Post, discuss, and advertise projects, writings, products, or anything you like.
As always, If you’ve read so far, you’re already trapped. I DEMAND you post a short review of something you’ve seen, read, bought, or eaten recently, and something about yourself in the dating section! Each and every one of you, this is your assignment.
NO! I am NEVER giving up this bit. I WILL get you terminally online mutants to marry, and I WILL get you to breed. I WILL CREATE LIFE!!! ⚡👩🔬
P.S. There 100% are women who read this blog (I get their DMs and see their email handles when they subscribe) So even if it doesn’t look like women are engaging with the dating section, they are.
Also Free year’s paid subscription/extension to whoever gets the best flame war going and another to whoever has the best effort-post.
The Winner of the last “Open Thread’s Effortpost” was
The Winner of “Best Flame War” was no one. None of you fought. And so the reward accumulates for 2 who get in the best good fight (Note it has to be good… if you disgrace yourself you’ll just have my mockery)
Check out my book: The Lost War. Cheerful LARPers are sucked into a fantasy world. They have to struggle to survive while fending off native monsters that consider them food--or worse.
Once again, I've got a podcast that focuses on finding leadership lessons in the great books of Western literature. I've been reading about 50 books a year, from Sense and Sensibility to The Republic of Plato and talking to people about them. Think of Lex Friedman but not pretentious. Check out the podcast here--> https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/leadership-lessons-from-the-great-books/id1591069385 (Most of you are probably Apple device users, but it's on Spotify as well) and subscribe. And if you've got an idea for a book I should read (or a person I should talk to) let me know here. And thank you.
I disagree with Spencer on a lot of things, and his history haunts everything he touches, but I feel their Augustian cult of Apollo idea has a lot of promise. I'll reserve judgement until they publish their book, and would be pretty cautious of anything tied to Spencer so closely (especially during an election year.) But it does seem like the least larp-y pagan revival attempt I've seen so far.
If you thinking you can have a logical argument concerning abortion you’re officially a retard! All abortion arguments are based on axiomatic beliefs and so you will never be able to convince someone logically.
Exactly the same as belief in God. You cannot be convinced logically.
Are you saying you disbelieve in God because the concept is illogical or that you believe in God and think that it's not a belief that can be proven logically? Or something else?
The later Mr Mordecai. That whilst there are the classical arguments for the existence of God, I think they supplement a man’s faith not spark it in the first place.
I think we are in agreement. I think the word of God is self-attesting and God brings people to faith by his own power working in them when they hear the word of the gospel. It is not that there are not well grounded reasons for God, but the human heart is so corrupt that it is bent towards unbelief at any cost. The arguments for God serve to remove the impediments to faith and undermine the lies once believed.
Van Til summarized the main drive of his apologetic by saying: "the only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything." “I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else” ― Cornelius Van Til
Retard speaking here. Maybe just dim-witted. What are the axioms for and against abortion that you consider on par with the belief in God? Unfalsifiable?
Won't win an abortion debate, but if you want to go my body my choice can you at least drop the paternal suits? You want paternal support for kids, get married, otherwise it's your body, your choice, your responsibility.
- maintenance of casual sex institution and other creations of the sexual revolution more broadly
- female education/career
- “Just a clump of cells”/“it’s a parasite” (ie insanity)
Axioms against abortion
- life begins at conception
- sanctity of life
- sensible policies on education/career
- hatred of the sexual revolution and its consequences
- acknowledging the limitations of female agency
These ideas are not only mutually exclusive but there is simply no common ground. Any debate that does occur will simply have you argue past one another.
Abortion policy should be something you do, not debate.
I’d say so, but not only is a bit removed from the debate about abortion, I’d be shocked if you could find one young woman that is pro-sex Rev and objective
You missed Eugenics in the "for" Section. The overwhelming majority of people that get abortions are the sort of people you'ld be glad to not have reproduce in the first place.
----------
I personally dislike line go up thinking just as much if not more regarding birthrates than economics, what we need is to ensure the right people to have children not more.
To that end, I think any of the energy put into the abortion cause would be better spent fighting against splitting assets on divorce or female custody of children that have reached school-going age. This would encourage the right people to marry/reproduce, rather than simply more.
Sure it suck if you're the kid that got murdered, but ultimately if I wouldn't give two shits about them once they'd grown it'd be pretty hypocritical to get all worked up about them before they're born. All people have die sometime, and our current civilization's inability to accept that is one of it's main flaws.
Not saying that I'd permit it (at least for my own group) if I became Emperor, I doubt many healthy people would. But I am not in charge, nor are my (political) Friends, which is realistically the only way to take this topic off the table. So from that point of view abortion now paradoxically reduces the chance of future abortions, because it's (current) eugenic effect helps to increase the proportion of people that would put an end to it.
I think the argument that most troubles me in regard to abortion is eugenics. There is simply no getting round the fact that in a world where demographics is a weapon of war being a white and pro-life is dumb.
I'd take it even further at this point. I think whatever small group of leaders and followers it is that I want to win-out will ultimately be it's own new ethnic group.
---------------------
I had a moment during 2020/21 when I realized most of the people around me would be happier off as serfs. Are these weak people really the same group as me?
Over Christmas I traveled up north to visit some relations, one evening my Father was in the next room watching some awful film where Liam Neeson and his Son were trying to sell a house in Tuscany. The Son character was clearly intended by the people that made the film to represent me in almost every way. (Or at least that's the impression I got from the bit's of dialogue I heard and the fact he was supposed to be Liam Neeson's Son, I didn't actually see what he looked like.) But something about him was incredibly alien to me in a way I couldn't pinpoint at the time, and made the film feel like it came from a totally different culture, to the point where it made the film's plot totally incongruous (as often happens with the morals depicted in chinese film.)
It was still bothering me when I got home even days later. I eventually rationalized it as him being spiritually feminine (either through the screenwriters political designs or simply the screenwriter being a woman that's never interacted with a normal man.) and that in a serious society such a character would be unworthy to own property, (being unable to protect it himself.) But could it be more than that? The beginning of a new ethnic divide in potential? If we can make it? Even though we presumably have nearly identical genes presently. I certainly hope none of my descendants ever reproduce with someone even capable of thinking in such a manner. And I would have no objection to his genetic line ending, regardless of how.
To anyone that's actually seen the film, it's probably not actually as bad as it seemed to me from the few snippets of dialogue I picked up in the background and I'm just sperging out. The point is that I don't really feel any kinship for the vast majority of "my group" in a way that wasn't the case even 2 generations ago. And I think that's relevant any time the topic of eugenics comes up.
You are correct in my case; I take as axiomatic the right of every human to personal autonomy from the hour they are emancipated from parental authority by age.
I also think, my friend, that the same argument could be made for most any opinion. Even those grounded in observable phenomena are still subjectively evaluated according to axiomatic belief.
I think abortion is a horrible thing, the fact of it and the act of it; just awful. But she alone Must choose, she must. That may be the most terrible thing about it.
I think belief in God is very significantly different.
Abortion is a purely semantic argument. The question is: when is a developing fetus a baby? Obviously it is a human child the day it is born after 9 months. The exercise is working chronologically backwards from that and to draw a line before which it is ethically acceptably to kill it.
It is not a matter of semantics, it is a matter of epistemology. Only Christianity can make coherent sense of morality. We might just as well ask why killing a human is wrong in the first place.
Its a matter of common convention that we think all killing of a human is wrong outside of times when the act is "just" (however defined). But this belief is a relic of Christian morality and not something that emerged naturally. Prior to Christianity, people watched slaves fight to the death in arenas for fun. It used to be absolutely common to just place unwanted babies outside to die alone if they were unwanted. At most you had a clannish affection for your near of kin but even this is not a universal.
Christianity established the goodness of preserving human life through the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill being rooted in divine authority, explain by the Christian theology of man being made in the image of God and his dominion over creation delegated to man.
The abortion supporter is fundamentally a pagan, so arguing with them is arguing with one who has no legitimate basis for believing anything whatsoever is moral.
Edgy atheists will object, "Anyone can be good without God! A deity is not needed to tell us what good is or be motivated to be good," but what they always mean is that their private sensibilities about morality (a hodge podge of leftover Christian sentiments plus enlightenment liberalism) are self-evident and standards by which to judge all others all for no reason at all, which they label "reason."
Fundamentally, they are not atheists but apostates. They accept Christianity as the true religion and reject it with revulsion, and so they adopt the old practices of ancient pagans without the ignorance with which pagans partook.
" ...this belief is a relic of Christian morality and not something that emerged naturally" and the like nonsense.
Sorry about raising the zombie, but you have ten years' reading in anthropology to do before making that statement, at which point you won't.
Human beings almost never go so far as murder under natural conditions. Human on human violence, never mind murder, is almost nonexistent except when some sort of artificial scarcity regime is imposed. First comes a surplus and the technology to store it successfully. Then comes control of the surplus, which means control of those dependent upon it. Then comes theft and rape and murder. Only when people quit acting like people does a human grouping need to invent a moral code to keep them obedient and compliant.
Bold claim that the default state of mankind is one we cannot observe in any real human society and relegated to a mythological period of human prehistory.
I'm speaking very modestly from a well read though amateur perspective. I also have too much experience cringing at the memory of public statements made in deep ignorance of the subjects on which I spoke to be blithe. Remembered pain engenders care.
Your assumption that the evidence for my assertion is poor is incorrect. The reflexively murderous behavior of Christian colonialists toward the free peoples they encountered during their 'round the globe cultural obliteration spree has indeed made modern studies of natural societies difficult, but the Nuer, the Kalahari Bushmen, and the tribes of the New Guinea interior come to mind.
The archeological record is many thousands of years deeper and even more abundantly clear. Human beings rarely hurt one another on purpose during all the ages in which stone tools and weapons were used.
Right I see what you mean Mr Ted. The issue is that your foundation for abortion is very different from mine. You base yours off development of features. I base mine off human potentiality. These positions are axiomatic. If everyone were to have the same standards then that would be fine, but that is hardly the case.
It seems to me that pro-choice prefers development whilst pro-life has a sanctity of life argument.
I don't really care, it is ethically unacceptable to kill an infant because of presedent, infanticide was perfectly natural in the past. In the end if it is not my kid it is not my problem.
See, right here is the problem Mr Ted. You believe that the development of the foetus is what counts if it’s a human or not. I wholly disagree. I believe in human potentiality, which is created at point of conception. Humans are created by God and so must be respected.
These two positions have no point of contact as they look at it from completely different views. Therefore what’s the point on us discussing on the merits of abortion??
The problem is that where the line is drawn is built on axiomatic beliefs (which means that you see it as self-evident). Therefore there is no way to discuss and reach consensus.
That’s why it’s pointless. The most one can take from an abortion debate are the sub debate that can come from it e.g. when does one become a human.
The line is not axiomatic at all. I think the people you are trying to debate just might be retards.
It is emotionally charged, and people have pre-conceptions, but reasonable people can debate how many weeks it takes for a fetus to be a baby by measuring brain waves, heartbeat, viability outside the womb etc. The debate is when the cells in question stop being a part of the woman's body owned by her and start being a helpless third party that must be protected. That is a very physical, materialist debate.
The axioms you listed are mostly just political one liners designed to illicit an emotional response from weak minded voters. Those exist in every political debate in America we have "no human is illegal", "no blood for oil", "trust science", if anything those make less sense than woman's choice vs infanticide.
For the record, I think its about 4 weeks. PS the debate will get more difficult once artificial wombs are developed.
Still don't care when a foetus counts as a baby. Have as much material debates as you want, the fact is the easier and the cheaper abortion is the further idiocracy will be our future.
There's an entire ethnicity of Blonde attractive Germano-Celtic Canadian country-types in the wilds of Ontario and the Prairies, who are pretty hardy growing up rural in winters, and largely shockingly attractive because unlike the US they don't all get sucked up by New York and LA so you don't get the Innsmouthian hollowed out communities of only ugly people you do in some parts of the US.
I'd love it if based terminally online Americans realized how much further their dollars stretched in Canada (30% higher income, +30% gain from exchange rate) and then rescued white Anglo-Canadians from their shitty watered down citizenship and polite passive aggressiveness through romance.
Achieve with wedding rings in the 2020s what couldn't be achieved with muskets in 1812
My theory right or wrong is that they already know who we are so there is strategic value in being out in the open but at the same time not actually doing anything criminal
> they don't all get sucked up by New York and LA so you don't get the Innsmouthian hollowed out communities of only ugly people you do in some parts of the US
I went to school with kids from Appalachian coves who got out so seldom their accents still sounded Scottish. Needless to say, first time I saw that Charles fella they're calling a king now, I immediately looked for the sixth finger.
Visit the small towns all the cute little victorian towns of 5-50k around ontario or on the Prairie. There aren't dangerous or bad small towns in Canada (just bad neighborhoods of major cities), The small towns are all cute with little shopping districts and storefronts that have been occupied since the 1890s. And all of them have waterfronts or access to really lovely nature or farm communities...
Just go in the summer, it gets pretty bleak during other seasons (unless you're into skiing/snowmobiling)
Much of your writing is interesting and thoughtful enough that you'll be the first one I'll be pitching to support on Substack financially. You do very good work.
I reread "Sense & Sensibility" recently and this passage towards the end...hit weird:
"Mrs. Dashwood was acting on motives of policy as well as pleasure in the frequency of her visits at Delaford; for her wish of bringing Marianne and Colonel Brandon together was hardly less earnest, though rather more liberal than what John had expressed. It was now her darling object. Precious as was the company of her daughter to her, she desired nothing so much as to give up its constant enjoyment to her valued friend; and to see Marianne settled at the mansion-house was equally the wish of Edward and Elinor. They each felt his sorrows, and their own obligations, and Marianne, by general consent, was to be the reward of all.
With such a confederacy against her—with a knowledge so intimate of his goodness—with a conviction of his fond attachment to herself, which at last, though long after it was observable to everybody else—burst on her—what could she do?
Marianne Dashwood was born to an extraordinary fate. She was born to discover the falsehood of her own opinions, and to counteract, by her conduct, her most favourite maxims. She was born to overcome an affection formed so late in life as at seventeen, and with no sentiment superior to strong esteem and lively friendship, voluntarily to give her hand to another!—and that other, a man who had suffered no less than herself under the event of a former attachment, whom, two years before, she had considered too old to be married,—and who still sought the constitutional safeguard of a flannel waistcoat!
But so it was. Instead of falling a sacrifice to an irresistible passion, as once she had fondly flattered herself with expecting,—instead of remaining even for ever with her mother, and finding her only pleasures in retirement and study, as afterwards in her more calm and sober judgment she had determined on,—she found herself at nineteen, submitting to new attachments, entering on new duties, placed in a new home, a wife, the mistress of a family, and the patroness of a village.
Colonel Brandon was now as happy, as all those who best loved him, believed he deserved to be;—in Marianne he was consoled for every past affliction;—her regard and her society restored his mind to animation, and his spirits to cheerfulness; and that Marianne found her own happiness in forming his, was equally the persuasion and delight of each observing friend. Marianne could never love by halves; and her whole heart became, in time, as much devoted to her husband, as it had once been to Willoughby."
That...sounds an awful lot like settling for a beta. I can't tell if it's internet brain rot or if there's deep red pill insights to be gleaned from Jane Austen but...it hit me weird.
Naw, man, Colonel Brandon's not a beta, Marianne was just a silly little girl who needed some attachments to grow up and into herself. At 17, she thought a mega rich 30-something Army officer who happened to be a bit socially awkward was a boring old man. After seeing what a worthless piece of crap the handsome "romantic" fellow she had been into was and having a brush with death (a death which romantic dude maybe kinda contributed to, but then was too much of a pussy to face her about - he gave a *letter* to her *sister* to express how very sorry he was, and then fled), at the ripe old age of 19 she thought she would become a spinster. Her family and friends (and his) all realized that they would make each other happy, but since neither of them were in a position to follow the standard protocol for their class and time (~15-17 YO gets courted at formal dances and family dinners by a dude who's ~20-22), they weren't going to make it happen without some help.
I suppose it's a more "traditionalist" than "vitalist" kind of happy ending, so depending on where your sympathies lie, it still might not resonate with you, but I've always found Austen to have a remarkable sense for balancing optimistic character agency and self-actualization with a keen eye for normal human foibles and the need to account for practicalities.
I mostly write about weirdo Germanic polytheist/magical stuff, and my whole blog is one big static html page for stability/longevity purposes, so my blog is likely an acquired taste. That being said, if you're a bad enough dude, you might find "The Open-Minded Materialist's Gentle Introduction to Spirituality" a good starting point, if that sounds at all relevant to you: https://jpowellrussell.com/#open-minded_materialists_gentle_introduction_to_spirituality
If you're already down with alternative spirituality, though, maybe check out "The Trouble with Authenticity," for a take on why "authentic" religious traditions are not necessarily as necessary as valid ones: https://jpowellrussell.com/#the_trouble_with_authenticity
On my previous Christmas Thread I said I wanted to watch Sergei Bondarchuk's Academy Award winning 4 part version of War & Peace...
I utterly failed at this because My family would not watch Russian Subtitles for 8 hours.
HOWEVER, We watched the 2016 BBC War & Peace... Which is shockingly incredibly good. Maybe the last Horrah/Peak of old school BBC costume dramas before Woke and anti-colonial ideas consumed the genre and destroyed the magic.
at first I thought the Depiction of Pierre was horribly miscast having seen Henry Fonda in the role in the Audrey Hepburn 1956 version of War and Peace... But my dad Immediately corrected me and said the BBC version is way closer to the book, and that he thought Henry Fonda was far too "Leading Man" and hollywood for the character Tolstoy wrote.
The Bondarchuk War and Peace is amazing, saturated with the Russian spirit even though it was done under the Communists. I was able to see it in a theatre, without other family members. They essentially refought the Battle of Borodino with live actors at scale (well, without the corpses), but the quiet spiritual moments filmed between lovers in various authentic Russian palaces are just as good. Also, using a live bear for the opening party scene puts you right into the movies sense of daring.
"Marlborough: His Live and Times" - by Winston Churchill. I'm almost done with the first volume in the 4 volume set printed in the 60s. Very interesting to see the political dynamics and Zeitgeist in England in the late 17th century between a Catholic King being backed up by a Catholic French King and his army against a majority Protestant nobility and population. Definitely patterns there that are happening now in America where the lines between sides aren't necessarily geographical, but ideological, and the leaders kowtowing to foreign powers.
"Peter the Great" - by Massie. This is one of my favorite books ever. Seriously impossible not to admire someone with Peter's ambition to westernize his country and pull them kicking and screaming into modernity and European society - all without any incurring debt and in fact subsidizing foreign armies at times. I like to think Putin knows all this about Peter and strives to emulate him - especially when you see that Putin has tried many times to align with the West, even asking to join NATO at one point. Someone like Peter would never run for office so we'll never have someone like him at the helm. With monarchy at least you can have a good leader once in a while.
Churchill's a great writer. His six volume history of the WWII was extraordinary. "Marlborough" is my list.
William Manchester's biography of Churchill, the "Last Lion", especially volumes one and two, are great as well. Volume 3 suffers a bit because Manchester died while writing it and the project was handed off.
The background of Victorian England and of Colonial England's African conflicts is precious in and of itself.
Yes he is a great writer. I can only handle a few pages at a time because it creates a storm of ideas that's overwhelming, not only because of the topical insights but also the style. I plan on picking up his WWII history soon. Another set on my to-read shelf is James Morris's Pax Britannica Trilogy which I also found on someone's "how to rebuild civilization after armageddon list".
Sex, evolution, and behavior by Martin Daly and Margo Wilson. A lot of internet red pillers spout the same ideas in this book. Although red pill is a recent phenomenon, this book was published back in 1979. Red pilling is just biology at this point.
Thw authors discuss sexual behaviors across many human societies. One quote on coercive constraint of women stuck out : "This is what the oublic reputation of the bride's family and the formal symbolic displays are intended to attest ... for men, honor is the capacity and willingness to defend and to enforce the purity of their female kin, which allows them to achieve reproductively successful matings for thei daughters and sisters; for women, it is the possession of that which is defended, chastity and fidelity, sexual morality itself. The core of the family's honor is its ability to produce such women."
Though this is a quote from mildred dickemann, nested in the book, i wonder how a biologist would explain hoeflation or female promiscuity in the west from fitness optimizong perspective. Looks like the opposite of fitness is happening. The sam hyde meme "canada isn't dying, it's being killed" feels real.
Best fun fact from the book. Female worker bees are more related to their sisters than their mothers. Male bees give 100% of their genetic material to children, and the queen gives 50% of hers. The result is that all females have the 50% of the father in common and only 25% of the mother in common. So the females are related to their sisters by 75% and related to their mothers by 50%.
Martin Daly and Margo Wilson's "Homicide" made the banned books list by chance when i recalled reading their deep dive into the Evo-psych of crimes of passion back in my high school library, then going to find it again, only to realize it is nowhere to be found.
Homicide was excellent! will have to give this a look
There is something to be said about sitting under the word of God and slowly and methodically mining it for theology, personal application, and worship.
This series has 115! Enough that it broke the auto-podcast-feed-maker of the host Sermon Audio, which caps it at 100 items per feed! I've made it a personal ambition of mine to listen to expositional sermons on every book of the bible before I die. Some of this will occur naturally by normal church attendance but I am using this as a sort of private devotional. Admittedly I tend to speed-shift some of my listening, but it is quite helpful for me to listen to one while getting ready in the morning to set the mood and mindset for the day, as well as turn some on while driving or doing grunt work.
pastorchuck.org has the founder of Calvary Chapel, Chuck Smith's "Through The Bible" series as an app. I was fortunate to have been able to attend in person in the 70's during the "Jesus Revolution" (Kelsey Grammar played Chuck in the movie of the same name).
Werner Herzog's 1998 TV documentary "Wings of Hope" regarding Juliane Koepcke, who in 1971 at age 17 survived a plane crash in Peru in which the plane broke apart above 10,000 feet.
Juliane proceeded to trek out of the jungle alone over the course of 11 days.
"Just Stab Me Now" - first novel by YouTuber Jill Bearup. On one level, a widowed aristocrat deals with intrigues and assassins to protect her children's inheritance. On another level, a struggling writer tries to understand why her enemies to lovers romance novel is turning into violent low fantasy (interspersed with the hassles of her day job). In the in-between level, the writer and her characters bicker over what should be happening next. Delightful, if you appreciate the meta struggles of writers. Available for pre-order in the usual places.
Just reread (Pulitzer winning) "The Power Broker" by Robert Caro, which traces the rise of Robert Moses, who inflicted two seemingly permanent disasters on metro New York which, like all bad but power-expanding ideas, spread like the plague thoughout the US and beyond but, unlike the plague, show no signs 100 years later of extinguishing themselves.
The first was the 'Public Authority' (in his case the Triboro Authority), a quasi governmental entity that has the power to collect and disburse funds at will without any accountability to anyone, elected officals or otherwise. Moses used the Triboro Authority as the bludgeon to impose disaster number two, "the limted access highway", the germ seed of the Interstate Highway system, surburban sprawl, urban renewal (after the Bronx was destoyed by the Cross-Bronx Expressway, for example), extreme car dependency, and all the massive misinvestments associated with it. Today's authority's run all kinds of critical infrastructure, such as toll roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, and seaports.
As the book exposes brilliantly, Moses butted heads with big city Mayors (Laguardia especially), several state governors including Lehman and Rockefeller, and even FDR. He was finally brought to heel in the 1970's (partly due to Caro's book), but the damage, as they say, had been done. Eisenhower's sponsorship of the Interstate Highway project, ostensibly for "national security" reasons, had pinned metropolitan development down on the mat, seemingly until the whole model collapses under it own weight.
(If you end up loving Caro, which is likely, try his four-volume biography of Lyndon Johnson for an in depth treatise on how to steal elections, which Johnson did for both his Congressional seat and his Senate seat. Just the vivid recap of rural American hardship during the Depression, in this case the un-electrified Texas hill country, will justify the time investment.)
Lastly, I really need to plug Kulak's (is she really a "rich" peasant?) recent Prepping guide for those subscribers who didn't get around to it. She really is right on the money: practical black market skills will be a lot more important than 50 tons of mice bait in your cellar.
"Why We Drive - Toward a Philosophy of the Open Road", by Matthew B. Crawford
I feel like this fits here. It's a vitalist paean to driving (and motorcycling), specifically the kind that involves risk and skill. It's also a rant against self-driving cars, glowing rectangles, and checking out of the real world.
Overall, I enjoyed it. Given its title, I expected "Why we road trip", "Why we go for a drive to clear our heads", "Why we explore that highway we've never been down", etc. Instead, it was more like "Why we speed", "Why we do donuts in the parking lot", "Why we tinker with gearhead shit".
I somewhat object to the last one, because the book did not do a good enough job of selling it to me. I fully believe it's part of why Crawford drives, but gearhead shit is not at all on the radar for me, or the vast, vast majority of people I know. The rare one or two that could MacGyver a timing belt out of pantyhose (or even know what a timing belt *is*) tend to be either the children of auto repair professionals, or else very deep in some automotive subculture already. That just makes the "We" in "Why We Drive" way more exclusive than it needs to be.
Spent most of 2023 trying NOT to be a chronically online troglodyte. Got in good physical shape in 2022, so that has been ongoing after losing 70 pounds and gaining about 10-15 back in muscle. 2023 eventually:
- Led to me joining a small group at my church
- Developing a social circle
- Reconciling with a childhood friend (who is pretty much my best male friend now, who knew?)
- Started dating, though OLD proved not so useful...
- ...but led to me being in a committed relationship with someone I knew outside of that context, just under the 2023 marker.
- And also now leading a small group at said church separate from the other one.
Early 40s white man in western USA. Small town life. Very hard working with an above-average income job. Fairly physically fit as the job requires it. I enjoy reading history and philosophy when not working. Hunting and shooting are a big part of my life. I am not religious but prefer women who are religious. I have an excellent sense of humor which does not show up in my writing; for the life of me I can't figure out how to write funny. Want to have kids.
Old, white, straight, male, and southern, oh dear.
Post-christian non-theist. One day at a tahm, swate jayzuss.
Politics is coercive violence. All centralized power structures are theft machines that fall into three categories: Debt, Religion, and Threat of Bodily Harm. When our species learns to socialize in a high tech milieu without the need for hierarchy, we will have reached that stage of toddlerhood known as pulling up.
Married to the girl I fell in love with in high school, lost for 25 years, then found again online. Love my sweet darling, never ever want to be with anyone else ever again. I know, DATING, I'm just telling you so you know it happens once in a while.
I'm watching my son and daughter cross the thirty line, and I'm thinking, "Man, love is even scarcer than I thought it was." They get more sex than I did at that age, but piss poor substitute, imo.
On the subject of sexual relationships, I am deeply grateful to have lived and loved long enough to have earned the privilege of being with a post-menopausal woman. It's even more of a relief than when I was finally able to date thirty-year-olds, and I thought at the time I had ascended to the heavenly realms.
Take heart, young man, there's a reason males are at their strongest in their 20s, and you'll always value the patience you are learning.
I hate the Puritanism of the Christian Dissident Right.
Calendargate was kind of the straw that broke the camels back for me. It was the ultimate manifestation of the endless demonisation of based women, from both the Christian fundamentalists and the most toxic elements of the 'Red Pill', both of whom seem to hate beautiful women as much as the Woke.
They wilfully ignore the distinction between healthy sexuality, that of heterosexuality and the youthful female, and gross perversions and degeneracy like LGBT. I blame the mainstream Christian leaders, that bent over backwards to try and provide consistent standards for heterosexual sin and homosexuality, as per the words of the Bible.
But sex outside of marriage and naughty, fun sexual expression between men and women is far from equal to the filth that is represented by the rainbow flag. One should be able to not be a prude, whilst still being anti-LGBT; recognizing the indisputable supremacy of heterosexuality as the foundation of human life, and its status as correct human functioning.
Ultimately the Christian Right and Wokeness come from the same Puritan morality. They hate the beauty and vitality of the human form, and wish to repress it in the pursuit of equity. There is no difference between ugly and beautiful to them, the beautiful and successful specimens must be humbled in pursuit of grey, dreary social levelling.
> But sex outside of marriage and naughty, fun sexual expression between men and women is far from equal to the filth that is represented by the rainbow flag.
Once you accept sex outside of marriage as "naughty fun", you've already accepted the premise that will carry you all the way to LGBT, the separation of sex from reproduction.
It seems based on Christianity, in which I do not believe in. Of course sex is primarily for reproduction and marriage should be recognized with that purpose in mind, but it does not mean it is the ONLY legitimate sexual behaviour.
> They wilfully ignore the distinction between healthy sexuality, that of heterosexuality and the youthful female, and gross perversions and degeneracy like LGBT.
The kind of slutiness demonstrated in calendargate is not healthy, in fact it ultimately leads into more perverse forms like LGBT.
> But sex outside of marriage and naughty, fun sexual expression between men and women is far from equal to the filth that is represented by the rainbow flag.
True in the sense that it's the bait the lures normal people down the slippery slope. Once people are addicted to sex, they find the pleasure it gives them to be hollow, and attempt to compensate by experimenting with more extreme and depraved sex acts.
Well, the Winter open Thread on January 15, with a Happy New Years! That must have been quite a party. Things have gone off the rails up north here. We're on day 9 of snow without interrupt, local politics have taken a slightly violent turn, unfortunately. But we are survivalists first and foremost, so don't write us off yet. https://falsechoices.substack.com/p/local-election-part-1
Making my way through the second novel in a series on the Spanish Civil War by Gironella. The present time seems similar to the society he describes then. Lots of madness bubbling up.
I read "Cosmic Serpent" by Jeremy Narby https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Serpent-DNA-Origins-Knowledge/dp/0874779642 - it dives into the potential role DNA places in hallucinogenic experiences. It's a surprisingly easy read, it's written in a free wheeling exploratory style where he goes through his thought process as he investigates the idea. I recommend reading this if you've watched Ancient Apocalypse on Netflix or if you went deeper and read Visionary by Graham Hancock. I didn't come away with any conclusions about anything, but it gave me a lot to think on.
I was referred by Revolver and spent a while pondering what in the sam hill I had discovered. Here in 2024 I went back to your last August’s posts about preppers and posers and seriously considered the proposition that I was dead wrong. Freeze drying delicious home cooked entrees, gardens, guns and gold, was I deluding myself? God on my mind daily but cognizant of my frailty and sin, I realized that not having a passport even though I know it is a simple inexpensive parachute when timely acquired was foolish. Thank you.
If you want to escape from the dreadful pall of Marxism and other germanic philosophy, a good place to start would be these Dominican monks explaining the bedrock Western philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas. (In digestible 5-10 minute bites)
For one of the most, if not the most, engaging reads on the human condition may I suggest “An Essay on Morals” by Philip Wylie, C. 1947, The Ferris Printing Company, N.Y. / Rinehart & Company, Inc., N. Y.
Wylie’s ability to ...”voyage beyond the Opposite Directions of Religion and Objective Truth, to Understanding” are worth the effort.
---- CONSUME MY PRODUCT/SERVICE 🛒 ----
Check out my book: The Lost War. Cheerful LARPers are sucked into a fantasy world. They have to struggle to survive while fending off native monsters that consider them food--or worse.
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-War-Karl-K-Gallagher-ebook/dp/B07QKHZCZP
Once again, I've got a podcast that focuses on finding leadership lessons in the great books of Western literature. I've been reading about 50 books a year, from Sense and Sensibility to The Republic of Plato and talking to people about them. Think of Lex Friedman but not pretentious. Check out the podcast here--> https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/leadership-lessons-from-the-great-books/id1591069385 (Most of you are probably Apple device users, but it's on Spotify as well) and subscribe. And if you've got an idea for a book I should read (or a person I should talk to) let me know here. And thank you.
---- DISCUSSION 🤬----
Does anyone know of any fun or interesting cults one could join?
OTO
I dunno, that Branch Covidian thing died suddenly. Oh! Oh! Check with Greta the unBorg!
yes
Start at the beginning, but if in a hurry - 2:10..........
https://www.bitchute.com/video/JAzUKiQ446KT/
LOLz 😝
I disagree with Spencer on a lot of things, and his history haunts everything he touches, but I feel their Augustian cult of Apollo idea has a lot of promise. I'll reserve judgement until they publish their book, and would be pretty cautious of anything tied to Spencer so closely (especially during an election year.) But it does seem like the least larp-y pagan revival attempt I've seen so far.
If you thinking you can have a logical argument concerning abortion you’re officially a retard! All abortion arguments are based on axiomatic beliefs and so you will never be able to convince someone logically.
Exactly the same as belief in God. You cannot be convinced logically.
Are you saying you disbelieve in God because the concept is illogical or that you believe in God and think that it's not a belief that can be proven logically? Or something else?
The later Mr Mordecai. That whilst there are the classical arguments for the existence of God, I think they supplement a man’s faith not spark it in the first place.
I think we are in agreement. I think the word of God is self-attesting and God brings people to faith by his own power working in them when they hear the word of the gospel. It is not that there are not well grounded reasons for God, but the human heart is so corrupt that it is bent towards unbelief at any cost. The arguments for God serve to remove the impediments to faith and undermine the lies once believed.
Sounds Calvinist but ok
Is that a disagreement?
Van Til summarized the main drive of his apologetic by saying: "the only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything." “I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else” ― Cornelius Van Til
Need a fuzzy logical argument: https://www.holisticpolitics.org/Abortion/FuzzyLife.php
Retard speaking here. Maybe just dim-witted. What are the axioms for and against abortion that you consider on par with the belief in God? Unfalsifiable?
Won't win an abortion debate, but if you want to go my body my choice can you at least drop the paternal suits? You want paternal support for kids, get married, otherwise it's your body, your choice, your responsibility.
Axioms for abortion:
- bodily autonomy
- maintenance of casual sex institution and other creations of the sexual revolution more broadly
- female education/career
- “Just a clump of cells”/“it’s a parasite” (ie insanity)
Axioms against abortion
- life begins at conception
- sanctity of life
- sensible policies on education/career
- hatred of the sexual revolution and its consequences
- acknowledging the limitations of female agency
These ideas are not only mutually exclusive but there is simply no common ground. Any debate that does occur will simply have you argue past one another.
Abortion policy should be something you do, not debate.
> maintenance of casual sex institution and other creations of the sexual revolution more broadly
Is it ok to point out how disastrous the results of the sexual revolution have been?
I’d say so, but not only is a bit removed from the debate about abortion, I’d be shocked if you could find one young woman that is pro-sex Rev and objective
You missed Eugenics in the "for" Section. The overwhelming majority of people that get abortions are the sort of people you'ld be glad to not have reproduce in the first place.
----------
I personally dislike line go up thinking just as much if not more regarding birthrates than economics, what we need is to ensure the right people to have children not more.
To that end, I think any of the energy put into the abortion cause would be better spent fighting against splitting assets on divorce or female custody of children that have reached school-going age. This would encourage the right people to marry/reproduce, rather than simply more.
Sure it suck if you're the kid that got murdered, but ultimately if I wouldn't give two shits about them once they'd grown it'd be pretty hypocritical to get all worked up about them before they're born. All people have die sometime, and our current civilization's inability to accept that is one of it's main flaws.
Not saying that I'd permit it (at least for my own group) if I became Emperor, I doubt many healthy people would. But I am not in charge, nor are my (political) Friends, which is realistically the only way to take this topic off the table. So from that point of view abortion now paradoxically reduces the chance of future abortions, because it's (current) eugenic effect helps to increase the proportion of people that would put an end to it.
I think the argument that most troubles me in regard to abortion is eugenics. There is simply no getting round the fact that in a world where demographics is a weapon of war being a white and pro-life is dumb.
I'd take it even further at this point. I think whatever small group of leaders and followers it is that I want to win-out will ultimately be it's own new ethnic group.
---------------------
I had a moment during 2020/21 when I realized most of the people around me would be happier off as serfs. Are these weak people really the same group as me?
Over Christmas I traveled up north to visit some relations, one evening my Father was in the next room watching some awful film where Liam Neeson and his Son were trying to sell a house in Tuscany. The Son character was clearly intended by the people that made the film to represent me in almost every way. (Or at least that's the impression I got from the bit's of dialogue I heard and the fact he was supposed to be Liam Neeson's Son, I didn't actually see what he looked like.) But something about him was incredibly alien to me in a way I couldn't pinpoint at the time, and made the film feel like it came from a totally different culture, to the point where it made the film's plot totally incongruous (as often happens with the morals depicted in chinese film.)
It was still bothering me when I got home even days later. I eventually rationalized it as him being spiritually feminine (either through the screenwriters political designs or simply the screenwriter being a woman that's never interacted with a normal man.) and that in a serious society such a character would be unworthy to own property, (being unable to protect it himself.) But could it be more than that? The beginning of a new ethnic divide in potential? If we can make it? Even though we presumably have nearly identical genes presently. I certainly hope none of my descendants ever reproduce with someone even capable of thinking in such a manner. And I would have no objection to his genetic line ending, regardless of how.
To anyone that's actually seen the film, it's probably not actually as bad as it seemed to me from the few snippets of dialogue I picked up in the background and I'm just sperging out. The point is that I don't really feel any kinship for the vast majority of "my group" in a way that wasn't the case even 2 generations ago. And I think that's relevant any time the topic of eugenics comes up.
Oh, good going, Cap. Woke up the religious guy.
You are correct in my case; I take as axiomatic the right of every human to personal autonomy from the hour they are emancipated from parental authority by age.
I also think, my friend, that the same argument could be made for most any opinion. Even those grounded in observable phenomena are still subjectively evaluated according to axiomatic belief.
I think abortion is a horrible thing, the fact of it and the act of it; just awful. But she alone Must choose, she must. That may be the most terrible thing about it.
I think belief in God is very significantly different.
Abortion is a purely semantic argument. The question is: when is a developing fetus a baby? Obviously it is a human child the day it is born after 9 months. The exercise is working chronologically backwards from that and to draw a line before which it is ethically acceptably to kill it.
It is not a matter of semantics, it is a matter of epistemology. Only Christianity can make coherent sense of morality. We might just as well ask why killing a human is wrong in the first place.
Its a matter of common convention that we think all killing of a human is wrong outside of times when the act is "just" (however defined). But this belief is a relic of Christian morality and not something that emerged naturally. Prior to Christianity, people watched slaves fight to the death in arenas for fun. It used to be absolutely common to just place unwanted babies outside to die alone if they were unwanted. At most you had a clannish affection for your near of kin but even this is not a universal.
Christianity established the goodness of preserving human life through the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill being rooted in divine authority, explain by the Christian theology of man being made in the image of God and his dominion over creation delegated to man.
The abortion supporter is fundamentally a pagan, so arguing with them is arguing with one who has no legitimate basis for believing anything whatsoever is moral.
Edgy atheists will object, "Anyone can be good without God! A deity is not needed to tell us what good is or be motivated to be good," but what they always mean is that their private sensibilities about morality (a hodge podge of leftover Christian sentiments plus enlightenment liberalism) are self-evident and standards by which to judge all others all for no reason at all, which they label "reason."
Fundamentally, they are not atheists but apostates. They accept Christianity as the true religion and reject it with revulsion, and so they adopt the old practices of ancient pagans without the ignorance with which pagans partook.
> Edgy atheists will object, "Anyone can be good without God! A deity is not needed to tell us what good is or be motivated to be good,"
They tend to go from that to "humans are just bags of chemicals, that bag needs it's chemicals rearranged" remarkably quickly.
" ...this belief is a relic of Christian morality and not something that emerged naturally" and the like nonsense.
Sorry about raising the zombie, but you have ten years' reading in anthropology to do before making that statement, at which point you won't.
Human beings almost never go so far as murder under natural conditions. Human on human violence, never mind murder, is almost nonexistent except when some sort of artificial scarcity regime is imposed. First comes a surplus and the technology to store it successfully. Then comes control of the surplus, which means control of those dependent upon it. Then comes theft and rape and murder. Only when people quit acting like people does a human grouping need to invent a moral code to keep them obedient and compliant.
Bold claim that the default state of mankind is one we cannot observe in any real human society and relegated to a mythological period of human prehistory.
I'm speaking very modestly from a well read though amateur perspective. I also have too much experience cringing at the memory of public statements made in deep ignorance of the subjects on which I spoke to be blithe. Remembered pain engenders care.
Your assumption that the evidence for my assertion is poor is incorrect. The reflexively murderous behavior of Christian colonialists toward the free peoples they encountered during their 'round the globe cultural obliteration spree has indeed made modern studies of natural societies difficult, but the Nuer, the Kalahari Bushmen, and the tribes of the New Guinea interior come to mind.
The archeological record is many thousands of years deeper and even more abundantly clear. Human beings rarely hurt one another on purpose during all the ages in which stone tools and weapons were used.
Isn’t arguing the definition of abortion or a human life semantics? Why those things are wrong may be epistemology but the definitions are debatable.
People debate the definitions because they are advocating for a side. The abortionists use arguments as tools, they do not actually believe them.
Right I see what you mean Mr Ted. The issue is that your foundation for abortion is very different from mine. You base yours off development of features. I base mine off human potentiality. These positions are axiomatic. If everyone were to have the same standards then that would be fine, but that is hardly the case.
It seems to me that pro-choice prefers development whilst pro-life has a sanctity of life argument.
I don't really care, it is ethically unacceptable to kill an infant because of presedent, infanticide was perfectly natural in the past. In the end if it is not my kid it is not my problem.
To believe this truly is to undermine the very possibility of the existence of human civilization.
Let my beliefs undermine all
I'm not really sure what you mean here
Right but that’s not the point I’m arguing as such. What I’m saying is there’s nothing really to discuss here cause we hold no common ground.
Agreed
See, right here is the problem Mr Ted. You believe that the development of the foetus is what counts if it’s a human or not. I wholly disagree. I believe in human potentiality, which is created at point of conception. Humans are created by God and so must be respected.
These two positions have no point of contact as they look at it from completely different views. Therefore what’s the point on us discussing on the merits of abortion??
The problem is that where the line is drawn is built on axiomatic beliefs (which means that you see it as self-evident). Therefore there is no way to discuss and reach consensus.
That’s why it’s pointless. The most one can take from an abortion debate are the sub debate that can come from it e.g. when does one become a human.
The line is not axiomatic at all. I think the people you are trying to debate just might be retards.
It is emotionally charged, and people have pre-conceptions, but reasonable people can debate how many weeks it takes for a fetus to be a baby by measuring brain waves, heartbeat, viability outside the womb etc. The debate is when the cells in question stop being a part of the woman's body owned by her and start being a helpless third party that must be protected. That is a very physical, materialist debate.
The axioms you listed are mostly just political one liners designed to illicit an emotional response from weak minded voters. Those exist in every political debate in America we have "no human is illegal", "no blood for oil", "trust science", if anything those make less sense than woman's choice vs infanticide.
For the record, I think its about 4 weeks. PS the debate will get more difficult once artificial wombs are developed.
Still don't care when a foetus counts as a baby. Have as much material debates as you want, the fact is the easier and the cheaper abortion is the further idiocracy will be our future.
Kill was the wrong word here given the context. Replace with remove.
I want to know more about the cat girl kulak. Are there other Canadian women like you?
Yes!-ish
There's an entire ethnicity of Blonde attractive Germano-Celtic Canadian country-types in the wilds of Ontario and the Prairies, who are pretty hardy growing up rural in winters, and largely shockingly attractive because unlike the US they don't all get sucked up by New York and LA so you don't get the Innsmouthian hollowed out communities of only ugly people you do in some parts of the US.
I'd love it if based terminally online Americans realized how much further their dollars stretched in Canada (30% higher income, +30% gain from exchange rate) and then rescued white Anglo-Canadians from their shitty watered down citizenship and polite passive aggressiveness through romance.
Achieve with wedding rings in the 2020s what couldn't be achieved with muskets in 1812
Wait are you a real life woman?
I try to maintain strategic ambiguity around my Gender/sexuality....
Harder to cancel a person if you don't know if they're Male/Female/95/Trans/Straight/Gay/Jewish/mormon/18/Zodiac killer
My theory right or wrong is that they already know who we are so there is strategic value in being out in the open but at the same time not actually doing anything criminal
> they don't all get sucked up by New York and LA so you don't get the Innsmouthian hollowed out communities of only ugly people you do in some parts of the US
Fuck that is brutally accurate
I went to school with kids from Appalachian coves who got out so seldom their accents still sounded Scottish. Needless to say, first time I saw that Charles fella they're calling a king now, I immediately looked for the sixth finger.
Best cities to visit for love in CAN?!
Visit the small towns all the cute little victorian towns of 5-50k around ontario or on the Prairie. There aren't dangerous or bad small towns in Canada (just bad neighborhoods of major cities), The small towns are all cute with little shopping districts and storefronts that have been occupied since the 1890s. And all of them have waterfronts or access to really lovely nature or farm communities...
Just go in the summer, it gets pretty bleak during other seasons (unless you're into skiing/snowmobiling)
Much of your writing is interesting and thoughtful enough that you'll be the first one I'll be pitching to support on Substack financially. You do very good work.
I reread "Sense & Sensibility" recently and this passage towards the end...hit weird:
"Mrs. Dashwood was acting on motives of policy as well as pleasure in the frequency of her visits at Delaford; for her wish of bringing Marianne and Colonel Brandon together was hardly less earnest, though rather more liberal than what John had expressed. It was now her darling object. Precious as was the company of her daughter to her, she desired nothing so much as to give up its constant enjoyment to her valued friend; and to see Marianne settled at the mansion-house was equally the wish of Edward and Elinor. They each felt his sorrows, and their own obligations, and Marianne, by general consent, was to be the reward of all.
With such a confederacy against her—with a knowledge so intimate of his goodness—with a conviction of his fond attachment to herself, which at last, though long after it was observable to everybody else—burst on her—what could she do?
Marianne Dashwood was born to an extraordinary fate. She was born to discover the falsehood of her own opinions, and to counteract, by her conduct, her most favourite maxims. She was born to overcome an affection formed so late in life as at seventeen, and with no sentiment superior to strong esteem and lively friendship, voluntarily to give her hand to another!—and that other, a man who had suffered no less than herself under the event of a former attachment, whom, two years before, she had considered too old to be married,—and who still sought the constitutional safeguard of a flannel waistcoat!
But so it was. Instead of falling a sacrifice to an irresistible passion, as once she had fondly flattered herself with expecting,—instead of remaining even for ever with her mother, and finding her only pleasures in retirement and study, as afterwards in her more calm and sober judgment she had determined on,—she found herself at nineteen, submitting to new attachments, entering on new duties, placed in a new home, a wife, the mistress of a family, and the patroness of a village.
Colonel Brandon was now as happy, as all those who best loved him, believed he deserved to be;—in Marianne he was consoled for every past affliction;—her regard and her society restored his mind to animation, and his spirits to cheerfulness; and that Marianne found her own happiness in forming his, was equally the persuasion and delight of each observing friend. Marianne could never love by halves; and her whole heart became, in time, as much devoted to her husband, as it had once been to Willoughby."
That...sounds an awful lot like settling for a beta. I can't tell if it's internet brain rot or if there's deep red pill insights to be gleaned from Jane Austen but...it hit me weird.
Naw, man, Colonel Brandon's not a beta, Marianne was just a silly little girl who needed some attachments to grow up and into herself. At 17, she thought a mega rich 30-something Army officer who happened to be a bit socially awkward was a boring old man. After seeing what a worthless piece of crap the handsome "romantic" fellow she had been into was and having a brush with death (a death which romantic dude maybe kinda contributed to, but then was too much of a pussy to face her about - he gave a *letter* to her *sister* to express how very sorry he was, and then fled), at the ripe old age of 19 she thought she would become a spinster. Her family and friends (and his) all realized that they would make each other happy, but since neither of them were in a position to follow the standard protocol for their class and time (~15-17 YO gets courted at formal dances and family dinners by a dude who's ~20-22), they weren't going to make it happen without some help.
I suppose it's a more "traditionalist" than "vitalist" kind of happy ending, so depending on where your sympathies lie, it still might not resonate with you, but I've always found Austen to have a remarkable sense for balancing optimistic character agency and self-actualization with a keen eye for normal human foibles and the need to account for practicalities.
---- READ MY BLOG 🖊️----
I mostly write about weirdo Germanic polytheist/magical stuff, and my whole blog is one big static html page for stability/longevity purposes, so my blog is likely an acquired taste. That being said, if you're a bad enough dude, you might find "The Open-Minded Materialist's Gentle Introduction to Spirituality" a good starting point, if that sounds at all relevant to you: https://jpowellrussell.com/#open-minded_materialists_gentle_introduction_to_spirituality
If you're already down with alternative spirituality, though, maybe check out "The Trouble with Authenticity," for a take on why "authentic" religious traditions are not necessarily as necessary as valid ones: https://jpowellrussell.com/#the_trouble_with_authenticity
And if you don't truck with any of that woo-woo nonsense, I did a deep dive on Spengler's *The Decline of the West*: https://jpowellrussell.com/#understanding_spengler_s_decline_of_the_west_bit_1
Cheers,
Jeff
A vast untapped pool of potential reactionaries. And for the men in the audience, this pool has plenty of cute women.
https://rulesforreactionaries.substack.com/p/rule-11-exploit-the-environmentalists
---- EMPLOYMENT 👨💼----
lol
---- REVIEWS 🧐 ----
On my previous Christmas Thread I said I wanted to watch Sergei Bondarchuk's Academy Award winning 4 part version of War & Peace...
I utterly failed at this because My family would not watch Russian Subtitles for 8 hours.
HOWEVER, We watched the 2016 BBC War & Peace... Which is shockingly incredibly good. Maybe the last Horrah/Peak of old school BBC costume dramas before Woke and anti-colonial ideas consumed the genre and destroyed the magic.
at first I thought the Depiction of Pierre was horribly miscast having seen Henry Fonda in the role in the Audrey Hepburn 1956 version of War and Peace... But my dad Immediately corrected me and said the BBC version is way closer to the book, and that he thought Henry Fonda was far too "Leading Man" and hollywood for the character Tolstoy wrote.
The Bondarchuk War and Peace is amazing, saturated with the Russian spirit even though it was done under the Communists. I was able to see it in a theatre, without other family members. They essentially refought the Battle of Borodino with live actors at scale (well, without the corpses), but the quiet spiritual moments filmed between lovers in various authentic Russian palaces are just as good. Also, using a live bear for the opening party scene puts you right into the movies sense of daring.
"Marlborough: His Live and Times" - by Winston Churchill. I'm almost done with the first volume in the 4 volume set printed in the 60s. Very interesting to see the political dynamics and Zeitgeist in England in the late 17th century between a Catholic King being backed up by a Catholic French King and his army against a majority Protestant nobility and population. Definitely patterns there that are happening now in America where the lines between sides aren't necessarily geographical, but ideological, and the leaders kowtowing to foreign powers.
"Peter the Great" - by Massie. This is one of my favorite books ever. Seriously impossible not to admire someone with Peter's ambition to westernize his country and pull them kicking and screaming into modernity and European society - all without any incurring debt and in fact subsidizing foreign armies at times. I like to think Putin knows all this about Peter and strives to emulate him - especially when you see that Putin has tried many times to align with the West, even asking to join NATO at one point. Someone like Peter would never run for office so we'll never have someone like him at the helm. With monarchy at least you can have a good leader once in a while.
I'll have to give those a look
Churchill's a great writer. His six volume history of the WWII was extraordinary. "Marlborough" is my list.
William Manchester's biography of Churchill, the "Last Lion", especially volumes one and two, are great as well. Volume 3 suffers a bit because Manchester died while writing it and the project was handed off.
The background of Victorian England and of Colonial England's African conflicts is precious in and of itself.
Yes he is a great writer. I can only handle a few pages at a time because it creates a storm of ideas that's overwhelming, not only because of the topical insights but also the style. I plan on picking up his WWII history soon. Another set on my to-read shelf is James Morris's Pax Britannica Trilogy which I also found on someone's "how to rebuild civilization after armageddon list".
Sex, evolution, and behavior by Martin Daly and Margo Wilson. A lot of internet red pillers spout the same ideas in this book. Although red pill is a recent phenomenon, this book was published back in 1979. Red pilling is just biology at this point.
Thw authors discuss sexual behaviors across many human societies. One quote on coercive constraint of women stuck out : "This is what the oublic reputation of the bride's family and the formal symbolic displays are intended to attest ... for men, honor is the capacity and willingness to defend and to enforce the purity of their female kin, which allows them to achieve reproductively successful matings for thei daughters and sisters; for women, it is the possession of that which is defended, chastity and fidelity, sexual morality itself. The core of the family's honor is its ability to produce such women."
Though this is a quote from mildred dickemann, nested in the book, i wonder how a biologist would explain hoeflation or female promiscuity in the west from fitness optimizong perspective. Looks like the opposite of fitness is happening. The sam hyde meme "canada isn't dying, it's being killed" feels real.
Best fun fact from the book. Female worker bees are more related to their sisters than their mothers. Male bees give 100% of their genetic material to children, and the queen gives 50% of hers. The result is that all females have the 50% of the father in common and only 25% of the mother in common. So the females are related to their sisters by 75% and related to their mothers by 50%.
I did not know this one existed.
Martin Daly and Margo Wilson's "Homicide" made the banned books list by chance when i recalled reading their deep dive into the Evo-psych of crimes of passion back in my high school library, then going to find it again, only to realize it is nowhere to be found.
Homicide was excellent! will have to give this a look
Take a look here Kulak http://library.lol/main/C43A2398CDCFF464EFA90431BD90AAC3
Verse by verse exposition of the New Testament book of Romans, in over 100 sermons.
https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?sortby=oldest&keyword=Romans&keywordDesc=Romans&SeriesOnly=true&SourceID=covenant-opc&AudioOnly=false
There is something to be said about sitting under the word of God and slowly and methodically mining it for theology, personal application, and worship.
Strevel is unpretentious but serious.
What!?
100 hour-long sermons on one book of the bible? Madness...
Im deeply impressed
This series has 115! Enough that it broke the auto-podcast-feed-maker of the host Sermon Audio, which caps it at 100 items per feed! I've made it a personal ambition of mine to listen to expositional sermons on every book of the bible before I die. Some of this will occur naturally by normal church attendance but I am using this as a sort of private devotional. Admittedly I tend to speed-shift some of my listening, but it is quite helpful for me to listen to one while getting ready in the morning to set the mood and mindset for the day, as well as turn some on while driving or doing grunt work.
pastorchuck.org has the founder of Calvary Chapel, Chuck Smith's "Through The Bible" series as an app. I was fortunate to have been able to attend in person in the 70's during the "Jesus Revolution" (Kelsey Grammar played Chuck in the movie of the same name).
Werner Herzog's 1998 TV documentary "Wings of Hope" regarding Juliane Koepcke, who in 1971 at age 17 survived a plane crash in Peru in which the plane broke apart above 10,000 feet.
Juliane proceeded to trek out of the jungle alone over the course of 11 days.
The documentary is available on YT here: https://youtu.be/msipyM4vyLg?si=A7oV9bxYfV91wPIC
Learn about Herzog's connection to that flight due to filming of "Aguirre, the Wrath of God."
It's just over an hour if you can spare the time. When she was rescued, the boat ride itself was 11 hours. This woman is remarkable.
"Just Stab Me Now" - first novel by YouTuber Jill Bearup. On one level, a widowed aristocrat deals with intrigues and assassins to protect her children's inheritance. On another level, a struggling writer tries to understand why her enemies to lovers romance novel is turning into violent low fantasy (interspersed with the hassles of her day job). In the in-between level, the writer and her characters bicker over what should be happening next. Delightful, if you appreciate the meta struggles of writers. Available for pre-order in the usual places.
Were you able to read it?
Oh, yes. Patreon supporters received a copy early. My favorite lines from the video series the book was based on made it in.
I post all my reviews here: https://velvetroompublishing.substack.com/s/reviews
I haven't posted a review yet in 2024.
Just reread (Pulitzer winning) "The Power Broker" by Robert Caro, which traces the rise of Robert Moses, who inflicted two seemingly permanent disasters on metro New York which, like all bad but power-expanding ideas, spread like the plague thoughout the US and beyond but, unlike the plague, show no signs 100 years later of extinguishing themselves.
The first was the 'Public Authority' (in his case the Triboro Authority), a quasi governmental entity that has the power to collect and disburse funds at will without any accountability to anyone, elected officals or otherwise. Moses used the Triboro Authority as the bludgeon to impose disaster number two, "the limted access highway", the germ seed of the Interstate Highway system, surburban sprawl, urban renewal (after the Bronx was destoyed by the Cross-Bronx Expressway, for example), extreme car dependency, and all the massive misinvestments associated with it. Today's authority's run all kinds of critical infrastructure, such as toll roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, and seaports.
As the book exposes brilliantly, Moses butted heads with big city Mayors (Laguardia especially), several state governors including Lehman and Rockefeller, and even FDR. He was finally brought to heel in the 1970's (partly due to Caro's book), but the damage, as they say, had been done. Eisenhower's sponsorship of the Interstate Highway project, ostensibly for "national security" reasons, had pinned metropolitan development down on the mat, seemingly until the whole model collapses under it own weight.
(If you end up loving Caro, which is likely, try his four-volume biography of Lyndon Johnson for an in depth treatise on how to steal elections, which Johnson did for both his Congressional seat and his Senate seat. Just the vivid recap of rural American hardship during the Depression, in this case the un-electrified Texas hill country, will justify the time investment.)
Lastly, I really need to plug Kulak's (is she really a "rich" peasant?) recent Prepping guide for those subscribers who didn't get around to it. She really is right on the money: practical black market skills will be a lot more important than 50 tons of mice bait in your cellar.
Started on Caro's biography of Johnson when the first volume came out. Excellent work.
COCANHA - Cotelon
this song so good I ate it. that's the review.
https://open.spotify.com/track/0fkptOeZkmA7xxiE6Z60G1?si=e953ee3c100c498c
"Why We Drive - Toward a Philosophy of the Open Road", by Matthew B. Crawford
I feel like this fits here. It's a vitalist paean to driving (and motorcycling), specifically the kind that involves risk and skill. It's also a rant against self-driving cars, glowing rectangles, and checking out of the real world.
Overall, I enjoyed it. Given its title, I expected "Why we road trip", "Why we go for a drive to clear our heads", "Why we explore that highway we've never been down", etc. Instead, it was more like "Why we speed", "Why we do donuts in the parking lot", "Why we tinker with gearhead shit".
I somewhat object to the last one, because the book did not do a good enough job of selling it to me. I fully believe it's part of why Crawford drives, but gearhead shit is not at all on the radar for me, or the vast, vast majority of people I know. The rare one or two that could MacGyver a timing belt out of pantyhose (or even know what a timing belt *is*) tend to be either the children of auto repair professionals, or else very deep in some automotive subculture already. That just makes the "We" in "Why We Drive" way more exclusive than it needs to be.
---- DATING ❤️ ----
Spent most of 2023 trying NOT to be a chronically online troglodyte. Got in good physical shape in 2022, so that has been ongoing after losing 70 pounds and gaining about 10-15 back in muscle. 2023 eventually:
- Led to me joining a small group at my church
- Developing a social circle
- Reconciling with a childhood friend (who is pretty much my best male friend now, who knew?)
- Started dating, though OLD proved not so useful...
- ...but led to me being in a committed relationship with someone I knew outside of that context, just under the 2023 marker.
- And also now leading a small group at said church separate from the other one.
All and all, a pretty good year.
I have been married for 20 years and have already spawned. Otherwise I'd totally try this. (And I met my wife on Match.com, so I know it works.)
Early 40s white man in western USA. Small town life. Very hard working with an above-average income job. Fairly physically fit as the job requires it. I enjoy reading history and philosophy when not working. Hunting and shooting are a big part of my life. I am not religious but prefer women who are religious. I have an excellent sense of humor which does not show up in my writing; for the life of me I can't figure out how to write funny. Want to have kids.
By mandate of Kulak:
Gender: Male
Age: In my 20s
Region: Lower 48
Race: White
Height: 6 feet
Income: Above average
Looking for a girl who wants to have kids and participate in her local community.
Old, white, straight, male, and southern, oh dear.
Post-christian non-theist. One day at a tahm, swate jayzuss.
Politics is coercive violence. All centralized power structures are theft machines that fall into three categories: Debt, Religion, and Threat of Bodily Harm. When our species learns to socialize in a high tech milieu without the need for hierarchy, we will have reached that stage of toddlerhood known as pulling up.
Married to the girl I fell in love with in high school, lost for 25 years, then found again online. Love my sweet darling, never ever want to be with anyone else ever again. I know, DATING, I'm just telling you so you know it happens once in a while.
I'm watching my son and daughter cross the thirty line, and I'm thinking, "Man, love is even scarcer than I thought it was." They get more sex than I did at that age, but piss poor substitute, imo.
On the subject of sexual relationships, I am deeply grateful to have lived and loved long enough to have earned the privilege of being with a post-menopausal woman. It's even more of a relief than when I was finally able to date thirty-year-olds, and I thought at the time I had ascended to the heavenly realms.
Take heart, young man, there's a reason males are at their strongest in their 20s, and you'll always value the patience you are learning.
my online nerd profile is not really me.
building and doing stuff you've never heard of.
not a tech bro.
world traveler.
living meme.
5'7 and laughing about it
better than you.
will respectfully disrespect you.
leader of men.
edgelord in name only.
I am chronically single so no I will not contribute to the mutant problem.
I hate the Puritanism of the Christian Dissident Right.
Calendargate was kind of the straw that broke the camels back for me. It was the ultimate manifestation of the endless demonisation of based women, from both the Christian fundamentalists and the most toxic elements of the 'Red Pill', both of whom seem to hate beautiful women as much as the Woke.
They wilfully ignore the distinction between healthy sexuality, that of heterosexuality and the youthful female, and gross perversions and degeneracy like LGBT. I blame the mainstream Christian leaders, that bent over backwards to try and provide consistent standards for heterosexual sin and homosexuality, as per the words of the Bible.
But sex outside of marriage and naughty, fun sexual expression between men and women is far from equal to the filth that is represented by the rainbow flag. One should be able to not be a prude, whilst still being anti-LGBT; recognizing the indisputable supremacy of heterosexuality as the foundation of human life, and its status as correct human functioning.
Ultimately the Christian Right and Wokeness come from the same Puritan morality. They hate the beauty and vitality of the human form, and wish to repress it in the pursuit of equity. There is no difference between ugly and beautiful to them, the beautiful and successful specimens must be humbled in pursuit of grey, dreary social levelling.
> But sex outside of marriage and naughty, fun sexual expression between men and women is far from equal to the filth that is represented by the rainbow flag.
Once you accept sex outside of marriage as "naughty fun", you've already accepted the premise that will carry you all the way to LGBT, the separation of sex from reproduction.
I don't accept that argument.
It seems based on Christianity, in which I do not believe in. Of course sex is primarily for reproduction and marriage should be recognized with that purpose in mind, but it does not mean it is the ONLY legitimate sexual behaviour.
> it does not mean it is the ONLY legitimate sexual behaviour.
Yes it is. What else do you think is legitimate? Now think about how it will end for the participants after the act?
> They wilfully ignore the distinction between healthy sexuality, that of heterosexuality and the youthful female, and gross perversions and degeneracy like LGBT.
The kind of slutiness demonstrated in calendargate is not healthy, in fact it ultimately leads into more perverse forms like LGBT.
> But sex outside of marriage and naughty, fun sexual expression between men and women is far from equal to the filth that is represented by the rainbow flag.
True in the sense that it's the bait the lures normal people down the slippery slope. Once people are addicted to sex, they find the pleasure it gives them to be hollow, and attempt to compensate by experimenting with more extreme and depraved sex acts.
Calendargate honestly was fine. It was like a 1950s pinup.
Are we not allowed to have any expression of healthy sexuality? Must it all be puritanical?
Well, the Winter open Thread on January 15, with a Happy New Years! That must have been quite a party. Things have gone off the rails up north here. We're on day 9 of snow without interrupt, local politics have taken a slightly violent turn, unfortunately. But we are survivalists first and foremost, so don't write us off yet. https://falsechoices.substack.com/p/local-election-part-1
Making my way through the second novel in a series on the Spanish Civil War by Gironella. The present time seems similar to the society he describes then. Lots of madness bubbling up.
What's the name of the full series? Titles?
from 2003, this Guardian obituary and review lists the names of the three novels Gironella wrote about the Civil War and its aftermath.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/jan/30/guardianobituaries.books
I read "Cosmic Serpent" by Jeremy Narby https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Serpent-DNA-Origins-Knowledge/dp/0874779642 - it dives into the potential role DNA places in hallucinogenic experiences. It's a surprisingly easy read, it's written in a free wheeling exploratory style where he goes through his thought process as he investigates the idea. I recommend reading this if you've watched Ancient Apocalypse on Netflix or if you went deeper and read Visionary by Graham Hancock. I didn't come away with any conclusions about anything, but it gave me a lot to think on.
I was referred by Revolver and spent a while pondering what in the sam hill I had discovered. Here in 2024 I went back to your last August’s posts about preppers and posers and seriously considered the proposition that I was dead wrong. Freeze drying delicious home cooked entrees, gardens, guns and gold, was I deluding myself? God on my mind daily but cognizant of my frailty and sin, I realized that not having a passport even though I know it is a simple inexpensive parachute when timely acquired was foolish. Thank you.
https://youtu.be/ecCnynt1cRg?feature=shared
"dating section"?
Delicious sausage from the local Mennonites. Only $2.50/pound! He's FDA unapproved, as it should be.
Some gristle, otherwise great.
9/10
If you want to escape from the dreadful pall of Marxism and other germanic philosophy, a good place to start would be these Dominican monks explaining the bedrock Western philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas. (In digestible 5-10 minute bites)
https://aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/an-introduction-to-the-summa
For one of the most, if not the most, engaging reads on the human condition may I suggest “An Essay on Morals” by Philip Wylie, C. 1947, The Ferris Printing Company, N.Y. / Rinehart & Company, Inc., N. Y.
Wylie’s ability to ...”voyage beyond the Opposite Directions of Religion and Objective Truth, to Understanding” are worth the effort.
José María Gironella Pous (1917-2003) civil war trilogy: Los cipreses creen en Dios (1953), Un millón de muertos (1961), Ha estallado la paz (1966)
In English: The Cypresses Believe in God, One Million Dead, Peace After War