Massive lies were told about the events of October 7, 2023, and what Hamas allegedly did to the Jews, and this has led me to wonder how it is possible that people can continue to believe the lies that were told about what the Germans did to the Jews during World War II.

Let’s go through some of the big lies that Jews in the Israeli and US governments, as well as the US media, told about October 7th.

1) “40 Beheaded Babies”

Claim

On the day of the event, reports that appear to have originated from i24 News, as well as direct statements from Bibi Netanyahu’s office, claimed that Hamas “terrorists” beheaded 40 babies. (Note: Hamas does not actually fit the definition of terrorists, as there is such a thing as a legitimate resistance group that uses violence, and simply being Islamic doesn’t mean your group is “terrorist.”)

The claim was repeated not just by tabloids, but the likes of Fox News and CNN.

Debunking

In this case, the Israeli government itself later admitted that there was no evidence of 40 beheaded babies. The White House also walked back Joe Biden’s use of the claim.

There was no evidence, despite the fact that the site of the Hamas attack was filmed as much as any place ever, so there was no need for an official debunking. After reporters kept asking about evidence, the US and Israeli governments just admitted it was fake.

2) Mass Rape and Sexual Violence

Claim

The entire Israeli government organized to claim that during the October 7th raid, Hamas engaged in “systematic rape” and “sexual mutilation.”

This rape claim always seemed ridiculous on its face, as while Hamas was across the border for up to 6-7 hours, the actual operation was between 3-5 hours long. These people were in gun fights with the IDF, they were dodging airstrikes, they were taking hostages, all while navigating unfamiliar terrain (and often getting lost, as is seen in Hamas’ own videos and was admitted during interrogations). “Okay boys, let’s take a quick break for rape” always sounded very silly.

Furthermore, as the Jews and their media constantly repeat, Hamas is a strict Islamic group, and based on that, any soldier caught engaging in rape during a military operation would be executed on the spot. If they were doing “systematic rape,” they are not an Islamic group at all, but an irreligious bandit gang, and that is not a claim anyone is making. The media obviously relied on the lack of information the public has about Islamic law, knowing they would not be aware that rape during war is totally banned.

The Koran bans all rape, including of slave girls. Here are specific Hadith that mention sexual violence during war:

• Hadith (Sunan Abu Dawud 2158): “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) prohibited taking women as captives solely for the purpose of sexual relations.”
• Hadith (Sahih Muslim 3371): “Do not kill women, children, or the elderly, and do not commit treachery or rape.”

There is no serious Islamic group that allows rape during war. Even ISIS banned this. You’ll remember that all of the talk about sexual abuse by ISIS was around forced marriage (which is allowed in certain contexts in certain forms of Islam). And Hamas is a much more serious Islamic group than ISIS, which is a CIA- and Israel-backed terror group.

Debunking

An official UN investigation (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights), which was (quite ridiculously) not released until March 2024 even though it could have been completed and released in a couple weeks, found no evidence of “widespread rape.”

Further, forensic experts from various international rights groups found nothing, while independent investigators from The Grayzone and Mondoweiss (both primarily Jewish outlets) found no evidence supporting the rape claims.

Finally, specific claims were later proven false. The Israeli government had claimed there existed a “Hamas rape manual” which was proved to be totally made up out of nothing.

3) Hamas Burned Families Alive, Purposefully Murdered Civilians

Claim

The entire media was claiming that Hamas “burned families alive” by setting their houses on fire. There was no evidence ever presented.

Debunking

An investigation by Israel publications +972 Magazine and Local Call found that most (not all, but most) civilian deaths in homes were due to Israeli helicopter fire.

Israeli helicopters (actually US helicopters supplied to Israel) also gunned down hostages on Hamas motorcycles, the investigation found.

The IDF later admitted to using the “Hannibal Directive,” which involves using heavy fire to prevent hostages from being taken, and allows for the death of Israelis. The preference, in the doctrine, is that a civilian die rather than be taken hostage.

4) Hamas “Targeted” a Music Festival

Claim

It was claimed that the Nova music festival was a specific target of Hamas and that they started mass executing people there.

Debunking

It was later shown that the music festival was coincidentally going on when Hamas attacked. Investigations by Jewish outlets (Yedioth Ahronoth, Haaretz) showed that many of the festival goers who died were not killed by Hamas (at least not on purpose in “executions”), but rather in crossfire in the fighting with the IDF, as well as by Israeli helicopter strikes.

5) Hamas Used Human Shields While Fighting from Civilian Homes

Claim

The Jewish state claimed Hamas fighters were hiding in the Kibbutzim and shooting from behind families, from inside of family homes.

Debunking

Testimonies from survivors published by The Electronic Intifada and Middle East Eye among others showed that the Hamas fighters were directly engaging in shootouts with the IDF, not hiding in civilian homes.

6) The Attack was Part of a Planned Genocide

Claim

Almost unbelievably, the Jews claimed that this small operation on October 7th was a plan to genocide all of the Jews, and that the goal of the attack was random killing.

Debunking

Leaked Israeli intelligence from +972 showed that the Israelis understood that Hamas expected a prisoner swap and had no goal of mass killing civilians.

Before October 7th, Israel was holding over 5,000 Palestinian hostages (since October 7th, that number has more than doubled), so it is pretty rational that Hamas would want to take their own hostages as a way to get back their own people through swaps, and this is in fact what Israeli intelligence said the purpose of the operation was.

When Did Jews Start Lying Like This Then?

Jews lie compulsively in order to make themselves out to be victims. Certainly, there were Jewish innocent victims on October 7th, as there are always victims in war, but the fact is, most of the innocents were killed by the Jews themselves, and the Hamas operation was a legitimate military operation.

It is shocking to me personally that the same people who will say the Jews lied about really everything they could possibly lie about with relation to October 7th are not willing to question the stories Jews tell about what supposedly happened to them during World War II.

My hope is that there is simply a delay on this, and at some point in the future, people will ask: “well, what else have the Jews been lying about?”

There has been, since the October 7 event and the subsequent genocide Israel began committing in Gaza, some interest in understanding the foundation of Israel. For example, the story of the Palestinian model Gigi Hadid’s family has come up a lot. Her father was a child at the time of the establishment of the state of Israel, when, following the war, Jews went to Palestine to claim refugee status. His family invited a family of Jew refugees from Europe into their home, and one day they returned home to find that the locks had been changed and the Jews who they had welcomed into their home yelled out the window that if they didn’t leave the premises, men would come and kill them. So they moved to a refugee camp in Syria.

Here’s a short video of Mohamed Hadid telling this story:

What happened to Hadid’s family happened to millions of Palestinians. It’s called the “Nakba,” and it is the story of the foundation of Israel, and it is great that more and more people are finding out that Israelis didn’t all of a sudden become genocidal barbarians after October 7th, but that in fact, the entire existence of their state is based on genocide and evil.

If we get back to the point where we are talking about the foundations of Israel, then it is just one step back to what happened to the Jews in Europe during World War II. We can learn why the Germans wanted to put them in camps, and what happened in those camps. I am not going to go through the whole “Holohoax” story here today, but a lot of Jews did die during the war, because it is a war that killed 70 million people. Jews died in the camps too, because the Allies bombed the supply lines to the camps which were in rural Poland, which led to disease and starvation. The Red Cross at the time estimated that 280,000 people died in these camps. Not six million. And none of them died in gas chambers or by any of the other Looney Tunes type methods Jews claim the Germans used against them.

Conclusion

It is my sincere hope that as the Jews come under more scrutiny for these lies they’ve told, as we unravel the history of the state of Israel, a state founded on ethnic cleansing, terrorism, banditry, and mass murder, we will continue to go back through the history of the Jews, and specifically to unravel this “Holocaust” myth, which currently serves as the foundation for the entirety of Western secular ideology, which has itself become the framework of what now passes as “Western civilization” itself.

Since I began writing on these issues nearly 15 years ago, I have argued that in order for the liberal order to fall, and for a righteous, Christian society to be restored in the West, the truth about the Jews and their lies must be confronted. The “Holocaust” is the biggest and most powerful lie of all, and if this falls apart, and I truly believe we are witnessing the beginnings of its collapse, everything will change.

Ultimately, the truth will out. In a thousand years, people are not going to be believing in “Nazi gas chambers,” I can promise you that. The real question is how many people have to die, how much human suffering has to take place, before this lie is exposed.

Earlier this month, a new major study on sexual dynamics in committed long-term relationships conducted by the Pew Research Institute was released and has shone light on just how little interest heterosexual American men have in receiving manual sex, commonly known as a “handjob,” from their significant other, opening up an aggressive new front on the culture wars.

A full 98% of heterosexual American men in committed relationships (either marriage or a civil partnership) polled in the wide-ranging survey said that they would prefer to watch black and white CCTV footage of raccoons raiding a dumpster behind a 7/11 than receive a handjob from their significant other. The results have stirred debate and in some cases outrage, with some claiming that “the handjob question” speaks to a core power dynamic between men and women in relationships, while others claim the opposite.

It was noted by researchers that the 2% who preferred a handjob to CCTV raccoon footage are in relationships with trans women.

While the rate of men who prefer raccoon videos to handjobs was shocking to some, perhaps even more disturbing is that a full 9% of men said that they would rather have “demonic cyborgs, like from the DOOM video game series,” shove poison-laced needles into their eyeballs than get a handjob from their partner.

“Many women do not want to have sex with their partner because they have a headache or they had a stressful day, and they will try to use a handjob as a way to satiate their partner without needing to provide him with vaginal sex,” said Harvard science professor and chair of Aboriginal Interactive Art Installations and Native American Escape Room Design Theory Leonard Berkowitz. “The fact is, manual sex can lead to ejaculation in the same way as vaginal sex, the semen will squirt out just the same, and therefore the stated male preference for vaginal or oral intercourse in place of manual sex demonstrates that even with all of the talk of progress, the average American male is still deeply sexist, and believes he should have a right to insert his penis into the vagina of his partner at will, ignoring the headaches and stress his female partner may be experiencing.”

However, many on the American right are framing this handjob issue in terms of the “woke” cultural discourse, with several popular figures on the right, including the president of the United States, claiming that men have a right to “smash the gash.”

During an interview with Rick “The Rattlesnake” O’Henry, the world’s most infamous bear wrestler, controversial podcast host Joe Rogan asked his guest if he’d been following what he called “handjobgate.”

“Have you seen this?” Rogan asked, and before waiting for an answer, continued: “they’re trying to say now that women get headaches all the time and don’t feel like having sex with their husbands so instead of having sex women should be able to just give them handjobs.”

Rogan asked his assistant Jamie to pull up the Pew study, and Jamie confirmed that 98% of men would prefer to watch the raccoon dumpster raid. Jamie then offered that the 2% who preferred the handjob were dating or married to trans women.

“Yeah, so, it’s not just swimming where trans have an advantage,” Rogan, who has been repeatedly accused of transphobia, noted. He went on: “maybe sometimes she does have a headache, and men can understand that, but if every single time the man wants to snuggle, the bitch is saying she’s got a headache and is acting like that pawn shop meme, saying ‘the best I can do is a handy,’ I think a man has a right to be upset about that.”

O’Henry seemed largely disinterested, but replied, “I can see that.”

“These are the same people who locked us down during Covid, then told everyone not to take ivermectin or they were a kook, despite the fact that ivermectin has been proven in clinical studies for decades to be effective against these same types of viruses and other countries prescribe it. And even if it didn’t help with Covid, it wasn’t going to hurt anything, it’s a totally safe drug. But they told people it was horse paste and you were a kook if you wanted to try it and Pfizer was the only one with the solution. That’s what the experts said. They said don’t even try anything else, just do what we tell you. And now we’re supposed to believe these same experts who are telling us that you can have a marriage with no sex, where your wife has a headache 24/7 and just gives you handjobs.”

O’Henry vaguely nodded in response.

“Man, they told us whatever crashed at Roswell was a weather balloon. They’re still saying that. To this day, the CIA will still claim that whatever that was, which every witness said looked like a flying saucer, was a weather balloon. Not even Trump can get all the JFK files released. In the Amazon jungle, there are fungal parasites that can take control of the brains of ants, take control of their entire bodies and force them to walk to a place where they can feed the mycelium’s host, and it’s like the woke media really is this kind of fungal mind virus, and people just go along with it, and no one wants to speak out because they’re afraid they’ll get destroyed. Shane Gillis, one of the funniest people, banned from SNL before he was even hired because of some bullshit throwaway joke on a podcast 15 years ago that some woke Karen decided could hurt someone’s feelings.”

O’Henry said nothing, perhaps hoping that the conversation would at some point steer back to his bear wrestling career.

“Even if a man is on estrogen, he spent his entire life developing his bone density and muscle mass as a male individual. And I don’t have any problem with how anyone wants to live their life. When I was back in LA before I moved here to Austin, greatest city in the world by the way, when I lived in LA I would sometimes run into Caitlyn Jenner. She is a great woman. Totally kind, very engaging, she will ask you questions about what is happening in your life and not just talk about herself, but you know what she says about trans women in women’s sports?” Without waiting for a response from the world’s most famous bear wrestler, Rogan answered his own question: “she says it’s not fair. She says give them their own league if they want to compete, because whatever your ideology is, it’s not right to have their male bodies competing with female bodies. Even Gavin Newsom is saying this now and acting like he was always saying it.”

Rogan then took a long drag off of what appeared to be a marijuana cigar, and continued: “so if it’s these people who are telling us ‘handjob, handjob, handjob,’ I just don’t know how anyone can take them seriously. The whole pro-handjob movement is just more woke nonsense. They are out there claiming people want to exterminate handjobs. Who is saying that?”

O’Henry appeared to struggle to try to force a laugh, clearly uncomfortable and not sure how or if he was supposed to be responding to these statements.

“You think it’s funny,” said Joe, “and I’m sure a lot of these women think it’s funny when their husband is trying to fuck and they’re rubbing his dickskin raw, but pretty soon AI is going to be so advanced that it is the one designing the robots. Have you seen the Optimus that Elon is working on? That guy is a legitimate fucking genius and he says that the AI is now doing the majority of the work on programming and designing, doing the design, for the physical humanoid robots. So AI is building itself, it’s building its own bodies in the form of these robots. So how long until the humanoid robots are going to have better pussies than any of these bitches out here? They will have nano-machines inside of their robot pussies. Just pure dick Heaven. Then men aren’t even going to be asking their wives for sex anymore, they’re just going to go to the laundry room and fuck the robot assistant. Am I right? I mean wouldn’t you rather fuck some magic nano pussy than get your dickskin rubbed raw by a handy?”

O’Henry struggled to answer, “that’s, you know, man, a lot of this stuff is scary, the technology…”

“Damn right it’s scary,” Rogan replied. “It is scary as fuck. Because forget about what is going to happen to your marriage when your wife finds you fucking the robot assistant because she just wanted to give you a handy and you wanted something to smash, but if that robot pussy has nanomachines inside of it, then it could be transferring data into your DNA while you are fucking it.” Joe then paused, apparently for dramatic effect. “I know Elon, he’s a good friend of mine, and he is making these robots, or I should say he’s making the AI that is making the robots because it’s doing most of the work now, and I don’t think he has any bad intentions, but he will tell you that this technology scares the fuck out of him, even though he’s the one making the money off of it, and he’s calling for Congress to regulate it. Because everything gets hacked, man. You look around this room, every piece of electronic equipment in this room is being hacked by someone. There’s some Russian or some Chinese hacking that headset you’re wearing right now, guaranteed. They’re hacking our phones, there was a story a while back where someone hacked a water fountain and made it spill over, flooded the building. So if you’ve got nanobots in a robot pussy, the Chinese can hack them and get into your DNA and make you start wanting to support a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or the social credit system. You go fuck that robot and then all of a sudden you start telling people ‘nothing happened at Tiananmen Square,’ and you don’t even know why you’re saying it, because it’s in your DNA.”

Also this week, Donald Trump took to Truth Social to write in all caps “SMASH THE GASH!”, a newly popular slogan which critics say is an argument in defense of rape.

After CNN’s Jake Tapper did a segment on the Trump “truth,” noting that “smash the gash” is a slogan used by radical campus pro-rape protesters who want all women raped and plan to exterminate handjobs, Trump called for CNN’s entire staff to be fired, which many fear is a direct attack on the Second Amendment.

Congress is now calling for special hearings to interview heads of top universities that are allowing “smash the gash” to be chanted on campuses across America. Defenders of the slogan claim that it is simply a slogan in defense of vaginal intercourse, and not a call to rape or a call to exterminate handjobs, and argue that the fact that pro-rape advocates use the slogan does not mean that everyone who chants “smash the gash” is pro-rape.

During an interview with CNN, a masked campus protester stationed at an encampment on Harvard’s campus supporting the movement said that “smash the gash” is a slogan with a long history that simply means vaginal sex has a right to exist. He also claimed that being pro-vaginal sex does not mean you are anti-handjob or that you are trying to exterminate handjobs. The protester also claimed that another slogan, “globalize gash smashing,” was not a call for a global mass rape or wiping out handjobs, but rather a rallying cry for people all over the world who support vaginal sex to come together in defense of “normal penetrative sex, something that all men have a right to.”

Later in the day, the “smash the gash” encampment was broken up by the National Guard and several students were reported injured. In a tearful statement, Harvard president Alan M. Garber said that while Harvard supports the rights of students to freedom of speech, calls to exterminate handjobs do not fall under the banner of freedom of speech. However, Garber is still being called before Congress to testify as to why it took over 27 minutes for the “smash the gash” protest to be broken up by the National Guard.

Towards the end of part 837 of a 1500-part podcast series about how French President Emmanuel Macron is married to his own father, popular African American female podcast host Candace Owens, who has been accused of “rabid anti-handjobism” by her former boss and male feminist Ben Shapiro, weighed in on the issue.

“Men should smash that gash,” Owens said. “And you know what, as a woman who loves her husband and understands he has sexual needs, even if I do have a headache, I’m not going to try to give him some uncomfortable and unsatisfying handjob. I don’t need to tell men this, but the skin on the penis is very soft and sensitive, and rubbing that with your hand can cause chaffing that can be painful for a man for days. So yes, even if I have a headache, I’m going to let my husband smash that gash, and that does not make me anti-handjob, and at this point, I don’t even care if people call me an anti-handjobite. I have a lot of friends who give their husbands handjobs and they agree with me that he should smash that gash, but if believing in smashing the gash makes me anti-handjob, then you know what, fine. I’m a radical vaginal-sexer who believes in exterminating handjobs. Whatever. I don’t care anymore. I’ll tell you who’s not smashing a gash and that is Emmanuel Macron, because his ‘wife’ doesn’t have a gash to smash and I challenge anyone to prove to me that Brigitte Macron has a gash.”

To pour fuel on the fire, 32-year-old contrarian Tomi Lahren appeared on Piers Morgan to scream about how men should be thankful for handjobs, and that demanding vaginal sex just demonstrates how “manosphere” activists are even more whiny and entitled than the feminists they oppose.

“It’s my body, my choice, and no man has any right to vaginal sex simply because I’m married to him,” Lahren claimed very aggressively. “I was taught to treat myself as a princess, and to insist that men do the same, and if the princess has a headache, you’re lucky to even get the handjob.”

Pushing back on Lahren’s aggressive claims, Morgan noted that he often gets angry responses from viewers when he has her on the show due to what he claims many view as her belligerence. He read what he claimed was a tweet from a user on X, formerly Twitter, about her last appearance on the show: “one viewer writes on X, ‘Tomi is much too old to be doing the entitled 19-year-old party girl bit. She is in her thirties and lives in a fantasy where all men should worship her. I have not masturbated to any of her news segments in over five years. No one who has seen the recent photos of her Christmas ham thighs is interested in smashing that gash in the first place. I also don’t like her feet.’ So, what do you say to that?”

“Piers, I have worked in media for 15 years and this is the most unprofessional thing I have ever seen a supposedly serious news host do. I do not have Christmas ham thighs, I am in very good shape, and all day long I get nothing but dick pics on my Instagram account, and I will tell you, there is no shortage of people asking for feet pics either. I am repulsed that you would say this kind of slander.” Lahren then demanded that the camera be moved to show her thighs and feet.

“No, no,” Piers replied, “we can’t do that with the camera, we’re just having a discussion here. But it’s not me that’s saying this, I’m simply reading something that someone wrote on X, which I think is a legitimate criticism. You seem to think very highly of yourself, and think that a lot of men owe you a lot of things, but you don’t really seem interested in self-reflection, so what I was hoping is that maybe we could get a little bit of self reflection.”

“Piers, if I want to reflect on myself, I can go read the replies on any Instagram post, where I promise you, there are a lot of men who want to smash this gash.”

“Okay, okay, well now, hold on, calm down. A lot of people might note that many or maybe all of those Instagram replies are from India, and not from Westerners where we are really having the debate over whether or not ‘smash the gash’ is really a call to exterminate handjobs.”

Lahren then began accusing Piers of racism, and the conversation degraded much further, proving just how toxic the discussion around gashes and handjobs has become.

Donald Trump apparently viewed the segment on Piers Morgan and commented on it with a “truth” on his Truth Social website.

In a highly surprising and unorthodox move, Ted Cruz agreed to sit down with Tucker Carlson for a two-hour unedited interview defending handjobs. At time of writing, the full interview has not been published, but Carlson released some clips which appear to show Cruz struggling to defend his pro-handjob position, and coming across as though he is opposed to vaginal sex entirely, and understands very little about mammalian reproduction generally.

In one of the clips, Cruz says: “Listen, I got married 25 years ago with the stated intention of getting handjobs. I’ve worked every day to do that. A lot of times I wish handjobs were much more effective. Like sometimes I don’t even ejaculate at all.”

Cruz claims the clip was taken out of context and we will get the full story when the interview is released tomorrow, but many have a hard time imagining what that statement could possibly mean.

This exchange was also released in clip form and is being viewed as equally confusing:

TUCKER CARLSON: Okay, so you get married because you want to have a family. How often do handjobs result in pregnancy by the way?

SENATOR TED CRUZ: I don’t know the specific number. No, I don’t know.

TUCKER CARLSON: You don’t know the number of pregnancies that are the result of handjobs?

SENATOR TED CRUZ: How many handjobs result in pregnancy?

TUCKER CARLSON: Zero.

SENATOR TED CRUZ: Okay, yeah.

TUCKER CARLSON: How could you not know that?

SENATOR TED CRUZ: I don’t sit around memorizing insemination tables.

TUCKER CARLSON: Well, it’s kind of relevant because you’re calling for women to have headaches every day and refuse their husbands vaginal sex.

SENATOR TED CRUZ: Why is it relevant? Whether it’s zero or one or two, why is it relevant?

TUCKER CARLSON: Because  you don’t know anything about insemination and yet your arguing for handjobs over vaginal intercourse.

SENATOR TED CRUZ: I didn’t say I don’t know anything about insemination.

TUCKER CARLSON: Okay. What’s the average size of an ejaculation load in milliliters?

SENATOR TED CRUZ: There are sperms, and it’s got potassium.

TUCKER CARLSON: Okay, you don’t know anything about semen. So…

SENATOR TED CRUZ: Okay. I am not the Tucker Carlson expert on blowing loads.

TUCKER CARLSON: You’re a senator who’s calling to arrest people for chanting “smash the gash.”

SENATOR TED CRUZ: You’re the one who doesn’t know anything about blowing loads. No, you don’t know anything about the semen. You’re the one who claims you should rape your wife if she has a headache.

TUCKER CARLSON: I’m not saying that.

It’s clear that the discussion about handjobs, vaginal sex, and the legality and meaning of the slogan “smash the gash” is far from over, and it appears that this debate may become a permanent fixture in American politics.

There are some in the middle of the road, who are hoping that Americans can come together “in the name of common sense” and find “common ground.” High level scientist and respected cultural commentator Eric Weinstein, for instance, released a statement saying: “There are extremists on the handjobber side and hardliners in the ‘smash the gash’ crowd. But we are all Americans and we all believe in ejaculation, and we need to turn down the temperature and come together to honor the rules of common sense and find consensus in some places and agree to disagree in other places. We cannot let handjobs and gash-smashing tear this country in two when we are facing such heavy threats from China in the AI race.”

Unfortunately for the country, which experts on both sides agree is in an AI race with the Chinese, but perhaps fortunately for the podcasters and social media personalities who make a living off of fomenting cultural tension, there is no reason to believe the temperature is going to be turned down on the handjob debate any time soon.

I was watching a Theo Von interview with “Indian-American” Ro Khanna. He said some silly leftist nonsense, like that he’s going to teach blacks in the South to program AI. He promoted the “Chinese social credit score” hoax, which is exhaustingly stupid (and when it comes from an Indian, it seems racially motivated). But he said a lot of populist stuff, a lot of pro-internet stuff, and I was thinking, as I imagine most people would think: “this guy is alright.”

As part of my investigation of “alternative media,” I’ve also been watching Breaking Points, which features “Indian-American” Saagar Enjeti. No one is going to say that guy isn’t alright. You could put various caveats on that, I’m sure he says some dumb shit like most of these people do, but he’s totally alright.

So, as I do (most people don’t but I do), I’m thinking about them and I circled back to my long-held belief system that “all these people need to go back,” and asked if that was a nasty thing. Frankly, even if I thought it was nasty, I would continue to support everyone going back, but I wanted to ask myself: is it nasty to want to send back guys who were born here, who seem like alright dudes, on the basis of the fact that they have the incorrect genetics for this country? Or is it bad in some other way?

I’m not emotionally bothered by the ICE videos of children getting grabbed in parking lots, by the way. Just for the record. I think it’s really stupid to be grabbing kids when you don’t have the resources to grab all the adults, or even all of the criminals, because the optics are bad. But my view is that they all need to go back and I’ve seen the Democrats justify a genocide of children in Gaza so they’re not going to emotionally manipulate me with a kid getting thrown in a van because he’s “separated from his mother” for however long it takes to process them before they can go together back to Mexico. If I was running this, I would definitely deport the most sympathetic people (women and kids and non-criminals in general) last. Given that everyone is not being deported, and in fact only a tiny fraction of people are being deported, I think it’s insane to do these optics of screaming kids being thrown in vans, but it doesn’t bother me emotionally because I’m an adult and being separated from your mother for a few hours or a few days before you can meet back up in Mexico is not a big deal. Again, please compare that to bipartisan support for dropping 2,000-pound bombs on refugee camps filled with kids in Gaza. It’s not serious to make this “kids being briefly separated from their parents” thing into a big emotional fit, and it is frankly being done by the same people telling you to ignore the genocide in Gaza (note: specifically, I mean “the Jews”).

Much more than kids (who don’t even know the difference) being sent back, I would be concerned about one of the only Congressmen that is against the Gaza genocide and defends the internet or a guy who does okay podcasts being sent back.

So I ask myself: is this nasty or bad in some other way?

Again, even if it is nasty or bad, my strongly held belief is that America should be an overwhelmingly white country. But in order to understand your own beliefs, you have to be able to interrogate them yourself and allow others to interrogate them. That should be obvious. The core of my problem with the left and the “Ben Shapiro right” is that they won’t allow their beliefs to be interrogated. They just censor people or completely destroy their lives. I think my beliefs should be open to interrogation, and “is it nasty to deport some brown people who seem like cool dudes who aren’t doing anything wrong?” is a totally valid interrogation of my belief system.

But here’s the thing: it really isn’t nasty. All of the cool dudes, who you might think could provide something to America, would do very well in their own countries. Relatively, they will do better than they do here. Intelligent brown people will be more than fine back in their own countries. They’ll get money and pussy and whatever. They will be totally fine.

It’s actually a better argument that we should bring poor people here from all over the world to live on welfare because it’s sad that they’re poor. And that is a completely nonsensical argument. You can’t really even respond to it, it’s so dumb.

And come on. We’ve all seen the marbles video.

Sorry, it was gumballs. Not marbles.

Don’t let the kids eat gumballs, guys. Red 40, titanium dioxide, literal polyethylene. Come on, guys.

Anyway, yeah, solving global poverty through mass immigration is not something I think you could find any man arguing for. It’s a purely emotional argument for women. And yet, I think it actually is better than the argument that it’s wrong to deport middle class people who were born here.

Yes, I get that the ones born here are “legal,” but please go check on how much “the law” has an effect on American society. It’s irrelevant. This is not a society based on an ordered system of laws. We’re not living in China or some Islamic Sharia country. “The law” is just whatever. There is no reason you can’t just say that every person who came here after the (Jewish!) 1965 Hart-Celler Act is no longer a citizen. You can just say “it’s the law now that you’re not a citizen anymore and now you have to go back to India, lol.” You could also just say there’s a law that you have to be white or you’re not a citizen anymore. Laws can say whatever. There isn’t an ordered system here. We do not have a theocracy or some other objective metric to measure the validity of laws. We have “The Constitution,” which doesn’t even mean anything. This is a country where the government can 100% do whatever. So there is no point in babbling about legalisms. Literally no one cares about the Constitution unless they can use it for their own agenda. It’s like that atheism meme.

Except all sides do it to each other.

I’m not even insulting the Constitution in theory. I mean, I probably would insult it in theory. I believe in Jesus and don’t really care about goofy secular government gobbledygook. But I’m not insulting it in theory right now. Right now, I’m simply going to say that “the right to free association” is so fundamental to the Constitution, so deeply hardwired into it, that literally no one can claim the Constitution is in effect after “civil rights” were enacted as “law” in the US.

The only thing that you could say is nasty about any mass deportation program is if it is sadistic or cruel in some way. Unlike Trump’s “just grab whoever out of the parking lot lol” program (which in the absolute best case scenario, won’t even get rid of 2% of illegals, and Trump has endorsed more legals, who are actually much worse), a serious mass deportation program aimed at reestablishing a white America, which would necessarily target both “illegal” and “legal” immigrants (primarily the latter, as there are many more of them and they are a much larger existential threat) would give people timelines, deadlines, a process to apply for extended deadlines, and so on. You’d allow people to sell their property, and if they couldn’t sell it, pay them market value. You’d give them severance checks. You’d use American soft power to ensure their arrival in their home countries was nice. You’d be reasonable and friendly about the whole thing. You’d just make it clear: this isn’t about emotions, it’s not about hate or pity or anything else, this is a matter that we’ve decided on based on the desire to maintain a cohesive society where we preserve our genetic heritage, our racial identity, for future generations.

Some people would get violent, of course, but if you put it on a time frame and say you’re going to pay people and do a bunch of TikTok propaganda showing people loving returning to their home countries, you could avoid a lot of the violence and get a lot of people to leave voluntarily. Then for people who overstayed the deadline, you would have to systematically break down who to target in what order. Few are going to riot on the announcement of a five-year deadline for self-deportation.

Or you could just use Palantir’s government-controlled AI to take control of every electronic device in the country and blast Metallica’s “And Justice for All” while you unleash the police and military to just hunt down and kill anyone who isn’t white.

By the way, Metallica is on tour. Hetfield looks fantastic.

Along with thinking constantly about death and how you are a complete failure and everything you’ve ever done was trite and cheap and how you’re a complete asshole who should have treated people better and how death is just right there, looking at you, the other thing you do when you hit middle age is start looking at guys in their fifties and sixties and asking yourself if you’re going to be a Marlon Brando or a James Hetfield.

With Metallica doing so well in their sunset years, you could actually just pass a law that says they have to keep playing the entire “And Justice for All” album over and over again until every brown person in America is dead.

When Metallica is like “but it could take days for the military to kill all these niggers,” you would just have to be like “yeah, bro, I get it, but it’s the law, because of the Constitution. You just have to keep playing until they’re all dead. Then you actually have to keep playing for seventeen more hours as part of the celebration ceremony.”

So anyway, I was thinking: if ICE showed up at my door and was like “you and your family have to go back to Ireland,” what would I do?

I decided that I would:

• Squint
• Look down at the ground
• Scratch my eyebrow
• And then be like
• “Alright”

Ireland is definitely poorer than America. It’s getting way shittier with the number of niggers from wherever flooding in. But in this scenario I’m forwarding, Ireland would also be deporting people (otherwise I would probably be disappointed about having to go back as in America there is more space and thus for the time being at least, more chance to avoid colorful people). It’s also a scenario in which I’m allowed to live in America, which isn’t the current situation.

Frankly, I’ve been out of America so long, and it’s now become so clear that I won’t ever be allowed back, that it is becoming more and more difficult to care. I don’t think the people who are there care very much. If they did, they would be… you know. They’d be doing something or other. I look at the unwillingness to actually address the Jewish problem, and see that the reason is that people don’t want to seem mean for not caring about a pile of shoes, and I’m like: why did I ever destroy my life to try to help save this country? I know why and I would do it again: I thought people would stand up with me. They didn’t. And they still aren’t. Tucker Carlson (et al.) won’t do an analysis of the Talmud. He knows the Talmud exists, he knows it says Mother Mary was a whore and that Jesus Christ was a wizard who is in hell boiling in a vat of feces, he knows it says all non-Jews are “goyim” animals, he knows there are hundreds of other verses that demonstrate that it is the Jewish tribe as a group that is responsible for the crisis of modernity, not a few bad apples. He knows the Holocaust is a hoax. Yet he says he’s not against Jews, just Israel. I’m sure his reasoning is “the people aren’t ready for it, they are still traumatized by the pile of shoes.” People can rationalize anything. But unlike Joe Rogan, who is a goofy dope who believes inter-dimensional aliens created humans so that humans would create AI, Tucker Carlson I think really does believe in God and Jesus Christ and could blow this whole thing up. But he won’t. He’ll post ExpressVPN ads on Twitter, but he won’t talk about the content of the Talmud. The human mind is a justification machine. It’s a machine that justifies our behavior against the protests of our souls.

To Tucker, and all of the rest of you (you’re all reading this, I know you all read this, everyone knows you all read this): the people are ready to hear an explanation as to what these Jews are up to. And if you don’t do it, no one else will. I can’t do it. And this is what is actually happening: the Jews are a satanic, alien group that murdered Our Jesus and then proceeded to spend 2,000 years attempting to kill or morally crush all of Christ’s followers. In the 20th century, they faked a genocide of themselves to justify a complete silencing of criticism in order to allow for a total takeover of every institution of power in the Western world in order to sadistically kill or destroy every human soul.

In order to be “against Israel but not the Jews,” you would have to believe the mass murder of children in Gaza is not related to the fact that OnlyFans, Tinder, and PornHub are all run by Jews. They’re not run by Israel.

The genocide in Gaza has pulled back the veil, it’s shown the world what the Jews are. And the people are ready to hear it. It’s now or never. There has never been a better time for saying this aloud, and the time to do it is running out. This whole Palantir thing is real, and it’s not “ten years down the line” you’re going to be locked into a biometric slave grid with every action tracked and individual and society-wide behavior directed by AI. It’s basically tomorrow.

The CEO of Palantir, Alex Karp, is of course the most Jewish person you’ve ever seen.

Millions are shocked he’s not a Chinese communist, given that he’s trying to do a social credit system against people. Right Tucker?

It’s just a coincidence. He’s a random individual, like the inventor of transgenderism and the purveyors of usury and the CEO of Pfizer are random individuals. It’s a funny thing about the Holocaust: in death, six million random individuals became Jews.

Interesting fact: although exactly six million Jews died in the Holocaust, the shoe pile only has 11.8 million shoes. This is due to the fact that some Jews were one-legged, and other Jews had one of their shoes stolen from them by a wily German when they were entering the death camp. Also, when mothers with infants came to Auschwitz, Germans would drown the babies in buckets. Right there in front of everyone. An organized military force, made up of Germans, running a concentration camp, would, right in front of everyone, take Jewish babies and drown them in buckets. True story.

Nearly ten years ago, I made this meme about it to create awareness:

I did that line-work by hand. It took me like twenty minutes. At least. I thought it was that important to bring attention to the fact that German Nazis would grab Jewish babies from their mothers and drown them in buckets. Still, to this day, few know that during the Holocaust, Germans would grab Jewish babies and drown them in buckets in front of their mothers.

Meanwhile, this is a coincidence:

Any religion could claim abortion is a core part of their value system. Only one does. But it’s just a coincidence that it’s Jews. No relationship at all with what is happening in Gaza, which is really just a crime by a government that just happens, by coincidence again, to be Jewish. It could be any state. Many states have gone on 18-month campaigns bombing refugee camps. Well, actually, no state has ever done anything even remotely like that, ever in human history, but any state could have, and it’s just a coincidence it’s the Jewish one.

Sigh.

It’s not just Tucker. Obviously. It’s everyone. It’s everyone but me and you, dearest reader and true parasocial friend. Everyone knows and everyone knows everyone else knows and everyone knows that everyone knows that the peasants don’t know. But the peasants would listen to their leaders. And if you’re the media, you are their leaders. That’s just the way the digital world works. The magic of electricity.

The reason I would do it all again is not that I’m retarded or a masochist, it’s because it was the right thing to do, and I actually believe in God and Judgement Day and all of this stuff. Like, I believe it as much as I believe I am right now sitting here typing on a computer and smoking a cigarette. I’ve done a lot of sinful things. I’ve done many mortal sins and I will probably do many more. And I know I am going to have to answer for those sins. I cry sometimes thinking about how Jesus Christ was tortured to death so I could get a blowjob (it’s a very funny statement but it’s true, I am not saying it as a joke). But I will tell you this: I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be the guy standing there before God trying to explain how I knew all about the Jews and had the ability to tell the entire world and yet somehow decided not to do so.

[Note to Editor: Rather than bothering you with a message, I’m just going to leave this here: keep the bullet points like that. You can delete this note. Or don’t delete it if you think it’s funnier not to. I’ll leave that to your discretion. It’s probably better to delete it when you edit, because this is off schedule, and you’re not going to edit this until like 4 hours after it’s up, so the people who saw it will be in on a public/secret joke that disappears forever. But it’s your call. I give you full authority to act as you see fit in this matter. UDPATE: Wait no, just leave it, because something goofy like this sort of softens the buzzkill ending of the article. Yeah, for sure, I retract your rights to personal choice in the matter. Just leave this entire note to editor here like this.]

Stormy statements of former US intelligence officer about Israel’s irreparable failure; Is it time to end the threat of Israel?

Scott Ritter, former US intelligence officer: Israel’s ground entry into Gaza means more casualties and damage than Yom Kippur; Hezbollah’s missiles… pic.twitter.com/L3JKhcvaq2

— Sprinter Observer (@SprinterObserve) October 12, 2023

“Tel Aviv will be destroyed, their military headquarters will be flattened, the prime minister’s residence will be flattened, Israel will be flattened, its airfields flattened, that’s the future of Israel and there is nothing they can do to stop it.” -Scott Ritter on October 11th, 2023, explaining what his sources say would happen if Israel invaded Gaza. 

I wrote a thing yesterday noting that there is an entire group of internet commentators who have been making a lot of wrong predictions since the start of the Ukraine war. It is a group of people, and I said I wouldn’t name them, then I did name Scott Ritter (and Pepe Escobar).

I said “people probably associate me with these people,” and it is obvious why: in theory, I agree with them about every geopolitical issue. I have listened to Scott and read Pepe significantly, and I can’t think of any single matter of principle I have disagreed with them on. (I’m sure they are not quite as “racist” as I am, but that isn’t a geopolitical issue, and I don’t think it has ever even come up in anything I’ve read/listened to from either of them.)

If we went to the broader “movement” of these sorts of activists against the American empire, there would be varying levels of disagreement, perhaps. I completely disagree with John Mearsheimer’s views on China, and I’ve read every book that mentions China (frankly, his books do not really mention China very much) and tried to listen to most of his lectures on the topic. Although in general I agree with his worldview, on China, I completely disagree, and if you want to see where I disagree, you can watch one of several debates he’s had on the issue with Jeffrey Sachs. Sachs is another person I would put in the “agree with him on everything” category, for the record. But regardless of potential agreement or disagreement, Mearsheimer and Sachs, as counter examples to Ritter and Escobar, do not make constant predictions citing secret “sources.” People from various governments definitely talk to John and Jeff, but these men don’t ever use whatever discussions they have with government officials as sources for predictions (Sachs will mention discussions he’s had with world leaders, but he does so in the form of anecdote). There are many others I have read or listened to in both categories, “source user predictors” and analysts, but I think these four men provide a good picture of the different “wings” of the current alternative media commentary ecosystem, and they are also probably the most prominent from each group.

This current iteration of a movement of alternative geopolitical commentators emerged after the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. (Surely, the four mentioned, as well as several I am not mentioning, were around doing commentary before February of 2022, but I think it’s fair to say that that was the starting point of a new popular movement of alternative commentary focused on analyzing the “World War III” battle between the US-Jewish global order and those states intent on maintaining sovereignty in the face of an evil empire hellbent on solidifying global control.) Since this has started, I’ve done huge amounts of reading and podcast listening, and I have come to be very leery of anyone who talks about “my sources are telling me…” I recognize that “anonymous inside sources” is something that has been used in journalism for a long time with a varying, but certainly not great track record. Obviously during the Trump era, “insider sources say” has become a way for the New York Times to just make things up, totally shamelessly. That was also the case in the lead-up to the Iraq war. (To Ritter’s great credit, when he was working as a UN weapons inspector he was one of the loudest voices calling out the WMD scam. Though he knew that from inspecting, not from “his sources.”)

I don’t want to accuse Ritter or any of this crowd of consistently wrong “my sources are telling me…” people of lying. What is clear is that within this movement of anti-empire commentators, “my sources are telling me…” tends to almost always mean that whatever comes next is going to be wrong. It is possible that Ritter and the others are being fed disinformation from actual sources that are lying to them to make the anti-empire movement look ridiculous. But at some point, if your sources have been wrong this many times, you really have a responsibility to stop publishing things from these sources, whoever they are (and whether or not they actually exist), because it is unethical.

Some people were upset that I pointed out Ritter being wrong. And I understand the sentiment, because – one more time – I agree with him on all of the issues of principle. And it isn’t nice to look like you’re attacking people who are “on your own team.” Further, no one is right all the time. I have often stated “I’m right about everything,” and apparently some people don’t understand that there is a bit of self-deprecating humor there. I have been wrong, like everyone is sometimes, but I’m a whole lot more right than most people, and part of that is that as a rule, I don’t make bold, specific “predictions.” I don’t claim to have “insider sources” and I’m not a wizard, so all I can do is look at the available information, put it together, and come up with options for the most likely possible outcomes. Someone could make a list of the things I’ve analyzed and I’m 100% certain I can stand up to any other commentator and be shown to have a much better track record than virtually anyone. I actually can’t think of anyone with a better track record. Sometimes people will point out where I’ve been wrong, for example in suggesting Trump would likely end the Ukraine war in order to focus on helping Israel (which might still happen, I guess, though I didn’t expect him to escalate like he has, so I was definitely wrong on that). Of course I’m not right about everything. But I say: “point to anyone else in this political analysis game who is right more often than me,” and I’ve yet to be given a single name. (I think everyone is aware that many very prominent commentators have made careers off of copying my material while I’m locked in this censorship dungeon, and they didn’t do that because I’m wrong often wrong.)

Talking about myself is not a matter of pomposity nor a total digression. I want to explain what I view as the ethical way to comment on politics, which is to do your best to analyze based on data and theories about the way various actors act (both game theory and pattern recognition), and then say “this is what seems most likely.” While always hedging (because again – not a wizard, no crystal ball), I will very often insert caveats in my analyses. For example, I said that Trump would go to war with Iran in some form, that this was virtually a certainty, but then also added that the only way I can see this not happening is if Bibi is removed from power. I made that analysis based on the data and the way the actors involved behave. That is: “Trump is clearly beholden to Israel, but in terms of his view of himself and his legacy, he would prefer not to have a war with Iran. Bibi is obsessed with dragging the US into a war with Iran but has lost huge amounts of popularity in Israel and in the Jewish diaspora due primarily to his failure to defeat Hamas and/or get the hostages back. The US is committed to joining any war Israel starts, meaning as long as he is in power, Bibi is able to dictate whether or not Trump is forced to go to war with Iran, but if Bibi were removed from power, it’s very possible that whoever replaced him would be significantly less extreme and therefore would not drag the US into a war with Iran.”

That’s the analysis I did probably 14 months ago, as soon as it became clear Trump was going to win (which I was also right about and won significant money betting on), and I think the analysis has held up pretty well. We saw the Bibi-Trump rift spill into the public, and now we’ve seen Bibi move to start the war, to force Iran to strike back and cause the US to enter the war. At time of writing, the US hasn’t entered the war, but all it would take would be for the Israelis to blow up some random US military installation in Iraq (or even do some more extreme “false flag” in the West itself) and say Iran did it and all of a sudden, the US is joining Israel in the bombing, and moving even more troops to the region. I think trying to analyze how the war will play out is very difficult, so I don’t really want to speculate too strongly (this is another thing I do, which is responsible: recognize the limits of the ability to analyze a dynamic situation – both due to limitations in my own abilities and due to the fact that some situations are simply too complex for anyone to untangle). But allow me to say what I feel comfortable saying on the matter, which will primarily just be an organization of various facts I find relevant.

We have already passed the point of no return with Israel attacking Iran’s oil fields. So, there will be some kind of “regime change,” and that might be impossible from the air. However, I would note that what Israel’s war in Gaza has shown is that the American people and Westerners in general will tolerate infinite slaughter of civilian populations, which is something that wouldn’t have been tolerated by anyone 20 years ago. (Also remember Colon [sic] Powell had to go to the UN and explain that they had an actual reason for attacking Iraq? Though it was a scam, there was an actual process, whereas now everything is just “gahhhhhahahahahahaha, die, die, die!” Further, compare the reaction to the Abu Gharib torture photos to the reaction or lack thereof to many videos of Israelis torturing Palestinians, which have included sodomy. Western ethics have changed a lot in the last 20 years.) Because of the “absolute tolerance of mass civilian slaughter because we don’t have a choice because Jews are the chosen ones and Hitler put their shoes in a pile” attitude of the West in the current year, a lot of damage is possible from the air. Iran is a big country, but the US has a lot of bombs. Meanwhile, it is difficult to imagine a full-on Iraq style US invasion, but this model of using social media to recruit Sunni jihadis from all over the world and then enabling their entry to the country, and arming them to the teeth, worked pretty well in Syria. There is still an army of terrorists in Syria and parts of Iraq that they can just roll over to Iran. Further, Azerbaijan will allow terrorists from the various Stans to fly into Baku and cross into Iran. Remember, during the Syrian war, Turkey was just letting these people come in on commercial flights and then helping them across the border.

Then, of course, there are also the minority ethnic groups in Iran, which include some Kurds, which are as a race (this is literally true) another separate US-backed terrorist group already armed to the teeth. Only 60% of Iran is Persian. I don’t know the ins and outs of how well these various groups get along, but it’s been pretty well demonstrated that any time there is a war in the Middle East, more or less every ethnic minority group has members that will accept weapons from the US and commit terrorism and atrocities against the majority ethnic group.

So while I wouldn’t say US “boots on the ground” is impossible, and it could even be inevitable depending on how prepared Iran is for the post-state phase of the war, it is certainly unlikely in the short term. This is going to be a long war, and the Iranian government is probably going to hang around for a bit. It’s really after the Iranian state is destroyed that things get complicated. Militias are a lot harder to fight than governments.

The wildcard, which is something I find interesting, is that the Iranians have been expecting a US invasion for 20 years. The Persians are a relatively high IQ population, and so they appear to have acted rationally, setting up groups of militias which are designed to act without direction from a central government. And of course, we’ve seen that the drones can do a lot of damage, and one would expect that China and Russia would be providing support in terms of drones. What is unlikely and borders on impossible (though is not technically impossible) is that Russia will send troops like they did to the Syrian war. Probably, any deal that Trump might or might not make with the Russians to end the Ukraine war would include an agreement that they not send troops to Iran. And I don’t think they would do it anyway after what happened in Syria (a debacle that apparently happened in part due to ridiculous mismanagement of the Syrian warlords by the Iranians).

So, that’s how I analyze things. (See what I did there? I gave an analysis of a current event while demonstrating the methodology of the analysis at the same time. See that? It was exceedingly clever. It’s not quite noon, but I think I might just pour myself a drink in honor of my own cleverness.)

Needless to say, Iran is not going to destroy Israel, as was consistently claimed by Scott Ritter.

I suppose we should go back to Scott Ritter. I feel a little bit bad about this, because I don’t have anything personal against the guy and I don’t like to be viewed as “attacking” others on the woke right (unless I know or strongly suspect they’re working with the Jews/feds, which unfortunately includes half of the internet right-wing). It’s especially sad given that there are so many others online doing the same “my sources are telling me…” thing, and Scott actually was raided by the FBI for like, supporting Russia or whatever, and also hit with some trumped-up jailbait swindles that actually got him thrown in prison. No wonder he joined up with Russia, where tourism advertisements say “Come to Russia, where jailbait is sort of a legal gray area, but we’re not actually going to prosecute you unless you’re a pervert.”

But Scott is probably the most popular, so I’ve gone ahead and run the transcripts of a bunch of his podcast interviews through an AI, and here’s an abridged list of predictions he’s made (it was too hard to figure out how to note which ones included “my sources are telling me…” and which ones he just said without any claim of a basis).

Highly Abridged List of Scott Ritter’s Wrong Predictions (2021–2024)

Russia-Ukraine War

• Feb 2022: “Russia will take Kiev in 72 hours.”
• March 2022: “Odessa will fall within a week.”
• April 2022: “Ukraine’s military will collapse by summer.”
• Sept 2022: “Ukraine’s Kharkov counteroffensive is a trap—Russia will encircle them.”
• Nov 2022: “Kherson will never be retaken by Ukraine.”
• June 2023: “Ukraine’s counteroffensive will cause their military to collapse.”
• Dec 2023: “Russia will win the war by early 2024.”

NATO & Nuclear Threats

• 2022: “NATO will fracture over Ukraine aid.” (Finland and Sweden joined after he said this)
• 2023: “Poland will leave NATO due to Ukraine tensions.”
• 2024: “The U.S. will cut all military aid to Ukraine by mid-2024.”

Israel-Iran & Middle East

• Oct 2023: “Israel won’t invade Gaza—they don’t have the capability.”
• April 2024: “If Israel strikes Iran, Iran will destroy Israeli military bases and decapitate its leadership.”
• June 2024: “Iran’s air defenses will shut down Israeli airstrikes.”

China

• 2023: “China will invade Taiwan by 2024.”

Bonus: Miscellaneous Nonsense

• 2022: “The West will abandon Ukraine by winter.”
• 2023: “Russia will nuke Kiev if NATO sends tanks.”
• 2024: “Ukraine’s government will flee to Lvov by summer.”

In the spirit of fairness, I went through the things he was right about, and it made him look even worse. Every time he was right, it was either late (ten wrong timelines on the liberation of Bakmut), exaggerated (Iran responding to Israeli attack), or just coincidental (just like Alex Jones, he makes so many predictions, some of them are eventually bound to be right just by the nature of chance).

Why We Shouldn’t be Goofy and Ridiculous

There is some question about whether it could actually be helpful to the anti-empire agenda for Ritter and his compatriots to just go around making all these wild predictions, “fighting lies with lies,” as it builds up momentum. What’s more, he keeps getting invited onto RT and is actually a paid contributor to RT, so at first glance, that implies “The Kremlin” likes what he’s doing. But “The Kremlin” doesn’t really run RT, Margarita Simonyan does, and her instinct is towards BuzzFeed type clickbait-mongering. Frankly, though RT does some great stuff, I don’t think there is enough oversight when it comes to some of the silly people they bring on. So I don’t think that Ritter being on RT necessarily means his “my sources are telling me…” bit is viewed positively by the Russian state. I think they just like pro-Russian Westerners, and many of us (like myself) are a bit too hot, and Ritter has the credential of having been the UN weapons inspector who tried to stop the Iraq war.

To be clear, I am not against “cheerleading.” I think we should cheerlead Russia, Palestine, all of the people fighting against the global gay Jewish-American empire. I am one such cheerleader. I always support anyone fighting against these people. Remember my Niger banners? Real ones remember.

Click to enlarge (these were kind of funny, though the context is lost to time.)

But I wasn’t saying “my sources are telling me Niger is going to invade New York and tear down that feminist statue on Wall Street.”

What the “my sources are telling me…” predictor crowd does is give people hopium dopamine hits. We all like imagining things like Tel Aviv being bombed into oblivion. I like imagining fighting the White Walkers with Jon Snow as well. Fantasy is fun and it has its place, but that place is not in geopolitical commentary, and it is especially not alongside people like John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs who are doing broad-spectrum adult analysis of these situations and actually helping people understand how the system works. Yet, on virtually every single podcast that John and Jeff appear on, you’ve also got Scott (and, increasingly, Pepe Escobar) saying this really silly stuff, Valuable information and serious voices are being tainted by unseriousness.

There are ways to be sensationalistic without promoting disinformation. I did it for a long time. I used facts and serious analysis and wrapped it around outrageous vulgarity and max lulz. I get that this model doesn’t really work in most contexts. But it was obviously effective, as I am the most banned person ever. Point being: you can find other ways to draw attention to yourself and create hype and interest that don’t totally discredit you and everyone around you. I think this is what the comedy podcasters are doing. I listen to this fat Irish slob, I think his name is Finn O’Shaughnessy, and he does an excellent job of creating hype and dopamine while keeping it real.

Fake predictions are a cheap way to gain clicks, it discredits legitimate criticism of US/NATO/Israel, and it makes everyone dumber. I am against it.

I understand things are tough out there and Scott Ritter needs to get paid. There are not many jobs available to men who have been done up twice for jailbait. I really am not doing this out of mean-spiritedness, but rather a genuine concern for the alternative media ecosystem and something that I see as kind of a big problem. Many people actually believe this stuff and it must be totally demoralizing at this point

P.S.

I also think this “Axis of Resistance” thing is really gay. These countries should be called “Brick Squad” or “Council of Doom” or something else cool like that.

P.P.S.

Let’s just hope Scott Ritter doesn’t drop a diss track on me.

Firstly, if I was going to kill myself, I would do it in some epic style that no one would ever forget. Probably, I would use a gun in a famous place. If I didn’t have a gun, I’d do like, a quadruple backflip from the 99th floor cocktail bar. Something along those lines.

Nextly, I wouldn’t kill myself, for a number of reasons. I’ve become psychopathically religious, for one. For another, it would be giving a win to Dave Portnoy. The fact that Dave Portnoy (and every other Jew, each of which is exactly like Dave Portnoy) exists actually makes me want to become involved in the transhumanist movement and live forever so no Jew can ever celebrate my death.

Nextly, I honestly wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. People shouldn’t give a shit about me, but I understand that people do. And I’ve never wanted to hurt anyone’s feelings, and faking a suicide is a really nasty thing to do.

As a side, I once had a very funny joke about how I had a brain tumor. This was very hilarious. In fact, it might have been a little bit too hilarious, if you catch my drift. It’s so hilarious that there could be times when I need to take time off writing just to laugh about it.

Frankly, I did not expect that one somberish post would lead to widespread rumors of my demise. I didn’t realize everyone was expecting me to kill myself.

I used to be really worried about giving any impression of being depressed or whatever because the Jews could assassinate me and make it look like a suicide. I don’t really care about that anymore, given that, due to AI, it would be so easy to kill me and make it look like I was still alive. So at this point, it doesn’t really bother me to say that no, I’m not having a great time. Again, I wouldn’t ever kill myself regardless, but in terms of posting whiny emo bullshit, yes, that could happen again.

Of course, it’s stupid to talk about not having a good time, because things are tough all over, and everyone has a responsibility to keep their shit together, while no one is ever going to be able to understand what anyone else is going through. So in general, I have a “chin up” philosophy about these things, and think everyone else should have the same. You don’t have any idea what is going on in my head, I don’t have any idea what is going on in your head, the same is true for all of the people on the earth, and we all have the same responsibility to be normal and take responsibility for our own lives. Some people appear to have easier lives than others, but I don’t have any evidence of that. Rich, famous, attractive people kill themselves regularly, probably at a higher rate than ugly poor randos. I’m also not even sure that killing yourself proves anything about your mental state other than that you were sick of whatever it is was going on and didn’t want to deal with it anymore, which could mean a lot of different things.

So I don’t want to whine about my feelings. At the same time, I have been so open about myself and what is going on in my head for so long, I might as well just say what I’ve got going on in my head, especially in light of large numbers of people thinking I killed myself. It’s also worth talking about as it is almost entirely professional in nature. I have my personal and family problems like everyone has, I suppose, but I’ve largely relied on a technique to just block that all out (or at least “black it out,” if you catch my drift), and monomaniacally focus on my agenda.

The agenda is stagnant. As I’ve said, all of this politics stuff bores me. The Donald Trump news situation just feels like endless torture. Like, I already wrote all of this stuff. Now he’s literally going to Palantir you all like a bunch of Palestinians and James Bowman is going to tell Theo Von (with a highly askew face) that it’s about like, illegal immigrants not paying enough taxes.

Asked about Palantir compiling government data, JD Vance says he is more concerned about surveillance via commercial ad data brokers. I don’t know if that will satisfy concerns about Palantir, but he’s right about the data brokers.

The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency… pic.twitter.com/pYlGAlhTDo

— Emily Kopp (@emilyakopp) June 7, 2025

I’m like, “yo, Bowman – on my list of concerns, ‘a biometric control grid where every action every person takes is entered into a database that is funneled into an AI system used to program society and its individual members like a video game’ is a lot higher than ‘wetbacks not giving enough money to the “defense of Israel and free things for niggers and fat people” fund’.”

Apparently, opinions differ on this issue. The thing is, illegal immigrants are not actually going to be paying more taxes because you submitted to an AI control grid designed to micro-manage every aspect of society. So even if you were willing to give up not only all of your freedoms, but your basic ability to exist as a human being in a society in order to get Mexicans to give more money to the Big Beautiful Bill, you still shouldn’t make that deal, because the people trying to make that deal with you are not honest people and they don’t actually care if Mexicans pay taxes.

I suppose I should have started by explaining what Palantir is doing with the Trump administration? But why should I start with that? Shouldn’t people already know that? And if they don’t know it, or if they do, does it really matter? Anyway, basically all of that shit I spent two years writing about – how they were going to use Covid to create a system of biometric monitoring that uses all of the CCTV cameras, your phone, and everything else designed to track you, to monitor all of your behavior, and put it into a massive AI simulation that then allows them to program the behavior of society – turned out to not occur at that time because the selfsame AI simulation system showed that people were going to revolt against it. Now, they’re doing the same thing, and saying it’s about illegal immigrants and Mexican rioters in LA and Islamic extremists and whatever other thing right-wing people supposedly care about. Left-wing people would for the most part support a biometric control grid run by AI because left-wing people will support literally anything if you tell them it is going to create a utopia. But now they have this angle to get right-wing people on-board.

But hey, it’s all just whatever. Because no one really gives a shit. Honestly, I don’t even give a shit. No one else does, so why should I?

Anyway, most retards are not aware of this fact, but all of that “social credit” stuff that the Chinese started to do 15 years ago was totally rolled back and most of it was made illegal under new privacy laws that Xi’s government put through. You can look that up, or not, I don’t really care. You can believe whatever stupid bullshit you want, it’s not my fucking problem. But the reason China decided that using extreme surveillance and combining it with social engineering was a bad idea was not that they are just really moral or whatever, it’s that it was determined to be cancerous for society, and given that the Chinese government is the one running the surveillance and the law enforcement and the prisons, there was no incentive to create social chaos by implementing a dystopian control grid. In America, it’s not just Palantir that has an incentive to implement a control grid, but the private police contractors and weapons suppliers for the police, the private prisons, the NGO groups that support nonwhite crime, and on and on and on forever. Everyone gets rich off of a dystopian control grid.

The claim with China was apparently “they just want to control everyone for no specific reason or maybe they are evil (after all, just look at the shape of their eyes).” This is obviously retarded, and as soon as it became clear that these types of social engineering programs don’t work and will ultimately collapse society, the Chinese stopped virtually all of it. The “social credit system” as it exists now is almost exclusively related to corporations committing various crimes (pollution or scams or whatever). For individuals, it is totally related to financial ratings, similar (though frankly much less extreme and abusive) than the American “credit score.” The only place where there is anything like a Western-style social control grid in China is among the Uyghurs, and you can go read and see if you think that’s reasonable or not. (Virtually all of what the US says China does to the Uyghurs is a lie, of course, but yeah, they are pretty heavily monitored by the government. Again, just go read about it and see if you think that makes sense or if it is done for reasons of pure evil and communism.)

But whereas “China just wants to control everyone to be nasty” is clearly ridiculous to any adult person, the reasons the US and the West generally want to do it are obvious by simply looking at the profit motive. It’s not complicated. Not confusing. It’s not “transparent” in the sense that the media covers it, but it is definitely “transparent” in the general sense of the word. You can just go look up the amount of money all of these companies (Palantir probably now the biggest but by no means the only one) can make off of a control grid.

But here’s what’s scarier than the financial incentive: they also want to control what you think and feel, and they are talking openly about using this biometric AI monitoring and behavior modification grid to modify beliefs. If we go back to China, the government’s goal in terms of social engineering is simply social harmony. In terms of beliefs, they want pro-social beliefs generally, but the only belief they are actually going to try to modify is your belief about the government itself. In general, they try to do that by having the government be a positive entity that people naturally have good views of. But maybe they try to get people to think different things using whatever methods, I don’t know, you can believe that if you want, I certainly can’t prove they don’t do that, I can just say there isn’t any evidence of it. Whatever. I don’t care what you think about China. I’m bringing this up to make the point: how many beliefs do the ruling elite of the United States want to modify and control? It’s a list too long to list, but just look at the Jewish issue.

Now, look at the distance between the current public beliefs on Jews and Israel and the goals for public beliefs on Jews and Israel that a company like Palantir would have.

Now, watch that James Bowman clip again where he’s sweating like Ganesh in a hot spring explaining that he doesn’t really even know much about Palantir or the Trump Administration’s plan for a biometric control grid that uses AI to record and modify all human behavior.

Now, imagine me trying to explain this to people and thinking that me trying to explain this to people is going to do anything good for me or anyone else.

We are so, so far gone.

The only solution to the American situation is a total societal collapse, similar to that of the USSR. Period. There is no other angle here.

The upside is that the more people who think like us that we have in positions of power when the collapse comes, the better. But that’s pretty much the only positive message I’m able to think of.

I might publish a long essay/short book about “freedom” and use the comparison of China and the United States as a means to elaborate on what exactly it is we have going on here. The issue is this control grid and the ability that AI is going to have to manipulate the behavior of hundreds of millions of people. That is the primary issue. And it feels generally ridiculous to talk about it, because most people are incapable of understanding it and if they are capable of understanding it they don’t want to understand it because it is so unpleasant to think about and if they are both capable of and willing to understand it, there is nothing they can do about it, because we live in a democracy where you have no ability to influence government policy and your freedom of speech is dependent on the same corporations building the control grid giving you a right to speak.

So it’s all frustrating.

And I do really thank you all for reading my site and I especially thank those who have donated (which you can still do, by the way). And I am genuinely sorry I didn’t do more and I really feel like I could have done more.

That’s all I meant by the thing.

Suicide note?

Bro, if I write a suicide note, you’re going to know it. And it’s going to say a lot of things which will be very angry and hilarious.

But I’m not going to write a suicide note because I’m not going to kill myself. Well, I might write an “If I was Going to Write a Suicide Note” fake suicide note, like that time OJ Simpson wrote a book about how he would have killed his wife if he had done it.

OJ was totally innocent of course, but he should have killed that nigger-fucking whore Nicole and her Jew. Just so, I’m totally innocent of suicide, but I should kill myself because this shit is all so gay and retarded.

P.S.

See something? Say something.

Please help me to take a stand against fed trolls who are claiming this picture was Photoshopped:

That picture is 100% real and unedited, and that is my bedroom.

Feds are all over the internet trying to discredit me by claiming that is Photoshopped, and I would really appreciate it if when you see a fed making this claim, you fight back against him by telling the TRUTH.

I understand you can’t all afford to donate, but it costs nothing to tell a fed kike troll that this photo is 100% real and that is my bedroom where I live and work.

Saying Trump was in the Epstein files was an obvious lie. We all know what kind of women Trump is into. His taste is… not similar to Epstein’s. Trump has an entire list of sex scandals, and none of them were with women under 25, I don’t even know if any of them were under 30, so he wouldn’t be doing it for fun.

Most people weren’t doing it for fun, of course (with the single confirmed exception I’m aware of being Prince Andrew). Most of these people went to Epstein Island to have themselves filmed with underage girls so that the Mossad had blackmail on them, which meant they could get massive career advancements. I don’t know how many people actually get that point, despite how obvious it is: if you want advancement in this system, which is totally corrupt and based exclusively on nepotism, the only real way of getting that advancement is to give blackmail material to the Mossad or some other group of powerful Jews.

Trump never had any reason to do that. He was already rich. And further, if that existed, he would not be bucking Bibi Netanyahu in the way he has been recently. (Whether that bucking goes anywhere – and I don’t think it will, frankly – is irrelevant, because if Bibi had the tapes, he would just do whatever Bibi wants, in the way literally everyone else in the US government does. And before “you use ‘literally’ too liberally, okay, so let’s exclude Thomas Massie, whose wife died mysteriously, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is a woman, and I guess Matt Gaetz, who actually went public when the Mossad was trying to wrap him up in a blackmail scandal.)

To believe Trump was in the Epstein files, you would have to not understand that the whole thing was about blackmail, not sex. Or it just wouldn’t make any sense. Elon was just on drugs, as usual, and thought he could manipulate QAnon people into siding with him against Trump, apparently as part of a plan to get some number of GOP Congressmen and Senators to side with Democrats and impeach Trump and replace him with Vance. Even if 100% of QAnon boomers believed the Epstein hoax, the plan would be completely retarded, because getting the Senate to vote for impeachment is virtually impossible, and certainly couldn’t be done now.

Maybe Elon will invent some new strategy. But that seems unlikely. He can manipulate the Twitter algorithm to make a significant portion of online Republicans hate Trump. He could probably also manipulate Fox News to make offline Republicans hate Trump. If I were Trump, I’d be pretty concerned about Elon doing this, and would have made a pretty big effort to keep him on sides.

But, if Trump is playing 5D chess, or 2D chess, or like, Guess Who?, he can easily ask: what does turning a bunch of Republicans against Trump actually accomplish in terms of Elon’s long game?

Obviously, Elon’s long game is to create conditions in America where there is enough money laying around to fund his stupid child’s dream of colonizing Mars. That’s why he’s obsessed with the budget. I mean, there are other reasons to be concerned about the budget, but that’s Elon’s thing. I mean, figure it out, but I think it’s goofy to talk about people having secret agendas when there isn’t even any proof (most people are actually pretty frank about their agendas; even if they don’t talk about them in public all the time, they publish stuff about them). And “go to live on Mars” is Elon’s stated agenda, it’s on all of his shirts, and he says that’s why America needs a balanced budget, and he markets it as an important way to… stop the Chinese people from eating all the pangolins or whatever. Oh, and Pop Mart is going to completely decimate the American toy industry. If we don’t beat them to Mars.

The Democrats obviously aren’t going to even entertain “fiscal responsibility.”

They also have a less than enthusiastic view of space travel.

You all remember this one, right?

No, you don’t. No one remembers that. I mean, even the people who were alive when the Jews were spamming it don’t remember it. I only know about it because boomers cite it as the primary symbol of the way blacks are holding back civilization. Because boomers don’t want to talk about Jews and think that black lives matter is an organic movement and that it would be literally impossible to just send the cops to tell blacks they have to stop whining and get jobs. Boomers can’t explain how blacks were literally slaves for hundreds of years. They just say all of a sudden blacks somehow got a bunch of political power (something they previously hadn’t ever even thought about) and then when they got that power they used it to prevent space travel. So they use that song as an example of how blacks are holding us back from stabbing up the guts of Dejah Thoris. Because boomers also only ever think about “getting lucky” with “hot chicks” when they aren’t thinking about how blacks took over.

Though to be fair, it’s hard to think about Dejah Thoris without thinking about sex.

I just don’t understand why they’re thinking about her in the first place.

Although I am not a whiny nigger, my interest in space travel is about the same as the whiny nigger in the above spoken word piece no one remembers. Whenever I hear an adult talking about an interest in space travel, I immediately peg him as a child in a man’s body, and I am always right. Serious adults are not interested in space travel. That is, they are not interested in it beyond the great body of science fiction works we all love. When someone talks about space travel as something that could or should happen in real life, coming at me with something like “so how long do you think it will take us to get a habitable colony on Mars?” is not different to me than if a man asks “so why didn’t the king send surgeons and scientists instead of horsemen to put Humpty Dumpty back together?”

If you ask a young American male about space travel, he’s going to say something like: “Nigger, I can’t even get a woman to have sex with me. I live with my parents. I can’t even afford a last gen video card. Is there easy pussy and free video cards on Mars? Because if there’s not, please don’t ever talk to me again.”

This isn’t a serious agenda. But it is Musk’s agenda. For whatever reason. He also wants to put computer chips in people’s brains for some reason, presumably to turn them into mindless drones who stop thinking about sex and video games and instead develop a psychopathic obsession with going to Mars (where there is literally nothing but useless rocks).

But, insofar as anyone is going to go along with a space travel agenda, it is going to be war-obsessed boomer dickheads who think the Chinese are going to race them to Mars and then… keep all of the useless rocks for themselves?

“The communist Chinese government has just announced that it is keeping all of the useless rocks on Mars and will not be sharing them with anyone out of fear that the rocks could be used for homosexual purposes” sounds like a nightmare that Marco Rubio might have. So this is literally Musk’s only demographic, beyond his own tech people (who in general, seem more concerned about implanting everyone with brain chips than with invading outer space).

All of this is to say: Elon’s primary objective should be going along with whatever economic growth plan Donald Trump has, regardless of what it does to the national budget, because this is better than nothing, and more importantly, it is the only path to getting his real man, JD Vance, into office.

I think Elon also wants to become some kind of King of America. Again, I don’t want to chase secret agendas, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that he has this kind of dream. Certainly, he’s said he wants to be dictator of Mars, and if America is the engine he wants to use to get to Mars, it would make sense to become dictator of America first. Vance’s centrist populism and clear submissiveness (blackmail driven, we’d have to assume) to Silicon Valley and Elon in particular again implies Vance is the man for Elon’s plan.

Who knows what happens next. I don’t make predictions. But if I had to guess, I’d guess we’re going to see total deescalation and some kind of coming back together on some informal level. I think Trump and his people are clever enough to have gamed this out, which is why Trump hasn’t gone nuclear, as he normally would have. He knew Elon was likely to eventually realize he doesn’t have the cards to win, but at the same time he didn’t want Elon dumping the cards he does have (i.e., using Twitter and his wealth to cause Trump very serious problems).

Note that this is a really unique Trump feud. Trump usually goes totally nuclear on anyone over anything, and this time he let Elon go nuclear while saying “well, I guess he’s doing that, maybe he’s mad about some subsidies, I don’t really know, but okay.” Because Trump knew the only thing Elon could do was make a big mess, and didn’t want to pressure him into that, when he knew that when some of the drugs wore off, Elon would realize making a mess doesn’t help him any more than it hurts Trump.

But, I don’t know. I don’t really care. I don’t really see any good outcomes here.

I don’t even know why I bothered typing this. I’m not even supposed to be working on this site. I have all these books in the pipe. Imagine if I finish them all at once and just release like 12 books on one day. There are about 12 of them that are 85% done.

But here I am.

I just can’t take all the bad takes.

I’d hoped I’d put out enough good takes over the years that I’d trained all the people who copied my takes to do their own takes in my style. Instead, all the people who copied my takes are spouting gibberish, most of which doesn’t even make sense, the rest of which is obviously wrong.

There’s only one guy with takes that matter, and he’s a fat Irish retard who claims to eat gay ass. I forget his name. I think it’s “Charlie O’Hannigan.” But he’s the smartest guy on the internet and he’s got great taste in sunglasses, but he’s also Irish, fat, and gay – in that order.

(I haven’t watched this yet, but I would imagine I agree with it. I denounce anything I don’t agree with.)

Sam Hyde too. But is he really even Irish? He’s definitely not gay.

Gotten pretty fat though, frankly.

I am primarily concerned about domestic social issues. That is what I prefer to write about. Primarily, I hate women and like to share that message of hate with the world. However, for many years now I have been compelled to write about geopolitics because there is so much gibberish flooding the public space regarding these issues that it appears to be a moral obligation for me to add my piece.

I am all too well aware that I am the only English speaking person who can say anything intelligent about China. But I never viewed myself as the sole voice of reason on the Ukraine-Russia situation. Yet, I go away for a few weeks and the public conversation on the right degrades into garbled madness. Following a wild series of confusing events, there are a few quick things I want to put out there and hopefully it will clear things up.

The first and most obvious thing to note is that it was very easy for the American right to be pro-Russia, or at least anti-Ukraine, when the cancer-riddled old coot Joe Brandon was in charge of the US government and serving as the face of Ukrainemania. Right wingers, while sometimes critical of Trump, do not view him as villainous in the way they viewed the rotting corpse Brandon as villainous.

Unfortunately, nothing has changed insofar as the Ukraine-Russia situation is concerned now that Trump is president. Despite a very funny scene in the Oval Office in which Trump berated the Jewish dwarf dictator of the Ukraine, the US military has continued arming the country and has continued to support NATO escalating the conflict.

Following along with the theater that took place during the Zelensky meeting, Trump has used rhetoric to give the impression there has been some substantive change in US war policy. Biden publicly committed to the idea that the war would never end, saying constantly that the war should go on forever no matter the cost, while Trump is publicly saying the war should end at some point in the (near?) future. However, even while Biden was saying “endless war forever,” his own officials were acknowledging that it would have to end at some point. Just so, while Trump says he wants it to end, his own officials are saying that sure, it will have to be sometime, but who really knows.

Aside from the change in rhetoric, Trump has vaguely attempted to start a peace process, which Biden refused to even entertain. So, I should give credit where due there. But there is as of yet no reason to believe the peace process will go anywhere.

It’s a bit disappointing for me personally. Although I obviously supported Trump over Kamala, in the run-up to the “election,” I was overwhelmingly negative about the whole thing, and repeatedly stressed the point that though Trump would win, it was only because he was allowed to win (given that we know for a fact that US elections can be rigged), which meant that he wasn’t likely to do much of significance. I did say that I expected him to end the Ukraine war (even if only to free up resources for more adventurism in the Middle East). It now appears that my optimism, as it were, might have been misplaced. (Of course, on the other end, to also give credit where due, he is at least pushing back against Bibi in ways which could turn out to be substantive. Though I’m not really holding my breath on that, I stand by what I wrote last week about the possibility that Trump could move to try to oust Bibi. I also stand by my instinct that it probably won’t work.)

The important thing to understand is that Trump’s talk of a Russia-Ukraine ceasefire is complete bullshit and every serious person is aware of this. It is not a starting point for peace negotiations, it is not anything at all other than a tactic to try to convince deeply stupid or totally uninformed people that Russia is not committed to peace and is rejecting an olive branch. It is not an olive branch. If there was a deal on the table and Zelensky and Putin had a meeting set up with a draft proposal and Trump was asking for a week’s ceasefire, okay, but asking for an open-ended ceasefire and then whining when Putin refuses to agree to let the Ukraine rearm for no reason is just childish and dumb.

Russia’s demands have been the same since before they invaded the Ukraine. In substance, they’ve been consistent since the Ukraine, backed by the US, started the war in 2014, but the specifics have not changed since February of 2022 when Putin gave a speech outlining the purpose of the invasion and the goals that would have to be achieved before there could be peace between the two states. There is no room for confusion about what Russia is demanding, and the single most important demand is a serious, carved in stone agreement that the Ukraine will never join NATO. This includes not only a ban on officially joining NATO, but also a ban on being a de facto NATO state through a treaty that does the same thing without official NATO membership. (The current chatter coming from the State Department and from Germany is to make the Ukraine a de facto NATO member without actually calling it that.)

Trump is not offering Russia a peace deal. He is demanding that Russia, which is winning the war, agree to stop fighting so that the US and its allies can rearm and fortify the Ukraine. This is like if a losing football team in the fourth quarter demanded that the game be paused so everyone can rest up and then come back and finish the game tomorrow. It is completely ridiculous.

If Trump were in charge of the United States, and it might be childish to suggest he is but if he were, he could offer a peace deal that meets Russia’s terms and end the war immediately. If there were a serious peace deal, there would be no need for a ceasefire, because you would have a cessation of hostilities.

Russia is not demanding anything crazy. There would be nothing shameful in simply doing the deal. It would not make Trump look weak or whatever it is people suggest he is concerned about. Trump has spent months now claiming that Putin is planning to conquer the entirety of the Ukraine, and I can tell you as a matter of fact, no one in Russia is going to be mad about Trump signing a peace deal and then going around saying he stopped Russia from marching on Galicia and forcing everyone to use correct Russian grammar and drink Russian vodka (instead of that fruity crap they drink).

I said from the beginning that when the US finally surrenders they will say “we stopped Putin from taking all of the Ukraine,” and that is clearly what Trump will claim and that is fine.

But there is no other room for a “win.” Maybe Russia will cede some of the territory that they’ve officially claimed but don’t currently occupy. I would assume they would do that and the Kremlin seems to have indicated as much. But that can’t be any kind of a big public “win” because no one in the West knows or cares where those lines are.

Russia doing a big bombing campaign this week is sending a signal that they are not playing a game and they are not interested in this ridiculous kiddie nonsense that Trump is pushing. Trump is trying to bully them by claiming they look bad for not agreeing to a ceasefire that allows the sickening pervert Americans and those German sickos to come in and fortify towns again, to ship in more weapons, to train soldiers, and so on.

Trump is offering nothing at all. In part that is because there is nothing he can offer other than the deal that has always been on the table. I have no idea how this is going to play long term with his own supporters. Trump is now taking a position not qualitatively different than that of Joe Biden on the conflict and it’s unclear if his supporters are going to notice that. Probably, if you combine this with things like Dan Bongino and that odious Indian coming out and saying the Epstein suicide was on the up and up, and the ongoing discontent with Trump’s support for the Gaza genocide, Trump is probably going to be facing some pretty serious negativity in the coming weeks and months. The euphoria over the barrage of toothless, symbolic executive orders is probably wearing off.

It seems to me that Trump has enough problems with being perceived as a warmonger and if he has the ability, ending the Ukraine war would be a very easy win for his image, even if it isn’t a “win” in the other sense that he often uses that word.

Issuing a series of threats seems very ill-advised and is definitely not going to lead to any positive outcome for Trump or anyone else.

He can escalate, of course. He can send in US troops to fight Russians. He has that ability. But is that what he wants? If not, then threats are not useful, because Russia is not going to respond to threats. I don’t think they will get mad about them, but they will issue statements about how Trump is very emotional, which just seems embarrassing for Trump. If he decides to escalate the war, then he goes down as the guy who started World War III in the face of the most obvious peace deal imaginable, with the narrative being that he did it because he was unable to control his emotions.

He campaigned on saying Joe Biden was right about Israel-Palestine but just wasn’t extreme enough. Everyone knew that was his position. However he now does seem to be bothered by the fact that all of his supporters, save whatever evangelical boomers are still around, view him as a puppet of Netanyahu who is personally responsible for a genocide. It’s possible he can’t get out of that, as he actually is just totally controlled by Israel. But if he can, why not take the PR win and end the Ukraine war? Why go around spewing gibberish that no adult takes seriously?

For the record, I take Trump at his word that he wants to have a legacy as a peacemaker, and I think if he was a dictator, in complete control of the executive branch of the US government, he would end these wars. I am not against him as a person, and I think people who portray him as being secretly ideologically pro-war are not very serious people. The problem is that his own opinions are totally irrelevant, the only thing that matters being his actions, and all of his actions thus far have shown that he’s no more anti-war than Joe Biden.

It’s great that he’s complained about Bibi and said it’s sad Palestinians are being slaughtered and starved. But Biden also said that. His rhetoric on the Ukraine is less deranged than Biden’s, but his policies are the same. And it’s pretty much the same across the board. It’s great he’s talking about a new Iran Nike deal, but Biden also talked about that. There’s nothing new here, and it’s kind of hilarious that after he appointed Marco Rubio as the Secretary of State, anyone thought there would be anything new.

What is much more hilarious is that the Trump administration’s attacks on the freedom of speech make Biden look like a hardcore civil libertarian. There is a bill in Congress that will put people in prison for ten years if they boycott Israel. I had a conversation with AI about the bill. Laws are very long and purposefully confusing, but AI is able to break this stuff down. (Obviously, you need to check it for accuracy, but I’ve found it is now very accurate when it comes to simply analyzing long documents.) I asked if this bill became law and I was in a store and there was a bar of Israeli soap and a bar of Jordanian soap, and I bought the Jordanian soap because I am against the genocide in Gaza if I could be prosecuted. The AI said no. I think I asked if I owned a company, and my company chose to buy the Jordanian soap because I am against the genocide if I could be prosecuted, and the AI said it was possible I could be prosecuted and face up to ten years in prison. The bill has been tabled, but according to the media, this was done single-handedly by Matt Gaetz and Republicans want to bring it back. (Gaetz pointed out that the bill seems to imply every American is legally obligated to buy Israeli products. Again, no one understands the way these laws are written, but in my example above, it seems possible that if my company chose to buy the Jordanian soap, even if I did it arbitrarily, and not because I oppose the Gazan genocide, I could be accused of having hateful reasons for the decision, and thrown in prison.)

We all love Trump. But there is a lot of stuff like this going on that is really not great. I’m glad Elon got thrown under the bus, but compared to some of this other stuff, whatever the hell he was up to seems like small potatoes. Stopping wars and bringing back freedom of speech were two of the most prominent things in the Trump campaign, and rhetoric aside, we are so far getting the opposite on both counts.

But hey. We hope for the best.

Ultimately, we need to not lose sight of why the American people elected Trump in the first place: to protect women’s sports.

Trump’s foreign policy might be the same as Biden’s, he will likely be the president to implement the first hate speech laws in American history, but none of that matters much in light of the fact that we’ve gotten rid of the radical gender ideology that was causing female swimmers to be denied their sports medals.

Yesterday, I posted a long essay written by someone else, comic book writer and artist Dave Sim’s 2001 anti-feminist manifesto “Tangent,” that I would like to comment on presently. You can read the essay before reading these comments, but it surely is not required. It might also be better to read it after reading this, frankly, as having some framing might help you to understand why I view it as an important artifact of anti-feminist history.

It’s worthy of note that reading the essay now, I could not say any of it is better or more relevant than the material I have personally produced about women. However, at this point, listening to popular figures talk about not only women but all of the top issues, I get the impression I am listening to my own talking points read back to me. It’s not bragging to state that I changed the entire narrative on the internet right about a lot of different issues. (I legitimately am not boastful about this, it is simply that it must be said in order to understand how these ideas have developed. Aside from “4chan, collectively,” I am the person who is most responsible for developing and popularizing these ideas and there is no one who is anywhere near a close second. I only feel thankful God blessed me with such an important role, and pray that I can do more in my remaining time here.) However, aside from people influenced by me, it is difficult to find much modern material, written after the feminist revolution of the 1960s and 70s, which addresses these issues at all, so the Sim essay is very intriguing, even if reading it in the current year you think “this is all stuff Anglin said a decade ago.” I also think there are some things he points out which I have not said specifically which make it worthwhile to comment on, and it gives me a platform to elaborate on these issues myself in ways I might not have thought of doing before.

I shall start with some criticisms. Just to get them out of the way. All of these criticisms should be considered in the light of the fact that 2001 is now a very long time ago and before the modern internet transformed the way people think.

Firstly, it will be obvious that I do not agree with his perceptions of Martin Luther King, as outlined in the final section of the essay, and I do believe the piece would be much better if that section had been left out completely. I find it confusing and convoluted. The summary, insofar as I can tell, is that King was destroyed and turned into a communist by women. That claim may or may not have some validity. I tend to think it doesn’t have any validity, because without even going into the details of King’s political agenda, the fact that King was a serial adulterer means that he was not a particularly moral man and really had no right to call himself a man of God (Sim readily admits as much). While it’s possible for any man to lose control on a single night, anyone who is involved in rampant adultery for years on end is going to be the sort of man who is totally beholden to the whims of women (in my experience, this describes virtually all American negroes). While I’m sure Daily Stormer readers will bristle at what appears to be a partial apologetic for the “civil rights” movement, the entire essay shouldn’t be cast aside because of this confused last section. Further, what you can see in looking at the structure of the essay is that Sim choked because he didn’t want to be accused of “racism” in his sexist manifesto (I will touch on this later).

Aside from the muddled final section, the primary issues that I would take with Sim are all based on the fact that I accept the traditional dogma of the church. Therefore, I am not iffy on the topic of the morality of homosexuality. I do not feel a need to analyze Bible verses word for word, and don’t see how, if you believe in a religion, you can do this kind of reading of the sacred text. If you read the Bible closely, you can find all sorts of contradictions and various other problems. But Jesus did not come to write a book, He came to build a church. No one ever thought that the gospels were directly written by God, as they clearly contradict one another, offering differing accounts of events. If you take them to be the written accounts of men recalling the events years or decades after they happened, it actually goes a long way toward proving their authenticity to find out they remembered some details differently while remembering the key events the same. (If they had been falsified centuries afterward, as atheists have claimed without evidence, then the accounts would presumably all be the same. Unless the conspirators falsifying the documents for whatever reason it is claimed that they did that would have thought “we’d better make some small changes between the varying accounts to give them a more authentic feel,” which doesn’t really seem very likely.) At the same time, this means that a line-by-line reading of the gospels in an attempt to find some insight that has yet to be identified by the magisterium is not going to be very meaningful. Sim claims that the only reason that the Bible would refer to two men being in bed together, and one going to Heaven and the other Hell, is that not all homosexuals go to Hell. I have no idea if all homosexuals go to Hell, just as I have no idea if all murderers go to Hell. But it is embarrassing to read “two men in bed” and assume that Luke is talking about homosexuals. Up through the 19th century, men sleeping in bed together did not imply homosexuality, but simply frugality and a need to conserve warmth. It’s embarrassing because you find so many examples in reading of this happening. Just as a random example I can think of off the top of my head, Ben Franklin and John Adams famously shared a bed in an inn while traveling to New York to negotiate an end to the Revolutionary War. Because homosexuality was not something that people thought much about before perhaps the 1950s, no one blinked at two men sharing a bed, and it is obvious that no such thing is implied by that verse in Luke.

I don’t mean to digress. I wanted to go into the weirdness of micro-readings of the gospels, searching for clues, because it speaks to a larger point I am going to try to make here about people who say socially uncomfortable truths before they are popular. (This is a topic I’m somewhat familiar with and one which is important to me, so I’m going to weave it into what is on its face supposed to be more anti-woman material.)

Dave Sim is a weird person, which is why I think his perspective is important. There are few people who I agree with completely. Even the people who were most influential on me were people who I could read specific quotes from and think “wow, that’s retarded, why would he say that?” There should not be a kind of “mold” that everyone is forced to conform to in order to be considered a valuable contributor to the public conversation. Reading the Sim essay, and recognizing how ahead of its time it was, I thought to myself: we need more people like Dave Sim. The people who are actually ahead of their time are always weird in some way or various ways. I get frustrated about Tucker Carlson promoting aliens or Candace Owens promoting the Macron tranny wife theory, but the reason I get frustrated is that I’m not allowed into the conversation because of the overwhelming censorship. I do think these beliefs of Tucker and Candace are the result of a psyop, whereas Sim’s strange beliefs are more a result of unique personality quirks and perhaps too much LSD, but it is my very strong belief that anything anyone says should just be taken at face value and discussed without emotion.

The problem has only ever been censorship. Whether it be the kind of social censorship that Sim was facing back in 2001, or the brutal totalitarian mega-ultra-doom censorship I faced in 2017, anything that reduces anyone’s ability to say anything they think and believe inhibits truth. No one who cares about the truth should ever be afraid of other people’s ideas or having their own ideas be challenged.

Possibly the biggest takeaway from the ridiculous Dave Smith vs. Douglas Murray debate (because insofar as there was any beef it was thin and dry) was that it is not adult behavior to demand, in the discussion of ideas, that a person explain why they have a right to have ideas. Certainly, if a person is completely irrelevant, you have no obligation to discuss ideas with them or talk to them at all, but if I was invited on the Joe Rogan show to debate a pro-Israel, pro-Ukraine schizophrenic homeless drug addict, I would do the debate, rather than demand it be explained to me why I should do the debate with someone of such low social status. If he’s on the Joe Rogan show, then clearly, it is a part of the public conversation and therefore important enough to take straightforwardly. If a person is totally ridiculous and everything they think is ridiculous, you should take the easy win of publicly defeating them in the game of wits. Just discuss the ideas, Douglas, you sickening shabbos pederast.

If more public personalities were like Sim, willing to simply give their frank opinions, unconcerned about conforming to any kind of identifiable ideology or political grouping, we would have a lot more interesting conversations. What you find is that with most of these people, they claim to be independent thinkers, but in actuality they are conforming to established norms. Although I am of course very excited that discussion of Jews and Israel is now on the menu, it must be admitted that the Jews handed this over to the commentariat on a silver platter through their genocide in Gaza and their open and public dictation to the US government as to how the US government will behave in the Middle East. It was so utterly ridiculous to have Bibi Netanyahu ordering Biden what to do in public, and then Donald Trump coming in and saying “Biden isn’t doing enough for Israel, he’s with the Palestinians and I think he is a Palestinian,” that it could not result in anything other than the issue becoming available for discussion and debate.

You can go look at what the situation in the “alternative media” was like before the Gaza genocide, and you’re not going to find very much discussion of Israel or the Jews. That is of course based on the 2017 censorship program, of which this writer was the most important and biggest casualty, but a censorship program is based on what the public will tolerate. The Jews who run the media tried to apply the same censorship they applied to me to people complaining about black crime and child trannies, and it did not work. These Jews will censor whatever they can get away with censoring, and if there would have been a strong public reaction to the 2017 censorship, none of the other censorship would have happened. They cannot simply silence 50% or even 20% of the population. Using the standard methods of internet censorship, debanking, personal harassment, and various threats, they can maybe silence 10%. If 25% or more of the public either agrees with you or believes you should have a right to say the thing you want to say, you can say it. This was true even in the Soviet Union. It is presumably true now in North Korea. You can insert whatever other sort of totalitarian system you imagine. There is only so much power that the government and private interests can wield over the masses of people, and deciding that certain ideas are not allowed is very extreme and it requires overwhelming popular support to enact these kinds of measures. (Note: the popular response, whenever you say something like “in communist countries, 97% of the people support the government,” is always to say “but they’re brainwashed.” But that is always going to be true to whatever extent. It doesn’t matter if people are brainwashed to believe something, they still believe it. It is also ridiculous for anyone living in a Western country to accuse anyone else of being brainwashed. The United States and its greater empire is visibly, openly controlled by Jews, and you’re not allowed to say that. Remember the old ADL thing: “Hollywood is run by individuals who happen to be Jewish.” No one in North Korea is banned from saying Kim Jong-Un is the leader of the country.)

This is to say, it is very clear that the current discussion of America’s relationship to Israel and the Israeli control of our government’s policy, and to a somewhat lesser extent a discussion of the Jews and their role in our society, is possible because a majority of people think it should be possible, and therefore no one discussing these things who was not discussing them before this (that would include all of the major figures in right-leaning internet media) is not discussing it because they are a “free thinker” who “makes up their own mind,” but rather that they are jumping on a bandwagon of what are popular and allowed realms of thinking. Again (and I will say again), I like it that this is being discussed. But it’s not brave. It was brave when I did it, frankly. Right now, you would actually have to be brave to side with Ben Shapiro and sickening Dave Portnoy. Siding with them wouldn’t be brave in the same way it was brave (or just retarded, frankly, I’m using “brave” in the sense of a disregard for self-interest) for me to talk about Jews ten years ago, because my life was totally ruined and siding with Shapiro now would not do the same damage, but it would destroy the career of someone like Joe Rogan to go out there and claim that “Israel is defending itself.”

Reading Sim first declare that the Bible is questionable and he thinks the Koran is better and then go pick apart some Bible verse and say “maybe this means homosexuality is not really that bad of a sin?” doesn’t frustrate or anger me, but rather makes me laugh and on another level, confirms that he does not care what anyone thinks about what he is saying, he is simply saying what he believes. All of this is to say: honesty and genuineness are a lot more valuable than trying to be right all the time. If you are honest and genuine, then you are open to criticism, so you don’t have to act like you’re right all the time. Having an open mind is going to lead to the truth, but it might lead you down some weird avenues on the way. There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as the discussion remains open. I will note that when I first heard Tucker Carlson say he was attacked by a demon in his sleep and it scraped him, I laughed and then kept replaying the clip to try to read his facial movements. While I do think this claim is stupid, as I do not believe that demons are scraping people in their sleep, the fact that he went out and said it and by all analysis believes it makes me think he could become a more interesting person in the years to come.

(I must note that saying contrary things simply to appear interesting is actually worse than just going with the flow and agreeing with some existing consensus, but that is a separate topic of discussion which I do not wish to discuss in much detail here. I will say that I think it is more or less obvious when someone is saying something contrarian to seem interesting and when they are saying what they believe in a frank manner even when it doesn’t conform to the norms of belief of any existing faction. Apparently, stupid people do not find it obvious, which is why mediocre right-winger internet commentators who are burning out can gain some attention on a fading star by going out and saying “actually, I support Democrats now.” But I refuse to believe anyone who isn’t stupid falls for that, and we cannot consider stupid people’s opinions as important, because they might believe anything at any moment. We live in a world where the headline “Extremist pro-homelessness advocate Gavin Newsom declares total war on homeless people” is considered good for Gavin Newsom’s career, and likely is very good for his career, so we cannot consider the opinions of stupid people other than to consider the effect that stupid people collectively have on the public discourse not through their opinions but through their seemingly supernatural ability to believe anything.)

Regardless of my particular disagreements about Sim’s comments on homosexuality, I do agree with his conclusions that homosexuality should be suppressed while homosexuals, if they keep their actions secretive, should not be molested. There is no explanation of how homosexuals could be hunted without creating a totalitarian state, so by default, they must be allowed to practice their private acts privately. It is not a good society where the government launches an investigation into two unmarried men living together. It’s also not nice to imagine women calling the cops to report a man who appears to be very unmarried and maybe a bit fruity. Everything about actually prosecuting homosexuals, if they do keep it private, leads to problems bigger than homosexuality, namely, state/police excesses and witch-hunting. This was never really a problem at any point in history. Although the modern “homosexual identity” is somewhat new, there have always been people who engaged in homosexual activities, and there was never a need to do a witch-hunt investigating the bedrooms of unmarried men in order to prevent them from parading through the streets sucking each other off in front of children. Personally, I think buggery should be nominally illegal, in order to prevent it from seeping out into the public realm, but I don’t think laws against it are enforceable unless it is brought into the public realm. If gay clubs were secret, I would not support organizing special “Fag Patrol” police to infiltrate them.

Most of my other critiques would follow from the original thing. For example, Sim does another thing finding a Bible verse to claim marriage isn’t really necessary in the Bible. I obviously think Christianity is pro-marriage, but that modern Western “marriage” is not actually marriage in the Christian sense, but rather a bastardized secular version designed to exclusively benefit women. Further, I do not believe that the people of the Old Testament or the followers of Christ were “Jews” in the modern sense, as Judaism did not exist at that time, but that is an entirely separate issue unrelated to the topic of the day. You can just fill in the blank as to where I would disagree with some of the other statements he makes and includes God. I just believe the Nicene Creed.

Finally, while it might be unfair to frame this as a criticism, in explaining how he’s given up on women completely, Sim says “if you learn to leave your penis alone, your penis will learn to leave you alone.” I’ve discovered this as well, but I discovered it after I was 35. Sim was writing in his forties. Many men come to the conclusion that abstaining from sex and masturbation results in a better life, but they always seem to discover it in middle age. I just want to say that while I agree with celibacy, and I endorse it as a lifestyle brand, I also understand that when I was in my teens and twenties, I was not practicing it, and I understand that it is a bit high and mighty to go around bragging about one’s ability to control his sexual impulses when he is middle-aged after having not had this ability in his youth. I don’t think Sim was doing that, but he also doesn’t directly acknowledge that age might have played a role in his penis deciding to leave him alone. That said, I do encourage young men to seek celibacy as I think it is good for them, as no good can come from engaging with women. But I’m not going to say “when I turned 37 I realized it was really easy to be celibate,” as that appears oblivious.

Now, let’s look at some of what I found enlightening or otherwise useful in the essay. First, in the early paragraphs, he says that one of the first things he learned in his research is that “women want to be raped by rich, muscular, handsome doctors.” It doesn’t seem groundbreaking to make such a statement now, because I’ve spent over a decade making this claim, which was apparently incendiary despite it being self-evidently true. But it was certainly not old hat in 2001. Even though this concept had been expressed by philosophers in the 19th century and before, they did not use such frank language, instead talking of how women wish to “surrender” to a powerful and high status man. But the actual physical form of that surrender being rape is not something many people said frankly until I started spamming it.

Another thing he says early on is that during his research, which he describes as a “series of informal interviews with mothers and daughters,” he concluded that all women are “feminists.” This is something I have said continually, that making a distinction between “women” and “feminists” will lead only to confusion. There is a movement on the internet of women claiming they are “traditional” (they still say “trad,” which seems to me to come across today as very dated slang), and yet they are clearly engaging in all of the behaviors that all women engage in, which is attention mongering, status mongering, resource mongering, and generalized, wide-spectrum whoring.

I think I have said it best when I have also added that just as there are no non-feminists in the West, there are no feminists in Afghanistan. “Feminism” as we currently define it is simply unrestricted female behavior. It is a social paradigm masquerading as an ideology. The Taliban restricts women’s behavior, making it a crime for them to express their natural tendency towards becoming completely out of control. In the West, in order for a woman to be “not a feminist,” she would have to be restricting herself, because any man who tried to restrict her would be killed or thrown in a cage by cops. Women are incapable of restricting themselves, therefore all women in a nation where it is illegal for men to restrict women are an embodiment of the worst forms of female decadence and depravity.

Certainly, some women in the West are worse than others, but the only reason for the differences that remain are the remnants of male restriction on female behavior that still exist in Western society. These are only social restrictions, most prominently the primal tendency of people to look down on women who are public whores. Women and their allies have attempted to organize systematic movements to destroy this lingering instinct to shame women through “slut marches” and various other anti-shaming programs, but some modicum of shame still exists among some women in the West, which, aside from basic personality differences (which are generally overstated as an influence on behavior, though not totally irrelevant, as an “outgoing” woman is likely to be a more aggressive slut than one with an introverted personality), is the sole reason for any distinction in the quality of women’s behavior in feminist countries.

One of the bright things that actually felt new in reading the Sim essay was that he described doing the interviews as the first time he had actually conversed with women he was not attempting to sleep with, and identified the fact that when you are engaging in the kind of conversation that leads to sex, you are taking a very different route than if you are attempting to understand women. This seems quite important: save for their mothers (who men universally view through a very specific and entirely warped lens), most men never engage in conversation with women in any kind of depth outside of attempting to have sex, and in such a conversation, you are in the realm of the woman, and she is completely in charge of the conversation. Certainly, every man understands that if you start talking about serious issues, as you would talk with a man, to a woman you are attempting to have sex with, she will totally shut down and shut you off. So, young men (and apparently also much older men) who are attempting to get laid go along with a woman’s desire to talk about frivolous things, primarily entertainment media, general gossip, and various personal anecdotes, as that is beneficial to their goals. However, if you actually start questioning a woman on her politics, her views on ethics, relationships, society at large, or really anything at all other than trivialities, you find that there is literally nothing there, that women do not process information or use reason in any way, and they view everything that exists purely in terms of how it makes them feel. It is a pure sort of solipsism that is in some ways awe-inspiring, this concept that a human can exist and actually believe they are the center of the universe. If a man could believe such a thing, he would be a serial killer, a terrorist, a communist, or all three, and likely extremely wealthy to boot.

Sim references a character in his comic saying that in order to keep a woman, you simply have to “be happy every minute of your life.” I understand what he is trying to say, given that a woman’s mood is totally resonant to a man’s mood (as Sim says, not at all ground-breakingly as this had been said a lot, the biology of men and women shows that a woman is a void to be filled by a man’s form), and therefore it can feel like you have to be happy all the time in order for the woman to be happy all the time. And maybe that would work in certain cases. But it’s actually much worse and more extreme than that: women feel alive going through emotional rollercoasters, and they enjoy all sorts of different moods that a man might have. While “girls just want to have fun” (with a “fun” man) is probably a safe baseline, women also enjoy being abused by an angry man, they enjoy coddling and comforting a depressive man, they enjoy attempting to stimulate a bored man, and much else. So really, much more than simply being happy all the time to ensure she is resonating with your mood, in order to maintain a long-term relationship in a feminist society you would have to be able to predict whatever mood would entertain her at the moment and shape yourself to that, shifting your mood as necessary to meet her every whimsical whim. When women describe their ideal man, after saying he must be seven feet tall and wealthy, they say he must be strong, but also not afraid to show emotion, and also able to make them laugh, etc. They appear to describe a gargantuan billionaire schizophrenic with a whole lot of free time. (Meanwhile, the man is saying “just please don’t be too fat.”)

While I think Sim is generally cynical enough, on the point of “just be happy all the time,” I had an “if only you knew how bad things really are” moment.

In my analysis, the botched final section of the essay, which described in some confusing detail how Martin Luther King succumbed to the whims of women, was not actually intended to “close with an example,” as it might first appear, but rather to elaborate on the structure of the essay that includes women attempting to equate themselves and their supposed struggles with various other types of living things in order to obfuscate their position in society. He says, rightly, that women are lesser than men, and therefore, women try to confuse the issue of their status below men by bringing in various other groups and saying everyone is equal. He starts with homosexuals, who women promote as being equal, then stretches it to women claiming children are just like adults and that actually, animals are humans. He wanted to say that “they also claim niggers are equal to whites,” but he didn’t want to sound “racist” and may not be a “racist.” Regardless of anyone’s racism, it is simply a fact that women were very supportive of the “civil rights” movement, and are the primary supporters of the idea that “black people are just the same as white people.”

The section on women viewing domestic animals as equals was interesting and not something I’d really thought of. He describes allowing pets into the house as a female agenda against fathers, and though I’d never thought of that before, it is obviously true. I don’t know if it is really a problem to have dogs indoors, and it kind of makes sense in an urban environment where there is not much room for them outdoors, but it does seem obvious after having read it that it would have been women who initially pushed for this status of animals as “members of the family.”

The framing of “feminism is communism” is fine, and the way women align with homosexuals, children, animals, and black people against their betters in a communist fashion is simply an obvious description of what goes on in Western societies. That said, I would say that framing women as unreasoning and then also framing them as consciously organizing in a communist manner is confusing. In my view, women promoting every group as being equal is done instinctively. There is another group of people who does this very same thing.

And this leads us to where Sim’s analysis is really lacking: it doesn’t address the Jewish issue, which is always the elephant in the room. No analysis is really going to be complete without considering the Jews, and in the case of coming at the issues of society from an anti-feminist perspective, it is so obvious to point to the Jews. It is a clear fact that every feminist ideology proponent was Jewish, but more than that, the analysis of Otto Weininger in his book “Sex and Character” is correct: Jews are fundamentally a feminine people, and embody the spirit of the feminine.

You can analyze and explain why it is nonsensical to view women as equal to men, but you cannot ever explain why this is happening in the first place without addressing the Jewish problem, as the Jews were the power that pushed this cancer into the society. It’s not different than analyzing black criminality and so-called “niggerfests.” You can keep saying “jeez, black people are ridiculous, wow, can you believe they act like this?”, but without looking at the Jews who enable and justify the behavior of blacks, you’re not ever going to reach any kind of understanding of why this is an issue now, after blacks lived almost entirely peacefully with whites for hundreds of years.

Without looking at the Jews, you have a lot of nonsensical things occurring, seemingly for no reason. As soon as you look at what Saint Paul said about the Jews, that they are, in a spiritual and even supernatural sense, “in opposition to all mankind” (1 Thessalonians 2:15), all of this clicks into place, and you understand that elevating the people who murdered Jesus Christ to the status of an alien ruling elite in Western societies is going to lead to a destruction of all of the norms of Christian society. It’s deeply sad and also hilarious that this is all there in the Christian Bible for anyone who wants to look at it and yet the masses of people are left in total confusion, looking around and asking “why are things like this?”

The answer is clearly spelled out in the book that was up until recent years in the nightstand of every hotel room in America.

That otherworldly and satanic evil described by Saint Paul, that spirit in opposition to Christ, is also written all over the hateful, rat-faces of Dave Portnoy and Ben Shapiro, and many are beginning to notice this. However, in my experience, a true understanding of the Jewish problem can only come through an understanding of Christ. If someone is looking at Portnoy or Shapiro and asking “why are these people like this?”, they are not going to find a satisfactory answer unless they open up the Bible and find that this is a people who built their identity on the literal murder of God, and this is why they embody the spirit of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden and of his fag-hag girlfriend Eve, the first feminist and the first human to rebel against God and the order of nature.

Post-Script

It would be interesting to see Sim reflect on these issues a quarter century after publishing this essay that I’ve identified as an important historical artifact of anti-feminist thinking. To my knowledge, he’s never recanted anything he said, but hasn’t done any further formal statements like the “Tangent” essay.

Realistically, he doesn’t have any reason to say anything about anything, because the punishment for this sort of thinking is a lot stricter than it used to be. He already has some money, having done well with Cerebus (at least from what I’ve read), but during MeToo, Ethan Van Sciver quite shamefully canceled him over a story about him meeting a girl when she was 14 and then having sex with her when she was 21. There is a rule now that you can’t have met a woman you have sex with before she turned [AGE OF CONSENT]. Every woman who you ever meet who is not yet [AGE OF CONSENT] is permanently removed from your potential romantic partners list or else it’s “grooming” and Ethan Van Sciver will fire you to protect his very serious reputation in the biz. (To be clear, Van Sciver did try to defend him at first before firing him. But it was a complete bitch move. And I promise you, no writer who is even 1% as good as Sim will ever write CyberFrog.)

There is no reward in this world for telling unpopular truths. If you’re Tucker Carlson and you’re telling very popular truths, you can become obscenely wealthy. Tucker Carlson still won’t say the things that Dave Sim said in 2001.

Publishing this essay at a time when his income was in no small part dependent on showing up at comic book conventions where he would be lambasted or cold-shouldered by all of his peers other than Frank Miller was a brave act of conscience and a real standard of creative work worth aspiring to. Probably, “creative work” is an important term here, as I think it is creatives who are willing to take these risks, to make sacrifices for the truth, and too much of the internet right is influenced by journalists, who are human garbage and totally without spines. An Armenian taxi driver in Moscow is more honest than a journalist. It’s very obvious that the people pushing the narrative forward right now are primarily oriented as comedians rather than journalists. The journalistic impulse is to create reality while the artistic impulse is to reflect on and maybe to try to understand reality. Normal people do not tend to fall into either category, but normal people don’t strive to drive the public narrative. A world where the public narrative is driven by journalists rather than artists becomes like the Giver. (I understand that the reverse is also true, and it was art-minded people who drove the society to the left, but this becomes a “the answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” type situation.)

I hope that the world has not totally run out of interesting people.

Lent was very good for me. The two-week fast was amazing. To be clear, it was a water fast. Some people were saying “well, Moslems fast for a month!” I don’t know who these people are. Moslems just don’t eat during the sun hours. They don’t even have restrictions on food after dark. And frankly, a lot of these Moslems do a thing where they sleep during the day. Particularly the ones who smoke do that, because not smoking is a lot harder than not eating. But hey, buddy, I do a “not eating during the sunlight” fast more or less every day and have for like, over a decade. They call this “intermittent fasting.” It’s not really fasting. I did nothing but water, Zyn, and coffee for 14 days. This was very hardcore in the worldview on most people. It didn’t really feel very hardcore for me after the first three or four days. You actually get a serious sense of euphoria. Obviously, and I think this is obvious, the biological reason for the euphoria is that your body assumes you are starving and releases endorphins that will give you the motivation to go out and find food. But it’s very good for the spirit. You feel closer to God. A lot closer. The biological reason for the euphoria and mental clarity is not irrelevant, but like anything spiritual, you are using your natural body functions for a higher purpose.

Obviously, Lent is longer than two weeks, but after the first two weeks, I just did the vegetarian Fridays. Frankly, vegetarian Fridays were worse than two weeks of no food. Worse as in more unpleasant. Vegetarianism is horrible. But the horribleness of it is meant to make you remember God.

On the whole, the Lent experience was close to life-changing, though I think “life-changing” is a very extreme piece of terminology, and not useful. When people talk about a “life-changing experience,” they are generally attributing a series of things which occurred over a period of time to a single event. That is, an experience caused them to realize changes that were already happening. I’ve had several experiences involving a “brush with death,” including having a gun to my head, a knife to my throat, witnessing a bombing (no one died, but someone was crippled), and nearly falling off a cliff. None of those I would describe as life-changing. Frankly, I never even thought much about them, other than as funny stories. People who have these experiences and then describe them as “life-changing” are simply consciously realizing something that has been working in their subconscious for a long time. And frankly, they rarely change their lives as a result of brushes with death. From what I’ve personally seen, most people never really change their lives in any meaningful sense, because people don’t change, other than as a result of age, which just tends to mellow people out rather than fundamentally change them.

I had made the decision to stop working on the site in the same way before Lent. Frankly, it had been coming for over a year. What was a life-changing experience for me was the illness I experienced in 2023, which very bizarrely coincided with the October 7 event. Shortly thereafter, a guy I had a lot of respect for was revealed to be a federal informant who flipped because he was too much of a baby to do a 36-month stint in feds. It became clear that what I was doing had become largely pointless, and it was clear I could be doing something better and more important. This wasn’t really due to the illness, I don’t think, but to age, which had led me to a better understanding of God and death. Probably, understanding God is understanding death, and the reverse. It seems improbable that anyone who understands death does not understand God. It wouldn’t even have to be the Christian God, because a lot of people throughout history have had spiritual lives without explicit Christianity. In evangelical Christianity, they teach that anyone who is not a Christian goes to Hell forever. These are of course the same people who do not believe in the Final Judgement. American Protestant Christianity, as it existed when I was a kid and probably, to the great detriment of Jews, doesn’t really exist anymore to any significant extent because boomers failed to pass it on to their children, was the most retarded form of Calvinism, where if you say John 3:16, it’s some sort of magical incantation and you automatically bypass the Final Judgement, whereas people who are of a different religion (all people, in fact, throughout history, including apparently the pre-Christian Greek philosophers who developed the basis of Christian philosophy) go to Hell forever. Having rejected that glyphosate, antibiotic, and hormone riddled version of “Christianity” and returned to a traditional version of the one true faith, I’ve come to understand that everyone will be judged, and some Buddhists and Moslems will fair better at the Final Judgement than evangelicals, who are effectively satanists (insofar as any of them still exist, they are literally celebrating the genocide in Gaza because they claim Jesus wants all those babies dead, which is cartoonishly evil and can only really be described as satanism).

What the fasting and prayer of Lent did for me was clarify and crystallize the various things that had been developing in my mind, as regards God, death, and my work on this website. It had become pointless a long time ago. I understand the readers don’t think it’s pointless. But to the reader, it is just entertainment. Regrettably, it is entertainment they were unwilling to pay for. It’s difficult not to be resentful of that. Obviously, there were some very generous donors throughout, but unfortunately, the consequences of having worked on the website at a time when the censorship regime was a lot more like North Korea than it is now cost me an incredible amount of money. I don’t talk about the details of that, because they are personal and I don’t really owe it to anyone to explain it. But somehow, and it’s still not totally clear how, or at least if I drew the obvious conclusions about how it would lead me to think very highly of myself, I became the most censored person in all of history. While it may be uncut cocaine mainlined into my ego to draw the obvious conclusions about how I became the most censored person in history, it is simply a fact that this happened. The only people in history who were more censored than me were assassinated, if you consider that to be censorship, which I guess I do. But even Snowden and Assange were allowed to appear on very public platforms. There is no one who compares to me. At some point, I will go through this in some detail, outlining just what was done to me (at least the public parts), because I’m sure a lot of people are not aware of the details at this point, or don’t remember them, but I’m literally not allowed anywhere, and even the media has me on a blacklist where they’re not even allowed to mention me, except in very specific contexts (such as claiming, presumably accurately, that Tucker Carlson’s writing staff sourced stories from my website). It’s also not really egotistical to state that I was one of the most influential living writers. It’s surreal to see all of these people who are not censored to the extent I am censored using my material. Stuff that I said ten years ago and was condemned as evil for saying is now widely accepted by a large segment of the Western population. Clearly, the genocide in Gaza was going to create animosity towards the Jews regardless, but so much of what is being said by many internet personalities is lifted directly from my material. It’s also not just stuff I wrote about the Jews and the extermination of white people. All that stuff I said about women is now also very popular. Some of the people saying this stuff have been allowed to make millions of dollars from the material, as long as they either omit specific points and/or work with the feds.

Regarding the issue of people working with the feds, I’ve concluded that there is no real way to live in the United States or one of its vassals and not end up either working with the feds, dead, or imprisoned. I’d personally rather be dead or imprisoned. Not because I’m particularly brave or moral, but rather because I have a vicious and brutal clarity about the existence of God, and simply fear Him more than men. I’m terrified of God, and while I am a sinner, I think that working for the feds, who are a satanic group, would be the most direct path to Hell. Six trillion times more direct than heterosexual sexual immorality or drunkenness.

I believe strongly in work and in telling the truth, but what I was doing with the site had become pathological. There was too much work to be healthy, and it had become charity work. The site has been totally neutered in terms of any ability to reach a new audience. On every social media platform, including the “free speech alternatives” and the “free speech haven” of Twitter, it is illegal to link the site. Even people who write “dailystormer [dot] in” are banned for doing so. I’m totally deranked on Google and other search engines, save the ones no one uses. So what was I doing? I was entertaining a group of people who had been reading the site for years, and doing so for free, while also providing material for people with very profitable careers to copy. I’m not even that bitter about it. I am slightly bitter. I know people would send money if it was easier to do. If I had a PO box, it would be filled with envelopes full of cash. But of course I’m banned from doing that (I don’t live in the United States and anyone who will pick up mail for me will have their bank accounts shut down and be investigated by the feds). I don’t think it is difficult to use crypto. But apparently, readers think it is very difficult. So there was a dancing monkey type situation. Or maybe a monkey with an accordion, if I’m being generous. I think the people who were copying my material and making millions should have let me get my beak wet, but precisely zero of them did that, to my knowledge. Obviously, they would do it in secret, and maybe some of them have sent money in secret without me knowing about it. If any of those people want to hire me to write for them now that the site is no longer giving them their talking points for free, they can contact me.

Some people offered me money after I announced that I was quitting, or downsizing, or whatever this is. But it was like, “I’ll send you $1,000 a month if you keep going,” which I have no real faith in. But I just want to be clear, if there was money, I would probably keep doing this, because it is work and I don’t really mind it and I think there are some positives, but I have responsibilities and I need money. If the site had reach and I could be a part of the conversation, I would also keep doing it for no money. But both things combined make it simply ridiculous to keep working like this.

In terms of telling the truth, spreading the message, there are surely more efficient methods for doing this than spending 60 hours a week typing on this censored website. I’m still figuring out what those are, but they must exist. The first thing I’m going to do is make every article a pdf file, which will be more easily shared. I will only write longer articles, and not about the news, or at least not daily news coverage in the way I’ve been doing for 12 years. I know I said that and then went away for a while, but that was necessary and the plan there has not changed. I’m also aware that most or all of what I’m writing right now I’ve already written, but this also seems necessary. And some of this is new. It’s not over yet. I’m going to keep writing this thing for at least another twenty minutes or so.

Oh, and I should mention that I understand there are a lot of people who would like to contribute to the site, and I could in theory back away a bit and let others work on the site. But I’ve had other writers before, and it didn’t really work. Editing is less enjoyable to me than writing, and it’s not less work. Further, I’m not a great boss. I abuse employees. This is normal for people who have a vision of what they want to do, but I am not able to pay people enough to justify the abuse. Further, and more importantly, everyone who has worked for me who lived within reach of the US authorities has ended up in prison or dead. Working for the site literally killed a guy. A guy I liked a lot. I loved him, insofar as you can love someone who you only know from the internet. He’s dead. Because he worked for the Daily Stormer. I don’t blame myself for that, but rather blame the people responsible, but I am not going to let it happen again.

Aside from money and the inefficiency of the platform, it’s not personally fulfilling for me to do the news. It was when I was allowed to be a part of the conversation. But although I am a very quick typist, doing this work involved a lot of reading, and it was reading of stuff I don’t really care very much about. As I wrote earlier this week, I am really not interested in any of this news stuff anymore, because I don’t think it matters. I’ve almost completely stopped following it in the ten weeks since I stepped back. None of this can be influenced by me or anyone else. That is a Christian understanding, the humility to understand that the world is the domain of Satan and the human is to seek God. Of course, Christian men did politics and changed things, and should do so if they can, but they cannot. Not now. Maybe when I started this website, it was still possible. I don’t know. But it’s not possible now. This is the end of an empire, it’s running on inertia, and it can only stop when it meets an immovable object, which is probably going to be the Chinese. Virtually the only thing I’m interested in at this point is China and what the future will look like when this empire of doom finally crashes against it and breaks apart. I’m certain enough of this that I am almost ready to start talking about the problems we will face in a world dominated by the Chinese. However, those theoretical problems are so minor compared to the problems we face right now that they are hardly worth mentioning. The main problem, really not even a problem but an issue that will need addressed, will be limiting the ability of Chinese to purchase property in white countries. It is reasonable to just allow them to have the ports; I don’t care if San Francisco and New York become Chinese cities, but we shouldn’t allow them to buy up all of the land in America and Europe. I don’t think what is happening in Southeast Asia can be judged as good or bad, but what the Chinese are doing is buying everything, then moving in people, and marrying the women (with women coming in to marry the upper class men) and raising their kids with Chinese as a first language. All of Asia will be Siniofied within 100 years (that probably includes South Korea and Japan, but primarily because they are not breeding, rather than because the Chinese are moving in already and marrying the people). This sort of thing has always happened, and isn’t good or bad. There were like 10 distinct languages in France in the Middle Ages and a lot more than that in what is currently the Russian Federation. Large cultures always absorb smaller cultures. It’s funny that in the Western propaganda machine, they constantly talk about the Chinese government, whereas no one in Asia, other than CIA-run cults in Japan and Korea and the US vassal of the Philippines, has a strong view of the Chinese government and is instead concerned about all the people moving in.

Chinese people have more or less zero interest in white women, only mixing with other Asians, so that issue won’t be a threat in white countries, but they will buy all of the land if they’re allowed to. That is, as far as I can gather, the only potential issue. I mean, the only potential issue that will come from the Chinese. Figuring out how to reestablish a society in the wake of the collapse of the American empire is going to be a very big issue, though I think it will probably happen naturally. There will be poverty, not starvation but relative poverty, and poverty makes people return to a more natural way of living, and it causes a resurgence of religion. But there will be a strange generation as these things are arranging themselves.

The rulers of the empire are aware of the fact that China is going to break them. Or they’re more aware of that then they were. But they didn’t prepare for this at all. The 1990s plan was obviously to move the industry to China, which would raise their quality of life and cause them to become a Western style gay anal democracy. It took a very long time for them to realize that wasn’t happening. In 1996’s “Clash of Civilizations,” Samuel P. Huntington explained that while technological and economic development tends to lead to social liberalism, that wasn’t going to happen in China, where they would maintain a traditional/authoritarian system despite material progress. Other people probably said it too, though he was the most influential and respected person to say it. But the project of moving industry to China was so profitable for the elite, no one wanted to hear it. So the US enabled a massive country with people with higher IQs than whites to become the richest country in the world within three decades. This was probably the most incredible thing that has ever happened. There are people driving Lambos living in high-rise condos in Shanghai whose parents were driving rickshaws through rice fields living in bamboo hunts. The IQ, their racial character, and the exposure to Western technologies was going to result in China developing rapidly regardless, but literally handing them the entire industry of the Western world definitely sped up the process.

They are still moving at this same rate. Part of living in a traditional society means that a young man who works hard and makes money has access to women and social status, which means the young men are hungry. The claims made by various people on YouTube (primarily YouTube, very few people write about this idea because anyone who reads would not fall for it) that China is not really developed and is secretly poor is one of the most bizarre things ever. People can go there. Plane tickets are the biggest cost, because again as a benefit of a traditional/authoritarian culture, the fact that it’s a rich country does not mean that lodgings and food are ridiculously expensive. People can go visit Xinjiang and try to find this secret genocide. You can go there. Anyone can go to Xinjiang and try to find the genocide and the organ-harvesting facilities. You will not be prevented by the cops from wandering around trying to find this secret genocide. I guess you will have to try to find tunnels, because the fact that there is no satellite evidence of the secret genocide means that it has to be happening in some kind of secret tunnel system, maybe something like the facilities under Raccoon City. You can also go the churches, and try to find the evidence of the secret banning of Christianity, which we’ve all heard so much about from US politicians. You can look for any of the other atrocities the US government and CIA people on YouTube claim are happening.

In terms of things that are actually true about China that could be considered negative, it was pretty corrupt before Xi Jinping became the Emperor. But that was all during the weird period where the US still had some significant influence and was trying to turn the country into a democracy. Now that it is well established as a traditionalist/authoritarian state, the corruption is all gone. Another benefit of a traditional society, that is. But yeah, the videos of buildings falling down were real, because corrupt building inspectors would take payoffs to allow builders to use fake cement. That doesn’t happen now though. Anyone who tried it would be executed. During Xi’s corruption purge, the criminals who could escape went to Southeast Asia, so a Chinese built building recently collapsed in Bangkok. But enough well-off Chinese are moving to these Southeast Asian countries now and establishing political influence that they are implementing Xi-like anti-corruption protocols. Malaysia is totally incredible now. Well, Kuala Lumpur is.

What we are seeing now is a move by the United States into a kind of “weapons of mass destruction” mode against the Chinese. People laugh bitterly about the lies of the Bush Administration, and wonder how people went along with that gibberish from Jeffrey Goldberg and Judith Miller. Everyone jokes about the Trump piss tape now. But somehow even right-wingers – even Tucker Carlson – take seriously the idea that there is a Raccoon City base under Xinjiang harvesting organs without anesthetic and that Christianity is banned in China.

This is what the Trump administration is all about. As I’ve written six million times, you would have to be retarded to think the 2020 election was faked and they just decided to not fake the 2024 election. It’s a ridiculous claim. What happened is that it was obvious that the Democrats were not capable of creating the kind of jingoism necessary for a big war and that Trump was. So that’s where all of this is going, and I guess that’s really where I feel I’m able to offer something in terms of commentary at this point in my career, because it’s something no one else is talking about and it’s the most important thing to be talking about. Candace has taken up the task of defending Harvey Weinstein, so I don’t have to do that anymore. You guys think she got that from me? Is there somewhere else she could have gotten it? I am pretty sure I was the only person defending Harvey. Anyway, good on her, because that situation is insane. (I do think that after he gets cleared of the fake rape charges however he should be prosecuted for making Good Will Hunting. Aside from being the worst film ever made, neither Damon nor Affleck are Irish and this film was a blood libel against the Irish.)

I would actually like to go to China and make a documentary where I play a Steven Colbert (Comedy Central version) type character looking for the Raccoon City organ harvesting facility under Xinjiang. China is not really doing anything to defend themselves from any of these libels. If they get asked about the secret genocide by an American journalist, they will say “yeah but why isn’t it visible from satellites and why do none of you people go there and look for it?” But it is a ridiculous situation to have people claiming Christianity is banned in China and the videos of trains running through skyscrapers are faked and the country is secretly poor. The invisible Moslem genocide is something where I don’t even understand how Ben Sasse can say it without cracking up laughing. I think if I was able to interview him and ask how a genocide can be taking place and not be seen on satellites he would say “you ever play Resident Evil?” with a perfectly straight face. The other thing about that is that it remains unsaid that the supposed reason they are committing the genocide is that the Uyghurs are terrorists. This is while every single person talking about this invisible genocide is supporting the wholesale slaughter of terroristic and homophobic toddlers in Gaza.

Speaking of Gaza, the biggest impediment to this planned war with China is, ironically, Israel. Israel wants a war with Iran and it sure looks like they’re going to get it. Assuming the US could sustain that, it would take at least a decade, during which period they would have little ability to molest China, and in a decade, China is going to be so far ahead of the West that it will be like the contrast of the British visiting Africa in the 19th century.

To be clear, I don’t think there is much chance the US can win a war against China, even if they are somehow able to avoid the Iran thing, which they probably will not be able to do. The sanctions regime they want to do is just as dumb, if not dumber, than the one they did against Russia. Some of the biggest tech companies in China are praying for a full ban on all Nvidia GPUs because it will mean massive subsidies from the government for the development of a domestic GPU industry. But I mean, they built DeepSeek, which is a lot better than ChatGPT, with the H800s. And the current sanctions are being bypassed not just through Vietnam and Cambodia, but through Taiwan itself. The US can “secondary sanction” Vietnam and Cambodia for buying chips and running them to China, but they can’t exactly sanction Taiwan for that, can they?

None of these economic measures make any sense, which is why so many in the government and media are already pushing for like, a real war. There is no Ukraine equivalent to fight it in, so I don’t even know what the idea is here. There are a billion and a half people in China, and they’ve built all of the medium range missile systems to sink American ships, so they would immediately take Taiwan and cut off chips to the US (those would be sanctions the US could not bypass). Further, the entire global economy is based on China already, so everything globally would just stop working in the case of a real war.

All of this Trump tariff bullshit is about China. The goal is to try to get the industry out of China, which is not really possible, and if it is moved to Vietnam, China would just invade the country and seize it in the case of a war. It’s probably also worth mentioning that just like Russia, China would fire nukes before losing a war. The difference is that because Russia made the unfortunate decision to wait until the war actually started to censor US propaganda on the internet, and therefore still has a significant fifth column in the country, China is a unified country where there is really no one who would run it any differently than it is run now.

These people running America are all too stupid to actually figure out a way to defeat China. They are going to try, but it is very unlikely it will succeed.

Trump is doing the biggest military budget in the history of the universe, so there is no real room for doubt about the fact that this is where it is all headed. Military recruitment is at post 9/11 levels. There is no threat to the United States, and there really can’t be a threat to the United States, so the only explanation for this is a planned war of aggression against someone or someones. Again, the most interesting thing is that the biggest impediment to a war with China, which is clearly the only way the US can sustain itself, is the Israeli obsession with a war with Iran. Iran is completely irrelevant to the long term sustainability of the US empire, but the US government is a subsidiary of Israel, so it’s not really capable of acting in its own interest. Israel I’m sure supports a war with China, and hilariously, the Raccoon City underground genocide facility story was originated by the Israeli media. But they are more concerned about Iran.

Probably, things would be better if more Americans were aware of the fact that China is not actually a threat. And I’m probably the only person who can actually explain that. I say that with all humbleness. But who else is saying this? Tucker Carlson literally promoted the spy balloon hoax. Not reading the news, I’ve had time to read so much other stuff I like, and I’ve been trying to get a grip on World War One, and they were using spy balloons then. I still can’t believe Tucker pushed that hoax. He has backed off the “Jesus was an alien” type stuff and is now claiming that the UFOs are demons or something. I think he’s becoming more of a Christian, and I believe that the closer you get to Christ, the more capable you are of recognizing truth (which is why satanic Western civilization is totally based on lies). The problem is that there is no real Christian leadership. We are hearing now that church attendance is rising, at least among young men, and this is logical and to be expected given many factors, most prominently the denial of sex and family to young men. But what church are they supposed to go to? I’m sure they vaguely are aware that they are seeking a return to tradition, after having been so emasculated by this civilization. But if they go to a Protestant church in America, they’re instead going to get a lecture about either the need to genocide Gaza because October 7th was a real Holocaust and Jews are the chosen ones, or a lecture on the joys of anal, or both. And while there are still some good Catholic churches, most of them are not great.

That’s the other thing I want to focus on in the writing. I want to write about Christian themes, to an extent, but I’m not really sure how much I can offer on that which is new. It’s a 2,000 year old religion that is more or less understood. I do intend to go through the Church Fathers and do a series sort of summarizing them, because I think that the early material is not considered enough. But the bigger issue I would like to address is the fact that there aren’t really good options for people seeking a church. That “Pope” is finally burning in Hell, allegedly having OD’d on poppers (RFK was right on the ball again). But every contender for the next Pope is a homosexual, most of them made cardinals by Francis. Years ago, I predicted something that was not very hard to predict, which is that the next Pope would be the real hardcore homo and destroy whatever remains of the legitimacy of the Vatican. However, I also predicted it wouldn’t be until this next pope that the church would implement gay anal marriage, and Francis did that. Yes, “Fiducia Supplicans” is gay marriage, they just call it something different. It is an official church officiation of a homosexual union. Look at the photos.

It’s a gay marriage.

But this next pope will admit that it is a gay marriage and call it that, and also allow female deacons and probably female priests. But that is good, because it is going to lead to a schism, and then there will be an option for a traditional church. Everything tends to work out, you know? I think often of the several times King David said that God turns the plans of evil men to good, and what the homosexuals of the Catholic Church have done is create a situation where there is going to have to be a schism and therefore a real church.

Obviously, the Orthodox Church is also a traditional church, but that is kind of difficult if you don’t live in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, given that they are ethnic churches. People should try it if they are looking for a church. In my experience, the Greek ones in America are the most accessible, as they’ve been here the longest and no one speaks Greek. If you go to a Russian one, I’m sure everyone will be welcoming and friendly, but it would most likely be difficult to integrate. There might be some mixed Orthodox churches in various places in America and Western Europe, probably technically Russian, but attended by different ethnicities and speaking the local language. The Orthodox Church is really just a version of the medieval Catholic Church. They say the traditional Nicene Creed (minus the filioque, obviously), which of course says “one holy Catholic and Apostolic church,” meaning that it is a Catholic church in the basic meaning of the term. The pre-Vatican 2 doctrinal differences are trivial. Filioque itself is something no one would ever even think about unless they were a very serious scholar. (I guess I agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, as Christ Himself does, and I don’t think adding “also from the Son” was useful, but it doesn’t seem very important to my life. I’ve thought about it from several different angles, and the fact that the trinity always existed, “consubstantial and eternal,” seems to make the origin of the Holy Spirit a mystery.) Probably the most interesting difference is that the Roman Catholics believe that original sin means that humans are born responsible for Adam’s sin, while Orthodox believe that we are born innocent with a sin nature inherited from Adam that makes us incapable of not sinning. The interesting part is that if you asked most Catholics, they would probably not know that it is official doctrine that we are born responsible for the sin of a dead ancestor. Overall, the differences were all very academic, before Vatican 2. There is none that I think affects my life or spirituality, and the reason for the continued split, before Vatican 2, was political in my view. Of course after Vatican 2, let alone after the Francis faggotization, there are fundamental differences, and the Orthodox are right about every difference. Oh, and before Vatican 2, the real thing that matters is the pope, who over the last few hundred years has been given all of these ridiculous powers. A lot of Catholics were sent into crises of faith when Francis did that gay marriage thing, while if the Patriarch of Moscow were to say there should be gay marriage in churches, he would simply be declared evil and insane and no one would be forced to question their faith. Giving the Bishop of Rome all of these powers that basically turn him into a god was not good and it isn’t even very old. The ability to speak with infallibility was only awarded to him in 1870, for example. Why you would need to add something like that nearly 2,000 years after the founding of the religion is unclear, and it may be that the Church was already being infiltrated by homos. Banning marriage was a very bad idea. Saint Paul did not stutter: “But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” I don’t think anyone has a right to change things laid down by Saint Paul. Yes, celibacy is better for a priest, and maybe it should be required for bishops, but when you ban marriage in a profession where you necessarily have unrestricted access to pubescent boys, you are laying the framework for a homosexual cult, which is obviously what the Vatican is now. This is what destroyed Ireland, and when Conor I takes his throne, he should establish the fact that the Celtic Church was not actually run by Rome for hundreds of years after its founding and shouldn’t be now.

There should be one Church. Christ did not come to make a series of cults. But I support people going to whatever church they can find that actually teaches the religion as it is written in the Bible and expounded on by the saints.

The third topic I want to focus on is what exactly Bruce Springsteen’s health program has been since he suffered vaccine injury. He recently appeared with the Killers and I cannot believe how good he looks.

He looks great for any 75 year old, but after that vax, he looked like a corpse. And he wasn’t looking too good before that. Did he do some kind of genetic engineering on himself? Is he doing stem cells?

Speaking of the Boss, he is still playing songs he wrote in the 70s, even though he’s been recording new music since. None of it ever resonated. Greetings from Ashbury Park is still his best album, by a lot. The only non-70s album worth a shit was Nebraska. The point is, I don’t want to be 75 and “playing the hits,” making nigger and kike jokes for teenagers. I’m not even sure that’s funny anymore. It’s still funny to promote rape. That will be funny as long as women’s rights exist. When I see people doing edgy jokes I did a decade ago, I feel disgusted. I actually thought Taylor Swift’s Midnights was good, not as good as 1989, but okay. But it’s like, if you know this was all copied from 1980s synth pop by an ugly Jew, it just feels cheap. Especially if you compare it to Billie Eilish, who (in fact her brother) is doing something that is actually original. Or was. The industry Jews trying to turn a fat Irish sow pillhead into a sex symbol was totally ridiculous and really we can probably blame Taylor Swift for that. Billie was interesting in large part because she was not marketed as a sex symbol. That last album was just tripe. Poor Finneas is 26 going on 76. Jews should not be allowed to run these industries. They just destroy everything good and pure.

I will write separately about the experience of not drinking alcohol during Lent. I’m still processing the takeaways from that. Primarily, I think not drinking just reminded me what a blessing it is that God invented alcohol. Alcohol is such an important part of life. Remember that one of Christ’s miracles was that when the party ran out of booze, he created more through magic. If you don’t drink, I respect it, and that’s fine for you. But for some of us, life without alcohol is like potatoes without salt.

I can’t get emotional or excited about any of this. Not now. I do still think it is fascinating and hilarious. Among the most fascinating and hilarious aspects is the fact that people think they can change it, which leads to grotesque and potentially demoralizing stupidity. But it’s only demoralizing if you can’t laugh at it. Laughter is the great weapon against demoralization. Suffering, death, and the destruction of the things men spent thousands of years building must also be laughed at, and this shouldn’t be considered morbid or callous. What else can you do? You can’t stop it. So your other option is to cry about it, which does nothing good for you or anyone else. Laughing liberates you from the world.

Everyone is stressing, getting all emotional. This is the height of moronism. You’re not going to starve. No one starved when the Soviet Union collapsed. You can’t really starve in the current year, because of industrial food production techniques. Not even the Africans are starving anymore, unless it’s a warzone and some top nigger is using starvation as a weapon. The only existential threat to you is not getting laid, or getting laid and being soul-raped by a woman. But that is only existential if you let it be. Otherwise it’s more of an annoyance. Oh, and being sent to a war. They are probably going to want to send you to a war. But that’s a bridge you’ll have to burn when you get to it. There are a lot of ways to get out of such a situation, and if you get in it, you can desert. I don’t know if it’s illegal to encourage desertion. I think it probably isn’t right now, because we’re not at war, but if these Jews sent me to a war, I would desert.

It’s exhausting to imagine that there are still people loyal to the idea of America or of the West more broadly. If you let it exhaust you, that is. I don’t allow it. Not now. We all saw Douglas Murray on Joe Rogan, right?

When I was on break, I wasn’t paying attention too much, but I certainly watched that.

When anyone associates their identity with America or “the West,” I look at them exactly the way I look at the pederast Murray in that interview. This is maybe the most ridiculous version, but it is not qualitatively different than any other version of allegiance to this Beast. Murray is absolutely correct in his analysis: the West exists to facilitate the sodomizing of children and put sadistic women in charge of every aspect of your life. They don’t call it “the Great Satan” for nothing.

There are no redeeming qualities about so-called “Western civilization.” Some nigger rapping about Hitler is funny. It is becoming less funny every second. I can’t laugh at it anymore or even summon up a sensible chuckle, but I recognize that it is funny. It’s not actually funny in itself. The funny thing now is that people are paying attention to it. The Jewish meltdown is funny. Jews melting down is something that will be eternally funny. This is due to their lack of any ability for self-reflection. As long as they cannot observe their own behavior, they are stuck on a Möbius strip of circus clownery. If there was a redeeming quality of Western civilization (there is not, but if there was), it would be that Jewish meltdowns are always funny.

These Jewish meltdowns will of course lead to endless suffering and death. And torture. Including homosexual torture. So that must be looked at as a joke as well.

That Australian-Paki woman who YouTube spams you with, you all know her (she talks about how trannies are silly and how the entire purpose of Western civilization is to defend Jews, both of which are very accurate observations), interviewed “Ami Horowitz” a couple weeks ago after he went to Ramallah and asked people what they thought about October 7th and whether the destruction of Gaza was worth it and whether they would be willing to suffer the same in the West Bank, and in the clip, the young men all have a sort of smirk as they answer “of course October 7 was good and yeah we’d suffer like the Gazans suffered in order to take revenge on the Jews.”

The suffering in Gaza is one of the great human tragedies, but what is the purpose of crying about it? The Palestinians themselves don’t cry about it. They cry when their relatives die, but they don’t cry about the fundamental nature of the situation itself, which is perceived with healthy, aloof fatalism.

Jews want to suck you into all of these emotions about everything. This “culture war” gibberish is the most obvious example. But it applies to everything. We all saw the protests against the Jews. What did they accomplish? I support them, of course, but they didn’t do anything. Because no one can have any impact on anything that is happening. It is all going to happen exactly as it is going to happen, and the only thing anyone has any control over is their own life, and even that is limited.

Everything is this fake world created by electronic media is designed to suck the life out of you. No one can suffer the emotional toll of engaging with all of this or any of this and remain sane. The only thing that is actually real is what is in your immediate environment. Political change would only be possible if the peasantry wanted it, and started killing cops and doing targeted assassinations of politicians and other elite operatives, and that isn’t going to happen. I wouldn’t support it if it did happen, of course, as I am a pacifist. But that would be the only way to enact political change, and it isn’t going to happen. There is zero chance of that happening. Have you seen how fat these people are? The ones who aren’t fat are joining the military to fight various wars for the Jews.

This is not meant to encourage apathy, which is what the steelman argument against these musings would be. If you had an ability to change things and I was telling you to stop trying, that would be preaching apathy. But you don’t have the ability to change anything and if you think you do, you are delusional and actually insane. You have the ability, to an extent, to make your own life meaningful, and engaging with this shitshow you see on the internet is crippling your ability to live your own life.

You are going to die. Everything is necessarily headed to inevitable tragedy. No one lays on their death bed and wishes they would have spent more time obsessing over political bullshit they had no control over. The stoics were right, the Christians were right. Everything you need is inside of you and everything outside of you is an illusion at best. The future is a spook. The only thing real is the countdown to death and the things you choose to do during that countdown.

This thing here is totally similar to the thing I wrote yesterday, I realize. I’m attempting to set a frame here. The thesis is obvious and straightforward, but it surely must feel alien and esoteric to anyone imprisoned in this digital demiurge.

I of course hope that Conor McGregor overthrows the government of Ireland. That was actually my idea, frankly. He got it from my website, when I explained the obvious fact that he has the absolute ability to do this and there is literally nothing stopping him. The Americans would try to stop him, but is NATO going to invade Ireland? If they did it would be hilarious. Most likely, the worst they would do is make the country poor, and as long as King Conor can keep the whisky flowing, the Irish will tolerate poverty in exchange for an ethnic cleansing. There could also be a violent uprising in Romania. It’s less likely than in Ireland at this point, probably, but it’s possible.

So I’m not without hope for political happenings. I’m without hope for Donald Trump and America and I think anyone who has hope is a child. Telling people they can say retard and fag now and trannies can’t play sports is like throwing a piece of rotting meat to a starving dog. They had to make this country slightly less gay if they wanted to fight a major war. I saw this fat Irish guy say that when the entertainment companies found out that woke media was not profitable they stopped making it and this is totally wrong. They knew it wouldn’t be profitable when they started doing it. Then they stopped it for some reason. It’s a conspiracy. They are manufacturing a simulacrum of patriotism and excitement because they want a big war and anyone can see no one is going to fight a war for screeching trannies and buckwild niggerfests. Find someone who is obsessed with talking about woke who isn’t also talking about the need to support Israel and the threat of Chinese people. I’m not aware of a single individual who thinks the “culture war” is important who doesn’t also support Israel and claim Chinese people are communists who want to take away our gay rights and women’s liberation. This is all building towards a big war and if you’re caught up in the spectacle of it you’re a pawn in this very obvious scam.

Trump was allowed to win the fake election because he is the perfect figure to reframe the American culture to make it into something that is maybe capable of doing a big war. It’s the biggest war budget in the history of any country. To what end? Where is the threat? America cannot be invaded and insofar as there are interests in the Western hemisphere, any of these countries can be bullied with psychological operations and special forces squads. Trump’s administration is doing a Hitler-style military buildup but Hitler actually had people trying to destroy his country. America’s only possible reason for doing this is offensive. Severely offensive. The background of this back and forth with Putin, with Trump out there whining and claiming Russia should just surrender to his whims, is that Russia is refusing to decouple from China for rather obvious reasons. Maybe Russia has been weakened enough that the Trump people would settle for an end to the war in exchange for an agreement to not support Iran, but that’s less than clear. What the Americans want is for Russia to end their relationship with China, because China is the real threat to American global dominance.

It’s all ridiculous and it’s all very obvious. Find someone celebrating the triumph of women’s sports and the largely symbolic closing of the border who is not also pushing for war with the Chinese over – over what? What did China do? Made better AI and video games? They are going to invade America? What for? Why would they want to invade America? Can you imagine how expensive that would be? And what would the goal be? To force people into communism? What? What does that mean? If China did invade and conquer America and force their system on us, it would be objectively a good thing, but there is simply no way that would happen because it is impossible and there would be no point.

Ignore the hype.

Just relax.

Eat, drink, and be merry, for there is no other good life.

In my personal experience, eating is a lot worse than not eating.

I am not fond of this eating business anymore. It does not bring joy. I don’t feel like doing anything.

In the near future, I’ll review what exactly happens on a 14 day fast, but I can tell you right now the absolute worst part of it is eating again.

Now I know how Lucifer felt when Saint Michael cast him out of Heaven.

And yes, dear sirs, I did all of the procedures. I drank juice and ate disgusting vegetable soup with bone broth. The bone broth is fine, by the way, but vegetable soup is not cool at all, and it is my enemy. Also, fruit juice: never again. Nothing with sugar ever again ever in my life. Terrible.

I had several important revelations during the fast, but after the juice and vegetables, I think I forgot all of it other than that I do think Macron’s wife is a female.

Also, the only thing that matters to me is that every top podcast now talks about Jews and Israel controlling America all the time and no one is stopping them. I was born 10 years too early, apparently, because I’m not allowed to be involved. Kinda stings, but the joy overwhelms the sting.

I do not feel like going to the gym at all. But I will. I feel like drinking a fifth of vodka. But I won’t.

I don’t know what my posting schedule is going to be. I don’t think I’m posting anything else today or tomorrow.

Here are some old memes.

Previously: Tfw No One Told You Peasants are Peasants

People don’t want to hear the word “peasant,” as if it is some kind of nasty pejorative. What word are you supposed to use for the masses of people who make decisions based on something other than reality-based information?

What do you call people who believe that “trans kids deserve dignity” or that Trump is going to do mass deportations with an app? What word would you prefer I use?

They are peasants. That’s what they’re called. That’s what they’ve always been called. It is a group of people, the mass of people, who have simple drives and are not capable of complex critical or analytical thought.

For the record, I am Irish. I do not have patrician sensibilities. I am into grilled cheese, sex tourism, and jet skis. I listen to AC/DC. I support violence on principle, even if it serves no purpose. If black people are fighting outside a strip club for literally no reason, I start hooting.

I have taken professionally administered IQ tests, so I know where I sit, but I am a very humble man, and I don’t think I’m better than anyone (except Indians). I am not passing judgement. I am not insulting the peasantry, and in fact, I believe more capable people have a duty to protect them and provide them with lives of dignity. People who have an emotional response to the use of the word “peasant” are just emotional peasants.

But the peasantry exists. The majority of people cannot be reached with reality-based information, and must instead be appealed to with emotional materials.

You are not going to somehow convince the 90% of the population that has no interest in facts to look at the facts and make decisions based on the facts, and the people still trying to do that are actually insane. The only thing you could sway them with is an emotional appeal (which was the original goal of the Daily Stormer before the censorship made it impossible for it to reach anyone who wasn’t looking for it).

“Liberté, égalité, fraternité” failed. Actually, it’s the worst failure ever.

If you could have a discussion about the Jews, lay out all of the facts without irate lunatics screaming emotional slogans at you and claiming you are metaphysically evil for examining data, all of those capable of reality-based thinking would say “yeah, you’re right, we’re going to have to do something about these people.” Instead, we have a situation in this country where it is possible for Jews to make the argument that they are both the wealthiest and most powerful group in the world and also the most oppressed, and, from there, that they are being oppressed by Gazan infants and their only recourse is to burn them alive. And people take this seriously. Who takes it seriously? Only the peasants. No one engaged in reality-based thinking would take something like this seriously; it is drooling retard nonsense. But the Jews are able to charge it up with emotion, and the peasants will slurp it down like a delicious chocolate milkshake in the parking lot of UDF.

The issue is genetic. That is a demonstrable fact. Intelligent people have intelligent children and intelligent people tend to marry one another.

We have now had 150 years of democracy, this attempt to raise the peasants out of the dredges and up into the realm of the enlightened, and there has thus far been zero progress. It is less than zero progress. Far from the advent of the middle class raising the peasantry into the ranks of the enlightened patrician, the peasants are getting dumber the more pampered they are.

It’s like the old saying goes: “Give a peasant a fish and he’ll eat it. Give a peasant a boat and he’ll go to some filthy manmade lake and drive it around in circles while wasted on Coors Light.”

I should add that I think social mobility and meritocracy are fundamental goods, especially in comparison to an exclusively blood-based class system. This is something closer to what many of the Founding Fathers were pushing for, which is why they formed a democratic republic, but limited who was allowed to vote, explicitly preventing the enfranchisement of the peasantry while also providing a clear ladder for those born into the peasantry to climb their way out. This is significantly better than the ancient aristocratic system, but the ancient aristocratic system is infinitely better than universal suffrage. Universal suffrage democracy has failed, and maybe the system of the Founding Fathers was always going to devolve into this, which would mean that the historic aristocratic system is the only viable option.

Imagine if you had a 150-year-long program to teach dogs how to talk, and there were still no talking dogs, and the primary issue of discussion in society was how we needed more money to develop more advanced methods for teaching dogs how to talk.

This isn’t reasonable. In fact, it is pathological.

Mitch McConnell, as well as many others among the most powerful in government, often have approval ratings below 20%. Some of these “woke” policies that were forced down everyone’s throats by the government and media had less than 10% popular support. The will of the people is not being represented, because the masses of people are incapable of engaging the system in the way that supporters of democracy imagine they should be able to engage it. What you end up with, in a democracy, is a minority of people controlling the majority of people and enforcing their will on them. That is, the same thing you had in an aristocracy. It’s just that in an aristocracy, the elite typically felt some kind of compassion for the peasantry, and further, everyone knew who was in charge, and if the elite got out of control, the peasantry knew who to riot against, whose heads to put on stakes. So in an authoritarian system, there is an actual, working system of checks and balances.

In a modern universal suffrage democracy, no one has any idea who is responsible for anything. Further, if leaders are so hated that they are forced to resign, they are very easily replaced by people bought and paid for by the exact same interests. New leaders can just be slotted in, while the people behind the scenes, who actually run the mechanism of state, remain unchanged.

Democracy is the worst system imaginable, and it will always devolve into the most aggressive form of tyranny, which is what has happened in the modern West. The peasantry obviously does not like the situation, but they have no recourse, and if they complain, they are told to vote. But the system of voting is completely controlled by emotional appeals, perfected in a laboratory setting by the financial interests that own the politicians.

There is no way to fix the system. At this point, the only plausible solution to the Western empire is for the empire to overextend, to collapse internally, and to be replaced with some form of despotism. That is not ideal, obviously. But there is no other path out of this corner we’ve been boxed into by democracy.

This is all very obvious. I am not saying anything here that is not right in front of everyone’s faces. The problem is that people who should know better – smart people – have a religious devotion to the concept of universal suffrage democracy, because they have a mystical belief in the nobility of the peasantry. Peasants are not nobles. If they were nobles, they would be called “nobles” and not “peasants.”

When I see people who believe in democracy lamenting that the peasants don’t care about the facts, it makes me sick. They appear to be insane. I used Caitlin Johnstone as an example of someone doing this because she came across my feed doing this. I didn’t mean to target her specifically, and I do generally appreciate her work. But I would challenge her or anyone else who believes in democracy to a debate on how exactly you are going to convince the 90ish percent of the population that has no interest in facts to be concerned about facts.

I know Johnstone bans anyone who uses the word “Jew” in her comments section, so I’d be happy to put it in writing that I will only speak of “Zionists” during our debate, and never say the word “Jew.” This issue is only tangentially related to the Jews anyway. It’s a question of human nature, which existed long before Jews took over Western civilization. It just so happens that the situation was very good for the Jews, as they are the ultimate experts at manipulating the peasantry.

Sam Rockwell had a surprise cameo in White Lotus this week. The clip above is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen, but the funniness was outweighed by how shocked I was at how good this guy looks. I said “he’s gotta be 52, and he looks like that?” I looked it up and that nigga be 56 years old.

I understand of course that movie stars have access to all sorts of health things, but frankly, I’m not really convinced that much of this is out of the reach of a normal middle class person. It’s possible he’s had plastic surgery, but if he did it was just a neck lift, which is not something that carries risk of turning into a monster, and it isn’t very expensive either.

He could also be on TRT, I can’t really tell without seeing him with his shirt off. (He’s wearing a tightish t-shirt and doesn’t have indications that he’s on any kind of serious dose if he is on it.)

But most of the reasons a man is going to look like that at 56 is simply that he’s taken care of himself, primarily through diet and fitness. I’ve really been thinking a lot about this lately, what with my fast. I broke my fast today with some juice and a disgusting overcooked vegetable soup. (I read a whole lot about refeeding syndrome, and I’m following all of the protocols.)

I’ve more or less completely stopped smoking in favor of Zyn. (I’m not quitting nicotine, it’s just not worth it, no matter what the benefits are. I’ve done it before. It’s not worth it. But it’s the smoke that’s the health issue, not the nicotine. Even RFK does Zyn.)

I’m also going to continue an “alcohol fast” for the rest of Lent, and just see how that goes. I might stop drinking so much. I am not joining the AA cult, which I think is evil and just destroys people’s lives, but I might well become a “bottle of wine with dinner a couple times a week” type of guy. I’m not committing to that. Alcohol has been a big part of my life since I was a teenager, and it’s been a big part of my work for the last 12 years. In some ways, it is my best friend, and I don’t think we should abandon our friends. But it’s something I’m seriously considering cutting back on significantly.

I’m also not doing any more bodybuilding at all. A couple years ago, I could have actually competed for squat champ. I was only 73 kilos, so I’m not saying I’d have the highest squat, but my body weight to squat weight was pretty incredible. I obviously lost about .5 kg (1 pound) a day during the fast, so I’m going to gain some weight back, but I think I’m going to seriously analyze what I want my weight to be, and it should probably be lower than 73. I still think strength training is very good, but I’ve decided it’s really unhealthy to increase your weight in order to increase your strength.

A good portion of the readership are millennials, now staring down middle age, and I think we should all be looking at the disgusting bulbous boomers and realizing that we don’t have to become that. We can have dignity and look good well into middle age, if we so choose. People did this all throughout history, so we shouldn’t look at the fact that boomers are the old people we are looking at and assume that we are just going to become disgusting blobs of goo like they did. We can be strong and healthy into our fifties and beyond if we make good and responsible decisions.

White Lotus 3

This might be the worst season of White Lotus, even though it has my favorite actor, Walton Goggins. But even if it is the worst season, it is still so much better than anything else created in the last decade. And it might not be the worst. I need to see how the ending unfolds to really make any kind of judgement on it. I think I reviewed the first two seasons on here, and I will do it again for this season, but not until it’s over.

With shows I want to watch (which is very rare these days), I usually wait until it is over before I start watching it, so I can watch one episode a day or whatever. But I was excited about White Lotus (especially because I know all these locations in Thailand), and started the “episode per week” thing. I don’t think this is the way the show is meant to be watched and it is probably giving me a worse impression than I would have watching it all together. Waiting a week for a setup episode can leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Maybe, it necessarily has to be the worst season, because Tanya is dead. But I don’t think it is bad at all, and I think the fact I don’t really even have an indication of who is going to die is an indicator of quality. Obviously, we all make guesses when watching the show, but I can go through all of the options and I don’t see any as more likely than any of the others.

Anyway, I’ll post a real review when it’s over in a couple weeks.

We’re back full in action. These rambling insane articles I’m writing are fantastic and anyone who doesn’t think so is a gay retard.

This is the last day of my fast. Day 14, nikka.

Next time I’m doing 20 days and I’m not going to talk about it because in the Bible it says you’re not supposed to brag about these things. But although I am bragging, it was important to me also to document the event. I think people should know that this is really not that big of a deal, anyone can do it, and it makes you feel great.

Anyway, these memes are old. We’ve got stuff from Kanye’s most recent antisemitism breakdown which was like, six weeks ago. And ironically flavored cigarettes, which I think is from like, 2011. If people want new memes, they’re going to have to donate. I don’t think there is any reason to donate less just because the site format changed. You’re still getting interesting content, right?

Right?

It will obviously change some when I’m not two weeks without food. Not sure how. We’ll see.

Anyway, memes.

Editor’s Pick of the Week:

Runner-Up:

The Primo collection:

Well, it’s Sunday, and I am on Day 11 of an 8 day complete water fast (with some coffee and Zyn, though minimal). My muscles are atrophying, but it doesn’t matter, that will come back before the fat I’ve lost. I’ve lost all the fat. I didn’t really have a lot. I don’t look like an Auschwitz “victim” yet. I also feel slightly confused and dizzy. I heard this Chinaman who is a pro-faster saying that Vietnam soldiers locked up by the Viet Cong were denied food but for some reason given a bunch of books and they were tearing through them and becoming geniuses, learning new languages in mere days. I haven’t ever looked up the book he cited. But I don’t feel like I could learn anything. I wouldn’t even go for a walk at this point.

But I do feel great. Really. All that stuff above makes it sound like I wouldn’t feel good, but I feel totally fantastic.

I’ve decided to push it until 14 days. Nice even number. So I’m almost through. It’s an accomplishment, if nothing else. But after no bowel action, save for the occasional expulsion of bile (the body keeps producing bile, so it just excretes like a small amount of diarrhea, but it’s just a clear though slightly brownish liquid), I’ve been excreting some kind of black ooze over the last two days. I think all of those new age lunatics might be right, and I’m expelling toxins. So I think these last three days are going to be highly beneficial.

For the record, I’ve seen nothing that looks like worms or any other parasites. Honestly, I think the whole parasite theory went a bit overboard. I think it is real, and I think gays and any heterosexuals engaging in “anal sex” (it’s not sex) probably are crawling with them, and probably a fair amount of people who eat processed food have them, but logically, if you’re healthy (i.e., not eating processed food), a parasite is going to be attacked and killed like any other invader in your body.

The issue with “toxins” is that many are non-organic matter that your body doesn’t know what to do with. Like, there are all kinds of people who were in war or violent incidents who have pieces of shrapnel in their bodies for their whole lives. The body doesn’t try to break that down because it doesn’t recognize it as invasive. There are organic toxins, but heavy metals, PFAS, pesticides/herbicides, VOCs, and various other sorts, mostly petrochemical based, confuse the body. Don’t get me wrong, these will be eliminated naturally without an 11 day fast, to some extent, but they can build up in tissue in ways that organic toxins really can’t (unless you’re constantly consuming them, i.e., if you are a processed food eater).

When you’re fasting at length, you’re literally just eliminating whatever is around, with the body starving, attempting to go through all of the systems and find things that can be broken down and stripped for molecular materials.

I’m not going to church today. I could well be arrested on the train for public drunkenness, the way I’ve been stumbling around. But I am praying and contemplating spiritual issues.

You know, we’re not supposed to be listening to secular music during Lent. I thought about that when I posted that bizarre Jason Isbell review yesterday. He did mention God pulling him out of the grave his whore wife buried him in in the song I wanted to highlight but I don’t think that really counts.

So today I’m just listening to the Doobie Brothers’ Jesus is Just Alright with Me on repeat.

Nb4 “that is still secular music driven by salacious negro voodoo beats.” I know that bro. Please. Please, never say obvious things to me, under any circumstances, ever.

Best I can do is Elvis gospel collection.

I don’t believe Jesus or His Holy Mother could possibly take issue with that.

Unlike the Doobie Brothers, Elvis explicitly excluded vulgar negro jungle rhythms from his gospel music, even whilst he was a master of such rhythms.

I wish Elvis would have been saved by Jesus like he says in these songs. But women, man. They’ll get you. Priscilla was literally the whore Eve, and when she got Elvis kicked out of the Garden all the trees were sprouting delicious narcotic pills. That is the literal analogy.

May Christ have mercy on his soul.

I’ve said it six million times: everything would be perfect in this country if when Richard Nixon resigned he would have simply said: “Under one condition… that Elvis Presley be crowned the Absolute Monarch of America.”

Anyway, I wanted to do a spiritual sermon today, for the enrichment of the reader, and address a core issue of importance. Maybe the most important issue, beyond the nature of Christ’s sacrifice, which is the meaning of prayer.

Why do we pray?

Reddit faggots will often say “so why does an all powerful God need people to worship Him? Huh?” Obviously, the answer is that he does not need that. It’s not a particularly difficult question. The reason we worship is for ourselves, to purify our souls, and to bring us closer to the light of God. We worship Him out of thankfulness for making us in His image and for instilling a piece of his divinity within us, and we worship him to strengthen that piece of His divinity that lives within us.

But prayer is about much more than worship, even while, fundamentally, all prayer is a form of worship. We pray thankfulness, we pray forgiveness, and we pray supplication. Probably, most of it is the latter, because we are only human. And asking for protection for our friends and family, for guidance for our leaders, for protection from our enemies, is not selfish.

But there are selfish prayers. Or, “prayers.” I don’t think they are actually prayers. But they are very popular among Protestants. Many Protestants teach that you can pray and get rich. This is insane and an abomination. Prayers for guidance, prayers for strength, these are supplication, but they are not asking for material things.

You can ask for material blessings, but it must be humble, and framed correctly. Maybe you want a wife. This should be something along the lines of “Lord, if it please thee, send me a wife, and if it doesn’t please thee, give me the strength to live without one.”

There was a phenomenon, primarily among Protestants, of imagining that God is talking to them. George W. Bush used to claim that God was talking to him. Powerful people who make this claim are just cynical charlatans, exploiting the stupidity and gullibility of the peasantry. But if someone actually believes that is happening, they are insane and psychopathic. God is not talking to you. That is not something that happens.

Even in the Bible, when it talks about God talking to the prophets, it doesn’t mean it literally, save for in a very few cases, such as Moses and the burning bush. In general, the prophets were extremely wise and enlightened, and therefore existed in balance with the will of God and therefore understand his purposes. In some cases, they were spoken to in dreams.

But in general, we should understand that although Christianity is a religion that includes miracles, some of them fundamental, in general, it is not a religion of magic, the defiance of the laws of physics. Miracles, as they exist in the world today, generally involve statistical impossibility. But that isn’t really magic, because probability is not a science.

If you’ve ever been to a casino, you’ve seen someone “hot,” just totally violating the understanding we have of random chance. Being hot at the craps table is not a miracle from Heaven, but it is something we can look at and see that probability is not actually random.

It’s actually a scientific mystery, as random number generators prove.

From the Algorithm Design Manual:

Unfortunately, generating random numbers looks a lot easier than it really is. Indeed, it is fundamentally impossible to produce truly random numbers on any deterministic device. Von Neumann [Neu63] said it best: “Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin.” The best we can hope for are pseudo-random numbers, a stream of numbers that appear as if they were generated randomly.

There is a lot of weird information about RNG machines producing patterns constantly, which you can also look into if you’re interested.

So, the type of miracle you will experience, and the type of answer you get to a prayer in the real world, is going to be based on events happening that appear to be statistically impossible. If you are praying for a wife, you get into a car accident that is completely not your fault based on a faulty traffic light, get out to speak to the person you crashed into, and you end up marrying her. Things like this happen all the time, or they used to, when we were a religious society. Because we are not a religious society, we are mostly just floating through a meaningless void of random horrors, like we’re all trapped in an endless Cormac McCarthy novel.

Everything that happens is the Will of God, and anything can happen. So then what is the most important thing we should ask for from God?

It’s what King Solomon asked for: wisdom.

Wisdom gives us the ability to understand the meaning of the events that happen in our lives, and to respond to them in a way that serves God (and therefore ourselves and everyone else on earth).

Of course, we should always do the right and moral thing, which we all know. We should not steal or fornicate, or lie or trick people, and so on. We should not become fat. But most decisions we make in life are not explicitly moral decisions. If we go back to the example of wanting a wife (which seems to be a pretty relevant issue among the Daily Stormer readership), whether or not to pursue a specific woman is not a moral decision. Unless you’re already married (or she is), there is no moral content to the question of whether or not you should be going after her. Answering that question would require wisdom.

Obviously, wisdom is linked to understanding. If the woman has blue hair and piercings and is manic and deranged, you should have an understanding that this is not worth pursuing, regardless of what your dick may be telling you. You’re not going to marry her, so you’re thinking about fornication, and then she will likely ruin your life. And even if she doesn’t, nothing of value will have been gained, and you will have committed a mortal sin you will have to confess and repent of. That is all just obvious.

But wisdom also relates to intuition, which we all have, and which we all know we have. Sometimes, something just feels right or wrong. Sometimes, you can have a sense of certainty that something is right, even though you have no logical reason to believe that, necessarily. Of course, that sense could be coming from your own ego, and be completely meaningless. However, if you pray for wisdom, it is my strong belief – and in fact, I will just say it is a fact – that your sense of intuition is going to become much more fine tuned, as you will be more connected with the spirit of God within you, and guided to make correct decisions, through this intuitive sense.

I have often mentioned Rupert Sheldrake, and I think everyone needs to read him and look at the data he has compiled on human intuition and other “psychic” phenomenon. The masterwork probably (or at least my favorite) is “Dogs That Know When Their Owners are Coming Home.” He has all these studies that demonstrate that psychic phenomena absolutely do exist.

Here he is commenting on the titular dogs:

There are also human studies that are equally scientific and equally impeccable in their methodology and could be repeated by anyone. No one wants to try to repeat them, because science is literally fake. If telepathy exists, it disproves the entire theology of nihilistic atheism that is the reigning doctrine of our Jew-riddled society. People call it a “Jewocracy,” but you could call it an “Atheist Theocracy.”

Because so few scientists want to examine these phenomena, the data is limited, but Sheldrake has put enough out there to make it undeniable that it is real and anyone who says it isn’t is just a lying kike.

What I assert is that this psychic world is the spiritual world, and that we are all fundamentally connected to it, and the strength of our connection to it is based on our connection to God. Sheldrake is an Anglican, but he’s also a bit obsessed with keeping his work in the realm of science. What I would like to see is some of the psychic tests done on highly religious people against atheists, and see how the psychic abilities of the two groups compare. I already know what the answer would be, but I would love to see the studies performed. But he doesn’t want to be dismissed as a religious kook, so he is mostly private about his religious beliefs, at least in relation to his work.

But I will tell you, dear brother, as a matter of fact, if you engage in regular prayer and other spiritual practices, regular church attendance, confession, the Eucharist, and now I’m full-in on fasting (though you don’t have to go two weeks), you will gain wisdom and that will include a more refined ability to intuitively understand situations through these “psychic” abilities that we all have.

Finally, I just want to say: what you want might be the same as what God wants for you, but a lot of times it’s not going to be. Obviously, God is right, and you are wrong. Wisdom should allow you to line these things up, to make it so you want what God wants for you, because you understand He wants what’s best for you, and He is going to guide you to that, and take care of you on the way.

He is Risen.