Happy Thanksgiving 2025

Another year passes, and another year of blessings. Life is a blessing. Regardless of our circumstances, we should count our blessings. This ride will be over one day. 

Who am I writing to? Obviously, to you, the reader. But more specifically, the future. Or, history. 

The Word is immortal, men are not. Well, perhaps the soul is, but the body isn't.

Ideally, some familial lineage will stumble across this in the technologically enhanced future and will know some of the thoughts of their distant relative. Maybe in some kind of simulation theory hypothesis scenario. Maybe we are currently in some kind of simulation theory hypothesis theory scenario. Although "the science" recently used mathematics to debunk simulation theory. 

“It has been suggested that the universe could be simulated. If such a simulation were possible, the simulated universe could itself give rise to life, which in turn might create its own simulation. This recursive possibility makes it seem highly unlikely that our universe is the original one, rather than a simulation nested within another simulation,” says Dr. Faizal. “This idea was once thought to lie beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. However, our recent research has demonstrated that it can, in fact, be scientifically addressed.”

“We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity,” says Dr. Faizal. “Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone. Rather, it requires a non-algorithmic understanding, which is more fundamental than the computational laws of quantum gravity and therefore more fundamental than spacetime itself.”

“Drawing on mathematical theorems related to incompleteness and indefinability, we demonstrate that a fully consistent and complete description of reality cannot be achieved through computation alone,” Dr. Faizal explains. “It requires non-algorithmic understanding, which by definition is beyond algorithmic computation and therefore cannot be simulated. Hence, this universe cannot be a simulation.” 

 “Any simulation is inherently algorithmic—it must follow programmed rules,” he says. “But since the fundamental level of reality is based on non-algorithmic understanding, the universe cannot be, and could never be, a simulation.”

So, there you have it. We are definitely not living in a computer generated simulation, because "the science" says so. 

Nonetheless, yours truly has been reading some books from the 18th century. Back when men were men. Specifically books focused on the trials and tribulations of the British navy. To reflect on history just some 250 years later, and see the evolutionary de-evolution of Mankind is quite intriguing, to say the least. I can't imagine what futuristic historians will think when they read the writings of Hewitt E. Moore and his contemporaries. Will we be viewed as the prototypical Man in the same way men of the 21st century look upon 18th century Europeans?

The men of the 21st century are feminized, dopamine junkies, whom couldn't stand the stench of the dirty undergarments of an 18th century British Naval seaman, let alone walk an hour in his boots.

Supposed that history continues on the currently trajectory, if you, dear reader, can't walk an hour in the comfortable shoes of a man from the 21st century, I go so far as to predict that men have gone extinct all together. 

So on the Thanksgiving 2025 day, a thankful prayer is sent to God. 

Now I leave you with a poem of times gone, when men were men, before they're gone: The Castaway by William Cowper

 

Obscurest night involv'd the sky,

         Th' Atlantic billows roar'd,

When such a destin'd wretch as I,

         Wash'd headlong from on board,

Of friends, of hope, of all bereft,

His floating home for ever left.

No braver chief could Albion boast

         Than he with whom he went,

Nor ever ship left Albion's coast,

         With warmer wishes sent.

He lov'd them both, but both in vain,

Nor him beheld, nor her again.

Not long beneath the whelming brine,

         Expert to swim, he lay;

Nor soon he felt his strength decline,

         Or courage die away;

But wag'd with death a lasting strife,

Supported by despair of life.

He shouted: nor his friends had fail'd

         To check the vessel's course,

But so the furious blast prevail'd,

         That, pitiless perforce,

They left their outcast mate behind,

And scudded still before the wind.

Some succour yet they could afford;

         And, such as storms allow,

The cask, the coop, the floated cord,

         Delay'd not to bestow.

But he (they knew) nor ship, nor shore,

Whate'er they gave, should visit more.

Nor, cruel as it seem'd, could he

         Their haste himself condemn,

Aware that flight, in such a sea,

         Alone could rescue them;

Yet bitter felt it still to die

Deserted, and his friends so nigh.

He long survives, who lives an hour

         In ocean, self-upheld;

And so long he, with unspent pow'r,

         His destiny repell'd;

And ever, as the minutes flew,

Entreated help, or cried—Adieu!

At length, his transient respite past,

         His comrades, who before

Had heard his voice in ev'ry blast,

         Could catch the sound no more.

For then, by toil subdued, he drank

The stifling wave, and then he sank.

No poet wept him: but the page

         Of narrative sincere;

That tells his name, his worth, his age,

         Is wet with Anson's tear.

And tears by bards or heroes shed

Alike immortalize the dead.

I therefore purpose not, or dream,

         Descanting on his fate,

To give the melancholy theme

         A more enduring date:

But misery still delights to trace

   Its semblance in another's case.

No voice divine the storm allay'd,

         No light propitious shone;

When, snatch'd from all effectual aid,

         We perish'd, each alone:

But I beneath a rougher sea,

And whelm'd in deeper gulfs than he. 

God bless! 

Poland for the Poles

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15323739/Polish-MP-declares-Poland-Poles-not-Jews-speech-outside-Auschwitz-sparking-fury.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

A hard-right Polish MP has declared that 'Poland is for Poles, not Jews' in a sickening and inflammatory speech outside Auschwitz. 

Grzegorz Braun, the head of the Confederation of the Polish Crown party, compared promoting Jewish life in Poland to 'inviting Hannibal Lecter to move in next door', 

The 58-year-old, who has long been accused of anti-Semitism, added: 'Jews want to be super-humans in Poland, entitled to a better status, and the Polish police dance to their tune'.

Being neither Polish, nor Jewish, I have no dog in this fight. But just because you don't enslave dogs doesn't mean you are deaf to their barking.

I'd like to think I could unbiasedly report on the comment made by the Polish MP without using words like "sickening" to analyze the subject matter subjectively. After all, nobody cares what Perkin Amalaraj thinks, news-seekers just want to read the news. Folks tune in to blogs like this one to get opinions.

I'd like to pride myself as an objective thinker. I don't want to tell you what to think, you can tell yourself what to think. And if you can't, hopefully Perkin Amalaraj isn't telling you what to think. Cause that would mean you don't really have any thoughts. 

So, objectively speaking, why is it "sickening," or wrong in anyway, that Poland should be a nation for the Polish people? Jews have a nation for Jewish people. Wait, now that I think of it, isn't Israel the only ethnostate on the planet earth? Yea, I believe that is so. 

So, from my unbiased perspective, if Poland being an ethnostate for Polish people is "sickening," then Israel being for Jews should be "sickening" as well, right? If I'm wrong, fell free to correct me in the comments, cause I'm not trying to be "sickening," just logical. Sometimes we just can't see the forest through the trees.

As far as living with Jews being comparable to living with Hannibal Lecter, I'm not sure what that analogy means. Is MP Braun insinuating that Jews are parasitic? Perhaps that they feed off their host? Not sure what he is getting at there, as, again, I'm not Jewish, so I'm not aware of the antisemitic tropes that permeate the psyche of political persuasion, which is what all "sickening" rhetoric is.  

Basically it comes down to a group of people wanting their nation to be an ethnostate, that excludes a group of people who already have an ethnostate. Am I missing something?

God bless!

Whom Did Satan Give Authority of the World to?

Luke 4:5–7 (NKJV): 5 Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.”

Scripture says the devil was a liar from the beginning, and is the father of lies (John 8:44), but how do we know that Satan was lying to Jesus? Scripture also plainly states that man should not love the world or anything in it (John 2:15).

The point isn't to determine if Satan was lying to Jesus about his authority to give the world to whom he pleased, rather to wonder whom he gave the world if he did have such authority.

Thoughts?

Moralizing White Nationalism

I stumbled into White Nationalism circa 2006. There wasn't any particular happenstance that resulted in my interest, I just always seemed to inherently find myself viewing an increasingly diverse society through a racial lens.

Perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions about White Nationalism on an individual level is that it's a reactionary position based on causation, due to either multicultural victimization, or being seduced by some form of antiquated, familial indoctrination. Of course this isn't a coincidence, it's a socially engineered ad hominem fallacy used to deter Whites from being pro-White: “Oh, you're a 'racist,' did you get assaulted by a black guy, or was your grandpa in the KKK?” An unprovoked worldview in support of White homogeneity is implausible reasoning within the conformity guidelines of the status quo.

Due to the perpetual onslaught of anti-White propaganda that has flooded the Western conscious via the subverted information systems over the last 60 years, the concept of White people wanting to be racially exclusive triggers immense cognitive dissonance within the average person's psyche. The argument can be made that “diversity is our strength” and “we all bleed red” have replaced “land of the free” and “home of the brave” as characterized mantras of neo-Americanism.

Personally speaking, my journey into White Nationalism began after an internet search of a local politician accused of doing a racism directed me to the forum Stormfront. Mind you, this was long before search engine censorship attempted to manipulate people's curiosities algorithmically. Therefore, interest on a variety of topics could lead one to such a website and ultimately pique their curiosity into the foundational ideology of the platform (hence the reason for censorship years later). I've personally known people who had very little interest in race who became race realists after their interest in pantheism and Nietzsche resulted in Google sending them to Stormfront as well.

Furthermore, up until that point, I had this media-induced stereotype ingrained in my mind that these “White Nationalists” were just a bunch of dumb skinheads and rednecks with a collective IQ of 78. Instead, what I quickly learned was that White Nationalism was a byproduct of intellectualism, motivated by the quest for unadulterated truth. Of course, like all intellectual movements, many of these people were eccentric, anti-social personality types, but that was the stage of the game at that point in time. It was the exchange of ideas that was needed to pave the way for future generations by seeding propaganda in support of an existential ideology that was forged with group survival in mind.

In those days, White Nationalism was a thinktank, not a movement. In fact, way back in January of 2014 I had my first paper published on Occidental Observer titled Is White Nationalism Real?, based on the premise that White Nationalism was just the exchange of ideas on the internet:

Theoretically, White Nationalism is the political ideology supporting the formation of a homogeneous state or “homeland” for the White race. Although the definition might vary somewhat, the concept is universally consistent. Obviously the philosophy is real, but is the movement endorsing the dogma a reality? Is White Nationalism figurative terminology in efforts to make the ideology more socially acceptable (i.e. “I’m a White Nationalist, not a racist”), or is it an actual movement?

I was somewhat jaded, because it seemed like all anyone wanted to do was argue on the internet about things that had been argued about a thousand times already. You couldn't even convince anyone to meet you for a beer. I couldn't see the forest through the trees. I was naive to the systemic consequences involved with revolutionary ideas, and the fear of social ostracization that made a lot of people really paranoid. And after reading books like Hoffer's The True Believer, I developed a better understanding of the psychology behind the personality types that were attracted to fringe movements. It takes a certain kind of person to be “racist” in an explicitly anti-racist world.

In the conclusion of my paper, I posited that White Nationalism wasn't “real” because it hadn't been experienced:

In conclusion, the term “real” is defined as having actual physical existence. With a very few minor exceptions, the White Nationalist movement would be better defined as a hobby of like-minded idealists. The reality of an all-White homeland in the foreseeable future (in America) is comparable to finding the end of a rainbow….

“Nothing ever becomes real until it is experienced” ~ John Keats

Hindsight is always 20/20. If you had told me back then that the political landscape would be what it is today, I'd probably accuse you of lying. I remember having a conversation with a Bob Whitaker disciple around that time period, and I asked him to give me an optimistic forecast for where he would like to see us in 10 years. He said, “If the mainstream media is using our talking points and terminology, that would be big. If they just referred to us as 'White Nationalists' or 'pro-White' and we can defeat their term 'racist,' that would be a huge victory.” He was one of those guys who would just go around repeating “anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white” to anyone who would listen. The term “racist” has definitely lost its sting, mostly because I think people have slowly realized that the “R word” is just the “N word” for White people.

I seldom write these days. Maybe one piece a year. I'm not very ingenuitive, and when you're an “oldhead” like me, a lot of dissident discourse becomes redundant. But occasionally something will spark the creative juices, and I'll dust off the keyboard and spend a day pecking away. Case in point, Counter Currents recently published an article titled Alt-Right Nostalgia that was an enjoyable and rather reminiscent read. The author touched on some things that I've discussed in this paper, and consequently instigated a personal pause for reflection:

Occasionally, I miss the romance of fighting a battle against seemingly impossible odds. The movement is in a different phase. We’ve won the debate and our ideas have conquered the internet. In a way, the fun part is over. The road ahead to the next level is going to involve some mundane normie politicking that requires engaging with the system and a long march through the GOP.

He references the romantic age of the Alt-Right era of 2016-2019. Those were certainly fun times to be involved in dissident politics. Lots of street activism. Tons of entertaining podcasts and digital media content with very little censorship. And for the first time since my involvement, the adage “getting White Nationalists together is like herding cats,” didn't apply. There was an aroma of optimism in the air.

This Dissident Right, or whatever we shall have to call ourselves now, was founded by political theory nerds who arrived at White Nationalism after a long ideological journey. “I started out as a normie conservative, then read Atlas Shrugged and was a libertarian for a few years. I was into Moldbug for a little while and then got redpilled on race after watching some Molyneux videos. Then I found Jared Taylor and here I am.”

While many probably see that bygone era as the catalyst for the mundane march politicking through the GOP that lies ahead, I personally rewind back further to those early Stormfront days as the formative years that paved that ideological road for future success (I assume those before me are going to rewind it back further, before the internet). You never really know what is going to become relevant, and what's not. So many of those ideas that were so passionately debated at the time ended up being completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. You can draw up the perfect societal system on paper, but until the unpredictable variant (humans) is inserted into that equation, you don't know what the question will be. This has always been the argument for and against communism. When faced with the atrocities of communism, communists always point out that “true” communism has never actually been implemented.

It's so crazy to see some of those talking points that nobody knew anything about 20 years ago be used in the mainstream today. Those big-brain political theory nerds, like Bob Whitaker and Horus, used to preach about the importance of staying on a consistent message, and how propaganda typically took about 15 years to have an impact on public opinion. Our side was playing 4D chess long before that term became popularized in 2016. Nonetheless, intellectual movements just provide the ideological framework necessary to nudge the pendulum of power. At some point, conclusions are reached when the variants of unpredictability become known, and that intellectual candle slowly burns out. As the writer of the Alt-Right Nostalgia piece accurately points out, dumbing down is an unavoidable part of the mainstreaming process:

That said, I also remember the bad times of the Alt Right. The sociopaths and constantly having to run cover for the latest self-inflicted PR disaster. After having been in the game as long as I have, I’ll take the boring but stable normiefied Dissident Right of today over interesting yet volatile counter-culture era Alt Right. Being edgy was fun but I’m ready to be a normie now. The whole mission was to get the ideas to this point.

But to be honest, yes, something has been lost in the mainstreaming process. In many ways, the level of intellectual discourse has dropped since back in the good old days. There have been rumblings about “low-IQ antisemitism.” That might mean different things to different people. Sometimes the term is used disingenuously and sometimes it’s referring to a real phenomenon that might or might not be a serious issue. It’s normal to accuse your factional rivals of being a dumb version of what your faction believes. Still, it is deniable that the level of discourse in the right-wing ecosphere has dropped a grade or two. Going from Kevin McDonald to Lucas Gage is a step down intellectually. Science-heavy Human Biodiversity stuff has become less fashionable, and the leading influencers are less dynamic thinkers than back in the day. I don’t think it is an unreasonable critique to say that the scene has gotten dumber.

Some of the dumbing down may be an unavoidable part of the mainstreaming process. Some of it is not. Some of it we might be able to remedy and some of it we simply cannot.

“The whole mission was to get the ideas to this point,” is the perfect summation of pre-2020 White Nationalism, and dissident politics in general. The exchange of ideas is over. There were certainly lots of pessimistic times during that period. Honestly, you pretty much had to be a pessimist to even get involved in White Nationalist politics pre-2016. But the good thing about pessimism is it reduces expectation. It has been said that happiness is results minus expectation. And demoralization is usually the result of failed expectations.

When I embarked on my intellectual journey I was already college educated, but I never really learned anything meaningful until I dove head first into White Nationalism. And that isn't to say I just learned how to regurgitate White Nationalist ideology, I learned philosophy, psychology, political theory, science, genetics, theology, human biodiversity, the JQ, economics, geography, migration patterns, finance, etc, which all supported the morality of my worldview. I could count the number of books I had read on two fingers, and my writing skills were elementary at best. I became an accomplished writer and have read hundreds of books. I lived in a very diverse metropolis, and relocated to a predominately White rural area. I fathered White children. I adhered to a pro-White code of conduct. It's highly improbable that any of these things would have happened had I not become interested in White Nationalism. To say that White Nationalism hasn't had a profound impact on my life would be a drastic understatement. I was (and still am) a true believer that White people should have the right to self determination.