Pagans: They never disappoint

Another theological Kurganing is required. Sadly, this specimen came to my attention due to Postcards from Barsoom , who thinks it was really profound. I like John, but he’s basically retarded on anything theological.

***

Subscribe now

Share

A silly Pagan , thinking he’s very erudite and studied and knowledgeable and blah, blah, blah, has written a tragically long exposition of what he calls Roman Hellenism, and this being the “religion” he now believes. If you are already familiar with Greek and Roman mythology you can skip 2/3 or maybe 3/4 of his essay and lose nothing, but the last part if the one I will focus on, taking it apart one point at a time given that his title is:

VI. Why I can’t be a Christian

In my view , Christianity demands intellectual and spiritual surrender to a framework that contradicts both divine justice and natural order.

Christianity 1 clearly does no such thing, since it is verily founded on divine justice, and love, and permeate the entirety of the natural order as we find it.

But we will see all his errors as we proceed to quote him, then correct him.

I cannot accept a religion that negates the nobility of the soul, the legitimacy of ancestral tradition, and the manifold revelation of the divine across time and peoples.

What the HELL (and yes, it is hellish what he “argues”) is he even talking about? Only he knows, because the very premise of Christianity is that every soul is absolutely wonderful and worthy of God’s love. What could be more noble than that?

Is he joking? Christianity has the longest traditions of any other religion.

And as for divine revelation, there is not other religion that has had as many miracles, revelations, both personal and public, as our Lady when she appeared in various very public way from time to time.

My rejection is not a rebellion. It is a reasoned refusal.

Nonsense. It’s not even remotely based on fact, as you would know if you’d spent 20 minutes with an actual Catholic, or actually researching Catholicism. So AT BEST it’s a totally ignorant position based on the retarded delving into actual demonology, without ANY counter-research, OR, he’s just that stupid, OR he’s an actual deceiver intent on fooling others into following in his footsteps.

1. The Exclusive Claim to Truth

Christianity asserts that salvation is possible only through one man, one book, One historical revelation.

Leaving aside the specifics for a moment, let’s not forget that regardless of WHAT you may think that truth is, there is ONLY ONE, possible truth. Not a kaleidoscope of nonsense where “everyone has their own truth”. So… IF we find out what actually works, what actually fits reality, what, in short, is TRUE, then guess what Pagan-boy, EVERYTHING ELSE IS WRONG.

In a world shaped by centuries of culture, myth, and philosophy, I cannot accept that the divine would restrict access to truth so narrowly.

Translation: The truth hurts my fee-fees, so I am going to reject it in favour of whatever perverse nonsense I want to “believe in” not because it’s true, but because it suits me.

The truth is ONE. Even absent God, it would still be the case that the ultimate truth is simply ONE.

See the cognitive dissonance this idiot/liar tries to pass off as “wisdom”.

This claim not only denies the dignity of all other traditions,

You mean like the “dignity” of the Muslim saying raping 9 year olds is fine cause their “prophet” did it? Or the Jews saying raping toddlers and babies under 3 is not a crime in their Talmud? Or the practice of the Hindus to burn the wives of dead husbands on the pyre? Or maybe of the Aztecs cutting out still-beating hearts from men, women and children to their sun God? Or the blood-eagle of the Northmen? No, no, please, go on… enlighten us.

but makes the sacred a bound to geography and timing.

It does neither. Obvious lie. Jesus went to Hell to free all those souls prior to Him that were trapped there and did not deserve eternal damnation, and has given the way to salvation since. And anyone not aware of Him gets judged on their conscience. So, yeah, I am leaning towards dishonest liar at this point, since this is a basic tenet of Catholicism. And if he is not intentionally lying, then he is criminally incompetent metaphysically and his rubbish should be exposed (as I am doing).

It implies that the majority of human beings, before Christ, outside the Church, or beyond the West, are condemned or excluded.

Already dealt with this deceptive idiocy above.

I find that morally untenable.

I find liars morally untenable. And idiots as verbally/scriptorially untenable. As in they should STFU until they actually have anything even remotely non-retarded to say.

By contrast, Roman Hellenism sees truth as something revealed in many forms, to many peoples.

And here we have it… the “everyone has their own truth maaaan…(puffs on some weed/tmc/ayuhasca/peyote/cocaine blend)

The gods speak with many voices.

Indeed because these “gods” are LEGION. As is perfectly explained in the Bible, verified by reality as we find it, etc.

Each land has its rites. Each people honours the divine in the way proper to them.

Yes, we already covered this above…Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, blah, blah, blah… So you are saying you are pro-child rape. Got it.

Universality does not mean sameness.

It literally does. Invest in a dictionary, you moron.

The Roman framework accepts that truth is refracted, not monopolized.

Wow. For word-salad, content-free expressions, this one is quite the mouthful. You clearly have a career in politics.

No single revelation can contain the whole.

Here, let me prove you wrong:

Understand that and you’ll have all of math sorted. Ergo all of logic in due course. Ergo, truth ultimately.

The sacred is not owned.

Wrong. God owns it.

It is recognized.

At which you clearly failed.

2. The Doctrine of Total Depravity

In my view, Christianity teaches that man is inherently broken and incapable of rising by his own strength.

This is an observable fact that anyone objective can verify pretty quickly by simple observation, testing and noticing how reality works.

This doctrine offends my understanding of the soul.

AAAAAAAnnnnndddd here we have it ladies and gentlemen. What did I say above? It’s all about what upsets HIM! Because HE, you see, is the most important hing in the Universe. His feelings! Not truth, not reality, BUT HOW HE FEELS! It’s HIS Fee-Fees! How Could you?!?!?!

Her’s a newsflash buddy: Reality doesn’t care. No one else does either. God might care about you, but even He lets you be as retarded as you want and choose your own ego, and the Hell that comes with it, instead of facing reality, if that is the egomaniacal path you want to choose.

I hold that the soul, while capable of error, is divine in origin and capable of returning to the good through reason, virtue, and divine guidance. It does not require a supernatural pardon to be worthy. The idea that even the most righteous pagan is lost without belief strikes me as a betrayal of divine justice.

No one gives a shit what you think. You’re stupid, make gross errors of basic logic and research, and no one sane could possibly give your nonsensical “ideas” a minute of time, given the overwhelming evidence of how flawed your thinking is already, as exposed above.

Roman Hellenism affirms that the soul is a spark of the divine. It is placed in the world not as punishment but as trial.

Show me where in Christianity it says we are placed here as punishment. The fucking lies man. You gotta quit doing that.

The gods do not require us to abase ourselves. They call us to rise. Through discipline, sacrifice, and contemplation, the soul returns to its origin.

Show me where Christianity says you should be undisciplined, not sacrifice, and not contemplate, and show me how what you wrote above is the diametrical opposite of what Christianity says, which is what you are implying. We’ll wait.

The rites prepare the soul. The virtues shape it.

Uh… again… I think you’re stealing concepts from Christianity and pretending they are Pagan ideas —which by the way, they are absolutely not. The Pagan concept of “salvation” doesn’t even exist. It’ Hades for everyone except those favoured by the Gods, who MIGHT have got to Elysium. And you get “favoured” by pleasing the gods or being liked by them because they want to fuck you (literally) or use you in some scheme of their own backstabbing “mean girls on Olympus” games. Ever heard of the Illiad? The Odyssey? No? Nothing? Always up there in the stellar department on basic concepts and research eh?

Nothing is owed to original sin. Man is not born damned. He is born capable.

And yet here we are, with morons like you wandering the streets thinking they are capable… go figure.

3. The Displacement of the Gods

Christianity scarcely integrates other sacred traditions.

Rephrasing: Mathematics hardly integrates the colour purple and the concept of “clouds” in its calculations!

Alternative rephrasing: We must stop this NOT mixing of sewage (lies) with ice cream (truth). We MUST blend them for best results!

It has historically demanded their abolition.

Just as I will continue to demand abolition of retards that say 2+2=Wednesday.

It replaces the rich plurality of the divine with a single absolute.

Translation: It replaces endless lies, confusion, sophistry and fog with truth, clarity and beauty.

It declares the old gods to be lies, demons, or dead metaphors.

Because they are. Again, just basic observation of the claimed behaviour of the “gods” suffices to prove the point. The reference to them in Psalms especially further proves the point unambiguously.

Roman Hellenism does not behave this way.

You mean demons don’t admit to being demons??!?! Gasp! Say it’s not so!

It places no contradiction between universal divinity and particular forms.

Translation: It places no distinction between truth and lies. It’s all the same, and nothing is ever true. You have your own “truth” you special breed of creature, you!

Christianity insists on a monopoly.

Translation: Truth insists on it being the only truth.

I believe divinity is not exclusive.

Translation 1: I believe everyone has their own “truth”.

Translation 2: I want lies to be the “truth” so I can appease my fee-fees and perversions.

Roman Hellenism acknowledges the gods of other nations as part of cosmological order.

Translation: As is clearly explained Biblically the Demons have reign over some specific places.

The Romans built temples to other European gods and linked them to native ones through understanding, not destruction.

Translation and observation of fact: You gotta respect the lies of other demons lest they start people thinking maybe there is only ONE truth.

The world is full of divine powers.

He spelt demonic entities wrong.

The more we honour, the more we understand.

Honour what?

Real meaning: The more you serve a specific demon, the more fake power and ego-boosts they will give you to continue down the wrong path.

There is no fear of multiplicity.

I.e. we like and accept all the lies. We have to. Otherwise I can’t do my perverse shit if I ban you from doing your perverse shit. Anything goes! Oh… wait… except ONE THING: The actual truth. We gotta ban that!

The gods are not in conflict.

Actually demons are in conflict all the time, they just happen to hate us more than each other at least until they get us to Hell, then in their own realm they hate each other just as much. What he means here though is: All the lies live together in harmony in the Pagan lifestyle.

They exist in a hierarchy.

Oh, so he DOES know demons have a hierarchy too.

I extend this view to Christianity as well. I don’t know who, or where the Lord God, or Yahweh as he is called truly belongs to, but I won’t deny a Christian’s own personal faith, or influence he may have.

As long as it’s more of the same nonsensical non-truth (i.e. Protestantism) with 40,000 versions. The one you will NOT accept is the only real one that rejects all the lies and says plainly that unless you follow the truth you will be lost. i.e. Catholicism.

4. The Break in the Sacred Chain

Many forms, and what seems to be dominant forms of Christianity separate man from his ancestry, his nation, and his sacred rites.

No. There is only ONE actual form of Christianity, always has been and always will be only one. Actual Catholicism. Which today is espoused uniquely by Sedevacantists that are aware there has been no valid Pope since 1958 and hold the Totalist position (I.e. Actual Catholicism as it has always been). And in no way does Catholicism separate a man from his ancestry, quite the contrary.

I descent from marauding Vikings, who then converted to Catholicism and became Crusaders in due course. You are probably an American, or Canadian, or some Anglo, descendent from Protestant heretics who lost their way from the truth a few centuries ago and are now the inhabitants of freemasonic created countries.

It teaches that true loyalty is owed to a spiritual kingdom, not to one’s people, laws, or gods.

So in communist Soviet Union you would be a good Stasi right? In Aztec culture you would murder babies. Or even today, in secular West you also would murder babies when you get some slattern pregnant and it’s inconvenient for your sport-fucking habit, right? Hey, I mean, it’s the LAW! And hey, some of the Gods think it’s fine to rape anyone you find attractive, and all sorts of other evil shit. But hey, that’s the gods, so you gotta do… well… whatever you ant right? That’s the Pagan way, do as thy will. Wait… who says that again? Hmmm…. Horns, hooves, red guy… nope..can’t think of it…

This is not how I understand the divine.

Clearly you understand very little about very little. Starting with BASIC research. BASIC logic. Etcetera. Focus on things you can cope with, such as using the velcro straps on your shoes. Because shoelaces are clearly a trap for someone like you.

The gods dwell in hearth and home, in the customs of one’s ancestors, in the ceremonies that bind the living to the dead. Religion that denies these, to me, is not liberation. It is alienation.

My ancestors were Catholic Crusaders and Pagan Vikings before that. Yours were clearly inbreeders if your level of “intellect” is anything other than go by, and just like mine stopped being murdering marauders, you should try not to breed with family anymore, mhhhm-kay? To each the baby steps they can cope with, eh?

In Roman Hellenism, the gods are not distant. They live in the household shrine, in the laws of the city, in the soil of one’s homeland. To honour them is to honour one’s father and grandfather.

Wait, were your father and grandfather practicing rites to Apollo? Gutting doves to read their entrails and divine what Athena might wish of them? They killed heifers and gave libations to Zeus? Really? We wanna see the 8mm films of that shit. What’s that? You only have some stills from Bohemian Grove? Ah… okay, we see.

To remember them is to uphold one’s duty. The soul does not rise by shedding its roots.

Souls do not have Pagan roots you cretin. We were created sinless by God (Adam and Eve? Ever hear of that?) then they corrupted themselves and everyone after them and we kept fucking things up by breeding with demons…errr… or as you would have it “being favoured by the “gods” whenever they got horny near a sexy looking human, which made the “Titans” Nephilim, or “Demi-Gods” and God had to flood the Earth and start again, but yeah… still didn’t go well, so he devised a perennial solution for all time with the only condition being we need to choose it of our own free will to not end up separate from him (in Hell). Seems you have made your choice.

It rises by fulfilling them.

Which means going back to source, i.e. God. Not his fallen angels pretending to be “gods”.

There is no conflict between the divine and the ancestral. There is harmony.

Depends on the ancestral. And keep in mind in secular terms you are saying the idiocy that there is only “harmony” with you and whatever your ancestors got up to. Including their raping and murdering people, because it was “fine” in their time/place/era/belief system.

It is not necessary to reject my Christian ancestors in order to reject the framework they inherited. I believe their Christianity, for all its dogma and later distortions, was still a real expression of reverence and order. I do not see their prayers as wasted or their churches as empty. They carried forward the sacred under a different name. They did not choose their religion in the way we do now.

Thanks for admitting quite clearly you will choose your religion based on your wishes and personal perversions and not reality, truth, or objective fact.

It was the world they inhabited. Their altars were directed toward Christ, but their instincts remained Roman.

Word-salad number 2, not as good as the earlier one, but still pretty decent totally content-free expression.

The way they built their cities, ruled their homes, honoured their dead, and upheld their kin bore the same structure that shaped the ancient world. Their piety was not erased. It was redirected.

What nonsense. Catholicism upended the entire Roman pantheon and consequently the way people acted, behaved and related to each other. Anyone not seeing this (or rather, pretending no two) is an abject deceiver.

The last thousand years of Christian history are not a betrayal of what came before. They are a vessel of it. The rites changed, but the impulse endured. Their sense of virtue, hierarchy, and sacred time mirrors the older tradition more than it mirrors modernity.

More nonsense. Catholicism overturned all the inhuman and vicious practices of the barbaric demon-imbibed cults that preceded it.

Their devotion to saints and martyrs was functionally the cult of heroes. Their festivals echoed the civic calendar.

No. They are a literal re-creation of Jesus’s life and resurrection.

Their liturgies were not drawn from Scripture, but from temple rites.

Factual absurd lie. In case you haven’t noticed, we don’t offer burned meats at the altar.

The incense, hymns, and consecrated spaces were preserved forms. Christianity did not invent metaphysics. It inherited them. Its deepest theologians—Augustine, Boethius, Aquinas—were shaped by Cicero, Seneca, Plotinus, and Plato. Even Dante could not consign the noble ancients to hell. They stood in peace, in limbo, bathed in honour.

If not in heaven. Because as we have already stated, those who were deemed good before Christ did not remain in the torments of Hell. It’s why Jesus descend into Hell. Remember? And Dante was Catholic and knew this. You absolute moron.

That vision admits the ancient truth: that the soul can ascend without revelation, and that the gods never ceased speaking.

No. It admits, as it always did that God is perfect Justice, Mercy and Love, and no one ends up in Hell by anything other than their own choice and actions. Just like you are doing here, lying through your teeth.

Roman Hellenism affirms what Christianity once preserved. It gives me a vision of the sacred that is rational, ordered, and plural.

The sacred, (i.e. truth) by definition, cannot be plural. You deceiving, egomaniacal idiot. It can ONLY be one.

It does not demand erasure of my ancestors but helps me understand them.

Show me where Catholicism demands the erasure of the past or truth?

In fact it specifically reminds us of the historical truth of the past precisely so we can avoid re-committing the same errors.

They walked in the light they were given. I walk in mine. We are not in conflict. We are a procession. The blood did not break. The line did not end. What lived in them lives in me, but with clearer vision and a truer name.

Yes. It’s clearer today. You’re choosing, of your own free will, to serve lies and demons in order to appease your base vile desires. It’s very clear.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

NB: On having written this I realised this could potentially be more useful for women than men. If you are female and read here, do let us know your thoughts on it.

***

On the post on Balls , I explained why women like Catherine will self-deceive, and drop their knickers for a man that they will either:

1. supposedly tell us in the cold light of day, is obviously a bad guy and they couldn’t possibly ever do such a thing, (but when it happens they will) or,
2. Backwards (after the fact) and forwards (future project) rationalise their emotions as to why it’s “okay” for them to do so, based on X, Y, and Z, none of which X, Y, or Z are in fact really relevant, and at times are not even present or remotely true.

Women generally tend to be publicly incredulous of such men having an effect on them, but privately they do know that it can indeed happen to them.

But there are also male skeptics who just assume such situations are just fairy tales that only happen in porn movies (which they are intimately familiar with). Even then, the porn film scenario “irks” them because they see it as “unrealistic”.

Now, if you are one of those kinds of men that has had this sort of thing happen to him on a fairly regular basis, or a woman that has succumbed to this sort of instant attraction, you know full well it’s a real thing that happens.

If you’re also a logical human being, you will similarly understand that just because it happens doesn’t mean it’s necessarily common (though it can be relatively common for those whom are of this type).

This is easily understood and accepted in pretty much any other field.

If I told you that you’d likely die trying to race the same car and match the speed Ayrton Senna did at any of the circuits where he did not die, you would probably accept that there is a fair chance that is true.

In the realm of sports, intellectual endeavours, art, and pretty much any other field, most people are ready to accept their limitations and recognise that a small percentage of men are far more capable than them.

When it comes to sexual chemistry and the ability to become intimate quickly, or be found almost irresistibly attractive, to a woman, especially a woman that most think would not behave in such a fashion, for some reason, a rather larger group of men and women both become far more dubious.

Perhaps it’s because many people lie about their sexual conquests, or prowess, perhaps it’s because the average man is really not very enticing at all and in fact, less and less so as time passes, and so women find it difficult to imagine such men still exist. And men themselves continue to be ever more feminised so they can’t imagine themselves being those kind of guys, much less actually be them.

But whatever the case is, the types that are most stridently against believing such power exists in some men are entrenched feminist women (i.e. usually the embittered and unfuckable ones, because no one wants them, and it is in fact true for them that short of an actual miracle, no one will ever glance in their general direction with the kind of animal attraction we are describing here). The other type that will tend to not believe this are Gamma males, Omegas, and a large chunk of Deltas.

The more aware Omegas may appreciate that such events happen, but they rightly realise it will likely never happen to them specifically. Most Deltas, will also imagine this is all part of some Hollywood fantasy and women either don’t behave like that, or no men really elicit that kind of response in women. Some Deltas that have seen it happen before their eyes because they may be on friendly terms with some guy that does have this presence, will tend to be like the more aware Omegas “Yes it can happen, Mr. X cleans up and women love him, but it’s because [insert rationalisation here, accurate or not as it may be (usually not too accurate)]”.

And then there are the really bitter ones. These are guys that may even look decent, have money, wear good clothes and have manicured hands. In other words, they are guys that have spent time and effort to make themselves into what the world tells you that you need to been order to be a “catch” any woman will want.

And they still fail.

There are two types, the Elliot Rodger incels, who eventually probably do become a mass shooter risk, because they drank the Kool-aid of “what women want” but continue to have utterly pestilentially-radioactive personalities, and aside possibly paying for it, they will not get laid at all. And may in fact even be rejected by professional prostitutes, because they may well sense the intrinsic hatred such men end up feeling toward women in general.

The other type is the kind that actually does get laid fairly regularly, but ultimately remains incapable of forming lasting or meaningful relationships. This type can be confusing because there is a tendency to assume all fukbois are equivalent, but as with anything, if you pay attention there are subdivisions. Broadly speaking (ladies, pay attention) there are three types of fuckbois, and they can be a bit confusing to differentiate, if you are a young innocent. They are:

1. The Pigs. This guy just genuinely likes women. Most women. Possibly all women. And the idea of limiting himself to just one woman… well, it’s like chocolate mints… you can’t eat just one! These in turn become one of two type in time. Either they get eventually sated of the female form and its generalities and will tend to settle with a woman that is interesting enough to keep them from becoming bored, and they can then become actually physically loyal to her. Not because they lack opportunities, but because they find that challenge to be perhaps more interesting, or the character-forming exercise of it more entertaining and worthwhile. Occasionally it might even be to some sudden religious conversion of the Road to Damascus type. The other type remains a pig all his life, including into old age. They do not hate women, but they also don’t really consider them too much. Beyond the pleasure, temporary feelings of intimacy and closeness they can get from them, possibly children (usually sons) that they may feel are worthwhile, they are unlikely to ever stop seeing other women on the side. They are addicted to the chase, the new conquest, the next number on their belt, and so on.
2. The Porcupine. This guy is still a pig (porcupines are basically small pigs, by the way) but either because he has some level of self-loathing, mommy issues, or whatever, despite his success with bedding women, he tends to really quite dislike women. And in fact, the easier a woman lets him take her to bed, the less he respects her. Personally I have never related to these guys at all. I think they are badly flawed. The way I always saw it was that if a woman gave herself quickly to me, it just meant she obviously had either good taste and knew her own mind, or was a bit slutty and still mostly knew her own mind. And either one was perfectly acceptable to me, even for a potential long term prospect. After all, if I had no respect for a woman at all, why would I want to have sex with her?! It just made no sense to me. Now, given I had more than my share of one-night stands, when I say “respect” it doesn’t mean I necessarily thought the woman was a good long term prospect, etc. maybe she was just sexy and slutty in a way I found interesting. That day. But the point is, I wasn’t going to judge her for something I was myself indulging in, whatever it was. I think my primary problem with this kind of guy is their hypocrisy. In my experience these guys end up eventually marrying some relatively innocent (but soon to become jaded) woman that they will continue to cheat on. I suppose it’s possible a few become better later and improve, but as far as my personal knowledge of such guys goes, even if they try to become “good guys” eventually their deep dissatisfaction with what they fantasise they are “owed” clashes with reality enough that they screwed up their possible relationships. They also tend to generally be “jokingly” negative about women. And while many men in the fuckboi category can do this, the viciousness of the porcupine is far more genuine than the good natured ribbing that a simple Pig may come up with. It is also at least partially true that the Porcupines, similarly to the Fake Man (see below) often do not manage to get involved with the very type of woman they crave, and especially the type that may be truly devoted. Their deep-seated disdain for women reaches some kind of threshold that those women actually capable of the kind of devotion these men long for, gets triggered by and they tend to avoid them, even if not as obviously or sometimes successfully as most women will dodge a pure Gamma from interacting with them.
3. The Fake Man. Irrespective of the fact these guys MAY (not will, but MAY) be successful with women, there are two things to keep in mind.
   1. Primarily the women that they will be successful with are like them: superficial and shallow. Believers in the worldly aspects of what “success” is or is not.
   2. The type of woman they really would like to be besotted with them will usually hardly give them the time of day, but if they do happen to become fooled enough to end up in bed with them, it will absolutely not last, and in fact is likely to end rather bitterly and badly.
   The general core of this type is that they have all the outer trimmings of a “successful” man, but they are hollow. Or to put it another way, they just don’t have any real balls. At most they have the store-bought plastic variety that some attach under their 4×4 pickups in a tragic display of “masculinity”. Essentially, these are Elliot Rodger if Elliot Rodger actually got laid. But doing so doesn’t fill up the hole they have where “validation by others” resides. I have met several of these types, and while there is a great variance among them, the most common archetype I have seen is the one of the wealthy muslim. As some of you may know, there are super-rich Arabs that will pay “instagram influencers” tens of thousands of dollars only to do the most perverse and degenerate sex acts on them as a way to reinforce their world view that either women in general —and/or especially these supposedly beautiful and out of reach white girls— are all just cheap whores that will do anything for a buck, and thus can be treated with, and thought of, with utter contempt. They act this way, or use and discard women in serial fashion, even when they are not millionaires without a job, in what is ultimately a pathetic attempt at feeling “superior” or “better than” or above, other men, and women as a whole. They will espouse the ideology (partially even in public) that only a virgin of age 25 that will worship him as a god is worthy of his attention. But… as all women are whores, according to him, it’s not his fault that such women no longer exist, forcing him to gradually become even more jaded and actually spiteful towards women in general. There is often also a race or ethnic component to this type, especially where if they are not caucasians, there is some deep-seated sense of inferiority that they ultimately simply can’t get rid of. I had more than one such character (muslim in each instance) that literally tried to impress me with their wealth or supposed “power” over other men (in economic terms, by having servants, hangers on, etc.) such men spent money and time to try and get a reaction of “impressed” out of me, and inevitably failed. First of all because I am constitutionally unable to kiss up to people who want me to do so, regardless of the reason, and secondly because even if I were that way inclined (some of these guys can be quite pathetic in their need for validation, sometimes one might just feel that telling them “oh wow” would make their month), I don’t exactly have a good poker face. I have never known one of these guys to evolve past their severe daddy or mommy issues. They do tend to be financially better off than most. Because it’s part of their cultivated persona. Some of them will work maniacally to earn that kind of “lifestyle” they equate with success, but no matter how many private jets they have or caviar they consume, or slaves they have, or women they essentially buy into having sex with them (overtly or indirectly) they simply can’t fill the hole in their soul that makes them whole. And the main issue with these guys is that deep down, they are cowards. And some part of them knows it. The core problem with them is that they ultimately, in simple terms, lack balls.

This last, the Fake Man, is the one that will disbelieve other men get the kind of instant and instinctive attraction, especially from the type of women that they pine for secretly, more than anyone else, including the feminist woman. And if and when they see such an interaction take place, or are presented with inescapable proof of it (say the woman in question admitting to the event that got her to now be with a Mr. X) between what they assume is an “inferior” man and a woman they were hoping to attract until a second earlier, rather than re-evaluate their skewed view of reality, they will act like a deranged feminist and try to deny reality instead. Suddenly the very woman of their dreams is now obviously a dirty and faithless whore and their bitterness at women in general only increases.

Which brings up to the four or five things that actually attract women. Regardless of what women say, it is these things (listed in order of importance – but see below):

1. Balls. As explained before in a previous post (see link at the start of this post) this is a mix of courage, self-reliance, competence, self-confidence based on objective ability, and ability to be physically dangerous. Balls, trumps pretty much everything else. If you can only have one attribute, this is the one to have. Even women who do not put this as the first item on the list (consciously or unconsciously) can and will react to it. These are the supposedly focussed gold-diggers, or loyal trad wives, that nevertheless find themselves bent over their own kitchen counter with a stranger inside them, even though it threatens their entire life situation, and them having gone for it, with little to no understanding of why or how that happened afterwards.
2. Money. There is no denying that the ability to provide a very comfortable lifestyle is attractive, and some women prioritise this. I personally had a romantic interest that due to specifics I will not go into for the sake of her privacy, had decided that a secure financial future was more important than the instinctive passion she may have had with me. Given her specific situation, I can’t say I in any way blamed her. In fact, even at the time, I figured she made the right choice. The intensity we might have had could run out in due course, or be unreliable. The guy she decided to be with was always going to be well-off and would always be wrapped around her finger, as she was several points out of his league. On the other hand, I also knew a married woman that had made that same choice years earlier, that was absolutely ready to leave her multi-millionaire husband if I had been willing to enter into a lasting relationship with her; which I was not. So, all other things being equal, money is not the top of the pyramid people think it is. In fact, I only place it here as second because the average modern human imagines things in a very materialistic way, and even then, balls trump money. If we were to measure things at a purely soul level of things, money would be last on the list.
3. Looks. It helps if you have the chiselled look of a comic book superhero, but while these are favourable to get your foot in the door, so to speak, they don’t count anywhere near as much with women as they do with men.
4. Honour/Reliability. This is a tough one, because from a female perspective, a man that is absolutely of his word is on one hand very attractive, because she can rely on him to do as he says. This is also a positive because if he can be relied upon, he can be relied upon to be manipulated as she is able to do. On the down side, if she CAN manipulate him easily she will lose respect for him and that is NOT attractive. Yet, if he is fully independent of her because of his sense of integrity, that is a worry for her since she (being female) knows what a duplicitous creature she is, and a rigidly moral man, can become a burden, tiring, or even dangerous, depending on how “flexible” she is with the truth. But a man that will keep his own line, while clearly demarcating her limits for her, and also those for the rest of the world, where she can see the limits he has for her trump the rest of the world (but not his own morals)…well… that is indeed catnip to women. If we measure things at what I described above as a soul level, then this fits in at number 2, but generally women today have somewhat lost the ability to judge a man on this basis and it takes them being at least somewhat already involved to correctly evaluate this aspect of their character.
5. Fame/Status. I have placed this last, even though in many ways it is “first” for women, because in the first place, fame itself is ephemeral and fickle, and while status can be more long-lasting, it is really not that interesting a feature once you become intimately familiar for a period. It is the first of the “good qualities” that a woman will get used to the fastest, and consequently no longer be smitten by it. Status can of course also be long-lasting, but it says very little and often what it does say is not very positive, of the person itself, and their character or deeper drives. Maybe every woman wants to bed Bradd Pitt, but… once you find out what he’s really like behind closed doors, the public persona can even become a nauseating net negative due to the sheer contrast of the illusion when compared to the far more humbling reality. In the other way of measuring this fits just above money, but only temporarily before sliding to the bottom pretty fast.

Anyway, the point is that items 1 and 4 are the important ones. And they are the two things you simply can’t buy. You either have them or you don’t. And the type 3 “fuckbois”, that is, the Fake Men , just don’t really have these things. Which is why regardless of if married or not, they will continue to be bitter and hate men with a passion that can get genuine devotion from a woman, even while they deny such things are possible. And later, at home, they will cry into their pillow about why THEY don’t get that level of passion, and almost worship, that they see women give to men they deem must be “losers” because they don’t wear a 20k wristwatch.

I am not sure what such men are in the SSH category described by Vox Day, as some can appear to be genuinely superficially successful with women, but are inevitably clearly bitter and unfulfilled with their conquests, and remain envious at a visceral level of men who casually attract devotion from women without even much effort.

Externally they may present as Alphas, or Sigmas, sometimes as Bravos (to a more powerful/rich/more “successful” man in a position of authority over them) but honestly, in my estimation such men are absolute gammas.

Take a Jeff Bezos, in terms of money he has enough that it trumps all sorts of things when compared to almost all men, but take a Clint Eastwood in his prime, or even just a Charles Bronson, and put him next to a Jeff Bezos in his prime, and there is no honest woman on Earth that will say they have the same possibility of “feels” for Jeff that they would for a Clint or a Charles (you young ones will have to google these old (or dead) guys, I don’t know if there are equivalent types in the millennial actors of today). A Yul Brynner for example could hardly be said to be conventionally attractive, yet he had that presence, which a fake like Ben Affleck simply doesn’t have. And yet you can tell Ben sees himself as “the man”. But scratch the surface and there is only a neurotic guy that would seethe until his ears smoke at a Yul Brynner walking in the room and instantly having women of all types take note, even the ones that “don’t think that bald guy is attractive at all”.

Anyway, this rather detailed descriptor of some male equivalents of the embittered feminists have been labelled as pseudo-incels because even if they do get laid, it’s never really satisfying. Not for them, and not for the poor women who get fooled enough to do so. And especially not viable for the long term.

I hope it’s of some use to some of you.

Share

Subscribe now

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Car trips with the Young Viking are fast becoming one of my favourite times with him.

Aside the fact he keeps up when I invariably move at “Catholic civilisational speed” whenever I go do errands (usually at the hardware store), and is helpful carrying odds and sods on our way to the car when I have heavier stuff with me, the conversations are positively fascinating and usually of better quality than I have with most adults.

We don’t let them go on iPads and so on, limiting the exposure of screens to the odd duo-lingua “game” but sometimes one of them manages to sneak a YT video on the TV when we are otherwise occupied, less so now that we are getting. more organised, but somewhere along the line they had got enough exposure that he was interested or knew who Mr. Beast was.

I barely know who he is other than a YT “personality” that is a ticket-taking fake that has some or various associations to some or multiple pedophile adjacent generic evil scum. It’s part of the reason why YT type videos are banned and they can only watch the occasional full feature film. I have explained to them in basic terms why that is, in accordance with their age, and he is generally keen to impress me with his ability to grasp the concepts I discuss with him, but keep in mind that I have NOT discussed with him any theology at all aside taking him to church when HE asks me, or his sisters do (they are all generally always happy to do so as a little team of savages). The full extend of my theological conversations with him has been limited to me showing hm how to kneel and cross himself on entering a Church and doing so before meals.

My reasoning is that knowing my children and the DNA they received from both myself and their mother, trying to impose anything on them by edict is a guaranteed way to have it fail miserably. So I just go about my own way to demonstrate gratefulness to God and as they observe and ask questions I answer them as briefly and simply as possible. Given my general slackness in piety, it’s also a rather subtle event for them to notice. But I know trying to impose any artificial sense of duty on them is absolutely not going to work. Call it Sigma genetics, contrarian DNA, rebellious spirit of freedom, or what have you, but such is the way of my family DNA as far back as anyone ever cared to look.

So… to the story.

We are driving and at some point, out of the blue he mentions Mr.Beast:

YV: Mr Beast is a stupid Youtuber, so I am not going to listen to him, but he has a LOT on money dad. How did he get that?

(He is inordinately aware of the concept of money, and was since I think he could speak. And the value of Gold. I have no idea why or how, as it’s not anything we particularly care about or discuss)

Me: Well, guys like that, they get given a lot of money to present in certain way, or try to influence how people think.

YV: But who gives them money?

Me: Not good people. People who want you to believe all the lies they say. So you see people like that on YouTube and you think he’s cool and good, but really he’s teaching you lies while you don’t realise.

YV: So they take money to lie?

Me: Pretty much, yeah.

YV: But why?

Me: People are weak son. There are two types of people, the ones that will take money if you offer them enough of it, and the ones who will not.

YV: How do you mean?

Me: Ok, let me make an example. Remember when I gave you and your sister 10 euro for helping clean up the drive?

YV: Yes

Me: Ok, that was like getting paid to do a job, right? It was no problem to do that, I didn’t ask you to do anything bad, or wrong.

YV: Yeah.

Me: Ok what if I or someone else said: “I’ll give you a 100 euro, but you need to punch your little sister in the face” what would you say then?

YV: (indignant) No!

Me: What if it’s a thousand euro?

YV: No! I don’t care how much money they say.

Me: Good. That’s the right way to be son.

YV: I don’t care if it’s a lot of money, because family is the most importantest thing! (yes he said it that way, not a typo).

Then he paused for about two seconds and added:

YV: Except for God. God is the most important of all.

I am not often at a loss for words, but I did glance at him while driving, he was his usual impassive and calm self, looking out the front of the car at the road.

I mean, he is 6.

I was well over my mid-forties before I tentatively concluded the same, and sometimes I am still hovering on the brink of family before God now, and got it at age 6.

In the end all I could say was just…

Me: Yes. You’re right [YV name].

Honestly I think he’s teaching me more about God than I ever will teach him anything on the subject.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Those who know, know. Those who don’t know will pretend it doesn’t matter, but anyone that has researched IQ studies to a decent level will be aware that try as you might, what is called the baseline g —a letter used to denote a generic level of intelligence that is most commonly described as IQ— is essentially one of the most powerful indicators and predictors of many aspects of how a person will turn out, what their capacities intellectually are, and the most likely outcomes in a number of ways.

In keeping with my recent post on single data point pattern recognition, a person’s ability to be punctual (or increasingly, their lack of ability to do so) will tell you many things about them.

So, in succinct form, here are a few baselines assumptions you can make about anyone that is regularly incapable of being on time. Not all factors are of equal weight, and not all are necessarily present to the same degree, and in a few cases some may be entirely absent, so this is a generic formula, but in gross terms, someone regularly late to appointments is most likely to exhibit these traits (in no particular order):

• Lack of ability to organise themselves, projects, or others
• Lack of discipline, both self-imposed (which is most important) as well as that dictated by external factors, events or people
• A self-centred perspective which can range from the generic solipsism of most women ramped up a notch above their equally retained concern with social status, to absolute narcissism where they actually enjoy irritating others by being late as a way to demonstrate their own “importance”.
• A lack of general respect for others (related to but separate to the point immediately above)

All of the above can also therefore, quite logically, also mean a general sense of confusion/overwhelm or simple lack of conscientiousness, concern for others and egocentric fixation, all of which, to one degree or other are almost certainly present.

What does this mean in a wider context? How do you think a prospective employer, spouse, friend, etc will view you if you are constantly late at every appointment?

It speaks to reliability, does it not, which is somewhat related also to loyalty, commitment, and so on.

Now, I realise in the modern world such basics of manners, education, discipline, and what used to be common sense are a dying art, but that in no way means the principles outlined above have somehow become invalid. Just because people no longer can add 2 and 2, in no way invalidates math either.

And you can “argue” and present all the “excuses” and “reasons” you want, none of them invalidate the basic premises above.

None.

As the Gibbs character in the NCIS TV Series says: “If you’re not 20 minutes early, you’re late.”

Personally I always had it as 5 minutes early, and later in life as actually ON time or a minute or two early, but only because everyone else is a damned slacker. If everyone was on their game we’d all meet 5 minutes early every time.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

My trilogy on the Overlords of Mars, which has been compiled into one omnibus you can get digitally or on paper (link for the amazon paper version is in the description at the link for the digital version) named Nazi Moon , has ben extremely well received by the few people that follow me, or found it and read it.

It’s a throwback to real hard SF, with quite a lot of human, emotional, (and yes some hardcore sex scenes too, because humans do that) and even romantic plot lines in, as well as quite larger plot lines, some of which are slow burners, and enough new tech and real life information that readers are pleasantly surprised (and often quite shocked) when they find out just how real a lot of the things I discuss in those books are.

And here is yet another point that proves that, along with all the other ones, (Psychotronic healing chambers, various weapons technologies, stealth technology, anti-g tech, etc etc) the technologies I describe in the books are not in fact fiction.

You just don’t know they already exist.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Warning for the non-autistic: It takes a minute, but this post does get funnier and more interesting after the basics. Fellow aspies will enjoy it from the very first sentence of course.

Subscribe

Share

Regular readers here will hopefully have realised that in order to have a better, happier, more fun life, as a man, you should absolutely, never, ever, ever, show any mercy to feminists of any kind, and the duplicitous (which means that along with feminists, whole (((ethnicities))) are essentially perennially guilty until proven innocent by a literal miracle from God, while women in general are only given a pass because we need them to reproduce and despite being biologically engineered to deceive, they can still be quite sexy, funny, fun, and SOMETIMES, the “fooling us” can be quite fun too. You know when it doesn’t cause us to give up on life or go on a shooting spree, etc.)

Yes, I can give examples of the exceptions – wrt women. There is no hope for feminists, and I have yet to find a single example of the (((tribe))) that is redeemable. I posit that theoretically one might exist, but so far… nyet.

But… there is another creature that should always be stomped out of existence.

The Gamma “male”.

These creatures are insidious, toxic and have no positively useful function. Consider them the human equivalent of noxious vermin.

Why?

Because it is their kind that “supports” and “allies” with things like feminism and all the Marxist ideologies that all lead to a well paved road to Hell.

So that’s the highbrow reason.

The lowbrow reason is it’s fun to entertain yourself and others by pointing out the evil idiocy of these subhuman pathetic incels, and it is out patriotic duty to see they are so ridiculed that not even the sex-starved feminists will want to reproduce with them. This is how we prevent horrible mutations to enter the genetic pool of humanity people!

So pay attention.

The author of unclejohn’s Band , who I interact from time to time with outside of substack, once referred to something I do as: single datapoint pattern recognition, that —depending on context, the person observing it, their IQ, ability (or more often lack thereof) to do logic and so on— can in turn appear to be:

• The result of blind luck instead of calculated statistical best guess based on incomplete data.
• Magic
• Cheating somehow (having inside information or some secret (and probably illegal) method of gaining more data than others and so on)

What the average normie almost never sees or even has the capacity to understand is that when I make an observation that most people don’t see or think is absurd etc etc, it’s basically because my brain works quite a bit closer to the way the main character’s brain works in the film limitless than most people’s.

Yes, yes, I know, how arrogant of me, how dare I, blah, blah.

Listen: False modesty is not a virtue.

Now, that there ability of being able to discern a whole pattern from a single datapoint is not, in fact, magic.

It is a direct function of IQ.

It doesn’t matter if you “believe” it or not, the fact is that the factor they call g in intelligence measurements has statistically been proven to be a very good indicator metric of all sorts of factors that relate as a causation due to g thanks to the statistical level of correlation.

With respect to single data point pattern recognition, (SDPPR) it works on the basis of a person being able to have an awareness of an extensive dataset of information at any one time that is considerably superior to that of the average person. In THIS respect of it, you don’t need to have a genius IQ to do it. It has been demonstrated that a genuine expert on a topic, say painting for example, is able to tell a forgery at a glance. Even if it’s very well made.

And in this case, by “expert” I mean someone that genuinely has thousands of hours of experience with that specific thing. Not a diploma on a wall.

It’s why I’d always trust a farmer or a bushman to tell me if tomorrow will rain over a weather forecast. The computers invariably screw it up. A human whose livelihood has depended on the weather for decades will not.

So…

All that introduction to show why at times, on this blog, you will see people liken Cube Cubis guy get permabanned, or our almost inevitable next candidate below.

It’s because they are Gammas.

And… say it with me… they deserve zero mercy.

Why?

Because the world is better without them, and the only possible hope they (and the world) has of improvement is that they either:

a) find a way to rewire their entire nervous system (pro-tip: for Gammas this almost certainly means it can happen only as a result of existential level of pain where continuing life on that basis becomes intolerable), or

b) never reproduce and so their flawed and substandard genetics are not passed on to continue harassing humanity with their insufferable behaviour.

Since Substack glitches when you ban people and it still deletes their comments even when you specifically tell it not to, I am, out of the kindness of my heart, clearly, forced to explain the methodology of the Kurgan insta-permaban.

Basically, once you demonstrate yourself a gamma, you’re gone.

And because I can do that SDPPR thing really well (in general, but specifically on gammas) the gamma tells are seen from what a sniper would call “extreme long range”.

You see, I have been getting gammas to swallow their own tongue in impotent meltdowns online since the early 90s when the internet first appeared. So I have 30 years of data (online) and 56 years of it in the flesh, because it’s even more fun in person.

So, as an example, note this single comment by a gamma, that was posted as a reply to my own comment to someone else’s comment on this post of mine that really had nothing to do with space travel:

the comment about becoming a space-faring civilisation was essentially illustrative (though still real), and only tangentially related to the original post; nevertheless, the Gamma felt it was his time to shine, and so, he commented (all since lost thanks to the crappy banning bug of substack):

Now, before I go on to post my reply, try to see why and how you or I might determine this is without a doubt a gamma “male”.

Go in, it’s a fun exercise.

When you are done, compare it to my own result, which is encompassed in this response, which might otherwise get lost once he comments again and gets permabanned:

Note that the checking on his profile to verify that he is a “reader” and not a “doer”, was done purely for the purpose of proving my point for this post. I had no need personally to “verify” what was already obvious to me, but I did knowing that the result would be telling a bit more of the story for those that did not have the same gigantic dataset of pathetic gammas I obviously have residing in my unconscious at any moment in time.

In fairness, my response above does not show all the working out (in fact only a small part of it, mostly in point 5, which as I said is not even a necessary one for me to make).

The reasoning (insofar as I can explain a process that is largely unconscious) is something like this:

• Georgy latches on to a peripheral side issue as if it was the central aspect of the entire conversation, when it clearly is not. Why does someone do this? Several reasons: a) to hijack the conversational topic to one that he prefers in order to make it about him b) because he judges others by his own metric and assumes a peripheral side comment is going to be an inaccurate sound-byte that can be criticised for flaws (as almost the entirety of his “knowledge base” is susceptible to because he is a superficial creature that uses sound-bytes to try and appear “smart” and “well-educated” a “sophisticated individual” instead of what he is: a sophist). c) to show he is a “matter expert” on that side issue and hence “demonstrate” how smart and educated and funny and just oh-so-darn-clever, in the (deluded) expectation that everyone will clap. Instead of see him for the insufferable, obvious, pedantic, ignorant moron with delusions of adequacy that he is.

The above alone is already enough to convict him, but there is plenty more, to wit:

• He brings up the criticism on what he thinks is his undefeatable “gotcha!” in an absolutist sense —which is idiotic because firstly most things are not absolutes anyway, and secondly, specifically on a topic as vast as humanity being space-faring, the very idea that such a proposition is good or bad in an absolute sense is well beyond idiotic, we are now far and deep into properly retarded territory. This person is irredeemably stupid. Perennially so. Iguanas from the mesozoic are more intelligent and capable of intellectual discourse than this specimen.
• The criticism is on a topic he has obviously not only not even had the remotest of knowledge ever hit his one brain cell. It is also a proposition that he has spent exactly zero seconds even contemplating. This is already obvious for the reasons given in the bullet point immediately above, but also separately because, as it happens, if you were going to actually think about the proposition of humanity in space at all, for even a second, you would naturally imagine the how (rockets? Anti-gravity tech? Something else?) and that alone would inform not a conclusion, but if anything else more questions, making the absolutist question even more retarded. Secondly even if you skipped this part and went to the ethical/moral/practical aspects of it (ignoring the how, somehow) once again, you would immediately come up with an almost infinite number of reasons why being space faring would be good. At minimum, it would increase the chances of humanity continuing to exist even billions of years from now when our sun pops (let’s avoid the technical terms for now, this is already autistic level length), so any cursory exploration of the topic already comes to a conclusion that is the opposite of his absolute one.
• As his “proof” of his absurd “conclusion” he refers to someone else’s work, which he figures is obscure enough and yet sounds “highbrow” enough to put him in what he assumes will be perceived as an “intellectual and erudite spotlight”, instead of the “poltroon faking it badly in front of a trash can fire” that it does. I would not be surprised if he has never actually read nor watched the play. In fact I would bet even money he probably only saw parts of it, probably on youtube, and “concluded” things from reading a summarised version of it, possibly in a tik tok comment.
• He further refers to Faust and “faustianism” because once again, he imagines this makes his sound intelligent and well educated. Most people have heard of the book/opera/play/even comic book called Faust. But almost none of them have actually read it. But don’t worry. Neither has he. In his mind he thinks you will go: “Faust…Some highbrow thing by a German guy right? Oh so this guy MUST be a smart and well educated peruser of the arts!!” That is how this pathetic imbecile imagines his mentioning Faust will make him look.
• He has no idea what the actual message of Faust is. Nor Christopher Marlowe’s version of it. Nor, indeed the basic premise of what a “faustian” deal is. Clearly. Because the use of the term, in relation to the topic of humanity becoming space-faring or not, is really nonsensical and not even applicable.

All of which conclusively proves that the entire comment is produced only to try and massage his pathetic ego, which takes a beating daily from even just the side-eye glances women give Georgy since he was even remotely close to puberty. Because he was an insufferable little cringe-feat even as a child, and as an adult he makes ovaries dehydrate at fifty paces.

So you see, it is not magic. It is simply the ability to correctly place a datapoint within a sea of probability, where your life experience and knowledge base, has various “islands” of likelihood.

I hope this was at least entertaining if not educational.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

My six year-old son, has demonstrated a preference for long-term thinking from an early age. When his sisters would devour any treat given on the spot, at age three, he would already ask if he can save part of his for later. Which he did religiously, eating the rest of it the next day.

Which inevitably brought on the typical squealing “gimmes” of “unfairness” from his short-time preference female siblings, who like a boat-load of illegal immigrants would demand double rations of what they had already scoffed, with he apparent memory of goldfish.

Needles to say, in Kurglandia this attitude was met with the equivalent of live fire round from the border patrol. Soon enough, the sisters of gimme realised they would need to revert to mere silent seething, or, in the case of the smarter one, sidling up to her brother and sweetly asking him if he would oh so kindly give her a little piece of (which he usually, but not always, did, and a small one at that).

I have no doubt that failing some tragedy that boy will be surrounded by female attention when he grows up; despite having the social manners approximating those of a rabid bull with an enjoyment for charging at flags. Red, green, yellow, flags in general, and with or without Matador and no hesitation to ram the matador anyway even absent flag. Thing is though, he absolutely does not mind the quasi-ostracism that goes with it, and he’s perfectly capable of making fast friends with other kids when it suits him. I watch from afar, shaking my head at the inevitability of genetics.

But this is just by way of introduction. At times. He acts so barbarically that one would be forgiven for thinking he might be a bit retarded. Including me. However, it is clear from his questions at what I call our “philosophy time” that he’s far from unintelligent. He started about age 3, when bedtime came, while his sisters enjoyed a story or something along those lines, he would talk to me about all sorts of disparate topics with rather profound questions. Astronomy, theology, life in general, friendship, love, he would delve into topics most adults shy away from. He asked about God, Jesus and how it all works repeatedly. He asks me to take him to Church regularly. Which is you see the level of “Christian charity” he exhibits daily, you would think might be a ruse to burn down the tabernacle. But again… I can hardly judge the boy. He does have my DNA in there, after all.

The other day, when it was just the two of us in the car (another philosophy time), completely unprompted, he said:

“Dad, when I die I am going to ask God where He comes from.”

Me: “Uh… okay…” And thinking: What. The. Fuck?!?!? He’s six!

YV: “Because we can’t ask Him while we’re alive. He doesn’t tell us. But after we die we get to see Him, and I am going to ask Him where He comes from. Because I want to know.”

Now, keep in mind, I have not had any kind of theological conversation where I told him what I think happens after we die, never brought up the origin of God, etc.

YV: “ Because we can’t know where God comes from when we’re alive, right dad?”

Me: “Uh… yeah…right. I mean… I think He was just always there… but yeah, I don’t know.”

YV: ( calm and confident, looking back out the window ): “Well, I’m going to ask Him.”

Me: “Okay son. That’s a good question. I’m Curious to know the answer too.”

Except in a half-century of time I have on him, the question never came up for me. I just accepted it as a given from observation of reality at some point, but I never seriously pondered the question.

Anyway, this is not the story I wanted to tell you. This is just preamble, because like my daughter exhibited Venetian style thinking in one of our car journeys, so did he last night.

We went to get pizzas for the family and he came with me and as usual we started philosophising because he has endless questions about all sorts of unlikely topics. I forget how we got to the topic, but it went like this:

YV: “So intelligence is important.” ( A statement, not a question )

Me: “Yes, it is, but more important is your character. To be honest with yourself is the most important thing.”

YV: “What do you mean? People lie to themselves?”

Me: “Unfortunately yes, son. All the time. Some people are so crazy they lie to themselves that they are a girl when they are a boy, or that they are a dog or something else.”

YV: “They are not lying, though. They know. They are pretending.”

Me: ( out of the mouths of babes and all that ) “Yes, you’re right. But they will lie to themselves about other stuff, like thinking that they are a good person when they are not really, or thinking they are honest when they are liars, and so on.”

YV: “But why do they do that?”

Me: “A lot of people are pretty stupid, son.”

YV: “No. They’re not pretty stupid. They are stupid, stupid.”

I was left kind of speechless, and for a second started to think maybe he means pretty…as in… I didn’t get to finish the thought…

YV: “I don’t mean pretty like… you know… beautiful. I mean pretty like when you mean…”

Me: “sort of?”

YV: “Yes. Like that.”

Me: ( reflecting a few seconds ) “Well… I can’t argue there son, you have it right.”

YV: ( smiling with that cheeky smile he knows is a partial troll ) “Is it because I’m intelligent dad?”

Me: ( Laughing ) “Yes son, you sure are.”

And he is. Regardless of the fact some throwback gene to raiding Vikings more often than I’d like makes him behave like a berserker on hallucinogenics.

Still.

His ability to cut to the direct point, ignoring all social conventions, is definitely a trait that like the siren song we people of the Sea have within, rises from the waters of the Serenissima.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

This short video has 13,000+ replies, all basically saying the same thing.

As I have said previously, the only women that will have husbands and children will be the ones that understand the replies are exactly what the problem with women is, take that on board, and evolve to a version of the female that consciously and willingly embraces her femininity, along with the duties of being a woman and wife, of her own free will and does so joyously, because she actually has managed to evolve the capacity for objective, logical, reasoned, thought followed by personal accountability.

Enjoy.

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

So… I grew up on, and read Jonah Hex comics in the 1980s and it was without a doubt my favourite comic book character. Mostly because the psychology of the character was very much similar to my own and he didn’t take prisoners when it came to dealing with bad guys. None of that “a hero never kills” nonsense. Jonah Hex blew bad guys away in every issue with grim efficiency and sometimes a touch of dark humour.

Jonah Hex had been gifted a rare pair of .44 Whitneyville-Walker Colt Dragoons with ivory handles early on in his story arc.

As a matter of historical fact, there were only about 1100 Colt Dragoons ever built, and the Whitneyville-Walker version was even rarer, with only about 240 being built.

But as it happens, these revolvers were also shown in the comic as using the standard cartridges that most associate with single action revolvers. The problem is that the colt dragoons were black-powder weapons, so this would have seemed to be an error on the part of the writer of the comic book (and in fairness, it probably was).

However… I was aware that the 1851 Navy, which is probably one of the prettiest revolvers ever made, which also was a black-powder revolver, did have conversions made to take cartridges. These were generally known as Richardson conversions.

What I have only recently become aware of however, is proof that not only did the original Colt Dragoons also have conversions applied to them, but so did at least some of the Whitneyville-Walker ones.

The extraction rod in this case (above) would have been a separate tool not integrated into the revolver.

A modern version of the conversion, from Uberti is shown above and below.

An original without conversion both above and below

Now… astute readers will be aware that we still have a problem concerning the Jonah Hex revolvers…

And it is… I don’t seem to recall if there was ever a panel showing him reloading his guns, but I also am sure I don’t recall him doing so with a separate little rod to extract the spent cartridges.

That said… the way the handguns were drawn, at least here below,

would seem to indicate that the original black powder lever had been left intact on the guns (as they are in the Uberti conversions). It’s a bit of a reach because the revolver is not drawn correctly anyway, it is drawn as a more modern colt with extraction lever integrated and not with the block of rectangular metal in which the black-powder tamping down lever was integrated, but… on the plus side, the “tube” under the barrel is clearly not an extraction lever either as it is just a metal rod without the lever or housing for the extraction rod, or related “nub” to “grab” it with a finger. See a regular colt army below.

Notice the housing with spring and “nub” on the lever to be able to pull the ejector rod into the chamber of the round being pushed out. All things absent from the gun on the cover of Jonah Hex number 76.

So… this would seem to indicate that Jonah must indeed have used a separate extraction rod not integral to the pistol in order to reload his guns. This in any case makes sense because the design of the Dragoon would make the extraction lever linked to the barrel impossible anyway, as can be seen in the difference of a colt single action army with integrated extraction lever below.

Notice that even from this side, you can still see the lever’s little “nub” that allows you to “grip” it with a finger and pull it towards the chamber so that the rod pushes out the spent cartridge in it. The fact this is not shown in the cover of JH 76 makes it just plausible that Jonah is in fact using a separate extraction rod, even if we never see it.

The later (apocryphal, bad, evil) reboots of Jonah Hex by Dark Horse comics do tend to draw his guns more accurately as colt dragoons for the most part, but we don’t really care about these vile caricatures of a favourite character. They may not be as vile as the Star Wars “prequels” but you know how it goes.

A last point is that these handguns weighed about 4.5lbs each (about 2kg) and Jonah always had the pair of them, plus his belt with cartridges in it and his bowie knife and usually a little satchel that may have held money, tobacco, or both. So he always had a pretty heavy weapons load on him, with at least a minimum of about 5kg to cart around pretty much everywhere just on handguns, holster and ammo. That’s 11lbs for you yankees. If you have not lived with a gun in your holster daily, you might not appreciate how heavy that is. Then again, he didn’t have to worry about carrying concealed, which helps make things a bit more comfortable, and having a pair of them would at least balance things out a little.

Anyway, here you now have just a HINT of the level of Nerdy Autism I can get into. You don’t want to know the background data I built for my SF series like Nazi Moon , that a reader will never see, just to make sure the stuff I wrote was physically plausible and possible. Trust me… even though I don’t present as such, there really is no doubt I have just a “tad” of aspieness.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

I do think it will self correct

This post is definitely on the far end of the speculation curve. In other words, I could be completely wrong. However, I don’t think I am, and I have a pretty solid record on predicting large scale trends.

I mean 30 years ago I predicted the trend was to enstupidate people to the point they will hook themselves up to VR porn and feeding tubes and never leave home. We’re not really all that far from it now.

Reading this article , he puts the current (global) crashing of birth rates squarely at the foot of feminism as the absolute main culprit.

I can’t really say he’s wrong, except I would look at the cause/s of feminism and if you do… well, you come up, as every single time, with the (((usual suspects))).

This bit was also nice to read:

Even feminists are surprised by Amish women and the family unit – ‘At first glance Amish women appear to live under the domination of a male patriarchy legitimated by traditional religious teaching. Yet Amish women exhibit an unexpected self-confidence and strength.’24 The self-confidence speaks to the duplicity of the feminist movement. It has gaslit society to believe that a woman at home is a meek, cowed woman. It was the never the case in the past and not the case now.25

So the trend anyway is that only strongly religious groups that curb female “empowerment” are actually bucking the trend.

He doesn’t discuss Sedevacantist Catholics (the only actual Catholics left), probably because he has no idea about them, but I assure you, we are bucking the trend too. Three sede families at a get-together will have over 20 children there. Our churches are growing and with young families with children.

So what’s happening? Are we chaining our wives to the kitchen sink, taking their shoes, and forcing babies into them?

No.

These are women that have chosen God, marriage (for life), and family, which means children. As many as possible.

So how do I see this going?

Well… it might take time. I might not see it in my lifetime. It may be a hundred years or more, and those who make it might not necessarily all be my progeny (though they have a better chance than most), but I think things (in the West/Caucasian lands) will split into three options.

Orcs and Goblin NPCs

These ones die out. The LGBT-faggots/trannies/bestiality freaks. They are not reproducing, and although they do “reproduce” by grooming and infecting children with their perverse mental illness and degeneracy, they are one economic collapse and a few mild apocalyptic war scenarios away from being literally hunted down in the wasteland of the ruins as vermin.

Standard NPCs

These will continue to be the cucked majority and will generally lose out to third worlders, infertility or non-replacement reproduction and having pets instead of children. They are not really consequential other than possibly helping their specific ethnic DNA go largely extinct through gradual replacement.

The 1950s Present Day Pulp Fiction Heroine

This is a shift of quasi utopic proportions I have been vociferously advocating for since my tender teenage years. That is, women that adapt, evolve, become more logical and objective, and somewhat less solipsistic, and thus consciously make a choice to prioritise marriage, family, and children.

These are intelligent, capable, hard-working, and more often than not, very feminine women.

They will be the kind of woman that will have 7 kids and homeschool them and do a better job teaching them algebra than a teacher in the nearest school would. They will be able to cook meals with healthy ingredients that their families love, and also be able to hold their own in a conversation about genetics, physics or music. Or whatever unexpected hobby they might have.

The lady that runs the blog Ballerina Farm is a prime example. These are the heroines of 1950s pulp fiction that can fly a spaceship in an emergency, ride a horse, and fire a sixgun effectively. Only to be awesome mothers and wives in their day-to-day lives.

I genuinely think it is a naturally self-correcting issue. In the long term at least, in the way that nature invariably works: slowly.

So, don’t despair young man. And remember: as men, you might not always remember to not stick your dick in crazy, as the saying goes, but even so, while everyone can see how the odd escapade with a drama queen with daddy issues can happen, there is simply NO EXCUSE for putting your dick in a feminist. And one can only hope that the acid environment of doing so melts you dick away if you do.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here