is that we end up elevating - and pardon me for saying it - neoliberal Zionist Christian-appeasing Jews to a position of moral authority over us.

I have a soft spot for all forms of conservatism and conformism. Conformity is cool! But who are the most conformist? The left is certainly a bit more conform than the far-right. The ability to really go out there and dress normally and don't have too much or too little hair on your head, or too much or too little color on your cloths, and a bunch of other things you must not have too much or too little of, is really cool. Uniformity and homogeneity is the ideal I strive towards. (Anti-immigration is off course, also a part of this package)

This is why anti-liberalism, center-politics, class-colaboration and corporatism is cool as well. Not too much, not too little - of everything. Moderation must be taken to the most extreme level possible.

My Technocratic Functionalism reflects this outlook:
http://bildr.no/view/992058

(Right now I have almost given up on it, but I might take it up again when I find the right moment and the right crowd)

[Rei Murasame]

On the issue of 'moderation', fascism is inherently radical, so no matter what you or I do or say, you'll never be able to claim to be moderate, because to address the root problems in society is to be radical. You shouldn't want to be 'moderate' at all.

On the issue of order and conformity, everyone agrees on that, just the question is conformity to what? Why on earth should we let social conservatives tell us what we ought to be protecting? Aren't they part of the problem in the first place?

[Potemkin]

On the issue of 'moderation', fascism is inherently radical, so no matter what you or I do or say, you'll never be able to claim to be moderate, because to address the root problems in society is to be radical. You shouldn't want to be 'moderate' at all.

As Lenin put it, "One must be as radical as reality itself."

[Preston Cole]

On the issue of order and conformity, everyone agrees on that, just the question is conformity to what? Why on earth should we let social conservatives tell us what we ought to be protecting? Aren't they part of the problem in the first place?

Depends what you mean by social conservatives. Social conservatism has a stake in fascist social outlook itself, it serves as the basis for later palingenetic developments.

I have a soft spot for all forms of conservatism and conformism. Conformity is cool! But who are the most conformist? The left is certainly a bit more conform than the far-right. The ability to really go out there and dress normally and don't have too much or too little hair on your head, or too much or too little color on your cloths, and a bunch of other things you must not have too much or too little of, is really cool. Uniformity and homogeneity is the ideal I strive towards. (Anti-immigration is off course, also a part of this package)

I understand conformity as the ability to keep the fundamental values of your people at heart. Leftists are traitors in that sense, as they press, slowly but surely, for the degradation of the people's values, irrespective of center-left or hard-left. They pretend to be moderate, but that's hardly fooling anyone these days. That's the deal with these pretend-moderates. Their so-called "moderation" and centrism destroys the nation as long as it is applied in a liberal democratic system. Moderation and level-headedness can be found far more fruitfully in a dictatorship (a Francoist once, for instance), IMO.

[Tribbles]

On the issue of order and conformity, everyone agrees on that, just the question is conformity to what? Why on earth should we let social conservatives tell us what we ought to be protecting? Aren't they part of the problem in the first place?

Conservative politicians these days are rightwing-liberals and war-mongers. The champions of moderation and conformity have always been the center of politics - specially in my country. Priests and traditional elements such as royalty are better to lean on than neo-cons. Im a bit uncertain about nobility though, they do take up a lot of space, with their massive countryside mansions.... In Norway we have never had any nobility, so its not an issue here.

A good argument against even trying, is that everyone have to band together into the anti-war movement, so that we avoid a NATO-raid against Syria. The anti-war movement is dominated by the left, and it is likely to remain that way. NATO too, will maintain an aggressive stance in the foreseeable future.

[Section Leader]

A line should be drawn between homosexuality itself and the gay movement, which in some ways is disconnected from the sexuality.

Somehow I couldn't picture Ernst Roehm at a gay pride parade or dispensing with his brown shirt in favour of a t-shirt with a pink triangle on it.

[Rei Murasame]

Depends what you mean by social conservatives. Social conservatism has a stake in fascist social outlook itself, it serves as the basis for later palingenetic developments.

I know that you guys have some idea of what I mean.

Social conservatives are trying to go right back to some crazy time when life was a caricature of itself, and everyone was weak and comfortable and trimming their hedges in their little suburban box-neighbourhoods, and going to church every Sunday to worship a god that they don't even believe in, a god that - uniquely among gods - demands nothing, accepts anything, and requires no effort, other than of course a stringent adherence to universalist moral outlook and certain sexual mores that have no purpose in any world that we are looking to create.

Even if we suppose that those things were desirable, social conservatives weren't able to stave off degeneration even when my generation were but mere twinkles in our parents' eyes - and that was when they had the whole country as their playground. Why should should we now lend them our strength, our boots, our blouses, our socks, our ties?

All they'll do it try to force the clock back to where they want it to go, keep capitalism exactly as they like it, utilise us as their paras, and then immediately renounce us as being the devilish force that we are, as soon as something resembling stability emerges, and we'll be stuck outside with no clothes on.

The last 2000 years have been basically a detour away from where we could have been, we picked up some great things along the detour, which can be packed into the bags and taken with us, but there is no time in the last 2000 years where I'd point to and say "let's recreate that exact moment exactly as it was again". That's certainly not fascism's goal, it's supposed to be a radical and revolutionary movement for creating a world that has never been tried before.

We should try at all times to avoid pandering to social conservatives. They must change their stances and ideas and come to accept Hegel as reality, and accept Sorel as reality, and accept Guenon as reality, and accept MacGregor-Mathers as reality, etc etc etc.

Social conservatives should admit that social conservatives were wrong - they should verbally acknowledge that they have essentially been useless - and come to us and to a New Order developed by us, not the other way around.

They destroyed fascism down to the last person in the 1940s, in the name of capitalism, Jesus of Nazareth, and 'western civilisation' (see: any number of G.K. Chesterton's anti-fascist rants, C.S. Lewis' rants in the same vein, etc) and then turn around 70 years later to find fascists coalescing a movement again in a post-1968 world and reaching out across the divide to them so they can march us all back to pre-1968 and do all this again? No, to me that is unacceptable. We should do no reaching out.

There should also be no repeat of the Lateran Treaty or anything resembling the Lateran Treaty, both on principle and because our agenda is anti-Christian and also because they are a weakened religion anyway and we need to put them to rest in the garbage skip - finishing the sacred job that Mazzini didn't get to finish in the 1800s.

We are actually at the point where we can talk about the true programme and the true objectives without having to compromise with social conservatives. We really can just take it into our own hands and do what we were going to do. Look at the signatures of the people in Iron March - lightning bolts, the black sun, swastikas, the Eye of Horus, etc etc. Unless they are just wearing those sort of symbols as mere stylish badges, they must know that the power of the name of those things and the values they represent, cannot coexist with Christendom without one subverting and eroding the other.

It's a clash that has to happen and Christianity needs to lose.

I know I'm really going on for a while at this, but it's just I really want to emphasise that the conservatives are not interested in helping us, they are only interested in trying to use us to defend their class interests and their preferred social institutions and Churches. But the fact that anyone is anticipating that there is a future where they might need us, does not present to me an opportunity to co-operate with any of their ideas - rather it is an opportunity to finally and at last strangle their society in its moment of weakness, so that at the end, there will only be fascism, total and victorious.

Priests and traditional elements such as royalty are better to lean on than neo-cons.

But we don't actually need to lean on any of them, do we? Look at social landscape and tell me why it would make sense to snuggle up with them? They are a part of the crisis of neoliberalism, they are irrevocably bound up and entangled with it. Let them drown if they want, down to the last priest.

[Tribbles]

We should try at all times to avoid pandering to social conservatives. They must change their stances and ideas and come to accept Hegel as reality, and accept Sorel as reality, and accept Guenon as reality, and accept MacGregor-Mathers as reality, etc etc etc.

Why on Earth should they do that?! Georges Sorel believed that the workers should form a network of illegal labourunions/syndicates, and then make a general-strike that would make capitalism collapse in an unruly fashion, and that during this collapse, the illegal syndicates would take the means-of-production away from the collapsing capitalists, and create anarchy-syndicalism through an organic then-and-there process that can not be planned in advance. In "reflections on violence" he warns against class-collaboration and organic-state thinking, which he says both the parliamentary left and the conservatives agree on. Instead he wants angry anarchistic workers who fight the police during illegal strikes.

The idea is kind of cool, in a hyper-aggressive "fuck everything!" kind of way, but does anything good come from it? And does anything good come from occult rituals? I used to love the idea from Starswars, that angry Sith-lords can channel their dark mood into moving objects around and strangle people through telekinesis. But one has to grow up at some point.

What a diciplined conformist would do (fascism has not been to much help here) is to rid ones mind of such childishness. He would also brush his teeth two times a day, wear clean clothes, and perhaps even avoid indulging into certain fethises, like for example that one which involves furry costumes. (I have still no idea what SL has been up to, the wikipedia-article was a bit vague. Perhaps it doesn't concern me either)

Look at social landscape and tell me why it would make sense to snuggle up with them? They are a part of the crisis of neoliberalism, they are irrevocably bound up and entangled with it. Let them drown if they want, down to the last priest.

I am a bit uncertain on how to answer this question. It is certainly a weakness that Tech-Func has yet to solve. Not all priests are neo-cons though. The pope is against the military interventions of NATO into the middle-east, and in Latin America there have been a movement of very socially radical priests.

[Rei Murasame]

Why on Earth should they do that?! Georges Sorel believed that the workers should form a network of illegal labourunions/syndicates, and then make a general-strike that would make capitalism collapse in an unruly fashion, and that during this collapse, the illegal syndicates would take the means-of-production away from the collapsing capitalists, and create anarchy-syndicalism through an organic then-and-there process that can not be planned in advance.

Well, as fascism adapted this so that it can indeed be planned in advance.

The idea is kind of cool, in a hyper-aggressive "fuck everything!" kind of way, but does anything good come from it?

Yes. You think that the present order will just hand power to you because you asked them?

And does anything good come from occult rituals?

Why be a fascist otherwise? Apparently unlike most of the people here, I actually have been involved in the occult since I was a child and have basically sat at the nexus between west and east religions, so I actually do believe the things I say. When I said this:

I feel as though the universe must've had an intention, and that it wants humans to struggle between themselves, and to simultaneously struggle to become technically capable enough to assume responsibility over planetary evolution.

And then one day, we'd be able to have the ability to use the planet's resources as a way to allow the universe to become fully aware of itself and look at itself, which is to say, there may be a ritual moment in a totally ideologically homogeneous society when the barriers of conceptual unity will give way to realised unity; and perhaps in that flickering moment a people will become aware - all at once, as all lies and all boundaries would be temporarily suspended - of the interdependence of all beings in all states of consciousness and simultaneously aware of what the universe wants.

Maybe it sounds a bit unsatisfying, since I am saying that our purpose is to find the way to prepare ourselves collectively so that we can be then told what our next purpose is.

But that's just how it is, we aren't fully there yet. It's like if you go and stand in the moonlight in any of the wooded grove-like areas of this country and listen to the wind, something is being sung but what is it saying? Maybe we, or our descendants in the distant future, will fully understand one day and cause it to be brought into the foreground and 'externalised'.

That was not for show, nor was it just 'allegorical', that was typed in total seriousness (albeit in simplified terms without jargon) in a thread where everyone else was apparently totally serious. Basically a lot of material conditions must be satisfied for a society to potentially produce this effect, and so everything ultimately funnels toward creating the possibility of that moment's arrival.

Of course some may say that this is all highly dangerous, but that is what we are called to do.

What a diciplined conformist would do

Well what about a disciplined revolutionary? No one seems to ever address such people. We are not presently talking about the Section Leader scandal at all. We can get to that later.

We are talking about my position. Don't conflate the two.

I am a bit uncertain on how to answer this question. It is certainly a weakness that Tech-Func has yet to solve.

The reason you can't solve it is because you can't depend on the foundation of the problem, when you are trying to solve the problem.