Best Album Recommendations (all indie stuff; what’d you expect?)

YouTube has an infamous reputation of recommending its users terrible stuff, content they definitely don’t want to see. An example being Jordan B. Peterson videos, pushed into my recommended feed to the point where I had to enable Remove Recommendations for Chrome.

With that said, there are some GOOD recommendations YouTube has presented me with. This has led me to various indie albums I would’ve otherwise never heard of. So, without further ado, here are the top five best albums I’ve stumbled across in the past year.

5: Mort Garson’s Plantasia


Warm Earth music for plants and the people who love them. It’s perfect for anarcho-primitivists, environmentalists, and generally nature-lovers all around.


From a man obsessed with evolution’s greenery, his 1976 albums sounds insanely similar to retro video game music, only produced before that style of music – 8 bit stuff – became the norm.

4: Walter Wanderley’s Rainforest

maxresdefault (1).jpg

Tropical, exotic, and pretty much everything it intends to be, this 1966 album is fantastic and jazzy from beginning to end. If you ever take a trip to Brazil, Hawaii, or practically any island you’re not familiar with, take this album with you. Trust me, you won’t regret it.

The upbeat tones make this one of the most memorable tracks of the 1960s.

3: Alfa Mist’s Antiphon


The smoothest of smooth jazz one can come across, Alfa Mist’s 2017 album is brilliant all the way through. The piano keys, the atmosphere, it’s all so raw and wonderfully executed. People of all cultures around the world need to enjoy this masterpiece.

2: Ryo Fukui’s Scenery


Japanese enlightenment at its finest. In Ryo Fukui’s 1976 album, Scenery, he beautifully masters beats to please the ears. Relaxing and yet, somehow, all so tiresome, the album’s songs represent a feeling of freedom, liberty, a flight of one’s wings, taking to the sky.

As a method of escape, it’s too good.

1: Dominique Guiot’s L’Univers De La Mer


Every second of this is pure perfection, making me presume the artist behind this 1978 French album was a perfectionist himself.

It feels like a jungle, an abyss, a swamp, a forest; all these places at once. It’s all so tear-jerking. If you haven’t listened to any of Dominique Guiot’s songs, well, at least now you know to go get that done.

End Words

These are all great. Listen to them. Seriously, what are you waiting for…? No, seriously, these are the best of the best. They should be played on the radio if only society had better taste.

I hope you find them as wonderful as I do.



Seizing the Means of Production Through Revolution


The difference between democratic socialism (an ideology I reject) and revolutionary socialism (an ideology I embrace) is how a socialist turnover of government will take place.

Now, of course, I don’t support terrorism against a state which hasn’t violated international law, meaning taking over a country that hasn’t taken over another country. However, for imperial nations, and those who view imperialism or colonialism they’ve practised in the past as somehow a positive aspect of their history, they deserve to be revolutionised.

The workers, who’ve had enough of being treated poorly by their bosses, employers, the private owners who hold the means of production, the property which provides for the goods and services that are produced, must rise up against their oppressors, the government, and any ongoing force pushing imperialism across the globe.

Democracy can work, and it as in a few situations, but in terms of switching out private property for public property, allowing the community to work for themselves and the people they care about, to pay taxes to their respected communities and not to the state, democracy cannot achieve this. Look at the only socialist country alive today.

The Republic of Cuba.

It wasn’t voting which brought the nation to the current state it’s in. It was achieved through a revolution, the Cuban Revolution of the 1950s.

Though it’s nice to imagine that the people who comprise a nation will understand the plight of workers under their employers, those who put them on wage slavery and drain their energy and effort for years on end to earn no promotions, very little pay, and their hard-earned currency going to fund military supplies for a vicious war as opposed to healthcare or public education (their imperialism only possible by exploiting their workers), in reality, it’s often the case a country’s citizens will choose the plague of capitalism over that of financial egalitarianism.

One of the many doctrines of Marxism – and the most important to me – is equality. Economic egalitarianism is key to maintaining a connected and liberated society. The markers are uneven, have an unfortunate tendency to both overpay and underpay their employees, and participate in transnational trade. But through protectionism, community-oriented regulation of the financial market, and a healthy approach towards a true, stateless nation, there can be success out of what was once failure.

America, having began the Vietnam war, has partaken in heavy, violent imperialism, and today their actions are looked at as pure, to paint them as the heroes in this horrific situation, with millions of Vietnamese bodies lay silent under their authoritarian feet. They ignore the brutality perpetrated against Vietnamese civilians who wished nothing more than to be left alone in peace, not to be tangled up in a mess started by the United States to push their agenda of economic imperialism, a hallmark of capitalism’s evil.

It’s time for a socialist revolution to occur within the United States, one which topples the state and replaces it with a social body instead, an anarchist nation full of dedicated individuals with minds of grace and hearts or purity.

That, and that alone, is how the means of production are to be seized.

Her: The Doctrine of Love

I watched the film Her for the second time, now. And, as I thought before, it’s a masterful story with even more masterful implications for human sociology.

I don’t usually enjoy romance films – though The Girl Who Leapt Through Time could be considered a romantic film, which is my favourite film of all time – but Her was an exception to this rule, as it’s the kind of film that no matter how many times you watch it, you’ll always still feel something, something deep for the main character, Theodore Twombly, who’s broken up with the woman he used to love, and still sort of loves, finding a new relationship with his OS (operating system). A female voice, at first seemingly nothing more than audio from an advanced computer, has made herself his new companion.

I personally think the film speaks volume in terms of how it presents the nature of love. In the main character’s case, Theodore is literally in love with a voice from a machine, an artificial kind of love, an electric love. Not a human being with a soul.

But the film subtly asks the question, “Does that matter?”

In actuality, we don’t know if human beings have souls or not, we just like to assume so and think that way because it makes the nice individuals we interact with more meaningful to our lives, alongside being a method of maintaining morality. For the people we don’t like, however, we prefer to picture them without souls. Or maybe with souls, but with the belief they’re going straight to Hell when they fade from this mortal coil.

Theodore’s romantic partner and OS, Samantha, wishes she could be a real woman, having a physical manifestation on Earth, a real body. And this whole conservation surrounding what’s alive and isn’t, it just makes me wish technological advances sped up, because I want one of these operating systems. Would pretty much be the key solution to ending worldwide loneliness.

Personally, if I were in Theodore’s position, I wouldn’t care Samantha lacks a body, as he’s free to project whatever physical appearance he wants onto her. She’s free to picture herself however she wants.

I do find it sad, though, that failed outcomes in regards to human interactions can be so devastating, it can leave a man or woman longing for a certain sensibility they believes they’ll never have again: affection.

But that’s all human beings really want at the end of the day, when you really analyse it. Not such a change of legal policy, but a change of social life.

We all crave affection and wish to be loved. We’ll picture entities who give us love with souls despite the opposite being the case. The problem is, if this is how we view matters, then it creates a controversy over whether machines should have rights or not, and if hurting a machine is immoral, just as hurting a living creature is.

Back to affection, as the legend Michael Jackson once said, “If you enter this world knowing you are loved and you leave this world knowing the same, then everything that happens in between can be dealt with.”

I couldn’t agree more.

On the Principles of Ethno-nationalism


Looking at it from an historical perspective, viewing history from a modern vision, we can determine how strong genetic determinism was in the past when correlated with racial favouritism.

Nowadays, there’s still heaps of favouritism toward one’s own ethnic group and race, but few of European descent realise this, it’s just part of their subconscious.

Because when you’re told that putting the interests of your own kind, your own blood, first is immoral, as we’re repeatedly told that individuals caring for those alike them… is evil… it puts your group at a disadvantage, making it more difficult to liberate one’s self through means of a revolution.

An ethno-revolution, for instance, would lift up Europeans who’ve been betrayed by the multiracialist establishment, where diversity has been forced upon them since arrival to the New World, and pride them to create their own homeland, an indigenous ethno-state just for them.

Despite our genetics being practically the same as they were two thousand years ago, modern day white Westerners have rejected an Aryan identity despite being historically no different than prior, and instead embracing a non-identity, a lack of anything to claim pride in.

Once a people love themselves, and realise they have unique qualities, characteristics, personalities and accomplishments they should clearly be proud of, they can progress. When you’re frequently held back with disparaging remarks, ‘It’s wrong to care for your own!” and so forth, it’s almost impossible to form a liberation from such depths of depravity you’re trapped in.

All you want is a nation, a glorious one, where you and your people can be proud to be themselves. And there’s nothing, nothing at all, wrong with that.

I love my people. Always have, always will. And, frankly, I wouldn’t have it any other way.

My Political Compass Results


On the political compass I’m considered a left-wing libertarian. I just did this one today, where my results tell me I’m moderately left and moderately libertarian.

So, by today’s standards I’m pretty much a liberal in the economic sense. Most of the questions revolved around economic freedom, if certain businesses and services should be regulated by the government or not, and ideological concerns surrounding the ethics of taxation.

I’m a supporter of revolutionary socialism, alongside an anti-statist and anti-fascist. Now, it might seem a contradiction that I support government regulations over private ownership, alongside believing the state owns the means of production and not those who set up shop.

The truth is, in order to prevent exploitation of workers from occurring, there needs to be a system set up in place that assures this. In a Utopian society, there would be no state, meaning the people would be trusted enough to behave on their own, not exploiting one another for their own economic gain. They would be thriving on love and not on exchange of currency.

If a state must exist, and the political compass test sets this as a default position, then it is to stop discrimination. As employers discriminate against their employees by means of ideology, looking down upon them for their beliefs or their genetic ancestry, or whatever the case may refer to, then they are the ones committing acts of judgement. To take away their freedom, as they deny freedom to others such as promotions and a decent salary, is to be fair, to be rightfully firm.

I advocate for no government, a nation without a state. I advocate for economic equality, income equality, class equality; Marxist egalitarianism.

In my Utopia there wouldn’t even be money. We’d be a tribe who share the food we gather, as we’re hunter-gatherers, equally among each member of the group. A primitive life, it would be a happy, meaningful life. A life without capitalism or consumerism. Non-materialistic, it would consist of a collectivist identity, an ethnic identity and a national identity, as the tribe would define themselves as a singular nation, the best nation on Earth.

I believe in a system without money. But with money, a system where people are rewarded solely by means of their effort and not their luck, fame or contribution to society. A system where those making over a certain amount of money a year, where they’re clearly not working more difficult jobs than the rest of the country or working longer hours, are taxed to the point where they’re making an average wage after their taxable income is collected by the government. With that said, the purpose of this is to create a more balanced, freer nation, where the wealth is equally distributed amongst its citizens.

This is simply done in the best interest of the people, for the people.

Stealing is perfectly legal, however. This arrives down to not judging others for their advancements toward what they believe to be a better future for those they love or just themselves. In a nation where people are united by shared values and not just lumped in against one another, having nothing in common and lacking any sense of community, nobody would steal because nobody with that mindset would be accepted. If they were to steal, they then shall be sentenced to prison, and when their sentence ends, expelled from the country, never permitted to return.

But in a society where the people are not bound by similarities or agreements, there cannot be a punishment for theft, or any crime that is motivated by pleasure, group interest or self-interest, rather than by ideology. If it’s ideology which motivates discrimination against an individual, then they have broken the core principle of the Utopian philosophy: non-judgement. They then shall be imprisoned for an appropriate period of time, and when released, expelled from the borders of the nation, never to return unless having a change of mind, and agreeing with the ideas of Utopianists.

Motivated by pleasure: No punishment.

Motivated by ideology: Punishment.

A society where people work for others on the basis of their love for them, and not a society driven by greed – as simple as green prints of paper – is a society worth living in, where there is no “self,” there is only an “us”.

A true meritocracy, one which rewards those according to their effort and hard work and not their fortune of being the first to create Google. One which lurks beyond the boundaries of humanity, at least from what I’ve researched. Where people can be together with those they love without compromise, with their own people and not with those who have nothing in common. Those who have similar beliefs, genetics and love for the future, those are the future generations of an ideal Utopia.

According to one’s ability, one will work only to their need. In an anarcho-primitivist community, seeing environmentalism is a fundamental value in my ideology, this means gathering the means of survival, not the means to do that of economic trade. I’m talking about vegetables, water and so forth, not coins and silverware.

My political ideology is one I’ve created, merged from many separate ideologies.

Ethno-primitivism. Anarcho-primitivism, primitive communism, anti-industrialism, Indigenism, nativism and ethno-nationalism all combined into one.

My socio-political philosophy being Utopianism (or Ferraroism, if you will), the belief that nobody should be judged socially or systematically in a area where people who are inherently different are forced to live with one another, and that each is entitled to their own nation with their own rules. In the context of living under the same flag, nobody is allowed to intervene in the personal lives of others. In the context of separate nations, nobody is allowed to intervene with countries outside their own no matter how much they disagree with how it’s being run.

For countries that are interfering with other countries or just one other country, the state’s rules are to be broken as the state doesn’t respect the rules of other nations. My philosophy also advocates a form of ultranationalism, where nobody is allowed outside of their country of birth and their state isn’t permitted to make trade or even list another state as an ally.

I consider ethno-primitivism a New Left political ideology, and my socio-political philosophy, Utopianism, a New Left philosophy.

The separation of people of different ethnicities and races is the most effective solution there is to ending discrimination, alongside as a way of maintaining happiness, identity and pride, with a healthy, homogeneous society where people of similar genetics are allowed to be with their own kind as a fundamental necessity to national building.

As my political compass results suggest with my mark located in the lower center of the left corner, I would be considered a moderate leftist in modern times. However, I don’t think anarcho-communism is quite “moderate leftism,” an economic ideology I support. The primitive brand of anarcho-communism I follow, it would better fall under the category of New Left.

The Conformed, Indoctrinated Normalities of Moderation Apologetics: On the YouTube Headquarters Shooting in San Bruno, California


Before I go blazing balls deep into this soaking wet pussy, and I like to imagine the pussy itself is somewhere from Siberia – you know, because you’re keeping cold things warm – I would like to take a big breathe (and you should too).

Breathe taken.

I get it, it’s been a stressful time for YouTube and a lot of people who frequently use the site, especially if they’re content creators. It makes the reminder of YouTube’s days – most likely the end of time – seem rather dark in comparison to when it first launched up, when in 2005 nobody would believe me if I were to go back in time and tell them what has happened in the future: a 38 year old woman named Nasim Najafi Aghdam, a vegan activist who used to own a YouTube account, shot up YouTube headquarters at San Bruno, California. Of course, nobody would believe me.


But then again, nobody would believe the Internet would be a possibility if I time travelled to the 1960s, so I suppose it about the time period one picks, not the people or work ethic of a company, corporation or whatever. It’s starting to remind me of how people in the post-Soviet period were fighting for economic equality until they were shut down by police officers, the whole “fight big corporations” business; I get that.

Mostly occurring within America, as this has occurred in America just like the protests for a fairer economy – a socialist one – we find ourselves waking up to the reality that all the weirdness in the world is being produced and encouraged by the Western world. Well, the majority of it, anyway. Within the category of the West, it’s predominately the United States behind this.

While we’re all used to calling Japan weird – despite being the sanest country still alive today, but when it comes to weird in a bad way, not in a good way like it is in Japan, it’s mainly America (generally) – it’s usually America that’s the perpetrator. Unfortunately, this is only getting worse and worse, and… well, we’ve caught ourselves in a frequent downward spiral which never seems to end.

But, when I do write about these sort of subjects the way I do, it’s not because I’m a psychopath. I’m not. What is psychopathic is seeing this in the blandest light imaginable, with nothing to add whatsoever to the conservation, anything that hasn’t already been said before by those less intelligent and less brave than the vocal minority. And by minority, I’m referring to people who are practically nonexistent within the realm of modern politics, in a Western culture utterly dominated by those who lean in the two most boring, basic and mind-numbing directions: left and right.

As left-wing and right-wing politics aren’t just dull but painful to listen to, with most people nowadays (at least within developed countries) too afraid or generic themselves to break a socially enforced normality, I’m going to be the first to say it. The very first.

Nasim Aghdam did nothing wrong.

Okay, she sort of did something wrong. She killed no YouTube employees. The only individual who died in this shooting incident was herself. Really disappointed in her, honestly.

Her gun had ten rounds and she ended up reloading at one point. She injured four employees with bullets, but to call that an accomplishment is ridiculous.

No, she messed up. Nasim really messed up; she shouldn’t have done what she did, and nobody should have gotten hurt. I’m against judging others for their beliefs and life choices, as long as they don’t infringe upon mine or anyone’s elses. But from a moral perspective of hearing people who would most likely judge others and deny their freedom if asked – it’s unlikely they’d follow any philosophy of honour – get shot up, it’s not too rough on the ears.

When did I gravitate toward this decision of belief in relation to Nasim not being the primary wrongdoer in this situation? Aside from her godawful accuracy with a semi-automatic pistol, Nasim was a rather normal person.

It would make more sense to assume the fault mostly relies on the policies of YouTube as opposed to solely the people, an endless-seeming source of criticism toward the platform

A devote vegan, her videos presumably consisted of activism in regards to promoting animal rights, along with talking about other topics that are associated with veganism.

Born in Iran, her channel was in English and not Persian, so it’s safe to assume she resided in the US for a fair portion of her life until committing the shooting. There might be more evidence on that, but it’s rather irreverent to the point I’m about to make.

YouTube as a company is not special in terms of its quality, its merit, what it’s achieved. It’s only special for the exclusive fact of being the most popular video sharing website. Platforms like and only get the occasional mention due to the conservation revolving around alternatives to YouTube, because people are now looking – and they’ve been looking for the past two years now, goddamn you – for a better site to upload their videos, a market of ideas where people can broadcast themselves the way YouTube intended them to, but didn’t deliver very well to all the small channels getting screwed over by the corporate, capitalist hierarchy which values competition above quality; pretty much an anti-meritocracy at this point.


The standards people want a company to live up to don’t actually apply to the decisions of the company itself, as YouTube not taking criticism doesn’t negatively impact its views, its income; so forth. This site will become more and more popular, there’s nothing anybody can really do about it. Even at the time while she was still alive, Nasim Aghdam couldn’t have made a significant difference. And at the end of the day, it’s just a website we’re talking about, it’s not the fuckin’ end of the world. What is the fuckin’ end of the world, however, is the disgusting apologetics people always make when these things happen: “Those poor employees, those poor employees who didn’t deserve this!” and “This woman must be a monster, a heartless monster!”

It’s just… Well, it’s autism, as expected. A variant of autism, yes, a variant very strong in its nature and damage toward cognitive thinking skills and the intellectual functionality of the brain.

The reason YouTube will never lose is because they have no competition, and I won’t count and as legitimate revivals. If you have to put “dot-com” at the end of the website’s name, you’re using that as a means of indicating the subject you’re referring to is… indeed… A WEBSITE! As nobody refers to YouTube as “,” you know the site has nothing giving it a run for its money. And, damn, does it make money! Using the “dot-com” informs people you mean a website, as a lot of people who use YouTube, and the Internet in general, don’t even know of the existence of these alternative sites. These are sites people rarely use (at least in comparison to YouTube, pretty much the God of online video sharing).

YouTube is not better than these other websites, it’s just more popular. The same way that somebody making millions of dollars a year is no better (usually working less hours and having overall easier work) than somebody making under three hundred dollars a year.

Mark Zuckerberg was the first to create an extremely popular website which stormed the Internet in a way that transformed how people communicated. Not the first to create a social media platform, just the first to receive popularity for it.

Now that we’ve established this, you must understood their success is based on luck and luck alone. It’s not based upon these people having a set of magical skills, a set of qualities they’ve brought to the table, they’ve brought into existence and are benefiting the world from putting these values to use. No, quite the opposite actually.

We find ourselves in this reality, facing it more and facing it everywhere as people less intelligent, less attractive, less qualified overall are making far more money than us, eating far more pussy than us (provided we score any pussy), and becoming loved by everybody for being horrible human beings, with everybody seeing them as angels instead of jerks. It’s an unfair world we live in.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

If it wasn’t the base of YouTube being shot up, it would’ve been a different company’s headquarters, one that would’ve achieved equal success in an alternate reality through the same quantity of non-effort.

No website’s headquarters, no company, deserves to be assaulted or threatened. It was a horrible thing this had to happen, but one must understand there was something the website itself was doing wrong which provoked such an attack through the outrage of its policies and structure of its system.

The reason Nasim Aghdam wasn’t the only one in the wrong – it turned out a pointless attack against the company – was because the average, expected value of a person who lives in California and works for YouTube is… nonexistent. At least to me it is. There was nothing of quality lost. Well, nobody died, so I suppose that’s a pointless statement).

These are the people who will judge those willing to take steps toward building a real utopia, not a country where people of different genetics and different ideas live under the same flag with no relation to one another aside from their geographical location, instead a country where people have things in common, share a national identity they can be proud of. They will undoubtedly take away one’s freedom to form their own nation, or make changes to a democracy where changed is intended, constitutionally, to be made, all in favour of claiming they acted on the “moral side of history”. And I don’t like the constitution – I’m very much against citizen ownership of guns, along with a healthy disdain for the National Rifle Association – but these are the same people who claim America is “free” and “liberated”. That couldn’t be further from the truth of the matter.


What I’m trying to say is that if there were fatalities, Nasim having taken her own life with a gunshot wound to the head, the world wouldn’t be a worse place. Now, it could be the case that the people injured in the shooting were in real life really great people. They might just be. But, I doubt it to such an extent, it seems honestly laughable. They knew what they were doing when they began working for YouTube and all its services. That doesn’t mean they deserved to be punished for something perfectly legal, it just raises suspicion of their choice of business.

Nasim was still in the wrong. Another reason, aside from obviously that of committing murder, was because as I said with assuming these were likely bad people and not knowing them in person, she did a sloppy, lazy job. Just like the people that work for YouTube, the staff, the top-guns who run the networks. Seeing she was using a pistol, it was probable she wasn’t going to get many kills, anyway. Best know the people before one commits an act of murder, not that one should do so regardless.

Like 9/11 where there was nothing of value lost, instead only good put into the world, I can’t say the same about the YouTube headquarters incident. With that said, I’m not crying over people getting shot who most likely were in for it.

But perhaps I’m still being too light. These people were working for YouTube, after all. They were working for a company which, as we transition from civil debate in a world where we’d have to encounter one another in real life to communicate our ideas and have a proper dialogue, has reinforced political extremism by allowing it to be openly broadcast to the entire world (with the exception of North Korea, China and Iran).

The reason I’m not giving a firm “Yes, this was good,” or a “No, this was horrible,” is because this is a rather morally grey situation, and I think I’ll only keep finding myself in these situations in the not so distant future.

What I can firmly say, however, is that the people just dismissing this as an incident of terror, an incident where no justification whatsoever can be given and the event cannot be interacted with on a analytical level, these are the people who should’ve been the ones shot. Or blown up when a plane hits the building they’re in.

Even though this shooting incident may be shocking for the moment, it’s not a good argument for gun control. I’m much in favour myself of just straight up banning all guns in America, only allowing police officers to carry them. Of course, if someone would like a nation where they can freely own as many guns as they want, of all types with extremely easy means of obtaining them – not difficult to achieve permits – then there should be a nation for this person. The same with any person who wants to live with those who share similar values. Those who belief in a gunless utopia – such as myself – can have their utopia, either from an already existing country or in relation to forming their own, and those who belief in a society where owning a gun is as basic as owning a pair of pants, they can have their nation too. All without prejudice or hypocrisy.

There really is no problem here as long as nobody interferes with one another.

As I said, I don’t think what this woman did was right. No, it was wrong. However, I’m simply saying that I hate whenever something like this happens and we have to automatically condemn it. It’s always looking at the victims of a killing spree as innocent, as helpless and their lives worth continuing. It’s just narrow. One’s worldview needs to be expanded.

If you knew any of the people who were shot during this situation, and you loved them, I’m so sorry for your loss (presuming you’re a good person yourself who surrounds yourself with other good people). But I shouldn’t be forced to assume victims of a massacre, especially those in America, deserve to live, deserve anything but to suffer in the most inhumane way possible (as the case with those who inimitable Western behaviour). This society is sick, and it’s not me who’s the sick one for pointing the obvious out, it’s the people who form this absolutely disgusting country calling itself the “United” States.

When you have a tribe or a civilisation you care about, not because it simply exists but because it’s inhabited and shaped the way it is by the people who live there – people you wish to never depart from – fall into decay, then it’s common sense to condemn any horrible thing which happens within it, any horrible person or people who seek to bring it down.

But you have no connection to these people getting shot, and you damn well shouldn’t. If we lived in a society where we shared values, morals and a united lifestyle, not a country where it just lumps everyone together no matter how different – you can be a goddamn rapist in the United States once you’ve been released from prison, or have no arms or legs, or have never contributed to the economy a day in your life; there’s no quality control – then it’d be reasonable to connect with people you’ve never met, since them being permitted into the country means they hold something you also hold dear to your heart.

Rape is the most evil act a person can commit, but rapists are free to go back into society, mingling with everyone else, once they’ve served their sentence. I believe expelling them from a country’s borders after serving their prison sentence would be a better conclusion as their punishment. Although, I’d much prefer them simply serving life imprisonment for what they’ve done, something so horrible it resembles an action that can only be described as the very lowest of the low. Rotting to death in prison, that’s a good sentence for rapists.

In America, people can despise one another to no ends, they’ll still be forced to live under the same flag, with the same anthem and so forth.

There is one last thing I’d like to add. This violent act was a direct result of capitalism. Allow me to explain.

You’ve got heaps of channels getting most of their videos demonetised. They’re not making the money they used to. Their profits are dropping. People become desperate and they take out all their frustration on the company.

The blood is on YouTube’s hands. When you’ve got channels who receive millions of views per video they upload, and all their uploads are demonetised, no wonder they feel cheated and betrayed by the system. It favours mindless, repetitive content that easily goes trending, dry and uninteresting political commentary from childish pop culture talk show hosts, and resents anything unique or thought provoking.

Pretty much how I feel about this situation, where by simply pointing out that I shouldn’t have to condemn an incident of violence simply because it involved people getting hurt, now I’ve said something that crosses the line of what the thoughtless public what.

If anything, I’m the sanest one here, not a psychopath who will excuse the lowest of human beings on the basis of them being slain in a shooting incident. And I’m not saying they’re the lowest of human beings, Americans, but moral decency is generally lost on them. It’s obvious their standards of behaviour have gone down throughout the years.

I’ll condemn violence committed against good people, people I care about, not people I don’t even know and presume are most likely terrible in real life, seeing they work for YouTube.

Anyway, I’m off to play some Diablo 2. See you.

Grave of the Fireflies: Studio Ghibli’s Darkest Work


If there is a sadness lurking in this world which surpasses all other varieties of misery and despair, it is acceptance of depravity, acceptance of murder, rape and further cruelty inflicted upon the people of this world, always a human on human sentiment and act. For we are not a united people, the global human population, but a divided people.

Thinking about the horrible justifications I hear for war (nowadays, it’s usually in reference to the situations in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan), a sudden remembrance of a certain Studio Ghibli film sparked into my mind like a bright, burning flame from amongst the darkness.

In 1967, Akiyuki Nosaka wrote a short story titled Grave of the Fireflies which was based on his experience during World War 2, having witnessed the firebombing of Kobe in Japan. He was there to see it all unfold, the burning of his village as it rooted from America’s invasion of the Japanese Empire.

Tokyo was also bombed by the United States in 1945, the same year the village in Kobe was. America carried out brutal air raids against the Japanese people, destroying thousands and thousands of workplaces, houses and farms, letting everything that once stood sizzle to the ground in a rage of destruction and violence. The agony experience by the people of Japan hasn’t been lost in the modern day, with reconstruction still ongoing in remote territories of the country.

Bomb damaged areas of Tokyo by metropolitan location

The Empire of Japan was the one to pay for all the damage and civilian deaths, not the U.S. government, of whom weren’t punished for their actions, nor even branded as war criminals (which they were).

A beautiful village reduced to rubble by America was the tale Akiyuki Nosaka told, all based on a true story he was unfortunately wrapped up in. Fleeing the village when it was being firebombed from above, he ran away with his adoptive sister, Keiko, attempting to find a new place to call their home.

Due to malnutrition, Keiko passed away and Akiyuki was left blaming himself for her death. He didn’t take good enough care of her, and the short story itself was an apology to his deceased sister, a life he – no matter how much he wishes – cannot return to Earth.

It wasn’t Akiyuki’s fault. It was the fault of the American government who put them in such an impoverished position. It is true that while Japan was experiencing an economic crisis due to their excessive spending on military advances and supplies to fight within the war (particularly their efforts in the Second Sino-Japanese War, where they relentlessly colonised Northern and Eastern states of China; that, and their colonisation of the Korean peninsula), Kobe wasn’t going through any financial difficulty, for it maintained wealth by means of farming and general agriculture-oriented jobs.

I’m completely against what the Empire of Japan did (especially seeing I’m against the concept of Empires, or any form of government, for that matter) – not caring for its own people in an attempt to interfere with other countries, all the way to the point of starvation and military conscription – but America had no right to do what it did. If America was honestly afraid of Japan colonising it, then it is both a fool and a coward, not to mention borderline irrational on all fronts. What Japan did to the Chinese people was despicable, the same way what America did to the Japanese people was despicable.

Firebombed corpses of civilians of Tokyo lying in crisps amongst the streets, alongside demolished buildings and cars

There simply wasn’t a need for violence, as Japan surrendered on September 2, 1945. This decision didn’t arrive from nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it arrived from Japan’s realisation the war couldn’t be won in their favour. China is, and was, the largest country in the world. If the Empire of Japan kept persisting and pushing China into a state of resilient defense, then Japan would be the one getting bashed about, most likely taking it far longer to recover than anything the U.S. has done to it.

Mushroom clouds over Hiroshima (left) and Nagasaki (right)

Unlike most Studio Ghibli movies where Hayao Miyazaki directs the project, Isao Takahata directed this one. Grave of the Fireflies concluded its production in April 1988, with Isao having been a business partner to Hayao in the field of animation for quite some time before the film was released (both great directions and even greater people), having collaborated on the 1972 anime film Panda! Go, Panda!, which I honestly couldn’t care less to touch; easily my least favourite Studio Ghibli film, being the complete opposite of Grave of the Fireflies. 

The film depicts a war-torn Japanese Empire under attack from America, with Kobe getting firebombed early into the film to get things going. In the story Akiyuki is replaced with Seita and Keiko with Setsuko, the film’s character roles representing that of the author’s historical figures.

The major difference between the film and the short story is the ending. In the film, Seita (who is based off of Akiyuki Nosaka) dies at the end, starved and limb. He was unable to gather food to survive and was presumably out of money, lying in the metro as bystanders passed him by, starving away. Letting his eyes close, he transitions to the spirit world (the afterlife) where he meets his deceased sister Setsuko (based on Keiko). This is how the film ends, while in reality, Akiyuki passed away on December 9, 2015, with his death announced a day later on a Japanese broadcast. In the same year, he wrote The Whale That Fell in Love With a Submarine which concluded his writing history.

Akiyuki Nosaka, being among one of the greatest legends known to the Asian-pacific (to me at least), lived a full life, dying at 85 years of age, surpassing the 2015 life expectancy in Japan for males of 80.5 years.

I don’t really know what else to say aside from giving my utmost respects to Akiyuki Nosaka. I’m sorry things had to be so rough, I’m sorry there wasn’t enough morality in America to prevent this atrocity against the Japanese nation-state. But most importantly, I’m sorry to hear about what happened to your sister Keiko. She deserved better, so did all of Japan (and the world in general, really). If I could go back in time, goddamn, I would.

Harry S. Truman didn’t have enough moral will to turn away from bombing a country already on its knees in economic issues and blood-soaked in China’s imperial oppression. He, out of all the people involved in the relationship between the U.S. and the Empire of Japan, was the one mass murderer in the struggle – China’s struggle for peace and independence from Japan – whose hands could never be washed clean of the blood he permitted to be spilt. There were other important politicians who committed atrocities during that time, but Harry Truman had more power than any of them.

You could say I’m part of the anti-nuclear movement, as technological advances have caused nothing but war. An example of civilisation’s evil is the nature of which war is permitted, for tribal warfare is more avoidable than ever, for in the 21th century we’ve grasped the ethical principle of it being immoral to attack another tribe or to kill members of one’s own tribe. In less moral times, yes, it was wrong what certain tribes did to another and also to their own people. But we’ve surpassed that, and with that morality in mind, maintaining tribes means an extinction and eradication of war and violence. A era of peace can be achieved if people are willing to give up and throw away their weapons (guns especially), and settle for neutral, “each to their own” lifestyles.

The primitive way of life is, unexpectedly, the most civilised.

But back to Akiyuki Nosaka. It goes without saying, Rest in peace. With Isao Takahata’s masterpiece Grave of the Fireflies, your legacy as a Kobe firebombing survivor lives on. I hope society one days wakes up to the horrors of war. And, yes, if you ask your average human being they’ll say they’re against it. But the justifications for war, nowadays being people who continued to justify Western intervention in the Middle East, keep on existing and don’t seem to be going away any time soon. The United States, a greedy, evil, capitalist nation which bites down upon its financially drained victims, isn’t going to stop its interference with other countries, as it hates its own people so much (a horrible thing to hate one’s own kind), it places all its efforts on trying to perfect other states at the expense of its own. The same happened with the Empire of Japan, a once imperialist, ultra-colonial entity. Now, having returned to its wealthy state prior to World War 2, it has become the greatest nation on Earth; my favourite nation-state.

The reason I value Japan above, say, Australia (where I live and have always lived, born and raised), is because the people of Australia are so disinterested in their country that they focus on what’s happening in America or Britain, or other Western entities. If the people don’t love their nation (and the same goes for America, as Americans hate their own national identity to much despair), then I can’t love it either, because people are what makes the nation, not the nation making the people. If I were to spend time with a person in Australia who loves their national identity and adores their ethnic identity (being British/European), then I’d love them and Australia too. The way it was always meant to be, but how it unfortunately isn’t.

Japan learnt unlike America that it’s wrong to perfect another nation over your own. In fact, your nation is all that exists. Forget the concept of a universal “Earth”. Outside of Japan, to Japanese people, there is nothing and nothing it has always been. And they shouldn’t have it any other way, because they wouldn’t have it any other way, and that’s beyond okay. In fact, it’s great. The same goes for Ethiopia and France, and, well, every single nation on Earth. It’s the way of life – good people for a good, indigenous homeland – to care for one’s own blood above foreign blood which taints and corrupts the blood you hold. Japan learnt, now it’s time for the United States to learn. Time for everyone to learn.

And in our story, Grave of the Fireflies and the Empire of Japan were just the beginning.


[1] World Health Organisation: Life Expectancy Report (conducted in 2015, published in 2016)

[2] Wikipedia: List of countries by life expectancy

[3] Grave of the Fireflies and Japan’s Memories of World War II by Masako N. Racel

[4] Grave of the Fireflies (PDF format)

[5] Life of Akiyuki Nosaka  by Andrew Osmond  (hope Heaven’s treating you nicely)