Many existing public nudity laws already recognize intent as an important factor in determining the seriousness of an offense. In several states, indecent exposure statutes require proof that an individual acted with the intent to arouse, offend, or alarm others, rather than merely being unclothed in public. This distinction reflects an understanding that nonsexual nudity and sexually motivated behavior pose different social concerns and should not be treated identically under the law. However, despite this recognition, broad public indecency laws often continue to criminalize nudity itself, blurring the line between harmless conduct and behavior that genuinely threatens public safety or morality.

Despite infrequent coverage, the issue matters nonetheless. It is an issue of free expression, considered a cornerstone of American life. Public nudity also covers areas of gender inequality in public life, an issue which has been a major force in the American judiciary since the Warren court. This issue has in fact already found itself in several supreme court cases, with cases like Barnes V. Glen theatre illustrating how exactly public nudity is viewed by the law.

Barnes v. Glen theatre covers public nudity as symbolic expressive conduct. In Barnes v. Glen theatre, the nude dancing that was the subject of the case was in fact covered as “expressive conduct” protected, albeit marginally under the first amendment. The ruling however allowed for the law to censure the theatre under precedent from United States v. O’brien. United States v. O’brien allows for the limiting of symbolic expressive conduct if it is with the goal of limiting a second order consequence which the state has a legitimate interest in regulating.

The interests which the individual states are held to have legitimate sphere of control over are public safety, morals, and health. It is under these parameters the state of Indiana was found to be acting within the bounds of the constitution by limiting the erotic nude dancing. As far as the law of the land is concerned nudity is a form of expression that may be limited, but does not have to be.

The later case of Eerie vs. Pap’s, along with the arguments of Justice Scalia show however the flaws in the reasoning of the ordinance that was under review in Barnes v. Glen theatre as well as all laws covering nudity as a broad category. First Scalia’s argument in relation to Barnes v. Glen theatre was in relation to the law specifically requiring that those involved in nude conduct at least be wearing pasties and G-strings. Although Scalia concurred with upholding the law, he acknowledged “that there is no reason to believe that such a requirement will at all reduce the tendency of establishments such as Kandyland to attract crime and prostitution, and hence to foster sexually transmitted disease.” Furthermore in Eerie vs. Paps where Justice John Stevens dissenting opinion is very enlightening, a law banning nudity in it’s entirety is covered. Stevens’ argument shows that the law covering is not a content neutral protection against the effects of nudity but was intended specifically to limit a kind of expression. In his written opinion he quotes one of the lawmakers “We’re not talking about nudity. We’re not talking about the theater or art … . We’re talking about what is indecent and immoral… . We’re not prohibiting nudity, we’re prohibiting nudity when it’s used in a lewd and immoral fashion.” In other words, the spirit of the law was to cover intent rather than mere nudity, even if this was not the precise wording.

Taken together, these cases demonstrate that while states possess the constitutional authority to regulate public nudity in the interest of health, safety, and morals, the legal justification for such regulation rests largely on assumptions about the harms associated with nudity. The courts have repeatedly relied on claims about secondary effects, such as crime, public disorder, or moral decay, without requiring strong empirical evidence that broad nudity bans meaningfully reduce these outcomes. This raises an important sociological question: whether laws that criminalize nudity as a general category actually address the behaviors that pose risks to public safety and morality, or whether they instead obscure more specific forms of conduct that research in psychology and criminology identifies as the true sources of harm.

Many opponents of legalizing public nudity, particularly those from conservative Protestant Christian backgrounds, argue that exposure to nudity is socially harmful. Others, including some who do not base their views on religion, have objected to public nudity on the grounds that legalization could increase incidents of sexual misconduct or create uncomfortable public environments, potentially harming local communities and businesses, such as concerns raised in San Francisco’s Castro district. Dennis Prager (who is jewish, but states he is arguing from a “judeo-christian” perspective) argues in National Review that public nudity is immoral as it breaks down the barrier between human and animalistic behavior, stating that these sorts of distinctions are essential to a biblical understanding of morality (Prager).

To address the religiously based argument by merely replying that separation of church and state or some other version of legal secularism precludes forming laws on such a basis would be unlikely to satisfy critics from that perspective as they may or may not accept the premise. Prager’s argument rests on an exegesis of scripture which although he claims extends across various faiths, is in fact not very applicable. His argument that clothing is somehow inherently necessary for the proper symbolic distinction between man and animal makes little sense in light of the fact that before the fall the two humans did not wear clothes. His other allusions towards the symbolic separations that exist throughout the old testament, especially Leviticus which he cites, are only part of the jewish ritual law. Symbolic separation in the ritual law is considered by most christian theologians and biblical scholars to be separate from the moral law, therefore only applying to the jewish people in the old covenant, superceded by the new testament. This makes his argument that public nudity laws would be necessary to uphold universally consistent religious norms that are part of the fabric of American society less convincing.

The degree to which public nudity would increase sexual offense against others is likely minimal. In cases of a nude individual actually causing harm to another psychologically it is usually an instance of what is known as “flashing”. Flashing is normally intended to cause shock to the victim and gratify the perpetrators desire to break social norms. This would not make any sense to do in a situation where public nudity is not illegal or taboo. Furthermore, other offenses that are legitimately sexual misconduct by nature such as public masturbation could still be covered by intent based laws as already discussed. Decriminalizing public nudity and removing the taboo would disassociate nudity on its own from sexuality and therefore would not lead to more instances of serious offence.

Research on exhibitionist offenders further suggests that broad public nudity laws are ineffective at addressing the behaviors that genuinely threaten public safety. Studies of individuals charged with indecent exposure indicate that while some exhibitionists do reoffend, recidivism is strongly associated with specific psychological and social risk factors, such as prior criminal history, substance abuse, or untreated mental health conditions, rather than with nudity itself. Importantly, many exhibitionists do not escalate to more serious sexual offenses, and a significant portion never reoffend at all. This indicates that criminalizing public nudity as a general category fails to accurately identify or deter high-risk individuals, while diverting attention and resources away from targeted interventions. By focusing on intent and demonstrable harm rather than mere exposure, states would be better positioned to address repeat offending while avoiding unnecessary criminalization of nonsexual behavior.

On the whole, laws which ban public nudity itself are shown to be unnecessary infringement on first amendment rights by the fact they are not demonstrated to stop the undesirable effects public nudity is stated to have and are not necessary for the moral fabric of american society.

Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. 501 U.S. 560. Supreme Court of the United States, 1991.

City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M. 529 U.S. 277. Supreme Court of the United States, 2000.

United States v. O’Brien. 391 U.S. 367. Supreme Court of the United States, 1968.

Prager, Dennis. “Why Public Nudity Is Wrong.” National Review, 3 Dec. 2012, www.nationalreview.com/2012/12/why-public-nudity-wrong-dennis-prager/.

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed., APA Publishing, 2013.

“Exhibitionistic Disorder.” MSD Manual Professional Edition, Merck & Co., www.msdmanuals.com/professional/psychiatric-disorders/paraphilias-and-paraphilic-disorders/exhibitionistic-disorder.

2020 through 2023 was easily the most fitting time for the term clown world in the history of mankind. At no other time has the mass of humanity not only been treated so much like cattle, but willingly submitted to it. Everything was a shit test, and America failed.

It all began with fear mongering on the news about a new disease, before I knew it we were taking a 2 week break from class. But everyone had a sense this wasn't the end. It didn't take long to learn I wouldn't finish the 5th grade in school. Did I think it was warranted since there hadn't even been a single case in my state yet? No, not really, but no school sounded fun. That is until mom got one shotted by the news and decided I can't play with friends because of the Wuhan Flu. This was later changed but by then it had been several months of just YouTube, gaming and gooning.

Then some meth head died from an overdose while being apprehended by the cops, which somehow blew up the world. I saw the footage, and came away confused. I had wrestled a lot with other kids and such throughout my life, and that just didn't look like it would kill me. I remember even watching and asking how he died. My parents made sure to point out that he said “I can't breathe”, which just left me more confused. I had choked on food several times as a kid, at no point had I ever been able to form a full sentence to communicate that while choking. To me, it didn't seem like murder and even if it was, not a huge deal.

And then it started. The funeral was probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Fit for an emperor, with prominent politicians kneeling before it in the perfect embodiment of “humiliation ritual”. Once again I thought that was kind of weird, but just passed it off. But then the “discourse” and the protests started. White supremacy was always in the news, whatever that meant to them. People were checking their privilege constantly. Black squares in bio everywhere. At this time my mental health was quite bad, I'd always been kind of an oddly depressive and anxious kid even at very young ages, and when active derision of the “straight white male” began at school and in all public settings my 11-12 year old self was very negatively affected, but even though I was the one with mental health problems, I still felt like the only sane person locked in an insane asylum. Every single one of my classmates became a bisexual somehow, everyone else was trying to make lists of all their identities including mental illnesses. This sounds super boomerish but this is what the young goyim were actually doing at the time. People sexually identifying as Minecraft YouTubers was not unheard of.

Progressive culture was already a thing in my area, even before COVID I'd been into some antifeminist stuff because of how much “men are pigs blah blah” was a thing, and TDS was something I found very annoying. We talked about race incessantly since kindergarten. But it had rarely gone into outright direct hate speech directed at young white males.

Until 2023, throughout the time which I was getting more and more into right wing Internet, watching some Matt Walsh, but also finding some far right content like Pax Tube (he used to actually make good history vids), Leather Apron Club, and Keith Woods, it just felt like ultra progressivism was on the ascendancy forever. Eventually it felt like there would be legally recognized animal identifying polycule marriages and I'd basically have to just watch it go down or face consequences.

And of course as the vaccine came out, I heard a new story about what it actually does every two weeks. Does it prevent you from getting it? This week yes, the next no. Does it prevent spreading? This week yes, next week no. Eventually the settled upon agreement was it “lessens symptoms”. Okay I guess. I didn't really want to be vaccinated. I'd heard a Tucker Carlson interview I think about possible heart problems etc and I got a little nervous about it. But it was my body, my news-brained Mom's choice. Eventually I remember getting kind of black pilled about mass layoffs and such for non vaxxed people. That on top of everything else made it feel like 1984 shit.

But away from politics, social life had disintegrated. Before Covid, suburban life was quite fun. Even if you were kind of weird and antisocial, neighbors would still invite you to hang out, there'd be get-togethers, barbeques, parties etc. kids played alot together. Ever since, just hasn't happened. I ride a bike around my neighborhood almost everyday. I see maybe a few people, but that's about it. There's no real sense of a community. Ever since the air has not been quite the same, nothing is.

When I was in 4th grade was the first real sign, when multi digit multiplication came up. Prior to that I was consistently a kid identified as “very smart”. I couldn't fucking figure that shit out. Eventually the teacher separated the class in groups, one for kids who could move on, and one for dummies. Standard classroom practice really. For the first time in my life I was in the dummy group. And most of the dummy group beat me. This was a huge ego blow. I never actually figure it out until middle school, when I finally came up with a long winded way of doing it.

Overall, throughout school I was never a TERRIBLE math student. In fact, quite above average. Normally had a B or low A in the class, barely studied etc. but I always felt I was underperforming for my actual intelligence in math. Like the simplest parts didn't come naturally. I'd be super embarrassed to do simple math in my head in front of people because I'd have to go through long convoluted methods to get to the answer, and I have to keep exponents written on the side of a paper for memory and stuff. I couldn't memorize whole multiplication tables, just one part and then keep adding/subtracting the multiple until I got the answer in my head. Granted, I did these weird methods pretty fast (If I was average IQ that would've taken forever). It's probably just high fluid reasoning making up for it.

This all showed through on my SAT. I didn't study for it at all, got a 750 on reading and writing (only part I didn't do perfect was grammar), but only a 540 on math. That's quite a large gap, or as one of my fellow students said “what the fuck that's a crazy distribution”. Another friend once asked “why do you seem so smart except for math, which you're kind of just mediocre at”, first off holy backhanded compliment. Second, I don't fucking know.

I'm planning on starting an evaluation as soon as I return to the states, because I still have time for SAT retakes (accomodations could give me as much as 2x more time on the math portion) as well as recieve some possibly necessary accomodations in college because all of my major ideas are going to involve a lot of math.

There’s been a “slapping your kids” discourse on X recently, and I’m not far off from becoming an adult, so I’m writing my thoughts on the parent child relationship. starting with the spanking question but going over various other thoughts as well. What are my qualifications? I’ve been doing this whole “childhood” thing for 17 years now, and will shortly make it 18. One day I will forget about this, as it seems a lot of parents do. Why not get some thoughts from someone still at that point?

Spanking

Ed Dutton did a good video recently on this very topic. Corporal punishment among some people has gained a very bad reputation as basically destroying a child’s life. It’s basically rape, murder, and treason rolled into one. Others (especially certain kinds of redneck/black/hispanic and other low class groups) glorify it, and make it known they intend to viciously smack their kids so they don’t turn into a pussy ass bitch. My opinion is, as always very nuanced and intelligent as compared to everyone else’s idiotic and plebeian thoughts.

As shown above, actually measurable detrimental effects are overstated. In fact, it appears unlikely that outcomes, positive or negative are heavily affected at all (when accounting for kind of beating etc.) However, it has also consistently been shown to not really alter behavior or improve emotional regulation. And life outcomes measure things like monetary success, but not really your trust in your parents or any other facet of your relationship with them. Your child’s temperament also matters in this, a very sensitive child may be harmed more by hitting.

Overall, I mostly believe in a more gentle, reasonable form of parenting. I think this, combined with measured use of authority is the best way. For example, the most vulgar kids I knew growing up were kids that got slapped for swearing, but their parents kept swearing in front of them. Being a good example is much more effective than any attempt to alter behavior with punishment. There still may be times when you need to use force to restrain and discipline your child, it’s up to your judgement, I’m just chipping in that you should prioritize example and positive reinforcement.

Sports

Every boomer, especially every boomer conservative loves the idea of sending little Timmy to play team sports to teach him about real life and being a man. I think sports are a good thing, but I also think organized sports are a little overrated and people care too much that there’s been a decline in youth participation in them.

I don’t know if it’s always been like this, or even if it’s every sport, but in youth hockey (what I grew up playing, and still do play) people obsess about skill development camps over the summer, taking their kid to a “better” team in a higher level league which keeps getting diluted, because these “high level” leagues eventually make it easier to get in so more parents will pay their exorbitant fees and then another league gets created that’s even more expensive and prestigious. Parents make sure to get their kids the most expensive gear that has no real affect on performance except for people who have the skill to actually make the most of minuscule differences in quality ( a club that includes NHL players, a few high level college/minor league players, and pretty much nobody else).

And frankly, the benefits of sports don’t reach everyone. Although I’ve always been physically fit mainly because of sports (I do work out independent of it now, but didn’t always) it really didn’t help my confidence or build any character. I’m terrible at socializing in large groups, and the locker room environment was that plus normal teenage boy behavior. It was very overwhelming, it felt impossible to interact with most of my team, I couldn't tell if anyone liked or respected me so I took jokes and banter too seriously because I just couldn’t tell. Most of the time I was lonely and felt dispassionate about the whole thing, although I enjoy the actual playing of hockey. I don’t really feel like I became more disciplined from it or any other benefit the uncs talk about.

On top of that, DO NOT put your daughters into heavy sports. It is a bad idea. Their different musculature and bone structure make it so that ACL tears, ankle and knee injuries are much more common. Female athletes are much more likely to experience body image and anxiety disorders. Heavy activity delays puberty in women. However some physical activity is still good. Get your daughters into activities like swimming or jogging but definitely not into competitive (especially contact) sports.

Screens

Don’t let your kids doomscroll, don’t let your kids use porn, don’t just stick a tablet in your kids face anytime you don’t feel like taking care of your kid. If you need to distract your kids, consider something other than YouTubeKids. When I was a young lad, my parents gave me a DVD player and a bunch of dinosaur documentaries. Later supplemented with documentaries about history. This was heaven.

Coming into middle school age, you will likely need to educate your kids about porn, gore, and other horrors of the internet before the children of less responsible parents teach them for you. Even if you homeschool, I still recommend this. Spare no details, really. The more mysterious it sounds, the more enticing it’ll be. Tell them exactly what it is and why they need to avoid it.

Schooling

I recommend homeschooling. Not so much for political reasons, but because school is dogshit. So much of it is waiting for the dumbest in society to catch up to where they need to be (they won’t). Every year is just 90% review of the same shit. School is just filled with busywork that can be done with AI without having lost any benefit. Many parents can really just do a better job than the overpaid midwits who are the majority of teachers (yes, OVER paid). Personally I’m with the libertarians on the idea of privatizing it but that’s for another time. Finally, you should homeschool in a co-op or something because you don’t want your kid to be under socialized.

It's no secret we need to spread an intellectual current of right wing thought much further. Our perspectives on race, religion, immigration and to a lesser degree economics have as of yet not been spread to a wide enough audience with sufficient information to help them be genuinely informed (except for a very low brow JQ variant that is currently in vogue on Instagram).

So far, this blog has largely been for fun. More of a diary with polemic characteristics. However, it could be much more. I'm planning this to be a center of a new media strategy, where I will plan my projects, archive anything that is too radioactive for other platforms etc.

So what is the strategy? I'm going to start with short form video content, insta, tik Tok etc. I will make short, data heavy content, and in those profiles keep links to YouTube and substack where I will make longer form content. The shorts part will largely be easy, just boiling down info from long form creators into a digestible, catchy form. Think pop science, but racist. What if Sir Francis Galton or Madison Grant became a Vsauce clone? I might ask for help from other creators on here, because this could become more work than I alone can handle.

My early video ideas include

• Rundown on civil rights laws and why they're bad

• Race is not a social construct

• Myths about American immigration

• Who is behind mass migration

• Why Indians poop in the streets (I expect good numbers from that lol)

• IQ differences between races (and why muh socioeconomic circumstances don't change that)

• British imperialism did not stifle india

• For long form YouTube content, I plan my first video to be on African civilizations like Egypt and Mali, basically debunking the idea that Africa was ever as advanced or more advanced than Europe before colonialism, but other than that no plans currently

I'll start work ASAP, planning on getting one of those small tik tokker mics just for half decent sound and then I'll get to work.

This has translated into large amounts of people declaring they’d rather be a medieval peasant, they just want that leisurely medieval life. People across the spectrum with economic gripes like to say this. Another (I think more ironic) variant celebrating “aristocratic” leisure. Which has led to some pretty funny satires about being a spiritual aristocrat because you still live in your parent’s basement at 35.

The first part of why this is stupid is it’s not really true. Yes, days off from direct agricultural labor were frequent. But premodern life was full of tasks not directly considered work that were far more time consuming and difficult than your desk jockey email job. You (and neighbors/family available to help) had to repair everything of yours on your own. You had to maintain your village’s infrastructure like the outhouse, well, irrigation etc with basic tools. Milk the cows, collect the eggs, really just ask anyone who lives on a farm now how many tasks there are that they HAVE to do daily. Suddenly the fantasy of doing nothing but self expressive leisure all day with your aryan milkmaid is looking a little less desirable. On top of disease, your kids frequently dying at a young age, you most likely not even living to current retirement age.

I don’t think it’s a bad thing to push back against the idea of comically grim Monty Python and The Holy Grail levels of squalor being the norm where everything is in a grayer filter, everybody is covered in shit, etc. But making up some borderline marxist utopia for the past completely misses the point of the reactionary critique of modernity and admiration for certain periods of pre modernity. Concepts like protestant work ethic (derived from Max Weber’s The Protestant Work ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism) have been totally pulled out of context to mean things that they really don’t, making up myths about a chad “lazy” catholicism vs. virgin hard working protestants.

While the Protestant reformation did in many places reduce holidays and such, this is not actually what the protestant work ethic is. What the Protestant work ethic, and its general role was in history, was to collapse the boundary between sacred and profane work and bring a close to the tripartite division of society. The priest caste of European society held the motto Laborae Et Orare (work and prayer). In Medieval society, along with many other indo European societies (including those of Greek and Roman civilization) work was divided between a praying-magical-thinking class, who engaged in physical work primarily for spiritual ends (priest caste), then there was the ruler/warrior caste concerned with participation in politics and war, and a producer class that made goods. In none of these groups was a lazy mindset to be found.

After protestantism work was brought purely into the secular realm. The believers were the true priests, with pastors simply being one among many believers. Protestant society was quickly dominated by the work-for-profit mindset of the third estate, although Luther and Calvin taught that ordinary vocations were sacred, really it just made the sacred normal and began the process of “disenchantment".

But fundamentally, this just reveals something almost sick about someone. To look on the springtime of western civilization, the age of faith and heroism and think about their policy on work hours is so faggy. These people spent centuries on building cities, cathedrals, castles that nobody they knew would ever see. They left to fight in heavy plate armor in the middle of a fucking desert (some selling most or all of their vast estates to fund this) to protect their faith.

I’ve never met a Qanon believer. This always struck me as a little weird as a resident of West Virginia, for something that was supposed to be so ubiquitous in the Republican Party. Personally I now think it was an op, probably at least a few were paid actors (I thought this before the SPLC lore drops but now I know the probable culprit). Most of my friends were country kid Republicans etc. like seriously how did I not meet a single Qtard?

Well, whatever. It was certainly exaggerated in frequency by the media, even if it was completely real. Now let’s talk about Qanon’s younger, non binary sibling. I know people that are unfortunately like fully in the club. One in particular, she spent years ruining family dinners to talk about the latest thing the “trumptards” believed, which had been of course thoroughly deboonked by unnamed experts on the television. Now she believes

• The Thomas Crooks assassination attempt was staged

• So was the second attempt by Ryan Routh

• Charlie Kirk was killed by Trump as a false flag (citing Candace Owen’s views as authority on this)

• The Republicans sent people down to Mexico to encourage Mexicans to immigrate, and this is why US border crossings were so high

• BLM was a MAGA false flag, it was originally supposed to be peaceful but MAGA came in and agitated to create violence

And probably more I don’t want to know. Lefties (that I actually know IRL) are going all in on “distraction from the files” and false flag calls more than I ever experienced with those on the right.

I feel VERY vindicated about this, because I’ve known for years what these people are like while centrist dorks like Hanania and Cofnas proclaimed how ELITE the left is, how INTELLIGENT, the left is blah blah. Truth is, it was mostly smug, narcissistic, conformists of middling intellect that were fully reliant on a power structure which backed their beliefs and gave them the assurance their opinions were expert approved™.

However, collapse in trust given to the system which gave them so much epistemic confidence has done a number on their psychology. They have retreated to the classic “paranoid”1 style of politics. Concerned with overarching conspiracies, treating everything as either a distraction and/or means to achieving a normally hyper specific end.

Fixations on exaggerated degeneracy of the elites is another feature of a “paranoid” style. Ordinary human inclination to sin and libido dominandi are never the force driving the elites, but a special, demonic, hyper depravity. In the later years of the French Monarchy, the French public was obsessed with allegedly lurid sex life of Marie Antoinette, who shows no evidence of being anything but a beautiful and goodhearted spouse to a rather mediocre but well intentioned king. Accusations included the sexual abuse of her own son (he was forced at a young age to testify this at her trial), as well as being personally responsible for the catastrophic French financial crisis. This is common across the paranoid style in American history, as Richard Hofstadter notes

On the other hand, the sexual freedom often attributed to the enemy, his lack of moral inhibition, his possession of especially effective techniques for fulfilling his desires, give exponents of the paranoid style an opportunity to project and express unacknowledgeable aspects of their own psychological concerns.2

The final feature of the paranoid style is that “there are no coincidences”, you see two events have never coincided, EVER. Everything is a distraction, everything is part of a plan.

Now that it has been thouroughly delineated, the convergence of the spectrum on this paranoid style (not for the first time in American history) has created a strange monoculture among those with wildly differing beliefs. Young American leftists will often use (albeit in a painfully butchered form, since they didn't get it from the source) memes developed by right wing radicals like “goyslop”, “ZOG”, and “Satanic Pedo Elites”, and an agreement among many on such banalities as “right and left are just wings on a plane going the same direction” (although it is true that right and left both play a role in the system, which I think the original neoreactionaries explained pretty well, these types often pretend like they wouldn't immediately start a violent conflict with each other the second the current power structure collapsed). As mentioned above, the most left wing woman you’ll ever meet actually cited CANDACE OWENS as a source of her beliefs.

These people tend to go in one of two paths, resignation, where they simply become radical centrists with no actual program or ideology but simply a list of normally ill defined grievances (to define them too much would require commitment to a set of values beyond pure paranoia) or the tribalist, for whom one’s side is a heroic bulwark against the establishment.

To clarify, not all who indulge in a conspiracy theory or two, or the belief that elites dominate society fit this description AT ALL. The paranoid style is best summarized as “the hyper sadistic and degenerate elites have been consciously unified in pursuing this VERY BAD end for a long time and all else is a distraction from it”.

I myself harbor a few conspiracies. Some have made a good case as to why you should believe in MORE3 of them. And further, not only do I believe our current society to be dominated by elites, I believe ALL societies throughout time were, and will continue to be, but this is actually contrary to the paranoid style (as per the elite theorists). The paranoid style is extremely democratic in its implicit beliefs, the existence of an elite is held as evil and thwarting the benevolent“will of the people”.

This cross spectrum dominance of this mindset, born from lack of trust, signals decline in the system. I encourage everybody to not indulge it, but to focus on building for a future system.

Once again my wife’s boyfriend was coming over to service her needs. I was supposed to be happy. This was “our fantasy” as she liked to remind me. I decided to scroll twitter for a little while in the meantime, as the Burnt Peanut wasn’t currently streaming. Sandwiched in between the usual items on my feed (yes, it was porn) was something that shook me to my core. I’d heard of these, a shitpost they’re called. My hands got clammy, my heart rate sped up. It was a joke about…Anne Frank of all things! I was terrified someone would think I’m enjoying this.

“What’s the difference between Anne Frank and a Boy Scout? A boys scout comes back from camp.”

- Foidkiller1488

In spite of myself, a little air was expelled from my nostrils, just slightly too forcefully as the door opened. Terrified, I dropped my phone, causing my thumb to hit like. And he walked in. 6’5, broad shoulders, a classic tapered cut with a very short beard on an impossibly strong jaw. I never have learned his name and I’m too scared to ask. My wife comes out of her room in lingerie, a smile on her face which is never anything but impassive when solely in my presence.

He marches straight up to me. “I know what you liked on twitter”,

fuck, “please, you don’t understand…”

“Wait here” he says

…

After about 2 hours of me listening to my wife be pleased in the other room, he comes out, his hair hasn’t changed position at all somehow. He grabs me roughly by my neck, and drags me out to his car. I have no idea where we are going, until we pull up to the local Holocaust Museum. It felt like ages as he made me go up to each exhibit and read out loud from the information plaque, while he stood there with a look that said “Is this what you thought was funny?”

But as it dragged, something changed in me. By the time I got to the last plaque, I even thought of a joke about it, a rather witty one I think. A small smirk appeared on my face while my back was turned to the boyfriend.

An explosion of ideas occurred in my head on the ride home. Short, 1-2 sentence jokes that would’ve deeply offended me less than 4 hours ago. But a burning rage at the man driving in front of of me (I was in the back seat, shot gun empty), but especially myself for my weakness kept that from me. The first thing I did was type all of them down non a document. But my normal twitter account wouldn’t do, under my name with my irl friends (and my wife’s boyfriend) as mutuals. I started a new account, called AryanRapeMachine. It seemed the perfect name to upset those in my life who, although they would never see it, it felt like it would hurt them.

Months passed. The bangers wouldn’t stop coming. I ignored my wife completely. She began to get multiple boyfriends, even experimented with lesbian stuff. I didn’t watch or care about any of it. When she began talking about a “polycule”, I couldn't do anything but think of my followers yearning for my next awesome post.

My career skyrocketed. I began getting followers in 5 digit numbers, mostly really right wing guys. By then I’d stopped caring about my wife’s rants about the intersectional power structure in America. I didn’t really care what she thought at all anymore. I felt more energetic, free, and whole. Something about my face, whether it was psychological or physiological, I don’t even know, stopped causing that hatred I didn’t even know was there until it stopped. Some of these guys in my replies were starting to make sense when they talked about politics. In one or two sentences, their thoughts seemed to blow my wife’s hysterical statements out of the water.

The apex of my career occurred on Juneteenth. By now I was at about 500,000 followers, and I tweeted something really funny about slavery. And who else but the Vice President of the United States, gives a like and follow! But the apex is always followed by a downfall.

3 days later, some faggot wrote an article titled “JD Vance follows these 10 far right accounts”, and I was in it. I had long since been integrated into the right wing poster sphere, and a target was now on my back. But I ignored it at the time. My follower count got another boost, and a million seemed plausible.

Part 2 forth coming…

I don’t know what I was expecting when I picked this up at my local bookstore. Just saw it and grabbed it really. Even though I knew of older biographies (like the Freeman one, which I’ve heard very good things about), this one just seemed to call to me. So I grabbed it.

Michael Korda is primarily a military historian, having himself been in British RAF intelligence. He writes in great detail about each of Lee’s battles, and this would give you a very good amount of knowledge on the various happenings of the American Civil War. But Korda is also a skilled biographer. He does great at assembling a picture of Lee as a soldier, commander, husband, father, and first and foremost a patriot.

Korda as an older British military historian rather than either a black studies kook or southern partisan is well equipped to give an objective eye to Lee. The verdict is much closer to that of the south though. Korda deeply admires Lee for his chivalry, faith, discipline, and humility. Lee is a very deserving figure for this praise.

However, Korda does not shy away from contradicting “Lost Cause” historiography. Which isn’t what you were told it is. The way you’re high school teacher told you it was is that the lost cause is the set of utterly DEBOONKED myths where southerners appear as anything other than mustache twirling villains who wanted to rape black women all day. That is not what Lost Cause historiography actually is. Rather much of what was called Lost Cause arose from arguments between former confederates over who was to blame for the loss. Lost Cause-ers (like Jubal Early) tended to view Lee as completely blameless as General Longstreet ruined everything (exacerbated by Longstreet’s post war association with Grant’s presidency). Korda points out that in many times, especially the contentious Gettysburg, Lee was the victim of his own overly polite personality. His unwillingness to be confrontational with lower level officers led to them not fulfilling their duties. Longstreet, while not the same as Stonewall Jackson had been, was a competent second in command.

This was all written in 2015. If it had been two years later, after the infamous “Unite The Right” rally in Charlottesville, it certainly wouldn't have been published. Nevertheless, to write such an overall glowingly positive biography when academia had LONG since been overrun by libtards is a genuinely brave endeavor. Korda however has a history of bravery, assisting Hungarian resistance in 1956 on the ground as part of a British intelligence operation, so the scorn of the likes of Ibram Kendi and Ta Nehisi Coates likely isn’t very intimidating to him. It also provides a corrective to biographies who can find no fault in Lee’s decision making throughout the war. As great a man as he was, he made mistakes. I STRONGLY recommend this book. 5/5.

A left winger (I think) accidentally made an inciteful observation. Right wingers really hated elementary school. I really like the reaction that’s occurred, all the right wing anons giving lore dumps about some absolute fucking bitch who ruined their life in school. So now I will contribute my innumerable petty gripes.

1. In pre school I’d always try to draw weapons. I’d try to make them. Or soldiers, knights, whatever. Aryan warrior caste spirit or something. Anyway this fucking bitch would always make me throw it away and draw flowers or some gay shit. I’m not even against drawing cute nature shit, but these women just would NOT let me draw a damn pistol. This gets really frustrating for a 3-5 year old kid.

2. Don’t turn in tests early! Like, seriously? WHY? “because it makes other kids feel bad”. Are we really serious about this? So yeah, I’d just sit there like a dumbass for like 15 minutes with fully completed sheet fidgeting (until I got told not to do that) while the rest of class caught up. HOLY HELL was that boring.

3. “DON’T read ahead!”, I just couldn't understand. “The other kids aren’t as fast”. I think I literally told a teacher “okay, go help them and let me read”. She did NOT like that. (insert joker from Dark Knight scene where he says something like that).

   

4. "GROUP READING TIME”. Oh my gosh, that sucked. “Teacher, Do I have to read with a group, I don’t like reading with a group!” Of course you have to. And I’d get nothing done, because I’d be in a group with fucking idiots trying to sound out two letter words out loud. How the fuck am I supposed to read with three other goomba niggas yapping in my ear “A, S, spells as”.

5. You had to read OUT LOUD, EVERYONE AT THE SAME TIME. I developed the ability to read internally pretty early, so I just wanted to do that. But EVERYONE had to read out loud because it develops reading skills. I couldn’t focus at all in that environment, got super overstimulated and couldn't read at all. When I did manage to focus long enough to read, I normally did internally, and then teach or even another student would tell me to read out loud. Like WHYYYYY.

6. Okay, on from Elementary. In Middle school the dress code was enforced in such a ridiculous way. Any queeroid fag could wear booty shorts (which did not leave his cock up to imagination) with a spiky collar, but if some country kid wanted to wear a hat, his ass is done for. Retarded double standard. Girls wearing the sluttiest shit imaginable in 6th grade, I bring a pair of fucking sun glasses and I get in trouble. What the fuck.

These are overall pretty petty gripes, but they act as points of reference for how miserable a hyper feminized environment is for young males. Anyway, Mrs. Greddle should fucking jump off a bridge. Next part will document my crazy anti-white experiences in school, so look out for that.

The goyim are very obsessed with AI lately and it’s getting really annoying. Listen, I’m very open to anti technology ideas, I like Heidegger and Ted Kyzcinski as much as the next guy. I also somewhat understand (as much as I disagree with it) the techno accelerationist mindset. However there is a kind of low iq ludditism (very similar to low iq antisemitism) which stretches across the political spectrum, a lot of people don’t even seem to know what the thing we call AI (more accurately describable as large language models) is. So I’m writing a post which will address various predictions, including the “sex with robots” addressed in the title (I picked that because I know my audience).

AI and AGI (skip if you already know the basics of AI tech)

First you need to know that what popular culture, science fiction, and actual researchers long thought of as artificial intelligence, is not the tools we refer to as artificial intelligence. We use a large language model, which is trained on huge sets of information, and then based on a prompt runs probability generation to basically predict the most coherent response. It doesn’t understand anything the way you do. What we have long thought of as AI, is now called by silicon valley dorks Artificial General Intelligence (or AGI). They seem pretty convinced they’ll make it even to the point of saying they’ll make AGI, and just ask it how to make money, lol. Some point to the exponentially increasing processing power of LLM models that such progress is being made. Quite simply, that’s like saying I’ll do enough bicep curls for my arms to work like the muscle in my head that let me write this.

AI Job Theft

AI will probably steal a lot of jobs in the white collar world, but which ones it will is quite fuzzy. For instance, one would think that jobs “requiring a human touch” would not get hit. You would probably think therapy is one of these. Certainly at least a fucking good old fashioned friend couldn't be replaced. Except they're some of the most common uses now. There are also opposite cases where an AI definitely could replace but I think probably won’t. Lawyers are a case of this. Most of the tasks lawyers do could be done by Claude or Gemini probably. But they won’t because I (and most people couldn’t) can never trust something without a face to carry out tasks which could severely affect my finances, or my freedom for that matter. And law firms are unlikely to implement them large scale because that would reduce their billable hours. Too often we make economic predictions without accounting for the fact that the humans which are the demand side of the infamous suppply-demand graphic are quite weird and don’t do things in the most rational way always.

Surveillance

Okay, this one is a rather serious concern. AI very much can be used by the sate to more effectively surveil the populace.

Okay, can we finally get to sex?

Yes, we can. We all know that automation has failed in a lot of physical tasks. We’ve all seen the robots that trip and bites shit as soon as someone slightly changes its training area. Physical tasks are the hardest for computers because they don’t have the embodied experience of humans constantly receiving new sensory information which leads to adjustment. Your feet and hands, whenever in use send information that you instantaneously adapt to allow you to grip things, walk on different surfaces, this doesn't happen with robots. And that’s why they suck, and will continue to suck at physical activity. If you’re older than thirteen, you’re aware of what it’s like to get pleasured, either by yourself or someone else. As simple of a task as it seems, the amount of sensory input you need to receive to erm…do the job at least somewhat well is a lot. For robots to provide a better partner than even a passive sex doll, it would need to able to register your individual reactions, bodily details, etc all in a moment to do even a shoddy imitation of “the job”. It would also be way, way more expensive than already available imitations of sex. So no, you will not likely not fuck a robot in your lifetime.

“The problem in reading Milton is not so much in the extent of his learning as its now unfamiliar area. Up through the 19th century, the classically educated englishman was reading his Milton without footnotes”

I personally required the footnotes to understand almost all of it, I understood none of the references and subtle allusion. So what is the difference between the education I am currently receiving, and the education I would have received as said Englishman? First, I must describe my own education with accuracy and precision to know this. It has been thoroughly oriented towards a “signalling model” of acquiring credentials, for the purpose of showing future employers how good of a salesman or what not you’d be.

But this is not fully comprehensive, and at its roots lie a doctrine of utilitarianism. At the beginning of the 19th century, this system spread a morality based on the practical promotion of pleasure, and the avoidance of displeasure, all purely material in origin. It would not be long before it and it’s materialistic foundations would also become educational as well as a moral doctrine. It’s exponent, Jeremy Bentham writes “In proportion as a branch of instruction contributes to the increase of human happiness (by which he meant mere pleasure), in the same proportion is it entitled to place in the system of education”. Education to the utilitarians was to be all practical learning. Culture, religion, traditions were all to be removed insofar as they made no contributions to Bentham’s own sickly idea of happiness. There was to be none of the “useless and unprofitable lumber of classical learning, all is science, all is instruction that terminates in utility”.

A full plan is then drawn up by his disciple Lord Henry Brougham, in his Practical observations upon the education of the people : addressed to the working classes and their employers. Laying out his plan, it includes making books cheaper by the dropping of taxes on paper, public lectures on science, and the spreading of educational clubs. None of these on their own are terrible ideas. Rather it is the vision of the benefits that would be reaped by a mere utilitarian and scientific education. “Let the poorest man once taste the pleasure of knowledge, and he will ever after scorn the low gratification of vice, the occupation of his mind will keep him from the alehouse and brothel”. The promises of education were continued by each reformer until eventually a scientific and standardized schooling would deliver on all the promises of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. High expectations, that the mere learning of of math and biology would encourage men towards what J.S Mill called the higher pleasures.

So what was the education the well educated Englishman, who could read Milton without footnotes, have recieved? I think it best described by one such englishman, John Henry Newman

“A habit of mind is formed which lasts through life, of which the attributes are, freedom, equitableness, calmness, moderation, wisdom, or what in former discourse I have ventured to call the philosophical habit.”

He continues elsewhere

“This process of learning, by which the intellect, instead of being formerd or sacrificed to some particular or accidental purpose, some specific trade or profession, or study, or science, is disciplined for it’s own sake, for the perception of it’s own proper object, and for it’s own highest culture, is called the liberal education.”

The true Western tradition of education, that which is called a liberal education, is intent on culture as its goal. Culture is the means by which the human matures and develops, coming to perceive what is lovely and good, and what is base and hateful. The development of an aesthetic sense, the study of human character in literature and history, and even the cultivation of our physical talents and power have all historically been part of this, being an almost one to one match with that system laid out by Plato in the Republic for schooling. That man become his highest self, looking to greater realities, and enlarging the greatness of his soul was once the aim of education.

But this is all very regressive I am to believe, this is incompatible with development, and science. But I think not.

The Practicality Objection

Some would say, “That is all very interesting, but this model is simply not practical; to continue progress, education must be scientific and geared toward utility”. But history in no way demonstrates or even remotely supports this. The whole of the scientific revolution took place under classical education; the industrial revolution began under this model. Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, and Isaac Newton were all classically educated men who advanced their theories in the context of the philosophy that had come before them. Indeed as scholar E. Christian Kopff notes1, “The education of scientists remained classical through the time of Linnaeus in the 18th century, and Darwin in the 19th”

And by no stretch was that the end of advancement under the classical model. In Germany, the birth of modern physics happened in this very environment. The German government, prior to the educational reforms of the National Socialists, provided two options, a classical education at a “Gymnasium”, and a practical, vocational education, “realschule”. Of those men who would lay the groundwork for modern physics (Planck, Schrodinger, Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein) ALL at some point attended a classical school, and all but one (Einstein) finished their education there. In Germany, we also see another repeated pattern. The ability to understand the ramifications of their discoveries in the realms of philosophy, as part of the great conversation. This quote from Heisenberg sums it best:

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense, they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unamiguously only in mathematical language”

Heisenberg also said of his fellow physicist Niels Bohr

“(Bohr) was primarily a philosopher, not a physicist”

If one of the greatest physicists of all time was primarily a philosopher, how well his mind must have been honed in philosophical enquiry must have been truly astounding. While Heisenberg grounded his views on reality in a Christian Platonist framework, and Bohr in Kantian thought, what is notable of both is their ability to ground their work in a larger tradition, and a long conversation, stretching to the ancients.

Is it weird that I have been in love with the idea of eugenics practically all of my conscious life? Probably very much so. I was an odd kid. In fact it was the very first political philosophy I ever adopted. The adoption of it was a very logical sequence for me really. I learned from muh heckin awesome science books and other sources the basics of genetics, including that they code for pretty much all major aspects of us (even if they are not the sole determining factor). Our diseases, our strengths, our weaknesses and our uniqueness all to a degree came from it. Although I was raised in a center-left environment, this only really made me more invested in the idea. The technocratic values of science and expert management which are so integral to the center left worldview only made me agree with the idea more.

Nevertheless, as school came, and we attended our mandatory Holocaust class (every class they could somehow bring the holocaust into, was holocaust/slavery class), the word got brought up. It was apparently a “pseudoscience” that had been discredited. Never explained how it was scientifically discredited, the fact that it was mentioned in the same sentence as “Jim Crow” and “Me mum died in the Holly” was simply enough for it to be “discredited”. My personal internal thoughts on it were “well it doesn’t look like it was actually scientifically discredited, but I guess people did use it in a bad way, so I guess I see why people are nervous about the idea”. After all, I’d also been told that scientific differences between the races had already also been discredited (lol, it wasn’t), so surely this time we could simply investigate the topic in a non racist way? But I forgot about it over time, they just kept drilling “me mum died in the holly” till I just said fuck it.

Next stage is my conversion to christianity. After this I was really dead set on the issues of the christian right. Abortion and so on. I hear the dumbass talking points about Abortion being “much eugenics” it’s racist because more blacks get abortions, you know the super lame talking points. I only half believed them, they were deeply unsatisfying and felt like I was playing into the hands of people who didn’t give really shit anyway. But we all know how these dork center right talking points failed. That’s why we’re here.

After giving up on the idea of ever presenting ideas of the christian right in ways acceptable to progressive morals, I stopped caring about those morals. Very quickly I dropped egalitarianism and liberalism, they had done nothing for me. And now the door was open to explore some more fun options. I started watching Keith Woods (before the YT ban :( ) and got on Substack. I learned about HBD, and other topics.

So now, eugenics? How do I deal with this little problem? Personally I’m not offended by the idea, but most of the methods to effectively carry out a eugenics program are pretty off limits religiously. Abortion, sterilization, Embryo selection, etc. planned breeding programs are theoretically feasible but kind of totalitarian (not a fan of that) and still very much pushing the border of acceptability in Catholic doctrine (even more so when you remember the border is currently policed by the left exclusively, “dialogue” is almost always open with them even though it’s obviously with intent for conversion of course wink wink). The only eugenic practice I can think of within these lines are a return to the institutionalization of those with certain defects like severe retardation and mental illness, such that they are prevented, albeit indirectly from procreating.

Currently though, and for a while the kind of eugenics I’m interested in isn’t really the “public health” kind. But more the superhuman creation kind. Supersoldiers, aristocracies of genetically stronger, smarter, healthier individuals. I’m not alone in this fascination. This is what the whole Bronze Age Pervert thing is about (yes I know he’s in the words of our friend Vril Martin “A Thielite BUTTFAGGOT”, but it is still very interesting to me). BAP’s not the only one though. Here's a great video by the YouTuber Pilgrim’s Pass, a right wing christian advocating much the same but through the media analysis his channel is centered around. Superhuman Aristocracy, I guess it’ll have to sit on the shelf for me in much the same way fully automated luxury lgbt communism does for every shitlib.

• I fully affirm the Nicene Creed and all other articles of faith for the Catholic Church

• Religion is also an observably beneficial social force

• All ancient religious traditions are born of the same transcendent metaphysical principles

• Only Christianity provides salvation, extra ecclesiam nulla salus

• Some religions despite having metaphysical truth, are morally corrupt to a degree that they are uniquely evil, Islam is one of those

• Religious aims should be actively pursued by society

• Non Christians should not be maltreated or punished unless their activities interfere with the society writ large

Race

• Race is a biological reality

• Physical traits are not evenly distributed across the races

• Cognitive traits are not evenly distributed across the races

• Biological race is the foundation of the asabiyyah that allows the units of nation, culture, ethnicity etc. to come into existence and flourish

• Members of other races can to some degree be incorporated into the cultural life of another, under certain conditions, this is less true the further apart these groups are genetically

• Neither culture nor biology nor environment is the sole determining factor in the behavior or outcomes of a certain people

• You cannot replace a people biologically and maintain the cultural life of that people

Forms of Government

• There is no singular form of government that is optimal for all times and places

• The different cultures and traits of peoples make them more suited to some and less to other forms of government

• There are three forms of government, Republic, Aristocracy, and Monarchy

• These three forms of government are rarely in a purified form, they are more like elements on the periodic table than three fixed hermetically sealed categories

• These governments each have a degenerate form, Democracy, Plutocracy, and Tyranny

• Neither Republic nor Democracy eliminates the Iron Law of Oligarchy

• Republics even in the best of cases trend towards cultural mediocrity

• Monarchy is the easiest form of government to “fix”, followed by aristocracy, with a faulty republic being nearly impossible to fix

• Degeneration within the governmental form, regardless of which one, is inevitable, although it can be delayed or forestalled

• If I had to pick a “best” form of government it would be some form of mix of the three, albeit one favoring the monarch over both aristocracy and populace

Economics

• Economic prosperity is a good thing, but should not be confused with a well ordered personal or suprapersonal life

• Economics cannot be cleanly divorced from ethical or spiritual concerns

• Private property is an ethical good

• Economics within a state should prioritize empowering the local

• Private property as an ethical good should be organized to be as widely distributed as possible without destroying prosperity

• Direct seizure of justly gained personal property is not a valid means of achieving this

• Economic practice should be based on the pragmatic discernment of achieving the good life for the state’s citizens

Human Nature

• Humans exist in concentric spheres of family, national, and religious life

• These roles are all necessary for his development as a human being and achieving the good life

• The virtues are those traits which allow a human to fulfill his roles, they are essential to a well lived existence

• Vice is the collection of malformities in the human personality that frustrate his ability to live a good life

• Humans naturally form hierarchies

• Men and Women have fundamentally different roles in human society

• Humans are not virtuous by default, they are in fact vicious by default

• Without a reasonably healthy society, humans largely degenerate rapidly

• Humans are very prone to conflict based on separations that are naturally occuring

• Conflicts between human groups which rise to existential threat are political

• A political unit is a unit of humans that has gained the ability to declare another unit its existential enemy

• Almost any grouping of humans, religious, national, cultural, even family units can become political

• The political is a natural and ineradicable part of human life

These probably don’t seem terribly interesting, since they are fundamental beliefs rather than some of my more fun beliefs and takes that are more tangential to how I view human political life. This is not a list of everything I think, but simply a list of priors that informs HOW I think.

It’s no secret girls are statistically outperforming boys in school. A lot of these stats don’t have the relevance that some think they do (for instance I don’t think it actually says anything about society that twice as many males repeat kindergarten, because I think is perfectly in line with greater male variability hypothesis, which I personally believe to be true). But it is empirically still observable that males are overall having trouble with especially getting into higher education, as well as underperforming in later stages of school to a degree I think unexplained by the variability hypothesis. Even the liberals have noticed. Proposing “evidence driven solutions” but not elaborating.

But really it’s not fucking rocket science. School is an effeminate “longhoused” environment. This has somewhat always been true for lower education, but has accelerated there, and also conquered higher education (for further reading Helen Andrews “The Great Feminization”). Males function best in environments of competition for a limited number of places in a formal status hierarchy. It’s really not rocket science. Feminization ruins the possibility of this. As environments become feminized, it becomes a more grueling experience for males, and “winning” becomes less desirable as instead of putting you above your fellow males, it puts you with the women. It makes you kind of fucking gay, dude.

The solution? It’s already been found. Have you heard of Kahoot? It’s a game where you answer questions, and pull ahead of your classmates. There’s not much else to it. You can also choose your name. Sometimes the class gets kahoot canceled for the year because someone had to put something filthy as their name for a chuckle. But why is it so fun? Why is it so effective, especially with males? 1.0 GPA kids will suddenly reveal they knew a lot more than previously thought. This makes perfect sense in light of the realities discussed in the previous paragraph. So if you have a problem with male performance in the classroom, did you try making it a competition?

I can’t think of any thing that shouldn’t be turned into a competition. Kids writing lazy essays that technically get an A? Make it a competition. Kids doing the bare minimum on their slideshow? make it a competition. Kids being bad presenters, because they just need to get the points? make presentation part of the competition. Masculinity is fundamentally a force that strives to overcome. Femininity is a force which submits. Submits to standards, grading scales, class rules. Just like how there is less variability in traits, there is less variability in quality in every environment that becomes feminized. No risk taking, because risk is something you take on in a win/loss environment. Every book is the same now, every tv show and movie, academia, music all of it.

This is then the proposal, turn school for males into an agon. Of course there needs to be instructional periods. You need to learn the methods to compete. But the classroom should be what practice is for a hockey player. Preparation for the agon in which the best one is brought forth, and everyone made better for having competed against him. This week we read Carlyle to learn the art of the English essay. Next week we take time to write our essays. Basic guidelines would be maintained not for grades, but for qualification into the competition. There will be a winner, there will be a loser, there will be people in between, and everyone will know who is who. Risks will be worth taking, because saying something controversial, a possibly heavy handed rhetorical flare, or even deriding an opponent in a witty way will be worth it to possibly win against an opponent who may overcome you as the better writer. But you could also lose because of this very risk. If you picked wrongly, you will learn the hard way. Writing styles become unique, as each student plays to their strengths, develops new skills, and tries new things in the hope of being the best.

The one objection I can think of (and if this is yours, please take a testosterone supplement) is the damage this would do to “self esteem”. First, men do not gain self esteem by being “accepted” in the feminine manner of being part of the knitting group, “regardless of our flaws”.

“No man is more unhappy than he who never faces adversity. For he is not permitted to prove himself” -Seneca

Second, the idea that adding competition will cause self esteem issues, regardless of your philosophy of masculinity, is not empirically supported. The opposite seems true. A good example is the La Sierra Physical Education program.

BTW, that’s the program you see in the edits and videos of “what PE was like in the 60’s”. It was not like that in the 60’s, but La Sierra highschool WAS like that in the 60’s. Were these kids on TRT? Genetically modified? Specially selected from across the nation? If you saw those videos, you’d think all of the above. But none were true. Their gym teacher was a former drill sergeant who implemented some reforms. First, the class was separated into groups, which would be designated by the color of their shorts. There was a lowest group, middle groups, and a highest group. You advanced by passing certain tests like running speed, pull ups, push ups, dips etc. The program was praised by John F. Kennedy, who wanted (but never got to) use it as a model for nation wide reform. The school marm, the concerned mother, and the HR lady are already thinking “toxic”, “unhealthy”, “abusive”. Surely these young men, subject to a toxic hyper competitive environment suffered psychologically from this experience? Nope. Later studies and check ins on participants from that era of the school’s history had much better outcomes in later life in mental health and even professional success.

So yeah, you can just make things a competition, and that would fix a lot.

I just finished Pride and Prejudice this last Sunday in a very good evening reading session, and want to comment on it as I see Austen as a remedy for our time. The first element I want to comment on is Mr. Bennett, the father of Elizabeth and her sisters.

Daddy Issues

One of the most annoying tropes in women’s books, which is now just all books anymore, is the obsession with daddy issues. If you know any of the goonettes, they very much all think they’re in an adversarial relationship with their father. They aren’t, but if they are, it’ll be hotter when a werewolf kidnaps them and fills that- erm - role in their life. Austen conveys the fatherly role in a way that I have yet to see, but one that is so much more accurate to reality than what I have seen.

Mr. Bennett is an intelligent man of the rising middle class of England in this period. He has 5 daughters and a wife. He dearly loves his 2 eldest daughters, Jane and Elizabeth, who as intelligent, charming and beautiful girls are the pride of his life. However he has made mistakes in his life along the way. He married an insufferably stupid woman (if you’ve read the book, you know what I'm talking about), and has basically no love left for her, simply trying to spend as much of his life trying to pretend she doesn’t exist as much as possible. He abdicates much of his responsibility by hiding in his study, allowing her to turn his other 3 daughters into spoiled directionless idiots.

Mr. Bennet’s most relevant desire throughout the book is that his daughters, especially Jane and Elizabeth don’t get trapped in a foolish marriage that makes them miserable. He rarely stands up to his annoying wife, but does so to stop her from marrying Elizabeth off to her ridiculous cousin Mr. Collins. However he still allows Mrs. Bennett to influence his young daughters, especially Lydia into poor choices such as chronic flirting, with even Elizabeth, despite her close relationship with Mr. Bennett acknowledging that this happened almost entirely because of his negligence. Because of this, his family is almost ruined.

Mr. Bennett is representative of most fathers in the modern day, probably doing a much better job than average. As so many fathers abdicate responsibility in favor of their man-cave, FanDuel, or even pornography, their daughters go down poor paths, often enabled by their mother. Most girls who imagine themselves as being in an adversarial or even abusive relationship with their father, in reality have a father who let them have way too much freedom, including the books that made them think they have an abusive father.

Ultimately his better daughters both secure happy marriages to good men, and Mr. Bennett gets the closure that his children didn’t repeat his mistakes.

It’s an often repeated phrase, in many varieties and forms, “left and right don’t matter, it’s really the x vs. y!”, “left or right, it’s time to unite”, “It’s fake division to stop us from going after “them””. I think this is idiotic. In some forms, these kinds of phrases can express valid frustrations with how sides of the spectrum are presented in mainstream discourse (for instance that as a right winger, you MUST support our greatest ally Israel). But at the end of the day it is a mere banality, proven so by the fact that every side, every part of every side, and every low iq fake-deep person on the internet uses it.

Quite simply, the question comes down to Lenin’s Who-Whom. Who is doing “it”, what is the “it” being done, and who is “it” being done to? To use “the jews” as one of the many boogeyman groups that “we” all must unite against, what are the jews doing? Are they importing millions of third worlders, slowly eroding the cultures and religions of European civilization, and bombing Palestinians? Or are they oppressing the BIPOCS of the world, with their not queer-friendly heteronormative culture that is killing the queers folx of Gaza and West Bank? And assuming that both of these positions are equally against “the man”, are those who advance them treated equally? Does Greta Thunberg, and half of Hollywood, probably 2/3’s of academia get treated the same way as Nick Fuentes and Richard Spencer? These questions matter. But first we must define right vs. left narratives if we are to go further.

The Right

The right first truly takes shape in the French Revolution, with those who remained loyal to throne and altar sitting at the right of the chamber, because being at the right hand of the king is symbolic of loyalty. This fact is sometimes used to discredit the term “right wing”, but the reality is these royalists do share a historical role, at least with the true right of today. There are many good breakdowns of right wing thought, I particularly recommend this video from The Distributist. Russell Kirk’s 6 canons of conservatism are also very good (get them from the original 1953 edition of The Conservative Mind, which is by far the most reactionary edition). But I will provide my own for the sake of brevity. To be right wing means to believe that hierarchy, differentiated social roles, different cultures, groups, races etc. are natural outgrowths of the human experience. The second most important belief is that ALL individuals and natural institutions are subject to decline brought about by human nature. A right wing narrative about the crisis of the modern world would be one of cyclical decline. A once good/useful elite becoming corrupt and seeking gain against the interests of the populace.

The Left

The left is simply varying degrees of belief in the good and equal man in the state of nature. Different outcomes, cultures, and roles between genders, races, and religions must be regarded as artificial, because these are people born “free and equal, but are everywhere in chains”.

Irreconcilable narratives

Thus ideas like “the elites are dividing us up by race and playing us against each other” reveal themselves to be left wing slop, even when it’s used by right wing individuals. Somehow we are expected to believe that the left wing policies of DEI are the real racist actions against black causing them to fall behind somehow. Or something else left wing. Because narratives like these rely on a constructivist view on human inequality. It force the right to go after the “real racists/homophobes/transphobes/misogynists of the elitist left”.

But enough has been said about the confused Republican messaging on race, I’ll leave this excellent article from Carl Horowitz on the topic for further reading.

I think I’ve conclusively explained the differences between what a right wing narrative is and a left wing one. And it’s becoming apparent to the reader how “it’s us vs. an amorphous elite” on its own is really a left wing narrative. Thus it shows it does not really escape the left-right dialectic. And it also doesn’t cut it as an analysis.

Now the idea that an elite would attempt to inflame tensions, especially in a democracy on its own isn’t necessarily left wing. Simply that all distinctions are artificial elite creations. John C. Calhoun in his brilliant work Disquisition on Government, demonstrates how the logic of absolute democracy trends inexorably towards a country bifurcated into a complete friend/enemy distinction. This is necessarily the work of “elites” as in organized minorities working to gain power. But the fundamentally right wing observation of Calhoun is that within all societies exist hierarchies, sections, and groups, and that rule by “king numbers” necessitates the turning of these against each other if you want to grab power. Showing another right wing belief, institutions degraded by human lust for power. The left must always, even when perceptive members like Lenin and Sorel saw the tendency of modern democracy to work in this way, claim that it’s actions will lead us to “true equality and democracy this time”.

Thus each analysis of whatever the “elite string pullers” must vary between right and left, as will the solution. To return to the example of “the jews”, the differences between Kevin Macdonald and any Left wing commentator on jewish influence. Macdonald’s thesis begins with a very implicitly right wing observation that a different group exists, with fundamentally different aims which due to conflicts with the interests of the majority population, but every left wing analysis is about deconstructing the colonialism within jewish communities. Macdonald aims fundamentally to protect the America he grew up with, even if you disagree with his analysis on what’s destroying it. His left wing counterparts aim fundamentally in the direction Macdonald would claim the jews are going in. Noteworthy again is the disparity between the treatment Macdonald receives and any such left wing academic.

In summary, you can’t unite against an elite without a) a list of agreed upon grievances b) a replacement plan, what those things are will put you in either the left or the right camp, and you will be set against the other because they are conceptually real.

This is a common variant of the white people/white Americans have no culture trope that is used to justify mass migration into our countries. When the “Da white peepo dey haz no culture” is easily refuted by a reply with a picture of a European city, composer, writer, painter, or literature, sculpture, painting etc. they backpedal in typical “motte/Bailey” fashion to “whites aren’t fun, their culture is boring”. It’s obvious low brow garbage meant to demoralize whites, and to enrage those who resist demoralization. Even though it’s very retarded, it fits so well with the message taught to whites from a young age “wouldn’t it be so boring if we were all the same”, which while not technically false, is twisted in meaning to mean that you should not get to have a stable culture because that would be “boring”. So I will engage the libtarded slop.

The problem is fun can’t directly be quantified, so I will be taking a couple of different aspects of the common meaning of fun, using plausible, measurable proxies for them, and analyzing this in detail.

Sports

All of the top 10 most popular sports are white in origin

Curiously, ALL of them come from either the U.S, or two countries where the majority of its founding stock, or “Heritage Americans” are from. I’ll also provide a table (this one made by AI, so take with a grain of salt) of ALL sports with an estimation of over 100 million fans globally.

Worth noting is that while many of the sports are of the gentlemanly type often derided jokingly (or half jokingly) as white, all of the aggressive “fun” sports also originate from white countries as well. With Hockey, Lacrosse, and Rugby all noted for their controlled brutality.

Hobbies

The 10 most popular hobbies worldwide are as follows:

1. Reading

2. Walking

3. Gardening

4. Fishing

5. Watching TV/streaming

6. Playing Video Games

7. Cooking/Baking

8. Traveling/Tourism

9. listening to/playing music

10. crafting/diy projects

For about half of these it is impossible to establish clear relationships with race. But for reading, travel, music, TV, and Video Games, we in fact can.

Reading

Of the best selling (not strictly most popular) fiction books of all time, only one was written by a non white individual

Travel

It must first be noted that travel and tourism are only possible today because of the global exploration done by whites. Whilst other cultures had explorers and periods of exploration, the current system where countries are all in communication with each other and able to be traveled to and from is only possible because of white inventions and explorers, NOT A SINGLE other race contributed to this meaningfully. Whites tend to be the most eager race to travel and explore, the faustian soul wanting to see all other cultures rather than simply stay at home. Possibly another reason whites are so easily deceived into believing their heritage isn’t worth protecting.

Whites also have almost all the top tourist locations

Television and Videogames

• The first patent for the television for the television was granted to Philo Farnsworth, although all inventors involved in developing it through earlier inventions were also white

• The first home video game concept was made by Ralph Baer (white)

• The first video games overall were “Tennis for Two” (William Higinbotham, white) and “Cathode-Ray tube amusement device” (Thomas T. Goldsmith Jr., White)

• The most popular video games were all made by White or asian creators

  

• The most popular TV shows of all time, from IMDB rankings were created mostly by whites

Miscellaneous Fun Activities

• The first amusement park was opened in 1843 in Copenhagen, Denmark, designed by George Carstensen (White, Danish)

• The first water park was started by George Millay (White, American), in 1977

• The first circus was started by Phillip Astley (white, British) in 1768

• Hot air ballooning, invented by Joseph and Etienne Montgolfier (White, French) in 1783

• ALL major winter activities, including sledding, skiing, snowball fights were pretty much exclusive to whites throughout history

• The pioneer of modern stand up comedy is generally considered to be Mark Twain (White, American)

Overall, the boring white trope doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny in any way. It doesn't even really exist as a widely held stereotype, but is simply to be expected accepted as fact when comparisons of racial cultures comes up in politics. Cold, boring and unsociable personalities are generally much more associated with oriental people’s, but since that is not pc to say, I guess whites unjustly have to hold that reputation.

It’s a tale as old as maybe 15 years or so. A young male begins gooning, and then he goons some more, and then quite a lot more, he gets into some real weird shit. His personality is eroded, his old friends begin avoiding him, in the already isolated world of modernity, this hits like a brick in the face. He begins searching out other forms of “community”, which probably take the form of discord servers filled with depraved imagery, reddit comunities, and consooomer groups based on some creepy fandom. Older members of those communities encourage him to go deeper, over time the inevitably left leaning political leanings of it’s members also begin to influence him. By the time our subject is an adult, he is an antisocial freak with terrible family relationships, no friends, and also probably deeply invested in far left politics.

Many such cases. One such case recently was national news, if I must tell you then you are impressively uninformed. Back in 2022 I remember furries and pronoun freaks were all the rage in conservative commentary, but it only took the form of boomer ragebait which had nothing to say. Those influencers who got into it either were forced to move onto the more serious topics demanded by a swiftly mobilizing online right, or become irrelevant. But I feel now is the time to revisit them, this time with sincerity and a desire to understand what they mean rather than the cheap theatrics of punditry.

The people who get into these fandoms are largely a rather intelligent population. Often having some artistic talent. Often they are some form of neurodivergent. They grew up in a deracinated era, broken homes, no sense of being part of a people with a history, a community with a shared way of being. Most of the time they were allowed on the internet far too young. One could criticize the parents for allowing so and so to happen, and rightly. But at the end of the day, the normal things that would allow their children to leave their attention for some time, lots of siblings, lots of neighboring children, a cohesive community that gives a shit what happens off its own front step have been taken by modernity.

Studies largely back my assessment. For instance a personality survey found that furries largely have two personality traits in high quantities, neuroticism and extraversion. A young, naturally extraverted kid who had never been properly socialized, combined with the known effect of pornography to heighten anxiety is a perfect storm to create such an abomination.

Certainly not helping is the phenomenon of elite overproduction. Young intelligent people being cut out of the workforce, already with a combination of weird hobbies and at least some exposure to left wing politics through their university don’t have much to do but masturbate and get radicalized, those oddly perfect bed fellows. It’s time to take another look, and a more serious one at that, at these degenerates created by the collapse of our communities and our educational failures. Many of them could have been our best, our Newton, our Raphael, our Milton could be 3 years from suicide and/or a terrorism incident, currently on a goon binge right now.