#long quote

"There will not be a Constitutional convention, because the Constitution is dead. The Constitution relied on common knowledge that obeying procedure was the best way available to generate and wield coherent power. Manipulating procedural outcomes is, in fact, a superior method of generating and wielding coherent power, and we have created common knowledge that this is the case. Because the Constitution relied on a form of common knowledge that no longer exists, not only is it dead, but the principles that generated it are dead. It is not just that the Constitution is no longer serving its intended function, but that the very idea that it could potentially serve that function is now understood to be ridiculous. Or to put it another way, the Constitution required a particular set of beliefs to function. Those beliefs were fundamentally mistaken about core elements of human nature, the fact that they were mistaken has become common knowledge, and so now it is impossible for reasonable people to actually hold them. I would like freedom of speech. There is no reasonable argument available that freedom of speech is a thing that can happen. The First Amendment has failed to provide meaningful protection for free speech in my lifetime, and the way it has failed to do so demonstrates that rewording the amendment would not help. I would like my right to keep and bear arms to not be infringed. there is no reasonable argument available that rewording the second amendment would prevent the infringements that have been the norm my entire life. The power to secure either my right to speech or my right to arms observably does not flow from the Constitution in any way other than the most trivial and incidental. I have watched presidential candidates publicly laugh at the idea that such protections could possibly exist. They were correct to do so, because such protections are a fiction. You would be better off founding your political reforms off the divine right of kings. It would be a more fruitful soil than this appeal to the divinity of ink and paper."

"I keep seeing people trying to say "The blackmail is small potatoes in the Epstein file"... Then try to talk about Demons, psychic stuff, genetic experiments, what have you, that is barely supported by the evidence, and entirely tertiary. This is a dodge. People trying to reclassify and refile the child sex abuse and Geopolitical subversion of their country by ethnic enemies into the "Woo-conspiracy" part of their brain Because you don't have to kill people over Allister Crowley bullshit, your mind doesn't need you to gun down torture, and disembowel your enemies over Aliens and the Occult. No one thinks they have to have a violent revolution You don't need to have a second American revolution this second and start loading nails into pipe bombs over Agartha and the Ice-Wall in Antarctica. If Epstein was doing Psychic, Demon, esoteric occult stuff... then that gets to go in the Woo-Demon-Pyramids Esoterica part of your mind, and then you personally don't need to kill people like the Founders did over a foreign nation blackmailing, subverting, and occupying your nation. "X-Files" and "The Patriot" are two different movies... And as long as you can somehow refile Epstein into the "X-Files" part of your brain, you just get to keep entertaining yourself and "investigating" forever, and you never have to fight an insurgency against your occupational government... And you never have to go into the Revoutionary War/Irish Troubles "genre". As long as "the Truth is out there", you can keep looking and you don't have to do anything now that you have it"

"RE: Fraud in Minnesota I’m not sure that most Americans understand that in large swathes of humanity, there is no actual concept of “fraud,” particularly fraud against the government. Instead, there is a belief in the virtue of getting away with what you can to help yourself and your tribe. I spent a lot of my life in the Middle East and Central Asia, working closely with foreign contractors and foreign governments to provide support to American military operations. As a US Army officer with a big checkbook courtesy of Uncle Sam, I can’t really count the sheer number of times I was offered bribes to award a contract, or falsify records to do things like create larger (fake) headcounts at places like dining facilities, or to just simply be on the take for future illegal requests. Of course I had enough sense to never comply with such requests. Moreover, they were never explicitly structured as “bribes”; instead it was usually along the lines of “Here I have these Rolexes as gifts for you and your wife to show our friendship.” (Unfortunately, too many US officers and NCOs succumbed to this siren song and ended up breaking rocks in Leavenworth.) The weird thing about this to me was that whenever I turned down such an offering, it was treated as a grave insult. I was the one in the wrong, and not the fraudster trying to bribe me. They considered it rude that I was in their country and refused to accept how things got done. After all, why did I not want to help my tribe by helping their tribe? Let me repeat: in these cultures, FRAUD IS NOT EVEN A CONCEPT. There is only what helps your tribe. Such thought processes are so alien to Americans and much of the West. We are raised on the presumption that our institutions are valid, that the rule of law always prevails, and that integrity is universal. We need these presumptions to have working governments and economies, and without those presumptions—without the mental barrier that causes us not to accept outright fraud—our nation would quickly descend into the economic and social hellscape of countries like…. ummm… you know…. SOMALIA! So when we import people en masse from cultures that accept bribery and fraud as routine, acceptable ways to advance one’s tribe, we should not be surprised that things like the $8 BILLION fraud schemes of the Somali population in Minnesota happen so easily. Introducing a fraud-based culture based on tribalism into America is like introducing some sort of lethal virus into a population that has no natural immunity. The virus will spread and grow, unchecked, because it is so alien to the host. Similarly, a culture of fraud is anathema to American thinking, and it must be cut out before it consumes the host. So when you see and hear patriotic Americans decrying what is happening in Minnesota or elsewhere, and when they seek deportation of the offenders, it is not “racism,” it is not “bigotry,” it is not “xenophobia”; instead, it is preserving the American tradition of responsible institutions and national integrity."

"Look, either am or personally hit up those elites for charitable donations. They care, immensely, about the opinion of the educated. One of the big methods of score keeping is where you are educated. Trump tried to make sure all his kids went Ivy. And it is an open secret that the prestige schools demand "donations" by the million to admit underqualified elite scions ... and their parents pay for it willingly. Heck Varsity Blues showed us that a lot of wealthy folks were flat willing to break to the law to secure the academic prospects of their kids.  Trump is just a modern populare - like Ceasar he comes from elite stock and like Ceasar endorsed the cause of the masses to get the muscle he needed to win his contests.  And the reality is, that the horrible folks are not the stratospherically wealthy. They have enough cash that they can just buy exclusivity and status. The trouble is the top 9% and they are not *that* wealthy. So they introduce dead weight losses when they erect their barriers to entry.   The college application requires hours and hours of extracurriculars - for a top 9% family that just means a few ubers and coaching fees. For a lower middle class mom, that means rejiggering her entire life around band practice (and God help her if she has multiple kids).  And this ain't just speculative. When you make benefits free - like universal Pre-K or college, the proportion (and usually the absolute amount) of a program serving the poor goes down while the wealthy make out like bandits. After all, if you are getting paid the same - the folks who can have all the forms completed at the start with no errors are simply so many fewer headaches. Unless you have a massive increase in supply, socialized supply of services typically takes from the poor and gives to the (second) wealthiest cohorts who become eligible. That happens for a reason and navigating benefits often becomes the primary allocation mechanism when supply and price are both capped. And in reality? Bezos is worth under 1000 bucks for every man, woman, and child in America. And that was built over 30 years. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the consumer surplus for being able to easily order stuff with reliable, convenient shipping is more than $100 year. But somebody who, to feather their own nest with accomplishments, puts in a "simple" rule for paperwork on international shipments? They will burn over a billion bucks in public compliance with, maybe, a $50,000 pay bump for their reward.  And that is the real problem. There are many folks seeking classic rents from the regulatory and pararegulatory state. Their rents are tiny compared to their costs and people resent that.  Particularly because it comes with a large side order of snobbery and cultural imperialism much of the time. And with ever fewer folks living in objective want, the relative strain of cultural issues is only going to rise. I mean we live in the utopia of abundance that Marx prophesied. Poor people are fat. There is shelter readily available for anyone who can follow rules and not do drugs. And our amusements rival anything Caligula himself might have imagined. The wealthy got crazy wealthy, the populace has a higher standard of living, and all the educated elite demand is the social backstops for your identity, your family, and your religion. You know little things that we totally haven't had major conflict over in days gone by."

"I have a sort of lengthy inchoate rant I’ve never been able to form a good reason to say but which I think has value, which is that a huge element of politics today is that our collective memory as a society can’t really go back before 1880. We really think in post WW2 but our collective unconscious can periodically pull back memories from the 19th century if it really wants. We tend to think the levels of wealth in 1880, where anyone who was clever and hardworking could rise to have a beautiful house, servants, family and a good wife, are a historic normal baseline. It’s not. The lower classes still worked 12 hours a day in shitty factories but you had a lot more statistical social mobility then than we do today. When you look at all of our late 19th century cultural representations, they’re upper middle class upright sexually prude Victorians/wasp Americans who were in no way indicative of their societies. For example my family were either Irish peasants or frontier commercial followers. The 19th century was way dirtier and more disorderly than we give credit. Far more people in the 19th century lived in the same shack with no privacy than those who worried about naming anatomy in public. My main point here is that we tend to see this society as our baseline but it’s really a bizarre aberration. The late 19th century Anglo sphere was staggeringly wealthy, advanced, dominant and powerful. This isn’t where the story starts. This is the end result of centuries of good decisions by the English speaking world. When you think of how pleasant 20th century rural England was, it didn’t just didn’t “just happen”. It was a highly complex organic system cultivated over thousands of years to produce something great. The peaceful happiness isn’t nature, it’s an engineered garden. This permeates almost everything today. We can’t see that other nations can’t just “be us” since even if you stop the movie in 1200 ad, western europe has a several thousand year historic advantage over much of the world. It’s even true in 2000 BC. Feminism exists since we have safe societies. The lower classes got the vote because Protestantism made them literate. Europe is high trust since the warrior nobility hanged criminals for centuries. Nature isn’t “nice”. It’s a beautiful monster. As I say. If your theory of anthropology starts with the West, not India or Africa as the human baseline you have really failed. The west is an aberration."

"But I know you also think it's perfectly legitimate for doctors to lie to the parents of trans-identifying children and knowingly misrepresent the state of the evidence in this field provided the medics in question have a principled attitude to bodily autonomy, so I don't even know what to say to you. When I say "gender-affirming care isn't lifesaving treatment", you reply "yes, and?"; when I say "but lots of advocates for access to gender-affirming care consistently characterised it as life-saving treatment for years", you reply "yes, and?"; when I say "it's not reasonable to assume these advocates were honestly mistaken about the evidentiary basis for their claims that gender-affirming care is life-saving treatment, so the only reasonable conclusion is that they were consistently, knowingly lying, for years", you reply "yes, and?" I keep hoping that at some point you'll either deny my accusations, or own up to them and acknowledge that they were wrong: instead you just keep copping to them, but deny that anyone involved did anything wrong by so doing. I would've thought it a no-brainer, the idea that a medic's personal philosophical attitude towards bodily autonomy should not override his duty of care to his patients or his responsibility to be informed about the medical state of the art – but apparently not. I would've thought "I support the right of individuals to pharmaceutically and surgically modify their bodies as they see fit because of a principled attitude towards bodily autonomy – but acknowledge that aesthetic modification of one's body may not be an effective treatment for grave psychic distress, and it is dishonest and unprofessional for medics or activists to assert that it is" would be a no-brainer – but apparently not. Trans activists just seem to have a wholly different conception of the standards of behaviour they expect medical practitioners to adhere to than I do. If trans activists were upfront and said "some people want to surgically modify their bodies for aesthetic reasons, and they should be allowed to" – I mean, I appreciate it's a harder sell, but at least it's honest. "... and the taxpayer should pick up the bill" is a harder sell still, but it remains honest. But instead they adopted this approach wherein they decided to knowingly mislead the public in general (and confused, scared parents of deeply distressed children in particular) with false claims about the efficacy of gender-affirming care in preventing suicide, urged and coerced medics to parrot these false claims – and then they have the gall to wonder why people are suspicious of them and think they might have ulterior motives? For years, Chase Strangio of the ACLU characterised gender-affirming care as lifesaving medical treatment. Before the Supreme Court, under oath, Strangio admitted that there's no persuasive evidence that gender-affirming care has any impact on the rates of suicide among gender dysphoric children. Do you see how it's only logical for me to assume that everything Strangio says going forward is a barefaced lie? Do you see how Strangio has completely undermined public trust, not just in themself, but in the ACLU and the broader trans activist coalition?"

"Consider, if you will, this peculiar Silicon Valley confession: “I worked for 36 hours with no sleep. Although I was dead, I also felt energized. I even fell asleep a few times while driving home in my Cybertruck, but fsd came in clutch. Happy thanksgiving.” People read this and say, “Wow, so crazy.” No. This is not crazy. This is ideology speaking in the first person. Look at what he is really proud of. Not what he built, not the result. He is proud of his own exhaustion. He whips himself and calls it self-actualization. Before, the saint starved in the cave for God. Now, the engineer fasts from sleep for the billionaire. And the best part, the truly obscene part, is the drive home. Here the machine steps in as what Lacan would call the big Other, the big adult in the room that keeps going while you collapse. You can be unconscious, half-dead, and still you are “productive,” because the car does the driving, the system does the watching. You close your eyes, the algorithm stays awake. But notice the ideological twist: rather than confronting the absurdity of a society where one works until unconsciousness, the narrative is inverted. The same system that squeezes him until he is sleeping at the wheel also appears as his savior. This is pure capitalism. First it injures you, then it sells you the bandage, and you say thank you. You wreck yourself for one of the billionaire’s machines, then another one of his machines rescues your body on the drive home. Which brings us to the “Happy Thanksgiving.” It is the final twist of the knife. Gratitude here is not for rest, or sanity, or enough sleep to drive safely. Gratitude is for the privilege of being exhausted in the right office, in the right hoodie, for the right man. You give thanks to the very structure that wears you down. It is like saying grace over your own burnout. Thus the man who naps on the freeway is not a deviation. He is the ideal subject of our time. Half-alive, overworked to the point of being a public hazard, and then thanking the machine that keeps this madness just barely on the road. The system grinds him down, risks his life and the lives of everyone around him, and his reaction is not “this cannot go on,” but “I am so grateful.” In this one man in a Cybertruck you get the whole picture at once: exploitation, technology and holiday cheer condensed into a single, obedient “thank you.”"

"The failure of the right to violently revolt in the defense of their nations suggests they cannot because they have compeltely lost the capacity. We can see this with their terms "illegal migrants" and "remigration". No one of the right remotely beleives they are "migrants". In the mind of the Right, "migrants" are all classified as an invading party, often of the jihadist persuasion. Zero want them removed. They want them killed and, preferably, in public. Their inability to even express this in writing shows that they've already consented to loss by inability. They liken the ability to express manufactured terms by the system like "remigration" aloud in public to determine they have "actually" and already won a war they themselves refuse to fight in reality. To voice "remigration" is a confirmation of loss. "Actually", you've consented to your invasion with your own tax money and to then peacefully release the invading force to continue the invasion whenever it suits them in the future. To suggest that we accept a manufactured preference like "remigration" and others like it condemns the right to perpetual loss. Their true meaning is that they wish to combat invaders in an act of self preservation. They wish to revive laws that legally protect their folk group like through the American scalping laws used to preserve our original settlements from invasion. You're not "noticing" when you post. You're omitting your own inability to organize and fight. Worse, you're accepting your loss through the agreement of manufactured preferences. Worse more, you're agreeing that your nation and people have no value to you through the total refusal to organize in real life to do something as simple as revive a long forgotten rural town with allies or develop an off grid parallel system with allies. Fundamentally, this behavior proves that the right is comprised solely of castrated men who have no other purpose than the left — to destroy the nation. Whereas the left destroys the nation through subversion, the right destroys the nation through its static refusal to move."