Guest post: Of Scrawny Nerds and Meatheads

The impetus for this post is two fold. In an ethics class I had to read some writings by Immanuel Kant for an assignment. His writings already being insufferable, my irritation was magnified when he was presented as “the greatest thinker since Plato and Aristotle”. I’ve read Aristotle’s Rhetoric and Ethics. Comparing this Enlightenment hack to the greatest thinkers of the old world and ignoring the great thinkers of Christendom, is crazy.

And then I discovered Immanuel Kant was 5’ 2”.

Let’s talk about strength. There’s an old adage by Thucydides that contained such a wisdom that it’s been overused to the point of cliche and meaninglessness. It goes as follows: “The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools.” The wisdom is obvious. If your thinking is done by velvet-handed dwarves, then you get the drivel Kant put out. If your fighting is done by muscle-bound retards, then the inevitable banzai attack will be defeated by anyone with a remote understanding of tactics. However, I much prefer the company and integrity of these hypothetical muscle-bound retards; the company of scrawny nerds has been known to cause Tiny Heart Syndrome by mere proximity.

The solution is, as always, simple and difficult.

Seek Strength.

Why seek strength? Why not just be strong? If you decide to be strong you’ll have only summitted the first molehill of a mountain range greater than the Himalayas. It’s certainly a start, but if you stop there you’ll never discover the depths of your own weakness to be driven from your soul nor the heights your strength can reach. The pursuit of strength is the journey toward a goal that likely cannot be reached in a lifetime, or ever.

Pray to God for strength. Without his aid this pursuit will whittle away at you until you break. Without his grace we are nothing. With God, Christ tells us, “If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you.” Our God is the All Mighty Lord of Hosts. The only strength to be sought comes through him.

Seek God. Seek Strength.

The pursuit of strength starts out easy, the road is little more challenging than a path in the woods. As you go further it will get steeper. It will get so steep that it will require constant effort just to maintain your current position, any thought of ascent will appear to be madness. This is where only the courageous can continue, because this is where your weaknesses are revealed. The cowardly turn back and seek comfort in lies. Only through truth can reality be accepted, weakness be faced, and weakness ultimately be overcome. Cry to God for help, for he is The Truth.

Seek God. Seek Truth. Seek Strength.

What are the steps that make up the path to strength? I don’t know, I haven’t found it yet. I do know the first couple of steps. Strength begets strength. Physical strength is the first step. Truth and pain are the gates to strength. Become physically stronger and never stop pursuing physical strength. I don’t care what training modality you choose. There’s a reason the SDL is fond of promoting lifting. The list of things is very small that will immediately benefit your life more than lifting.

The second one is social strength. Don’t be pushed around. Don’t be walked on. And don’t tolerate evil in your presence. It’s not about how comfortable you are; it’s about what is right.

If you’re German and trying to develop your social strength, developing a sense of humor, while genetically impossible, if achieved will transform you into an ubermensch among your people. I suggest intensive research into chickens and roads as your starting point.*

The rest is up to you. No one’s ever escaped mediocrity with someone else holding their hand.

What is this strength we seek? Strength, in its simplest form, is the ability to impose and to not be imposed upon. There are many kinds of strength: physical strength, mental strength, moral strength, financial strength, social strength, etc. Moral strength is the most important; physical strength tends to lead to the others.

For what ends do we seek strength?

If you seek strength for the sake of women, that motivation is sufficient enough to get your blood moving, but it also means you’re still insufferably weak. Use it if you need to. If you never graduate from that motivation you eventually won’t be able to continue. Why? When you have a purpose, you subordinate yourself to that purpose. A high level athlete forgoes comfort to serve the cause of athletic victory. As Christians we forgo our worldly desires to follow Christ. Women are a potent motivation for men to become strong; again use it as you need. However, the desire to become strong and being strong are entirely different and having women as your ultimate ends inverts the hierarchy established by God. It also won’t be as successful at getting you laid as you would think. Subordinating yourself to the weaker sex and failing to achieve their attention anyway is a great way to kill your pursuit of strength.

We seek strength because it’s a necessity and the means to subdue the Earth in the name of Christ. Strength is not our end; we subordinate ourselves to Christ.

Kade, the resident old man (who am I kidding, you’re all old to me), had a post about the right wing path to power a while ago that you were sorely underserved if you missed it. It’s shared below (ignore the papism rant, it’s not relevant to this conversation):

https://kadewilkinson.com/how-to-rule-the-world/

Power is not given to the weak. People do not follow those weaker than them. Muscles that do not work atrophy.

Be Relentless.

As much as he struggles with his secularism and allegiance to the empire, there’s wisdom to be found in Jocko’s Extreme Ownership. Take ownership over all you have dominion over and those dominions close to you that others refuse to rule. For the particularly weak this may be relegated exclusively to vices you’re trying to purge, for others it may be a job site, a department, a company, or something greater. When you fail to take ownership and hide in excuses and scapegoats, you will fall and your dominions will rot or be given to someone more worthy. Be relentless in your pursuit of strength.

Strength is ultimately found through morality. Not that whole “be nice” nonsense, but actual morality. The ultimate form of “be nice” is the smiley bobble head pajeet eating cow dung. The routing of sin and vice through God’s Law with the strength only acquired through God’s Grace is how Christendom is built. Conquer your weaknesses. Seek strength.

To the scrawny nerds who believe in the false dichotomy of knowledge vs strength: strength is sought through attributes like hard work, courage, and determination. However, with only attributes like these you will plateau. These plateaus are surmounted with exploration and with the mind. The best athletes in the world will be very knowledgeable about training and about their sport. The best businessman will have a deep understanding of leadership and of their trade. You’re not weak because you’re smart. You’re weak because you’re a coward. Go lift.

In between when I started writing this to when this gets posted, I’ve finished the ethics class and was forced to read the works of a monster known as Peter Singer, a contemporary ethicist lauded as noble by the Satanic elite who presents the ultimate, evil conclusion of the rebellion that was the Enlightenment. Y’all don’t need to bother looking; your guess about his opinions and the most prominent feature on his face is correct. Reject the words of the weak and the evil, and trample evil under your heel wherever you can.

This is some of the little I’ve managed to learn in the little amount of time I’ve been around. I know I ain’t got the wisdom that comes with gray hairs and bad backs, but I’ve learned a little. I know we’re woefully unprepared for the tasks ahead of us. We don’t match the strength of the men a century ago, and we can’t afford to content ourselves with just matching their strength. They got us into this mess; we have to be stronger.

Seek God. Seek Truth. Seek Strength. Be Relentless.

God Bless.

Well that’s all the informational content for this post; I’m gonna spend the rest of however long I write just insulting Immanuel Kant. If you want to know more about the particular lowlife that is Immanuel Kant check out this darkstream https://unauthorized.tv/video/362e6b/.

That he is the height of Enlightenment intellectuals shows how short their ideas are. If he hadn’t rejected tradition and instead stood on the shoulders of giants, he may not have died single and alone, or at the very least been able to reach the top shelf. Instead, he’s dwarfed by the most meager wisdom of an illiterate peasant and resorted to telling tall tales. His ideas merit little stature. He shortchanged the achievements of his predecessors giving low blows of sophistry. He can’t reach their heights. He used his short life to attack the foundations that held western civilization high for millenia. Now with the quality of our civilizations lowering to almost eye level with Kant, Gen Z was brought into the world, and thinking we’ll stand by his nonsense is the height of folly. The fruits of Kant’s little madness wrought the insane world me and my generation grew up in. So I’ll answer madness with madness and lay him low. Below is a diss track written for me by ChatGPT.

https://suno.com/song/dc74b890-909f-4c52-8456-28d1b5691a11

Verse 1: Yo, Immanuel Kant, you think you're so wise,
With your Critique of Pure Reason, but it's all just lies.
You claim we can't know the world as it truly is,
Stuck in your categories, man, what a diss!

Chorus: Kant, you think you've got it all figured out,
But your philosophy's a maze, filled with doubt.
We see the world, we feel, we touch, we know,
Your noumenon concept, it's gotta go!

Verse 2: You say our minds shape reality, that's your grand view,
But to me, it sounds like you're just confused.
Your Ding an sich, what a cryptic spiel,
Come down from your ivory tower, let's keep it real!

Chorus: Kant, you think you've got it all figured out,
But your philosophy's a maze, filled with doubt.
We see the world, we feel, we touch, we know,
Your noumenon concept, it's gotta go!

Bridge: You talk about duty, categorical imperative,
But your moral law feels so damn narrative.
Where's the room for love, for passion, for fire?
In your cold, rigid world, who can aspire?

Verse 3: You built a system, so complex and grand,
But practical life, you don't understand.
While you're lost in thought, in metaphysical flight,
We're living, we're breathing, in the world's daylight.

Chorus: Kant, you think you've got it all figured out,
But your philosophy's a maze, filled with doubt.
We see the world, we feel, we touch, we know,
Your noumenon concept, it's gotta go!

Outro: So here's to Kant, with his theories so grand,
But in the real world, they don't stand.
Your philosophy's a cage, not the key,
Time to break free, see the world as it be.

* Editor's note: This suggestion is unclear. One can readily observe that chickens do not need roads. First of all, their land speed is sufficient over rough terrain. Second, they have yet to figure out any kind of hand-cart or other vehicle that would need some sort of road. Perhaps this "humor" thing works by mixing completely unrelated concepts. Further research seems in order.

Why all your tools are fragile garbage

Behold, my recently expired kitchen knife. Cause of death was the first quarter of a fairly boring soft cheese that I had for dinner. You read that right: soft cheese. Today, I will narrate the life story of this knife, and many like it.

Our tragic tale of consumerist usury starts on the drawing board. An engineer of some description was asked to come up with a cheaper and lighter kitchen knife. Now, this engineer was not the top of his class. If he had been, he would be designing fighter jets or something, not household tools. This guy is a ways below the spatial reasoning prodigy that his job title used to be associated with. Furthermore, he's anything but happy to be working this job. Regardless of his professed faith, he is highly unlikely to try being 'faithful in little things'. In short, he's neither competent nor motivated.

So here he is, asking to cut weight and costs out of the previous design, in a way that prototyping won't notice. Since prototyping and design testing is going to be done by people of comparable skill, they won't notice too much. In mass production, plastic is cheaper than metal every time. Therefore, he makes the blade socket as short as he can get away with. The cheapest production material of all is air, so the plastic grip is hollowed out. Maybe the CAD has a button to automatically insert some ribs into the hollow, that will make the FEA guys happy, while saving weight. [1] [2]

Here is where the problems start to show up: neither CAD nor FEA are particularly handy, because so few of my generation are. Especially the nerdier guys, who constitute the bulk of engineering students, grew up in the gaming chair, not in dad's garage. Ergo, their structural requirements and tests are fairly inaccurate. To save weight and cost, they always err on the side of too litttle material. After all, the worst that could happen is that the knife breaks sooner, giving them an easy sale in six months time.

A third way to cut costs is to use lower grades of material. The stuff will break sooner, but it's cheaper, lighter, and probably easier to work with. Now we have an under-strength design of inferior materials, so let's go to the actual manufacturing of our short-lived knife.

As we already saw, nobody's trying to spend any money whatsoever on this thing. So the cheapest manufacturer gets hired. You get three guesses where this manufacturer is and how much he cares about training his workforce, but you'll only need one. These guys do not care to make the end product one iota better than their QC forces them to. Here's an audio of their QC guy looking at bad production runs. I have heard stories about QC getting pressured to pass a certain amount of product, to make their toxic manager look good. The effect of that is the same as curves and affirmative action in academics. [3]

Finally, we get to the last culprit of this tragic knife, the customer. You and I share some of the blame. See, we're also not as handy as our forefathers. So we use the underspecced cheap knife in ways that it should not be. For instance, the tragedy up there was not a cheese knife. And when it did not want to cut, I just pressed down even harder.

This is one of the ways in which nothing works anymore. Looking on the bright side, consider the benefits of teaching your children the universally attainable virtues of thoroughness and humility. If they don't think of their work as beneath them and pay attention to it, they will outperform a lot of people.

[1] Computer Aided Design: drawing stuff on a computer.
[2] Finite Element Analysis: a way to stress test a design on the computer, without having to make a prototype and then smash it up.
[3] Quality Control: the people who are supposed to stop bad product from hitting the market.

Tribal versus Conceptual Thought

 Back in April, Vox Day posted the following to Gab:

Mark Levin is not your friend. He never was.

"I am not a nationalist. People who push America First are schizophrenic."
- Mark Levin

He's also not an American. He never was.

'Schizophrenic' is an interesting term. Whatever its exact definition, it surely is not a good thing. So why is Levin criticizing America First? It makes perfect sense for Americans. At first, it befuddled yours truly why Levin was against America First. Yes, it is true that he is not an American. But neither am I, and I have no objection to Americans putting America First. Ukranians push 'Slava Ukraina' and Milanese pushing 'Forza Milan' too, and it's fine.

So why does Levin dunk on America First?

Levin is, for lack of a better term, a tribal thinker. He has a tribe, and that dictates how he looks at things. It does not matter what his tribe is called or who else is in it or what they do, at least not for this post. What matters is, as Day points out, that Levin's tribe is not Americans.

Uncle John's Band on SG expressed a similar idea:

Morality in the House of Lies is strategically fluid. Consistency is a category error. Only alignment with/against the beast in a war that never ends.

The reason that morality is 'strategically fluid' is that it is a concept. When the moral high ground benefits their tribe, a tribal thinker will be holier than Saint Benedict and tell you all about it too. When the tribe suffers from morality, such as morality imposed by another tribe, then those stuck-up, bible-thumping Christian Fundamentalists need to stop controlling womens' bodies, et cetera.

Some examples of concepts are Christianity and nationalism. If you happen to subscribe to nationalism in the conceptual sense, then you can agree with the armed forces of both Ukraine and Russian Federation, even while they are at war with one another. You agree with the nationalism of both nations. Circling back, Levin is being truthful here. He is not a nationalist in the conceptual sense. If he was, he would not object to Americans pushing America First.

Similarly, Uncle Johns Band is absolutely right. If you are tribally 'with the beast in the war that never ends', then conceptual consistency is in fact a category error.

Finally, it is perfectly logical for tribal thinkers to ignore the Nazi imagery of some members of the anti-Russian forces in places like Mariupol'. They don't care about Nazism as a concept. They care about the tribe of Russians, which is currently opposed to their own tribe, whichever tribe that is.

Perhaps it is easy to think of tribes as sports teams, for the conceptual thinker. A fan of a particular sports team does not care for concepts and playstyles of the sport. Sure, they will talk about them, but always subordinate to whether or not it benefits their team. When the referee goes easy on the opposite team, he's a pig. When he goes easy on the preferred team, he's fine. This is despite the referee doing the exact same conceptual thing with both teams. The concept/object/thing does not matter, the team/tribe matters.

Your mum's still dead, or The Case against Sinning

Any Christian is at risk of coming into contact with some variant of the following question, because it is as popular as it is silly:

"If everything can be forgiven, why bother with the virtues? Why not sin for most of my live and then repent last minute?"

There are two answers. The first, and somehow popular one, goes something like the following:

"Sin affects your disposition/hardens your heart/etc. -> You won't seek the forgiveness you will need."

There is no short way to express that, and it opens the door to more questions about how the Bible defines the heart versus how the medical community does it, et cetera ad nauseam. Lucky for us, the second answer is much shorter:

"Your mum's still dead."

Let us say that someone unjustly kills your mum, be it normal murder or drunk driving or whatever. Yes, you can forgive them. But that does not resurrect your mum. To use longer words and impress midwits, sin has irreversible temporal consequences.

You can fix a car, but you cannot un-crash it.

Even if getting absolutely plastered once and never drinking again may spare you the liver damage, you still spent a whole night being retarded and a whole next day hungover. You are not getting that time back.

The examples abound, but the conclusion is simple. Sin cannot be fully undone. What you do matters. Therefore, you matter. You matter so much that an omnipotent creator of everything found you worth dying for and actually went and did just that.

Much Love!

Staffing the next system

 As most of you will know, a lot of people are choosing something right now that will kill some of them [1]. You also know that this excess mortality might be intentional, somewhere on the chain of causality. Let us assume that it is intented to work as it apparently does, for a thought experiment.

If you've ever created anything, you understand that certain specialist skills are required.

Would you like to make a website?
Someone has to code that.

Care for central heating?
A whole lot of people need to build that system.

How about a functioning war machine?
Add several orders of magnitude more infrastructure.

As the storms in Jacksonville shows, complex systems will collapse simply by people taking a day off [2]. It gets considerably worse when the specialists in question are six feet under, as the bad weather brigade can be convinced to come back and eventually train the next generation, whereas a bunch of rotting corpses cannot.

Consider also this historical precedent [3]. Stalin's ballistic implementation of cancel culture did not take out nearly as many people as the famines or the war did; he only caused the execution of various paper-pushers that had fallen out of favour in Moscow. Nevertheless, the combined loss of talent and experience destroyed the Red Army in 1941, to the tune of 4 million men lost in 6 months [4]. It can be concluded that whoever decided to push some random poison knows perfectly well that you can't just take out the talent and expect to run anything. Hence the question:

How will the next system be staffed?

There are two answers I can think of.

First option: certain groups of people and their families are getting their "Your papers, please" without the associated Faucian Roulette needles. It would also explain Newsom's odd behaviour; maybe his daughter did not make the list and is earmarked for the aforementioned Faucian Roulette [5]. This would leave the required staff alive and well for the next system to run reasonably smoothly.

Second option: they don't care. Everyone gets the same mixture of God-knows-what. Since the Prince of this World is hardly fond of human life, maybe system-wide collapse and mass slaughter is the actual top-level plan.

Personally, I am torn between the two, because option one is something already explored in popular media [6], whereas option two makes perfect sense in the supernatural analysis.

Muth Be Nice: Musings on privilege

Privilege is real. It does not take the forms that we are asked to check, and it is often situational. Nevertheless, privilege exists, and the Christian needs to understand what this means for his or her individual situation.

For the purposes of this post, privilege can be defined as an advantage which the individual happens to have at the outset. Examples include height in men, visual beauty in women, as well as wealth and high intelligence for both. It should also be noted that privilege is never good or evil: that would be a category error. The whole point of privilege is that one does not choose it, so there is no moral element. Yet.

Similarly, most privileges are situational. Being a giant among men is all fun and games in most sports, but not in most buildings, cars, or shower stalls. High intelligence is a pain when interacting with the cognitively normal. Nevertheless, privileges exist. So what is the privileged Christian to do?

More.

That's the short answer. Luke 12:48 elaborates: " And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more". Christians who have received more than average, have to do more than average. This provides two valuable insights.

First, there is no need to feel guilty about being born rich, handsome, intelligent, tall, or anything else. It's part of the plan, and not in the Qtarded sense of the term. Life is not unfair, at least not in the sense that matters.

Second, there is no need to be envious of anyone who has it better than you do. Sure, they got a nicer house or car or whatever, but they also have more asked of them. Every time you get done in by circumstance, you know that God is giving you an easier time of it. If you'd gotten that promotion, pay raise, gold medal, or whatever, then more would be required of you. So thank God, and move on with life.

This begs one final question: do more of what? Love more, that's what. Love God more, and love thy neighbour more. It's the greatest commandment, so it's as good of a general direction as you're going to get. Got funds to spare? Support your church and community! People listen to you because you're good at rhetoric or just an Alpha? Tell them the truth, and the Truth! People trust you with their problems for no reason at all? Listen to them, it literally helps them! Humans are weird like that.

Whatever you got, love God and neighbor with it. It's both simple to understand and hard to do, but you got the Almighty on your side, so you should be fine.

Much Love!

PS as PhilosophicalBear on SG put it, the biblical term for "privilege" is blessing.

A Vaccine for Rhetoric

Disclaimer: The following is not entirely clean speech, due to the nature of the topic involved. A clean TLDR is provided at the bottom.

There is a vaccine that actually works, and the side effects are not life-threatening! Of course, this vaccine does not involving injecting God-knows-what into your bloodstream. As the title suggests, this vaccine prevents any and all damage from rhetorical attacks. Here's how to get this vaccine.

Call yourself the term.

That's it. Just start using it on yourself, and use it often. It's a combination of exposure therapy and hyperinflation. Own the term and make it meaningless at the same time. Trump did this to great effect with "deplorable". But we can do it with every other term too.

For further evidence, one but needs to consider the term "queer". This used to be a playground insults for boys who acted weird. Now it is one of the Qs in LGBTQQKKKNSDAP. How did this happen? Easy: the freakshows just started using it on themselves. They got vaccinated against "queer". It's past time for you to vaccinate yourself against "racist". Much Love!

TLDR: Use the rhetorical device on yourself, and use it often. Just call yourself the "-ism" or "-phobia" du jour.

"Critical Race Theory" might be bait

I do not believe in online privacy. I spend my entire digital life under the assumption that someone is at least taping it, and that they can access it as needed. If I want something kept a secret, it stays on pen and paper.

Therefore, Google knows what I read, whom I follow, et cetera. Anything that Google recommends for me, it must be aimed at an at least right-of-centre, if not far-right audience. And boy have they been pushing the "critical race theory debunked by [jogger]" headlines! They show up on my Google News about as much as a certain injection. This is getting pushed hard.

As you know, anything that makes any media headlines is automatically suspicious. Why is it being pushed? I initially thought that 'muh critical race theory' was just the usual mix of fear, division, and incitement-to-cortisol that makes up every news feed, whether it leans left, right, up, down, front, or back. But something that gets pushed this hard is definitely worse. The usual suspects must really be up to something serious. But what are they up to?

This morning, a SocialGalactic post containing the following image solved the query:

It should be noted I was unable to locate this tweet. It might be fake or just deleted already. Either way, I will assume that the information presented is somewhat factually accurate. If parents have indeed been letting their school boards know how they feel about critical race theory, then the whole push makes sense. Here's why:

This theory was insane to begin with. It debunks about as quickly as the wage gap, since it posits that white supremacy somehow makes it easier for blaqs to get into college and makes asians richer than whites. It's a complete joke. Real propaganda is subtle, such as pushing self-destructive lifestyles as 'freedom' and 'cool' and whatever else the Boomers called it.

I posit that the real goal of this 'debunking of critical race theory' is to make the right trust the schools again. You see, we got them libs! They couldn't push critical race theory into the schools! Nevermind all the other propaganda about sex-ed, climate change, and socialism that is still very much in the curricula! Disregard entirely the absolute torture that a 103-IQ teacher excersising their petty tyranny on a 140-IQ student inflicts! Really avoid paying any attention to the pathologisation of masculinity, where every insufficiently castrated boy gets put on amphetamine compounds to suppress the entirely natural and healthy impulse to move around and be physically active! We can trust the government schools now!

Don't fall for it. Homeschool or die is still in full force and effect. Much Love!

Read Better Words [corrected]

Rare is the day that yours truly finds himself disagreeing with Vox Day, but today is one such day. Usually, Day discusses topics which he is interested in but I am not, so I just roll with what he says, because he is honest, intelligent, and wise. That being said, there is one publicly expressed opinion of his that I must offer a rejoinder to, since it is my belief that we are not in a post-literate age.

It is absolutely true that less books are being read. I've read exactly one book since Christmas, and that puts me above the average of my social circle in uni of all places. But I still read a lot, on a daily basis. I read social media feeds and blog posts and such things. Excluding vocation-related reading, I would estimate that I read some five thousand words a day, and that is in line with what I have observed among my 'post-literate' peers.

However, there is a readily apparent difference between reading books and reading social media feeds. Said difference is probably what the word 'post-literate' is used to get at. While 'post-biblio-[suffix]' would be more dialectically acccurate, the bibliophiles have a point. We should be reading more books. Reading five thousand words takes less than 20 minutes in your native tongue. I wonder how many books each of us would get through in a year if we took half our 'reading stuff on the internet' time and read books with it instead. It's the same activity. We are already literate. But the words are better.

Hence I ask you, dear reader, to read better words. There are many better words out there. If you have no idea where to start, I recommend the Bible for about five minutes a day. For the other fifteen, ask about any genre on SG and the bibliophiles will help you out, guaranteed. Much love!

###

Correction: I stand corrected by people wiser than myself. Post-literate is the correct term. Mea maxima culpa for getting into a semantics spit in my seecond language with a bunch of bibliophiles in their first language. I should know better. I should read better words.

All The Rhetoric That One Needs

Some Rorschach tests are easier to pass than others. Allow yours truly to describe one that I passed recently:

Leftist woman: "I'm so glad that the government is caring about the environment."
Holzkind: "It really sucks for low-income communities and small businesses, who can afford neither the raised gas prices nor flashy, new, high-efficiency cars."
LW: *crickets*
[ One week later ]
LW: "Hey Holzkind, can I get a ride to [ place well within walking distance ] ?"
HK: "No."

As everyone can imagine, 'Leftist woman' is somewhat upset at me. Even better, she understands that she cannot say anything, since I'm doing exactly what she wants. It is, of course, pure coincidence that she now has to walk a quarter mile through moderate rainfall. But she will be happy to do it for her beloved environment, I'm sure.

More importantly, what the above demonstrates, is that rhetoric is easy, even for the dialectically inclined. This should not come as a surprise, since it is usually the lower IQ bands that are limited to the rhetorical. Nobody is ever limited to the more difficult of two options. For example, everyone who can drive manual can also drive automatic, because automatic is easier.

Now that it is established that rhetoric is easier, here is your first rhetorical device. It is also the only one you will ever need, although you are welcome to experiment with others:

"No."

That's it. Just say 'no'. The reason 'no' works so extremely well is that we live in a fake cultural hegemony that demands compliance. The people who go around demanding compliance are actually a minority. And they know it, and they are afraid. Hence the reactions that you will draw with a simple 'no'. In one word, you activate their fear that not everyone agrees with their delusion, directly attacking the very root of their identity and confidence. The dialectically challenged erroneously think that consensus means correctness. Hence the manufactured consent of the fraudulent elections. Hence also the awesome power of 'no'.

Just say no.

Do American Blaqs really vote Democrat?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I have a conspiracy hypothesis for you perusal. Or some potential gravy, depending on how you prefer to phrase it. Here it is:

Do American Blaqs really vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and with such reliably high turnout?

Lately, a few US States, most notably Georgia, have looked at fortifying their electoral processes. Given the colossal and obvious fraud last November, this makes sense. But that is not what I find interesting. Does anyone know the knee-jerk sub-par rhetorical response to increasing electoral oversight and voter fraud prevention? I'll give you a minute.

"yOu'Re sUpPrEsSiNg tHe bLaCk vOtE! jIm cRoW!"

This accusation makes no dialectical sense whatsoever. Blaqs have papers, just like everyone else. They also have signatures. And Blaqs are also literate enough to fill out a ballot, despite the best efforts of Democrat-run school districts.

That being said, it is effective rhetoric, since pathetic conservatives fear nothing more than that the people who already want them dead might call them names. But I digress...

Getting back to the point at hand, are we sure that Blaqs overwhelmingly vote Democrat? I for one am dubious. Here are a few reasons why:

First off, being under Democrat rule is the worst thing that can happen to a Blaq person. The taxes go up, the schools go to pot, and the crime increases. Whatever the race realists may be right about, everyone enjoys it when their kids actually learn stuff in class as opposed to getting shot in drive-bys. Even the Blaqs.

Second, there is the reverse great migration of Blaqs back to the American South. And who can blame them? Those States are much saner than the Democrat-maladministered cities and the Brothers are comfortable with the permanent and outrageous heat down there. Point being, Blaqs prefer being 'disenfranchised' by Republicans to being 'empowered' by Democrats, and those with sufficient funds are demonstrating it, one Penske truck at a time.

Third, Blaqs live in big cities, where the population density makes it easy to commit voter fraud. If DeWitt County, IL, suddenly discovered 20K Dem ballots to magically swing an election, everyone would call bovine excrement, since there are only 15K people in that neck of the cornfields, some of whom cannot vote. Cook County, on the other hand, has a whooping 5.15 million million people in it. Nobody would notice 20K extra ballots.

These three reasons are why I believe Blaqs may not actually be the Democrat monolith we are told they are. They suffer from Democrat rule to a point where they try to leave when they can, and they live in cities, where voter fraud is easy.

It would appear that the mainstream media are right in a roundabout way. Electoral fortification does "suppress the Black vote". However, it only suppresses the fraudulent vote of paid Black activists, not the actual vote of real Black people.

You will be a leader. Get ready for it.

Proverbs 5:13 reads:

"And have not heard the voice of them that taught me, and have not inclined my ear to masters?" [Douay-Rheims]

"And have not obeyed the voice of my teachers, nor inclined mine ear to them that instructed me!" [KJV]


"I did not listen to the voice of my teachers or incline my ear to my instructors." [ESV]

"Why did I not listen to the voice of my teachers, incline my ear to my instructors!" [NABRE]

Independent of which Bible translation you trust, the meaning is clear: trusting your teachers, masters, instructors et cetera is a good move. In the context of the full passage, the author regrets not listening to said people in authority about matters of adultery*. This implies that listening to leadership figures is usually a good move. But what does this mean for said leadership figures?

It is my opinion that all of you will end up in some leadership position at some point. Think about all the people who inspired you or whom you followed in your life thus far. Either they are formally in charge, or they have been in the job for a longer, or they generally give the impression that they know what they are doing. The odds that you will be one of these things will apply to you before too long. Even more so, if you become a parent, the children will look up to you for a long time. This applies to both men and women, as @ElaineAsh and other lovely ladies on SG confirmed for me.

Next, think about the times a leader or role model turned out to not be good at that job. That sucked, did it not? If basically everyone is going to end up in a leadership position, and bad leadership royally sucks, being a good leader is essential to follow the Greatest Commandment of loving thy neighbor as thyself.

As it happens, I personally end up in a lot of leadership positions, especially considering my age. And I could not tell you why this is. It could be for SSH reasons, or I just hang out with indecisive people, or something else. I truly have no idea why. Either way, thanks be to God, because I have screwed up a fair few leadership tasks. It is my hope and my prayer that my numerous leadership failures, explored below, can make you a better leader when the time comes.

One of the major times when I fail as a leader is in areas where I do not have my act together. The problem is that one leads not only explicitly by direction, but also implicitly by example. If I kind of skip the very necessary stretching before and after a workout, so do the people who look up to me. And then they injure themselves. Is it directly my fault? No. Could I have prevented it by being a better example? Yes. So have your act together.

Another huge thing is sleep deprivation, or anything else that messes with my discipline and self-mastery. The examples are obvious and plentiful. Leading by example goes wrong, because I mess up stuff that I would otherwise be really good at. Leading by direction goes wrong because I make really dumb decisions. I could write about the time I got caught going down the wrong way down a one-way with eight people in a seven-seater, but you get the idea. The solution is simple: get your sleep, your meals, and everything else you need in order, all the time.

Finally, major messes happen when I do not notice that people are looking up to me or looking at me for leadership. Sometimes I am just shooting the excrement because why not and who even cares. Well, people might care. And you might not notice that they are. The only solution is to be on my A-game most of the time.

All of the above sounds like an invitation to be self conscious and nervous about failure. Allow me to offer some consolation. If you mess up, you can clean up after yourself by admitting the failure and seriously resolving to do better, both to God the Father of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and to the people you were leading at the time. It is actually good for people to see their leaders mess up, provided said leaders admit it and fix it. 

In conclusion, you will lead some people at some point, whether you like it or not. Heck, you will lead people whether you notice it at the time or not. And it is very easy to lead well. All it takes is to have your house in order and to clean up after failures.

* TLDR for adultery: Cut it out. All of it. You will never regret not doing adultery things.

The prepper case for bicycles

When people think about prepping, they usually think about building a compound that can sustain life without supply chains, and about weapons. Transportation is usually an afterthought, and if it is considered, the proposed solution involves off-road capable motor vehicles and perhaps a boat or a snowmobile, depending on the terrain.

However, all of these means of transportation have a major downside: the supply chain. They all require fuel, and various other chemicals, such as engine oil or transmission fluid. Furthermore, they have many moving parts. Many things that can break, and a fair few of them are difficult to repair. There is a much simpler vehicle that could meet many transportation needs, especially considering how incredibly cheap it is. Enter the bicycle.

You can get a decent new bicycle for $500 or less. I paid $700 for mine, but I needed a raised saddle, raised handlebars, and extended brake lines to accomodate my oversized legs. 99% of people reading this will not have this problem. Another $500 will get you a nice lock, a saddlebag rig that can hold 80lbs of stuff, and some basic tools. The tools needed to completely assemble a bicycle from parts might cost a little bit more, but I am confident that you can get a fully tricked out one with all the tooling for under $2K. All the tools you need are the screwdrivers, a tire change kit, and some kind of big clamp stand to hold the frame up.

That covers the initial cost. What about operating supplies and spare parts? Common bicycle tires are $50 each, and they last forever if stored in a dry place, so you can stock up. They can be changed by either raisng the bike on the aforementioned clamp, or by just resting it upside down on the saddle and handlebar. The only chemical that they need is some manner of lubricant for the chaing and cog assembly. Fortunately, since there is no combustion or other extreme environmental stresses on this lubricant, one can simply use bacon grease, or canola oil, or literally any other greasy stuff that is readily available. Brake pads are under $10 each, even for nicer ones. It is readily observable that most of this stuff is an order of magnitude cheaper and easier to procure than what a motor vehicle needs.

Now what about speed and range? This is where cars come out ahead. It is hard to do more than 200 miles in a day with a bicycle, but how far does one need to move around the post-apocalypse anyhow? Personally, I have found that I can take a fully loaded bicycle up to 10-12mph without getting too exhausted. Granted, I have done this with road tires, which are notoriously faster than off-road tires. But it is certainly possible to have both sets of bicycle tires, because a full tire change takes half an hour, even less if you're good.

In terms of off-road capabilities, a properly assembled bicycle will go everywhere that a car can go, assuming the rider is strong enough. Furthermore, bicycles can fit through smaller gaps, which is useful in the woods and amazing in the city. And if a hill is too steep, the bicycle can always be carried by its rider, although this can get difficult with 80lbs of cargo on the bicycle.

The final consideration for preppers is the combat utility of a vehicle. Here, bicycles have the problem that there is no armor on them, and no cover behind them. That being said, bicycles are more than proven as an excellent way to move around war zones. And these were standardized bicycles that were not adapted to the individual riders, mind you. It does not need to be said that a properly set up bicycle can carry a lot of ammunitions, first aid, and other supplies.

In conclusion, I would encourage any prepper to seriously look into getting a bicycle for each adult in their family. They will serve you well, especially in flatter areas.

Ideologues think you're an animal

Depicted above is a dog whom I was sitting last week. For the purposes of this post, let us call him Sparky. Sparky is a puppy of some manner of sheepdog, so he is a hyperactive psycho who needs to run around for hours a day. I really like Sparky and I try to make him happy any way I can. For him, this involves letting him run around. This can be difficult because he thinks he can just run up to every human and get affection for trying to climb up their leg. It is positively adorable, but also awkward.

Over the course of this particular dogsitting shift, best job ever by the way, I thought about happiness and fulfilment, particularly in the context of dogs. It is very easy to make dogs, and many other animals, happy. Some permutation of food, space, and human affection usually does the trick. All their needs can be met by material things of this world.

Humans are not like that. We need more than just things. Humans need something above and beyond, something or someone to believe in. For most people, this is met by either religion or some cause du jour. Religion and spirituality are obvious examples of this, and the people who have neither will usually chase something else for meaning and purpose. The owner of this dog, for instance, is an atheist vegetarian. And boy is she devout to the vegetarianisms! It is impossible to even have her try even a bite of the awesome Al Pastor that my friend made. She is considerably stricter than any people of faith that I know.

All tangents aside, the point is that humans need something supernatural. St. Augustine said something to the effect of "Our hearts are restless until they rest in God". Other examples of this need for something more litter the arts, to a point where it becomes undeniable that this need is universal to humans. Every isolated tribe that explorers run into has some manner of spirituality going on, for instance. Animals, however, do not have this need. Give Sparky a park, some food, and an affectionate person, and he is as happy as he will ever be.

Not only do all humans share this need for the supernatural, but there is no animal that needs the supernatural. I would go so far as to posit that a need for something more is a good way to determine the humanity of a life form. But some would disagree with me. There are many people, some of them very influential, who believe that humans can be entirely satisfied by the material.

For instance, Marxist theory holds that all human problems are caused by inequality in this world, therefore allowing them to be ameliorated by creating equality, one mass grave at a time.

On the not-so-other hand, Marxism's equally insane but nominally opposite reaction, libertarianism, holds that all human problems are due to structures imposed on these humans. Leave them alone and they will spontaneously develop happiness and fulfilment.

As a matter of fact, most ideologies present their worldly proposals as the way to happiness. However, this world cannot make humans happy. Humans need the supernatural. Humans need God the Father of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, specifically. But that is not the point of this post. The point is that there is one category of creature that can be made happy by this world and its things: animals. Anyone who thinks you can be happy without the supernatural considers you an animal, effectively. This also explains why so many of the various ruling classes have such obvious disdain for the people they rule over. At some level or another, they consider their underlings to not even be fully human. This conviction, even if verbally denied, rears its ugly head sooner or later.

TLDR beware anyone who does not think you need the supernatural. They think of you as a mere animal and will treat you as such.

The whole ghey thing is a spell

Content warning: will be discussing sexual topics, please excersise due discretion.

Like everyone else, I usually do not think about sexuality a lot, especially not what other people do with other people. What do I care? That being said, I have recently taken an interest in the ghey situation. I wondered why everyone has strong opinions about something that objectively affects less people than are in actual danger of the Feng Shui Flu. It makes no sense, and yet they do. Allow me to list a few examples.

1. Most of the gheys themselves and various assorted identities are upset about being oppressed by the people who in fact largely ignore them.
2. Many religious people are upset at having the ghey pushed on their children in school and media, both of which they subject their children to for no discernible reason.
3. Sane men are upset at their healthy friendships being called 'gay' by people who consume too much media.
4. Some assorted identities folk do not want to be bothered by the spectacle, because they always get singled out, even though they are just people working through issues.

Yours truly falls into the third category, even though I try to not get too upset at the stupid people, mostly because whacking them with a shovel is illegal in this jurisdiction.

So why is everyone up in arms about the ghey thing? To answer this question, I went into the history of this situation. As the reader can imagine, any history books about this are too biased to be of actual use. They're always written by group 1 or 2 people, because the other groups cannot be bothered to write a lot about it. So I went to Google NGram, for an approximation of how much people talk about the ghey situation:

Hoping that this diagram goes up properly, there is a clear trend. Since 'gay' means happy in olde English, its use declines and then goes back up, largely in tandem with 'lesbian', 'homosexual', and 'LGBT', which themselves did not exist before the Antisexual Revolution of the late sixties. Similarly, 'queer' is first popular as a slur, then it goes out of fashion, only to come back as one of the assorted identities.

Here is my theory, inspired largely by my observations, the NGram above and Sacred Scripture: there is a gigantic spell, and it encompasses the whole ghey thing. As far as I can tell, there are three major lies that we are supposed to believe, and I shall refute them below.

The first major lie, in my analysis, is that Jesus Christ of Nazareth somehow approves of acting on ghey temptations. If this lie is ever presented, the Scriptural evidence is that Jesus never explicitly condemns it. Jesus also never explicitly condemns torture or arson, so let's get involved in those while we're at it, shall we? Obviously not. As is explicitly mentioned in the fifth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfil it. Furthermore, Jesus is really strict on the subject of adultery. In that same Sermon on the Mount, we read that even looking at other women is a form of adultery. There is no doubt that any sexual action with not your spouse is a sin. Additionally, everything about marriage in all of the Scriptures points to the obvious reality that marriage is between a man and a woman*. Hence, anything ghey whatsoever must be a sin.

The second major lie, whose adherents are plenty among the 'conservative' Baby Boomers, is that straight adultery is somehow one iota better than gay adultery. It is not. I understand that it makes them feel better about their numerous youthful indiscretions, but it simply is not. Again, Jesus' own words and every other command in the Bible are generalized for a reason. All of it is adultery. All of it is sin.

The third, and perhaps final big lie is that normal male friendship is somehow ghey. This is pushed in two ways: all manners of 'no homo' jokes and related stereotypes to discourage young men from bonding with other young men, as well as a crude historical revisionism where every famous figure in history who had a male friend must have been taking this friend behind a dumpster on the regular. It is perfectly normal for men to be friends their entire lives. As a matter of fact, a long, stable male friendship goes to suggest that there is nothing ghey going on, since anyone who knows practicioners of the ghey can tell you that these people do not have the stability for long relationships of any kind.

After all these observations, the logical questions is one of motive. Why would one encourage all manners of sexual immorality but discourage male friendship?
The reason for the first is found in statistics: the sexually immoral are considerably less fecund. There are statistics that one could look up, but it is much more expedient to compare the number of kids had by Muslim immigrants to those by ghey fake marriages. Ditto for rich liberals versus Mormons. Sexual immorality is a great avenue for the prince of this World to discourage God the Father's command to be fruitful and multiply. This would also explain why the ghey is bein pushed in institutions of this World, such as government schools. All worldly power structures are influenced by the prince of this World, so they will do some of his pathetic bidding.
An answer to the second is also in the Bible. Brother helped by brother is a fortress, or words to that effect would explain why the prince of this World wants to destroy male fraternity. They that hold to the Good, the Beautiful, and the True must be weakened if el diablo wants to get stuff done.

If this analysis is correct, which I believe it is, there is a simple antidote to all the damage wrought by the ghey spell. Form relationships with other men, build each other up, if you are a man. If you are a man or a woman or any of the assorted identities, find a spouse, get married, and be fruitful. Do not be too concerned with the various intricacies of the ghey spell. Identify its purpose and counteract that, effectively cutting off el diablo's weasely efforts at the root. Much Love!

* Take a peek at all these Biblical laws and commandments about marriage. If one want to argue that one can marry within the same sex, one has to demonstrate that every single one of these can be applied to same sex situations. I will not hold my breath.

Death is a fear spell

 Very short post today. SocalGalactician Desoto opined that 'it ain't over til we are 6ft under'. This is excellent rhetoric, but, as a Christian, I must disagree on the dialectical level. We already know that death is not the end, but I would contend that every death, at its particular timing, is exactly part of God's plan, and here's why: the resurrections.

Any astute biblical student remembers that Jesus is hardly the only one to ever come back from physical death. There is also Lazarus, the son of the widow of Nain, and the daughter of Jairus, in the Gospels alone. This website has an excellent list if you wish to read up on it.

While there are many different lessons within each of the biblical resurrections, and every passage is worth studying and contemplating independently, there is a common thread throughout these: If God's plan involves you being alive in this world, then you will be very much alive. Granted, you may be wrapped in cloths and stumbling into the bewildered arms of your sisters, but you will be alive. God will not let you die, let alone stay dead, if His plan involves you being alive.

Therefore, death is not only not the end, it is also not worth being afraid of. If God wants you to participate in something in this world or experience it, you will be alive to do so. The only possible reason to fear death is that you have a few things to answer for when you pass from this world. In that case, a) God has already set up many opportunities for you to be forgiven, and b) you are well advised to take those opportunities as they show up. Much Love!

It's time to live a less comfortable life

It is necessary to preface that I am no theologian, and that I have never read most of the Bible. My only claim to theological credibility is that nobody is paying me to say what I am saying. Considering the views on my blog, nobody would consider paying me to lie about Jesus, but that's neither here nor there. For I do not need to be a theologian to see that we as a society have put comfort before God for a while now.

In my profoundly biased and reliably un-researched opinion, there are several kinds of comforts that we place before God, sometimes on a daily basis. I would divide them into material, social, and spiritual comforts.

First, let us look at material comforts. There are quite many of these, such as driving a mile to the grocery store to get like ten pounds of groceries. Barring actually unhealthy weather or time pressure, you can walk that. Then there are the many comforts afforded by social media and Big Tech. The cult of free is a cult. Eating out is a comfort too. The list goes on. In my opinion, many material comforts can be avoided by able-bodied people, and some of them definitely should. A twenty minute walk to the grocery store is a great opportunity for prayer, among other things.

Then there are social comforts. A prime example of these would be to never argue with the SJW relative(s), with the greedy Boomer uncle, et cetera. This attachment to social harmony and comfort has convinced many freakshows that their insanity is not only moral, but also popular. Since they do not care about morality, letting them think they are socially accepted is comfortable, but it aids and abets their evil. Hint: when they find out that you read VP or that you voted for GEOTUS, they will hate you anyway. Might as well confront them about their insanity, show them that nobody agrees with their garbage.

Finally, we get to spiritual comforts. I would define these as every time we try to warp theology to be more comfortable about our own lives. There are many of these. WASPs love to pretend that the stock market is any less gambling than Vegas is. Left-leaning Christians love to pretend that Jesus does not have clear prescriptions about family and gender, I personally love to pretend that the words that I use and the media that I consume do not affect my spiritual life and that of my friends, et cetera.

I invite you, dear reader, to take a moment to consider things that you perhaps should not be doing, that are comfortable.

Now onto the reason to forego these comforts, which is twofold. The first is the rather obvious one that a good amount of these comforts are vices, even sins, so they should be avoided on their own merits, or rather their lack thereof.

The second reason is that I believe that God is about to, if not already in the process of, taking these comforts away from us, such that we may return our focus to Him and Him alone. In this way, God is doing our souls a favor, as He is clearing away some distractions. However, this entails that we will have to make do without these comforts. If we get used to discomfort now, we will be better equipped to love God and neighbor when the rest of the world goes cold turkey on the comfortable life. Good times create weak men, and the hard times will be shorter if we become strong men ahead of schedule. Much love!

Waiting Room Theory

 Hopefully, nobody reading this has too much experience with the waiting room in the hospital. It is not a fun place to spend any length of time. Anywhere from a few seconds to many hours ago, you saw your loved one being moved throuth the door, into a room down the hall, and you do not know if they come back, or how much of them comes back. It truly is a horrible feeling, a combination of fear and powerlessness. Both fear and powerlessness are bad feelings in their own right, but the hospital waiting room takes it to a whole new level of suck.

So why do people chase this feeling?

I am not kidding. People actually go out of their way to get into 'waiting room situations'. They try to be powerless yet emotionally invested, if not outright afraid. Consider politics for instance. People right now are losing sleep about whether or not the guy they believe left office will be impeached again. On the other side, people are losing sleep about electoral irregularities in a contest between two factions of the same status quo in a demographically doomed empire.

Granted, there is only one truth, one correct version of events, and one of the political perspectives will be closest to that, but that is not the point. The point is the 'losing sleep' part. In the entire United States, there are some number less than ten thousand people who have tangible, immediate influence in the federal political process, and three hundred million and then some who do not. Those not-even-ten-thousand are the only ones who have any right to worry about this stuff in the short term. The rest of the country does not. And here is the kicker: the rest of the country would not even know what to get worked up about this week if they did not watch the fake news all the time. They fire up their computers and effectively order the machine to make them angry and afraid by lying to them when they open some article, video, social media feed, et cetera ad nauseam. News junkies are junkies too, and they need to get clean like every other junkie.

But how does one get clean? How does one stop worrying about stuff that one does not control? Unfortunately, I have no idea. But I would like to help people, so if you know anything about stopping anxiety and undue worries, please do drop a comment. Much Love!