#truth seeking

“The study showed that the Y chromosome has developed unusual structures called “palindromes” (DNA sequences that read the same forwards as backwards – like “kayak”), which protect it from further degradation. They recorded a high rate of “gene conversion events” within the palindromic sequences on the Y chromosome – this is basically a “copy and paste” process that allows damaged genes to be repaired using an undamaged back-up copy as a template.”

What does this look like in society ? Males have created a society for themselves wherever they can survive. Genetically speaking, the Y chromosome is on life support. Males will be doing the same thing over and over, they are stuck in time. They will say the same shit over and over, their thinking will never change nor improve ! Actually they are getting worse throughout the generations. Women are stuck in the loop trying to “figure them out” or blaming “social conditioning” when in fact, it is biology. Only women are actually socially conditioned. Men are clones, we say “men stay on code” because they literally share the same DNA code as maleness is the same. Females on the other hand won’t ever be on code because we are different.

You are probably wondering why males usurp women's energy… they are operating off one chromosome so they need a woman to work for them for their survival. We have two X chromosomes : one X that is fully activated and working, the other X is silent. In a fucked up way, women are sustaining and helping the male species by not going further into the truth, so as long as we stay on the surface thinking everything is based on psychology and social conditioning, we will be stuck in the matrix. But what does this have to do with body disassociation ? Well, the Y chromosome cannot recombine with the X, which means that part of their chromosome cannot HEAL. The Two X chromosomes can come together and heal, getting rid of mutated genes… Don’t you think it will be difficult being yourself ? This is a reason why I focus more on what women are doing… males are not built to change or improve, they will do what they have to do to survive, it is how they are designed.

Either way, women cannot hide from the truth any longer, the veil has been snatched and it will catch up to them whether they want to see it or not. You can run but you cannot hide. I have no desire to unite with parasites whatever physical form they take up. Parasites are soul (individuality!) snatchers, which is why they enjoy and spread collectivism groupthink so much, helps them blend in with other soulless vamps. It requires DNA repair to do all that. Truth is, many people are so genetically damaged that they create toxic environments. Look at the crap men invented ! It is toxic and dangerous.

I think women are both a monolith and different. Males make women a monolith. Notice how they look the same now ? A woman that is not tied to a man or performs for men accepts and embraces her individuality. When a man fucks a woman, he turns her into a female bot. This can also cause body disconnect because the woman feels gross and wants to jump out her body because it has been defiled. Also, is it possible to shift your perception to thinking that patriarchy has no power ? I am side-eying women who believe that mandog and his fembots have power because, if that is true, they would not work so hard to destroy sovereign females over and find ways to have access to them. A true powerful being is not interested in siphoning energy off others, a POWER LESS being needs to use brute force and manipulation tactics to extract energy.

By: John Sailer

Published: Jun 13, 2026

In April, Yale University released a report exploring why Americans have lost trust in higher education. Widely discussed at the time, the report was notable not so much for what it said as for who said it. Many of its conclusions—for instance, that the “high tuition-high aid” model invites distrust—were fairly obvious. The Yale report mattered because it was a Yale report, marking a rare moment of self-reflection by an elite university.

Now, another report offers further self-reflection, but with far greater substance. Last week, Vanderbilt University and Washington University in St. Louis released a jointly commissioned report on the “state of scholarship” in the humanities and social sciences. The report takes on a question closely related to higher education’s crisis of trust: has scholarship itself been politicized or otherwise degraded?

While hedging considerably, the report’s authors land on a clear thesis: a noteworthy contingent of contemporary scholars subordinates the pursuit of knowledge to political and social goals. These goals, the authors note, “are generally though not exclusively associated with the progressive left,” and involve “turning the humanities into vehicles for social justice, or the elimination of pernicious social hierarchies,” as manifested in causes such as anti-racism, feminism, and decolonization.

Despite identifying this progressive trend, the report’s committee is not recognizably conservative. It is composed of mainstream academics. That includes several philosophers from New York University—widely considered one of the world’s best philosophy departments—along with notables like NYU history professor Katherine Fleming, who is also president of the $8-billion J. Paul Getty Trust.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the committee’s concern is not with “viewpoint diversity,” or lack thereof. “The problem,” the report notes, “is not that scholars in these areas are significantly more liberal or progressive than the general public.” Instead, the core issue is epistemological—having to do, that is, with how certain scholars understand the nature of truth and evidentiary standards.

The report argues that politicized scholarship operates in three main ways. Some scholars simply dismiss unwanted views. Others reject understanding as the primary purpose of scholarship. Still others reject the idea of objective, value-independent truth altogether—in other words, they embrace relativism.

From start to finish, the report blames relativism. In the preface, the committee quickly reject the “complaint” about politicized research in its “bald form”—but nevertheless argues that the “sharpest version” of the critique traces the degradation of scholarship to the “pervasive repudiation of the very idea of scholarly objectivity in favor of the view that since claims to knowledge are inevitably ideological, it is fair game to assess academic scholarship on political and social grounds.” In contrast with the tepid Yale report, the committee is scathing in its assessment of relativism: “To the extent that views of this sort have taken hold, they represent a catastrophe for the humanities and the social sciences understood as academic disciplines.”

This is the strength of the report, but also its weakness. It relies on an assumption one might expect from analytic philosophers: that bad scholarship is driven by faulty philosophical views. In the report’s telling, these misguided scholars start with relativism as a foundational premise, which then allows them to dismiss any standard on ideological grounds. These scholars, the report elaborates, are almost inevitably inconsistent, since they believe that their claims about social justice are indeed true; ultimately, they support their views by “giving reasons and marshalling evidence.”

But it’s possible that the report gets the story backwards, with relativism playing a supporting role, rather than the central one. A scholar-activist’s foundational commitment might be to their political goals, in which case relativism becomes just another way to dismiss opposing views without making real arguments. If you can’t defeat your interlocutor’s reasoning, simply dismiss it as cisheteropatriarchal reasoning. From this angle, it is entirely predictable that scholar-activists apply their relativism inconsistently, as it wasn’t a core commitment to begin with.

It’s worth noting, moreover, that the prevalence of scholar-activism is likewise entirely predictable phenomenon, given the explicit commitment of many universities—and their funders. As I’ve reported before, universities have for many years carried out large-scale hiring programs that, in practice, select for scholars who openly embrace social justice advocacy. Every year, the University of California’s President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program hires dozens of fellows who receive special consideration for tenure-track jobs, prioritizing scholars whose research contributes to “diversity” and “equal opportunity.” While funding for the humanities and social sciences is scarce, aspiring scholar-activists can look to deep-pocketed supporters like the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for financial backing throughout their careers.

Of course, to sort out the exact causes and consequences of scholar-activism, data on actual scholarship would be helpful. Unfortunately, although the committee “compiled detailed internal reports” on scholarship in philosophy, anthropology, sociology, history, literary studies, and music studies, these reports were not released.

Perhaps it’s best to leave the exact diagnosis open to debate. The key point remains: some scholars have seriously lost their way—and that may warrant breaking norms. Early on, the report notes that disciplines are rightly afforded a great deal of deference. No president, provost, or dean can assess quality in every field. But, as the report notes, “even this foundational principle has its limits.” Time will tell whether Vanderbilt and WashU take their own report seriously.

==

The Director claims an ancient scroll explains “everything” just before she is about to be arrested for her crimes… convenient? Last September, Sam Cross wrote another one of her wonderful (and well-thought-out) reviews about the video game “Sea of the Stars”. Within the post, she argued that the game focuses on the “idea of archival collections being a truth but not the truth,” adding that…

The philosophy of truth seeking involves the rigorous and systematic pursuit of truth and understanding across various domains of knowledge. It encompasses the methodologies, ethical considerations, and intellectual virtues necessary for discerning what is true from what is false. This philosophy is fundamental to disciplines such as epistemology, science, and ethics, and it plays a crucial role in how individuals and societies form beliefs, make decisions, and establish values.

At its core, truth seeking is driven by the belief that truth is valuable and worth pursuing for its own sake, as well as for its practical benefits. Philosophers have long debated the nature of truth, the methods by which it can be discovered, and the criteria for determining its validity. Some key aspects of the philosophy of truth seeking include:

Epistemology: The study of knowledge and justified belief. It explores the nature, scope, and limits of human knowledge, as well as the methods for acquiring and validating it.

Scientific Method: A systematic approach to inquiry that relies on observation, experimentation, and empirical evidence to develop and test hypotheses about the natural world.

Intellectual Virtues: Traits such as open-mindedness, intellectual humility, critical thinking, and perseverance that are essential for effective truth seeking.

Ethical Considerations: The moral responsibilities associated with seeking and disseminating truth, including honesty, integrity, and respect for evidence.