So, I have achieved my original modest goal of over 100k views from 30k unique vistors.
It looks fairly certain that barring some sudden shift, I will not hit any of the “blue sky” goals, which where 200k views from 100k visitors, but I think it should be just with reach to possibly hit the revised goal which, as I said, I would be happy with, of 150k views from 50k visitors.
I’m currently at 134k and change views with every month since February of this year averaging over 10k views, and just over 40k visitors, with the monthly average therefore somewhere just over 3,000 visitors a month.
This month is already past 10k views and we are just halfway yet, so the 150k views should be achievable unless there is a drastic drop off in December. The 50k visitors will be harder to reach, but not out of the realm of possibility.
The realistic likelihood is that I will be about 5k short on each of both views and visitors to hit 150k and 50k respectively, but we’ll soon find out.
A more interesting stat is the comments which went from a total for the years 2018 (end of it only when the counter was added) to 2022 inclusive, of 298 comments to 544 comments in 2023 to date, and that is with my brutal perma-spamming with no warning anyone who doesn’t follow the rules. And said rules are not exactly prominently displayed.
Plus the comment link is also not prominently displayed being at the top of posts rather than the bottom, which probably discourages many from even trying or knowing that one can comment.
So, overall, I’m quite happy with the results achieved. I’ll post a final update at the end of 2023 and look forward to bettering the stats for 2024, assuming I am not hunted down for my views by clown world death squads, nuclear war and the resulting EMPs don’t wipe out the internet as a whole, or the WEF doesn’t do it somehow, or one of the fake asteroid or alien craft Von Braun warned us about crash lands or craters me and mine, or the chemtrails finally get me, or, you know, something else happens.
I have had several rather interesting conversations over the last few days and a recurring theme has been how so much of what is accepted as normal today, really is not.
Some are obvious things, that only the unhinged think are normal:
Mutilating children to supposedly give them the sex they “desire” instead of the one they were born with
That trans-anything is anything other than mental illness
And the consequent nonsense that men can be women or vice-versa
That math is somehow “racist”
That only white people can be “racist”
That there is any such thing as “White Privilege”
That Black Lives Matter is actually based on statistically relevant data concerning the incidence of shootings of black males by white police instead of statistically significant on the basis of incidence of violent crime by black males
That there is any such thing as the “gender” pay gap
That men and women are equal in any way (psychologically, or physically)
That diversity is a strength
That all cultures/religions are equivalent in civilisational values
That different ethnicities are equivalent in terms of IQ, physical performance of various activities, intellectual performance of various activities, and cultural approaches to different concepts
Then there are what I would call “second tier” observations, which really are (or should be) obvious is you realise the obvious issues above and simply extrapolate them a little bit:
That anyone on Earth is not somehow “racist” (literally anyone with a brain that works and eyes and ears that function will notice differences in people and will make instantaneous value-judgements on the basis of those differences. In short, you’d have to be deaf, dumb and blind, not to have what are intrinsically “racist” judgment calls. Literally everyone is “racist”. Including you. Deal with it and stop lying about it to yourself and others).
That sexual deviance is somehow “normal”. It clearly is not. Anything that does not naturally perpetuate the species is a deviant and unsustainable sexual dysfunction. that’s just a fact. More subtly, anything that is not geared towards a family unit comprised of one husband, one wife and the purpose of their lifelong marriage being to make and raise children is of markedly, objectively, lower civilisational value than any other set-up, even if they could reproduce children (polygamy of Mormons and Muslims for example, Polyamory, swinging, and so on).
Since men and women are not equal and since the best civilisational set-up is the one of the family unit as described above, it become objectively obvious that the roles of men and women are different and complementary in that family unit. Pretending otherwise, regardless of technological advancements is a recipe for disaster, since we have some 2 million years of biological wet-ware to over-ride and also a LOT of unchangeable hardware that simply is never going to go away or suddenly stop making us be men or women, no matter how many hormones and puberty blockers and deranged surgeon’s scalpels you go under.
In view of all the above and the historical evidence of some 2,000 years, it also becomes obvious that Catholicism has undoubtedly produced the very pinnacle of human civilisation around the world. this needs a little more fine-tuning to realise for a couple of aspects:
The Industrial Revolution was primarily a Protestant driven change, and touted as a benefit to mankind, but on deeper reflection, whether the Industrial Revolution really was of benefit to humanity is at best, very questionable, and rationally speaking, almost certainly a turn for the worst.
The working systems that came along as a result of the Industrial Revolution, similarly allow people to produce a higher output of work, but this is not rewarded by a correspondingly higher effect on people’s standard of living. In fact, it eventually settles down into a corrosive process that fills every waking hour of ever longer work-days, to fulfil and endless drive for “more”.
This “mechanisation” of human beings further corrodes time with family, the very dynamic of how a family works and operates, and consequently the type and level of education that the children in a family unit receive both directly and indirectly.
These are less obvious points and not applicable in all cases, but overall, the pattern’s statistics are as described in three above points.
And once you have digested all of the above, you begin to see a whole other level of reality that has been obfuscated by the creeping demonic lies that have been filtering into human life since the start but really took off after 1521 and then got turbo-charged during and after WWII and then started taking steroids in the mid to late 1990s and meth and cocaine from about 2008 on and finally a whole bunch of LSD since about 2016/7.
You begin to realise that corporal punishment in general, and the death penalty in particular, is absolutely reasonable and logical for certain level of crimes. No, not the ones that the current zeitgeist would put you to death for if they could, which might be calling Bruce Jenner, Bruce Jenner, or stating unambiguously that there are only two sexes and that homosexuality is a deviant sexuality that is not conducive to a natural continuation of the species, and that adoption by homosexual is in essence, child trafficking.
You realise that the desensitising to certain stimuli is beneficial while to others it is detrimental.
Given the above two points alone, the whole concept of training people like soldiers, police or other force on force/warrior types would drastically change.
As would the education/disciplining of children depending on their aptitudes and interests.
And intelligent education would be treasured and asked for by anyone who understood the above principles. And education that follows the baseline principles of things like the Trivium, the study of logic, reason. Basic principles of mathematics like ratios, sets, percentages, trigonometry, statistics, and algebra, taking the time with each not to just learn the formulae off by heart, but understand the principles. Along with a study of history beginning with the classics, explained and recounted at appropriate age level of understanding, starting with the Illiad and the Odyssey as stories and then the gradual introduction of the Greek classics, the study of Sparta and Athens, Rome, and the Roman Empire, and Egypt and its unexplained structures. As well as, of course, the study of dinosaurs, which really every child loves if properly introduced, and astronomy and geography, with a hint of exploration, archaeology and discovery. After which, biology and chemistry and physics can be tackled with a more reasonable background to build upon.
The study and use of various weapons and principles of martial disciplines.
The learning of basic home economics such as balancing a budget, the basics of cooking and keeping a clean home, and so on. All of these topics could be integrated into equal parts indoor and outdoor activities.
Described as I have above it all sounds like a super expensive classical education, but in reality it is something easily achieved by a group of parents that are willing and able to organise themselves and get this done.
And doing so would probably be considered some radical alt-right, Neo-nazi, eeeeeebil indoctrination of children. When in reality it would simply be giving them the tools to observe and evaluate the objective universe as it exists, instead of the lies it is presented as.
Do not accept the current twisted ideologies of Clown World. Study and re-learn what has been hidden from you and presented under a tsunami of lies and fakery the likes of which no generation before the present ones has seen.
Rebuilt the concept of objectivity and the study of both the physical and natural world as well as the metaphysical one.
I know there are now going to be heads exploding in various gamma hives around the internet as they hope and pray to their slithering nether-gods for a major rift between myself and Vox.
While I am sure nothing of the sort is or will be the case. In fact, many moons ago, I asked Vox if he would be willing to have a friendly discussion/debate on Catholicism vs Protestantism, or to be more precise, my Sedevacantist Catholicism and his specific brand of Protestantism which I believe hinges on the original Nicene creed.
Even back then, somewhat to my surprise, he said he wasn’t against it in principle, but the time required for it (and I suspect utility of it) was not really worth it. Which, in general I agreed with.
That all said, my brain can’t help but want to continue down paths that in my view are likely to increase my understanding of reality. Christianity, is one of those paths that is essentially endless in this regard, so, like say learning to paint, or make music, is a lifelong continuous investigation.
With such endeavours, after a time, there comes a point where your understanding or skill in the topic is good enough to outdo the common men and women in the field and then even the well-known ones. In short, it becomes difficult to find other minds against which you can confront yourself in order to learn more of the topic that interests you. And when you do find one, naturally, at least for me, you’d like to investigate it and push and prod at it and test your theories and ideas and baselines against.
Well, Vox has such a mind. I also consider him a friend and few things in life are as enjoyable to me as philosophical conversation of some substance with a friend. Preferably over a good wine and light meal, or with decent cognac after a good dinner. Alas, distance and circumstance prevents such discourse in the customary civilised fashion I just described. So I find myself limited to this rather barbaric format. Blog to blog. Well, perhaps we might do a livestream on it one day, but be as it may, I will now simply dive into the post Vox put up which prompted this one for me: This is it.
As baseline axioms I think I have the following, which are:
Pretty sure both Vox and myself do not like having human authority over us. I think the generic difference might be that I am willing to go along with it for the greater good as long as the human with “authority” over me continues to follow the correct rules. As far as Catholicism goes, if the priest/bishop does not himself contravene Canon Law (as per Code of Canon Law of 1917) and his advice is in line with it, I will obey. The reason I believe the Code of Canon Law is correct is because at core, I believe that Jesus would not have left a FALLIBLE Church on Earth. He wanted a Church and we are instructed to use reason and logic to figure stuff out, but not that it’s all guesswork. Having read the CoCL twice, while I find rules that personally bug me, in objective consideration, even those rules are civilisational, and my personal preference is the one that is not ideal to building a truly civilised world. The classic example is duelling. I am all for it, but Catholicism forbids it, because, in general, duelling would be a sin of pride. Not really my problem, but if it were widespread you can see that the sin of pride would be what motivates it for most, instead of a burning desire to see justice done.
Pretty sure we both dislike dishonesty in general and especially dishonesty designed to lead people astray spiritually.
One thing I think we differ on is that I think Vox is more prone to the error of Erroneous Loyalty. Something I discussed in Reclaiming the Catholic Church at some length. It is an error I used to live myself for many years, so I think I understand the dynamic well. As an extreme and hypothetical example that ignores human laws for the purpose of the intellectual exercise, I recall a long while back, in one of his posts, Vox mentioned that under certain circumstances, a friend that was guilty of certain crimes would be best served by being handed a pistol with one bullet in it and leaving him alone in his room, giving him the dignity of suicide. I believe he was referencing a supposed “friend” of John Scalzi that had been discovered to be some kind of sexual predator, and if memory serves Vox’s comment was along the lines of what you would do if someone you considered to be a friend turned out to be, say a child rapist. In my case, my loyalty of friendship would NOT prevent me (again, in a hypothetical world of no human laws being present) from helping the man pull the trigger, or even doing it for him. You don’t want to leave these things to chance! In fact, as per my comments many times, I absolutely believe that the punishment for child rape should be the legalised and accepted method of burning at the stake. Suicide is considered a mortal sin by Catholicism and as such, judgement by the community so you burn at the stake gives you the chance to repent while you burn and possibly enter purgatory and eventually heaven instead of eternal Hell. So, in broad terms, I think Vox may be more prone to being loyal beyond the just point. As I say, an error I myself had for a long while in my youth, but that I gradually got out of over several years until I finally realised that the line of Justice is more important than the line of loyalty. Vox may have other theories on this, which I am unaware of but that’s the sense I have of it presently.
Given the above premises/axioms, I will then look at the above linked post critically. And consider that I am absolutely in no way defending the Boomertastic Doug Wilson. I read a couple of his post years ago, before I was even a Christian and the illogic and hypocrisy prevalent in Protestantism made me conclude he’s an idiot and not worth listening to at all.
One more difference between Vox and myself I need to point out, the man is certainly more patient than I am as well as far more forgiving. I remember we briefly discussed Jordan Peterson at the time and Vox stated the man was intelligent. I was astonished and asked why on Earth he thought that, he quite correctly pointed out that in order to spew the level of bafflegarble nonsense he does and fool a lot of people into thinking he is not some absolutely insane globalist with severe psychological issues, takes a certain level of IQ. Personally I evaluated the bafflegarble nonsense and concluded the man is mentally unstable and absolutely wrong and a liar. I can’t reconcile that with being intelligent, but strictly speaking, that is an error on my part conflating ethics and sanity with intelligence.
Vox concluded that Doug Wilson is a gatekeeper but still keeps tabs on him clearly, which is understandable, as I keep tabs on other gatekeepers like Milo and EM Jones and Taylor Marshall and so on. But perhaps does not condemn him as thoroughly as I do, and perhaps, in general he might not condemn the gatekeepers as thoroughly as I do. I may be wrong, but I suspect he is more forgiving than I am on such matters.
Anyway, to examine the post in more detail:
I will first note that this is precisely the same defense that is regularly offered up on behalf of other gatekeepers like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, and also of books like the Harry Potter series. Don’t criticize the obvious errors and the demonstrable falsehoods when they are otherwise doing so much good? Don’t you understand that if they tell the truth instead of lying, they won’t be able to reach as many of those who need the truth? Isn’t it better that they read godless tales of evil being portrayed as good than not read at all?
And the answer is no. This is a false, pernicious, and fundamentally short-sighted perspective. It is less a defense than an attempt to negotiate a guilty plea in exchange for a lesser penalty.
And so far we are in absolute agreement. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that it is better to leave aborigines in jungles alone and not instruct them at all than to instruct them with Protestantism. Because as per Church doctrine, a savage that has never heard of Christ might yet enter heaven judged by God on the merits of his own conscience, but one that has taken on a perverse version of Christianity is far less likely to escape the mortal sins of pride and in essence, choosing “me and my way” over “God and His ways”. I have always had the same idea. I met some of the last Khoi San that were free of any influence from so-called civilised men, and I found them to be honest, reliable, friendly, and just. Their society might be very primitive, but within the confines of that limitation they were essentially innocent and good people. Take a couple of generations of essentially Protestant “education” and a previously scrupulously honest primitive people become dishonest, haphazard, unpredictable and liable to suffer from everything to alcoholism to being criminals.
Let me be perfectly clear: No one who advocates equality of any kind, and no one who is a civic nationalist of any variety, and no one who falsely asserts that which is not a sin is a sin, should ever be considered a genuine or reliable advocate of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, no matter what their other positive attributes might be.
Because liars cannot, and will not, defend the truth. They will always produce one reason or another for refusing to do so. And if you are foolish enough to trust or follow a liar, you will come to regret it, as all of you – and readers here should recall, the vast majority of you – who used to lionize Jordan Peterson and consider him to be a great intellectual champion should know.
Again, I agree whole-heartedly. Although, I realise Vox here was referring specifically to Civic Nationalism and so on, the fact remains that:
no one who falsely asserts that which is not a sin is a sin, should ever be considered a genuine or reliable advocate of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, no matter what their other positive attributes might be.
And this remains the absolute point for me which I cannot reconcile with Vox’s theology.
Vox, is, after all, a Protestant. A very unique one he might be, but he (as far as I know) does not subscribe to the rules of the Catholic Church as per the Code of Canon Law of 1917 which in essence simple explains/extrapolates from both the Bible and Catholic (Christian) Tradition and has compiled and summarised all the various extrapolations, dictates, and dogma of the Catholic Church into one volume that covers all of those documents from the period of human history up to the year 1917. As a Catholic, you then may also wish to add the Papal ex-cathedra commentaries made from 1917 to 1958. After that we have not had any valid Popes since, so everything else can be safely ignored.
I am fairly sure Vox has not read the Code of Canon Law. And if he did I think the things he might object to are probably not as many as he might envision, but I am (foggily) aware he has some issue with some aspects of Mariology, though I am not sure what they are. I feel fairly confident he is well-read enough to be aware that Catholics do not actually “worship” Mary, but simply ask for her intercession, as we do to various Saints. In essence, the difference between catholics and Protestants is that we don’t stop communicating with our dead friends and people. We pray for them and we also ask them to pray for us.
One of the only times we briefly discussed my Catholicism (sedevacantism) and I pointed out some of the main issues he immediately said words to the effect of “Oh, well, those are Catholics I can get behind”. So again, I doubt the differences between us are huge in terms of theology.
He also agrees with me that in general humans need rules, otherwise they will pretty much eat each other alive in the street, which, to a certain extent we are starting to really see on a global level when Christianity fades.
We are also both smart enough understand that, while perhaps a certain optional rule for people may not really be designed for me or him specifically, we can’t really have rules for thee but not for me. And if there are exceptions, they should be based on sound reasoning, logic, and justice, not personal preference. So, in short, I ask myself:
“Why is Vox not actually a sedevacantist?”
I am presently only aware of one possible hitch which is his specific interpretation of the Trinty. Which I will not attempt to speak for him on as I would probably get it wrong. For myself, I do not pretend to know the intricacies of the Trinity, and I am perfectly happy to act in this regard very much as an illiterate peasant from the year 800. The Church says the Trinity works thusly, and I accept it as a given. I see no possible profit in trying to atomise that concept, nor do I have any interest in it.
While I may atomise the concept of not duelling and understand it very well, and instinctively want to say: “But Bishop, I don’t want to run that guy through with a rapier because I am proud, but because he defrauds little old ladies and steals candy from children, and blasphemes! C’MAWN…Just this one (ok, half-dozen) time?!” But intellectually I understand I must just bow my head and NOT challenge the man to a duel to the death. And if I do confront him, it would be a sin to smack the living crap out of him until he makes amends. I know that. Which makes it a bad sin. But… y’know… I’m only human. Maybe next time I’ll give him a warning first. You know, if I really see the error of my ways. Otherwise all I can do is really try to work on it over time. But in the meantime: no duels have been had. #winning.
So, it might be an intellectual disparity, perhaps the things that interest Vox to dissect are so different from the ones that interest me that it causes him a problem with Catholicism. And this, THIS is the real interest to me.
What are those details? Is he seeing something I am not, or is it vice-versa? Or is there a third possibility that we are both missing?
Such conversations, or investigations, if you prefer, are what fascinates me, and the ones that I think help us to see more truth when done with an intellectually honest person that is also curious enough and interested enough to examine such details.
I seem to recall for example that Vox also labelled Once Saved Always Saved as a retarded concept (he may have been more polite about it) and I would expect he similarly considers Sola Scriptura as absurd, but I never asked him the question. I also seem to recall that his generic approach to the Bible was not that this or that version was “better” but to just read one and go with it as best you can, which is “close enough” for really about 99.99% of people.
I suspect that his avoidance of hardcore Catholicism is linked to what he believes are “lies” or untruths that the Catholic Church has as various dogmas. What these are, however I am unaware, and it is my experience that most such ideas are usually rooted in some Protestant fake news about Catholicism. Several aspects of which, honest historians like Rodney Stark have pointed out even though they are not Catholics.
At any rate, I would certainly be interested in looking at what the differences between his and my theological philosophies are.
I suspect he doesn’t have the time, but the invitation is open.
UPDATE: A reader pointed out I have not explained the absolute point that anyone who advocates that a sin is not a sin should not be trusted. As often happens with me, I thought the point was obvious, but I failed to realise it is not as obvious to many as I think. So, to clarify, The very concept of Protestantism that each man can interpret the Bible as he wishes, is a pernicious sin of pride. Even the sola scriptura retards must know that man is perfectly honest, clean and good as well as smart and reasonable. It very clearly states this in Hebrews and elsewhere if memory serves.
Secondly, it is just as obvious that a good and loving God would not leave a DYI kit for interpreting His Will and what the rules He wishes us to follow are. Because given the fact we are all a bunch of retards to one degree or other, we are guaranteed to screw it up. And the idea a flawless and loving God would leave us a flawed theology is equally retarded.
Therefore, a FLAWLESS theology MUST exist. And there must be a way to know which it is. As it happens, there is. Jesus Appointed Peter as the Head of His Church, instructed the Apostles to teach His teachings and Paul tells us also that we are to reject things that are not as per their teachings as given to them by Jesus (that is, Apostolic succession, is a thing).
All of which would still screw up if it were not for the fact that Jesus also told us He would be with us to the end of time. Now, if Jesus is with us always to the end, and He commanded the Apostles to teach what He taught them, then their teachings cannot be in error. Not because even the Apostles are flawless, but because Jesus is.
That is the whole point of Papal infallibility. It’s not due to some superhuman characteristic of Popes. There have been plenty of greedy, power-hungry, deviants as Popes, but they did not teach erroneous dogma when speaking ex-cathedra because of the supernatural protection due to Jesus’ promise. Who can speak erroneous or wrong doctrine? People who are not protected by Jesus’ promise and who is that? People who are not the foundation on which the rock is based, which has two parts. The non visible supreme one, Jesus, and his vicar on Earth, which is the man holding the position that Peter held as leader of the Apostles.
18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Priests can lie or be wrong. Bishops can lie or be wrong. Popes can lie or be wrong. But valid, legitimate Popes talking officially for the entire Church on matters of faith and morals, that is the foundational principles of Christianity, cannot be wrong. Again, not because they are infallible in and of themselves, but because Jesus specifically said he was specifically with them to the End of the World. And Jesus cannot be wrong, nor is he a liar. And what He taught the apostles is true and He also specifically stated he would build the Church on Peter,, renaming him from Simon to Peter, which in Latin, Aramaic and most Latin languages literally means Rock.
Regardless of whatever brain-twisting Protestants come up with to try and say Jesus didn’t mean or say what he meant and said, even a child can understand that if someone says, to a guy called Simon:
“Hey buddy, come here, gonna run a little test by you…”
And he does, and Simon passes, and the guy says:
“You know what buddy, I’m gonna call you Rock from now on, and on this rock, I will build my church.” It’s a fairly clear point that Good old Simon/Rock, is now the head of the Church. Seriously, a child gets it. You need to be indoctrinated into lies from birth not to see this as it is.
So, the first lie is to tell people that to not be Catholic is not a sin. It is. You’re ignoring God’s Will. And the entire retinue of sins that follows from anyone following that advice is literally endless. And frankly, it ALL stems from pride to begin with. Some German fattie with a penchant for sexing up nuns and raping maids and swearing and calling reason literally “the whore of the devil”, comes along some 1500 years after Christ and the Catholic Church which has been the ONLY valid Christianity to that point and he FIXES everything? It’s moronic. Jesus didn’t say:
“Oh, by the way, all the people for the next 1500 years or so that call themselves Christians, and all the Popes which everyone agrees for that long are the main dudes, yeah, well, forget about all of them, they are all wrong and Pagan worshippers that ask my mother and a bunch of dead guys of no importance whatsoever to put in a good word for them with me. Anyway, all those guys? Going straight to Hell. Only when that rotund German with the beer and all the sex comes along will AKCHUAL Christianity be fixed. And he will do it by changing the Bible before he says it’s the only thing you should refer to at all. But only the one he changed, not the one everyone used for 1200 or so years and that was put together by the same Catholics who got it all wrong. And oh that Bible that the German guy changed, which was also changed by the Pahrisees, you know, the guys who had me killed, for 700 years before him, that’s the good Bible, scrap that other one. And oh, oh, one more thing: The best Bible, it’s the one with 33,000 translation errors ordered to be put together by a flamingly homosexual English King. Jimmy boy, that’s his name. He also starts up the Freemasons, which are Satanists, but don’t let that bug ya, seriously, his version of the Bible is the best one.”
I watch and listen, on and off, when I have some spare time, to the videos of Pietro Bisanti, they are in Italian so this will not apply to too many people in terms of those bilingual enough to see them for themselves. But Mr. Bisanti does speak and I am sure reads English quite well, so I will be sending him a link.
A quick summary before I criticise the man, and I think he is intelligent enough to realise that unlike some idiots he recently lambasted (rightly) for being Internet drama queens/grifters and various species of retards, I do so, not with the intent to reduce him in any way, but, since he is a let’s say semi-public persona, being on the internet of his own volition, and dispenses general advice and his opinions of life, the universe and everything, I think it’s fair for me to comment on them when I think he is doing a MASSIVE error and thereby also leading others astray. Fair enough that most who listen to him don’t listen to me and we do so in different languages, but you never know, and in any case, the issue is a global one that I recently addressed with respect to Karl Denninger on this very blog, so, although Bisanti is GenX and not a boomer, he is not going to be immune to a similar beam of light on him, highlighting a more typically Millennial disease, which, however, also afflicts a few GenXers.
Bisanti was an ex-Carabinieri (Italian Military Police) who became Maresciallo (usually the head guy at a station as far as I know) and worked as a Carabiniere for over 20 years. Today he works as a legal consultant and “igenista” which is, at my rough understanding, a guy who preoccupies himself with how different foods and activities and so on affects your health, including mental health, and who looks at health in general. He admits he made several errors over his journey in this field, being a vegan and a fruitarian at different times, which he states were both mistakes. He also suffered the usual “vaccines” for military service, but as far as I know refused all the covid nonsense.
I can’t really comment on his food-related stuff, as I am generally ignorant of it and I also tend to be supremely uninterested in that stuff since I can’t figure out the truth of various statements without doing my own research and I think it would take years of study and testing to know with any precision. Plus, I think each person is a little different, so, in my 54 years on this Earth I figured out what works for me mostly, and I try to stay within certain parameters and as I age I try to be a bit more careful. My personal favourite would be to eat mostly fish and other generally white meat that is healthy and natural with the occasional steak and some salads and some fruit and so on, otherwise I avoid grains and generally that’s about it, but I am not against the odd drink, or even, once in a blue moon, a cigar.
So my commentary has nothing to do with his primary chosen career, in which he gives seminars around Italy.
No, my commentary today comes only as a result of noting over the last year or two, that when Mr. Bisanti talks about women, relationships, marriage and children, his view can essentially be summarised as mostly negative.
Now, unlike a lot of the incels, would-be pagans, and MGTOW chronic masturbators, I don’t think Bisanti has or would have any real issues to get with women for a sexual relationship. He’s confident and fairly level-headed, has a generally healthy approach to reality as far as I can tell (except in this area I am going to gently rake him over the coals for) and I am sure there would be no shortage of female companionship if he actively searched for it. And yet…
Let me first point out, in no specific order, some of the comments he made that are so wrong that it caused me to think to write this post, in the (vain I am sure) hope he maybe takes a step back and reconsiders a few things and thereby also, I sincerely hope, improve his life, as well as perhaps give better general advice on the topic to his many followers. After each point, I will also critique as relevant. This should give a fairly comprehensive perspective of the man and his views, after which I can present my conclusions.
He commented on a documentary he says he saw based on some African tribe in Tanzania if memory serves me, where he said the general attitude was that the various adults would all have sex with whomever they fancied that was up for it, and there was no jealousy, possession, and so on, and —in essence— he thought this was a good thing (as well as believed it apparently). In short, a bit of the same concept of “free love” of the 60’s boomers.
Now… having lived in Africa for some 25 years, I can say that on hearing this comment of his I actually burst out laughing. Because I would bet you any amount of money that this fantasy place and tribe, is a pure myth invented by the producers of the ridiculous documentary. That is not to say that there aren’t rides or people in Africa that copulate with each other more or less with the same kind of abandon than a troop of bonobos. In fact, generally, in Africa this is not uncommon. But if you think that all the consequent jealousies, bitterness, and yes, assaults, violence and murder don’t go hand in hand with such practices, well, then, like our Mr. Bisanti, I can summarise your view as: “Tell me you have never been to Africa and don’t know a damned thing about it or its people, without telling me…” And yes I know Africa is vast and has many people and many tribes of Africans on it. And my statement remains unchanged. But to give you a perspective, think of the average hippie commune, be it in Europe or America, where it was Caucasians that tried this sort of “free love” experiment and then look at the results. It’s much the same. With quite a lot less murder, generally speaking, but really in no way a recipe for happiness.
On the video I saw today he said that if you live with a woman she:
Dictates the rules
Uses up all your time
Doesn’t let you pursue your interests
In general that basically a relationship or a marriage is a miserable way of living
Now, we all have our trauma, I am sure, and I am the first to admit that as a general rule the average Italian woman, compared to other nationalities I am familiar with, are more of a clingy, whiny, pain in the ass, but as always, that is a generalisation. And there are Italian women too that are far from it, as always, you gotta know what you want and what you’re getting into. But in all the relationships I had no woman ever “used up all my time” and sure as death and taxes, no woman I lived with “made all the rules”. Mostly because the very idea is absurd as far as I am concerned. The only “rules” any adult normal person should need are the basic ones of civilised behaviour towards each other and then whatever quirks you may have you need to adjust for each other. As for any woman not letting me pursue my interests, again, I am wondering what kind of women the man got with, or maybe I am wrong and he is a kind of incel. I just can’t fathom it.
I pursued things I wanted to do without that even ever being an issue. I trained in martial arts most of my life and pursued plenty of other things, I wrote books, scuba dived, learn and practiced hypnosis, travelled a whole bunch, enjoyed target shooting, hunting, and probably a dozen other things I was interested in and did for some time that I am just not even remembering right now. And while relationships that go wrong can be the source of the worst pain you may ever feel (yes, I am a survivor, please donate generously) they also represent the source of the best joy one can ever feel too. The fact that Bisanti seems to think the negatives outweigh the positives, does give me several clues about him and/or his life.
Children are NOT the source of joy. In fact he categorically stated that in the main, children are not a source of happiness.
Here I need to take a little pause to try to understand if the man even has the same definition I have for happiness, or if he has the same one that 19 year old bubble-heads on tik-tok have for it. So let me explain my definition. Happiness was one of those words that I asked myself if I knew what it was and remained mute to myself. Quite a bit like love. For a long time, I would think: “Am I happy?” And not really know how to answer that. Similarly, I’d meet or be with a girl, that I found interesting, or attractive, or sexy, and I’d ask myself “Is this love?” And again remain mute to the reply. I didn’t know.
Perhaps my own level of self-awareness is well beyond that of normal people, it’s possible, but I recall the very first time I realised what happiness was. I was 26 and driving a beat up old VW Golf and wherever I was headed I was contemplating this sensation that I had achieved a couple of times when doing karate kata repeatedly and non-stop, to the point that I could barely lift my arms and legs anymore, then, breaking through the exhaustion barrier, I got a sensation like a kind of light inside my head and then I could carry on a lot longer and nothing felt heavy anymore. It was like being a little in a dream but fully focussed and calm and the movements just came naturally. I knew about breaking through that wall of resistance from swimming years earlier, but the experience when doing kata was markedly different. In swimming I would just become like a kind of human robot, just moving, moving, moving, tumble, twist, turn, push off, moving, moving and so on, length after length of the pool. But this brightness, this kind of light in the middle of my head, felt different and it was while driving in my beat up blue and white VW that I realised “Oh! that’s what happiness is!” Finally I knew this word. And that is what I think objective happiness is like. It is a kind of unexpected consequence of something you do, you need to do, you want to do, you should do, you must do, duty means you do it, desire means you do it, all of the above. And eventually, if you do it well enough and deep enough, and hard enough, you get this pervasive sensation of happiness.
Yes, yes, I realise how sexual the above description sounds, and many women in my past no doubt recognise the issue. You’re all welcome.
But seriously, the point is that happiness is not about you getting everything you want on a silver platter with no effort. That’s not happiness. Nor is it the whine of the tik-tokker that wants the white knight with a Ferrari and the millions who is sensitive but also takes charge and who loves hearing her talk about the mindless minutia of her day.
Conclusions
In short, Mr. Bisanti probably has a somewhat limited perspective on the women of the world, being mostly familiar with Italian ones. Perhaps his specific brand of personality attracts especially clingy and/or “we must be serious about the relationship by doing x y and z” types (something I suspect, as he tends to be a pretty intense and decisive guy, so maybe a woman naturally thinks she should be too, so as to keep up with him, when usually, the opposite is more true).
Perhaps he’s just had a run of bad luck in his relationships. And undoubtedly, he also has bought into the boomer rhetoric of “free love”, which I understand, I had a somewhat similar approach to sex and women for some years after I decided that obviously I wasn’t cut out for long term relationships since the two major ones I had had had failed and the next two did too in a much shorter time period. After that, as soon as a woman irritated me I nexted her, and I did that for a long while. But then I realised that way of living was really ultimately quite unsatisfying. Perhaps Bisanti hasn’t quite reached that point yet, even though he is 48. On the other hand, all the Boomer nonsense people of his and my generation were marinated in, does tend to retard the process of realising certain things, especially about relationships.
He mentions however that he is the third of 11 children. Which mystifies me even more with his view of children. And says that at his mother’s house he never feels harassed, people talk if they want to, don’t if they don’t want to and everyone is chilled. Well, why should it be any different in your own house with a woman you choose to be with?
Maybe he just hasn’t found the right one? But I doubt it. I think that despite Mr. Bisanti being moderately intelligent and decently in touch with reality as it is, including on many aspects that it is quite hard for many people to realise, never mind speak openly about, be it the covid lies, immigration, crime and justice and so on, the man has been embittered.
I think he has let whatever negative crap he saw or sees daily affect him in a terribly sad way. And this is almost certainly the result of Mr. Bisanti being a reasonable man.
Luckily I was never afflicted by this pernicious issue of being a reasonable man. As I think Mark Twain said (I may be wrong), reasonable men see the world as it is and adapt to it. Unreasonable men see the world as it is and unreasonably expect it to adapt to them. So all human progress, is the result of unreasonable men. Which, in essence, is basically true. Sadly, most unreasonable men are also usually neuroatypical, and we polite, mild-mannered, Aspergers types are heavily outnumbered by the psychotic narcissists. But there it is.
And sure, life can always throw you absolutely unexpected and vile curve-balls; but buddy, Pietro, if you expect anything of worth to just stumble into your lap and “make you happy” you seriously have it wrong.
And if you expect your children to be a constant source of joyous entertainment, again, you are probably prancing in meadows looking for fucking unicorns too, but that’s not the point. Because even when at 3 am, covered in baby projectile vomit, all in your bed, and a leaky diarrhoea-filled nappy is dribbling all over you as you try to get the little bundle of screaming snot to a dry spot to clean him off, when you look into the face of that little dude with snot-running down his face, hiccuping and tear-filled, you can only feel love and the sensation that you wish you had all his troubles so he’d feel better. And buddy, no amount of tik-tok “happiness” or dozens of nymphomaniac sluts with model looks trying to drain you dry even begins to compare.
And that’s the bad days. The good days are truly awesome. You’re basically watching a sacred soul grow and learn and evolve in this world and you somehow had a part in making that happen and you will continue to do so until you drop dead yourself. And if I have any say in it, you’ll still look over them even after your body here has rotted away to dust.
You’re thinking too small Pietro.
You’re missing out on what really matters.
You’ve been afflicted by the Italian sadness. A thing I noted even as a teenager when I came here on holiday. Oppressed and squished economically and mentally and in so many other ways, the mind, the intellect, the imagination, the soul, of the average Italian was so limited. So incapable of imagining bigger and better things and then doing insane stuff to make them happen. Mind you it is not limited to Italy, I recall at age 16 when I was new in the UK and at school I asked one of the guys there what his life dreams were, the reply I got was:
Oh I’d like to just get married, and have like… two cars, a couple of kids, a nice house…
I looked at him incredulously and said:
“Man, that’s what happens if you just sit on your ass and do nothing. Don’t you want to sail the world in a 70 foot trimaran with an all female crew? Drive a Ferrari, something?!”
I’ve never forgotten his reply, and to this day it sends shiver of mediocrity down my spine: “Oh,” he said, “that only happens in the movies.”
I replied:”For you, with that attitude, that’s definitely the case.”
Now, as it happens I have not sailed the world in a 70 foot trimaran with an all female crew. Mostly because to get that trimaran is a lot of really hard work, and so is sailing really, and it really was much easier to experience the all-female crew on dry land one at a time (well, not at the same time anyway), and travel the world by aeroplane. And I did a bunch of other stuff and saw and experienced things that even most super-rich people who never have to work haven’t seen or experienced, and certainly not the way I did.
Sure, my life has had extremely deep pits of pain and heartache, but so what? I have experienced peaks of ecstasy, human intimacy, and love that few men get to experience in their life. I don’t really regret any of it. A life well-lived is indeed, and adventure. And you know what they say about adventures: They make great stories after you’ve survived them.
If you survive them.
So, my sincere wish for Mr. Bisanti, and all those like him, is to shake your fossilised little heart and brains up. Consider why you have such a dismal view of relationships. I am certain I have been through far worse heartache as a result of women than Mr. Bisanti ever has, or is likely to, and yet I never felt as negative and downcast about the concept of living with one woman for the rest of my days, and making children with her, as poor Pietro is.
In the last video I saw, here, about 7 minutes in, he states that those people who would criticise him and try to present their marriage as blissful paradise are liars, who might even lie to others or themselves, but can’t fool him.
Well, man, you’re just plain wrong. No marriage is all bliss and tik-tok “happiness”. None. Also, you can’t find any Unicorns or Pegasi. I know, the Pegasi thing especially is a cruel lie, but then I think it comes from Islam, so what do you expect. But I guarantee you man, some marriages absolutely can be like karate kata happiness. If you work hard enough and pour sweat and tears and blood out of you enough and you picked the right one, nothing compares. Really. Nothing does.
As a result of the last post, on SG the discussion had various points. One of the (many) poorly understood “red pills” that are probably the result of your average incel believing/taking advice from your average PUA, is this idea that women should not have an education.
In typical incel fashion, the pagans, the “red pilled” retards, and so on, seem to think that the general aim for humanity is for women not only to reject feminism (a good thing), but also to be semi-literate baby machines (not a good thing – the semi literate part. Like it or not, only women can make babies and everyone normal is fine with it. I know, shocker!).
That may work for you if you are of a certain religious persuasion that tends to hang around camels as nomads in the desert, but by and large is not a great idea for a happy marriage. At least, certainly not for me.
The problem is not a woman being well educated. The problem is if she buys into the feminist and other utter idiocy that the nonsense farms (colleges, universities, schools in general) put on blast every day you are there.
Even in the past, it was thought that for a woman to be well-read was a bonus. And personally, I have always been quite impressed by those women I came to know that had a varied and sometimes surprising number and type of books that they had read.
My wife has a facility with words for example and she is usually way ahead of me in things like anagrams, or play on words, and puns that I dare not repeat, for they are truly awful, as puns are meant to be. But more recently, she has even begun to mix English and Italian words into new constructions. Piggolina for example a mix of Piglet and Piccolina, for our second youngest, who has yet to find a food she does not like munching on.
And although she has not exactly had time since we have been together, she enjoyed reading Jane Eyre and is quite particular about enunciating words correctly and so on. She even managed to read through a couple or three of my fictions books. At least one before we were even together, a feat I don’t think many (any?) women accomplished, including the previous ex-wives. More importantly, I can talk with her about pretty much any topic and receive a reasonable feedback. You know, in the fleeting moments between various work things, and one or more of the five children climbing a wall after some fashion, needing to eat, or get changed, or somehow interrupting in new and varied ways.
The point is that a good education is a good thing, as long as the basics of life are understood. And increasingly, it looks like going back to earlier paper versions of books is really a good idea. I have four daughters, and while I do hope they find good men early and make lots of babies and live happily ever after, I fully intend to see to it they have a decent grasp of logic, reasoning in general, mathematics, and language(s), as well as reading and writing skills that are today seen as exemplary, but that in my day and opinion are merely normal. And if they should pick up how to change a tire, clean out a carburettor, fire a few types of weapons, survey a parcel of land, balance accounting books, and (please God) learn to operate the sewing machine stored in the side room, well, so much the better.
Which reminds me, Vox recently pointed out that books 1 to 8 I believe, of the Castalia House junior classics, are ready for shipping. And you can pick up the entire ebook set for $35 right now, so although if you can get the paper version it’s safer from the EMP strikes of nuclear war, and thus more reliable for when you’re hunkered down in your bunker, it’s certainly a good investment of great stories you can read to your children and then pass on for them to read to theirs eventually.
Along with a hand-written manual with a few blood spots on it of how to survive and navigate our own fast-approaching version of Alpha Complex.
I have criticised the boomer Karl Denninger before. Here, and here.
And now I will do it again, but on an entirely different basis, which actually ties in with a MUCH larger picture I have been trying to explain to other people for a long time.
In fairness to him, I think his overall point is not necessarily that high IQ, K-select people should not have children, as many have accused him of doing. I am quite sure he is merely pointing out why it is unlikely that they will. And insofar as his boomer level of analysis goes, he is “right”. That is, the average NPC will think and “reason” much along the lines Karl indicates. So my critique is not really with his observation of all the negative facts he points out. In the main he is “correct” about his individual examples of reasons why people are less likely to choose to have children.
The desirable people he and I both mean, that is, high IQ, K-select, generally honest and responsible, and reliable people with a good sense of justice, common sense and the ability to do at least decent levels of logic, math, writing and reading comprehension.
But as usual, Karl is missing the big picture. As is typical of the boomer mentality, that thinks primarily in terms of me, me, me, and even when describing global events is guided by their perennial laser-like focus on how anything affect them in the specific, he seems largely incapable of the very concept of synergism.
It is a rare skill generally, but it happens that some of us (mostly GenX) are naturally talented at it, so allow me to point out the errors of his thinking, starting from the exact opposite direction that boomer thinking begins at: that is, the REALLY big pictures frames first. The ones that ignore us, that is you and me specifically completely. Here we go:
1. Nature doesn’t care about you specifically
In the big scheme of things, those who do not reproduce sufficiently die out. Nature is pretty brutal about it and tends to operate on the principles of large numbers. And exceptions to that rule because of different large numbers.
It may just be humanity’s lot that we go the way of mouse utopia aka Universe 25. In which case, we’re all doomed and so are all our children. And if so, why worry about it. Worrying about it would be a total waste of time. Besides which you do NOT know this for certain, so assuming it off the bat is an error. So, as a function of reason and logic, this specific idea must be ignored.
Treating it as valid or true can only lead you to depression and misery in a situation where your irrational belief in a “certainty” you cannot possibly know is a certainty, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This point alone, the Universe 25 possibility, should make it obvious that similar thoughts that lead down similar (if less total) outcomes are also to be ignored.
So for example, the idea that “all white people will soon be extinct” or “high IQ people do not breed together because there is not enough of them” or the more common “marriage and children is a loser’s game because all women are whores and will divorce-rape you” and all the various variants of that kind, are in essence self-fulfilling, loser’s bets on life. The fact that your specific marriage may turn into a hellscape, or your specific life becomes a dead end is not relevant to the entire sub-species you represent.
Yes nature does not care about you specifically, but you specifically can and do affect nature. Make 15 children and chances are most of them survive. If they all too make 15 children from age 20 on, like you did, guess what the landscape of your tribe looks like 100 years from now if you just start out with you and your wife as Adam and Eve? On that basis, starting with you and your wife having had 15 children by the time you are both say 40, if all your children and theirs and so on do the same, meaning that every 40 years they all have a batch of 15 children each, if you lived to be 140, you would have over 17 thousand descendants. 17,275 to be exact. And if the average age of death was say 80, then almost all of them would still be alive, since the first iteration (at year 20) is only 135 people. And that’s only ONE family. Imagine if you have ten such families in the same area. You now have a small nation after one century. Which in the scheme of things is not so much time. And if the genetic serums actually sterilise and wipe out most of humanity, you will not only be a small nation, you will be the majority within it. And it might not be such a small geographical area after all. Now imagine them all of the same religion that takes no crap from depopulationist satanists like Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates and their pedophile friends.
“But people don’t make 15 children each, and how do you feed them all, and send them to college?!?”
Patience grasshopper. People who bought the lies and live in clown world no longer make 15 children. But people did do that for centuries in Catholic countries. And that was before the internet, and Amazon deliveries, and often before indoor plumbing and central heating, and certainly before electricity and tractors and industrial fertilisers and automated harvesting machines… so let that sink in a little and park it in your brain somewhere while we continue to look at reality and possibilities instead of the ghosts boomers put in your head.
“But even if smart white people with good ethics, strong Catholic religious beliefs and enough money/land/whatever start reproducing at that ridiculous and unrealistic rate, they will still be outnumbered by the millions of dumb, brown, evil, people!”
First of all, even if things were reduced to that simplistic level of thinking, realise that the number of white people on the planet always was a minority when compared to the number of non-white people. And probably always will be.
Remember when I said nature doesn’t care about you specifically and operates on the principle of large numbers, with the exception of other large numbers? White people, and the Japanese, are two such examples, just to pick a couple. Despite not being a majority, white people have managed to secure lands and space for themselves very successfully over the millennia. A combination of strong imagination, higher average IQ, and religious beliefs that fostered high-trust and co-operation, served them well when they ejected infiltrating and noxious tribes, ethnicities and behaviours, which they did in the past with ferocious attitudes.
Similarly the Japanese have retained a really quite unique culture on this planet by similarly ruthlessly avoiding to entertain the admixing of their population with the teeming masses.
A perhaps even more shocking example is Catholicism itself, which around 400 AD or thereabouts, when it really was a dark time on pretty much all fronts for humanity in general and Catholics (i.e. the only Christians that ever existed) in particular, St. Benedictine decided to retire to some apparently godforsaken regions and start monasteries. And some 600 years later, the Catholic world was (and remained for a long time) the utter pinnacle of human achievement in everything from the arts, to the courage of men, the safety of lands that were previously the domain of brigands, the ending of women and children as chattel, and generally the betterment of humanity as a whole while being perfectly capable and able to fight back against less civilised barbarians that hounded them.
And keep in mind that Catholic monks do not even reproduce at all! But just by their influence, they firstly created self-sustaining monasteries, then spread the gospel and civilisation all round them, so much so that they even converted the Vikings that used to raid and murder them mercilessly, by giving them lands and asking for their protection. And after a couple of centuries, those same blonde giants were off to the Crusades to defend Christendom. All this was supposedly impossible if you accept Denninger’s base premise which is simply that basic math has all the answers.
Basic math has a lot of the answers, but life is always more interesting that that. As I wrote almost 30 years ago, in original version of The Face on Mars published in 1995, when dealing with math and reality, the theory looks like 1+2=3 or perhaps x+2=3 so we can figure out x easily. In theory.
Better scientists realise that things are a bit more like x+y=3 so both x and y can have a wide range of values. And synergists like me realise life is most accurately described as x+y=z, where both x and y and even z have ranges of probabilities and while computers can in theory predict things very accurately (if the input data is very accurate) they cannot and will not ever be able to account for human nature and reality as a whole. Because the fly in the teleporting machine, the asteroid against the dinosaurs, and the “crazy” St. Benedict, or the iron minded King Leonidas, will throw your entire large number theory set right out the window. And in fact, a human mind that can see these patterns of relationships and figure them out analogously, usually has a better chance of getting it right than any computer prediction of the future.
So. The realisation from point number one is that while nature does not care about you specifically, you specifically can affect nature. Crazy as that sounds. And the main item required for you to have a chance to do so? Unreasonable belief that defies current “popular” thinking, but is based in sound synergistic principles, like large number theory, persistence, and of course, the most successful human belief system ever used by humans, actual Catholicism.
2. Becoming that different large number.
If you want to avoid becoming the leaf in the stream that just ends up being compost, and if your entire tribe, way of life, family, looks like it is just being carried on by world events, guess what, you need to become one of those large numbers that is the exception to the large number concept that you will become extinct. How do you do that? Simple, really, if you think about it.
By being utterly passionate, unreasonable, counter-intuitively absurdly dedicated and persistent, over an equally absurd, unreasonable and “crazy” length of time. St. Benedict didn’t just decide to try his hand at monastery creation and life for a few years. He spent the rest of his life doing it. Relentlessly.
The reason I have achieved so many different things, visited so many places, speak three languages fluently and a couple or three others haltingly, and learnt so many different skills at a high level enough that I could reasonably be considered a professional at several very different endeavours, is because I simply put in more time, more effort, more obsessive thought and action into those things that interested me than most people do, and even than most supposed “professionals” in that field do in many cases.
So, if you want your DNA to make it, you need to go counter to the zeitgeist. Which is healthy in any case since the current “Western” zeitgeist is that you should submit to different cultures and ethnicities than your own. That the family unit is evil, marriage terrible, and making children a very selfish thing unworthy of civilised people. Oh and you should also be gay. Or a cross-dressing, self-mutilating tranny. And make your kids, if you were so unwise to have any, become gay, underage drag queens too.
Really, regardless of your intentions, going 180 degrees away from the current zeitgeist in the West is healthier than not doing so on any scale. But if you want to go the whole hog, then peruse this blog and the various articles I wrote on farming, beating clown world, and so on, and above all realise two things:
Yes it’s hard. Very. Get used to it. It’s just how it is.
Win. Build it. Find the impossible way. Keep getting back up and keep saying “Fuck them”. Eventually everyone dies, so make your life here count.
You overcome the statistics of nature by becoming your own large number anomaly. So git to it, you unreasonable madman.
3. The black pill is a lie.
All fear is a lie, ultimately. And the black pill of doom and gloom is pure fear-based poison. It doesn’t matter what type of fear it is. Fear you will not have a job. Fear you will not have enough money. Fear you will hate your life. Fear you will be a bad parent. Fear your kids will suffer. Fear you can’t do it. Fear you will fail. Fear.
Well, let me reassure you: You will lose your job. Somewhere along the line, if you haven’t yet, you will. You will never have enough money. Never. Elon Musk still doesn’t. Just ask him. Your life will have giant events of major suckage in it. Everyone’s does. You will fuck up multiple aspects of parenting. Everyone does. Your best bet is to keep the damage to a minimum and try and ensure your children understand reality and still love you when they are all grown up. Your kids will suffer. Everyone does. You will fail. Multiple times, at multiple things. You will feel fear in your life. Many times for many different reasons.
There. Got all that? Good. Now get off your ass and go do all those scary things anyway.
No one learnt to walk without falling down. A lot.
No one learnt to read and write without scrawling and misspelling first. A lot.
No one has achieved great things without persistently improving on his or her own screw ups. Failing is not the problem. Quitting is. So, as I explained, become your own large number anomaly. And if God is gracious he will give you enough of a brain to realise the miracle point of when it is not worth bashing your head into the same rock and when, instead, doing so, will eventually form a thick enough skin and skull that you will break the rock and break through to a better place.
Life is hard. Bad shit happens. People die. Evil exists. And on and on. So what? You can whine and bitch and cry and hide in a corner and try and have someone, anyone, everyone, feel sorry for you, or you can get up and become a large number anomaly. Them’s the choices, and no one gets a free ride. So pick one. I picked mine long ago.
4. Being afraid of 10 things means you miss the big opportunity.
If you do go and read the whole long litany of fear compiled by Denninger, you might get depressed. You might think he has valid points and they stack. Let me present just one case or two of his flawed theory.
Then you think about the child getting older. He or she is rather bright and would perhaps like a college education. You see the bills pile up on those who are there now, and the growth of that price over the last 20 years. You see $100,000 or more in debt larded up on someone who studies gender or black history and a “professor” who claims that capitalism is horrible — while pulling down a six-figure salary and forcing your child to pay the next kid over’s tuition in Calculus class because you, not your child, have more money than his parents do. You think “oh, my kid is a math whiz and will study programming” which sounded great 20+ years ago but then you remember the many H1bs that multiple large firms brought in to replace all of their American citizen programmers, forcing said Americans to train their replacements before being fired in order to get any severance at all! Thus that $100,000 taken on in debt to go to college, you realize, can be rendered worthless by said corporations even if your kid makes good choices as soon as someone from India will do the work for less money. This wild escalation in the cost of an education is not by random luck either, which would be a risk everyone has to take — three decades ago there was no Internet and colleges were the only real place you could learn a lot of things. Today anyone can learn anything from literally anywhere with nothing more than a $50 cellphone, a $200 laptop and $50/month for Internet service so why has the cost of learning and proving it at a college level of competence gone up by five or more times in the last 30 or so years instead of costing almost nothing to simply take a set of proctored tests and prove competence? Reality is that all of this is due to the deliberate policies and actions of universities, governments and corporations which will screw your child without any possibility of redress when he or she grows up — and there is no evidence that it is slowing down or will be stopped.
So he points out that:
College/University is stupidly expensive
They don’t even teach anything useful in most cases
You can learn most things to a decent level by doing your own research on a $200 laptop
And yet he’s really SOLD on sending kids to college.
Can you see the boomer level thinking? Screw college. Learn how to distinguish and grow the plants that can be used to make tinctures and remedies for various things and sell them only to people who you know. I guarantee you that when the next load of mRNA crap embedded in food, “normal” vaccine shots, or anything else comes along, the people with a still functioning brain will not care too much about your lack of a PhD if the stuff you use on yourself and your loved one works for them too.
Do you really need a degree to be able to put plumbing pipes together, or learn the principles of electrical wiring? Sure, insurance and such is a thing and if you screw things up, or even if you don’t you might be sued into ruin.
Yes, these are real problems, and sometimes have good reasons for being there. I certainly don’t want a pedophile like Oprah’s John of “God” cutting into me or mine as if he were a surgeon. I’d like to know that anyone that needs to actually do a surgery is competent and properly trained; and can in turn be sued into poverty if he screws up because he is not.
But the problem is that over the last 4 years these supposed paragons of ethics have in the main been mass-murdering bastards who lied and lied and lied to your face. Like good old Fauci and his buddies did. So… while I am not really keen on the local witch-doctor’s bone-throwing, the local GP dispensing covid genetic serums is certainly not higher on the totem pole as far as I am concerned, thank you very much. Which means what? It means that firstly I will try to educate myself better. Without the use of google, thanks, because mostly google is also a lie now. And secondly I will go only to people I know, whose work I can personally verify and see for myself by meeting their clients, whatever their field might be.
Denninger hasn’t realised that the entire idea of college is dead. Why would you participate in it other than for a very few and very select reasons, and even then, who knows for how long? Clearly homeschooling and learning your own trade is the way.
Here is another and more “total” point he makes towards the end:
I could go on for hours with this but I think you get the point. People don’t choose to have fewer or no children because “that’s how it is” as technology improves. Technological improvement adds choice but society molds opinions and incentives — for good or bad, like it or not.
People make the decision to not have children not because they’re “selfish” but rather on an entirely-rational basis because they look back at their childhood for the baseline and then forward in time and what they see is not improvement but impoverishment, not prosperity but privation, forced compliance and costs shoved upon them while the mandating parties are immune from consequence even when they’re later proved wrong or worse, someone is injured or killed, rampant illegal immigration and destruction of the common person’s standard of living without boundary along with a documented history of forcing the voluntary costs taken by others down their throats along with myriad scams across the board. When projected forward 20 years they recognize that any child they produce today is highly likely to be screwed blind and has a very low probability of having a good life, say much less a better one than they had.
Indeed if they judge that their childhood sucked they may well expect their kids’ childhoods to suck worse and nobody who actually cares about a child they’re contemplating bringing into the world voluntarily signs them up for that.
The people you want to bring children into the world are those who value children and have reason to believe their children will have at least as a good a life as they grew up with and enjoy now, with hope for even better, never mind a belief that their kids will have a fair shake and rational odds of success if they choose to apply themselves.
All of the policies of the last few decades of both government and industry have demonstrated beyond doubt that none of this is likely to be true and thus only those who don’t give a wet crap about their children’s future, or are so rich they believe they can guarantee it even if everyone else has their standard of living go straight to Hell, choose to reproduce.
About the only truly valid point he makes here is the very first one:
society molds opinions and incentives — for good or bad, like it or not.
That is essentially true. And as I have already pointed out, “society” in general today is very sick. That’s the problem. So what’s the solution? Simple: Firstly, realise, as I have been saying often and repeatedly since age 16, there is no such thing as “society”. It doesn’t exist. What you have is a large number of individuals and the large number probabilities that they produce. In reality you have a large number of in-DUH-viduals, which makes the illusion that such a thing as “society” exists quite realistic, but it doesn’t.
You have essentially zombie hordes. And zombie hordes are easily manipulated and pushed into this or that direction or over this or that cliff or fire-pit. So, as a first step don’t be a zombie. Don’t associate with them. Don’t surround yourself with them.
Secondly, begin the process of isolating yourself from zombies and building up relationships with other human beings. This in itself acts as a already quite a good “wall”, or defence from the zombie hordes, but over time, don’t be shy to build literal walls to keep the zombies out of your areas. And the more humans you have in your community that help to built them, the better.
Thirdly, do not let zombies in at any time. Exclude them and exclude anyone who allows them in the village. This sounds harsh, but is basic survival and also basic game theory. St. Benedict “won” precisely because of this point. He allowed in only Catholic monks that had dedicated themselves not only to Catholicism, but his even stricter rules added to the already rather strict rules for Catholic monks. That unwavering zealotry kept the monasteries pure and therefore effective. A bunch of men who spend all their time, praying, meditating on scripture, and working, will soon produce extremely functional communities. And in fact monasteries became wealthy, for they had a surfeit of food or other things they made, so that they became rich enough they became favourite places for the Vikings to raid. So the Catholic monks co-opted the Vikings too, and now Catholicism also added fearsome, pious warrior types to their ranks, alongside thoughtful, intellectual, pious, and studious ones.
If you refuse to allow any people into your midst that don’t subscribe to your general tribe’s zeitgeist (ideas, religion, world-view), then you cannot be corrupted, And over time, your converting of others increases your number. This is basic game theory and works in the natural world as it does in the abstract one of math. It works because it is again based on the principle of large numbers. A persistent, unexpected, but resilient statistical anomaly, becomes its own statistical normality.
Alongside with not rejecting “society” or if you prefer, forming your own, Denninger is (typical for a boomer) preoccupied with the hypothetical suffering of hypothetical children.
Well, guess what, the very vast majority of human beings, including the ones with really terrible lives, still prefer existing to not existing. We know this because aside from the odd cult, or recently mutilated confused teenager that has been indoctrinated into the child abuse ideology of transgenderism, most human beings don’t commit suicide. So, bad as it might be, life still seems to have the win over non-life. Pretty much for everyone. I know for a fact that every one of my children prefers to be here than not having existed. And it is that way for most people. So suck it up buttercup. Remember how I told you life is hard and everyone suffers? It’s true. But it still beats being dead or non-existent by a couple of light years, never mind country miles.
Finally he tries to justify his own weakness, cowardice and fear by appealing to your own sense of concern for your (hypothetical) children. In a most ridiculous manner if you have followed the discussion up to here; that is, by telling you if you really cared about your children, you wouldn’t have them, because they might suffer.
No Karl, no. They absolutely will suffer. And they will cry and feel pain and heartbreak. And then they will dust themselves off, get up and carry on. And make children of their own and if they need to fight off some evil bastards in the future that I didn’t manage to get to myself before I dropped dead, well, so be it, they will have got as much as they can from me in terms of learning how to do that.
Because guess what, you fragile and egomaniacal boomer, my grandparents went through two world wars, massive economic depression and yes, even lack of food. And they made children too. Otherwise I would not be here. And my children wouldn’t be here. And if I had continued believing the horse-shit your generation still shovels around a bit longer than I did, I might not have had any children at all. Instead now I have five of them. And my own daughter, off her own ideas, with no prompting from me on the matter, because she’s still young for me to discuss such things with her in any detail or seriousness, already has it as a pretty solid idea that she wants to have two children by her mid twenties. And if her babysitting of her younger siblings is anything to go by, she probably will, and be a really good mother at it too. And the smaller ones love each other even as they fight and argue and then play and hug a few minutes later.
Because what you missed Karl, in your ranting and raving at the injustices of the world, is the simple fact that yes, things are bad. And yes they could be better, and yes there is wild evil about, but… on one level or another, it has always been this way. Do you think the Spartans and Athenians about to be wiped out by the Persians had an easier life than you do? Or me?
And they would have been wiped out if it weren’t for a “crazy” guy who took his personal bodyguard to the Hot Gates and held off perhaps up to a million Persians for three or four days.
You Karl, with your fears and your impotent rage, ultimately, are more like a whiny, mostly fake, mostly gay Athenian. Me and mine are more like the Spartans that went with Leonidas. And yes, I include my wife and children in that, because she can keep up with me, which is rare and courageous beyond most women, well-beyond certainly all the normies out there worrying about their pedicure and whether they can land a guy with a six or seven figure salary if they just slut it up enough. And my children are on the same path, which can already be seen by the steps they take and the way they relate to the world and themselves in it.
And am I a lone voice in the wind? No. Not by a long shot.
Every sedevacantist family I know has multiple children, at least 4, and counting. And even we Sedevacantists are not even the only ones.
The current Mrs. USA for 2023 has 7 children and lives on a ranch. This is what she said at the finals for her beauty contest:
“When have you felt the most empowered?”
Mrs America 2023: “I have felt this feeling seven times now as I bring these sacred souls to the earth… after I hold that newborn baby in my arms. The feeling of motherhood…is the most empowering feeling I have ever felt.
So go on Karl, invent all the reasons why no one can have multiple children and then whine and whine and whine about it. Meanwhile, Catholics over two millennia created the best civilised nations on Earth by going precisely against every “point” you made, and under conditions that were almost certainly harder than any most people face today. Especially if you remove the conditions created by our own deficient reasoning, Karl.
Reasoning like yours is the real problem. The rest, human beings have dealt with successfully for millennia. And it won’t be the insipid Bill Gates and Klaus Schwabs of the world that will stop me and mine from being here another now and in the future too, a few millennia from now.
Many people do not understand why from time to time, when I feel like it and have time, I take to task some mouth-breathing retard about everything from Protestantism, a known, illogical and obvious degradation of Christianity into secular nonsense, which happens to be followed by millions, including some nominally intelligent people, to the covid “vaccines” which I explained from the start are genetically altering serums that will cause extreme harm to your body, which is a medical reality that has been known for 30 years since the experimentation with mRNA genetic messing started, with testing on animals.
Plus any number of other topics that I feel are relevant to humanity at large.
People think I am just ornery and opinionated, which is not entirely wrong, the average stupidity of humans is indeed irritating to me and I can only suffer them in small doses normally, and I do have strong ideas (but few opinions, which I hardly voice) because they are based usually on decades of empirical testing in the real world.
But I do not fight the idiots because I enjoy it. No, I fight the stupid because it is a sacred duty. If you care about humanity at all (which I find I do, against my own general inclinations) you MUST try to correct their incessant stupidity, passed down from generation to generation, creating an avalanche of imbeciles, which, thanks to those of us that understand engineering, continue being safer and safer and not getting rightfully Darwined out of the gene pool by their own idiocy.
The village idiots, like rabbits run wild with endless food, and ergonomically ultra-safe step-ladders, are creating our own Universe 25. And their damaging idiocy is now so pervasive that they are starting to really affect the entire globe.
We don’t have a climate crisis, we have a fucking abominable retard catastrophe.
Idiots who think the word “gender”, which is used in linguistics, can be re-adapted to be a synonym for sex. And then they try to tell you that human sex is “fluid” or “non-binary”. No. No it is not. You are born male or female, or, if you are unlucky and the result of a natural mishap of chromosomes and body parts, you might be born a hermaphrodite. And some people are born with six fingers or a brain deformation that makes them handicapped in some way. Such is life. Sometimes some guy draws a shitty hand.
But that does not make men women, or vice-versa. Nor does your particular sexual fetish, unnatural propensity, or deviation make it “ok” to tell people it is normal, or even acceptable in many cases. And if one of those mental deviations is one that makes you want to rape children, then, it is simply salutary and best if you are removed from the gene pool forthwith. And we should absolutely pass laws to make this all legal and normal, as it is, and as it should be.
Now, when it comes to pedophiles —the freaks who want to rape children— most people, including most normies (but not all, believe me) especially if they are essentially normal and have children, are not too far-removed from sanity, and those that do have some knowledge of the damage that pedophiles cause are generally quite happy for pedos to get the death penalty and even making it all legal and official. That said, few would volunteer to be the executioner. At least, few that are mentally healthy, because being an executioner is difficult work, and most human beings are not armoured mentally against that kind of work. In the past, a lot more healthy men were, but we have lived in decadent comfort in the West for almost a century now, and while in at least some third world countries corporal punishment is still accepted as more or less normal for certain crimes, so is generally a level of brutality that most would prefer to do away with. A modern, civilised society that does apply the death penalty and corporal punishment in a balanced fashion is rare.
Singapore comes to mind, but some, of course will argue about some of the reasons to issue a death penalty, and very few will consider the issue in the most fair and logical legal manner ever invented by humans, which, like it or not, understand it or not, being aware of it or not, is Roman Law. The principle in Roman is the main framing of an issue, however the details of it are then examined and each case valued on its merits. This at least was the original Roman Law. It has since been somewhat perverted even in Italy, where it originated.
The reality is that the death penalty is absolutely a deterrent against much vicious crime. And anyone that says it is not, is a liar that usually tries to appeal to fake and false “studies” done by compromised and utterly unscientific organisations. Very much like the anti-gun brigade.
Now, I am pro-guns, but even I would not be happy with literally ANYONE being able to buy fully automatic weapons in the same fashion one buys bread. HOWEVER, that is because of the mayhem that would happen for the first, oh, say five years or so. And because I have children and a wife and I care about them. For myself, I’d probably be ok to take my chances (as in any case, I kind of did to a certain extent, working in close protection in South Africa for some years). Mostly out of curiosity and to verify that my prediction would be correct. Because if it became a thing that both civilians as well as the military and police could all have access to fully automatic weapons including machine guns, after five years, I suspect the death by guns would approach zero and for the most part be confined to suicides and the occasional nutter, who probably would not get to fire too much before he became Swiss cheese at the hands of a totally armed citizenry.
To a certain extent I already lived through this kind of change in South Africa. When guns were limited to ownership by whites, there was a regular shooting every week-end over road rage. When gun ownership became open to anyone regardless of skin colour, utter mayhem ensued. And carried on for the next 30 years, because, politically correct to say it or not, it remains a fact, that a people who have NOT developed, invented, and created a certain technology, will invariably misuse it. And the average African is simply not at a civilisational level that permits them to responsibly use or own a firearm. As usual, are there exceptions, sure. But statistics is a thing, and if used correctly, not only it doesn’t lie, it tells all the truths people are uncomfortable with. Besides, if you want to accuse me of “racism”, keep in mind that: a) I don’t give a fuck about your idiotic opinion, b) it is wrong insofar as you use and mean the word “racist” in any case, and c) I’m not the one that made this obvious thing about cultural and technological differences obvious to the world. It was Michael Crichton. Yup. Go ahead and read the original book Jurassic Park.
What did change though was that the number of road rage shootings between whites pretty much disappeared almost overnight. And the average Afrikaner became suddenly a LOT more polite. This is not just a random idea. It is something I personally experienced. And a very real change. The average white man now was so conscious that if he started shooting for a stupid reason, there were a LOT more people that could suddenly shoot back, and that were likely to as well.
The point is that in any case, the statistics are in. In the USA, the states with the highest number of concealed carry citizens have lower gun crimes. The exceptions are areas that are predominantly African-American in population. If you are black does that upset you? Do you think I am some racist Neo-Nazi because I can do math? Well, guess what: Fuck you. I don’t care.
Because if *I* was a big black bald guy, but with *my* brain in my head, instead of yours, I wouldn’t get upset about this at all. Just like I don’t get upset if someone judges Italians on average as being people that generally talk too much, wave their hands a lot, and often speak on topics they are ignorant of as if they knew a lot more than they do (though that Americanism is becoming global in fairness). Or if you said that Venetians are ornery bastards that kinda try to irritate you off the bat, just to see how you react. Or if you said it about me specifically. Hell, I don’t get upset about the Sun rising in the East either, or water being wet. You know why? Because I am not a complete fucking idiot.
So… if *you* are getting all upset… we-eeel… you might wanna check that IQ loooooooooooong before I ever, ever, ever, will check my “privilege”.
White, or Olive Nigger that it may be. In fact I’m kinda quite fond of the term Olive Nigger, I find it funny. As far as I know it was coined by a Lilly white American who, quite frankly, is almost translucent as far as skin colour goes. And he also has a higher IQ than me by a few points. Do I care? Am I offended? Look in my eye pilgrim, go on, take a good long look. You see me offended anywhere? That’s right. I could not care less. So why do you, you unspecified nigger of whichever ethnic, or socio-economic, or skin colour persuasion? I’ll tell you why.
Because you are fucking stupid. Stupid. S T U P I D.
The point is that like it or not, you can’t let stupid people run the world. Not without absolutely dire consequences. Idiocracy was supposed to be a comedy film, not a tragic documentary, although, to be honest, I found the film too irritating and true to life to watch when it actually came out. I could only stomach about 5 minutes of it by skipping large sections of it. And that was nearly 20 years ago now.
And you absolutely can’t let evil people run the world.
Firstly because they are evil, but also because, being evil, they promote and support the stupidity, they increase it and fuel it and feed it. And for that crime alone, among all the others, they should absolutely be hung from the neck until dead, gassed, shot in a firing squad, or even just like rabid dogs Ceausescu style. And they know it. Which is why they promote the stupidity. Smart, intelligent, honest, and good men of strong character, in any great numbers, would storm the places of power where these evil pedophile and child killers live and work, and would dispense rough street justice to them immediately. Which sometimes in the world takes place before appropriate and salutary laws and good people put in place to see them well-enforced are secured in place. As, for example, in Singapore.
My main objection to Singaporean laws is certainly not the death penalty, but perhaps, rather, the level at which it is applied. But that is absolutely NOT a criticism of Singapore or its laws or even the judiciary. It is a criticism of humanity. Allow me to explain.
I am vehemently against drugs of any sort. I never even touched the stuff at all for the entirety of my life until my late thirties and early forties, and even then, the sum total of my experimentation was perhaps a handful of times smoking cannabis, and precisely once, snorting some cocaine. I did it for the sole reason that people I care about and valued had done some of these things; and more. And despite being intelligent and capable, they seem to use this crap regularly. A young guy I used to work with, who was a decent person, worked well, and was smart, apparently snorted coke almost every weekend. People I grew up with, my close friends, hid the fact they occasionally smoked Cannabis because they feared how I would react to them. I simply told them they were morons, but it didn’t concern me, other than make me realise they were more moronic than I thought to begin with.
After that singular experience with cocaine, it became absolutely confirmed to me that the only people who snort cocaine are either idiots or such weak and/or damaged people that they cannot reason their way out of their situations and lives, or at least change them in any really positive way. Are they evil? Usually not, although the drug use can eventually corrode them to the point they become it. Are they weak? Yes. Are they dumb? Not always necessarily, in a classical sense, but certainly in regard to making stupid life choices, yes. No one needs any mind-altering substance in a civilised and logical world. And although we are living far from either thing, it is still not a good idea to drug yourself up in order to temporarily escape it (only to be faced with it again and much more so a little while later).
In short, I am not a fan of drugs.
That said, I think that giving someone the death penalty for having half a kilo of Cannabis is probably a bit extreme. HOWEVER, it is a FACT that if you do NOT do that, then it will start with Cannabis and before you know it you will have meth-heads running around burglarising homes and hurting people to feed their habit. While if you DO have the death penalty for Cannabis, guess what, aside the odd idiot here and there, everyone stops using it to alter their brain chemistry and the entirety of society is better off.
No. I am not interested in your idea that smoking that shit does no harm. I saw it with my dad’s workers for decades at a time, because it was in a country where it is not really criminalised at all; and it absolutely rots your brains. So keep such retarded opinions to yourself.
So my problem with the Singaporean laws is not that they are too harsh. It is that humans are so utterly stupid that they are necessary. In a civilised world, the cannabis smoker would (unrealistically) be smart enough to not do that shit where I can smell it, or where it affects me, or anyone else, or his driving, or his cognitive abilities…
You see why it’s necessary to have the death penalty, right? Because honestly, if a drug addled fucker runs over one of my kids, I don’t care that he was a “responsible” user. He clearly wasn’t.
And therein lies the problem.
SO.
Is it clear now why it is absolutely your DUTY, if you are at all a good guy, to call out the stupid. To limit their activity and range and effect they have on others. The village idiots need to be put back in the closets and kept there. And their families made responsible for the harm they cause. Their doors marked with the red letter I for AN IDIOT LIVES HERE.
You must show them up for the harm and damage and stupidity they cause to the world at large and to yours and mine.
It’s not that I enjoy beating atomised ghosts of dead horses. It is that it is a sacred duty. So, if you possess at least the minimum IQ required to understand the point, get to it. Learn the truth, learn logic, learn basic mathematics, and then join me in a crusade against Human Stupidity. We can’t really win the fight, but like Leonidas and his 300, perhaps we will be remembered in the millennia that follow us.
I plan to do a few posts in the next few days about different aspects of potential situations that are almost certainly going to happen at some point and to sections of the population that have not been subjected to it in living memory mostly. I have covered the basics of surviving a zombie apocalypse, but not some aspects that are really quite “intangible” for most people until it hits them in the face like a brick of sudden reality, even though the whole thing was marked with roadsigns all along the way.
So stay tuned as I will get to these things as I also try to finish the overlords of mars third book.
The latest posts on carry guns and so on have prompted some comments (not on the blog) that have made me realise (once again) that as usual, most people’s experience with things like actual streetfights or worse is mostly theoretical.
Which is all well and good, and probably as it should be as long as one is aware of it.
Less ok are those who assume they know something because they thought about it, or watched a few videos on it or took a few classes on it. And so they think they are now “mostly ok”. While in reality they may be worse off than an untrained person.
When violence happens and is directed at you it almost never happens with much warning. In many cases you’re lucky if you get any warning at all. So, the very first and most important thing is situational awareness, but even that, on its own is really not enough. Firstly because situational awareness is something you need to develop and work on and as such it is almost never learnt and trained in isolation. Meaning that right next to situational awareness should be your reaction.
Training your reaction to be appropriate is extremely difficult. Too jumpy and you’re likely to flatten the little old lady that bumps into you from behind when you had let your hypervigilance down that “one time”. Too anxious and you will over-react or underperform. Too relaxed (forced relaxed) and you may be too slow off the mark. In short, appropriate reaction is usually the result of thousands of hours of training and being in serious or uncomfortable situations enough times that your nervous system gets used to it enough to react appropriately to it. You can’t learn this in a book. Mental attitude of this sort comes only with very realistic training and at least a few real life incidents.
In practical terms this means for most people their reaction will be far from ideal AND they may often be completely surprised by the initial attack.
At this point, the only things that may save you to one extent or other are:
Blind Luck – not a good idea to rely on this
Instinctual and unconscious reaction (somewhat related to blind luck because it can go badly wrong nearly as often as work out positively for you, and almost always not enough against a hardened criminal)
Trained response – this is the only one you can create for yourself conscioulsy, by having dedicated time to it for long enough to engrain muscle memory into your reaction. The problem with this is that it is limited in scope unless you have spent years as a martial artist in some capacity. The up side is that if you train just a few specific things, they can be “good enough” for the vast majority of scenarios while not requiring you to invest in becoming a full time mystic ninja.
There are essentially two categories of violence you can encounter, unarmed and armed. Armed can then involved melee or ranged weapons.
The primary thing to consider is that as a general rule you should always assume the attackers will be armed and there will be more than one of them. Thugs, muggers and so on hang around in packs for the most part. The exception might be rapists, but even then, it’s not a sure thing and is in any case cold comfort at best!
The main point of any violent attack is to survive it. Losing your wallet, your car, and your pride, can be a real pain and sting, sure. But being dead in an alley because you didn’t want to cancel 6 cards and re-apply for your driver’s licence, is a very bad cost/benefit analysis outcome.
So, avoid, escape, and prevent the violence from happening to you in the first place, or at least avoid as much of it as possible. Running away screaming for help like a jilted gay lover high on cocaine still beats getting stabbed in the lung for trying to be the brave hero. Remember the cardinal rule of a real violent attack against you is simply this: win.
Escaping and avoiding it is a win. Getting away with minimal or even no damage is absolutely a win. Failing that, the only other winning option is that you get the better of your assailant.
And here we come to where training is effective. Assuming you’re a standard human, hard-wired muscle memory only comes as a result of repetition under as many stressful and diverse conditions as you can muster. Start gradually by using correct movement above anything else and then work your way up to doing the correct movement under increasingly difficult conditions. In essence this is all that martial arts is.
If you are a woman or weak generally, for unarmed combat focus on evasion and escape.
This generally applies also to armed melee combat for both men and women. The last thing I want to be in is a knife fight. And remember that escape can mean an offensive action meant to cripple or distract. If I was pumping gas and got approached by knife wielding people I’d happily spray them with petrol before running off to look for a match or lighter if I didn’t have one on me. Anything not nailed down can become a missile. And due to my size and training, any hard surface (including the ground) can become something to bounce your head off of.
A level of self-knowledge and self-possession really needs to be achieved, for you to be as effective as possible. I am not sure it can be trained, honestly, but it certainly can be improved upon if you have multiple very serious situations happen that you survive. Life and death events can rewire large sections of your neurology if applied consciously to that end. If you just survived a knife attack and got away, most people panic and get some level of PTSD. If you control that extreme stress and focus instead on noticing what you did right and reinforce/praise your body/mind/instinct for it and notice what you did wrong and decide there and then what the better, results oriented (not emotions oriented) reaction should have been and focus on making that a new set of (guided) instinctive response, you will be ahead of the vast majority of the population.
Most normal people do not react this way to life threatening events they survived, but those of us that do, gain enormous benefit from it, so I suggest if it ever comes up for you, take this advice on.
With all of the above in mind, we now come to armed self-defence.
Once again, training is paramount. For me, one of the things I tended to train a lot for was the “backstop”. That is, being aware of where my bullet would travel AFTER it went through the bad guy. It is not something most people under extreme duress are even aware of. And in the heat of the moment will tend to be mostly ignored even by trained professionals. I found that focusing on that quite a lot gave me an added benefit, aside from hopefully never having to worry too much about accidentally killing an innocent bystander, the slight level of “de-focus” from the primary threat added a level of objectivity that reduced emotional or stress-induced reactions and made my decision making and even general movements more accurate and logically correct given the overall context.
At this point, please take a moment to notice that all of the above information, and even training, really comes before the skill described below of actual armed response to a threat. My point here being that a correct trained response to armed conflict involves a LOT more than just going to the range and putting a few boxes of rounds through your preferred firearm.
Understand this point well. It is extremely important, because your level of training will be a reflection of your level of understanding it.
Right. So now you have got all of the above correctly handled (or at least intellectually understood for the time it took you to read up to here and hopefully you will retain a few percentage points of it before returning to binge watching Justified on tv or whatever), what’s the next step?
Assuming concealed carry, the next step is drawing and dry firing while practicing weapon retention.
Again, step by step and gradual escalation is the way.
With empty weapon, draw and dry fire, with different clothing you will actually wear. Do this for hundreds and thousands of repetitions. Do it every chance you get.
Learn and correct errors or imperfections. Guns that snag on clothing. Bad holsters or bad belts. Non ideal carrying positions. Printing (gun visibility when concealed). Safety issues (accidental discharges while drawing are a very real thing). Bad safety on/safety off issue. Quirks of your specific hand/weapon that you need to adjust for or be aware of. For example I loved the ergonomics of the S&W in .40 but the magazine release button was placed so I’d routinely pressed it while firing! So I Chose a different gun as a result. And this was something I only became aware of as a result of firing the gun at a range before buying. Always test fire a weapon before committing to it.
Gun retention means you learn to draw and fire while warding off a physical attack. Practically this means pushing off or holding off the attacker or blocking a strike to your face just long enough that you can draw your weapon and poke holes in your enemy as required with it.
There are MANY things that can go wrong here.
Your weapon can be taken from you and used against you. You can shoot yourself instead of, or alongside with, your attacker. Your weapon can be neutralised because of your position, type of weapon and how it reacts when physically grappled or even just pushed against and so on.
Most semi-autos that have their front slide pushed even just a few millimetres back cannot fire as the firing pin is either disengaged or cannot reach the percussion cap that sets the bullet off. Revolvers do not have this problem but pulling the trigger can be very difficult if someone has a grip on it that keeps the double action hammer down. Alternatively, any firearm with an external hammer can be prevented from firing by having a finger or other obstruction placed between the hammer and the firing pin.
In the heat of the moment you might indeed push off the attacker, draw and fire, all in one smooth motion, and also shoot right through your own warding off hand.
Generally this means learning to draw and fire (using ONLY empty firearms, obviously!) in training with another person. We did this kind of drill regularly when I worked as armed protection. And generally if you use a semi-auto it also means retaining your weapon close in to your body in such a way that firing it does not make the slide ram into your own body or clothing (which will usually result in a jam for the next round) while also ensuring the muzzle has some distance from the attacker’s body/hands/anything so that the firing mechanism is not disengaged.
The next step is a lot more dangerous and you need to take responsibility for it YOURSELF if you do it, don’t blame me if you do it and then automatically pull the trigger and set the gun off because you practiced dry firing so much.
This is drawing a weapon that is loaded but DOES NOT HAVE A ROUND IN THE CHAMBER OR A ROUND THAT WOULD GO OFF UNDER THE CYLINDER CHAMBER THAT WOULD ROTATE TO FIRING POSITION IF YOU DID PULL THE TRIGGER.
The weight of a loaded firearm can be quite different, especially for double stack magazine semi-autos. And every difference throws your training a little off.
The next step after that is live round combat training which may or may not be available where you live, but if it is, take it up. It usually includes multiple target engagement while moving and magazine changes. I am not sure what the drawing and firing safety requirements at such places are nowadays because when I did this training it was in South Africa and we could essentially design our own ways of doing things. And while I was never guilty of it myself, I certainly saw people doing this and putting holes in parts of the shooting gallery that should never have holes in them. So, yeah… wherever you are, train safely.
Most gun ranges in SA have a bunch of holes in the sides, top and counter tables of the firing benches you rest your weapons on when not firing or keep your ammo for the next reload and so on and this is in normal indoor gun ranges. So keep that in mind and always, always, always keep your eyes on anyone with a firearm at a range or anywhere else.
I have seen a gunshop owner setting off a client’s loaded gun on his own counter and putting a hole in a computer a couple of feet away from one of his work colleagues. He had left the owner’s gun, which he had unloaded, unattended for a few seconds and the owner had reloaded it and put it back on the counter. The gunshop owner guy did an idiotic, never, ever, ever, to be done stupid thing, which was to return to the gun and ASS-U-ME that it was still unloaded and pulled the trigger on it without checking it.
I literally do not do that even if I am alone at home with all the doors locked. And by “do not do that” I mean:
1. Leave my gun unattended for any length of time at all, no matter what. Any gun I ever owned was either locked away in its proper place, on my person, being cleaned (by me and only me), or within reach at all times. I literally do not even leave my own empty firearm I just cleaned on its own in one room to go say to the toilet even if I am alone at home. The gun comes with me or I put it away first. I was just raised that way and have never, ever had any reason to deviate from that philosophy and a lot of gun accidents would disappear if these basic things were done by others too.
2. Ever, and I mean ever, pull the trigger on a gun I have not specifically checked myself first. Again, even if it is just me alone and I have just say cleaned and reassembled my own empty gun, and placed it on the table in front of me as I finish putting the cleaning kit back in its box next to the gun, and I then pick up my weapon (which has been sitting there, in front of me the whole time within hand’s reach) I do NOT pull the trigger on it without checking that it’s empty. It sounds silly, but I literally do that, and always have.
Now, those of you who follow my farming videos and so on know I am far from a health and safety nut. In fact, in most of my life I am probably a danger to myself for lack of patience, but when it comes to guns, I have literally never cut a corner. The result is that in all the time I have been around firearms I still had one accidental discharge. It’s true I was seven at the time and it was the result of sunlight expanding the metal on what amounted to almost a home made zip gun my dad had got me, but it still happened. And luckily I already had the mentality drilled into me to always have a gun pointing in a safe direction until you mean to shoot the thing you mean to shoot. So it fired harmlessly into the ground a few feet in front of me. And yet… only a couple of feet away from the family dog, which got as big a fright as I and my dad did. So… when it comes to firearms, do NOT fuck around. Do NOT cut a corner. Do NOT take a risk. And if you need a mental image, imagine how you would feel for the rest of your life if your carelessness got a little kid or a total innocent killed because you were too stupid or lazy to take an extra second to behave correctly.
Now, keeping ALL of the above in mind, you might BEGIN to get an idea as to what being properly trained in the context of a gunfight entails.
Now… given all that, try to realise that all the conversations about “one shot stops” and what calibre is better and how many rounds you need and so on are, in context, even in an actual gunfight, statistically about 90 to 95% irrelevant mouth noises made mostly for LARPing self-entertainment. And then consider that an actual gunfight for most people not in an active war zone will never take place within their ability to see, never mind be involved in.
So… all of that training and thinking and practicing is for something that hopefully will never happen and that has a statistically very small chance of happening to you, especially if you are not involved in some kind of activity that is higher risk. Even then, keep in mind that most active police in the USA, where gun crime is higher than in most countries, rarely fire their weapon. This is a typical number of firearm discharges by police in New York and the whole of England and Wales.
So at its height, the total number of police in New York City has never been more than about 35,000 with only about 60,000 for the whole state of New York.
Even taking the highest number of 60 firearm discharges for say 30,000 police officers in a city of over 8 million means that even if your job is literally to police one of the largest cities in the USA, the chances of you being in a situation that requires a gun being shot is about 6 out of 3,000 times in any given year, which reduces to 2 out of a 1,000. And that’s assuming none of those incidents included shooting someone’s poodle only because you can as a cop.
As a civilian your chances of needing to use a firearm are a lot less. So all that training and care is for something that has at most a 0.002 % chance of happening per year, if you are an armed cop. In a 40 year career carrying a gun as a cop that translates to the chance of using your firearm is 0.08%.
That is the reality of things.
So. Given all that, the various discussions about this or that caliber, this or that system, and so on, are not just mostly irrelevant. They are bordering on the ridiculous.
The things you should focus on, if you are determined to be someone that carries a concealed weapon, are:
Do so legally
Do so safely
Do so that it is effectively concealed
Pick a weapon you can:
Carry on you comfortably
Draw and fire without it getting snagged on clothing, etc.
Hit what you shoot at comfortably, repeatably and above all accurately, and do so even under less than ideal conditions
And pick a weapon that is reliable, accurate and that you maintain well at all times.
Everything else is pretty much academic theory.
Which is why, ultimately, things like number of rounds in the magazine, caliber used, fancy optics and all the rest of it are really little more than personal opinions driven by either taste or ideas you picked up on you liked for some reason and made your own. Keep in mind that the vast majority of actual gunfights happen at less than ten feet of distance between shooters and that the statistical difference between one shot stop dynamics between a .22 LR and a .44 magnum are less than 30%.
So. The upshot of ALL of the above is that your ability to draw and fire and put your first shots where you intend them to go is far more important than how many rounds you have in your gun after that, what calibre you use, or how expensive or fancy your gun is.
And for really almost ALL situations where a gunfight happens, that means putting two rounds in a roughly head sized area in center mass at ten feet or less. If you can do that while under extreme duress you’re an effective armed person.
Being really good means you can do that at an actual head at up to fifteen feet without fail. And if you want to add another dimension to it, being able to do an aimed shot at up to twenty feet that reliably hits the same spot no more than 2 inches in diameter, within say 3 seconds, possibly while talking. If you can do that, you are also now capable in the extremely rare hostage situation.
If you have taken on board all of the above, you will hopefully have realised that as far as a carry gun goes, your choosing something you personally like (as long as you are effective with it and it meets the other basic criteria of reliability and suitability for fast drawing from concealed) is as good a reason as any.
Yes, this whole long post really was designed to have a sting in the tail for all the “operators” out there, and hopefully getting them to relax a bit. Which paradoxically is more likely to get them to train more and so get better too. Especially since this advice comes from someone that, unlike the vast majority of them, has used a gun to prevent violence being done on my person.
Relax and enjoy your firearm.
PS: For anyone actually in special units that does or has used handguns in combat operations regularly, should they stumble on this post, yes, I am aware you are on a different level, and some of those things that are essentially theoretical issues for 99.99% of armed people may make a meaningful difference for you, but how many people are like you, and how many are there on the planet? And in any case, this post is not addressed to you, as you surely are aware and have noted from the start.
Additionally, they call out the rest of the Arab world for not helping the Palestinians, which may well get at least some if not all of the Arab countries to decide it’s time to rid the world of Jews, just as the Israeli zionists in power seem hell-bent on ridding the world of Palestinians.
After all, act by genocide, die by genocide.
The videos and torn up children details coming out of Gaza are heartbreaking to watch and unlike the nonsensical stories of cooked baby in an oven and 40 decapitated babies that Israel makes up out of whole cloth, as even some MSM have recently been forced to admit, the stuff coming out of Gaza is undeniable even simply by just looking at the scale of the bombing runs on civilian areas.
Blog Stats Update
So, I have achieved my original modest goal of over 100k views from 30k unique vistors.
It looks fairly certain that barring some sudden shift, I will not hit any of the “blue sky” goals, which where 200k views from 100k visitors, but I think it should be just with reach to possibly hit the revised goal which, as I said, I would be happy with, of 150k views from 50k visitors.
I’m currently at 134k and change views with every month since February of this year averaging over 10k views, and just over 40k visitors, with the monthly average therefore somewhere just over 3,000 visitors a month.
This month is already past 10k views and we are just halfway yet, so the 150k views should be achievable unless there is a drastic drop off in December. The 50k visitors will be harder to reach, but not out of the realm of possibility.
The realistic likelihood is that I will be about 5k short on each of both views and visitors to hit 150k and 50k respectively, but we’ll soon find out.
A more interesting stat is the comments which went from a total for the years 2018 (end of it only when the counter was added) to 2022 inclusive, of 298 comments to 544 comments in 2023 to date, and that is with my brutal perma-spamming with no warning anyone who doesn’t follow the rules. And said rules are not exactly prominently displayed.
Plus the comment link is also not prominently displayed being at the top of posts rather than the bottom, which probably discourages many from even trying or knowing that one can comment.
So, overall, I’m quite happy with the results achieved. I’ll post a final update at the end of 2023 and look forward to bettering the stats for 2024, assuming I am not hunted down for my views by clown world death squads, nuclear war and the resulting EMPs don’t wipe out the internet as a whole, or the WEF doesn’t do it somehow, or one of the fake asteroid or alien craft Von Braun warned us about crash lands or craters me and mine, or the chemtrails finally get me, or, you know, something else happens.
No related posts.
By G | 12 November 2023 | Posted in Social Commentary