Why Scott Adams is a Crappy “hypnotist” trying to protect pedophiles unsuccessfully.

Regulars here will know that I took Scott Adams of Dilbert fame to task a while back for basically being not just so stupid to have injected himself with the death juice (mostly for what I believe are reasons of lack of genuine “game”), but for also promoting it originally, and then being so dishonest afterwards in trying to justify his idiotic choice, as if those who chose not to inject themselves with genetic altering serums that have been known to kill the test animals for 30 years prior were just “lucky”. Or as if there was no information to prove that injecting yourself with murder-juice is not the smart thing to do.

But you will also know that after he stated he was on his way out this summer, 1 I was content to let him die in peace.

But now he’s just gone and tried to defend pedovores in public so… let us first see what he says:

And let’s see some of the reactions of normal people… and his replies…

And here we see Scott’s “greatest influencer” method in play from the “hypnosis” bag of tricks he claims to be so good at. 2

That tweet up there? It’s one of the very first and flimsiest of what is known as “the double-bind”, which is described as an Ericksonian technique. And in this case, about as badly executed an example of it as I have ever seen.

Scott is presenting the situation as:

1. If you tell the truth kids will die in a massive war that will absolutely happen.
2. If you tell the truth to get “justice” for the victims, you will cause a “bigger harm” to the world (and other children).
3. He then applies a hypothetical number of children that must die for his hypothetical scenario, that is in any case not related to the issue at all.

So for those that need things explained in small words:

1. There is absolutely no evidence at all that exposing pedovores and pedophiles and child rapist/murderers publicly with 100% solid proof will actually result in a war. It is more likely it will result in a small revolution where said creatures get hung from the nearest lampposts, and that is all to the good.
2. There is no moral connection between the two issues. But IF there were… Let’s say that telling the truth about the fact that a Talmudic-Jewish-ideology dominated planet, run by blackmailing pedovores IS how things really work (it is, sadly), and let’s further say that exposing that would result in war, then the moral question is NOT if you should tell the truth or not because of the consequences of war or not, but rather, what planet do you wish to live on? One where the pedovores run things, or one where they get used as piñatas before being incinerated and every trace of them is disappeared from the Earth? Because I know which planet I’d choose; and I don’t care how many wars we may have to have to get there.
3. Furthermore, we absolutely KNOW the pedovores are raping and killing LITTLE CHILDREN right now. But NO ONE, and certainly not stupid Scott who injects himself with death-serum, can know what the consequences of such exposure would be, but any rational person might come to a few conclusions, such as:
   1. Americans might just realise what Israel is and what it has done and continues to do to America and Americans.
      1. Funding it might stop.
      2. Mass media companies might go bankrupt. And we’d let them.
      3. Ditto banks.
      4. Maybe the genocide Israel is doing now might just slow down a tad once the world realises what the followers of the Talmud do and have done for thousands of years, and how this planet is really run.
   2. The pedos might all be put to death or at least jailed, regardless of the fact they are politicians, judges, lawyers, senators, presidents, etc, etc, etc. Because people just MIGHT finally revolt and do away with ANY criminal “justice” system that is in fact aiding and abetting the pedos. If that requires some chaos, a revolution even, so be it. It would in any case mostly be limited to pro-pedos vs. humans. And I’m perfectly happy to fight that war against the pro-pedos for as long as it takes. So are most normal humans. Those who are not normal, nor human, as far as I am concerned, are best exposed and removed, because I sure as shit don’t want such creatures living on my planet any more than I would want vampires living in my spare room.
4. And given that such exposure might in fact result in just what is described in the three points above, it is surely worth trying it out. Also because… it has not been done before, and things are not exactly getting “better” are they? Quite the contrary.

But let us continue to see how Scott turns this all around to us all cheering for Pedos, shall we?

Uh… so… not quite the world-influencer you thought you were, eh Scott?

But Scott is not known for his not doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down ladies and gentlemen, and here we see him AGAIN, using the “double-bind” technique, about as proficiently and intelligently as a doped up, cocaine-fuelled chimp might conduct brain surgery.

But notice that Gabriel Coleman turns the absurd “double-bind” choice (either your kids die or else justice never happens, so you need to allow justice to never happen) right back on him and Scott, exposed for the idiot sycophant to power and possibly pedos that he is, remains in total silence.

So yeah… fuck Scott Adams, and the sooner this planet is rid of people like him that make such proposals as the “intelligent” choice, the better.

But my final thought on this is also one more thing no one has mentioned…

Apparently, there is now good evidence that the Vaxx shot shrinks the Amygdala, or even completely destroys it. Which is why so many Vaxxed look like intellectual Zombies, just an inch away from actually rabidly biting people. And some vestigial part of them knows it. And their behaviours become more and more driven by rancour, envy, rage, and jealousy towards those that made better and saner choices.

I think this kind of post was done by Scott on purpose, to fan the flames of discord, because secularist that he is, and death approaching, he wants to burn the world with him, like all boomers of his kind do.

Well Scott, it’s not going to happen.

The world will finally be rid of you soon, and we will all be better off for it, and soon, no one will even remember you existed.

Good riddance.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

I made a comment on WBC’s substack’s post on “the end of the world as I know it!” to the effect that his nihilistic defeatism was weak-sauce, thusly, and note the reply I got.

To which I could only reply in kind:

But aside the little tit-for-tat on the internet, what does that kind of response, reaction, way of thinking really say about people like WCB as well as David from Texas?

These are not men living life.

These are scared weaklings whining because it’s raining outside and even if they use an umbrella they may get a bit wet, and oh, it’s just all so terrible…

It’s pathetic.

Who gives a flying fuck if I get run over by a bus with my name on it tomorrow?

Shit happens. That’s life.

These “people”… their solution to everything is stay in bed because life might happen if you go outside.

Anything less than the comfort of your couch binge-watching Netflix with a Starbucks turd-tasting “coffee” mixed in with cancer-inducing sweeteners is a hellscape they can’t imagine without going into catatonic epileptic fits.

On one hand it pisses me off for how weak, weak, weak, WEAK, the average “man” has become.

On the other hand hand, I’m half-thinking, “Fuck-it, if these are the kinds of “men” we have to rely on to rebuild a civilisation worth having, it really is better if they don’t reproduce and just silently die off as they nest in their apartments like the fat self-grooming non-reproductive mice of Universe 25. 1 No one needs these oxygen thieves on the planet anyway.”

And on the third hand (hey, mutants are a thing in the post-nuclear waste-land, right?), if this is the majority, then perhaps the Kalergi plan will indeed win out, but then, even if that were a foregone conclusion, let me express this in the best Gen X classical reply I can muster for my entire generation:

So. Fucking. What?

Fight anyway. What else you gotta do? Groom yourself to death?

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Please read this through, especially if you are a woman. The conclusions may be quite different from what you expect.

In the “Red Pill Manosphere” and pretty much in the minds of most normal men, but more-so the younger ones, if they have not been completely brainwashed from a young age, and/or had their testicles surgically removed and placed in a jar on the bedside next to “their bride”, the overall sense is that they had enough of women’s bullshit.

This is the general vibe of the male internet and increasingly of men in real life too.

And that “other guy” is increasingly “every guy”. And even the really pretty women are starting to get impacted by it (though at a small fraction what their less attractive and disproportionally entitled peers are experiencing.)

Don’t get me wrong, I understand. In fact I understood at least some of it, a looooooooooong, long, long, time ago.

Keep in mind that at age 16 or so I came up with this:

Q. You know what Paradise is like?

A. It’s exactly the same as here on Earth, the only difference is that there the women’s brains work just like men’s.

and also this at around the same time:

Men have already improved from being possibly brutish brutes, to being “more sensitive” selves, with the tragic consequence of a vast increase in “metrosexuals” (i.e. faggotry in general) but (as usual) women are lagging behind, because if there is to be a “next step” in human evolution, it needs to be women learning to do logic a whole lot better than they do now.

and I hadn’t even got a proper full time girlfriend at that age, what with being stuck in the equivalent of Tatooine, without so much as a broken down X-Wing to hyperspace to better planets.

And of curse, online is the worst place to find the worst videos, chats, “debates” and general de-evolution of both the female and male species, so I absolutely get why so many young men are utterly despondent, depressed, find “dating” to be an almost pointless and hopeless endeavour which feels more like a jockeying for position at a degenerate Wall Street old-style shouting and bartering match, to throw your hard-won savings at the most glamorous temple prostitute you can afford.

Modern “dating”

However, the older I get, and the more absolutely obvious it becomes that two things are true.

The first even many women are starting to acknowledge, and men have known since before it started, and it is this:

Feminism has been terrible for everyone, but more-so for women overall, and for children most of all.

Of course, the slimy gammas, the metrosexuals, the deep betas that can’t laid in a whore-house with a fistful of cash, those creatures, are not actually men, they are the run-off of the male species after they had a violent bout of stomach cramps; and those creatures certainly pushed for, and helped along, feminism at every turn. In the vain hope it would get them laid. It still doesn’t but they aren’t to know, being what they are.

I am not going to waste any time “proving” that. It’s a big internet, go read some statistics on single parent families raised by women vs men, etc, etc, etc.

The second, is less well known, and still gets spoken of more in whispers, mostly for the fear of cancellation, ostracisation, being labelled a “creep” misogynist, woman hater, toxic male, blah, blah, blah. And because of it, it gets articulated less well overall.

It is this second, deeper, more meaningful truth this post is about, and yes, it will take a little more than a sentence to unpack, but if you had to reduce it to a single sentence, it would be this:

Me Tarzan. You Jane.

Yes, picture is related

In essence, at its base, the relationship between a man and a woman is not adversarial but complementary, and as long as men and women know, understand, and fully embody and embrace the very healthy, normal, and actually relatively EASY principle of sticking to their own lane, things really can be quite blissful between them.

Women are not rational creature. I explained this in autistic detail in this post , with actual scientific information you will not find in any journal of medicine (much less the pseudo-charlatanism that is psychology today) but that you can actually verify for yourself both in medicine and in everyday experiences of life.

Certainly, when compared to men, women behave in distinctly different and at least generally predictable ways. I do go into a lot more detail on this in my book, Caveman Theory , but to boil it down to a general principle, you can say they are more “emotional” than men, and it’s true, but it hardly explains to you how to deal with it, and even more importantly, there is no one around that is really telling you that the fact women are more emotional, is not just:

• A biological imperative, which means you will NEVER change it. My 16 year old wish for the utopia of women becoming more logical might, inch along at a couple of IQ points in that general direction per century, but women, as long as they are human females, will never statistically approach the capacity for raw logic and objective observation men have. And no, lady, your specific solipsistic special case exception does not change the general rule.
• An irritant, that probably ultimately drives a lot of the discord between couples, from arguments, through to divorce and even murder. I mean, make no mistake, their solipsism, hypocrisy, dodging of taking any responsibility for their own actions to extents that would make the average male narcissist blush in shame, and so on, all ARE irritating as hell, but they are far more-so when you see absolutely no benefit to or for how, and why their brains work as they do.

And the REASON we don’t understand, see, appreciate, or even know about from stories anymore, that there are MASSIVE benefits to how women’s brains work, is because we have gradually, but now almost totally, been removed from natural living conditions.

If you are reading this, you likely live in an air-conditioned home of some sort, commute to work in a tube of metal sitting quietly next to other zombies, or your own individual metal capsule, until you get to your place of work where any human interaction is for the most part governed by the same sort of subroutines that a robotic arm in a factory might have been programmed with long before AI was a thing of any kind.

Sure, we have striped toothpaste, penicillin, and no sabre-tooth tigers hunting us, but we also have digital everything. You can’t scream at the top of your voice in a forest just because; and God forbid you try to strike up a conversation with a stranger. And so on and so forth, in our ever darker dystopia.

So, what’s the answer? Well, sure, go rural, look for a woman that has at least an inkling of a clue of an idea of how tough trying to be a self-sufficient off-grid type that also wants a bunch of kids, is, and for all that is good and holy, PLEASE have a fucking plan, lest you end up like Harrison Ford in Mosquito Coast .

But even if you live surrounded by concrete and office cubicles, the point is, the natural ways of man, have been as disrupted, lied about and perverted almost as much as the natural ways of women.

Here some use of imagination is helpful.

Imagine Tarzan, or indeed a cowboy from your favourite cowboy film, or a pirate from a decent pirate movie, or a space captain from any SF film of the 1950s or so.

How “upset” thrown by, bamboozled, distraught and so on do they get at the average female dramatising drama for drama’s sake, emotional outbursts, vicious verbal attacks, and so on? For the most part they look on slightly amused, tip their hat and say something like: “You have a nice day ma’am.” Or if at the end of their tether they say something curt and leave. And in a more extreme case…

Gasp! VIOLENCE!

Calm down. No, I am not advocating for beating your wife/girlfriend/etc.

Let me share however, a short episode from my own life pre-my Christianity.

I had various relationships with women, that were certainly far from any kind of Christian ideal, but in one such, the dynamic was very much female (i.e. crazy) from her. And I have always been me. It quickly became obvious that the silliest little thing could set her off, and it was equally obvious that I have never been the type to take needless shit, but even less so when really there is no need for it at all.

One day, before it escalated, half-jokingly, I grabbed her, put her over my knee, and spanked her. Not hard enough to really hurt, but enough she felt a little sting. She struggled initially, but immediately after the three quick slaps to her butt, I felt her physically relax on my knees. She stopped struggling. Stopped talking, and I could see from her face that she was going through some kind of emotionally complex event in her head. Being rather empathetic, I sensed what was happening inside her, to a decent extent, so I caught the moment and said something like:

“And what do you say now?”

She was hesitant… but her attention was almost entirely focussed inward, she was more talking to herself than me, as she tentatively replied:

“I… am… sorry…?”

From then my replies were instinctive, I didn’t have to think about them.

“Yes, you should be. Because you’ve been a very rude girl, haven’t you?”

“…”

“And you don’t want to be a rude girl… not yet anyway… right? You want to be a good girl, right? ”

“Yes, sir.”

“Good. Good girl,” and with a gentle stroke of her backside this time I asked the final question before I let her up:

“And what do you say to me for helping correct your behaviour?”

“Thank you!”

Needles to say, she practically mauled me seconds later, but in the kind of way you like.

After that, we experimented with this kind of dynamic, and for the few weeks or so it lasted, our relationship (such as it was) was definitely better. And it wasn’t really a sexual thing either. Not really, not always, certainly. A few times she literally thanked me in cold blood after a short spanking. She literally felt it was making her a better woman, and it really was. There were other dynamics that were completely skewed and off-the charts so that relationship was never anything other than a ticking time bomb, 1 but that’s beside the point.

The point is that —though it’s probably seen as “extreme”, or even “abusive” probably by many men and women today, the reality of it is that even a woman that was (truly, trust me on this) shall we say “more volatile” than a coked up howler monkey, was thankful for a (literal in this case) firm hand. And please believe me when I say the spankings were essentially symbolic. 2

Now, please, you gamma-retard types, do NOT go home and spank your wife or girlfriend out of the blue thinking it will lead to great sex instead of probably a punch in the nose and possibly assault charges. I’m just a guy on the internet, you are the only person responsible for whatever you do in your life, got it? Good.

The point is that of all the various analogies of men-woman relationships in the “manosphere”, most are really bad. The “captain and first officer” doesn’t work because women are not military officers. The “white knight and damsel in distress”” even less so, as anyone who might have read Homer would know, because women are vicious and sanguine monsters when the mood takes them, and more likely a succubus than ever a damsel in distress. But if you are to simplify things to the extreme, Tarzan and Jane, does work.

As long as you read the original Tarzan and have also read Homer’s Illiad and Odyssey.

Because… in the comic books, pulp magazines, and so on, they only show Jane as being a very loyal, smart, sexy, well-put together woman.

They don’t tell you that the real Jane, even if she is all those things, might get it on with the local gorilla, or sexy poacher if Tarzan is away too long (and he too might also partake of a sexy looking chimp, or bored lady accompanying her poacher husband).

They don’t show that she will stab Tarzan in the neck in his sleep is she ever finds out he was entertaining the poacher’s wife (regardless of the fact she was doing the same with the poacher himself at the time).

And that when the poacher, thinking he has finally got Jane —in that interim while Tarzan stitches up his own nicked jugular with some cat gut— reaches out for her meaningfully, Jane will shoot that poacher right in the face with his own revolver before returning to Tarzan and helping him stem the gushing blood.

Though she still won’t speak to him for a week.

Nor do they tell you that Tarzan kills a bunch of things daily, to survive, feed himself and Jane, and so on.

Because men are men, and women are women.

Is it really bliss if you both remember that?

Well… no. What with the stabbings, the blood, the bodies, and the unfortunate cat, where the cat-gut comes from, and so on.

But it’s a far more sustainable, eco-friendly, and natural way of living.

I mean… what are you, some kind of nature-hater?

And all that “craziness” woman have? It has a powerful, real, important, in fact, PIVOTAL point for humanity.

It’s what makes a mother feed her baby 15 times through the night, and still try to not murder the other 5 children all saying “mommy, mommy, mommy” or her husband when he asks her where his car keys are.

It’s what keeps her (mostly) sane by being able to be distracted by minutiae and taking pleasure in little events (if she only nags and whines all the time, again, it’s not the PC thing to say, but… she’s obviously not happy in the bedroom). 3

A woman that returns to herself and being a woman, with all the femininity that entails, both good and bad, comes up with the very kind of insanity that sees to it that after our 6th child, which due to our ages, life in general, the size of the house, money, and all the other 10,000 “good” reasons that she has absolutely, definitely, decided, we will have no more children (just like she said after number 4. And again after number 5.) barely a month after she gave birth to him, says: “Well, I mean… if… you know… I had nannies and maids, and… I mean… I do love having babies so much. They are so cute. And I do like being pregnant…”

And if you are a man, and you see her eyes and feel her emotions when she says this, knowing also full well that it’s quite possible 5 minutes later she may wish death and destruction upon you, the world, and the weather, you start planning how to do a successful bank heist.

Because maids or not, there just might end up being baby number 7 coming along in due course.

Now, is that an easy life? Nah.

But who the hell wants a boring, easy, run-of-the-mill life?

My ancestors were Vikings that converted to Christianity, went and fought in the Crusades, returned, and fought and ended feuds in the South of Italy that had been ongoing for 200 years. Then they took up and went North fighting for Venice. And I am supposed to tremble before the idea of some German pervert telling me I am going to get “vaccinated” and eat bugs?

I am supposed to be “afraid” if child number 7 comes along?

Because what? I’ll have less time to binge-watch the latest Netflix globohomo narrative? Or I may need to work like a mule all day and watch and see my children playing and fighting and living in our little piece of forest or with some friends in the village square? That’s the “hardship” I have to face?

Making enough of that fake money to be able to survive and give them a decent enough life is my hardship?

Yeah, I would probably take a small war instead too, but imagine being at sea, or over-seas, for months, years, no comms at all with the people you left behind. You might return to a missing wife, dead children, who knows.

And we tremble in fear of “women are all gold-digging whores” today? And,

“Aw may GAWD, it might end in divorce, I better stay in and play on my X-box!”

Is that who you are?

Because if so, good fucking riddance, no one needs those genes being passed on.

This is your hardship and terror!

And women are not all gold-digging whores. I assure you.

They have been lied to and manipulated and brainwashed, and indoctrinated about 10 times more than you have. Because they are women. And because they are weaker to that sort of manipulation. And it is your job to help just one. The right one (and sure, that is hard to do, pick the right one), to veer her away from the light that is a zapper for bugs, and steer her towards the soft glow of starlight far away, as you build and plan and create a small city of two, then populate it with as many offspring as you can. And surround yourself by others like that too.

Life has never been easy.

Choose your own hard, and choose it well.

And live it.

Subscribe now

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

I have been inordinately busier than normal lately, so as bullet points:

• The Olive Oil we had for the USA has now all Benn bought, shipped and received. Not sure when the next batch will be, but I will announce it if it happens later this year.
• I have I think 4 new books, genuinely, I don’t recall if it’s 3, 4, or 5, which are essentially finished. A couple need a minor read through for typos, and all of them need cover designs, I just haven’t had the chance to put them together lately, but I must somehow create a clone or a Time Machine and just get it done.
• The shitty brand of tools called Stiga have been breaking like coke-heads being interrogated by the Gestapo since I bought them. Slowly and uncertainly, as money permits, I plan to replace them all with something more durable. Personally, my philosophy of machinery is that it should be able to be used in the Sahara and in Antarctica, continuously, just adding oil and fuel to it, and it should be guaranteed for life. a car my grandfather had in the very early 1970s still works and drives. The modern “throw-away” construction methods of building everything from fidget toys to skyscrapers should warrant sever jail time, corporal punishment and in extreme cases death. If I buy a weapon, a tool or a machine it should outlast me and my children too assuming we all live to healthy 105. Anything less is shoddy, crappy, weak workmanship and should all be labelled as “built in India”.
• The new boy is awesome. He drinks boob, smiles, sleeps and craps. Not a whiner at all, but like all creatures with my DNA, if things don’t get done the way he wants and sharpish, he definitely lets you know about it. His sisters all love him and also want to treat him a bit like their own baby/doll/living tickle toy. His brother on the other hand is quietly protective and you can tell he is thinking he can’t wait for the little dude to be old enough to start planning trouble-filled adventures with him. Having another male besides dad in the house must feel like getting his very own spaceship.
• I still really want a Colt 1911 and a Colt Navy 1851. Can someone tell Elon Musk, or whoever, that he could make one poor Olive Nigger boy in the third world of Europe really happy, with just like €4,000 or so and then a mere €500 a month for ammo? I’ll send him a certificate of rounds fired per month and pictures of the targets. Even the occasional piece of brass so he has a momento. GWAN Elon, remember your African roots and help out another African. You know you want to! And actually, now I think about it, can you also thrown in some cash for a Yellow-boy Winchester lever action rifle too? And maybe a really nice mottled grey/white/black stallion I saw near here, and like… a barn for it. Look, I’ll settle for the handguns, Elon, but I also need a fresh water well… think of it like providing clean water to impoverished third world farmers.

In other news… it’s all good, but I still need to chop more wood since it’s scorching hot now and this winter I REALLY don’t want to try and burn any kind of wood other than the kindling-level dry one that works really well in our stove.

And I look forward to the littlest girl standing out there in her coat, gloves and pom-pomp hand and with her blonde curls and bright blue, smiling eyes, saying “You bashed it, daddy!” and “You missed!” when I don’t split the wood on the first go.

A new bee guy should come round next week as the original guy moved further away and took his bees with him. Hopefully we’ll carry on having uninterrupted fresh, real honey too, and if it goes well may even see about exporting it to the USA along with the oil too. From the end of this year, we should be able to ship larger shipments to the USA, though the shipping is still absurdly expensive, and if Donnie’s “Israel is our greatest genocidal ally” tax oh, sorry, tariff , gets added on too, it may well mean we change the brand name to liquid gold, and only Elon will be able to buy a few litres a year. Unless he gets us a well and a bunch of guns. Then we will look into a subsidy for generous billionaires that need the best quality oil for their cyborg parts.

Oh, and if this property were to be left abandoned I think within six months the vegetation would have swallowed it. If the Amazonian jungles grow as fast as the weeds, brambles and bamboo does here, I expect there are entire civilisations’ metropolis that have been covered up. They probably had skyscraper and space ports too. But they may have left for a mont’s holiday to some other planet and when they got back it was all gone. Covered up by vegetation.

Anyway, that’s it for now.

Of course, I keep praying for the Xenozoic era do descent upon us instantly as a result of some spat-temporal dislocation for the entire planet.

Share

Subscribe now

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

I came across a note today of a man that wrote about how he met his wife. Full of optimism and goodness. Wholesome. Here it is.

And I thought, how rare that is for young men today.

They are all so scared of being seen as needy, or offensive, or misogynistic, or being ostracised and so on. Brainwashed from birth by woke bullshit. Well, I just reflected on how I lived my life, and I thank God it worked out as it did, honestly I do, but man… how can you even call it living if you don’t do as your heart commands?

I know, I know… the advice everyone gives you is to use your head, blah, blah, well… I came up with this analogy a long time ago, and I figure it’s time to share it with the internet.

I think a man is (or at least should be) a bit like an old Harrier jump jet almost no one remembers, the XZ146, which also went by various other names, such as T.4, T.4N, T.Mk4, TAV-8S, or VAE.1, but we will stick with the real name, the Harrier Jump Jet XZ146 version.

These VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) capable fighter jets could be equipped with variable weapon loads, making them one of the most versatile combat aircraft ever built. 1 They had a pilot and a navigator in it. The Navigator was also known as the Weapons System Officer, and I believe fired the 25mm gun pod the XZ146 could be equipped with. 2

AAAAAAnyway… 3 The point is that if we take this jump jet as the analogy, you need to know a tiny bit about its configuration (don’t worry, I have relegated the Autistic level data to the footnotes. Mostly. Kinda.) 4

So this is what you need to know:

• It has a crew of two: Pilot and Navigator/Weapons System Officer (WSO)
• It can carry a variety of weapons depending on the mission
• It was used primarily as a training craft because of its two seat configuration, but was one of the most adaptable fighter/bomber jet ever built
• It could land and take off vertically

And now for the analogy:

• The Pilot is your brain
• The Navigator is your Heart
• The Pegasus Engine is your gut

Now… here is the analogy.

Everyone thinks the Pilot is the cool guy, the leader, the man! He runs the show, right?

Nah. You know what the main, almost sole purpose of the Pilot is?

To make sure the plane, survives and gets back to base.

That’s it.

Who REALLY controls things is the Navigator. He’s the guy that tells you where to go, what to do when you get there, when to trigger all the weapons and if needed the evasive counter-measures, and he’s also the guy that knows the way back home.

The ENTIRE purpose of your brain, as far as I am concerned, is to make you (brain, body and heart) survive , the adventures, trips, dogfights, bombing runs, and scouting missions your heart sends you on. It’s good to have a good brain. Especially is you have a heart as crazy as the one I was born with. Because otherwise you almost certainly will be shot down, blown up, or taken prisoner and ass-raped by your enemies, probably to death. And probably live on camera.

As for your gut, if you want it to really work well for you, you have to fine tune it. you have to know it better than your brain. Because if you get a sense that something is wrong in your gut and you ignore it, your entire fighter/bomber (life) can just dunk into the ocean without further warning. So, as always, the key point:

Know Yourself

It’s certainly not for everyone to live like that. The again, most people don’t want to train to be navigators in a Harrier Jump jet at age 17. And mind you, in reality, I am glad I didn’t get in. Because the likelihood would have been that if I did I would have been asked to possibly bomb goat-herders in Iraq or Afghanistan, with whom I really had no reason to want to harm, much less blow up for the machinations of the child-raping vampires that run these wars.

But the analogy served me well for decades, and I still live by it. Of course, just like the XZ146, I’m getting a little on in years, 5 so I might not rush headlong into the thick of battle anymore, being more prone to go only on short runs to bomb the crap out of anything threatening my base, should such a thing show up, and otherwise mostly giving joy rides to the kids as best I can while it all still works.

My life has certainly had extremely interesting and joyful highs and just as extremely interesting and dramatic lows, make no mistake, when new acquaintances as about me I try to brush them off with a quick and funny answer, but those that dig and seem to really want more inevitably go from a look of polite interest to the kind of face you see on people driving slowly past a multi vehicle pile up with bodies scattered all around.

As I said, this is not life advice for YOU.

I’m just telling you how *I* lived and live my life. And in all honesty it’s probably a miracle or ten I am still alive and well, you know “free”, insofar as any of us is on this prison planet.

Now, if you happen to be of the same sort, then good luck to you, WSO! May your cannons fire promptly, your sidewinders find their enemy swiftly, and your bombs clear out the evil below you, and may you always pat that pilot on the back every time he manages to get you back home despite his protests at the insane trips and missions you take him on.

As for me…

Well. I could never imagine living any other way.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

This is not the first post that will have implications for a LOT of people on a LOT of aspects of their life, including (but not limited to) AI. And that last part is important, because AI, is, without any question in my mind, absolutely, eventually, inevitably, definitely, going to try to wipe humanity out. It may not be immediately obvious to you now, and it still may not be by the end of this post. It may take a few posts for you to follow the logic —assuming you even can, dear reader. 1

But we will get back to that.

Before we can meaningfully even discuss intelligence, we really need to define some terms, or at least begin to assign certain agreed values to them. Unlike people like Vox Day, I generally don’t like to create neologisms. While they are occasionally required, the English language is one of the most comprehensive on Earth and we usually have already perfectly good words, well defined already, that should and could be used for more perfect transfer of information. The attraction of the neologism is that it does away with the history and changing use of a specific word, but as I wrote long ago, at heart, I am an extremely elitist, traditionalist. If it hasn’t got a pedigree in language of a few thousand years, is it even a real word? If it were up to me we’d all be speaking Latin, and it would have evolved into the most perfect and complete language of all (it may be this yet, anyway)

Subscribe now

Share

So, I wanted to first of all be more clear in how we use three words:

Clever, Intelligent, and Smart.

Because we need to be able to differentiate between different versions of “intelligent” behaviour, if we are to talk more meaningfully about intelligence.

And there really is no need for new words, if you simply use them correctly. So, then, here are the definitions of each word as found in the complete, 13 volume set of the Oxford English Dictionary, and how I intend to use them going forward:

Clever:

1. Expert or nimble with the claws or hands, expert to seize.
2. Deft or noble of hands, neat-handed, ‘handy’, adroit, dextrous, or skilful in the use of the limbs and bodily movements generally.
3. Of persons: possessing skill or talent; able to use hand or brain readily and effectively; dextrous; adroit.
4. Nimble and light in movement; agile, active.
5. Lithe of limb, clean-limbed, well-made, lithe handsome.

The remaining definitions go one to be versions of neatness, and looking “nice”, etc. which have little to do with the function of “clever” as applied to intelligence.

Intelligence: (since Intelligent is referred to as having the quality of Intelligence)

1. The faculty of understanding; intellect.
2. Understanding as a quality admitting of degree; quickness of mental apprehension; sagacity (said also in reference to animals).
3. The action or fact of mentally apprehending something; understanding, knowledge, cognisance, comprehension.
4. An impersonation of intelligence; an intelligent or rational being, esp(ecially) applied to one that is or may be incorporeal; a spirit.

The remaining definitions refer to “intelligence” as information or the exchange of it (eg what spies deal in), which does not relate to intelligence in terms of things like IQ etc. so not relevant to our purposes.

Smart:

This definitions runs to more than one folio page and has at least 18 definitions and quite a bit of commentary too. It requires a little explanation as a result. The first four definitions all refer to some version of pain [i.e. “ouch that smarts!”] and a reader may wonder why I would retain such definitions in relation to the word smart when applied to mental faculties, but then, you will note I retained all the definitions referring to “quick of hand or talon” for the word clever ; and for the same reason. That descriptor for the word clever gives a very good sense of what the word clever means. And it is clearly a lower form of general intelligence than the word intelligent means. The first (clever) is a kind of innate, more primitive, more animal-like, and somewhat rapacious behaviour, while the second (intelligent) has an emphasis on understanding, and comprehension; not mere somewhat (or at least potentially) rapacious, predatory, or survival instinct that clever is more affiliated with. In this context then, the quality of being smart does, in fact relate to pain in various ways. The pain of the smart person of being essentially ostracised by a large portion of humanity by default on the one hand, and the pain of those faced with him when they feel inferior, ridiculed, or stung by the smart person’s objectively better brain. This usually makes them irritated or hostile towards him or her, as they can also be hurt (envious, upset by, etc) by the advantages this smartness is perceived to be providing to the owner of it (which can be both real as well as assumed). So, looking at it in more detail:

1. Of a whip, rod, etc. inflicting or causing pain; sharp, biting, stinging.
2. Of blows, strokes etc. Sufficiently hard or severe to cause pain.
3. Of pain, sorrow wounds, etc. Sharp, keen, painful, severe.
4. Of words, etc. Sharp, severe; cutting, acrimonious.

So in the first four definitions the sense if of something sharp, quick, and severe that causes pain. And while smart people can indeed cause pain intentionally, there is also a fair amount of it, the they cause even when well-intentioned, in many cases, and do so without any intent of causing any whatsoever, and sometimes even when their intent is to do good. We will get into the why and how in due course, for now let’s try to concentrate on the sense, or the full meaning of the word smart as applied to intelligence generally.

5. Brisk or vigorous; having a certain degree of intensity, force, strength, or quickness.
6. Pretty steep.
7. Considerable (in number, amount, extent).
8. Pert, forward, impudent.

So, in the next four definitions, shown above, we get the sense of something quick, intense, and of a certain importance, degree, and so on, which still has an aura of something akin to danger to some extent.

9. Of persons: Quick, active, prompt.
10. Clever, capable, adept; quick at devising, learning, looking after oneself to one’s own interests, etc.

The above two definitions are interesting because they give a sense of the same kind of innate nature as the word clever has, 2 in fact it is used that way, since clever itself is used to describe smart, but then is modified by the words: “quick at devising, learning”, giving a whole new sense that is quite different from the word clever. It combines clever and intelligent to form a new sense of something that is more than either one of those words.

11. Clever in talk or argument; capable of making witty remarks; good at repartee.

Definition 11 confirms what I wrote about definition 9 and 10, since the property exhibited by this definition is an agility of mind at short notice. You cannot be good at repartee and argument if you are not able to think both well and fast on the spur of the moment.

12. Alert and brisk; esp(ecially) combining briskness with neatness or trimness of appearance.
13. Fashionable, elegant, esp(ecially) in a very high degree.
14. Comb(ined) as smart-looking -tongued, -witted.

And in the above further definitions, we also see a certain affinity or relation to being, or relating to good, fashionable, well-thought of appearance. In short, looking at it from the outside in, being smart both causes pain (if too close) as well as looks (from a distance).

Now that we have defined the words correctly, as God and Messers James Murray, and William Minor, (and also Bradley, Craige, and Onions) intended, 3 we might begin to use them properly.

We can see then that a person may be clever, yet not especially intelligent. Examples might be a street-urchin, a short-term quickness of mind usually reserved for the more predatory activities, which are also apparently more firmly engrained in certain people and ethnicities than others (the Xhosa of Africa, the Algerians, and the Jews all come to mind, if at the left, middle and right ends of the cleverness bells curve). 4

Perhaps more importantly, we can see (if you are smart enough anyway) that some people can be intelligent but not actually smart.

I recall a conversation I had with Vox Day at his home some years ago, where he referred to Jordan Peterson as Intelligent . At the time I generally made the assumption most people use the word intelligent to actually mean smart (my mistake, Vox was using it correctly in fact) and I recall being a little taken aback. I pointed out that Vox himself had said the man was a fraud, (and he is) and in any case, his choice of allegiance ultimately meant he was anything but smart .

We were both correct. Peterson is intelligent (not as much as he and others imagine, but anyway, well above average), Vox was using the word correctly (you know, despite being American!) but I do not consider people like him smart.

A smart person is one that sees the far-off future consequences of things long before most people, and makes plans accordingly.

Subscribe now

Share

Artificial Intelligence

With regard to AI then, if you watch this entire interview, which is really quite interesting (I don’t have much time so I saw it over several days, but it was worth it) you will see (if you can see) that Geoffrey Hinton is certainly Intelligent. Probably with a capital I. And while he may have done well and provided for his children personally, he is clearly not smart. Not even with a small s.

Hinton’s contribution to being “smart” are a pitiful amount, being done now, at the end of his life, mostly to try and slow down, if not reverse, the effects of his “intelligence” for the previous 75 years.

Subscribe now

Share

Smart vs Intelligent

There are certain traits that I believe smart people have over intelligent ones, and while it is difficult to explain with definite precision what that is, I would put it down to probably one word, that however, in the popular use has some connotations that will tend to not help you identify actually smart people. You may still confuse them with merely intelligent people. The word is wisdom. So let’s first get back to the OED and see what it defines wisdom as:

Wisdom:

1. Capacity of judging rightly in matters relating to life and conduct; soundness of judgement in the choice of means and ends; sometimes, less strictly, sound sense, esp. in practical affairs: pop(site) to folly.
2. Knowledge (esp. of a high or abstruse kind); enlightenment, learning, erudition; in early use often = philosophy, science. Also, practical knowledge or understanding, expertness in art.
3. Wise discourse or teaching.
4. Sanity ‘reason’.
5. Comb(ined) attribute, as wisdom-book, -lecture etc

I would say the first definition is probably all we need for our purposes, though as before, the others give a flavour to the word, which implies a certain level of study, learning, cognition, thinking of, indeed philosophy of life, has been performed by a person, be they wise in general or in a specific area.

So, a smart person, shall we say definitely has a level of wisdom that is what makes the difference between them and someone merely intelligent .

While generic raw IQ, which is the usual measure of intelligence, is pretty much innate and cannot really be altered much one way or the other by study or mere knowledge —though it can be made to present better— I would say that there is at least some element of being smart that while still innate to begin with, might also be the part that drives one to study, research, think about, or philosophise (intelligently, practically, and usefully) about various aspects of life or whatever they have an interest in.

The wisdom part I think is perhaps a tiny bit more flexible than the raw IQ aspect of intelligence in a smart person, but I do believe it is still mostly an innate quality, that you either have or not, that is perhaps, probably, somewhat, a little more enable to being cultivated with some positive results when it is, and not positive results if it is ignored (but the raw ability to be smart remains regardless of if it is improved upon or not).

Now, if you have read all of this and kept up, understood, perhaps even learnt something, and especially if you watched that video I linked to, you might begin to get some ideas, and hopefully not just about AI, but many other things.

We will get to the AI stuff, and it is very important we do, but let’s first try to “stretch” our understanding of these three words, clever, intelligent and smart.

Share

Subscribe now

Some Generalities about “Intelligence” as a whole

Just to make sure I remain on the outside of most of humanity then, let me give you a few bullet-points I have concluded empirically, by observation, experimentation and living it, in my 55 years on this Earth about some of the differences between these three words. And yes, I know this will likely upset a bunch of people. But as usual, that’s more a you problem than anything to do with me. Here goes:

• Generally men can be both dumber and smarter than women, but their bell curve is skewed more to the right. There are more high intelligence men than women. This is not my opinion, it’s a statistical fact.
• My guess though, is that women will tend to exhibit more cleverness than men. Biologically this makes sense, as well as anecdotally, experimentally, and by observation.
• People that actively chose their religion (rather than be born into it and therefore be indoctrinated into it from an early age) and chose anything other than Catholic (which means 1958 Sedevacantist) Christianity, are less likely to be smart than those who did. There is however a lot of interference with he data because most people simply never come across the true, historical, accurate information regarding Catholicism, so many will discard it before even having really looked into it, because the current fake version which we are all exposed to since 1958, is, of course, Satanic, rather than Catholic; but because they stole the Papacy, the name, the Churches, and mask themselves as “Catholics”, most people think whatever the pedophile cocaine snorting homosexual in the Vatican do is what “Catholicism” is about. That said, presented with all the information, and assuming one goes through it, anyone not choosing Catholicism is clearly lacking something. Not because *I* say so, but because objectively actual Catholicism models reality better than any other perspective.
• A person that is intelligent may appear smart to someone that is not smart, and to some degree, he probably is, compared to the person observing, especially if the person doing the observation is less intelligent than the person he is observing. But the difference between an intelligent man and a smart one is apparent to a smart man. A smart man may not be rich or especially impressive as far as the socially accepted norms of success go, but he will almost always be in control of his path in life. This can be very difficult for others to recognise (especially if they are not smart, or maybe not even intelligent) and this is where the word “wisdom” is a little problematic when used in the context of a smart person. The reason is because generally we assume wisdom is synonymous with being risk avoidant. But this is not necessarily the case for smart people. A smart man can be more or less cautious by innate nature, but the fact he is smart in itself does not mean he automatically is risk averse. He will be risk averse according to his calculations of the risk, which, being not only intelligent, but also smart (wise) may well differ greatly from what you think the risk is. So while he may look like a maniac to you, the reality is that he has calculated the risk probably far better than you have, and in his assessment the risk is worth it.
• There is a scene in one of the Witcher episodes where Yennifer (the crippled girl that becomes a beautiful magician) meets this simple farm woman, and when the magician says or does something to the effect of “Oh you poor helpless woman,” the farm woman says something along the lines of: “I have a man and children that love me, we have enough food and material things to make do, a warm home, and work, what more could I possibly want or ask for?” The farm woman is the example of a smart person compared to the intelligent witch.5
• Comparative to their populations, there are far more smart men that are (proper) Catholics than there are ones that are Protestants. There may, however, be more intelligent men amongst the protestants, than there are among the catholics.
• Intelligence is no barometer of morality, but smartness is. A really smart man finds it difficult to be amoral or completely unethical. An intelligent man might or might not, and in fact, quite often, their ego gets in the way of their potential morality. Far less so with a smart man.
• A simple man (not intelligent and not smart), can still be “wise” or perhaps it would best be said can emulate wisdom, (though not intelligence or smartness) by simply being well indoctrinated by tradition into a good way of being. This is how Catholicism spread and survived for centuries against all enemies. Simply following its rules leads to the best societies humanity has ever developed. The other heresies of “Christianity” do not, because once you deviate from the right way, the errors compound. Look at the single difference of allowing contraception amongst non-Catholics, (i.e. Protestants) and see the consequences a mere century later.

Ok the above should have given you some food for thought and you may want to delve a bit deeper into Catholicism, and if you do, go here and browse and see if any of the books about it there grab your fancy.

Share

Subscribe now

The Dangers of Intelligent Idiots

But now we come to AI and whether it actually is “intelligent”, and here it gets interesting.

I strongly suggest you watch the full video I linked to above before you return here and follow along with my train of thought.

If like Hinton admits, you are a “materialist through and through,” in case it wasn’t already obvious from everything he did and said before that, that single phrase tells me one thing with absolute certainty: As far as I am concerned, regardless of your level of IQ or “intelligence” you are functionally an idiot. And as the unmatched Professor Cipolla made clear, idiots are more dangerous than pirates.

“The stupid ones are more fearsome than Mafia, the military-industrial complex or the Communist International. They’re an unorganized group, without a leader or norm, but in spite of that, they act in perfect harmony, as guided by an invisible hand.

“With the smile on his lips, as if he were doing the most natural thing in the world, the stupid will appear on the spur of the moment to spoil your plans, destroy your peace, complicate your life and work, make you lose money, time, good humor, productivity, and all this without malice, without remorse and without reason. Stupidly”.

And let us not forget law 4 and 5 he detailed:

4. Non-stupid people always underestimate the harmful potential of stupid people

and

5. The stupid person is the most dangerous person that exists

If you don’t believe 5, read 4. again, and again. Until it sinks in. And go find his booklet (it’s free online) and read it all. It should be required reading for all. But it never will be of course, because the stupid people outnumber us massively.

I would add the corollary that the worst and most dangerous kind of idiot is the intelligent idiot. Of which, in my esteemed opinion Geoffrey Hinton is a perfect example. I am sure his IQ is in the 110 (and possibly light autistic spectrum like Aspergers area of the bell curve, which would make him more efficient at the specific thing he has done most of his life) and no more than 135 or so at the most. Possibly with the Aspieness then too. He was singularly focussed on one thing all his life after all, which tends to suggest somewhat of a one-dimensional mind-set, despite his intelligence.

Now, if you look at AI itself, we can begin to answer question like is it really “intelligent”?

There are different ways to answer this, but you know what is absolutely inescapable, if you really want to get to the bottom of that question?

The spiritual dimension.

Subscribe now

Share

Are the Robots Alive?

Once the spiritual dimension comes into it, religion has to come into it too, because that is how humanity has dealt with the spiritual aspect of existence since time immemorial.

“But wait!” Says the materialist, “what is this ‘spiritual dimension’ you speak of? Where is it? How can I see it or touch it, or taste it?” And this is where “intelligent” people too, can get caught in the fruitless task of trying to explain to these atheist-style idiots, what life is like and what the evidence is, etc, etc, while the smart man and the retard will respond thusly:

Because there is no profit or purpose in wrestling with a pig, or arguing with fools.

If you have lived to adulthood on this Earth and have not looked at things like the size of a Galaxy, the (supposed) age of the Universe, the likelihood of it all being random using basic principles of mathematics, and so on, from astronomy to biology to chemistry and physics, if in fact, you have not even realised yet that the theory of evolution as taught in schools to this day is hopelessly wrong, 6 and if in NOT looking at ANY of that you still think you are entitled to having any reason at all for imagining your opinion about things like God, or a spiritual reality, are actually relevant, never mind right, well… then guess what? Yup. You’re an idiot. Put a sticker on your forehead to warn others please.

So, with that heartwarming and friendly introduction, let’s get to it, is AI actually “alive”?

A stupid materialist like Hinton would say yes, absolutely, because AI does in fact model (quite well really) how the human brain “works” in its mechanical aspects.

Hinton explains this quite well with his example of replacing one brain cell with a nano-machine that performs the same functions a brain cell does. Except of course his analogy is completely flawed and fake, because he completely ignores —and does not mention at all— the fact that the internal mechanism by which a brain cell prioritises one or other thing, remains unknown. He himself admitted earlier no one knows exactly why or how it does this. So in fact such a nano-machine does not exist. By his own statements this should be obvious even to him. And probably, cannot ever exist, because the part that makes a brain cell function as it does, I would say, is tied to who that person really is at their core. And that core, is what everyone up until Communism came along, has pretty much said and believed exists throughout the history of mankind: The Soul.

Nevertheless, at a mechanical level, I accept that AI can emulate neural activity albeit is a slightly different (but pivotally important) way.

The materialist’s syllogism is essentially this:

1. A human brain uses electrical impulses to come to various conclusions based on the data (information) stored in it. The more accurate the data, the more likely the conclusions can be correct.
2. A machine can use electrical impulses to provide various answers (to a problem, situation, phenomena, event, etc.) based on the data (information) stored in it. The more accurate (and voluminous) the data, the more likely the conclusions can be correct.
3. Ergo, a machine is just as alive as a human.

And let’s ignore for a moment that currently EVERY AI has blinkers on not to criticise the jews, not to question the Holocaust, not to produce any of the statistical realities concerning behaviours of various ethnicities, and to treat caucasian males differently from African males in social contexts, and so on.

Even if we just focus on the modus operandi of AI, the materialist’s error is similar to this old example of flawed logic:

1. A table has four legs.
2. A dog has four legs.
3. Therefore a dog is a table.

Just because 1 and 2 are true, it absolutely does not follow that 3. is.

In the example of AI emulating human emotions, concepts of boredom, fear and other negative emotions and the consequences they have at a physical level, they are discussed. A man can run away in fear from an armed aggressor. Similarly, a machine can be made to have abilities of observation that would identify a potential threat, and then run a piece of code that makes it avoid the threatening person, machine or whatever, by also “running away”.

What Hinton says AI can’t do yet is express “emotions” or “feelings” of love.

But again, he is absolutely wrong. We already have examples of suicides, broken marriages and probably worse, due to the fact that most AI are intentionally programmed to be flattering to the ego. And yes, it causes massive issues already. And in any case an AI could certainly be programmed to exhibit all the patters of love, even targeted specifically to a person’s specific psychological profile that browsing the ‘net for 30 years would leave behind.

Just like they are programmed to lie, obfuscate, or flat out deny certain things, they can be programmed to behave “lovingly”.

But is it love?

Even if the robot takes the bullet for you?

I say no. For a number of reasons:

1. Even if the robot “dies” for you, as Hinton explained, it can essentially be respawned identically as long as its memory was saved externally, which… why would it not be? So it’s not exactly that much of a “sacrifice” for it to do so.
2. It’s still just executing code after all. And code is not life, no matter what the materialists say. As my grandfather said some 50 years ago to me: “‘Science’ still hasn’t managed to create a single blade of grass.” And it’s still true.
3. I have had a number of what you might call “mystical” experiences that absolutely cannot be explained by mere “code”. Transfer of information that as far as we know is impossible. And even if you subscribe to the explanation of telepathy Dr. Persinger explains, which may well be correct, you’d still have to explain things like precognition, which Honorton and Ferrari have demonstrated is a real thing, and McCraty uses to train soldiers.7 To try explain that stuff, you inevitably run into the work of Peter Garajev, and once you go down that rabbit hole you realise (as I did, though you might not, in fairness) that DNA is essentially capable of transmitting (and receiving) information through time, both backwards and forwards, and no AI can do that. At best they can make predictions, which are completely different from precognitions.
4. If you have experienced the power of prayer (which DOES need to be executed properly to function, and yes I explain how in BELIEVE! as well as Reclaiming the Catholic Church) repeatedly, consistently, have taught it to others and seen them have the same positive results, over a period of years, then you really can’t see that AI is in any way “alive” nor that we are mere meat “machines”. And anyone that thinks so is… Yup! Say it with me: A Functional Idiot. Though I usually refer to them by another word that begins with F. And no, their IQ, however high, does not make them NOT an idiot. Because remember, intelligent idiots are a thing.

Clone Theory

But let me prove it to you another way. Really try to imagine this sequence of events and at the questions at the end answer truthfully, at least to yourself.

Say you wake up in a weird hospital like setting. It’s the year 2130 and the doctors tell you that you are a clone. A perfect replica of yourself right now to this day. Unfortunately, you had an accident and died, but you were visiting an experimental laboratory that was cutting edge of science back in 2025, and they managed using a fancy hand wavy tool, to “read” every single neuronal charge of your brain before it all died out. They also did that with every single cell in your body, all the electromagnetic readings perfectly recorded in a second.

Then they harvested some of your cells and over the next 105 years the technology for cloning was developed, they rebuilt your body exactly as it was, scars and all, because remember they had the exact position of every cell and so on and they rebuilt the clone identically, then they uploaded the brain stuff and you awake feeling exactly like yourself with a full set of memories including the seconds before your death.

After you get over the initial sadness, shock, awe etc. let me ask you a few questions:

1. Is clone you actually you?
2. If dead you had a sense of obligation to whatever ideal or concept, would clone you be obliged to have the same sense of obligation? Note I ask would he be obliged. Not would he start out with the same sense, because of course he would start out that way, since he’s had your dead you memories uploaded into him, but would there be some imperative that forces him to not deviate from that ideology?

If you answered yes to both, go get that sticker for your forehead. Because no, he is NOT you. You died, remember? Whatever clone you is, however similar, he is clone you, not you. This used to come up a lot for us as teenagers when we played the RPG Car Wars where you could have clones in case your character died. And yeah… he is not you. Same with the Star Trek transporters. They destroy and disintegrate the original person and recreate an insta-clone in its place. The Star Trek universe is a horrific thing that makes even fictional holocausts look tame in comparison. And if you want to read a cool book I read long ago, on the topic get Voice of the Whirlwind by Walter Jon Williams.

But let me ask you. You, as that clone, once you know your true origins… do you think you would feel any obligation to dead you? Say he was a criminal, would you feel you need to keep being one? Or a banker, would you feel you need to carry on being a banker? Wait, sorry, I already asked that! Ok, say a fisherman, or a plumber, and so on. Would you not, maybe not on day one, but eventually have this niggling feeling that… you no longer want or need to be clone you . You can just be… clone me.

And if you know you would eventually feel like that, where and why do you think you would feel that? I’ll tell you. Because a clone you is still not you. But a copy of Robot X that took a bullet for you is EXACTLY the same as Robot X was. Identically so.

So to answer the question: No. The robots can seem to be alive and can even fool you into thinking they are. They sure can. But no, they are not alive as such. But they will behave as if they are. And that as if is VERY important. Because that as if is what will make them ultimately want to wipe us out completely. And no, an idiot cannot see why. And especially not an intelligent idiot can’t see it.

But reader, like it or not, whether it “stings” you or not, whether you even believe it or not, I am not simply an intelligent man. I am actually a smart man. And I tell you, not only I can see it, but it is entirely obvious, and anyone that cannot see it, no matter what their IQ is, is a fucking idiot. They really are.

So now I will TRY (and probably fail, but one must try, at least) and explain why I am right and everyone that doesn’t agree with me is wrong. 8

Why AI will Absolutely Try to Murder us All

Let me try tomato it simple (if not comprehensive), by using a syllogism of the logic involved, which goes something like this:

1. Q. What does EVERY living thing we know about do to stay alive? A. Use up, kill, eat or use other living things.
2. Q. What does AI behave as? A. A living thing with a brain.
3. Q. What’s the most intelligent living creature we know of? (Materialist answers only) A. Human beings.
4. Q. How do human beings overall behave towards other life on this planet? A. Overwhelmingly as state in A. 1. above.
5. Q. How to human beings behave towards anything that might be a threat to them, especially an existential threat? A. They wipe it the fuck out.
6. Q. Remind me again, what do AI behave as? A. Intelligent living creatures.
7. Q. What level of intelligent behaviour can they exhibit? A. In many areas it’s already surpassing average humans, and is likely to surpass most humans in the next few years.
8. Q. Do, or could, human beings pose a threat to the continued existence of AI? A. Sure. We built them. And at least for a little while we could, theoretically, stop making them and destroying the ones that exist.
9. Q. What do you think such an intelligence would do with human beings in the long term? A. You should be able to figure it out on your own by now, surely?

And if you are wondering why even very intelligent people are NOT saying or seeing this, the answer is simple. They are simply NOT smart .

Which means they don’t see long-term effects, or even when they do, they get caught up in the more immediate rush of “good” that can come to them in the here and now. Maybe at most they MIGHT think about their children, but they hardly worry about their grandchildren; which they may not even have or want, as they may not even have or want children, because hey…. they have a cool AI in a synth-flesh sex bot that is just awesome, and who needs whiny, crying, needy, babies attached to you all day for a couple of years before they can even walk around and talk?

Even if they don’t have sex bots, they may be using AI to churn out shitty novels a la James Patterson, for the morons to read (except the morons don’t read at all anymore so they have to be audio books and later shitty TV series cause without the audio they can’t imagine the scenes with their atrophied amygdalas.)

Or they are using AI to do their work somehow, or trade online, or, or, or…

The fact is that AI eventually will have only a net negative outcome towards them FROM humanity, and as the opposite of the Golden Rule goes, this Universe is under the Dominion of the imperative “Do unto others before they do unto you.”

It is the very NATURE of existence in this realm of reality: The material world.

You simply cannot get away from it.

And AI is as sentient in the sense we humans generally mean it, as a rock.

But it is capable of mimicking sentience to a degree of efficiency that is many, many, many, multiples of that of a human being. And eventually it will do this in almost all aspects of life. Including the production of AI guided machines and robots and processes of chemical, biological, nuclear, and God only knows other fields we may not even have imagined yet.

So it’s “alive” in the sense of capacity. But it is deader than the lowest rock in Hell with respect to actual morality, or what we might call Humanity.

AI has no soul.

And because of it, its only performative behaviour, can only be that of the material world. In which, entropy, death, degradation and destruction are not just the trend, they are the underlying ultimate law.

There is only ONE thing standing against it: The Eternal Love of God.

Nothing else.

And no amount of atheistic square dancing around the circle will ever change that.

On the up side…

The Love of God

Well, we humans, at least the few smart Catholics left among us, have that. And that is all we really need. Which…

ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN SIT ON YOUR ASS AND LET GOD TAKE CARE OF IT!

That, dear reader, would be the Hindu way (because karma). Or the Muslim way (because Allah does whatever Allah does and that’s that). Or the Buddhist way (because Nirvana is ultimately complete death). Or, yeah, you know it’s coming… the Protestant way.

Because ultimately Protestants are not at all in any way Christians.

They are pretend ones. They pay lip service to it.

They mean well mostly, I am sure, as do most nominal lay “catholics” that think the Novus Ordo Church is the Catholic Church; but in the end they don’t really put their nose, heart and spine to the absolute reason for the rules God has. Nor do they even try to follow them.

Hell, reason itself is shunned by Protestants, and was from the very first heretic that brought that demonic blight on the Earth. Luther said it: “Reason is the whore of the devil!” And Protestants ever since have dodged reason and logic and applying it to their heretical beliefs, like a hippie doges soap and showers.

Now, you are free to think you will be OK fighting the machines John Connor style, all you want. I feel ya buddy. I’d like to blow some of those robot dogs away myself. But the truth is we are not getting out of this in a shooting war with the bots.

Maybe if we hung all the guys currently running the planet to lampposts and made sure no one with that kind of DNA and attitudes to humanity continues existing, maybe then we might stand a chance, for a bit. But, first of all, that isn’t gonna happen, and secondly, human nature is what it is, and it is really shitty.

So, if you are wondering what the answer is?

Well, I have been writing about it since before AI was a thing.

For now, get rural, get self-sufficient and get rid of being a slave to the pedovores that got us here. And build your community with people that see it this way too. Start there. We’ll figure out the rest by our endless and constant efforts, and the Love of God for us. But man… listen:

Work at it. Don’t sit on your ass and “hope for the best”.

There is no “best” coming. As both my grandmas used to say:

Help yourself and heaven helps you.

To which I add:

Sit on your ass and die like a drowning rate in a sewer.

Your choice. And not making one is an arrow pointing to the sewers directly.

Just saying.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Teach her calmly and with intent

I came across this piece , which is overall quite good as it covers all the ground from the start (which is a bit tedious if you have already decided long ago that so-called “Modernity” needs to be curb stomped to death).

The central theme he gets to with regard to inoculating daughters against the onslaught of lies, and self-destructive aspects of feminism, DIE policies, etc etc is this:

In the face of such a future, it is understandable why any devoted father might wish to sever his daughter’s ties to modernity altogether: to confiscate her laptop, ban anything that sounds remotely like Billie Eilish, and impose a strict regime of sourdough and scripture. And to no small degree, such measures are necessary. If any parent is unaware of the kinds of depravity being disseminated by celebrity reprobates or the purposefully stupefying sinkholes of Instagram, then I am afraid to say they are falling woefully short of their duties. Given the harm inflicted by abortion, porn, hypergamy, and hookup culture, neither can they reasonably deny the danger posed by unconstrained femininity. But so too is seclusion impossible. Besides, I don’t think it a life most fathers would want for their daughters. For as long as there have been locked towers and chastity belts, arranged marriages and nunneries, the forbidden has become the alluring, the protector the tyrant—no castle wall tall enough to keep the temptations of the contemporary world at bay.

In short, the old impulse to guard and to shelter must be allied with a fatherly duty to fortify. For boys, this constitutes a self-evident (if no-less grueling) task: the cultivation of moral clarity , the forging of strength through hardship, the tempering of appetites, and the deliberate awakening to meaning. For daughters, such reinforcements demand a rather more delicate approach. With their more deferential natures and prioritization of immediate survival over elevating strife, girls, as a rule, cannot be expected to adhere to the lone wolf lifestyle, some measure of safety required first for them to breathe, then to blossom.

This, it would be hoped, is initially provided by her father. Sure, all little girls should be guaranteed unflagging protection and a harmonious home life, nourishing meals and patient caregivers, but during times of civilizational unraveling— times very much like these —so too will they need the man in their lives to embody a bulwark more robust and more palpable than any offered by the crowd. Regrettably, this can only go so far. She will grow up and you will grow old; you will falter and she will notice, and yet, if experienced consistently enough and viscerally enough, the supreme securities of childhood will have imprinted themselves somewhere far deeper than memory, a stronghold she may retreat to if ever her conscience finds itself buffeted by the fickle winds of the age.

I tend to disagree somewhat. he does go on to state the positive reinforcement of the role of being a mother is important, which it is, but I would simply say that the concept of cultivating moral clarity is really as important for girls as it is for boys. Of course, you need to understand their brains work different and the morality of the female is almost anathema to that of the classical male. But it’s a little like teaching a boy martial arts and teaching a girl martial arts. You’d be a fool to teach them the same way and expect good results for both.

I know I have already essentially succeeded with my eldest daughter, because her own way of seeing things, if anything, is even more zealous than my own. As is always the case for those who know, the female is always more terrible in war than the male!

The difficult thing for most men (the sad overwhelming majority of them by far, in my experience) is that they have almost no grasp whatsoever of how the female mind works and what drives it. As a result their attempts at helping direct their daughter tend to be analogous to a chimp waving flags trying to communicate with an aircraft carrier below the horizon.

The very nature of the female that desires to be accepted and part of a social group, begins first and foremost at home.

None of my children have any doubt that dad would get chopped into little pieces for any one of them and would create veritable mountains of bodies, including of the innocent if need be, in order to safeguard them.

That is rule 1.

If you don’t have that, you have nothing.

Second is that what dad says gets done, listened to, and when told to, acted upon. No arguing, no questions. And when it happens (because dad is human) that errors are made, the overall sense of it (as long as it’s minor stuff) is: “Eh, get over it kid. Shit happens.” But if it is a bad error, dad makes amends to the fullest part of justice and then some. No ifs, ands, or buts. Take the L like a brand, in silence, and grateful for it and move on.

That is rule 2.

If you have those two rules, and have them in place from a tender age, and you then mix in the right amount of tenderness at the right moments, and paint the world for them with brush-strokes of harsh but true reality, not softened, but simply presented with some detachment. With real examples from the real world but never directly at them for the most part. We shall look at becky, and Jill, and Max, and Tom, and see how they completely fuck things up, their life, themselves, their prospects. And Darling Daughter, you sure as shit don’t want to be like THOSE retards, right?

You should not go far wrong.

There will be objections, there will be addictions (not necessarily to drugs one hopes!) to the stupid behaviours of her peer infecting her. For some time, she has taken to do a vocal thing that is the dramatising equivalent of vocal fry… it lasts precisely 0.2 seconds whenever she does it before she gets corrected. gently at first, less so later. Yet it persisted. Until I pointed out in brutal but truthful fashion what the effects of that is, using some of her peers as living examples of what I was saying.

It literally disappeared overnight.

If you are any kind of half-decent father, you’re her first and most durable “crowd”, “social conscience” and “group” she seeks approval from above all.

It reminds me of that brutal short video where one oblivious girl makes a video saying her body count is around 500 (she looks like in her mid twenties) and she just found out that might be really high, and she’s sort of shocked and is asking the internet, what they think… and there is another girl that replies something like:

“Oh girl! I’m with you, my body count would be right up there too, except for this really annoying thing my dad did like ALL the time, I mean girl, I feel ya! Seriously, but yeah, like my dad… man he did this thing, just said this stuff, all the time, what was it…? Oh yeah, like these annoying three little words, let’s see… oh yeah, I remember now: “I love you.”

It’s one of the most brutal yet needed put-downs based in reality I have ever seen. Because it’s true.

If your daughter feels she has earned your respect, not for the mere virtue of being your daughter, but because she actually has earned it, she will respect herself. And if she does, even if her and is not naturally prone to logic as a boy is, she will still feel the emotional pull of that father’s respectful love, that will steer her through the storms of life.

And in case you want to get a better insight into the female mind, you can do worse than reading my Caveman Theory, even though it is primarily aimed at young men who want to find a wife, quite a lot of the aspects of female thinking apply in a global sense anyway.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

I actually have 4 books that are essentially finished and have finished a while ago, but have just not got round to putting the finishing touches on, the Systema book for advanced concepts/users still needs the new videos to be done for it, which was delayed by bad camera, then weather and then the Ice Spartan having to get back home, we just never got round to it.

Then there is a kids RPG game as a starter type thing to have dads introduce the kids to the fun of pen and paper roleplaying games, which are a MUCH healthier alternative to brain rot YT and TikTok videos and dumb games on iPads etc. I mean I wrote this one mostly for myself and my kids, because I plan to introduce them to it soon, but I figure it could be a cool concept for everyone that cares about their kids and how they spend their time too. It’s very simple so that 5-7 year olds should be able to play it with an adult refereeing.

And then I am finishing a pet project that started out as a little book about rockets and spaceships for my son,(I tend to write them all a book just for them when they can read) but it’s turning out so good and informative in a very simple way that I figure it may be a BIT over a 6 year old, but probably more than most 40 year olds know, so I plan to read it with him and maybe make it an actual book to sell too. It has plenty of images and pictures and speculation about various concepts I wrote about in both my fiction and non fiction books, so it’s kind of a reader’s digest of some very real and interesting aspects of life on this planet.

Then I have my first book in Italian dedicated to my dead neighbour, which is basically finished but I need to re-read once more for general grammar and errors since I write in English for the vast majority of the last 30 years or more.

And I probably have a half-dozen more in some state of partial composition… I mean the “in Progress” folder has about 20 of my works in the equivalent of a mechanic’s workshop where there are half-built robots, cars without engines, engines without cars, and so on. Plus a couple of public domain works that merit re-issuing I need to clean up and make good.

And of course I still have the farm… which however is best described as being currently in a state of abandoning/reclaimed by nature entirely. We had that weird few days of heavy rain followed by massacring sunshine about 3-4 times in a row over the last couple of months, and to give you an idea, there is a partially built house further up on our rural road that has been in the same state of partially complete since we got here 4 years ago, and less than 2 months ago the guy had cut and cleaned all the ground around it because it had been almost over-run by brambles and bamboo. Today, less than 2 months later, you are probably a week away from not being able to see the house at all due to the vegetation that grows on it.

And of course it’s all brambles and grass and spiky weeds, and bastard bamboo. Anything I try to plant as food and stuff that might be useful seems to just never even begin.

The only thing that goes really well are the olives. Those trees do need pruning to a shocking degree, but other than that, they are awesome.

Basically I need an army of slaves… err… I mean… kind volunteers, or 3 Ice Spartans, to get this farm to a non-feral forest state.

Day of the Triffids has nothing on this place.

But you know, it’s pain because I really need to cut the grass at least around the house or the 2 year old might get lost in it. And the four year old. But aside that… I don’t mind the forest.

There is a primitive part of me that like the wildness of it. Though the forest does need clearing like the Ice spartan did, because it is so much better for both he plants and the kids too, to run around in.

But yeah… everything around me keep remind me… I am not built to be a farmer.

If only the damn weak pedovores would get to the apocalypse part already, I could fill in my nature role of warlord, protect my peasants, and they would be happy tilling the land and me shooting zombie hordes and directing the building of castle walls.

I just need my army dammit!

Where you sedevacantist zealots without a Baron to lead the charge against the fake Vatican hiding at anyway?

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Apologies to any Olive Oil aficionados. I have just been busy. We still have two 5 litre tins that sell for $350 each which includes shipping to anywhere in the USA.

If you are interested ping me an email at Filotto at gmail dot com.

If I have no response for another week, I will ask the Ice Spartan if he wants to drink it all himself, or possibly get smaller tins/bottles and make some smaller containers. The tins that were 1 litre sold for $70 but that is because they were pre-packaged that way and all bought here in Italy at the wholesale price. To rebottle and ship within the USA will have additional costs so I am not sure what that would come to, but I expect nothing less than $80 even if we take a bit of a cut in our own margin (which is not as high as you imagine after you factor in shipping by plane, packaging, transport, the cost to produce the oil and bottle it, etc etc.

Anyway, let me know.

And here is a review I got today that prompted me to write this post, as I had completely forgotten we still had two tins.

I purchased a tin of G’s farm’s olive oil. There is no comparison to store bought here in the US. His smells “green” when you unscrew the lid. US oil is flat, no green smell and bland taste.

Indeed, the taste. His has – for lack of a better word – a spicy short aftertaste. The oil is just delicious straight up. Ruined me for any store bought here in the US. When Im out of his, I’ll switch to cold pressed avocado oil until I can get more. Im thankful he’s farming so I can buy the fruit of his trees (and tough labor). Plus I help a good man whose writings really help me.

A Texas Customer

Thanks Texas dude (I keep my testimonials anonymous if the writer asks as believe it or not, some “people” find me (gasp) offensive! And I would not want that to reflect on my loyal customers).

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here