This is a post about one of the most unique and complicated authors of the 20th century, Ernst Jünger. The power of his writing comes not so much from his insights but from the unusual internal conflicts that he embodied, which in turn stimulates deeper thinking on behalf of the reader. Reading Jünger is difficult but rewarding and will further your spiritual development if you decide to engage with him.

“Some people had dirty hands, some had clean hands, but Jünger had no hands.” – Jean Cocteau

“When I studied the documents, I was often astonished by [Hitler’s] intransigence in minor differences (to put it diplomatically), for example, in the dispute over the heads of a handful of innocent people. We will never grasp this if we cannot see through his desire to destroy the nomos [law, customs], which guides him infallibly. This can be expressed impartially: He wants to create a new standard.” – Jünger on Hitler

I recently read the recent English translation of Ernst Jünger’s 1941-1945 war journals, and for once (ha) I am at a loss of words. There are so many ideas highlighted within his contradictory writing, but the core themes relate to stoicism, faith, the importance of individualism and staying true to one’s values. The hope is that by delving into Jünger’s worldview it will shine light onto our own development and journeys. Perhaps it may also highlight ways for us to resist globohomo’s dictates even if we outwardly abide by them, at least to an extent, much as Jünger remained unconquered within even as he externally complied to an extent with the existing mileau.

---

Jünger’s background

For background, Jünger was a highly celebrated World War 1 German war hero and author who volunteered early to fight. He treated war as an adventure. Most famous for his Storm of Steel novel which glorified war for its own sake, he was wounded fourteen times in battle, including five bullet wounds and became the youngest recipient of Germany’s highest military honor, the Pour le Mérite at 22 years old. Awarded it by Ludendorrf, per Jünger, the ancient general warned him “‘it is dangerous for one so young to be decorated with the highest honour.’ Back then I considered it pedantic, but today I know that it was right.”

Jünger started what became an illustrious writing career which gave him unusual access to hobnob with influential authors, poets, artists, politicians and other intellectuals across the political spectrum. He served in a cushy military role in World War 2 even though his antipathies to the Nazi regime were public knowledge: he warned Germany would lose against Russia in his prescient 1939 allegory On the Marble Cliffs1 and publicly refused Nazi entreaties to become their ally. He was within the circle of aristocrats that conspired against Hitler in the July 20 plot and served as an inspiration by writing The Peace but declined to participate, and closely survived being executed. “Nothing happens to Jünger,” Hitler apparently said.

Surviving the war, he wielded much influence in the fifty years he lived beyond it. The older Jünger lost his taste for battle’s glittering accoutrements when World War 2 turned into a war of de-personalized butchery: “I am overcome by a loathing for the uniforms, the epaulettes, the medals, the weapons, all the glamour I have loved so much. Ancient chivalry is dead; wars are waged by technicians.”  Yet after the Allies won he refused to undergo denazification, remaining firmly against democracy, and he despised the liberals who had given themselves over “completely to the destruction of the old guard and the undermining of order”. Still, over the decades he became highly decorated by the liberal order for his literature and scientific achievements.

Most of Jünger’s post-World War 2 work touched on man’s relationship to technology and the struggle to retain individualism in light of mass social conformity and technology pressures (see his novel The Glass Bees). But because Jünger’s aristocratic, anti-democracy, mystical perspective was so inaccessible to western audiences, only eleven of Jünger’s fifty-nine works have been translated into English. This is unfortunate and hopefully will be remedied in the future.2

---

Junger’s contradictions

Jünger’s wartime journals – four of the six translated into English in this edition3 – were not what I was expecting. I was expecting a narrative like his adventurous, war-loving Storm of Steel, but instead the journals have a mystical, contemplative feeling reflective of Jünger’s advancing age (he was approaching 50). They focus on dream interpretation, astrology, his growing beetle collection and the various famous figures he socialized with after the conquest of France where he was stationed in an administrative capacity. There is little political or military discussion in the first half of the book and not a large amount thereafter. Despite the unmet expectations, the surrealism and strangeness of the esoteric writing draws one in – there is a feeling that the significant time demanded will be rewarded, and it is.

Reflecting on his journals, it is not so much of what Jünger wrote which was profound but rather the astonishment at how so many contradictions could be held within the body and soul of one man. Compounding the issue of understanding is that his character was forged in a time and environment with very different values compared to the ubiquitous egalitarianism of today. As Jünger writes,

When viewed politically, man is almost always a mixtum compositum [hodge-podge]. Time and place exert huge demands upon him.

In this sense, when seen from the ancestral and feudal perspective, I am a Guelph, whereas my concept of the state is Prussian. At the same time, I belong to the German nation and my education makes me a European, not to say a citizen of the world. In periods of conflict like this one, the internal gears seem to grind against each other, and it is hard for an observer to tell how the hands are set. Were we to be granted the good fortune to be guided by higher powers, these gears would turn in harmony. Then our sacrifices would make sense.

It is Jünger’s commitment to listening to his own voice and not being internally swayed by the crowd, as well as his personality contradictions that stimulates deep thought on the part of the reader. By observing how he navigated his inconsistencies perhaps we can further our understanding of our own.

Jünger seemed to feel the following conflicting impulses:

• A deep aristocratic feeling which made him disdain the middle class and populismeven as he extended his sympathies to the lower class. This feeling grew as he aged and likely played a role in his disdain for Nazism, a movement he had initially quasi-embraced.4 He called The Myth of the 20th Century by Rosenberg “the dullest collection of hastily copied platitudes imaginable.”
  • “In my dealings with people, I have noticed that I do not speak much to the middle sort, whether of intelligence or character. My contact with very simple as well as highly developed natures, however, presents no difficulty. I seem to resemble a pianist playing only the keys at the extreme ends of the keyboard and just having to make do without the rest. It’s either peasants and fishermen or people of the highest quality. The rest of my social dealings consist of arduous attention to the mundane – rummaging through my pockets looking for change. I often get the feeling that I am moving within a world for which I am not adequately equipped.”
• A strain of honor and chivalry where he felt more horror at Germany’s breaches of these values than he felt at similar or more extreme tactics used by its enemies. Jünger strangely seemed to feel more horror felt at Germany’s use of collective punishment, including its targeting of the Jews5, versus the Allied bombing of Dresden which killed 200,000 Germans. It’s possible some of this influence had to do with Jünger’s mistress who he considered leaving his wife for, Sophie Ravoux, a German-Jewish doctor.
  • “It is appalling how blind even young people have become to the suffering of the vulnerable; they have simply lost any feeling for it. They have become too weak for the chivalrous life. They have even lost the simple decency that prevents us from injuring the weak. The opposite is true: they take pride in it….I never allow myself to forget that I am surrounded by sufferers. That is more important than any fame achieved through military or intellectual exploits, or the employ applause of youth, whose taste is erratic.”
  • “Two young officers from the tank corps sitting by the window; one of them stands out by virtue of his fine features, yet for the last hour they have been talking about murders. One of them and his comrades wanted to do away with a civilian suspected of spying by throwing him into a lake. The other man expressed the opinion that after every time one of our troops is murdered, fifty Frenchmen should be lined up against the wall: “That will put a stop to it.”I ask myself how this cannibalistic attitude, this utter malice, this lack of empathy for other beings could have spread so quickly, and how we can explain this rapid and general degeneration. It is quite possible that such lads are untouched by any shred of Christian morality. Yet one should still be able to expect them to have a feeling in their blood for chivalric life and the military code, or even for ancient Germanic decency and sense of right. In principle they aren’t that bad, and during their short lives, they are willing to make sacrifices worthy of our admiration. We can only wish that the words “above reproach” might be added to their unassailable motto, “without fear.” The second has value only in conjunction with the first.”
• A keen Christian sensibility with a strong belief in the afterlifewhile seemingly believing in the existence of other Godly powers and energies. He wrote, for example, “The ancient gods still stand before us with their magical presence, perhaps even in competition,” intending it literally. Still, he read both the Old and New testaments front-to-back twice in the four years covered in the diaries which offered him peace of mind. His Christian sensibility likely played a significant role in both his philo-semitism and his understated anti-racism beliefs.
  • “What can one advise a man, especially a simple man, to do in order to extricate himself from the conformity that is constantly being produced by technology? Only prayer. Here even the lowest human being has a vantage point that makes him part of the whole and not just a cog in the machinery…In situations that can cause the cleverest of us to fail and the bravest of us to look for avenues of escape, we occasionally see someone who quietly recognizes the right thing to do and does good. You can be sure that is a man who prays.”
• A scientific eye for detail balanced against feelings of mysticism. The former is seen in entomology research (multiple types of beetles were eventually named after him), while the latter is reflected in his belief in strange omens, premonitions and prophecy, his dabbling in astrology and the occult, seeing synchronicity everywhere, and his fascination with dream interpretations. Dreams to Jünger represented the connection between the temporal and the spiritual worlds; it is where we communicate with the dead and with our innermost self. As World War 2 dragged on and the sense of German hopelessness grew, the line between dream and reality increasingly blurred.
• A friend to those across the political spectrum from the left and far-left (Bertolt Brecht, Ernst Toller, the anarchist Erich Muhsam, the National Bolshevisk Ernst Niekisch) to the right and far-right (Gottfried Benn, Ernst von Salomon, Arnold Bronnen, Carl Schmitt) so long as they did not possess middle class sensibilities. He met with prominent figures like Picasso and Braque in their studios and debated their art in fluent French, pondered the meaning of dreams with Jean Cocteau, along with science, poetry, the military and politics. “Some people had dirty hands, some had clean hands, but Jünger had no hands” wrote Cocteau as he blended in, chameleon-like, with whoever he was with.
• Despite his wide circle of friendships, Jünger possessed an emotional aloofness, detachment and arrogance (a “statue of ice” in the words of one acquaintance) which separated him from them all. The Gestapo had described him at his period in Paris as “an impenetrable, highly suspect individual” and even his wife felt his emotional coldness. Jünger wrote, “The fact that I love the most elusive, and probably also the best, in them – that may be the source of the coldness they perceive in me.” And he refers to the hyper-acute sense of observation “with which I am cursed, the way others have an especially keen sense of smell. I detect the shady moves that are endemic to humans are too clearly.”6
• His focus was on a level above politics, focusing on the spiritual. His politics, to the limited extent he shared them, were aristocratic and anti-democracy, but he displayed little of the brilliance when Guido Preparata described the strategies employed by the British and American financial powers for world domination in “Conjuring Hitler”.7 Jünger’s thoughts were elsewhere. Even in his “On the Marble Cliffs”, easily seen as a parable for a German invasion of Russia and its subsequent defeat, he attempted to dismiss at the level of political analysis:“I would also like to add, even though I think an author should respect the rule of never talking about his books, that in the case of Marble Cliffs the political effect was secondary for me. Some friends have reproached me for downplaying this effect, which for many was the most important one. However, I prefer to draw attention to the fact that in that case I placed myself on another level. After all, it is clear that if mine had become a political stance, I might have found companions and followers, but I would have fallen at the same level as Hitler. I was his opponent, but not a political opponent. I was simply in another dimension.”
• Jünger served in the German armed forces in World War 2 despite his ideological misgivings. He referred to Hitler throughout his journal as Kniébolo, meaning roughly “kneel to the Devil”, even though Hitler refused to let harm come to him after publishing On the Marble Cliffs8 or even after the July 20 plot. As a man who favored martial values Hitler had a great respect for Jünger’s World War 1 service and writings. Jünger wrote of Hitler, “I sometimes have the impression that the world spirit has chosen him in a subtle way. There are secrets here that other tribes will never comprehend.”
• A warrior with an inborn love of dangerous adventure who eagerly put his life in harm’s way early on without ideological motivation, expecting to die very young, and yet who lived to 102 years old (converting to Catholicism shortly before his death). Writing at the age of 65, “I have now reached the biblical age of three score and ten – a rather strange feeling for a man who, in his youth, had never hoped to see his 30th year. Even after my 23rd birthday in 1918, I would gladly have signed a Faustian pact with the Devil: “Give me just 30 years of life, guaranteed, then let it all be ended.”” He truly had luck on his side when it came to his friendships and his health. And his mind stayed sharp up until the end, learning and absorbing new information even as others far younger developed rigid thoughts and habits. He wrote, “In order to grow old, we have to stay young.” However, his oldest son Ernstel followed in his footsteps but died very young, killed in early 1945 in Italy.9 The most touching part of the diaries is about the loss of his son. You can read the details by Junger Translation Project here.
• Jünger’s relationship with death was complicated and strange. He had a sense that this life is simply a tryout for values brought with us in the afterlife. While many people mouth these platitudes in the modern era, Jünger believed it. Echoing Diogenes of Sinope, he wrote “What is left of us from this life if we do not accumulate worth that can be exchanged for gold at the tollgate of death’s realm, to be exchanged for eternity?”10
• Although a man of bold action early in his life, by World War 2 he had become a man of external passivity. With respect to his circle’s plot against Hitler, Jünger argued that historical precedents showed that assassinations of leaders led to greater tyranny, and he was worried that if it was successful it would lead to a new Stab-in-the-Back legend. Jünger merely offered moral support and narrowly avoided being targeted by retribution after the July 20 plot failed. Ultimately he was merely dismissed from the army.
  • “The individual of historical importance has his own aura, his superior necessity, a power that repels [assassination]. Napoleon’s statement applies here: As long as he was under the spell of his mission, no power on earth could bring him down, whereas after he had fulfilled his mandate, a speck of dust would suffice.”
• Despite the conservative milieu of the time and his aristocratic, warrior background, Jünger experimented with drugs in order to access different planes of existence. He was one of the first to try LSD; he met with LSD inventor Albert Hofmann and they took it together several times, and he experimented with cocaine, ether and hashish. He later wrote a book about it.
• After the war Jünger was targeted as a Nazi, although the label didn’t really stick. His leftist friends such as German playwright Joseph Breitbach vouched for him, stating that he had saved others when the risk to himself was at an acceptable level, he had never joined the Nazi party, the Gestapo had searched his home multiple times and he predicted they would lose in his On the Marble Cliffs. Still, Jünger refused to undergo denazification. Decades later he became quasi-lauded by the globohomo establishment for his books, while some on the far right considered him a traitor. According to Aris Roussinos,Just as he did with Hitler’s regime, Jünger lived and died a dissident against the liberal regime that replaced it, outwardly conforming but never submitting. He despised democracy just as he despised the gullible and easily-swayed demos who had brought Hitler to power. And he despised the liberals who had given themselves over “completely to the destruction of the old guard and the undermining of order”, setting in train the nightmares of the 20th century, just as he despised the “young conservatives who first support the demos because they sense its new elemental power, and then fall into the traces and are dragged to their deaths.”

---

Tying the character puzzle together

It is hard to combine these contradictory elements into a unity, but the core seems to me what Jünger later described in his 1977 Eumeswil novel as an “anarch”: participating in life as required by society to the extent necessary for survival, while retaining an internal independence of mind and spirit that cannot be controlled by outside influences. One gets the sense reading his work that he marched to the beat of his own moral compass, and at least internally had a rich inner world others could never reach. There are no historical figures akin to Jünger; he is in a class of his own.11 As much as he studied the characteristics of beetles with his entomology hobby, his real character study was that of other humans who he viewed as a kind of alien watching their behavior and motivations from the outside. He writes of his impulse to observe the war’s characters “as if these were creatures like fish in a coral reef or insects on a meadow”.  I too feel like a perpetual outsider to all groups, watching human behavior in a similar fashion.

The unique combinations and contradictions in Jünger’s personality manages to zigzag around a reader’s preconceived, built-up defenses to consider new ideas with an open perspective. It is in a way like Nietzsche’s perspective who felt that only by addressing contradictions could one hope to reach a synthesis where the truth might lie. According to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Society,

“Nietzsche’s concept of knowledge did not only allow for contradictions. It required them. Only total, comprehensive knowledge, which incorporated opposite opinions, was true knowledge for him. Thus, it was possible for him to write for and against Judaism, for and against Christianity, for and against racism. The National Socialists could interpret his writings any way they wished and manipulate them for their ends because of Nietzsche’s explicit rejection of reason and logic.”

Jünger’s contradictions were less explicit than Nietzsche’s, of course. He engaged in some unstated emotional process that manifested in ambiguous phrases and turns of expression which themselves contained the competing ideas.

---

Jünger’s natal sun sign and degree

In light of Jünger’s astrological inclinations and in furtherance of my own interest in astrological degree interpretation, the below is his natal chart Sun sign degree as interpreted by Carelli12:

8-9 deg Aries

The native has such faith in himself as to border on heedlessness, but will be assisted in danger by that cool-bloodedness which usually is the mark of true courage. Too proud to serve, he can fulfill himself as a leader or a cultist of the free arts; he is hardly a bearable subordinate, as his lack of modesty will let his inborn pride drift into conceit, haughtiness and misplaced touchiness.

Yet his never-falling, positive sense of reality always will lead him back to the right path if vanity has led him astray, and will enable him to show it to anyone willing to follow him.

Luckier than he deserves, he has a noble sense of friendship, which he feels strongly. He is on the other hand a dangerous foe.

All human activities based on the written or spoken word—political and forensic rhetoric, philosophy, writing-are congenial to him. He speaks well, even too well, and is bent on listening to himself rather than to others.

All of this is quite accurate. I think I may start presenting natal sun degrees in more figures I cover in future posts, along with my rules to cover a person’s physiognomy.

---

The weakness of Jünger’s conservatism

The problem of Jünger’s conservatism is that in a clash between technological “progress” and the human spirit the former always wins out against the latter in this world. “I harbored the suspicion that this world is modeled on the perfidious prototype of the charnel house [i.e. place of death]”, echoing gnostic thought. The gulf between modern views and the esoteric, mystical, aristocratic and honor-based views he expresses throughout his journals is monumental, a colossal void which grows even wider as time goes on. This is because the egalitarian ratchet effect increasingly pushes down anything that is superior to the lowest common denominator, and as part of that effect the history of the white Christian west is gradually eroded and destroyed. On January 17, 2024 Germany even removed his monument to the 200,000 German civilian dead at Dresden, firebombed in a monumental war crime for no military benefit, ironically protested against by the Russians. I wonder what Jünger would think of the current era with gay marriage, transsexualism, mass-censorship and increasing leftist totalitarianism and elite-enforced third world mass-migration into Europe and North America. He died in 1998 before this stuff really intensified.

According to Julius Evola, “Jünger…should be numbered among those individuals who first subscribed to ‘Conservative Revolutionary’ ideas but were later, in a way, traumatized by the National Socialist experience, to the point of being led to embrace the kind of sluggishly liberal and humanistic ideas which conformed to the dominant attempt ‘to democratically reform’ their country; individuals who have proven incapable of distinguishing the positive side of past ideas from the negative, and of remaining true to the former. Alas, this incapability to discern is, in a way, typical of contemporary Germany (the land of the ‘economic miracle’).” 

At one (and only one) point in his journals Jünger noted that Hitler was attempting to transvalue the egalitarian, Christian values of the West back into Roman aristocratic, Darwinian will-to-power values, reflecting historian Tom Holland’s comments on the topic, explaining why his actions were so brutal:

“The situation could be described as a paradox: the warrior caste certainly wants to support war but in its archaic form. Nowadays it is waged by technicians. This is an area that includes the attacks of the new rulers against the ancient concept of military honor and the remnants of chivalry. When I studied the documents, I was often astonished by Kniebolo’s intransigence in minor differences (to put it diplomatically), for example, in the dispute over the heads of a handful of innocent people. We will never grasp this if we cannot see through his desire to destroy the nomos [law, customs], which guides him infallibly. This can be expressed impartially: He wants to create a new standard. And because there is so much about this new Reich that is medieval, it involves a steep decline.”

The transformation of society’s core values cannot be accomplished easily; there are huge numbers of people welded to the existing values and they will react with maximum resistance at any attempted to transvalue them. Hitler’s attempted solution was to murder those who resisted his imposition of the new aristocratic, hierarchical warrior values, and the shocking example those murders would set would serve to impose and solidify those new values onto the population. One might expect that once those new values were firmly accepted by the population that the extreme level of brutality would have been drastically reduced and even seen in a positive light, but who knows. As Holland states in the above link, “It is the incomplete revolutions which are remembered; the fate of those whose triumph [such as Christianity] is to be taken for granted.”

Regardless, while I have argued that a transvaluation of values away from pure egalitarianism is critical for humanity’s survival, I would like to see a balance between egalitarianism and inegalitarianism, not a total value inversion to the other polarity. Whatever specific form that might take is hard to know at this time.

---

Concluding thoughts

Thomas Friese, who translated Jünger’s “The Adventurous Heart”, had an interview where spoke about the core of Jünger’s difficult, disjointed writing style. To Friese, Jünger’s style was intentionally selected to help the reader learn to think for himself:

Thomas Friese: The main difficulty is following his often seemingly disjointed trains of thought. Naturally they are not disjointed, merely connected at a hidden level. To borrow his own description, they are like archipelagos, which form organic wholes, though it is not immediately apparent how the islands above the surface (the sentences) are connected. The reader, and even more the translator, must make the leaps themselves—this makes it more interesting, more involving. A related challenge with Jünger is maintaining his deliberate ambiguities or multiple meanings, without also giving them away, making them easier for the reader to understand than he intended. Jünger wants his readers to think for themselves. The same applies to the underwater connections between the islands—the translation should not try to explain the meaning; that is the reader’s task….

But although there is much in his thought that academia could engage with and society benefit from, its main audience is the individual; it seeks not to improve the world in general, which Jünger saw as a vanity, but to help the individual discover and develop himself—and thereby gain a position to help others do the same for themselves.

I think Jünger has succeeded at this in his war journals. It forces the reader to pay attention and to draw one’s own connections and conclusions. The world would be a better place with more free thinkers, and regardless of one’s politics this book could play a small role in encouraging its spread.

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 Fairly reviewed in the New Yorker, not a publication known for that quality, here, and in the Paris Review here.

2 Per Thomas Friese: “I’m glad you put the question in a current context—because there are two Jüngers that can be spoken of, even if the second grew out of the first, its developmental prerequisite. The second, the mature author, is the “current” Jünger, the man who gradually evolved into an anarch, starting more or less with this book, after leaving behind early experiments in the world of action and politics. I find the first interesting only to the degree that it helps explain the second. Let’s not forget: his first phase covered from 22 to about 42 years of age, 9 works or so—the second from 42 to 102, with 47 or 48 works! By the way, only 11 of these 59 works have ever been translated into English—not the case for French, Italian, or Spanish, which are more or less complete. Odd, no?”

3 Various excerpts of the last journal can be found online; for example, here are the entries pertaining to Hitler and Mussolini’s deaths.

4 This passage by Guido Giacomo Preparata in his “Empire and State” offers interesting insight into Junger’s early philosophy:

Junger’s point of departure in the 1920s is the standard Fascist one, namely the languorous yearning for the ancient “chivalry” and its knights, all creatures of a heroic and magical world, which are found to be deplorably deprived of breathing room in the atmosphere of mobilized masses and “technique”. Very much bound to the mystique of “Blood and Soil,” Junger was, clearly, enamored of his national cradle. And having passionately fought in the Great War, he was also keenly aware of and profoundly perturbed by the unrelenting siege the Universalist spirit had been laying to his homeland.

For young pro-Fascist nationalists like him, “the supranational power,” – i.e. Jewry, Free-Masonry, High-Finance, and the “Church’s pursuit of power for the mere sake of power, which is customarily referred to as Jesuitism” – had coalesced into a conspiratorial nebula organically hostile to the aboriginal “will to fashion a community through blood-ties,” which is nationhood. “Nations,” wrote Junger, “are cores of organic bonds of a higher substance; an internationalist aggregation, on the other hand, is merely an instrumental abstraction which is concocted, behind the scenes, by an American brain.”

To him, when the time for settling scores would have come and native blood would have been given thereby occasion “to speak,” the unreal constructs of these “internationalist” conceptualizations would have collapsed like houses of cards. Interestingly, seeming to fear her most, young Junger stung the Church with relish (he would convert to Catholicism two years before his death, at the age of 101), and, again, like Borgese and Evola, wished her ill with yet another Neoconservative/Ghibelline curse.

5 Junger’s journals mention on multiple occasions the intentional extermination of the Jews, first via mass shooting and then via gas chambers, told to him by high ranking German officials and dutifully written down. Just two examples, one the December 31, 1942 entry: “On that note General Muller told about the monstrous atrocities perpetrated by the Security Service after entering Kiev. Trains were again mentioned that carried Jews into poison gas tunnels. Those are rumors, and I note them as such, but extermination is certainly occurring on a large scale.” And October 16, 1943 entry: “At the same time, new deported Jews pour in from the occupied countries. To dispose of these people, crematoria have been built not too far from the ghettoes. They take the victims there in vehicles that are supposed to be an invention of Chief Nihilist Heydrich. The exhaust fumes are piped into the interior so that they become death chambers.”

6 Or see: “I have to reach a plane from which I can view things the way a doctor examines patients, as if these were creatures like fish in a coral reef or insects on a meadow. It’s especially obvious that these things apply to the lower ranks. My disgust still betrays weakness and too great an identification with the [Darwinian struggle for existence]. We have to see through the logic of violence and beware of euphemism in the style of Millet or Renan. We also have to guard against the disgraceful role of those citizens who moralize about people who have made terrible bargains while looking down from the safety of their own roofs. Anyone not swallowed up by the conflict should thank God, but that does not give him license to judge.”

7 Although Jünger does have one piercing throwaway comment, June 8 1944: “It seems that money has the subtlest feelers and when bankers assess the situation, they do so more meticulously and with greater precision than generals.”

8 Also from here:

As for Hitler, that’s how it was. It was not a week after On the Marble Cliffs came out in the bookshops that the Reichsleiter of Hanover, a certain Bouhler, complained in Berlin that he thought the book incited a conspiracy. Hitler, who was an admirer of my World War I diaries, ruled that they should leave me alone. On more than one occasion he had made signs of friendship and expressed interest in me. But I did not let myself be flattered by those offers. It would have been too easy to exploit them for personal gain. It would not have taken much to do as Goering did.

9 Although the details are murky; he may have been murdered by the Nazis as revenge against Jünger for his spiritual support of the July 20 plot.

10 And, facing the prospect of death at the intense Allied aerial bombardments in 1945 he wrote, “We are approaching the innermost vortex of the maelstorm, almost certain death…my baggage, my treasures, I shall have to leave behind without regret. After all, they are valuable only to the extent that they have an intrinsic connection to the other side.”

11 Indeed, becoming an “anarch” is difficult to emulate. There is a quote which I am paraphrasing which comes to mind: “change a person’s actions and the mind will follow.” Somewhat akin to Upton Sinclair’s, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on him not understanding it!” People want to see themselves as morally correct; if they are forced to behave contrary to their beliefs, their beliefs will eventually “update” themselves to correspond to their actions. Jünger was in a unique situation: hailed as a war hero and literary figure, he was allowed to exist in a space where he did not have to violate his internal beliefs. This is hardly a solution for many. Still…

12 The Sun sign forms the core of a person’s personality, but note that a full astrological chart interpretation, both natal and progressed, is much more complicated. The Carelli degrees along with other astrological degree interpretations can be seen here.

This is a disturbing post. Read on if you dare.

This is a continuation of and branching off from a prior post, The sad skinsuiting of the environmental movement, Part 1 and Part 2. In that post I noted how the environmental movement was taken over by the political left and then skin-suited for ulterior goals even as humanity rapidly consumes the world’s natural resources – an unsustainable trainwreck which will have devastating consequences down the road for all of us. That isn’t to say ranchers and loggers and other right-leaning people don’t care about sustainability, but from a political standpoint the environmental movement is still considered “leftist” as seen through organizations such as Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and the Sierra Club.1 Images that come to mind are hippies tying themselves to trees to stop logging and PETA protesters showing their tits. It’s a stupid dichotomy and stupid branding and I reject it.2

I want to focus on a specific aspect of environmentalism in this post: the horrors of the industrialized food production system. In Part 2 of the above I had written in part:

“The industrialized food system is a complete horror show. The animals that aren’t at risk of going extinct are those that humans raise for consumption such as cows, pigs and chickens….[The scale of slaughter is mind-boggling]…But their lives are horrifically bad in the modern industrialized meat production system which breeds for economic efficiency; short, brutish lives, and in the dark and in pain, yanked from their mother’s embrace either at birth or close to birth.”

Now, I eat meat. Especially red meat. A lot of it, almost daily. I love the taste and I love the way it makes me feel. I ate a carnivore diet for awhile and it put me into amazing shape. You can see a guy like Dr. Shawn Baker and all he eats is unprocessed or low processed red meat and he looks incredible and has broken all sorts of rowing world records on this diet.

You are what you eat, and Baker looks like a giant steak now.

In fact, an all-meat or close to all-meat diet is a clean cure for the obesity impacting most Americans today given most of our food supply is poisoned with seed oils and endless strange chemicals throughout the food supply. Click the above link if you want to read a post about the obesity crisis, but it’s not pretty:

Alt-light scion Joe Rogan went on an all-meat diet for a month and raved about it. Or consider wonderful biologist and exercise coach P.D. Mangan, whose motto is “sun, steak, steel” and he looks like this in his 60s:

The results are clear from a carnivore diet: it works. Prior to the neolithic agriculture revolution 10,000 years ago humans were hunter gatherers and ate a mostly meat diet along with fruits and nuts. That’s what our bodies are adapted for, although we are gradually changing genetically over time to account for a sedentary agricultural lifestyle. If you eat carnivore many of the ailments of modern living may either be positively impacted or disappear, as attested to at Baker’s website here. 107 pages of success stories. And it’s healthy, too: consider that Hong Kong has the highest life expectancy on the planet and the highest rate of red meat consumption, while India, which has a very low rate of red meat consumption (only among its Muslims), has a much lower life expectancy and rapidly rising rates of obesity. Official science’s stance on meat consumption, especially red meat consumption (low or unprocessed) is a lie.

We can get cheap meat, as much of it as we want. It is plentiful and ubiquitous and cheap, cheap, cheap on a historical basis, even after accounting for recent food inflation. But life in many respects is about moderation. After the agricultural revolution humans ate meat uncommonly, and before that the human population was tiny in comparison to other species and to the world at large; our impact was less.

How often do we ask about the process that goes into that cheap food production? We are all vaguely aware that there is an industrialized meat production system, but the truth of it is really ugly and most of us would prefer the convenience of eating it, and eating it cheap, than thinking about the process behind things.

Well, here are some numbers:

Land animals only (USDA 2020 slaughter + imports – exports + pre-slaughter deaths):

• Every year: 8,533,141,000
• Every day: 23,378,000
• Every hour: 974,100
• Every minute: 16,234
• Every second: 271

Inclusive of land and aquatic animals:

• Every year: 55,429,141,000
• Every day: 151,888,000
• Every hour: 6,328,000
• Every minute: 105,480
• Every second: 1,758

Here is more information on the numbers. The scale of it seems almost beyond comprehension. These animals are mostly kept in small, cramped, dark, conditions; they are injected with hormones to grow faster and with antiobiotics and vaccines to prevent disease from spreading in such poor conditions. They are killed as soon as they are of sufficient size. Chickens, for example, are bred to have as large of breasts as possible to the point they cannot walk. Male chicklets are usually killed shortly after birth as a standard process:

Even the milk we enjoy comes from cows being kept impregnated with their baby cows taken from them immediately after birth. Cows only lactate in the period after birth, which can be extended with painful techniques.

How can one claim this planet is anything but a horror show nightmare based on this? (As a side note, note that the proclaimed worst group in history, the Nazis, wanted to ban this kind of industrialized meat slaughter).

Sometimes I get a flippant “Why should I care?” to the above when discussing this issue. I judge those who give that response – it shows a deep and unfathomable hole in their hearts – but the answer is simple and it’s strange that it has to be elaborated on. If one doesn’t believe that this world is simply here for human pleasure, that everything else is simply a tool to manipulate for our enjoyment (a disgusting myopic anthropocentrism), if we believe that animals possess some kind of consciousness and soul, that we are all connected in this universe and not disconnected from it as part of our “divine reason”, if we believe that we should treat others as we wish to be treated, the Golden Rule affirmed throughout history and by religion, then we have a duty to at least be mindful of the things that we consume and work to create less pain and darkness in this system (a correct biocentrism).

Of course nature itself is brutal. You can go on Youtube and watch plenty of videos of animals eating each other alive. One that particularly sticks out in my mind is of a Komodo dragon slowly eating a paralyzed in fear deer while filming tourists watched:

There’s a rhythm and a flow to what happens in nature, though. It can be terrible to watch but it’s the natural order of things regardless of our feelings. This industrialized meat production system though is something else, a reflection of the same Machine, the same mechanization process that has lowered humanity to widgits. Do you think our globohomo overlords do not consider the masses of humanity itself in the same manner, that they must be either used or discarded? If we treat animals in this manner, without any dignity or concern, why would that process not extend eventually to the rest of us?

There’s not an easy solution to the industrial food production system as this time because the human population size is too large. How else would you feed 8+ billion people? It is what it is at this time, it’s not going away — but it’s both unsustainable based on the rate of natural resource consumption (see the links at the top) and deeply immoral. The system is set up to consume and exploit everything it can and then eventually collapse once natural inputs run out, leaving a blown out smothering ruin in its wake. And ultimately consumers choose lower prices over higher quality with regularity – it’s so easy to point the finger elsewhere, but would you rather buy the $5 “regular” chicken breasts or the $9.99 cage free, free range chicken breasts? If the labeling was even real, and who really knows?

So let’s sum this up. There is a natural dilemma to meat eating: our bodies are tuned to it because of millions of years of evolution as hunter gatherers, we can survive and be healthy and have long lives on exclusive meat diets, yet the system that produces cheap meat is utterly immoral and horrific. One can ameliorate the moral implications to a degree by eating grass fed, open pasture animals, but that’s just only to a degree. It would be better to have a connection to the food we eat, i.e. to raise our own animals for consumption on a farm, but very few do this today. This is not a left-right issue but an anthropocentric vs biocentric model of the world. This also speaks to the incentive structure of reality: any alive creature basically only survives by eating other alive things (even plants are alive and feel pain). If it was morally wrong to eat meat, why would God create such a system where our bodies respond so well to it? The incentive structures for this reality are wrong, they clash with the Golden Rule. This feeds back into the whole Demiurgic argument, in my opinion…

This doesn’t mean I’m going to stop eating meat, even a lot of meat, although maybe my views will change down the road. I try to be conscious of what I’m consuming, though, I try to buy grass-fed and pasture-raised meat3, and I try to think of whatever animal I’m eating and say “thank you” before every meal when I consume it. It’s not a perfect solution, vegetarianism or veganism is certainly more ethical, although apparently enormous numbers of animals – billions a year – are killed to keep them from consuming non-meat products as well.

Ultimately a shift from this mechanized anthropocentric model to a biocentric model is needed with a shift from a focus on quantity/egalitarianism to a focus on quality/inegalitarianism (to a degree), in line with Rene Guenon’s prediction that the reign of quantity would eventually give in to a new paradigm. Globohomo’s preferred solution – keep the anthropocentrism but expand it to only the central bank owners and their lackeys as the most important creatures on the planet, not humanity as a whole – where the masses get lab grown meat (heavily processed and unhealthy, literally growing tumors, and injected with mRNA cancer causing “vaccines”) and bugs while the top class continues to get real meat – is a terrible vision for the future.

I’ll do a future post on rates of animal and plant extinction and the destruction of planetary biodiversity. It’s all pointing in a very ugly neo-Malthusian direction.

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 Another one that came to mind was the anti-whaling direct action organization Sea Shepherd which had split from Greenpeace over tactics. However, in research for this article I came across Paul Watson, its founder, who had originally split from the Sierra Club over the issue of immigration. Watson was correct in that a strict anti-immigration stance is absolutely necessary for the environmental movement because immigration into first world countries dramatically increases the consumption patterns of those immigrants. Indeed, the open borders policies of so-called environmental organizations shows how empty and skin-suited such organizations are. Watson later split from Sea Shepherd after it became skin-suited too (what mainstream organization has not?). He recently created a new organization named after himself because “the reason I called it that is because it’s pretty hard for anyone to infiltrate and take over an organisation that included my name.” Watson seems worthy of further study. This brings to mind the recent skin-suiting of Project Veritas where the usual suspects ousted James O’Keafe, the founder, before shutting the company down who went on to create a new organization in his own name.

2 Or see Junger in The Details of Time, 52: “I tend to think that [the Greens are] on the right path: perhaps like Faust’s famulus, who wanted to know everything but had not yet put his knowledge in order. This could certainly happen if first-rate personalities emerged from those circles. In any case, there is something that you have been able to note and that I dwell on in my book The Worker: namely, that pure economy is not enough. We are therefore sent from economy to ecology. That’s a first step, but of course it’s not the last. Nevertheless, I insist that it’s a step in the right direction.”

3 Even those these labels are often misrepresentative. I know the head of a local grocery store and he claims that these food quality labels – especially the “organic” label – are often thrown on to get higher prices but do not have underlying differences otherwise. The best way is if you know your local rancher so you can verify yourself where the meat is coming from, but those in major cities do not have that opportunity.

This is a politics post about the Democrat nominee if Joe Biden drops out.

I generally try to avoid political posts because such posts have short shelf-lives and because political developments are subject to higher-level cultural, religious and metaphysical forces which are much more interesting and convey a much wider perspective to the reader to assist them in their own journeys. Politics is all sound and fury, and the public responds to the so-called “facts” that are spoon fed to them as Guido Preparata so astutely points out in “Phantasmagoria, 11:

My viewpoint is fundamentally alien from [the classically Cartesian] pseudo-dichotomous game of perception, which in the final analysis, still plays itself out entirely in the discursive arena designed and fastidiously controlled by the screenwriters of Washington’s propaganda ministries […] a fundamental truth of (today’s) politics [is that] unless we ourselves are protagonists at the highest level of the event in question, there is no way of knowing anything at all about what is truly unfolding, except for the superficial and spectacular layer of sound and fury, which is in any case conveyed by TV screens and (journalistic) hearsay. So “they” write the story (in the media and books) and “we,” for our part, are relegated to commenting. But the comment, whatever it may be, ends up being nugatory for our “reflections” are wholly conditioned and constrained by the “facts” – the “reality” – which the self-proclaimed “actors of history” see fit to throw at us.

To being “relegated to commenting” on spoon-fed “facts” is in effect playing into their rigged game. Regardless, it is occasionally fun to delve into this lower, dumber political level just to mix things up while still keeping our eye on the higher realities. For background, I previously argued that Trump was a better pick than Ron “Meatball” DeSantis before DeSantis’s complete implosion when he was still running neck-and-neck with Trump. So let’s do another political post here.

---

Biden has arguably been ordered to withdraw

The New York Times, the official outlet of globohomo along with the Washington Post, has arguably ordered Joe Biden to withdraw from running for re-election by promoting a nasty hit-piece against his cognitive capacity. The below link is clickable:

Also see the Daily Mail article here for some colorful analysis. To add insult to injury Biden’s handlers then brought him out without giving him drugs for a night-time press conference (when dementia patients are in a worse condition), and told the controlled press to unleash lots of attacks on his mental condition and record and publish the results. Hillary Clinton, David Alexrod and others then piled on.

Globohomo wants Biden out because he is polling poorly against Trump, an average of Trump +1.9 according to RealClearPolitics:

Meanwhile fake polls show a Democrat “other than Biden” beating Trump by 6 points.

Biden is trying to respond with weak, transparent political games to sway the public such as trying to blame Republicans for the wide open border during his term where something like 20 million illegals were let in. However, it was his cabinet appointees like Alejandro Mayorkas who opened the border and ideologically-aligned organizations like the CIA and affiliates (including religious groups, both Jewish, Protestant and Catholic) who carried out the logistics of shipping in these hordes from Latin America and settling them across the country, housing them in hotels and giving them access both to public services and funding. This is globohomo’s strategy playing out of what they accomplished in California by turning it into a one party state but nationally: at least 60% of these illegals if not much more will vote Democrat, therefore shipping in tens of millions of them will eventually ensure a permanent Democrat one party state. It’s simple math. Because Republicans are the Orwellian Outer Party that follows whatever globohomo dictates, led by turtle-man Mitch McConnell, they have encouraged and facilitated this process. That’s why Ronna McDaniel, the niece of RINO Mitt Romney has been chair of the RNC since 2017 — her goal like her uncle’s is to destroy the populist white right-wing base.

Now, Dementia Joe has suffered from cognitive decline well before 2020, although it’s recently gotten worse. He survived the 2020 debates with a powerful cocktail of drugs, a hidden earpiece telling him what to say along with a media assist and bottom-level public expectations, supercharged by a heavily rigged election, primarily from mass mail-in balloting from the COVID scam. Because of Biden’s growing cognitive decline it’s an open question whether his handlers will let him debate Trump this time around – there’s no agreed upon debate yet. Maybe they’ll take the “high road” and say they won’t let him “debate an insurrectionist” or whatever. Or maybe he’ll miraculously pull off a 2020-tier performance with a similar assist.

It’s possible they always intended Biden to be a one term president. Between raising interest rates by 5% under his watch and completely opening the borders, encouraging a major war in Ukraine and a host of other horrors, they likely calculated that his actions would be unpopular and they would throw him under the bus as he got too old, discarded like a piece of trash.

---

How much does who is president matter?

From a wider perspective, regardless of who is president there are fundamental structural issues in America that won’t be solved by Trump or by anyone else. No one can fix the $2+ trillion dollar deficit sitting on top of a $33+ trillion dollar national debt which only increases parabolically no matter which party or who is president:

That’s not to say the president has no power; he does have some, specifically in international relations deciding which wars to start or end (which is why Congress is trying to tie Trump’s hands preemptively from ending Ukraine support), which treaties to sign or not sign, as well as whether to enforce existing laws or not. The laws for immigration are all already on the books, it’s just that Mayorkas, the Jewish front man for Cass Sunstein who has directed Biden’s open borders policies from behind the scenes and who previously came up with globohomo’s cognitive infiltration strategy of their enemies, refuses to enforce them:

Because the president has some power, globohomo was so furious at Trump’s 2016 win that they recklessly revealed themselves to the public to stop him. First they ordered the media to scream about him nonstop for four years, then they ordered the courts to twist the law into a sick facsimile of itself as a way to paralyze Orange Man, then they coordinated a worldwide shutdown under the guise of “COVID” in order to institute permanent vote-by-mail (in addition to other objectives). They accomplished their goal: Trump’s presidency was basically a failure. What did he “achieve” other than tax cuts for the ultra rich, letting huge numbers of criminals out of prison, abandoning his base and moving the embassy to Jerusalem? Even the Afghanistan withdrawal happened under Dementia Joe after globohomo stymied his attempt. I guess Trump kept us out of a war in Syria, although he did bomb them. But the cost to globohomo was letting the cat out of the bag that it existed — until then it was able to hide in the shadows and remain a “conspiracy theory” that relatively few believed. That’s a big cost: they now have to increasingly rely on hard power for control, and hard power is much more expensive and much less efficient than soft power.

---

Why doesn’t Biden retire gracefully?

Back to Dementia Joe. The reason for the New York Times hitpiece as well as special counsel Robert K. Hur’s report highlighting Biden’s ill health is they want him gone before the election, but he or his handlers (likely his fake “Doctor” wife) are resisting this and don’t want him to withdraw. Globohomo doesn’t want to remove him by focusing on his corruption, of which they have unlimited evidence of (indeed, politicians are not allowed to reach this level of power unless globohomo has nasty blackmail against them, just like Barack Obama1; for one example, Obama basically admitted publicly he is homosexual, with his 1982 love letters being released in 2023 stating, “I make love to men daily, but in the imagination”; also see here — Trump was the exception, ultra clean, which is part of why they hate him so much). Hitting Biden on corruption is too close to home because Biden was only doing what everyone else in the uniparty is and was doing, including and especially in Ukraine. If they try to take him out on this basis who’s to say that this argument won’t be turned on others? Too tricky, too uncomfortable. Better to blame it on his health.

Note society’s increasing focus on reading unstated motives into official statements. In other words, what is published in the official papers of record is nonsense, and anyone who takes it at face value today is a retard. The establishment has lost its legitimacy. The Soviet people used to do the same thing when they read Pravda: no one took it at face value and the question became which party behind the scenes was trying to benefit from any particular piece of information? That’s where we are at now.

---

Who do they want?

Biden was chosen as a compromise candidate in 2020. He represented the race-obsessed anti-white Obama wing of the Democrat party; as Obama’s VP he would continue to represent this wing’s interests and this wing was ascendant, stronger than the competing corrupt Clinton/Wall Street clique. In the Democrat Party the party decides who will be the candidate and the primary elections are simply show for the masses; this is why Biden came in a distant fourth place in the early 2020 primaries until his competition suddenly dropped out (they were ordered to). This is also why Bernie fell on his sword in numerous cycles when he was polling well and he ended up with multiple expensive vacation homes. The Republican party doesn’t have anywhere near a deathgrip over the primary process as the Democrats do, although they try, which is why they were unable to prevent Trump’s ascendancy in 2015/2016 (aided by the mass media and by Hillary/Bill Clinton who saw him correctly as a clown buffoon who they hoped would simply blow up the Republican party, which almost happened but they were too clever by half).

At this stage it’s not entirely clear who globohomo wants to replace Biden with. It likely won’t be Kamala because, despite her checking off the correct race and gender boxes, she is incredibly unpopular even within her own party.

There seem to be only two figures who have situated themselves to take up the mantle at the Democrat convention: “Big Mike” Michelle Obama or “Gruesome Newsom” Gavin Newsom (I love the Big Mike label because it is such a funny representation of modern clown world, but Newsom’s maybe could use some work). Good Citizen thinks the choice will be Big Mike.

Note the changing odds on RealClearPolitics where both Big Mike and Gruesome are rising and Dementia Joe is falling:

See some earlier articles setting the stage for Big Mike’s entrance here and here. She/he also stated in 2017 she has expressed no interest in ever running for president, stated in 2021 she is nearing retirement and Barack has publicly guaranteed she would never run. Not that this means anything to these liars. Anyway the first Democrat primaries are this month, so if they are going to make their move they will do it perhaps at the DNC or shortly thereafter.

There are a number of reasons why globohomo could favor a Big Mike ascendency:

1. Black and “female”, checks those intersectional boxes. Makes it harder to attack her. Theoretically breaks the glass barrier that Hillary tried with “I’m with her” for first “female” president.
2. Major chip on her shoulder due to knowing her advancement was from AA. Her senior thesis was apparently an unreadable abomination and she admitted to suffering from “Imposter Syndrome” at Princeton. Her hatred of whites is seen as a plus.
3. Extremely masculine physiognomy to the point there have been swirling rumors, in half jest, that she is a transsexual. Also see here. She is linebacker size. Her children look like Obama’s close friends Anita Blanchard and Martin Nesbitt. Given the way globohomo loves to scam the public in as extreme ways as possible for their own God complex, this could make sense as well.
4. Blackmail is not an issue given Barack and Michael went from basically penniless to buying eight figure mansions after leaving office. They are controlled top to bottom.
5. The Obama’s have no scruples, spying on the Trump administration and their political enemies in the Spygate scandal that makes Watergate look like a walk in the park.
6. Michael “coincidentally” watched the Notre Dame cathedral fire while drinking wine along the Seine:
7. She is extremely popular among liberal women, almost cult-like.
8. She would allow the continuation of the team behind Obama to continue their work without any interruption.

My gut says the rise of Big Mike would be a good strategy and that it would be easier to pivot and generate excitement by NPC shitlibs, especially shitlib women, than to push a half-dead dementia patient across the finish line with excessive fraud.

The other alternative is Gruesome Newsom whose physiognomy is strongly reminiscent of Patrick Bateman’s. The guy has no scruples, he will say anything, do anything without any compunctions – he helped obliterate California’s future without blinking an eye and he would do the same thing to America in a heartbeat if he thought he could personally benefit from it. The upside for globohomo regarding Newsom is he is a gaslighting bully and those kind of antics may be seen as useful. He recently and transparently vetoed some ultra-far leftist bills to try to bolster his national reputation. It’s also why globohomo hosted him in a debate against Meatball.

Alex Jones predicts the nominee will be either Big Mike or Gruesome Newsom:

Alex Jones called Biden’s withdrawal seven months ago. See the above clip if you also want to watch Biden admit he crapped his pants on live television.

While globohomo can do whatever they like in elections – between permanent vote by mail, endless printed ballots, fraudulent Dominion voting machines, a shitlib Democrat tsar within the post office, a fully compliant media and judiciary, tens of millions of illegals, etc. – they generally prefer to keep the election within a couple of percentage points because the further a blowout is in favor of Trump the harder it is to rig. Maybe they’ll ultimately keep Dementia Joe if his handlers put up enough of a fight, maybe they won’t. Maybe they’ll even “let” Trump win and then crash the economy around him. Or they could imprison him and install cheating slut Nimrata Randwata. Democracy is dead and we are ruled by a parasitical global oligarchical central bank financial squid intent on crushing the world and turning everyone into slaves.

Let’s finish this post with a couple of Petrina Ryan-Kleid paintings found hanging in Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion:

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 Obama has an Islamic background with a CIA affiliated communist father and a deranged shitlib and possibly prostitute mother with white grandparents who raised him, who he later threw under the bus, with major holes within his official history and is very likely a CIA asset like his father. Who knows how and under what circumstances his good looking chef died in ten feet of water while paddle-boarding outside Obama’s home; tying up of a loose (gay) end?

This is a sour post about how my May 2023 post about the Russia/Ukraine war is shaping up as predicted.

In that post, I argued that both Ukraine and Russia are controlled by the world central bank owners. They are using the intentionally stalemated war to achieve ulterior objectives from Russia’s proclaimed intentions of conquest or “de-Nazification” or from Ukraine’s stated intent to expel Russia from the Donbass and Crimea. Read the post if you want to understand the why and how of the argument with the underlying links, but the ulterior objectives of the war include the following:

1. to shift from the 20-year Forever War of Afghanistan while seamlessly continuing globohomo’s military-industrial complex grift (i.e. its not coincidental that the Ukraine war began only six months after the end of Afghanistan). This is why the NATO Secretary General is warning this will be a “decades-long confrontation.” Assange had eloquently explained this purpose in this 30 second clip,
2. to shift away from a flailing COVID narrative without allowing the public to introspect and get angry about it,
3. to provide a “Russia’s at fault” for the West’s soaring inflation (caused by the Federal Reserve printing $11+ trillion dollars during COVID and giving most of it to themselves),
4. disrupting Ukrainian grain production and causing food prices worldwide to soar which will increase food export profits and decrease worldwide fertility rates,
5. using the endless U.S. “foreign aid” to Ukraine as a funneling mechanism where most of that “foreign aid” ends up back in the pockets of U.S. politicians and connected allies,
6. to prevent Nordstream 2 from going online in order to prevent any further German/Russian economic integration, which is the #1 goal of the U.K./U.S. pursuant to Mackinder’s thesis,
7. to churn endless white Christian deaths on both sides, “emptying” Ukraine and to a lesser extent Russia of military age fighting men in order to remake Ukraine as the world’s first globohomo Great Reset state,
8. to ban the Russian Othodox Church and split and weaken Orthodoxy permanently, and
9. (possibly) to betray the Russian globohomo supporters in charge of Russia and move in for the kill to shatter Russia and break it up permanently.

Since the May post these objectives continue to be fulfilled and the so-called “war” continues on in a controlled “stalemated” form. Unfortunately lots of young men continue to die and heroic Igor Strelkov, the Russian dissident who argued that the Russian authorities were intentionally sabotaging the war effort, was finally arrested and sentenced to four years in prison for nothing (he had previously stated that if he was arrested that was the signal that the Russian authorities were preparing a stab-in-the-back surrender of the war1) and Putin’s henchmen assassinated Prigozhin and the Wagner top leadership in August. The Z symbolism has been buried and the Kremlin has been changing and shrinking its war objectives through its propaganda outlets.

This is why you end up with recent interviews like Putin’s trolling of midwit CIA asset Tucker Carlson with obtuse legal hedging and historical minutia with a smirk on his face. The interview cannot be properly understood except with the understanding that Putin is a globohomo lackey – indeed, he owes his entire rise and career to them – and his objective is to crush Russian populism on behalf both of his corrupt oligarchical allies and their central bank owning handlers. He is laughing at Tucker and laughing at you in the interview. Put that perspective as an overlay on the conversation and Putin’s brushoff makes sense. Rurik Skywalker delves into this a bit here and more here. It’s a good Rorschach test – if a writer takes this interview at face value he doesn’t understand the subtext.

Meanwhile in Ukraine the population is being decimated through emigration, collapsed fertility rates and huge numbers of war deaths:

Keep in mind that Ukraine’s population has decreased 30% since it gained independence in 1991.

After banning all opposition parties, the latest news is that puppet homosexual Jewish actor Zelensky and his globohomo masters are drafting 500,000 more young men to die in the meat grinder. As part of the coercion to force compliance Ukrainian officials will steal the funds out of bank accounts of anyone who resists the death-draft. This is very likely foreshadowing how globohomo will approach dissidents in the West in the not so distant future; remember that Trudeau tried to steal the bank accounts of Canadian truckers protesting the COVID measures before his masters quickly pulled him back — it was not yet time. And Brazil also stole the bank accounts of protesters upset about their steal of the election from Bolsonaro.

It seems like the strategy of emptying out Ukraine for all of the above reasons is going quite well. We may soon see a cleared out nation ready for New Khazaria, a destroyed country for Blackrock to “build back better”, a continuation of globohomo’s endless money laundering operation as well a testing ground for novel tactics such as mass bank account theft, CBDCs, and 15 minute smart cities that they will later implement within the West. This is shaping up to be a second Holodomor.

---

Ukraine as cursed

Ukraine has always had a troubled history, serving as a weak border between the East and the West. I previously covered how Gareth Jones let the world know about the ongoing 1932-1933 Holodomor where the Soviet Union under orders of the Rothschild central bank orders, carried out by its untouchable Maxim Litvinov, deliberately murdered millions of independent small farmer “kulaks”. Keep in mind that it was not “evil Russia” that did this to Ukraine but rather the same central bank owning cabal that controls both sides of the conflict today.

Here’s Ernst Junger on how the Ukraine is perpetually cursed:

“I continue to study people on the street, which again reinforces my impression of the Orient [Rostov] as a place of disenchantment. The eye has to grow accustomed to the most unpleasant sights imaginable – there is no oasis, no respite. Technology is the only thing that functions in good order: the railroads, the cars, the airplanes, loudspeakers, and naturally everything belonging to the world of weaponry. Otherwise, there is a complete absence of everything organic, of nourishment, clothing, warmth, light. This is even more pronounced for the higher aspects of life – for joy, happiness, and cheer, and for any benevolent power of art. And all this on some of the richest soil on the globe.

The story of the Tower of Babel always seems to repeat itself. In this place, however, we do not find it under construction, but rather in the stage after its collapse and the confusion of languages. These rational constructs always contain the seeds of their own destruction. They have an icy chill that attracts fire the way iron attracts lightning.” (November 23 1942)

Perhaps this grim diagnosis only afflicted Ukraine after the Soviets took over. Pyotr Stolypin had the answer that had eluded others, i.e. promoting free enterprise to encourage the creation of a middle class via peasant initiative. The Soviets viciously destroyed it. This was one of Hitler’s refrains as well – that lebensraum was necessary because Ukrainian land, among the richest in the world, was highly under-utilized.

Anyway, few people want to hear this blackpilled take about how the central bank owners simply own the world with no real resistance (not since World War 2, anyway, which was also controlled). You get authors like Simplicius with his 27,000 followers telling retards for 2+ years how Russia is on the verge of enormous success, delving with breathtaking excitement and a magnifying glass over war and political minutia, and the masses who hate Ukraine or the West simply eat it up (“Based Putin is going to teach the West a lesson and stand up to globohomo! Yeah!”) with no memory of prior predictions made and no accountability. Meanwhile Rurik Skywalker slaves away with much fewer followers because his message is not a Q-anon lite (“Z-anon”) version of “sit back and watch guys, it’s all going to turn out alright – you’re in for some real entertainment as the Good Guys win!” We also see corrupt hacks like Dmitry Medvedev jumping up and down and threatening global nuclear war so the masses keep paying attention. That’s what people want to hear.

The past two+ years continue to demonstrate that very few people are waking up to the real objectives of this war, meaning it can be continued for much longer (i.e. globohomo scams continue until enough people wake up to it, then they nimbly pivot to the next one). People lack the perspective necessary to understand how the world works, which takes time, patience, and wanting to update one’s worldview in light of new facts. I’d rather discuss what I perceive as reality with a much smaller subset of people than feed into this empty hopium. As Guido Preparata argues in Phantasmagoria, 11:

My viewpoint is fundamentally alien from [the classically Cartesian] pseudo-dichotomous game of perception, which in the final analysis, still plays itself out entirely in the discursive arena designed and fastidiously controlled by the screenwriters of Washington’s propaganda ministries […] a fundamental truth of (today’s) politics [is that] unless we ourselves are protagonists at the highest level of the event in question, there is no way of knowing anything at all about what is truly unfolding, except for the superficial and spectacular layer of sound and fury, which is in any case conveyed by TV screens and (journalistic) hearsay. So “they” write the story (in the media and books) and “we,” for our part, are relegated to commenting. But the comment, whatever it may be, ends up being nugatory for our “reflections” are wholly conditioned and constrained by the “facts” – the “reality” – which the self-proclaimed “actors of history” see fit to throw at us.

In other word, narratives are rolled out to the public according to the dictates of our rulers and we are “relegated to commenting.” This is why it is so important to step back and look at the structure of modern society, because without such a perspective the so-called “facts” as they are fed to us cannot be put into the proper context or meaning. Real societal or political change is not possible until a sizable minority of people come to understand how the world is structured, which is comprised of a grifting privately owned worldwide central bank cabal superimposed over a cult of egalitarianism, possibly with a malevolent Demiurge directing the process. The cabal structure is represented as follows, hat tip Yet Another Tommy from here:

How can one hope to change what they don’t even understand? The change required currently is in the metaphysical space, not the political space, which will duly follow if the former is fixed. Politics is downstream of culture which is downstream of belief.

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 Surrender in this context is in the meaning of Minsk 1 and 2; i.e. a pause to rearm for a mid-term future conflict which Russia will also deliberately lose.

This post is an offshoot of “The era of empty, secular mass consumption is over”, discussing the fundamental difference between slaves and free men in the modern world.

Wagecuck = the act of working a dead-end job with little or no opportunity for ever exiting the rat race.

I basically never go on Twitter/X because I consider it a cesspool, pushing short soundbytes in order for the author to receive micro-dopamine hits from an assorted coterie of nerds and losers many of whom are trying to do the same thing. The whole place reeks of desperation, a cry of “Listen to me! I have interesting things to say!” even though it’s a complete waste of time. That isn’t to say Substack doesn’t have an element of that too, but the focus on long-form content and a Subscription instead of advertising model does away with the worst of it, I think. Anyway, I checked out John Carter’s Twitter in a moment of weakness and while the micro-takes still hurt my brain, there was something that caught my eye (images below are clickable):

Now, I don’t like Matt Walsh; he works for Ben Shapiro, and as we’ve seen from Shapiro’s leaked contracts he muzzles his employees with extremely onerous provisions that silence their ability to actually state their minds, plus Walsh is engaged in exactly the stupid culture war stuff which is without question destined to lose. But I also don’t like to feud with others as it’s a waste of time.

But these Tweets highlight a point I’ve made regularly: slavery never ended, instead it expanded from a direct, formalized slave-whipping model to an indirect financial-control model that expanded to almost all of humanity and sucked up all of their free time. The Rothschilds and their allies put this system in place via the privately owned central bank system, while simultaneously filling the masses’s heads with nonsense about how everyone is free under “democracy”. Even the average commute to work both ways is an hour/day. If you have two hours a day that you can direct to your own interests and the weekends are spent on the chores that fell behind during the week, are you your own master? How is your position any different from that from a slave except the lack of physical whipping?

This is the essence of neoliberal feudalism.

It’s actually much worse now than in prior feudalism, because under feudalism if you were a landlocked serf you would work sunrise to dusk during harvesting season, and you would be in danger of being called up for military duty, but generally speaking you would have vast months of downtime where your time was your own and you could read, hunt, focus on your hobbies, the community etc. During that time your time was your own and you had much greater freedoms that you have today. This is part of the reason why architecture of this period was so beautiful; local artisans had lots of time to devote to their craft.

Today, there is really only two ways to escape the rat race: either ascend it via passive income or drop out from it entirely. Because only from escaping the rat race can a person really be free; if you are not in charge of your time you are a slave.

In the former, you grind away within the rat race hoping to make enough money and investments so that the passive income from the investments eventually exceed your expenses, plus allowances for inflation and reinvestment. This is the financial independence and retiring early (FIRE) community. There are ways of doing this both for the rich and less rich by adjusting the expenses one lives on but the basic idea is the same. If you have enough “passive income” (I hate that term, as it never really is passive) coming in, you then have time to focus on your hobbies or whatever else you want to do. Although, to be fair, people are so zombified today by unrelenting propaganda that I don’t think most people would know what to do with themselves in retirement other than play Canasta and listen to “It’s Five O’Clock Somewhere”. Their creative spirit has been completely crushed.

A great game teaching the principle of escaping the rat-race through “passive” income is Cashflow the game by the Rich Dad/Poor Dad author (stupidly high pricing; you can find it cheaper used on Ebay. There’s also a free electronic version here). You start out as a wagecuck and have to work until you have enough investments until you can escape the rat race. Play it if you havn’t; it’s fun and very educational, much more so than Monopoly.

Unfortunately most people have dead-end jobs which makes FIRE difficult or impossible even with limited spending. Home ownership rates are at an all-time low, retirement savings for most is minimal, people have huge amounts of credit card and other debt and even for those families who aren’t divorced, tax rates are choking and both husband and wife need to work to barely scrape by (and they rarely see their children). Social security is a bankrupt zombie and who knows when it will collapse.

The other way out is via the NEET community (Not in Employment, Education, or Training) – just drop out of society, live at home with the parents (and/or get on disability and Section 8), don’t get married or have kids, and waste one’s life away on (usually empty) hobbies.

I would argue that the distinction between being in the rat race or being out of it is the fundamental distinction in society today economically. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, a retired guy watching his wealth with $5 million and a NEET are all more similar to each other than to a wagecuck – even if the wagecuck makes $5 million a year, as unless one is careful one’s expenses generally rise with one’s income – in the sense they are in charge of their time, even if the reach of their options may be different. What does Gates or Bezos have in terms of their daily living over a retired guy with $5 million? More homes, private planes, sex slaves (Bezos’s old plastic surgery’s fiance is gross and proves that money isn’t everything)? Everyone has internet access, computers, electricity, refrigerators, television, shopping at the same grocery stores, most have AC and heating, etc. The difference between the rich and poor in this age is far less than in past ages…

The sad thing is technology was not supposed to evolve in this manner. Technology was supposed to free up our free time and allow us the ability to pursue our interests. After all, fewer and fewer people are needed in agriculture or industrial production to produce the same or higher output than in generations past:

However, a combination of unlimited open borders and infinite Federal Reserved printed loldollars causing vast inflation sucks up the wealth created by technology. AI is not going to change this paradigm; globohomo will just let in even more illegal immigrants and print even more money, as Peter St Onge explains eloquently here.

The other aspect is that the amount of money needed to escape the rat race becomes higher and higher over time, the number of people who can afford to escape the rat race lessens and lessens, and more and more people are cast into the Thunderdome over time filled with crime and homelessness, even for those who carefully watch their expenses. Our overlords want everyone but themselves working as slaves; after all, if everyone middle class or above has more or less comparable lifestyles if they’re not working, how do our elites get to virtue signal their superiority? The gap between rich and poor must grow until the differences between the elites and everyone else is obvious to all. And people feel this on a subconscious level, absorbed via osmosis; the sense of desperation is growing, everyone is chasing ridiculous Ponzi schemes like cryptocurrency in the hopes of winning, lottery-like, the escape from the rat race.

So what’s the point of all this? Like most of my posts, it’s about reframing ideas about society and living. Live beneath your means and try to escape the rat race. Expect things to become harder. Try to make time in your life for your hobbies. Acknowledge that if you are beholden to a 9/5 you are a slave just as most everyone is. It sucks to be a slave but that is base reality. Giving up like NEETs is a rational choice for many but feels wrong; life is struggle and giving up does a disservice to your millions of years of ancestors. Don’t be the one to break the chain of existence. Very few people frame things in this manner, but many more should. Changing things starts with a baseline of accepting reality for what it is. From there change becomes possible.

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

This is a light and whimsical post about one of ancient Greece’s most interesting characters, Diogenes of Sinope (412/404 BC – 323 BC), who listened to his inner voice despite hardship and public pressure. His decision to live ascetically and shamelessly free from social constraints continues to have lasting appeal.

An aphorism is a concise, terse, or laconic expression of a general truth or principle.

Diogenes of Sinope was one of the founders of Cynicism, a school of ancient Greek philosophy, and his life, ideas and expressions continue to have lasting appeal.

He is most famous for his encounter with Alexander the Great when Alexander visited Corinth in 336 BC. According to Plutarch, the story is as follows:

Now a great assembly of the Greeks was held at the Isthmus, where a vote was passed to make an expedition against Persia with Alexander, and he was proclaimed their leader. Thereupon many statesmen and philosophers came to him with their congratulations, and he expected that Diogenes of Sinope also, who was tallying in Corinth, would do likewise. But since that philosopher took not the slightest notice of Alexander, and continued to enjoy his leisure in the suburb Craneion, Alexander went in person to see him; and he found him lying in the sun. Diogenes raised himself up a little when he saw so many persons coming toward him, and fixed his eyes upon Alexander. And when that monarch addressed him with greetings, and asked if he wanted anything, “yes,” said Diogenes, “stand a little out of my sun.” It is said that Alexander was so struck by this, and admired so much the haughtiness and grandeur of the man who had nothing but scorn for him, that he said to his followers, who were laughing and jesting about the philosopher as they went away, “But verily, if I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes.”

What a story! Here you have a man who had no possessions at all, living on the streets as a dog and begging for his food as a homeless man, and the most glorious man alive, whose name and actions would echo for eternity, comes to him and asks him what he wants, and he says – get out of my way! What power of thinking, of composure, of self-assuredness, to have nothing, to need nothing, to retain your wits regardless of the vicissitudes of fate. It reminds me of Rudyard Kipling’s wonderful poem “If”: “…If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch, If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, If all men count with you, but none too much; If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it, And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!”

Per Ecclesiastes 3:20, “All go to one place; all were formed of the dust, and all will return to dust.” All of the world’s honors, riches, glory ultimately mean nothing as we all return to the same source; the adventures we go on, the conflicts and struggles we endure are mere trifles in the grand scheme of things, and it takes a man of wisdom like Diogenes to think for himself and not give credence to such silly things.

The book “Diogenes of Sinope – Life and Legend” contains every extant reference to the man. These references are from the following authors: Aelian, Aesop, Aulus Gellius, Apuleius, Athenaeus, Augustine, Basil of Caesarea, Clement, Cicero, Dio Chrysostom, Diogenes Laertius, Epictetus, Greek Anthology, Julian, Lucian, Marcus Aurelius, Origen, Philostratus, Plutarch, Seneca, Socrates Scholasticus, Strabo, Tertullian. The book was interesting to read; some writers resonated more than others. For example Dio Chrysostom was longwinded and boring despite having the most coverage.

Here’s a brief background of Diogenes before letting some of the best aphorisms speak for themselves. He was the son of the mintmaster of Sinope. He started working in the mint but was caught debasing the currency and so he fled into exile. While fleeing, the boat he was on was captured by pirates and he was sold as a slave. He eventually secured his freedom and became more or less a homeless bum (or “dog”) which was a philosophical choice, and he insulted or praised those who passed by him as he begged for basic sustenance without regarding for wealth or privilege.

He was a fairly prolific author and also wrote tragedies, none of which survive. He was a contemporary both of Plato and of Alexander the Great. He lived to an old age and developed a large following as one of the founders of Cynicism. The Stoics, Cynics, Epicureans, and Skeptics practiced a philosophy focusing on an individual’s approach to life rather than on the structure of the state, philosophies which become more relevant as we enter a time with major reductions in material consumption.

To be clear, I am not endorsing Diogenes’s actions or ascetic-like philosophy except to the extent they shine a light on the absurdity of mankind. It is the mark of wisdom that one can understand and appreciate a style of thinking without accepting or rejecting it; to hold in one’s mind competing ideas and ideals gives rise to the complexification process at the heart of life.

The below are the aphorisms and anecdotes that stood out to me. They are organized alphabetically by author, not chronologically.

Aelian, Varia Historia III.29:

• Diogenes the Sinopian used to say of himself that he fulfilled and suffered the imprecations in the Tragedy, being a Vagabond, destitute of a house, deprived of his country, a Begger, ill clothed, having his livelihood only from day to day: And yet he was more pleased with this condition, then Alexander with the command of the whole World, when having conquered the Indians he returned to Babylon.

Aelian, Varia Historia X.11:

• Diogenes had a pain in his shoulder by some hurt, as I conceive, or from some other cause: and seeming to be much troubled, one that was present being vexed at him, derided him, saying, “Why then do you not die, Diogenes, and free yourself from ills? He answered, “It was fit that those persons who knew what was to be done and said in life (of which he professed himself one) should live. Wherefore for you (he said) who know neither what is fit to be said or done, it is convenient to die; but me, who know these things, it behoveth to live.”

Aelian, Varia Historia XIV:

• It is reported that Plato used to say of Diogenes, “This man is Socrates mad.”

Aesop:

• A bald man insulted Diogenes the Cynic and Diogenes replied, “Far be it from me to make insults! But I do want to compliment your hair for having abandoned such a worthless head.”

Diogenes Laertius, Book 6:

• Menippus in his “Sale of Diogenes” tells how, when he was captured [by the pirates] and put up for sale, he was asked what he could do. He replied, “Govern men.” And he told the crier to give notice in case anybody wanted to purchase a master for himself. Having been forbidden to sit down, “It makes no difference,” said he, “for in whatever position fishes lie, they still find purchasers.” And he said he marveled that before we buy a jar or dish we try whether it rings true, but if it is a man are content merely to look at him. To Xeniades who purchased him he said, “You must obey me, although I am a slave; for, if a physician or a steersman were in slavery, he would be obeyed.” Eubulus in his book entitled The Sale of Diogenes tells us that this was how he trained the sons of Xeniades.
• He lit a lamp in broad daylight and said, as he went about, “I am looking for an [honest] man.”Diogenes Searching for an Honest Man, attributed to J. H. W. Tischbein (c. 1780)
• One day he got a thorough drenching where he stood, and, when the bystanders pitied him, Plato said if they really pitied him, they should move away, alluding to his vanity.
• When Lysias the druggist asked him if he believed in the gods, “How can I help believing in them,” said he, “when I see a god-forsaken wretch like you?”

• Dionythe the Stoic says that after Chaeronea he was seized and dragged off to Philip, and being asked who he was, replied, “A spy upon your insatiable greed.” For this he was admired and set free.
• Being short of money, he told his friends that he applied to them not for alms, but for repayment of his dues.
• When a youth effeminately attired put a question to him, he declined to answer unless he pulled up his robe and showed whether he was man or woman.
• Rhetoricians and all who talked for reputation he used to call “thrice human,” meaning thereby “thrice wretched.” (Make note, Substack authors…)
• When someone reproached him with his exile, his reply was, “Nay, it was through that, you miserable fellow, that I came to be a philosopher.” Again, when someone reminded him that the people of Sinope had sentenced him to exile, “And I them,” said he, “to home-staying.”
• Being reproached one day for having falsified the currency, he said, “That was the time when I was such as you are now; but such as I am now, you will never be.”
• He once begged alms of a statue, and, when asked why he did so, replied, “To get practice in being refused.” In asking alms – as he did at first by reason of his poverty – he used this form: “If you have already given to anyone else, give to me also; if not, begin with me.”
• To the question what is wretched in life he replied, “An old man destitute.”
• Being asked what creature’s bite is the worst, he said, “Of those that are wild a sycophant’s; of those that are tame a flatterer’s.”
• Being asked whether he had maid or boy to wait on him, he said “No.” “If you should die, then, who will cary you out to burial?” “Whoever wants the house,” he replied.
• Being asked what was the right time to marry, Diogenes replied, “For a young man not yet: for an old man never at all.”
• To the question what wine he found pleasant to drink, he replied, “That for which other people pay.”
• When he was advised to go in pursuit of his runaway slave, he replied, “It would be absurd, if Manes can live without Diogenes, but Diogenes cannot get on without Manes.”
• Some authors affirm that the following also belongs to him: that Plato saw him washing lettuces, came up to him and quietly said to him, “had you paid court to Dionysius, you wouldn’t now be washing lettuces,” and that he with equal calmness made answer, “If you had washed lettuces, you wouldn’t have paid court to Dionysius.”
• When someone said, “Most people laugh at you,” his reply was, “And so very likely do the asses at them; but as they don’t care for the asses, so neither do I care for them.”
• Alexander once came and stood opposite him and said, “I am Alexander the great king.” “And I,” said he, “am Diogenes the Cynic.” Being asked what he had done to be called a hound, he said, “I fawn on those who give me anything, I yelp at those who refuse, and I set my teeth in rascals.”
• On being asked what he had gained from philosophy, he replied, “This at least, if nothing else – to be prepared for every fortune.”
• To the man who said to him, “you don’t know anything, although you are a philosopher,” he replied, “Even if I am but a pretender to wisdom that in itself is philosophy.”
• When someone brought a child to him [for tutoring] and declared him to be highly gifted and of excellent character, “What need then,” said he, “has he of me?”
• Seeing a young man behaving effeminately, “Are you not ashamed,” he said, “that your own intention about yourself should be worse than nature’s: for nature made you a man, but you are forcing yourself to play the woman.”
• To one who protested that he was ill adapted for the study of philosophy, he said, “Why then do you live, if you do not care to live well?”
• Being asked what was the most beautiful thing in the world, he replied, “Freedom of speech.”
• He would ridicule good birth and fame and all such distinctions, calling them showy ornaments of vice.
• Diogenes is said to have been nearly ninety years old when he died. Regarding his death there are several different accounts. One is that he was seized with colic after eating an octopus raw and so met his end. Another is that he died voluntarily by holding his breath….Over his grave they set up a pillar and a dog in Parian marble upon it. Subsequently his fellow-citizens honoured him with bronze statues, on which these verses were inscribed: Time makes even bronze grow old, but they glory, Diogenes, all eternity will never destroy. Since thou alone didst point out to mortals the lesson of self-sufficingness and the easiest path of life.” But some say that when dying he left instructions that they should throw him out unburied, that every wild beast might feed on him, or thrust him into a ditch and sprinkle a little dust over him.
• [Cynics] also hold that we should live frugally, eating food for nourishment only and wearing a single garment. Wealth and fame and high birth they despise. Some at all events are vegetarians and drink cold water only and are content with any kind of shelter or tubs, like Diogenes, who used to say that it was the privilege of the gods to need nothing and of god-like men to want but little.

Epictetus, Discourses 4.1:

• Diogenes was free. How came he by this? Not because he was of free parents (he was not), but because he was free himself, had cast away all the weakness that might give slavery a hold on him, and so no one could approach or lay hold on him to enslave him. Everything he had he was ready to let go, it was loosely attached to him. If you had laid hold on his property, he would have let it go rather than have followed you for it; if you seized his leg, he would have let that go; if his whole poor body, he would have let his whole body go; and the same with kinsfolk, friends, and country. For he knew whence he had them and from whom, and on what conditions he received them. His true ancestors, the gods, and his his true Country he would never have deserted, nor have suffered another to yield them more obedience or attention, nor would another have died for his Country more cheerfully. For he never sought to get the reputation of acting for the universe, but he remembered that everything that comes to pass has its source there and is done for that true Country’s sake and is entrusted to us by Him that governs it. Wherefore look what he says and writes himself: ‘Therefore, Diogenes,’ he says, ‘you have power to converse as you will with the king of the Persians and with Archidamus, king of the Lacedaemonians.’ Was it because he was the son of free parents? When all the men of Athens and Lacedaemon and Corinth were unable to converse with them as they wished, and feared and flattered them instead, was it because they were the sons of slaves? ’Why have I the power to do it then?’ he says. ‘Because I count my poor body not my own because I need nothing, because law and nothing else is all in all to me.’ These were the things which left him free.

Greek anthology anonymous

• Diogenes the Cynic, on his arrival in Hades, after his wise old age was finished, laughed when he saw [king] Croesus. Spreading his cloak on the ground near the king, who once drew great store of gold from the river, he said: “Now, too, I take up more room than you; for all I had I have brought with me, but you, Croesus, have nothing.”

Julian, Oration 6

• Then let him who wishes to be a Cynic, earnest and sincere, first take himself in hand like Diogenes and Crates, and expel from his own soul and from every part of it all passions and desires, and entrust all his affairs to reason and intelligence and steer his course by them. For this in my opinion was the sum and substance of the philosophy of Diogenes.

Lucian, The Way to Write History 3

• Such sights and sounds, my Philo, brought into my head that old anecdote about the Sinopian. A report that Philip was marching on the town had thrown all Corinth into a bustle; one was furbishing his arms, another wheeling stones, a third patching the wall, a fourth strengthening a battlement, every one making himself useful somehow or other. Diogenes having nothing to do – of course no one thought of giving him a job – was moved by the sight to gird up his philosopher’s cloak and began rolling his tub-dwelling energetically up and down the Craneum; an acquaintance asked, and got, the explanation: “I do not want to be thought the only idler in such a busy multitude; I am rolling my tub to be like the rest.”

Plutarch, How a man may receive advantage and profit from his enemies

• There are others who, as Diogenes and Crates did, have made banishment from their native country and loss of all their goods a means to pass out of a troublesome world into the quiet and serene state of philosophy and mental contemplation.
• And here may be inserted that wise and facetious answer of Diogenes to one that asked him how he might be revenged of his enemy: The only way, says he, to gall and fret him effectually is for yourself to appear a good and honest man. The common people are generally envious and vexed in their minds, as oft as they see the cattle of those they have no kindness for, their dogs, or their horses, in a thriving condition; they sigh, fret, set their teeth, and show all the tokens of a malicious temper, when they behold their fields well tilled, or their gardens adorned and beset with flowers. If these things make them so restless and uneasy, what dost thou think they would do, what a torment would it be to them, if thou shouldst demonstrate thyself in the face of the world to be in all thy carriage a man of impartial justice, a sound understanding, unblamable integrity, of a ready and eloquent speech, sincere and upright in all your dealings, sober and temperate in all that you eat or drink.

Hopefully you found some of these anecdotes and aphorisms about this silly, sarcastic homeless fellow, living in a completely different age with quite different societal values, whose name and deeds we know about 2,300 years later as interesting as I did.

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

Whenever I see updates from Substack authors breathlessly tracking their increasing follower counts, I instinctively think, “Wow, what a self-congratulatory fag.”

Well, my time to be a self-congratulatory fag I guess, as I recently hit 1,000 subscribers.1 Thank you guys.

I originally created this Substack in order to draw attention to my other Substack, which may be (?) unique to the platform as an essentially self-contained manifesto about the privately owned central banks and the egalitarianism that gave rise to it. Without an already established following, I needed regular, consistent updates and engagement with the Substack community to draw attention to it, hence The Neo-Feudal Review. And I think this strategy is slowly having an impact, maybe.

I had sat on the contents of that long-form essay for a long time after taking about a year to write it, afraid of negative repercussions from posting it. After all, publishing something anti-globohomo is a dangerous thing; free speech in America is a farce and an illusion and they can target their enemies at whim. But as Julian Assange argued,

“I think first it’s necessary to have an understanding that one is either a participant in history or a victim of it, and that there is no other option. It is actually not possible to remove oneself from history, because of the nature of economic…and intellectual interaction. Hence, it is not possible to break oneself off….Because no one wants to be a victim, one must therefore be a participant, and in being a participant, the most important thing to understand is that your behavior affects other people’s behavior, and your courage will inspire actions. On the other hand, a lack of courage will suppress them.”

And:

“Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love. In a modern economy it is impossible to seal oneself off from injustice. If we have brains or courage, then we are blessed and called on not to frit these qualities away, standing agape at the ideas of others, winning pissing contests, improving the efficiencies of the neocorporate state, or immersing ourselves in obscuranta, but rather to prove the vigor of our talents against the strongest opponents of love we can find.”

And as Theodore Dalrymple said,

Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

It was Russian dissident2 Igor Strelkov who said while facing looming potential criminal charges something along the lines of that he accepted the consequences of his words and that sometimes there is a price to pay for speaking truth to power. A brave and heroic man. He now rots in prison, forgotten. This isn’t to argue that I’m anything like Strelkov or Assange, but rather the act of posting one’s thoughts publicly is a fundamental difference from sitting on the sidelines.

Anyway, I’d like to thank each and every one of you for reading. The audience is small (but growing), but the online relationships I have developed with you via comments, restacking, etc., is important for keeping my sanity in this atomized globohomo Hellworld, and the feedback received has also strengthened and challenged my perspectives. I am touched that my essays have found an audience, which are all long, complicated and dense – the shortest is a ~15 minute read according to Substack metrics, while many stretch over 30 minutes – and the takes are usually highly pessimistic which is understandably unpopular. I didn’t and don’t expect this Substack to grow fast or large as a result; people want optimism, they want promise and hope no matter how false, and they want short soundbites. I havn’t been really tempted to try to offer that product although I understand those who do. And I deliberately have only a very minimal Twitter and Gab presence.3

I would especially like to thank those readers who have offered a donative; my paid subscriptions are turned off because I don’t want the pressure of meeting reader expectations and I want to follow my inspiration wherever it leads, but it means a lot that my writing impacted a number of you to the point where you proactively offered to pay for the content. Thank you.

Here are some (faggy) hard-earned lessons learned from the Substack journey so far for those of you seeking to grow your own audiences:

1. Most people don’t click links. Use them if you need to for citation purposes, but generally they should be used sparingly. I don’t follow my own advice on this.
2. Use photos or pictures to liven up an article. Seeing a huge screed of text without breaking it up with visual images is intimidating and turns off readers. John Carer is great at providing ample visual content.
3. Shorter posts are usually better; it takes a special group to read through a 30 minute screed. There is an huge deluge of information out there and one’s attention is pulled in too many directions. Be short and succinct. I also don’t always follow my own advice on this.
4. Start your post with a couple sentence summary of what is to follow. This will allow the reader to decide if the topic, description and summary interests them to continue reading or not.
5. Break up posts into smaller sections. It is much easier to read small sections with breaks in it than to read a whole rambling screed.
6. Post less often. I had to unfollow various authors whose work I otherwise enjoy because my mailbox got too overwhelmed, and I paid more attention anyway to those who posted higher quality content weekly instead of daily.
7. Time and day chosen for posting also has an impact. People are out and about on weekends, for example, so it seems somewhere between Monday and Thursday and early morning posts may be the sweet spot. I like to post on days when I don’t get a lot of Substack emails from others.
8. Write in your own words. People want to hear your voice, not long quotes by others.
9. Try to write at levels above the level of day-to-day politics. Writing about perennial issues will create more of an element of longevity for your posts which others may discover down the road. Regular politics posts have a short shelf-life.
10. Consider selectively submitting your stronger pieces to Revolver News (tips@revolver.news). Darren Beattie or whoever checks that Tips email has posted the link to two of my articles which drew a significant amount of attention compared to baseline. Thanks Darren and Revolver. I would also like to thank Dudley Newright of the New Right Poast for highlighting some of my posts unsolicited which I also appreciate. (Meanwhile, Ron Unz has not responded to a couple of emails sent his way, but he’s a very strange duck).
11. Comment on other’s posts in a respectful manner and offer constructive feedback to them, engage on Notes, and restack posts that you find interesting. We’re all in this together to an extent and the more goodwill you generate by boosting others the more they may return the favor and boost you. On that note make sure to check out Theodore Atkinson’s excellent Substack.
12. It’s not clear which posts will be popular or not ahead of time; posts I thought would be bangers had less attention than I expected, while others that were cranked out with less effort were sometimes much more popular. Perhaps the ease of writing is suggestive of clarity and flow. My most popular post was on living below your means and lowering one’s material expectations as the bad times ahead are going to last for a very long time, decades or longer, and it was one of the easier ones to write. Perhaps practical posts are more popular than theoretical or esoteric ones.
13. Post the links to your latest posts onto Twitter or Gab if you have a presence there. My presence on these platforms is minimal because social media rots your brain, but I still post the links there.
14. Try to keep your main page uncluttered. I find the newspaper style with a bunch of photos and links to be distracting.
15. Fill out your “About” section with something short and succinct about the core things you are trying to achieve with the Substack.

If you have suggestions for growing one’s Substack that I’ve left out or I’m missing I would love to hear them in the comments.

Lastly, I’m not sure where this journey will lead; inspiration is a curious thing and I could wake up one morning and be done with all this, I don’t know. My original inspiration hit me as a flash of light, an almost spiritual epiphany when I read Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morality, something I was not expecting and still am kind of shocked it had such an effect on me. It changed everything for me, where there was a before and after in terms of my thinking. It answered the fundamental question I had, where I have looked around for decades like an aspergery alien wondering: why are people so obsessed with egalitarianism to the point they discard all reason and logic in pursuit of it? Where does this come from? What am I missing? I am trying to be true to that flash of light, that emotional and perhaps spiritual catharsis, even though I don’t know where that path will lead. Everyone is on their own unique journeys and I don’t expect it to have the same effect on you that it had on me. As Ernst Junger wrote in his War Journals, January 28, 1942, reading is first a filtering process where we take what interests us to further our own personal development:

Reading through a text, my personal sensations and thoughts are always at work like an aura imparting a luster to this strange light.

In some sentences or images thoughts come to my consciousness in profusion. I then deal with the first one and leave the others out in the waiting room, but occasionally I open the door, just to see if they’re still standing around. All the while, I continue reading.

While I’m reading, I always have the feeling that I am essentially dealing with my own material. This is what an author is supposed to produce. In doing so, he serves himself first, and only then, others.

And in his September 14, 1942 entry, he describes the riddle of the world as a reflection of the riddle of life:

The riddle of life – before it, blocking the way, hangs the combination lock of the mind doing its job. The outrageous aspect of this job is that the contents of the safe change according to the method applied to gain access to it. If the lock is ever broken open, it evaporates.

Doucement! [Carefully!]. The more delicately we finger it, the more remarkable are the combinations that are revealed. By the same token, they also become simpler. Ultimately, we begin to sense that we are gaining access to our own breast, to our self, and that the riddle of the world is a reflection of the riddle of life. The treasures of the cosmos now pour in.

Anyways thanks for following, I hope this was helpful in some way, and see you at the next post.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 This is an important metric because it shows “over 1,000 subscribers” when someone comes to the main page of the Substack. Given people’s herd mentality, the thought is this will allow the Substack to grow faster moving forward.

2 As Russia is also controlled by globohomo.

3 As social media is cancerous click-bait, lacking nuance and subtlety, and blows out your dopamine receptors, even excluding the fact that Twitter is controlled by the CIA and FBI and Gab is an astroturfed ghost town.

This post explores the West’s denigrating approach toward astrology and investigates scientific studies of the topic. It looks at how humanity historically used astrology to tie humanity as one microcosm of a greater reality, a reality which has since been severed by the modern view of mankind as superior to nature. This post also explores promising leads to hopefully one day tie us back to the cosmos.

“There is no bar to knowledge greater than contempt prior to examination.” – Herbert Spencer

“As above, so below.” – The Emerald Tablet

This is a post about astrology.

Vague, popular month-long horoscopes that one would find in a trashy magazine are universally understood as lacking validity, including by astrologers, and are not the subject of this post.

“Astrology” in this context means natal horoscopes (your chart at the time of birth) and progressed horoscopes (how your natal chart changes over time) utilizing the planets, houses, and aspects. This type of astrology can be descriptive (trying to help someone to understand himself), predictive (trying to forecast what will happen to him) or postdictive (trying to interpret and make sense of his past life). Predictive astrology can also concern itself with relationships (marriage, friendships) or significant events and history. There is also astrology in the sense of “cosmobiology” which will be described below.

There’s a lot of things that come to mind about the topic of astrology depending on your background, upbringing, and education. Opinions vary widely, but there is a general stigma of pseudoscience associated with it in the West. Before delving into this, though, there are some background points that I want to clarify.

---

The culture ratchet effect

All of us in the West are steeped in Whig history. Whig history presents history as a journey from an oppressive and benighted past to a “glorious present”. Society has handed us a distinct view of the past as backwards, ignorant, a dark ages full of dumb people with dumb beliefs. But this is wrong. While the scientific method has been great in supercharging the advancement of technology, our ancestors experimented with things holistically and passed on the knowledge gained via a cultural ratchet effect. Humans are unique in how they learn: they learn by imitation, tweaking and experimenting what they have learned to conform to the needs of current society, to the point where they often forget the origination of the knowledge that was passed down or the rationale for it. This partially explains why cultures are resistant to change because what they have done has worked for their ancestors. As Brett Andersen explains:

Some hunter-gatherers eat a plant called manioc that is toxic in its natural form and therefore requires processing. Sometimes the toxin takes weeks or even years to have an effect, meaning that it’s almost impossible to identify the source of the toxicity. Nevertheless, groups that eat these plants engage in complex processes that detoxify them. 

As Henrich points out, the individuals who engage in this process often have no idea what they are doing from a mechanistic, causal perspective. They don’t really understand that they are detoxifying the plant and they definitely don’t understand why (from a mechanistic perspective) the process they engage in makes the plant safer to eat. 

This is because the detoxification process did not result from rational contemplation or causal analysis. Rather, it evolved through a ratcheting process that is causally opaque to those who engage in it. This causal opacity is common with culturally evolved technologies and institutions. We often engage in adaptive practices that are the products of cultural evolution without having a causal understanding of why the practice is functional. 

An example of an ancient practice that we discarded as barbaric is bloodletting. There is ongoing debate about its health benefits and drawbacks (see phlebotomy and its use in alternative medicine) but I was intrigued by the theory put forth by the wonderful biologist P.D. Mangan, who theorizes that the reason women live on average five years longer than men is because they dump excess iron from their bloodstream via menstruation, while men have no way to dump that iron which accumulates and then causes negative health effects. He wrote a whole book analyzing the science of it. At age forty five, men have about four times the amount of iron in their bodies as women do, and they also have four times the rate of heart attacks. Blood donors who lower their iron levels when they give blood are significantly healthier than non-donors. The is true even after accounting for the “healthy donor” effect. “[B]lood donors had an 88% reduced risk of heart attack.” Mangan’s answer for men? Donate blood regularly…i.e. bloodletting. I donate blood every couple months now to the Red Cross as a result of his research.

Another topic I investigated recently, mothballed by modern science, is the science surrounding physiognomy, which I did a prior post on. Physiognomy is real and important, even though de-emphasized by modern society.

Anyway, this is a roundabout way of saying Whig history is wrong, our ancestors were smarter than we acknowledge through our modern prism, and that part of the job of reorienting the public away from globohomo’s toxic vision of humanity, life, and history is to re-engage with a better respect for why people did things historically.

And one of these things is the topic of astrology. Astrology has been practiced for thousands of years by civilizations which had no contact with each other, across long distances and even across continents, but in the modern scientific community it is viewed with disdain as a false pseudoscience for idiots, part of the general Whig history approach. Were our ancestors all just idiots, looking up to the sky and seeing patterns applying to their own lives that had no validity? Or was there something legitimate there? This is what we will explore in this post. And this has greater implications: when advances in astronomy destroyed man’s understanding of the Heavens (both religious understandings as well as ancient Hellenic understandings1), where the stars served as hints at God’s divine plan and of angels in the Heavens, this greatly contributed to the advance of nihilism and man’s severing from the world around him. As George Santayana argued, “Before the days of Kepler, the heavens declared the glory of the Lord.” After Kepler, man was left adrift in a confusing world where his place in it was unstable and insecure.2

If astrology is true (and there are different ways it could be true, as we will explore) this could re-establish man’s place within the universe as being interconnected instead of disconnected. According to Richard Tarnas in “Cosmos and Psyche”, p. 63-64, “Astrology is that perspective which most directly contradicts the long-established disenchanted and decentered cosmology that encompasses virtually all modern and postmodern experience. It posits an intrinsically meaning-permeated cosmos that in some sense is focused on the Earth, even on the individual human being, as a nexus of that meaning. Such a conception of the universe uniquely controverts the most fundamental assumptions of the modern mind.” Let’s first review science’s track record on how it treats theories outside of its existing paradigm, then review the science of astrology (or lack thereof), after which I will offer a bit of my own exploration of the topic.

---

Science’s track record

Science has a track record of proclaiming things outside of its existing framework as impossible. According to Kuhn’s thesis in “The Science of Structure Revolutions”, the way science works is that it progresses within whatever the existing framework is, with all of its assumptions and blind spots, until enough “anomalies” build up — i.e. results that cannot be explained by the existing framework — that eventually results in a radical paradigm shift to account for the anomalies, after which normal science restarts based upon the new paradigm. The Copernican Revolution is one example of a paradigm shift. Because an existing paradigm cannot account for anomalies, and because our understanding of science has evolved over time, sometimes radically, a proper approach to unproven science is to retain an element of humility that we might later radically see things in quite a different way.

But scientists generally and naturally react with scorn and disdain to perspectives outside the existing paradigm. Per esteemed scientist H.J. Eysenck, who we will discuss shortly, Johannes Muller, one of the most widely respected physiologists of the 19th century, declared it would be impossible to measure the speed of the nervous impulse; three years later Helmholtz measured it quite accurately. The philosopher G.W. Hegel declared there would never be an eighth planet found, just before Herschel discovered Uranus. Galileo’s incorrect opinion of the theory that tides are caused by the moon was conclusive: “Astrological nonsense.” Einstein and Rutherford, the greatest physicists of the 20th century, declared that the splitting of the atom would never have any practical application, a mere decade before the nuclear bomb was invented. What would a physicist of the 19th or 18th century have made of black holes, quarks, quasars and the like, or even electricity and magnetism?

A lack of mechanism isn’t necessary for a theory to be revolutionary. No mechanism was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by Wegener, even though he turned out to be correct. Newton postulated a gravitational force, even though nothing was known about the nature of the force.

It’s better to keep an open mind about things and follow the science (which, to emphasize, is repeatable experiments by third parties, not “science” by committee consensus which is corrupted, bastardized Scientism) wherever it ultimately leads.

H.J. Eysenck was an interesting scientist, now fairly obscure, and I may do a future post about him. He was a German-born British psychologist who spent his professional career in Great Britain and at the time of his death, Eysenck was the most frequently cited living psychologist in the peer-reviewed scientific journal literature. He had a reputation for following the science dispassionately and methodologically despite any political sensitivities, and he had an interest in obscure topics that the scientific community avoided, like astrology — but also the link between race and intelligence, a link his enemies never forgot and who unleashed a vicious, politicized attack on his work twenty years after he died. Anyway, he wrote a wonderful book on astrology called “Astrology: Science or Superstition?” where he conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific studies available on astrology in 1982, placing emphasis on whether a study had been replicated, and which seemed to me to be written without an agenda or pre-derived bias. Much of the following discussion of astrological studies comes from his analysis.

Eysenck concluded that much of the published research in support of astrology was of poor quality, badly designed, and with many statistical errors in its evaluation. Something like 80-90% of the book is picking apart the poor methodology of such studies. But not all of it. According to Eysenck:

What we ourselves find exciting, however, is that when everything that will not stand the test has been put aside, there does remain a body of extraordinary evidence that cannot readily be explained away. It lies mostly in the area of what we refer to as cosmobiology.

Cosmobiology studies the ways in which vegetable, animal and human life is influenced by bodies in the solar system other than our own earth. We are none of of us surprised to know that the moon governs the tides or that the seasonal rhythms of many forms of life follow the yearly orbiting of the earth around the sun. Because we are so used to these facts we find them unremarkable. But what about the ability of certain marine animals to follow the phases of the moon even when they are cut off from its light and are many miles away from the wash of the tides? What about the effect of the weather on our own moods, the apparent connection (in turn) between the weather and the incidence of sunspots, and the strange and little-reported work of researchers linking sunspots with the motion of the planets….

Above all, there is the work of the Gauquelins… We deal at length with their findings and with the impressive evidence which seems to show that, however weird it may appear, a baby predisposed to develop a particular type of personality will tend to be born at the moment when one of the planets is at a certain critical position in the sky.

Let’s discuss some of the problems facing the scientific study of astrology, and then some of the studies themselves.

---

Problems facing the scientific study of astrology

One of the problems facing the science of astrology is that there are very few agreed upon rules in its practice. “When [an astrologer interprets] each factor individually, the astrologer then brings them all together and carefully synthesizes the overall interpretation of the chart. This is where the problems start, because the factors are both numerous and often contradictory, and it is all too easy for astrologers to see in a chart what they want to see…clearly everything depends on the process of chart synthesis, and one would therefore expect unambiguous rules to say just how one factor should be weighed against another. But astrologers have been unable to agree on such rules (in fact many claim that rules are irrelevant to what they feel should be a purely intuitive process), and the only generally accepted rule is that no factor shall be judged in isolation. Thus from this point on anything goes – including any hope of quick results by investigators of astrology!” A lack of common astrological rules makes the study of astrology itself much more difficult.

Other points of concern include the following:

1. The stars in the constellations do not really fall into groups at all; it is only by chance that, seen from our earth, they appear to cluster together.
2. The patterns they form bear no relation to the objects they are meant to represent.
3. The moon and the planets appear to be inside the constellations only because of the misleading effects of perspective. The founders of astrology thought they all lay close together, a few miles at most away from the earth. Mars was believed to be near the sun and to be hot and arid, having a drying influence. The moon was believed to soak up moisture and to have a dampening influence; both wrong.
4. Because of axial precession there are in effect two zodiacs, one favored by the West and one favored by the East, meaning that almost opposite meanings can be given to the same piece of sky.

5. Why can the birth chart not easily predict basic things such as sex or race?
6. What can explain an individual’s chart where a whole community is wiped out by a disaster and such disaster is not reflected in the charts of the dead?

---

A look at the science: the negative

According to Eysenck the vast majority of scientific studies showing positive results for astrology suffer from three types of errors: (1) inability to replicate the studies, (2) inability to take normal astronomical laws into account when conducting such studies, and (3) distortions caused by demography. Additionally, there are plenty of errors in the research, with many being poorly designed, carelessly analyzed, and inaccurately reported. Then there is the problem of biased selection of data and the question of bias generally. And another factor is that people’s knowledge of astrology impacts their self-conception of their personalities which distorts results. When one takes these factors into account, there is very little supporting scientific evidence for traditional astrology.

Michel Gauquelin looked at many astrological experiments and claims that alternative explanations can be found for the results obtained, where he stated: “No law of classical astrology has been demonstrated statistically by astrologers or scientists.” Culver and Ianna (1979) reached a similar conclusion. They tracked over a number of years of specific astrological predictions made in the predicted media; altogether 3,011 predictions were tracked and only 338 (11%) came true.

Shawn Carlson conducted an experiment where 28 astrologers matched over 100 natal charts to psychological profiles generated by the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) test using double blind methods. The astrologers helped to draw up the central proposition of natal astrology to be tested.Published in Nature in 1985, the study found that predictions based on natal astrology were no better than chance and that the testing “clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis.”

Scientist and former astrologer Geoffrey Dean and psychologist Ivan Kelly conducted a large-scale scientific test involving more than one hundred cognitive, behavioural, physical and other variables, but found no support for astrology. A further test involved 45 confident astrologers, with an average of 10 years’ experience and 160 test subjects (out of an original sample size of 1198 test subjects).  The astrologers performed much worse than merely basing decisions from the individuals’ ages, and much worse than 45 control subjects who did not use birth charts at all. A meta-analysis by Dean was conducted pooling 40 studies consisting of 700 astrologers and over 1,000 birth charts; no significant results were found to suggest there was any preferred chart.

Various studies relating to effects of astrology on marriage, on psychiatric disorders, on medicine and surgeries, on suicides have been contradictory and non-replicable. Studies on twins demonstrate it is rare for twins to develop the same illness at the same time and even rarer for them to die naturally or commit suicide on the same day. Gauquelin (1973) looked for examples of cosmic twins (unrelated people born on the same day and year) in his collection of over 50,000 horoscopes; he concluded that no one had demonstrated similarity in the lives of people born on the same day of different parents.

---

A look at the science: the positive

Eysenck mostly dismissed the scientific literature around traditional astrology as poor, as discussed above. But he thought the science surrounding what he called “cosmobiology” showed more promise. Cosmobiology is defined as follows:

“Cosmobiology is a scientific discipline concerned with the possible correlation between the cosmos and organic life and the effects of cosmic rhythms and stellar motion on man, with all his potentials and dispositions, his character and the possible turns of fate; it also researches these correlation and effects as mirrored by earth’s plant and animal life as a whole. In this endeavor, Cosmobiology utilises modern-day methods of scientific research, such as statistics, analysis, and computer programming. It is of prime importance, however, in view of the scientific effort expended, not to overlook the macrocosmic and microcosmic interrelations incapable of measurement.”

Eysenck looked at studies relating to sunspot activity, which occurs in regular cycles. There is some evidence that the weather may be affected by sunspots, with such things as temperature, rainfall and barometric pressure fluctuating with the sunspot cycle through the years. A study at Eskdalemuir showed a relationship between higher temperatures and sunspots, which was confirmed by Hughes in 1977 for the period of the Maunder minimum. Looking at rainfall historically via tree rings in ancient trees such as the bristlecone pine, which is the oldest living thing on earth, the sunspot cycle tracks the width of the rings which are affected by drought. And weather has an impact on human mood: there is a seasonal effect on suicide, for example, and temperature variances have an impact on aggression, cognition, creativity, and working. There were even studies conducted in Germany which analyzed 362,000 industrial accidents and concluded that accidents were 20-25% more likely to occur during days of strong electromagnetic disturbances of the kind known as ELF (extra low frequency).

But such sunspot activity may impact biology directly and not just indirectly affecting mood via weather changes. A Berlin bacteriologist, H. Bortels, noted that the freezing point of water strangely varied. To investigate this variance he studied pure water in sealed containers, and the variance only stopped when he surrounded the containers with a metal screen that would block off outside radiation. Giorgio Piccardi was studying an inorganic colloid and he noticed changes in the speed at which particles precipitated out of the fluid; he studied this effect for ten years. When the solution was shielded by a copper screen the effect was inhibited, as it had been in Bortels’ experiment. Piccardi believed that ELF waves might be responsible for this effect, as the reactions varied with sunspot activity and the time of year. If the sun can have this effect, it is possible it could have a similar effect on living creatures, including ourselves, given we are 65% water. Guaquelin (1970) describes an experiment in which microbes reproduced more rapidly with changes in the weather, which, when controlling for temperature and barometric pressure, stopped when the microbes were put inside a lead or iron screen.

Okay, but what do sunspots have to do with astrology and planets other than the sun? There are two main theories for the cause of sunspots: the first is that sunspots are caused by an internal process in the sun, probably to do with some slow magnetic oscillation. But the other is that sunspots are caused by forces exerted on the sun by the planets. Morth and Schlamminger (1979) make the point that gravitational forces between the planets cause mutual perturbations of their orbits and this could cause a periodic transfer of angular momentum within the solar system that could affect the pattern of vortices on the sun’s surface. Dean (1977) suggests that the major planetary resonance stems from the movement of the midpoint of a line joining Jupiter and Neptune, a movement which has remained in synchronization with the solar cycle over the 320 years for which records of sunspots exist. Another interesting combination is that of Neptune and Pluto which, as Dean points out, since at least 2000 BC every time Neptune and Pluto have been both opposite each other and in the solar equatorial plane there has been a prolonged period of solar inactivity.

According to Eysenck, though, Michel Gauquelin has had the greatest success with demonstrating a scientifically defensible link to astrology, given the sample sizes used, correct statistical analysis, and most importantly its replicability by third parties. Gauquelin conducted a series of studies which suggested that there was a statistical link between eminent doctors who were born when Mars or Saturn had just risen, or had just passed the midheaven. He found this link only for those who were in eminent positions, not for normal people. Through additional studies he concluded the relationship was not with destiny but rather with the qualities of a person’s character or personality that makes for success. He then ran similar tests on sports champions, finding the planet Mars to be in one of the critical astrological zones in a large study, which was then independently confirmed. In the original study, 21.4% of the champions were born in one of the critical sectors, while in the replication the proportion was 22.2% (chance expectation in both cases is 16.7%). This is what has been termed the Mars effect, although the validity of the effect remains up for debate.

Lastly, there has been found to be a link with respect to planetary heredity, where children have the same astrological signs as the parents. According to Kepler, “There is one perfectly clear argument beyond all exception in favor of the authenticity of astrology. This is the common horoscopic connection between parents and children.” Gauquelin tested whether this was true, and he found that the planetary effect did exist – but only for natural births, not for cesarian births, and that its intensity increases if both parents have the same planetary heredity.

---

My exploration of astrology

In terms of my research into astrology, my interests have led me into one specific niche: degree astrology. Each planet in a natal chart has a sign and a degree associated with it, anywhere from 0 degrees to 30 degrees, and each degree carries with it its own interpretation. These interpretations can be very specific; some are good, some are bad, and many are just OK, all within the same overall sign. And then the planets and their associated degrees still need to be interpreted against the other planets and their own associated degrees. This may be part of why so many astrological studies have been so inconsistent with replication problems; the astrological degrees may have misunderstood importance.

There have been a number of astrologers who have released their interpretations of astrological degrees. Most share similar interpretations although some vary significantly. Here is a PDF with about a dozen astrologers and their interpretations of degrees; I’ve found the most accurate to be Carelli’s, although I also like Weber’s.

I’d like to give a couple of simple examples of degree interpretation; just the degrees and Carelli interpretations of the natal sun sign degree of a couple of famous people: Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and let’s do Hitler and Nietzsche as well. This is not meant to be comprehensive as it is only looking at the natal sun and not the other planets or the progressed chart, but it should give a little sense of things. The natal sun sign is supposed to form the core of a person’s personality. Each sun sign degree changes on a daily basis (i.e. someone born on January 1 will have a different degree than someone born on January 2), while other planets change much faster; the moon degree changes every half hour, the ascendant every couple minutes, while the slower moving planets like Uranus and Neptune can take weeks to change a degree, for example.

Trump: Trump’s Sun 22°56′ Gemini.3

Here is Carelli’s interpretation of 22°:

“Symbol: A withered, ragged old man, bent by age and by suffering, standing alone, leaning on a stick in an attitude of utter dejection.

If the horoscope at large does not offer any particular hints of good luck, the battles of life will prematurely sap the native’s energies. He will feel powerless to put his otherwise original ideas into practice, will not only refrain from reaction, but from action as well, and will give up the struggle and waste away. His breakdown ought to be followed by the estrangement of his children and everyone else; his old age will be miserable and lonely.”

Allusions to Trump’s ineffective presidency and upcoming imprisonment and abandonment by friends, allies, and family, especially Jared and Ivanka. It would have been hard to make sense of this prior to the last number of years for this frame.

Biden: Sun 27°34′ Scorpio. Carelli interpretation of the 27th degree of Scorpio:

“A faith ready to stand any test is the keynote of this degree, where the word faith may be taken to mean anything within the limits of the meaning conveyed by such an extensive word. In a good sense, this will be faithfulness to a religious ideal, apt to create perfect human relations. Were it bad faith, this would turn into lasting grudges and ill-will, or Mito treacherousness in trade; viz., cheating; and it may bring about an accomplice’s solidarity and a tendency to stick together in crime.

Certain virtues, however, are sure to be there: scrupulousness, reserve, earnestness and firmness in purpose, consequence in one’s views.

Whether honest or dishonest, the native, is of an austerity bordering on prudery; he will appear sometimes priggish but always will make a thoroughly spiritual impression. Therefore his trespasses are so much more dangerous, and his crimes so much more intentional.”

Allusions to Biden’s corruption.

Obama: Sun 12°33′ Leo. Carelli’s interpretation of the 12th degree of Leo:

“Symbol: A black ball.

All good and bad features of an extreme steadfastness and positivism; on one hand, firmness, constancy, sturdiness, endurance in exertion and a sense of phenomenal reality; on the other hand, stubbornness, restiveness, pigheadedness, hypercritical skepticism and unappeasable lustfulness. As a result, the sources of income and means of subsistence are lastingly assured—nay, too lastingly— which might hinder and thwart progress, even mobility in general.

There is no enthusiasm, no spiritual urge, no faith in men or in the future, not to speak of faith in God. The character is, therefore, skittish, sullen, sometimes cynical, often unpleasant on account, or in spite of, the fact that the native professes very firm principles and sticks to them.

Whatever his luck, the subject never feels happy and is therefore in a state of constant dissatisfaction.”

Obama as never satisfied, ultra rich from corruption, his pragmatism and hypocrisy.

Hitler: Sun 0°48′ Taurus. Carelli’s interpretation of the 0th degree of Taurus:

“The native will have to stand forever on the lookout ready to parry unforeseen attacks, as his destiny has fierce struggles in store. But in struggles he surely will thrive and revel as if it were his own element, and he will engage himself in them to his utmost. He has a great will power, is versed in tricks and makeshifts, and can be very reserved in spite of his liking for arguments and polemics. Churlish and insensitive to pain, he seems born to have things his own way in spite of the war furiously waged against him on all sides. He may even be endowed with magic powers.

This hard character’s failing is ungenerous; it may even become cruelty.”

I could highlight that whole description, but it speaks for itself.

Nietzsche, 22°07′ Libra. Carelli’s interpretation of the 22nd degree of Libra:

Symbol: An old physician intent to a urine test

The native is a tireless researcher who will inquisitively pry into nature, snatch her secrets, analyze them and methodically pigeonhole the results. A restless urge to change subject and shift his grounds of observation will make him loath to stay put, so that even when penned within four walls he will try to change his room from time to time. He may be fond of journeying to unexplored countries and will certainly worship knowledge. The branches most congenial to him seem to be chemistry and medicine (this one perhaps in a spiritual sense). Occultism is not to be ruled out in branches akin to the ones quoted: viz., alchemy, the mother of chemistry, and pastoral medicine.

Success ought to crown his efforts; public recognition, though belated, may ratify his discoveries. Either for this or other reasons there will be a certain self-assurance, a somewhat consequential mannerism in his speech, as if he were delivering abstruse truths to a large audience.

Attention is to be paid to the urinary system. On the other hand the whole organism is subject to precocious decay, either owing to the stuffy laboratory air or to the unhealthy atmosphere of close rooms.

This one also speaks for itself.

I wouldn’t say the natal sun nails their personalities exactly or even to a very large extent — the other planets all have a role to play4, as well as how the personality progresses via the progressed chart — but I would say these degree interpretations are specific and not vague, and that one can likely see many attributes of their personality reflected in the interpretation of the natal sun sign.

If you’d like to investigate your own or other’s signs and degrees, Astrotheme is a great website. There is a search on the left that allows you to search the chart of any well known figure; then just look at their sun sign, find the degree, and use the above link for Carelli’s interpretation of it. You can look at your own or others you know horoscope’s here.

I have probably looked at hundreds of charts (although I am no astrologer) to get a sense for whether its basics and the degrees have validity to them, and while there is plenty of subjectivity involved, I am confident that, from my own research5 and exploration, that there is something here beyond chance. Whatever the exact effect is I don’t know exactly, but it has to do with the development of the personality and how it changes over time, even if the mechanism of astrology is unknown.6

….

I hope this post opens up some new possible ways of looking at our relation to the universe, as well as the possibility of reconnecting to it in order to rekindle our sense of meaning from this ubiquitous, horrible nihilism pervading society.

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle believed in the influence of the stars on human behavior. Hipparchus and Ptolemy, Plotinus and Proclus, Galen, Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, Dante, Ficino, Kepler, Goethe, Yeats, Yung believed as well.

2 Richard Tarnas, “Cosmos and Psyche”, 62: ““Astrology has not been held in high esteem during most of the modern era, for a variety of compelling reasons. Certainly its popular expressions have seldom been such as to inspire confidence in the enterprise. More fundamentally, astrology could not be reconciled with the world picture that emerged from the natural sciences of the 17th-19th centuries, wherein all natural phenomena, from the motion of planets to the evolution of species, were understood in terms of material substances and mechanical principles that functioned without purpose or design. Nor could it prevail against that tendency of the modern mind, established during the Enlightenment, to uphold its own rational autonomy and to depreciate earlier thought systems that seemed to support any form of primitive participation mystique between the human psyche and a world endowed with pregiven structures of meaning….

I noticed that the history of astrology contained certain remarkable features. It seemed curious to me that the historical periods during which astrology flourished in the West – classical Greek and Roman antiquity, the Hellenistic era in Alexandria, the High Middle Ages, the Italian Renaissance, the Elizabethan age in England, the 16th and early 17th centuries in Europe generally – all happened to be eras in which intellectual and cultural creativity was unusually luminous. The same could be said of astrology’s prominence during the centuries in which science and culture were at their height in the Islamic world, and so too in India.”

3 There are 60 “minutes” per degree. If the minute is after 45 minutes, then the next degree starts bearing influence. In other words, 22°56′ Gemini means that the 23rd degree bears considerable influence.

4 For example, the moon astrology sign and degree describes one’s emotional makeup. As mentioned above, the moon degree changes about every half hour so having the correct time of birth is important. Here’s mine, per Carelli’s interpretation:

“28-29 deg Gemini

A rather pessimistic degree inducing skepticism and mistrust, apart from which its influence is a typically divalent one.

Helped by other astral aspects, it will confer kindheartedness coupled with ability to command; an imaginative, manifold mind; the makings for occupying a high position and for nobly exerting the attending authority; skill in hunting and sportsmanship.

On the contrary, where other aspects are mainly negative, these features will shift into opposite polarities or will stray into corresponding vices. Kindness will become affected courtesy, prestige will be disfigured into autocracy, love of hunting into cruelty or even sadism; there will be misuse of power closely followed by ruin and misery. Likewise, imaginative power will sidle into fruitless daydreaming, too many plans will cram the mind, all shifting and inconclusive, as no steady power behind them will help carry them out.”

One could interpret this as an astrological explanation for the high pessimism expressed in this Substack, and that I am merely acting out my physiognomy.

5 The other thing I like to do is run a progressed chart of an individual and compare it to their natal chart, but only with respect to the slow moving planets which take many years or decades to move a degree on the progressed charts — the sun, moon, ascendant, etc. change constantly on it. Specifically, I look at the changes to Pluto, Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, Chrion and the true north node (each of which have specific aspects of personality associated with them).

6 Another possibility other than the planetary impact on sunspot activity in turn affecting biology on earth is one of synchronicity. According to Richard Tarnas,

In the perspective I am suggesting here, reflecting the dominant trend in contemporary astrological theory, the planets do not “cause” specific events any more than the hands on a clock “cause” a specific time. Rather, the planetary positions are indicative of the cosmic state or archetypal dynamics at that time.

This post discusses the corruption of the masculine and feminine forms necessary for pair bonding. Intense and sustained societal pressures have attempted to subvert and invert these forms. A sober assessment of the situation can hopefully offer (1) assistance in pushback against these forces and (2) to set and frame expectations for relationships with those who are in the throes of such negatives pressures (i.e. most women) if one decides to pursue it.

As discussed previously, fertility rates in Western countries are on a massive decline. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the rising cost of raising a family is not really one of them; poor people have more children than rich people, wonderfully reflected in the opening scene of Idiocracy, and many who live in abject poverty survive on welfare and have plenty of children.1 Rather, the core reason is the empty nihilism brought about by the death of God – why have children, why not focus on hedonism, if there isn’t a bigger purpose to life and if there aren’t distinctions between superior and inferior? Having children is a metaphysical decision even if societal and familial pressure plays a role; it speaks to an optimism about the future, a willingness to sacrifice for that future, the desire to propagate one’s beliefs, the desire for community and love, that has been completely drained out of modern life like a dying animal drained of blood.

This post will focus on a particular aspect of declining fertility rates: the push by globohomo to corrupt the masculine and feminine forms: to invert what it means to be a man or woman, to turn men into women and to turn women into men, manifested currently as transsexualism, but this push has been ongoing for well over a hundred years to prevent pair bonding necessary for marriage, procreation, and familial development. I have touched on this previously by covering the different conceptions of marriage in patriarchal vs. matriarchal societies and how those conceptions affect fertility rates, but this will tie the argument together further.

We will look at this in a number of ways: (1) examining traditional gender roles; (2) exploring the propaganda and financial motives to invert these roles; and looking at (3) dating, (4) marriage, and (5) divorce in the modern era.

As a preface, the following discussion does not apply to all men or women. It offers generalizations based on how men and women are generally based on bell curves; there are always people at the extremes that don’t conform to such norms, such as the existence of highly masculine women (I’m looking at you, Big Mike) and highly effeminate men. So thanks, Billy, the fact that you know someone who doesn’t conform to the following generalizations does not mean that the exception disproves the rule. I appreciate the pre-offering of that take, Reddit is this way.

All Schopenhauer references below are pulled from his essay “On Women”.

Okay, let’s begin.

---

Gender roles are natural

Victor Joseph Étienne de Jouy wrote, “Without women, the beginning of our life would be helpless; the middle, devoid of pleasure; and the end, of consolation.” Women are much better than men at nurturing, at offering empathy, at living in the moment and at play than men are, per Schopenhauer: “The woman lives more in the present than the man, and that, if the present is at all tolerable, she enjoys it more eagerly. This is the source of that cheerfulness which is peculiar to women, fitting her to amuse man in his hours of recreation, and, in case of need, to console him when he is borne down by the weight of his cares.”

Even though women are generally much more emotional than men, they generally feel less deeply than men. They are lyrical creatures with bodies not meant for difficult physical exertion, as seen how any freakish transsexual easily beats women at sports. I remember when a male tennis player ranked 200 beat the #1 and #2 women in the world at tennis with no warmup and no real exertion. The German player reflected on the match he played against Serena and stated, “My first game of the afternoon, just a one-set match, was against Serena. We were out on one of the backcourts at Melbourne Park, No 17 I think it was. I felt so relaxed that I didn’t even warm up properly. We started playing and I raced into a 5-0 lead.” Amazing women, fantastic girl power you have going there.

Women are stuck in an intermediate stage between child and adult, per Schopenhauer:

Women are directly fitted for acting as the nurses and teachers of our early childhood by the fact that they are themselves childish, frivolous and short−sighted; in a word, they are big children all their life long—a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the full−grown man, who is man in the strict sense of the word. See how a girl will fondle a child for days together, dance with it and sing to it; and then think what a man, with the best will in the world, could do if he were put in her place.

A man matures much slower than women do, but that is the natural course of things. Creatures that mature more take longer to do so than creatures that mature less:

The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower it is in arriving at maturity. A man reaches the maturity of his reasoning powers and mental faculties hardly before the age of twenty−eight; a woman at eighteen. And then, too, in the case of woman, it is only reason of a sort—very niggard in its dimensions. That is why women remain children their whole life long; never seeing anything but what is quite close to them, cleaving to the present moment, taking appearance for reality, and preferring trifles to matters of the first importance. For it is by virtue of his reasoning faculty that man does not live in the present only, like the brute, but looks about him and considers the past and the future; and this is the origin of prudence, as well as of that care and anxiety which so many people exhibit.

Both the advantages and the disadvantages which this involves, are shared in by the woman to a smaller extent because of her weaker power of reasoning. She may, in fact, be described as intellectually short−sighted, because, while she has an intuitive understanding of what lies quite close to her, her field of vision is narrow and does not reach to what is remote; so that things which are absent, or past, or to come, have much less effect upon women than upon men. This is the reason why women are more often inclined to be extravagant, and sometimes carry their inclination to a length that borders upon madness. In their hearts, women think that it is men’s business to earn money and theirs to spend it—−if possible during their husband’s life, but, at any rate, after his death. The very fact that their husband hands them over his earnings for purposes of housekeeping, strengthens them in this belief.

Thomas Buckle said, “Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas.” Women by and large love to talk about persons/gossip, doing so in a droning, endless running commentary. They also love to shame each other; they do not generally feel guilt (internal sense of right and wrong) but they do feel a strong sense of shame (external imposition of right and wrong). This is why “slut shaming” works. Women generally hate each other and tear each other down, viciously and without remorse, but they do so indirectly and passive aggressively, trying to avoid bearing responsibility for their actions.

Schopenhauer argued that women have no sense of justice because their weaker form forces them to be experts in the art of dissimulation rather than justice:

Hence, it will be found that the fundamental fault of the female character is that it has no sense of justice. This is mainly due to the fact, already mentioned, that women are defective in the powers of reasoning and deliberation; but it is also traceable to the position which Nature has assigned to them as the weaker sex. They are dependent, not upon strength, but upon craft; and hence their instinctive capacity for cunning, and their ineradicable tendency to say what is not true. For as lions are provided with claws and teeth, and elephants and boars with tusks, bulls with horns, and cuttle fish with its clouds of inky fluid, so Nature has equipped woman, for her defence and protection, with the arts of dissimulation; and all the power which Nature has conferred upon man in the shape of physical strength and reason, has been bestowed upon women in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman, and almost as much a quality of the stupid as of the clever. It is as natural for them to make use of it on every occasion as it is for those animals to employ their means of defence when they are attacked; they have a feeling that in doing so they are only within their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and not given to dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, and for this very reason they are so quick at seeing through dissimulation in others that it is not a wise thing to attempt it with them. But this fundamental defect which I have stated, with all that it entails, gives rise to falsity, faithlessness, treachery, ingratitude, and so on. Perjury in a court of justice is more often committed by women than by men. It may, indeed, be generally questioned whether women ought to be sworn in at all. From time to time one finds repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, taking things from shop−counters when no one is looking, and making off with them.

Perhaps this is why in Islam a woman’s testimony is codified as being worth half that of a man.

Unlike women, men naturally congregate into hierarchical communities organized around goals. They are much less likely to infight, much less likely to gossip or backstab, and they are both much more direct and much wore willing to escalate to violence given they are so much more physically stronger than women. Men are much less likely to treat lower status people poorly than women are, per Schopenhauer:

Whilst a man will, as a general rule, always preserve a certain amount of consideration and humanity in speaking to others, even to those who are in a very inferior position, it is intolerable to see how proudly and disdainfully a fine lady will generally behave towards one who is in a lower social rank (I do not mean a woman who is in her service), whenever she speaks to her. The reason of this may be that, with women, differences of rank are much more precarious than with us; because, while a hundred considerations carry weight in our case, in theirs there is only one, namely, with which man they have found favor; as also that they stand in much nearer relations with one another than men do, in consequence of the one−sided nature of their calling. This makes them endeavor to lay stress upon differences of rank.

Despite men’s much greater efficiency and sense of justice, society correctly cares about men much less than it cares about women (see the great expression, “men are expendable, women are perishable”). Women who transition to men are shocked and complain about how they completely disappear in society’s eyes once they transition, even if they were ugly women before. Men are nothing if they don’t have status, and this makes sense; one man could impregnate a thousand women, so the vast majority of them are expendable. There is a statistic that women are far more likely than men to attempt suicide but men are much more likely to carry it out (cry for attention versus task fulfillment).

As an evolutionary strategy men have a much longer tail on their bell curve for many traits — including intelligence, aggression, creativity, etc. — which allows men to experiment much more in strategies that, if successful, increase their reproductive potential. Men are at the cutting edge of all technological innovation, they hugely disproportionally make up inventors, scientists and entrepreneurs, and women join these organizations at a later date once consolidation sets in. For example, either all or almost all of early Bitcoin and cryptocurrency adapters were men. All the great inventions and artistic masterpieces were made by men. But men are also much more likely to be homeless and have mental health issues. Men are also far more likely to die in industrial accidents, as they are wildly overrepresented in dangerous professions. Per Schopenhauer:

And you cannot expect anything else of women if you consider that the most distinguished intellects among the whole sex have never managed to produce a single achievement in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original; or given to the world any work of permanent value in any sphere. This is most strikingly shown in regard to painting, where mastery of technique is at least as much within their power as within ours—and hence they are diligent in cultivating it; but still, they have not a single great painting to boast of, just because they are deficient in that objectivity of mind which is so directly indispensable in painting. They never get beyond a subjective point of view. It is quite in keeping with this that ordinary women have no real susceptibility for art at all; for Nature proceeds in strict sequence—non facit saltum. And Huarte in his Examen de ingenios para las scienzias—a book which has been famous for three hundred years—denies women the possession of all the higher faculties. The case is not altered by particular and partial exceptions; taken as a whole, women are, and remain, thorough−going Philistines, and quite incurable.

---

The propaganda and financial pushes to invert these historically

Women are natural conformists to society’s norms, and they work hard to defend these norms. Because the west’s norms are based in egalitarianism, women are very defensive of this status quo, and they regularly imbibe Current Thing propaganda which has gotten exponentially worse since women mass-adopted smartphones in 2012, coinciding (coincidentally?) with the epoch of a new era per the Mayan calendar, because it dramatically shortened and sped up the feedback loop of shitliberalism.

Women are generally shallow creatures whose emotionalism is easy to hijack with visual propaganda; show them photos of dead babies or dead animals and offer them a false solution to the problem and they will seize on it and demand it unequivocally. Men are much less likely to be fooled by propaganda than women are. Schopenhauer:

The weakness of their reasoning faculty also explains why it is that women show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men do, and so treat them with more kindness and interest; and why it is that, on the contrary, they are inferior to men in point of justice, and less honorable and conscientious. For it is just because their reasoning power is weak that present circumstances have such a hold over them, and those concrete things, which lie directly before their eyes, exercise a power which is seldom counteracted to any extent by abstract principles of thought, by fixed rules of conduct, firm resolutions, or, in general, by consideration for the past and the future, or regard for what is absent and remote. Accordingly, they possess the first and main elements that go to make a virtuous character, but they are deficient in those secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in the formation of it.

Remember: extending sympathy regularly past the family/friend level inevitably lends to “sympathetic blowout” where one doesn’t have the sympathy reserves to offer it to the people in your life who deserve it the most.

Now, when the societal norms are manipulated against women’s best interests, they have little to no defenses against such tactics. Globohomo has manipulated women since at least the end of the 19th century with so-called “women’s liberation”, both with work and with voting. They have attempted with great success to invert traditional gender roles rooted in evolution and biology, which has led to a tremendous amount of misery.

According to Trading Places producer Aaron Russo (who was dying of cancer at the time) the upper levels of globohomo including the Rockefellers created and pushed “women’s liberation” as a way to break up the nuclear family and to double the size of the workforce and hence the tax base. It was not a ground up effort, it was imposed from the top down. This is a three minute clip of a much longer interview:

This wasn’t done for women’s benefit; it was done to enhance the power and control of the central bank owners. And women generally vote for liberals, for “security” at the expense of liberty (to which they end up with neither2) and always for expanded government.

Inverting the male and female form sets female instincts against their natural roles. On a biological level most women deeply want to be mothers. They turn into crazed cat ladies, doubling down on insane liberalism when they aren’t able to do so. Plenty of women go to college or graduate school simply as a status signaling activity and then promptly get married and have kids, drop out of the workforce to become “Mrs. Degree” as soon as they are able to do so – and they are smart to do so, because that is what their biology demands! This would be a good result!

But society tells women that they aren’t complete without working, that merely being a mother is low status and beneath them. So women are torn; their biological desires are in conflict with their intense desire to conform to societal expectations (i.e. the expectations that globohomo sets). This will be discussed below further, but society tells women to put off having children as long as possible, to climb the corporate ladder, to engage in and care about politics, maybe have kids in their 30s, to “lean-in” (per Sheryl Sandberg) and to have their cake and eat it too.

But plenty of women lose the opportunity to ever have children as a result of this horrible messaging, and they are utterly unfulfilled by their work even if they tell themselves otherwise. They get fooled into thinking that because men are in the workforce, that is somehow better than being a stay at home mom, that work has intrinsic value — the men are hiding the best things in life from them, therefore be like a man and beat the system! They don’t understand that work sucks, men generally don’t like doing it but do it in order to support a family. See here for detailed rant on this, as the process of unhappy women working pushes men out of the workforce and prevents them from being able to pair bond to form a family, which results in a snowball effect of more unhappy women and more unemployed men and fewer families. It is a sad situation. And women generally aren’t very good at work either – by operating in a masculine work environment they almost always either become either pushovers or too-brittle and too-aggressive. Finding the golden mean between these extremes is exceedingly difficult for them. I know only a few women who have managed to find that center spot.

Meanwhile television and film push women as superhero kung-fu fighters, offering impossible one dimensional characters, 100 lb 5’2” women who toss around 6’5” muscled men casually. Mainstream media also pushes men to become much more effeminate with no masculine role models, only weak/dumb men like Homer Simpson who get bossed around by the superior women in their lives. This has contributed to men being unwilling to fight for their values, with much lower testosterone levels and higher rates of depression. Young men in particular need role models to model their behavior after, and the best that society provides today is Muslim sex trafficker scam artist Andrew Tate and crybaby weakling Jordan Peterson. Sad.

According to Schopenhauer, giving women too much influence and power inevitably leads to the downfall of society:

“In the Politics Aristotle explains the great disadvantage which accrued to the Spartans from the fact that they conceded too much to their women, by giving them the right of inheritance and dower, and a great amount of independence; and he shows how much this contributed to Sparta’s fall. May it not be the case in France that the influence of women, which went on increasing steadily from the time of Louis XIII., was to blame for that gradual corruption of the Court and the Government, which brought about the Revolution of 1789, of which all subsequent disturbances have been the fruit? However that may be, the false position which women occupy, demonstrated as it is, in the most glaring way, by the institution of the lady, is a fundamental defect in our social scheme, and this defect, proceeding from the very heart of it, must spread its baneful influence in all directions.”

---

Dating in the modern era

Women love the interpersonal dance of mating rituals, per Schopenhauer: “And so we find that young girls, in their hearts, look upon domestic affairs or work of any kind as of secondary importance, if not actually as a mere jest. The only business that really claims their earnest attention is love, making conquests, and everything connected with this—dress, dancing, and so on.”

Just as men try to acquire status by mastering aspects of reality, women try to acquire status by mastering the conquest of men. I have seen many men, masters of their work domain and very wealthy and powerful, controlled by their angry, perpetually unsatisfied woman. Schopenhauer:

A man tries to acquire direct mastery over things, either by understanding them, or by forcing them to do his will. But a woman is always and everywhere reduced to obtaining this mastery indirectly, namely, through a man; and whatever direct mastery she may have is entirely confined to him. And so it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for conquering man; and if she takes an interest in anything else, it is simulated—a mere roundabout way of gaining her ends by coquetry, and feigning what she does not feel. Hence, even Rousseau declared: Women have, in general, no love for any art; they have no proper knowledge of any; and they have no genius.

Schopenhauer warns not to “put the pussy on the pedestal” or to “white knight” women, commenting on this perennial issue 150 years ago. Women are not deserving of men’s veneration, for while they appear to beta and omega Reddit-tier males as untouchable Goddesses needing protection, those who actually know and understand the nature of women know that they do not deserve anything like this veneration:

But in the West, the woman, and especially the lady, finds herself in a false position; for woman, rightly called by the ancients, sexus sequior, is by no means fit to be the object of our honor and veneration, or to hold her head higher than man and be on equal terms with him. The consequences of this false position are sufficiently obvious. Accordingly, it would be a very desirable thing if this Number−Two of the human race were in Europe also relegated to her natural place, and an end put to that lady nuisance, which not only moves all Asia to laughter, but would have been ridiculed by Greece and Rome as well. It is impossible to calculate the good effects which such a change would bring about in our social, civil and political arrangements. There would be no necessity for the Salic law: it would be a superfluous truism. In Europe the lady, strictly so−called, is a being who should not exist at all; she should be either a housewife or a girl who hopes to become one; and she should be brought up, not to be arrogant, but to be thrifty and submissive. It is just because there are such people as ladies in Europe that the women of the lower classes, that is to say, the great majority of the sex, are much more unhappy than they are in the East.

I don’t want to focus on the dating aspect in this post too much – it’s been done well elsewhere – but basically, modern society has unleashed unrestrained female hypergamy where women want the top 5% of men, and all other men they see as invisible. This is a result of a lot of factors, but especially the weakening of organized religion which enforced community norms and restricted female sexual rights and behavior, along with the advent of nihilism and ubiquitous access to birth control and abortion3, topped off with widely accessible generous welfare that allows a single woman with a child to survive without support from a man. Who needs a stable, supportive beta male provider when the government will step into that role instead?

Women desperately want a 6’3” handsome alpha Chad — and most women can get this on dating apps (the average woman will be overwhelmed with a deluge of responses from hundreds or thousands of men, leading to massively inflated expectations and ego), but only for a short term, casual hookup. A study shows that the top 5% of US men account for more sex with women than the bottom 50% (but these men pay a big price for staying on the sexual marketplace and racking up hundreds or thousands of lays). In any free market, the top few companies end up with monopolies or oligarchies and they cut off access to the market by others — that’s how it naturally evolves. And the sexual marketplace is no different. Many short, unattractive “beta” males have created fake online dating profiles as a top 5% male and have been shocked at how direct and degrading they can be toward women and by and large women are eager to give them whatever is demanded. Most women do not care how men talk or act toward them; they simply want Chad. Here’s a discussion about it. Other men have tried to mimic alpha behaviors and become “pick-up artists” to limited success, a phenomenon discussed here.

Women don’t consciously understand this process, though; they don’t understand that Chad is more than happy to pump-and-dump them but will not commit to them, and being pumped-and-dumped by Chad too many times sours their relationships with men in general. The concept of “brain cum” is real (see here for a concurrent take and here for a semi-critical take); sperm can cross the blood/brain barrier and get lodged in the female brain, impacting their ability to pair bond with future partners. A man traditionally demanding a virgin bride has been confirmed by science — a woman with no body count, no alpha Chad brain-cum lodged in their brain, is going to form a much stronger pair bond than non-virgins *generally*, and the higher a woman’s body count, the harder their ability to pair bond. This is also basic common sense, which has been seen as déclassé since the rise of globohomo.

In a better case scenario, women approaching “the Wall”4 settle for a beta provider male and, deeply unhappy, push out a couple kids before initiating divorce. This is a better case scenario because these women at least procreate; many miss their opportunity waiting forever for Chad to settle down with them.

Without the ability for most men to find a date or a spouse, due to a combination of obesity, easily accessible porn and entertainment, and a general spirit of secular materialist consumerism, a huge percentage of the country’s young men have become bitter, insular incels who have dropped out of society. This is a disaster as the ability to pair bond for middle class white men provided a stabilizing influence that allowed civilization to flourish. The rise of Christianity strongly limited sexual opportunities and led to 1:1 pair bonding which were not based on cousin marriage, contributed to the rise of western civilization compared to Islam which was heavily focused on cousin marriages and kept average IQ low. The ubiquitous access to birth control, abortion, welfare for single mothers and a lack of religion which enforced societal norms and restricted female sexual rights and behavior has prevented normal men from forming families, leading to collapsed fertility rates.

---

Marriage in the modern era

Just like women only want to date the top few percentage of men, they are only willing to marry up via hypergamy as well. The difference is that for marriage women will factor job, wealth, and societal status more than simply height, alphaness and looks for casual dating and sex. For example, women want to marry men of equal or higher educational levels than they are, and they would rather be single forever than compromise on this. Marrying equal or down is disgusting to women, a kind of death. But boys are falling behind in school due to “the future is female” propaganda and discrimination against them in higher education, to the point that in 2015/2016 56% of college students were female and 44% were male. Because of this women, due to their requirements, have a much decreased pool of acceptable marriage candidates. On the other hand, men of high status don’t care about a woman’s status, only her youth, looks, and willingness to please. This is why Lee Kuan Yew launched a whole campaign around this topic in Singapore, because highly educated women were not able to marry or have children because highly educated men married downwards instead of getting paired with annoying hyper-educated entitled shrews. Lee basically begged high class men to suck it up and marry these annoying women because they were higher IQ and IQ is highly heritable (although IQ is strongly associated with having fewer children, a strong dysgenic effect).

Marriage rates are collapsing as a result of these globohomo-backed trends, which is going to dramatically transform society with a huge percent of the male population checked out mentally and a huge percent of aging women turning into insane, embittered cat ladies. This is how civilization collapses:

See this wonderful post by Arctotherium at Aporia Magazine who goes into detail about how high male status and low female status leads to high fertility rates, and low male status and high female status leads to collapsed fertility rates, which is a theme I also covered previously.

Marriage is dramatically slanted against men, and this is not a new phenomenon. It’s just that the degree of slant has gotten much worse for men in recent decades. Here’s Schopenhauer on how marriage is bad for men 150 years ago:

The laws of marriage prevailing in Europe consider the woman as the equivalent of the man—start, that is to say, from a wrong position. In our part of the world where monogamy is the rule, to marry means to halve one’s rights and double one’s duties. Now, when the laws gave women equal rights with man, they ought to have also endowed her with a masculine intellect. But the fact is, that just in proportion as the honors and privileges which the laws accord to women, exceed the amount which nature gives, is there a diminution in the number of women who really participate in these privileges; and all the remainder are deprived of their natural rights by just so much as is given to the others over and above their share. For the institution of monogamy, and the laws of marriage which it entails, bestow upon the woman an unnatural position of privilege, by considering her throughout as the full equivalent of the man, which is by no means the case; and seeing this, men who are shrewd and prudent very often scruple to make so great a sacrifice and to acquiesce in so unfair an arrangement.

Due to women adapting smartphones starting in 2012, as mentioned above, the feedback loop for shitliberalism has dramatically shortened; most women, fastened deeply into the Current Thing, regularly imbibe establishment propaganda and enforce it within the household. They go on Reddit and other liberal, female centered censored websites to reinforce their feedback loops when they are not playing mind-numbing banal, retarded iPhone games, that is. Whether the Current Thing is gay marriage hysteria, anti-Trump hysteria, COVID/fraudvirus, Ukraine/Russia, or Israel/Gaza, they blindly follow whatever the establishment propaganda of the moment is, completely impervious to arguments or debates, their eyes glazed over in a religious purification ritual to ward away the evils of non-governmental approved “disinformation”. Seeing how rapidly and awfully this phenomenon has taken control over the female birdbrain is a sight to behold, impervious to outside influence or control, and it can make exerting control over the household extremely difficult. This is a major part of why so many divorces occurred during so-called “COVID”.

This is a microcosm of the inability for dissidents to have connections to non-dissidents in the modern era, where the personal has become the political. Women are not dissidents because women are never at the vanguard of movements, and dissidence to globohomo is at a nascent stage. The best you’ll find is an apolitical woman (rare today due to the smartphone issue), a standard issue conservative woman (i.e. a liberal of a decade or two ago), or at very best a religious woman who treats her religion seriously. Even then there will likely be problems. And remember — women’s brains change on a biochemical level after children. What you think you buy into is not what you get; they become bossy, demanding, egocentric, hysterical and crying, the opposite of what they were pre-marriage. Women hate an idle man; sit down to relax, to watch sports or play video games, and watch how she grows to resent and hate you. You exist as an extension of her status and you must always be working to increase that status further. And it’s not like they even necessarily plan it as a “gotcha” (although both sexes put their best foot forward at the start of a relationship, hiding their flaws) — it simply results from those biochemical changes. Let this be a warning…

This goes back to the nature of women. The number of married couples I know who are legitimately happy is maybe two or three out of dozens. Of the ones that are “happy”, the man is a natural pushover by disposition and the woman calls the shots. You are not going to find your “Partner in Crime” or a “highly intelligent woman to share deep, meaningful conversations with.” It. Simply. Does. Not. Exist. There is nothing really to talk with women about other than child rearing, gossip or travel/vacation plans — otherwise the woman will talk incessantly about nothing (usually workplace drama if she works, or her friend’s personal problems otherwise) in a droning, repetitive voice, where you grunt occasional acknowledgment, then space out until she asks out of the blue, “Are you listening to me?” and you scramble with a world-salad response. They love to complain endlessly not for any intent at finding a solution, but just because they like to hear themselves talk and complain.

There is little commonality otherwise; commonality is held with male friends who can wrestle with deep ideas, metaphysics and philosophy. Women are simply not curious about the world; there are some exceptions, but even those exceptions are simply curious about their areas of interest, while a significant portion of men are curious about the world generally. This is why male-only clubs were so successful back in the day; a place to get away from nagging, shrieking, anti-fun women, where men could be chill and bullshit with each other in a calm, pleasant environment.5 Once women were let in the fun immediately died. And if called out on it, instead of any introspection or self-awareness, they will lash out at the evil white male patriarchy holding women down from experiencing the wonders that the men are so selfishly hiding for themselves! Go form your own clubs, women, please.

With respect to married women, especially with children, problems are created whether or not the woman is working. Generally it is better for a woman to work after having children6, because otherwise she gradually loses an understanding and appreciation for how difficult it is to make money, and they turn into “Brunch Shrews” once their children are in school where they go out with their friends to brunch, have mimosas or champaign at lunch, go shopping, then go home for more wine, stewing in gradually increasing emptiness and unhappiness until they fuck the pool boy. But if they are working, even part-time, and especially due to societal propaganda telling them men “need to do their share”, women increasingly want to split housework and childcare 50/50 with the man, then they either unconsciously resent the husband for being “beta” and changing diapers and doing housework, i.e. being a footstool they can order around7, or they resent the man for not chipping in enough even if he makes much more money. Lose-lose. There are regular viral videos of an overworked woman crying every month or so, or more often.

Childcare and household chores do not come naturally to men, though, so a blending of responsibility instead of clear earmarked avenues of control (i.e. man making the money, woman in charge of the household, man consults woman but has final say over family decisions) leads to a lot of stress, arguments and unhappiness, just the way globohomo likes it. It is much better for there to be clear-cut, demarcated spheres of control for both the man and the woman. A man is unable to enforce rules within the household because (1) physical punishments are absolutely forbidden as a hard and fast rule in western society (and increasingly “emotional abuse” is treated in much the same manner, an amorphous standard that is infinitely debatable) and (2) divorce dramatically favors women.

---

Divorce in the modern era

I don’t want to write too much about divorce, as it’s well known that it dramatically favors women both for custody, child support and (sometimes lifelong) alimony. Women are afforded the decisions for education, vaccinations, and even gender transitioning; sometimes men snap after such one-sided, egregious results. More than half of marriages end in divorce and a great percentage of those who do not divorce are miserable.

Because women know that divorce will usually favor them, they feel emboldened within a marriage to torture their husband with endless verbal and other abuse; women initiate about 70% or more of all divorces, often while self-deluding themselves as victims. This is not entirely their fault; men are largely unworthy of respect due to lacking masculine role models, dealing with obesity and depression and lack of work opportunities, and especially due to these inverted gender norms. Why would women want to stay with an effeminate, sniveling so-called “man”? It is a sad situation that the very institution that gave rise to western civilization and healthy families has been inverted as an institution of destruction.

Also, per Judith Wallerstein’s famous study, children of divorce – no matter how good the divorce or how bad the marriage – universally have worse life outcomes compared to children whose parents stay together.

---

What’s there to be done?

The point of this post is very similar to the philosophical pessimism post: to set proper expectations. Marriage is set up in our society as a panacea, that as long as it is properly tendered by fulfilling each other’s needs you can create some kind of mini-oasis of happiness and stability. And maybe a few couples do have this — but it is a rare thing, and those who find it kind of luck into it, without rhythm or reason. This post, despite the clinical explanation of a slew of horrors, is not meant to discourage those from procreating — rather, so you can view male and female nature with a hopefully more sober mind to better prepare yourself for dating and marriage. And perhaps in this day and age it’s better to have such children without a marriage contract, which is used as a boat anchor to tie men into a lifetime of misery of alimony and child support without a strong legal position to be able to raise children in the way in which you would like.8 Or if you do decide to proceed with marriage, at least you’ll have a bit of an understanding that the female brain changes biochemically after having children and therefore their personalities and actions dramatically change, that they are birdbrain half-adults who are mostly incapable of deep conversations, that they seek out the establishment Hive Mind to download and promote the Current Thing, and that the law in every respect will be heavily biased against the man.

But still, better to procreate than to end up old and alone, “buried in Batman coffins, surrounded by our Xbox games.”

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 Although there are signs that this trend is reverting back to its historic norms where the wealthy have more children than the poor.

2 Benjamin Franklin: “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

3 During its decline into decadence Rome used a birth control method using a plant called Silphium which led to the plant’s extinction.

4 Women develop a fear of the Wall — i.e. their impending dramatic decline in fertility, and eventually becoming invisible to men, which is a shocking and jarring event for formerly attractive women where life was so easy for them — around the age of 30. Before 30 and it is all about chasing Chad; when they hit 30 a switch flips and The Fear develops.

5 Women generally aren’t funny and don’t understand humor, which is born from deep pain. Instead they use the social status of comedians or the audience as a gauge for how much to find humor in the words of the comic. This is also why female attempts at humor are always crude, crass, and relate to their vaginas; they are generally incapable at societal analysis and relate everything to themselves.

6 But women in the workforce are mostly paper pushers (much more so than men), earning enough money to pay low IQ third world immigrants to watch their children in preschool for dozens of hours a week. This breaks the maternal bond and is generally terrible for children’s development. This whole system is sick.

7 Nietzsche is right that everything alive possesses a will to power, which is a will to increased status, so women in both dating and in marriage regularly “shit test” their man to ping their current status level, as they only want to be with a man whose status is higher than their own (to mooch off it and thereby increase their own status; this is why women only date upward while men date lower in status, as men only care about youth, beauty, and ease of companionship). One “beats” a shit-test by not getting emotionally disturbed by one and being okay with or without the woman, ultimately, and one “loses” a shit-test by getting emotionally angry and/or desperately clinging to one. Shit tests never end, although they decrease in regularity if the shit-test is overcome, and increases in regularity otherwise.

8 Or you could sexpat to a third world country to have children in, as by far the most intense gender form inversion propaganda has been pushed in the white west, leading to extreme expectations and extraordinarily difficult female attitudes, and third world women are generally cheerful, grateful, and fit the female form. But this isn’t a civilizational answer, and such race-mixing also further globohomo’s goals to turn the world into a mixed-race, low IQ interminable soup.

This is part 4 of a reoccurring series highlighting specific individuals (either living or historical figures who are not well known) who have displayed true, unquestionable courage standing up to the globohomo behemoth against unrelenting pressures, serving as a bit of a counter to the typical grim perspective pushed on this Substack. These individuals pay a price, often a big price, for their courage, and for standing up anyway they deserve to be applauded. Part 1 covers Ian Smith, who stood up to global hysteria around the COVID narrative at its peak; Part 2 covers Julian Assange, who pushed a vision of radical governmental transparency at odds with globohomo’s desire for control over a worldwide slave colony; and Part 3 covers Gareth Jones, who was the only reporter to reveal the Holodomor to the world.

“It is utterly indefensible that we should go on piling up debts under an arbitrary system which it is impossible to physically comply with except by reducing the masses of mankind to a constantly lower and lower industrial state.” – Charles August Lindbergh, 1917

Charles August Lindbergh was a Swedish-born and U.S. raised farmer and Congressman, mostly known as the father of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh. Despite his enormous popularity, Lindbergh the aviator was viciously smeared by the media and semi-destroyed for trying to keep America out of World War 2 with the America First Committee, which later formed the basis of Trump’s “America First” and which recently got made into a gross in-your-face propaganda HBO miniseries which I don’t plan to watch. Like father like son: Charles August Lindbergh had tried to keep America out of World War 1, and he bitterly opposed the creation of the monstrous Federal Reserve in 1913, which made me interested in his story.

To get a sense for the mind of the man I picked up one of his books, “Why Is Your Country at War and What Happens to You after the War and Related Subjects.” Serving as a pro-peace and anti-Federal Reserve polemic, it was originally scheduled to be published in 1917 when Lindbergh was an active Congressman, but Federal agents destroyed the printing plates under the Comstock laws. It was eventually published posthumously in 1934 long after the relevant moment had passed. Seeing books censored makes me interested in them, and this was no exception; please note, conservatives, that America has never possessed the mythical fabled unicorn of “freedom of speech”….

Lindbergh’s pro-peace sentiments in the lead-up to war were widely seen as being pro-German. Lindbergh was one of only 14 congressmen to vote against the arming of United States merchant ships which led to war. For background, although Lindbergh was Swedish the United States had a large population of German immigrants, and globohomo asking them to wage war against their homeland was always a tricky business. There were about 5.5 million Germans in America by 1920, mostly settled in small farms throughout the Midwest. Hardworking and industrious, they suffered handedly at the policies of the monopolistic big banks of the northeast which sought to strip them of their holdings and impoverish them.

Compare this to the population of Germany itself, which in 1920 was roughly 60 million. In other words, Germany had lost around 10% of its population to emigration to America over a hundred year period — an astonishing percent. And Germans in America were, just as they were everywhere else, extremely productive.1 Indeed, this issue was apparently forefront on Hitler’s mind after World War 1 when he realized so many of the Allied soldiers were German emigres, per Cesar Tort.

The flip side of this was that it was seen as unpatriotic to be pro-German; there was a lot of American anti-German sentiment and thousands of German Americans were rounded up and interned during the war. As such, Lindbergh crouched his book defensively, writing: “It is impossible according to the big press to be a true American unless you are pro-British. If you are really for America first, last and all the time, and solely for America and for the masses primarily, then you are classed as pro-German by the big press which are supported by the speculators. In the discussion of all subjects in this volume, it is my aim to impartially state the truth, whether it favors or disfavors England, Germany or even America itself.” Keep in mind that just like in World War 2, the vast majority of the U.S. public was isolationist and against war until manipulated by the press and politicians into it. Lindbergh prefaced his book with a reprint of William W. Clay’s anti-war poem “What for?”, which is touching enough to include here:

This is what a poem should be: direct and touching at the heart. I suppose this is why I like few poems.

Lindbergh correctly believed that speculative interests had taken control of the country via the Federal Reserve Act, and they wanted to push America into war in order to profit immensely, backstopped by the masses via enormous increases in public debt and felt in the form of inflation:

We elect our own representatives, and if we ourselves know what we want and see to it that they, too, know, there would be no trouble in their truly representing us. The trouble has been largely with ourselves. We have not known what we really wanted, while “big business,” thriving off our earnings, knows exactly what it wants, has abundant means, and is completely organized to act and does act in every emergency for its own selfish ends. The special interests have experts to draft their plans. Did we not see how quickly they took hold of the war, at the time it started in Europe and again when we declared war? They are always ready, because they get the earnings from our toil. They know just what they want and have always gotten our representatives to grant it to them. In the last few years they have gotten their greatest increase of wealth.

To elaborate on this topic further, Lindbergh continued:

Already since the war began in Europe, the financial speculators have exported $6,000,000,000 in value of American products in excess of the products that we Americans got back in exchange, which fact the speculators have used as an excuse to raise the price to American consumers on the “trust” controlled products approximately $17,000,000,000 over the former prices…That is what hte press calls a “favorable” balance of trade – favorable to starve the masses and to glut the speculators.

In line with this disastrous export policy, and as a part of the speculators scheme to mulch the public on a gigantic scale while the war should last, they started the war propaganda preparedness campaign. They knew that the people were favorable to the Government itself making proper arrangements to meet such emergencies as might arise out of the existing chaotic conditions, so they wanted it all done in a way that would give the greatest control to speculators who are in charge of the banking system, and with the aid of their press, they succeeded in lining things up to suit them….

It has indeed been humiliating to the American people to see how the wealth grabbers, owners of the “big press,” actually attempt by scurrilous editorials and specially prepared articles to drive the people as if we were a lot of cattle, to buy bonds, subscribe to the Red Cross, to register for conscription and all the other things….What right, anyway, has the “big press” to heckle the people as if we really belonged to the wealth grabbers and were their chattel property?

This is basically how it works and how it has always worked:

Additionally, the Federal Reserve printed money out of thin air then lent it to the big banks at low rates of interest (3% or so) which then turned around and lent at 6-10% rates of interest to farmers, allowing an intermediary to bleed the farmers dry without doing any work or taking any risk themselves: “They were named “Federal Reserve” in order to give us the impression that they are Government banks. Our Government issues money to them, but prohibits their loaning it to us – allows them to loan it to their owner banks only. In connection with their owner banks they may expand and contract the currency in order to enable their owners to exploit us in speculation, and compel us to pay outrageous rates of interest.” Lindbergh correctly identified the hidden Jekyll Island meeting in this book, which was astonishing as it was written in 1917, only seven years after the smoke-filled criminal enterprise was formed.

Per Wiki, “Lindbergh declared, “This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized, the people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed…The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill.”In 1917 Lindbergh brought articles of impeachment against members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, including Paul Warburg and William P. G. Harding, charging that they were involved “…in a conspiracy to violate the Constitution and laws of the United States…” He named Frank Vanderlip, Nelson Aldrich, Andrew Piatt, Henry P. Davidson and both Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and J.P. Morgan & Company as among the principle agents in perpetuating what the called this Money Trust, along with cooperating entities such as the Rockefeller Institute and Carnegie Foundation.

Lindbergh believed that the federal government must establish a financial system that is independent of private monopoly control, which he remains absolutely correct on.

Despite Lindbergh having such integrity and prescience about what was unfolding, he wasn’t perfect. He thought that “We the People” could overcome the machinations of the central bank owners, something that has – thus far – been an abject failure. He was also a huge proponent of women’s right to vote, which would ultimately serve as the impetus for a vastly increased globohomo state given that women prefer safety to freedom by a significant margin, how much easier women are generally to manipulate than men with appeals to emotion, and how women prefer big government and greater administrative layers than men do.

Ultimately, Lindbergh was hounded out of Congress by the globohomo media and then ran unsuccessfully for both Senate and Governor, losing for the same reasons. The power of the media even in that early, crude age was close to insurmountable. His son Charles worked as his driver and “never forgot the hostile crowds that harassed his father, or the way the press derided him”, something he would later experience himself. Still, doing the right thing does not mean doing the successful thing, and for fighting so hard against our parasitic financial overclass, against their endless greed regardless of the human cost involved, and in support of mankind’s independence, he deserves to be highlighted as a Profile in Courage.

Thanks for reading, and Happy New Year.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 i.e. See Solzhenitsyn in Gulag Archipelago, Volume 3, p. 400: “Far and away the most industrious [of the gulag prisoners] were the Germans. They had hacked themselves free of their past lives more resolutely than any of the others (and what sort of homeland had they had on the Volga or the Manych?). As once they had rooted themselves in Catherine’s fecund allotments, so now they put down roots in the harsh and barren soil Stalin had given, abandoned themselves to this new land of exile as their final home. They began settling in, not temporarily, until the next amnesty, the first act of clemency by the Tsar, but forever. They had been exiled in 1941 with not a stick or a stitch, but they were good husbandmen and indefatigable, they did not fall into despondency, and even in this place set to work as methodically and sensibly as ever. Is there any wilderness on earth which Germans could not turn into a land of plenty? Not for nothing did Russians say in the old days that “a German is like a willow tree – stick it in anywhere and it will take.” In the mines, in Machine and Tractor Stations, in state farms, wherever it might be, the bosses could not find words enough to praise the Germans – they had never had better workers. By the fifties the Germans – in comparison with the exiles and even with the locals – had the stoutest, roomiest, and neatest houses, the biggest pigs, the best milch cows. Their daughters grew up to be much-sought-after brides, not only because their parents were well off, but – in the depraved world around the camps – because of their purity and strict morals.”