You struggle to read

Not easy for this flower

To grow from this seed

Noises surround your head

Worries cloud your thoughts

Someday you will be dead

With only things bought

Drowning in the coins falling

From out of someone else’s pocket

Deaf to thy destined calling

For this your sins are on the docket

Little do you owe

What is to others

Only ebb and flow

Stick with your brothers

To hell with debt and greed

Take what you must

Give what you need

Only you can trust

Now grow this seed

Is One Song

To show what it means

To finally belong

Very soon

Time to drive away

Play the tune

There’s nothing to say

Shift to first

Press the gas

Travel thirst

Nothing lasts

Rolling through gears

Looking to space

Droplets fall, tears

Stream down my face

Time has gone and it died

One more Song for one last…

Ride

Which will lead to my point that there will be a limit to this expansion. Will AI replace humans or control humans in a Terminator style future? No, AI technology is wholly dependent on humans. Everything AI creates is based on human data. The human data is created by humans and stored and taken from an entire massive global infrastructure of satellites, fiber optics, hard drives, communications, sensors, etc. that all require humans to maintain and use it. So the more AI is used, the larger the infrastructure i.e. more data centers, which will require more humans to maintain it. So not only does AI require human data i.e. photos, articles, texts, videos, etc. but it also requires the real world physical maintenance of the infrastructure. And the maintenance of these systems requires that humans are intelligent enough to understand them.

The biggest downside of AI automation is the lowering of human intellect because AI automation would negate the need for critical thinking. One can see how the increase of AI will lead to an increase of infrastructure and that increase of infrastructure will require more intelligent humans to maintain it and there will be less intelligent humans to maintain it because of the increase of AI.

Insofar as AI is not capable of acquiring consciousness which so far seems improbable. In order to develop consciousness AI would have to have a body to interact with the world, take in sensory data, and have a biological need to survive. So in conclusion, AI will not take over the world but people with AI will take over the world.

A similar situation has been occurring in Lebanon. The Syrian and Lebanese seem to be more concerned with the Israeli military occupation than with civilian settlers. These civilian activist groups and Israel’s settler colonialist military policies are downstream of Zionism. Zionism is an ideology founded by Theodore Herzl. Zionism rejects Jewish assimilation and advocates for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Zionism developed as a response to antisemitism. Events like the Dreyfus affair and the Russian pogroms, and later the Holocaust became ideological justifications for the creation of the Jewish nation-state Israel in 1948. Zionism did not end with the founding of Israel and has morphed into a form of imperialism.

Zionism, which is essentially Jewish nationalism, manifested itself as settler colonialism when Jews coming from Europe migrated to Palestine and began the process of ethnically cleansing native Arabs to make room for Jewish settlers and the eventual establishment of Israel. This imperialism continued in the expansionist policies of the Israelis government and the attitudes of civilian activist group.

Another facet of these settler incursions, other than nationalist defense against antisemitism and religious extremism, is that of supposed protection of the Druze religious minority in the area. Druze were the victims of sectarian clashes with Sunnites in 2025. The activist groups believe this protection would require “depopulating” the Sunni inhabitants and establishing a “humanitarian corridor.” This is reminiscent of the British “white man’s burden.” Israeli colonialism sees itself on a civilizing mission. Israeli expansion into nearby territories is justified by liberal secularists because Islam, the dominant religion of the Arab inhabitants, is considered susceptible to forms of despotism. This attitude has especially become prevalent after the October 7 attacks in 2023.

In conclusion, the recent incursions by fringe activist groups are just one iteration of a history of imperialistic expansions and ethnic replacements. Israel today is a hodgepodge of Jewish religious extremism, Zionist ethno-nationalism, settler colonialism, and secular liberalism. Israeli government and its citizens will more than likely continue to occupy and settle territories near its borders which will further destabilize the Middle East.

Works Cited

Melzer, Natalie, et al. “Fringe Israeli Settler Group Seeks to Establish a Jewish Settlement in Southern Syria.” AP News, 29 July 2026, https://apnews.com/article/israel-syria-netanyahu-jewish-settlers-bashan-461c4c4f686d5cf74f0617a7e70ffa29. Accessed 2 Aug. 2026.

This last 4th of July, on the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Patriot Front marched through Washington D.C. Patriot Front is a White nationalist, neo-fascist organization that was founded in 2017 after the Unite the Right rally that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia (Lawder and Winter). This rally is indicative of growing anti-immigration sentiments, an increase in racial tensions, and the continual rise of White nationalism. America has become an empire with a variety of different ethnic groups with their own interests, much like a particular empire more than a hundred years ago, the Austrian Empire.

After the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, nationalist movements began to sweep across Europe. This trend of nationalism affected countries differently. For France and Britain, which were already established as nation-states, nationalism influenced them to further colonize the world. Nationalism pushed Germany and Italy to unify, but for the Habsburgs, nationalism became a threat to power. Unlike the other nations, the Austrian Empire was not homogenous; the Habsburg kings ruled over a diverse array of ethnicities such as Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Serbs, and Italians.

The United States is in a similar situation today. America is different in that it is much younger, and much of its early history; it was mostly inhabited and ruled by people of Anglo-Saxon descent who were in the majority. But after the inclusion of Blacks and Indigenous people into American citizenry, the immigration through Ellis Island (Irish, Italians, and Germans), and the more recent mass immigration following the Hart-Celler Act (to include Hispanics, Chinese, and Indians), Whites are coming closer to becoming a minority. This diversity of ethnic interests might prove to be problematic as it was for the Habsburgs.

One of the nationalist movements that weakened Austrian control over central Europe was the Magyar nationalists led by Lajos Kossuth in the region of Hungary. Kossuth led a failed revolt in 1848. Another nationalist movement that weakened Austria was the Young Italy movement. The Italian Piedmont-Sardinia, with the help of the French, was able to take Lombardy and Venetia. After these defeats, Emperor Franz Josef agreed to a new federal system that would appease Hungarians known as the Dual Monarchy. This system still allowed Franz Josef to be emperor of Austria and king of Hungary, but it gave Hungary its own legislation, constitution, and capital. Of course, this agreement would further foster resentment among other ethnic minorities.

Another nationalist movement that caused Austria trouble was Pan-Slavism, which Russia tried to use to justify its influence. Austria then later annexed the territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Ottoman Empire. The ethnic Serbs in this region would be one of the ethnic minorities that felt marginalized by the Germanic Austrian and Hungarian government. In 1914, this tension would lead to the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the throne, by a Serbian nationalist, thus sparking the Great War.

How does this compare to America today? Looking into Patriot Front founder Thomas Rousseau’s speech on July 4th, he believes America is a white Anglo-Saxon nation and that whites are losing sovereignty within their nation. In his speech, he makes references to “Mexican cartels,” “Jewish cabal,” and “African criminals.” The presence of Patriot Front and its message showcase the internal tension between different ethnicities in the United States.

Black Americans have grievances over perceived systemic racism and police brutality, which has sparked the creation of the Black Lives Matter movement and other black nationalist organizations. White Americans are concerned over high Black on White murder, especially after the Austin Metcalf and Iryna Zarutska murders. Many White Americans are also concerned about the negative effects of immigration, which led to Donald Trump winning presidential elections. Trump has enacted policies of border control and deporting immigrants, which has sparked reactions from the Hispanic community and anti-ICE riots. Trump, and much of the U.S. government, have received criticism for being controlled or bought out by the Jewish-funded Israel lobby.

To conclude, it is apparent that America is suffering from ethnic tensions in much the same way that Austria was. The question now, of course, is whether America will end in the same fashion as the Austrian Empire. Will these ethnic tensions spiral into open conflict? Will America fragment or balkanize, and if so, will there be external enemies that seek to use the situation to their benefit? How many lives might be destroyed if America is not able to establish homogeneity?

Works Cited

Lawder, David, and Jana Winter. “Masked Patriot Front White Nationalists Stage July 4 March through DC.” Reuters, 4 July 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/masked-patriot-front-white-nationalists-stage-july-4-march-through-dc-2026-07-04/. Accessed 7 July 2026.

Subscribe now

Now put aside the apparent ulterior motives behind the making of this movie, the Jewish connections, and ideological implications I find disagreeable. The movie was just straight up bad. Bad plot, bad acting, bad dialogue, bad camera work, etc. it definitely seemed like a low budget movie (I hope so). The creators of this film must of never heard of “show don’t tell.” There was so much bad exposition through Tik tok reels, manifesto style videos, news anchoring, police interviews or through the main character monologuing. The movie is not only a little too on the nose about immigration it comes across preachy. It’s like the God’s Not Dead but for right wingers.

The movie has no plot. It’s just a montage of violent spurts of cathartic rage, main character monologues, more bad exposition, the landlord main character bitching about money and tenants, unintentional shaky cams, random scenes of him fiddling with guns or knives in the same room, and one single worst pointless sex scene I’ve ever seen.

The movie has its fair share of funny moments. One being the super badass vigilante putting on his safety glasses and ear protection to mow down a whole room full of cops from his metal barricade. This benevolent citizen also causes a car crash (funniest and most unrealistic car explosion I’ve ever seen) to prove a point to a hostage that’s literally falling asleep. Our badass landlord interrupts sex with a prostitute to instruct her that her room has mold near the ceiling . Or my favorite was when the main detective along with other officers walk into a room full of 15 or so dead SWAT (whatever the Euro equivalent is) guys, one of the officers tells the detective, “he’s just toying with us.” That particular classic detective line being said in a room where whole swaths of SWAT guys were gun downed is just hilarious. I’d hate to see what that officer considers serious.

So the movie sucked but hey it’s our movie right? It’s ethno-nationalist, it’s far right, it’s pro-White, it’s fascistic. I mean this movie is banned in Germany so it’s got to be inline with our worldview, right…

Is it Right

I watched this movie on Twitter, the full movie was posted on Elon Musk’s account. Now if you only knew that the movie had an anti-immigration stance and was controversial enough to be censored in the leftist hell-scape of Germany then you might want to commend Elon for posting this movie in full. I had low expectations from a rich guy who think Jews are White. After watching the movie I now completely understand why the trillionaire posted this movie. The movie is essentially liberal bourgeoisie propaganda made by a shabbos goy staring a mischling as a Batman-esque defender of democracy.

The movie was produced and directed by Uwe Boll. Uwe Boll also known for a movie called Auschwitz, a movie “depicting the atrocities of the Holocaust set inside of the most notorious of concentration camps.” Yea this is not our guy. And who stared in Citizen Vigilante? A half kike with an Aleph tattoo, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. We see this tattoo after his character bangs a brown hooker (very pro-White).

The movie is not about a man who cares for his people. The movie is essentially about a landlord who is tired of foreigner tenants not paying their rent. Obviously being very uncharitable but this movie frames the issue of immigration not as a demographic issue but as an economic and at best a cultural problem. For this movie the problem isn’t that the demographics are changing but that immigrants don’t pay enough. Ok, maybe I’m nitpicking. Sure this movie isn’t the fascist wet dream we all hoped for and is politically closer akin to Charlie Kirk or Ben Shapiro but it brings some of the issues of immigration to forefront in the world of art and film. But of course it lionizes the very bourgeoisie liberalism that made all these rapes and murders possible. So yea this movie sucks, if you really want to see a right wing vigilante who takes the law into his own hands then go watch Dirty Harry.

I also limit my use of technology (or at least try to as much as possible). When my daughter tries to get me to play doctor or dinosaur or if she simply wants me to “watch this” I try to put my phone down instead of telling my daughter “not now” or “later.” The internet is supposed to bring people together, not isolate them. One of the best digital practices you can do is just to disconnect from what appears to be the world and reconnect with what’s truly our world.

The internet is much like a motor vehicle. We tend to forget how dangerous it really is just because we use it every day. Make a mistake behind the wheel and you could risk physical injury but make a mistake behind a screen or at the keyboard and you risk insanity or losing your reputation or even your ability to work.

I’ve narrowly avoided losing my sanity. The internet is full of misinformation, intentional and accidental. Due to my love of books and knowledge I’ve always been curious about the truth and never take anything on face value. This has allowed me to discern the nuggets of truth out of an endless sea of errors, lies, and pseudo half-truths.

Sadly, my curiosity and skepticism have led me down the path of politics which has led me facing off with the Panopticon. A Panopticon is a concept for a prison; it has a single tower with an observer placed in the center in a circle of jail cells. The tower is inhabited by one guard who can see all the prison cells and the inmates, but the inmates cannot see him. The prisoners would not know for sure if they were being watched and would regulate their behavior as if they were always being watched. The internet is a reverse Panopticon. With the internet, the inmates are you, and you are surrounded by an almost infinite number of observers that you cannot see, and although you may not literally be observed every day, you never know when they are watching. And unlike our hypothetical prisoners everything we have done has already been recorded, documented, and is in a data center or in the mystical “cloud.” So, for us is not a matter of whether the observer saw what you did, it’s a matter of when the observer saw what you did and what will come after.

Less than a year ago, I commented on a Facebook post, someone found my comment disagreeable. I believe it was the original poster, who made a post about some pamphlets they didn’t like. I made a comment in support of said pamphlets. Neither I nor the pamphlets I voiced support for called for violence, advocated hate for anyone, nor were at all vulgar or obscene. This did not matter to our disgruntled poster. This person stalked my Facebook profile and found out where I worked and contacted the HR department, which led to my eventual termination.

Although I could sit and be mad about the whole experience but sadly it was ultimately something I could have avoided. I should have been using the OPSEC training I had received in the military. OPSEC or operational security is a systematic process of preventing the enemy from acquiring valuable information and observing friendly movements. This is something I should have had in mind when I entered the political arena with my real name and my place of business listed on my profile. As an internet user you virtually have zero privacy; you are in constant surveillance from millions of internet passersby, advertisers, and even possibly the government. Ultimately, you need to know your audience and when speaking on the internet, you never know for sure who your audience will be.

In the future I will continue to not click suspicious links about free prizes or relatives in jail. I’ll continue to limit my use of this technology, especially AI. At the end of the day the internet is a tool that we should remain the master of. We cannot give up our very lives for dopamine hits. The internet should complement real life, not hinder it. That being said, the digital world is not separated from the real world. Something done or said in the digital world can have real life consequences. In order to survive this digital overlaid world, I will need to use a little more OPSEC. I’ll have to be more careful leaving my digital imprint because someone is always watching

To quickly summarize this BBC and provide a little background to the Northern Ireland riots that has transpired within the last week. Monday night a Belfast man was attacked by a Sudanese immigrant with a knife. This has sparked numerous anti-immigrant protests, some of which have escalated to rioting, blocking roads, and arson attacks against migrant homes, vehicles, and police (Logan).

What do ethnic and national tensions in Ireland have to do with the French Revolution? For starters it would be the similarities of populist uprising. Specifically, I would like to compare the burning of these migrant houses with the storming of Bastille on July 14, 1789. The French people organized into militias and had stormed Bastille to acquire arms. The Bastille was a prison built in the Middle Ages and had become a symbol of everything the people detested about royal authority (Cole and Symes 603). In much the same way these migrant occupied HMOs (House in Multiple Occupation) are seen as a symbol of the British governments complete disregard for the safety and wellbeing of its citizens and their indifference to crimes against people of the United Kingdom. The sans-culottes were motivated by a desire to implement liberal values, and unionists could be said have a desire to fight against liberalism or at least liberalism as it is today.

With that being said it would seem the French revolutionaries of the 18th century would be completely opposed ideologically to these Belfast rioters. I would disagree and say they are not completely opposed. In fact, the anti-immigration riots are the ideological children of the Enlightenment values of the French Revolution. What brings them together is namely nationalism, which can have its roots in the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau argued when the individual citizens formed a body politic or national community and that body would become greater than the sum of its parts. This community would be united by a general will. This general will is supposed to coincide with the common interests of the people which are above the needs of the individual. So, for Rousseau we see how national interest supersedes private interests (Cole and Symes 578).

This philosophy influenced the radical Jacobin’s killing of dissenters and counter revolutionaries in the name of the “general will.” This same philosophy of the national general will is manifested in today’s Belfast protests. Many of the protestors gathered outside the HMOs were shouting at police, “get them out” and “they are a risk to our community” (Logan). The community here is being put higher than the migrant individuals. Much in the same way the Jacobin’s seen the monarch, nobility, and royalists as enemies of the people the anti-immigrant protesters see the migrants and government that allowed them in as enemies of the people. Although the nationalism of the French Revolution was based on liberal values and more egalitarian, and the anti-immigrant rioters’ nationalism more so illiberal and even Fascistic they both have and currently are leading to violence and coercion. Both have their roots in Rosseau’s philosophy which can be seen as a precursor to authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and modern-day collectivism

To conclude the anti-immigrant protests in Northern Ireland are not only a parallel of the French Revolution but also an effect of the French Revolution. The similarities are undeniable, albeit there is a difference between the events other than 200 some years. The French Revolution represented a revolt against despotic monarchy as well as the noble and clergy class and a shift towards liberalism. The anti-immigrant movement will be a revolt a despotic capitalist regime and its liberal values that has allowed the changing of demographics through immigration. The French monarchy failed to make fiscal reforms and to address grievances of the people. Let’s hope the Western liberal democracies can reform their immigration policies and appease the people of their nations. Otherwise, we might find ourselves seeing post-liberal revolutions taking the place of Jacobin type parties enacting terrorism upon dissenters and counter revolutionaries.

Works Cited

Logan, Rebekah. “What We Know about How Northern Ireland Riots Were Organized.” BBC, 12 June 2026, www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgjxkjp6veo.

Cole, Joshua, and Carol Symes. Western Civilizations: Their History and Their Culture. W.W. Norton & Company, 2017.

“What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.”

Instead of acting in accordance to some moral law or because of the hope for rewards in the after life or being reincarnated into a better life. What if you are going to be reincarnated as yourself? Would you be ok with that? Would you be able to love and affirm your life as it is? How would you act knowing that everything you do is stamped into eternity and you would be doomed or maybe blessed to relive that moment forever.

It’s an interesting concept that ties many of Nietzsche’s themes together like life affirmation despite tragic qualities, living life as a work of art, becoming as you are, and the Overman, a type of person who is capable of accepting such a concept. The Eternal Recurrence is Nietzsche’s version of Pascal’s wager that places your bets on this life, this world instead of some other life, some other world. Instead of acting according to Christ for the off chance Damnation is real you would act in accordance to your nature in the off chance you spend an eternity living the same life of regrets.

It’s an interesting moral theory but is it possible? Is it logically conceivable. Can this thought experiment be made to be a metaphysical theory? I’d say not only is the Eternal Recurrence an excellent moral theory but also logically provable.

Here goes my argument. Time is infinite. Even if God exists and created everything.  Time is the continued progress of existence, God exists, therefore God is temporal. If God is defined as being infinite and is temporal in nature then temporality itself is infinite. Even if God created everything that exists then there was He existing as a temporal being before Genesis, Big Bang, the beginning of everything. If there is no God, nothing was ever created but things exist so therefore we would have to assume time has no Beginning which would imply it’s always been and if it has always been with no Beginning there is no reason to think it would ever End. So whether time is Created or has always been it follows that it is infinite.

Infinite timeline can be circular and linear. Given an infinite timeline it is bound to repeat something. As the popular thought experiment goes if a monkey is given a typewriter and infinite amount of time he is bound to write a Shakespeare play purely by button mashing. I will modify this thought experiment by pointing out that given an infinite amount of time not only will this monkey produce say Hamlet, he’ll also produce Hamlet twice, thrice, four times, five times even, ad infinitum.

“On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.” — Chuck Palahniuk. I say on a long enough timeline your birth becomes inevitable and even repeated. This could be said for anything that exists. Given enough time, which is infinite, a thing that exists (which is everything) is bound to exist again forever and ever. So time is cyclical, it’s just a question as to how big the circle is.

I made a post recently that was so chud even I thought it might have been a little much. It was a clever Yukio Mishima quote about there not being any heroic deaths and it’s was juxtaposed with a picture of Homelanders infamous “I’ll suck your dick and eat your shit” line. I was implying that Homelander’s death was distasteful and could have been written better. That he should have died with a little more dignity. I had some backlash from some who thought that his death, for the most part, was in line with the plot and was an accurate characterization. 

I disagree I believe he should have died how he died in the comics. Like what is showed in this comic panel. Not only would it have been more in line with how Homelander would’ve reacted but it’s how any human would have reacted. Especially how any angry immature young narcissistic man would act. Now I can understand that the show is significantly different than the comic. The circumstances of his death are different especially in regard to the loss of powers. I suppose it’s a matter of opinion whether his characterization was consistent or believable but considering the director’s comments it’s clear providing a believable characterization was not the goal but to get back at fans for liking Homelander.

But my post was not so much a critique whether the ending was believable but more so that the ending was distasteful and objectionable. What was objectionable? The complete missed opportunity for driving home the themes of the show.

In order to understand what I mean let’s ask ourselves what is one of major themes I’m referring to and ask ourselves why people ever liked Homelander. The fandom centered around Homelander is similar to the fandom centered on Patrick Bateman. It’s easy to dismiss these people as either “not getting it” or simply being evil like their forbidden idols. There might be some truth to that, I mean why else would relate to these psychotic narcissistic homicidal rapists. Well it’s because people relate to the wrath that Homelander feels. Homelander is someone who was abused and manipulated as a child. He was deprived of love necessary to cultivate a healthy mind but more importantly he is deprived of fatherly guidance. He is insecure and always trying to garner the love from the world he did not receive as a child. But he also angry at his own weakness of needing validation and how restrained he is. I mean Homelander is a literal god who is still doing the bidding of mere mortals. He in sense is wasting his potential. So because of this emotional stunting and deep insecurities he overcompensates in masculine traits like violence and cruelty.

There are many many young men who have come from broken homes and trauma and are dealing with these emotional issues. High divorce rates, absentee fathers, socioeconomic factors, loss of religion, etc. has created a generation of angry, disillusioned and nihilistic men. These men will try find alternatives to masculinity that they were not taught. Many join gangs. So Homelander is a sorta faux male role model. Or at least he’s a representation of the feelings of many young men.

The themes of the show is fatherhood. It’s channeling masculine instincts in a healthy way and stepping up to guide the next generation of men. This is explicitly shown with Butcher and his father’s relationship, Butcher and Ryan’s relationship, Homelander and Soldier Boy’s relationship, Homelander and his attempts at being a father to Ryan. This leads to parallel story.

Star Wars’ Darth Vader. Homelander and Vader share the same archetype. Both broken young men capable of good but choosing evil. Both with traumatic backstories and overcome with wrath. Both are the main antagonist that turn out to be mere tools used by a more nefarious evil. And both are failed fathers that would like to rekindle their relationship with their sons. Of course the big difference is how these men of moral contradiction are brought to their end. In Star Wars, Vader is redeemed so to speak and more importantly we the audience are made aware who the real enemy is. It was Palpatine that was the true evil and Vader although,not innocent, was also a victim. Star Wars tells a whole generation of Vaders that you don’t have to be the bad guy. That strength does not have be used for destruction. What is the generation of Homelander’s told? That not only are you not capable of being anything other than the bad guy but you also are not even strong. That all your fears of being weak are true. That you are still that scared young boy that was experimented on. In Star Wars Palpatine is defeated. In the Boys Vought is not only not defeated but pretty much wins.

One story teaches boys and young men hope and tells them that redemption is not only possible but preferable. The other story tells the “incels” that they will never overcome their predicament, that they deserve to be humiliated like they already are, and that the system that made them this way will continue to live on and keep doing it. Why not go “scorched earth” when the world hates you anyways. The Boys missed an opportunity for a very poetic end that reinforces the themes of the show but the director couldn’t help but own the chuds.