What Happened to the UFC?

As I said in yesterday's post, my TV consumption consists of the Reality TV trinity: First 48, Jeopardy, and UFC.

Recently the UFC signed a new deal with Paramount +. It got rid of the PPV model, which is a good thing for people who actually spent $100 to watch 5 fights. Although I would speculate that roughly 1 in 10 people who watched the UFC PPV's actually paid for them. According to friends, it was never hard to find a stream online.

However, ever since this new deal (and even before; there was like 6 weeks without any fights) the quality of fights have just been crapola. 

It's easy to play armchair quarterback. Everyone thinks they know more than they do. But some of these fights are atrocious and completely uninteresting.

Just look at the UFC London card from yesterday. Who would pay to watch that card? That MVP fight was horrible. The UFC should cut that guy.

I hated watching MVP even when he was in Bellator. He is such a boring fighter to watch. A lot of people would say "it's his style," but Wonderboy Thompson has the same karate style and his fights are never boring. MVP just sucks to watch.

Who knows, maybe I'm just racist. But did you watch that fight?

I mentioned the new deal with Paramount because I think it was for like $8 billion over a few years. And I wonder if the UFC struck gold with that deal and they just don't really care anymore. They're getting paid, so complacency has set in.

Or maybe the deal was bad and they can't afford to pay the fighters enough to make good fights.

In any event, they really need to step up their game, because these fight cards have been whack.

Everyone had such huge expectations for the White House card, and did you see what it ended up being? 

The main event will be good, but Nickal vs Daukaus? Really?

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but if you have the opportunity to put on a monumental show at the White House, the card should be better than this. 

Be honest, aside from the Gaethje vs Topuria fight (which is going to result in Gaethje going night-night), are you excited about any of those fights? Even the press conference is going to suck.

I mean, sure, I'm going to watch, but will I be counting down the days in excitement? Not a chance.

Maybe there will be some bangers on the prelims.

Cheers! 

The Banshees of Diversity

Do you know what a banshee is? I honestly thought it was some type of monkey. But it's actually a crazy Irish woman. Like an Irish witch.

I wonder how many things we think we know but actually don't.

Dumb people think they know everything. Smart people know they know nothing.

I don't watch many movies. I don't watch much TV at all. But, when I do it's the reality TV trinity: Jeopardy, UFC or First 48. 

However, last night I decided to not pickle my liver, and opted for a movie instead. The problem with me watching movies is that I have really bad ADHD, so it's hard to stare at a TV screen for 2 hours unless it's something I'm really interested in. In fact, there are a couple of movies that I've always wanted to watch, but won't even attempt them because they are 3 hours long.

Is that weird?

So I scoured the plethora of scribbles on the various pieces of paper which clutter my desk in search of some movie recommendations that I wrote down, and I was only able to find two: Nocturnal Animals and The Banshees of Inisherin. 

I had already watched Nocturnal Animals, and as much as I appreciated the artistic imagery in the first 5 minutes of the movie, there are only a handful of movies that I can watch more than once due to my severe ADHD, and Nocturnal Animals isn't one of them.

So that left me watching The Banshees of Inisherin.

As you can tell from my movie selections, I only watch weird movies. This is a sign of normalcy. Weird people watch normal movies, and normal people watch weird movies. It's that opposites attract thing that Paula Abdul sang about in the 80's.

The movie was odd. That along with the lack of diversity made it worthy of watching.

There were literally no non-whites in the movie. Seriously, when was the last time you watched anything on TV that didn't force diversity on the viewers.

Diversity in the form of entertainment is okay, I guess, as long it's realistic and organic. But the entertainment industry has always been obsessively anti-white.

Nonetheless, the plot of the movie is based on a couple of drinking buddies who have a falling out. One doesn't like the other anymore, and the unliked one won't accept it. The one who wants to be left alone, tells the other one that if he doesn't leave him alone, he is going to start cutting his own fingers off, which are valuable to him because his legacy depends on his violin playing. Without his fingers, he can't play music.

Spoiler alert: The unliked one won't leave him alone, so he cuts all of his fingers off and throws them at the man's door who won't quit talking to him. The unliked man's pet miniature donkey eats the fingers, chokes and dies. This makes the unliked man furious, so he burns the fingerless man's house down. 

The End. 

You're Only as Good as You Feel

What is this crap? That sounds like something a liberal would say.

But this blog isn't about cons and libs, it's about the Truth!

On my run today, I had this great idea for a blog post. It's weird how when you're running you always have the best ideas. The same thing happens when I'm drunk, too. I literally transform into a genius.

All great writers, human and otherwise, write backwards. What I mean by that is that we conceive a title, then create the plot and text body based on the title. The plot is just the summation of the title, and/or vice versa. The genesis of literary greatness is a thorough explanation of a simple idea. 

Writing is like a puzzle, you just slowly put the pieces together.

You have this jumbled up idea in your head, and you translate that idea into written words that act as puzzle pieces in order to interpret your thoughts.

Intelligent men have always been great at interpreting their thoughts using written words. The annals of human thought were written by men. In fact, history itself is nothing more than the biographies of great men. 

This is why the future extinction of human writers is an interesting phenomenon. I wrote about this yesterday, in case you were hungover and didn't feel like reading. 

Back to this "you're only as good as you feel" thing. 

Is there some validity to your feelings? Do your feelings determine anything tangible? What if you feel great, but perform like shit? What if you feel like shit, and perform great?

In the future (as you well know), feelings will be marketed and sold. Currently, there are pharmaceuticals that synthetically alter your feelings. But at some point you'll be able to get some kind of procedure or supplement that will induce certain feelings.

We will all have personal assistants (AI) who are somehow digitally synced with humans (nanochips; voluntary?), and they will give readings on our personal app that will keep our feelings optimized at all times.

As with writers, depression will be a thing of the past. Everyone will be perpetually happy.

You won't even need to go down the "feelings" aisle at the health food store, you'll be a machine that will be updated by your personal assistant hourly or daily. 

Weird, huh?

Eventually, those with the genetic inheritability of European explorers will all be doing space exploration. 

Will it be the final frontier? 

I've written about this, too. Earth will just be a nature exhibit for the elites who live on Mars. People won't vacation to other countries, they will visit other planets. 

Times, they are a changin'

HI vs AI

I just told Gemini to "write a short blog post titled Chink in the Armor." It was pretty impressive considering it only took 1 second for Gemini to produce it, and I didn't instruct it on the content, just the title. I encourage you to read it and see what you think.

Writers have become obsolete. Why do we need human writers? What can I say that AI can't?

I wonder how much of the stuff you read is AI? Do you even care?

There is going to come a day when humans no longer write. By the time that happens, nobody will care because the transition will be gradual. It'll be a generational thing, where writing just slowly gets phased out.

As you age, it's weird to watch generational change. I've written a lot about socially engineered change and that's not the change I'm talking about here. I'm talking about cultural change that evolves organically due to circumstances.

Pennies are another example. In 50 years only the "old-timers" will even know what a penny is. I suspect by that time all currency will be digital anyway, so people may not even know what a nickel or dime is either.

It's cliche to say that "time flies," but it really does. One day you wake up and look in the mirror and don't recognize the person looking back at you. That doesn't have anything to do with artificial intelligence eliminating the writer, it's just the realization that we all come to one day if God gives us enough time on earth.

The oddity about the elimination of writers is that so much of humanity is rooted in the writings of men. Practically all of our knowledge comes from the pens of great men. Even our existence is explained in the written words ordained by God.

The subtitle to this very blog is John 1:1:

In the beginning was the Word

For 2,000 years man has used the written word to solve his existential crisis, and soon men will no longer write (very few still do).

I don't want to try to manipulate you, but I'm one of the few writers left who don't use AI in some format. And before you say "what about that chink in the armor post?," that was to give me fodder for this post. There are only two posts on this entire blog that were written by AI: Chink in the Armor and Beyond Good and Evil: Unpacking Nietzsche's Radical Challenge. Every other word on this blog was written by yours truly. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that pennies are about to be gone. One day you're going to look in the mirror and say, "Damn, I'm getting old!" And humanity has birthed its last great writer.

A great writer once said: "Life sucks, then you die." 

A great writer who read those words later wrote: "Life is amazing, then you die."

Buckle up, buckaroo.

Chink in the Armor

Chink in the Armor: The Power of Strategic Vulnerability

We often spend our professional and personal lives trying to become "bulletproof." We build up layers of expertise, curated social media feeds, and stoic exteriors to convince the world—and ourselves—that we have it all figured out. We want a suit of armor so polished that not a single ray of doubt can get through.

But here’s the truth: The most "perfect" person in the room is usually the most disconnected.

The Perfection Paradox

In materials science, a structure with no flexibility is brittle; it doesn’t bend, it snaps. The same applies to us. A "chink in the armor"—a visible flaw, a moment of admitted uncertainty, or a shared failure—isn't a sign of impending defeat. It’s actually where the light gets in.

Why Vulnerability is Your Greatest Asset

• It Builds Trust: People can’t relate to a statue. When you admit you don't have the answer, you give others permission to be honest too.

• It Facilitates Growth: If your armor is sealed shut, you can't take anything new in. Acknowledging a gap in your knowledge is the first step toward filling it.

• It Humanizes Leadership: The best leaders aren't those who never fail, but those who are transparent about the "why" and "how" behind their setbacks.

---

Embracing the Gap

Finding a "chink" in your own armor shouldn't lead to panic. Instead, view it as a strategic opening. It’s an invitation for collaboration, a prompt for learning, and a reminder that being human is far more valuable than being a machine.

Don't spend all your energy patching every tiny hole. Sometimes, those gaps are exactly what allow you to breathe.

Hell is a Cold Place

I don't know if hell is a cold place or not. I hope I never know.

I have heard that the road to hell is paved in good intentions. I don't know if that's true or not either.

I recently read a book about the exploration of the Antarctic, and one of the explorers (Frederick Cook) penned an unpublished autobiography titled, "Hell is a Cold Place." 

Cook was an interesting fellow. He was originally credited with being the first person to reach the North Pole, only to later be discredited and labeled a fraud. Many of his peers considered him a genius. 

Ironically, Robert Peary claimed to reach the North Pole a year later (1909), and had long been credited as the discoverer of the North Pole after Cook's claim was invalidated, although now it is believed Peary didn't make it to the North Pole either.

These early explorers were pioneers of masculinity. 

European men are the pinnacle of God's creation.

Perhaps you disagree with that statement. I don't really see how you could, but I assume if you do disagree then it's likely rooted in some form of ideological conformity. Because the acknowledgement of white supremacy has somehow been made taboo.

That being said, if you're looking for a really interesting read, check out Madhouse at the End of the Earth. It's a really good book. And very well written. I highly recommend the audiobook. 

Btw, I won my poker game today. Does that mean I'm no longer a loser?

European men have this perpetual longing to win. To explore. To conquer. It's in our DNA. Don't take my word for it, the proof is in the pudding.

Oh, Happy St Patrick's Day! Especially if you're Irish, like I am.

To celebrate this day, I'm making corned beef and cabbage. I hope you're at least drinking beer. Or giving glory to God.

St Patrick was an amazing European man. Do you know his story?

St. Patrick was a 5th-century Romano-British Christian missionary and bishop in Ireland, known as the "Apostle of Ireland" and the primary patron saint of the country.  Born in Roman Britain—likely near the Irish Sea—he was captured at age 16 by Irish raiders and enslaved in Ireland for six years, during which he turned to Christianity. After escaping and returning to Britain, he later felt called to return to Ireland as a missionary, bringing Christianity to the pagan Irish.

Wow. I'm all over the place. 

Can you believe I won at poker?

Speaking of Saints, St Paul has some words for you:

Colossians 2:8 Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.

If you're still reading this, may the luck of the Irish be with you.

Maybe that's why I won today.

All glory to God, who is the Truth. The Life. And the Way. 

Stranger in the Mirror

Just lost at poker again.

Have I ever told you that I'm a loser?

Not in the "woe is me" sense of the word, but an actual competitive loser. Every time I compete, I lose. 

As I blogged the other day in my hit piece Hello Me, It's Me Again, competing is all about winning and losing. Whoever came up with the saying, "it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game" was a total loser. And definitely a liberal.

Have you ever linguistically dissected the word "liberal"?

I haven't either, but I assume it comes from the word "liberated," which would obviously have something to do with freedom.

Oh well.

Did I tell you that I hate losing?

Btw, I'm not actually talking to you, I'm talking to the future of mankind. 

I bet the future is overpopulated with losers. Which is kinda weird when you think about it, because evolutionarily speaking, making it to the future is the ultimate win.

Is life a game? Sometimes I feel like life is just a game. Then I realized that's just my feelings and my feelings don't matter anymore than yours do.

Here at My Cousin the Carp, we've been boss hog bloggin' since 2014. I suppose that's a win. How many people have had a boss hog blog for over a decade?

You could literally formulate an educational plan from the annals of this blog. It's that informative.

In fact, during the Covid era, this blog was one of the leading sources of information. Just go scroll through some of the posts in 2021 and 2022. I mean, it was the crème de la crème of information during a time of universal deception.

Don't you hate it when there are coffee grounds in your coffee? It's the worst. It's basically just consumptive losing.

Damn I hate being a loser.

But at least I'm not a gangster. Or a gangsta. Biologically speaking, I don't think I could be a "gangsta," since I'm of the Caucasian persuasion. I could only be a gangster. But I did know a brotha once who told me it feels good to be a gangsta. 

What!? Another Geto Boys sighting on My Cousin the Carp? I thought this was a racist blog?

I never said this was a racist blog. You said that.

What I'm really trying to say is that we all need to look at ourselves in the mirror and pretend it's the abyss. Everyone thinks these philosophers are so damn smart because they come up with catchy phrases like, "if you stare into the abyss long enough, it'll start to stare back."

What Nietzsche was really trying to say is that your soul is the abyss, and the only real question is what you fill that void with. Is it filled with the Holy Spirit, or has it been liberated by Satan?

Think about that before you misinterpret it. It's pretty deep stuff. Make sure you're wearing your boots. Because as a great philosopher once said, "if you're going to jump in muddy puddles, you must wear your boots."

I sure hope you don't have coffee grounds in your coffee today. 

I'm sick of taking L's.

Rejoice!

It's Sunday. Everyday is the Lord's day, but today in particular should be the day that we take time to glorify God for all the blessings he has bestowed upon us.

I say "we," but I suppose I'm projecting and should be saying "I."

God's grace is sovereign. My opinions on your soul don't matter to God. At least I don't think they do. So my spiritual writings should always be written from a first person perspective.

The gospels are known as the "Good News." It was written to be shared. But was it written for everyone?

Are there any books that are exclusive to specific readers? 

Who knows?

God knows!

As a wretched sinner I can only give my testimony.

I didn't choose God, God chose me.

That's not boasting. Just the simple fact that I'm writing this is proof of that.

John 15:16 You didn’t choose me. I chose you.

I could be doing anything right now. I could be writing about anything. But I felt inclined to write about God today. Is that a coincidence? Or is that the Holy Spirit?

God represents the Truth, because He is the Truth:

John 14:6 I am the way and the truth and the life.

We live in a world of a deception. A world full of lies. The arch nemesis of God is the father of lies.

John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

We all succumb to temptation. We all believe lies. We are all sinners.

But God came to earth in the form of a man to be the perfect sacrifice for His bride.

To be crucified for His people's sins.

The Bible is the greatest love story ever told.

I pray every day for God's grace, mercy and forgiveness.

Philippians 4:6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.

 All Glory be to God!

Winds of Change

The best time to think is while running. I try to run a mile at least 5 days a week. It's not only great cardio, but it's mentally stimulating. 

While on my run yesterday I was contemplating this idea that we somehow change with age. There is this notion that age equals change. But I don't agree with that. I still socially interact with people I knew before adulthood and they are the same people. 

While this may seem stupid to you, I think most people think they are somehow completely different people than who they were as a kid. 

Wiser? Sure.

Smarter? Absolutely.

More mature? Maybe.

But fundamentally different? Nah, not at all.

Do you disagree? 

Think back to your earliest thoughts of recollection. To the ideas that shaped you. Are they different?

Do the same things still create emotional responses?

Are you still a sore loser? Still have a passive personality? Still fantasize about hot summer nights and the radio?

Is that not the greatest Van Hagar Song of all-time?

You know it is. 

But back to change. 

Change has become this progressive idea. Progressive ideas are constructed to be positive. All progressive ideas encompass "change."

I've written about the ramifications of socially engineered "change" quite a bit. 

I've been an advocate of what I call the Reversion of Change, which I suppose is just the antithesis of progressive modernity (i.e. "conservativism"). 

But the progressives who preach "change" aren't just preaching political "change," they want fundamental existential "change."

They get off on manipulation and gaslighting. 

The Covid fiasco was a peak into their wet dream.

It's all about power. 

It's all about trying to get you to stare into the abyss and being convinced that it's paradise.

Imagine if we didn't have mass information systems.

You wouldn't know what tomorrow's weather is going to be.

You wouldn't know that men's souls could be trapped in women's bodies.

You wouldn't know that Beethoven was black.

You wouldn't know that anti-racist is just a codeword for anti-white.

And you wouldn't be reading my words well into the 23rd century.

Mass information systems don't just control your behaviors and actions, but they control your thoughts and beliefs. 

Like liberalism, it's the god of the godless.

Very early on in my intellectual enlightenment I came to understand the association of "change" and mass information systems. They are codependent. 

I wrote a critically acclaimed novel titled White Guilt on this very subject. 

It was published in 2009, and the accuracy of my "fictional" predictions is pretty amazing.

You should check it out.

Snowblind in Summer

You know what's cool about having your own creative digital space? You can come up with titles like "Snowblind in Summer." 

How cool is that?

I bet your mom wishes she was that cool.

Theoretically, that's what "Snowblind in Summer" means: an oblivious blog title that's cooler than your mom.

You know what else is pretty cool? This blog is being HI written for the historical accuracy of humanity, even though the future of humanity doesn't read blogs.

AI sure is bad at predicting the future. That's why relics like me are so important. I'm like a history book in 7D. In the future, all humans gotta wear shades. C'mon, Gemini. 

Anyway, back to the title. 

I remember this time I was stuck in a snowstorm in the middle of summer. It was an historic weather event of the time. The weather was doing all kinds of crazy stuff and people got this weird idea of human-induced "global warming," that later became known as "climate change," which then became politicized into some kind of weird anti-white talking-point for overweight single white females (SOWs) who knew absolutely nothing about meteorology. 

Of course, this summer snowstorm validated the weather as being anti-white, and the SOWs became convinced that the only way to fix the weather was to quit eating meat and for white people to stop breeding, while non-whites bred at unsustainable rates, due to the implications of white saviorism within the non-white world.

It was bizarre, indeed.

So, I'm stuck in a tent on a dried-up riverbank in a snowstorm in the Rio Grande Valley. It went from 105 to 15 overnight. There was 12' of snow. I couldn't even open my tent up. All I had was a pair of shorts. It was like that apocalyptic movie from the early 2000 with the guy that played in Brokeback Mountain:

After getting hypothermia in a matter of minutes, suddenly the temperature rose back to 90 and everything was back to normal. My hands and feet thawed out before any permanent damage was done, and I just cracked a beer and put on some Black Sabbath. I got the worst sunburn ever.

I thought about titling this piece "Snowblind in Texas," but I changed my mind cause I thought, "Everyone will think I'm copying WASP's song," then I realized that I was merging Black Sabbath's "Snowblind" with WASP's "Blind in Texas." 

But I already titled it, so that's that. All writers know that you start with the title then go from there. You can't change the title. It's like changing your underwear 30 minutes after you took a shower. Pure blasphemy.

I know this blog post sucks even better than you mom does, but at least you get to jam to some something better than the Geto Boys (although this year Halloween falls on a weekend):

Cheers!

Chapter 14: Insanity

Crazy is as crazy does.

I don't even know what that means. I'm just trying to be cool and say smart stuff. But once one realizes they are neither cool, nor smart, they are resigned to the acceptance of normalcy or insanity.

Which are you?

Maybe you disagree. Maybe you're just "humble."

Insanity is such a broad arbitrary diagnosis. 

What makes one insane? Is typing one's meaningless thoughts into an electronic contraption that records them for the future worthy of an inanity diagnosis?

What about pooping in the woods and then covering it up with leaves hoping a wild animal confuses it for buried treasure?

When I was younger I use to throw apple cores over the house into the woods that were behind my house. I would watch various animals eat the apple remains from my window. I wonder if these animals ever stopped to think where this food was coming from? 

Decades passed and I returned to the house and discovered a thriving "wild" apple orchard now existed where I use to chunk the apple cores.

It made me think about Plato's Cave. 

Anytime I think about allegories I always come back to the perception of truth.

I can't help but wonder how the owner of that wooded land thinks this thriving apple orchard came to be.

Or where the animals who ate the cores daily for years thought this delicious food source originated.

Before you say, "hey, wait just a minute, we are humans and we have the ability to reason, and squirrels, birds and bugs don't so your point is moot," keep in mind that many consider humans to just be naked apes. 

I remember one time a flea-infested cat showed up on my porch and I fed it. Did I do a good thing, or prolong it's misery?

If naked apes are animals with the ability to reason, why do you we ask questions that we already know the answers to? 

Aren't rhetorical questions a form of schizophrenia?

Furthermore, why do people ask questions that they know the answers to and expect you to lie to them so the "truth" doesn't hurt their feelings.

The only thing weirder than that is this blog post.

Hello Me, It's Me Again

Welp, here I am. Talking to myself and then transcribing it for the future to read.

Does the future still read? Hmm. I doubt it.

I know it's been awhile since I have wrote anything. My goal was (is?) to write more in 2026 on My Cousin the Carp than I have in any other previous year. 

I started out hot, but have since been frigid. 

That doesn't mean I've been exploring Antarctica, as Adrien de Gerlache did on the Belgica in the late 19th Century. It just means my writing has been colder than a witch's tit.

But that's alright. Nobody is perfect. Most goals aren't achieved. And the year isn't over yet. So don't give up on yourself.

Wait. Who am I talking to here? I'm playing poker and transcribing my thoughts simultaneously and have forgotten who my audience is. 

Oh, now I remember. I'm writing to myself so the future can know the mind of lunatic.

Isn't it kinda crazy how society devolved in the 20th century? I mean, in the realm of music, how does Geto Boys compare to Chopin or Wagner? 

I wonder how the Geto Boys would've faired on the Belgica?

Anyway, I just lost my poker game. I always lose at every game I play. This isn't a pity-party, it's so history knows that I was a loser.

But hey, it's not how you play the game, it's how you lose, right?

Was that the saying? I can't remember. I think it might be, "it's not if you win or lose, it's how you play the game."

Either way, whoever came up with that saying was definitely a loser.

All games are explicitly about winning and losing. Anyone who says anything different is either a liar or a loser. That "humble" crap is just narcissism. 

Speaking of narcissism, I've concluded that only a narcissist would label someone a narcissist. It's kinda like calling someone a "racist." They're both terms of projection.

I assume by the time the future reads this they will already know that. I mean, it's obvious. But unfortunately contemporary culture has become spellbound with inferiority by the satanic social engineers of the status quo.

Yes, that really happened.

Even though I don't know you, I hope you have an amazing day.

Full-Man Fights Half-Man

What in tarnation is this?

I mean, is the AI?

Why would a full-man fight a half-man?

What does the full-man have to gain from this?

Is this just about money or what?

Seriously. In what scenario does half-man win this "fight"? Like what does he do to win? Arm triangle?

I'm not even sure what to say here. I just wanted to make sure the future is given an accurate representation of history.

This "fight" will be reminiscent of slavery or the holocaust or something. The future just won't believe it actually happened. It'll be mythical. The only reason we know it's "real" is because full-man won. If half-man would've "won" then we could say it was AI or some kind of weird publicity stunt. 

But nope. Full-man just basically walked around to the back of half-man and put him in a choke hold.

This video should say: 

Warning: For entertainment purposes only!

Maybe that should be the new motto of this blog.

I think I'll just go back to day dreaming. I mean, day drinking.

Emotional Fragility

I was scrolling social media and saw that some reality show got "cancelled" because the host said an offensive word.

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/hgtv-cancels-rehab-addict-star-nicole-curtis-uses-offensive-racial-com-rcna258747

HGTV has canceled the home renovation reality series "Rehab Addict" after host Nicole Curtis made what the cable channel described as an "offensive racial comment" during filming.

I don't personally watch reality shows, or TV in general, so I don't really care about the show. But I find it so crazy that these "arbitrators of virtue" get so offended by words, while TV in general is pure filth from a moral standpoint. The plot of every show is sex, scandal, violence and crime.

It's no secret that these people in the television industry are satanic scumbags. Yet, they virtuously cling to morality by being openly anti-white.

I don't know what the lady said, nor do I care. But I assume it was something negative about blacks. 

Why can people not have a negative opinion about blacks?

Cancelling a show because someone said something "negative" about blacks doesn't make "arbitrators" virtuous; it makes them childish.

If anything this whole, "you better not say anything bad about black people cause it will hurt my feelings cause it might hurt their feelings" is coddling blacks as if they're children who can't handle being called a bad name.

I saw this meme the other day where some liberal white woman was saying how real ID is racist because black people can't figure out how to apply for it. And below was some smiling black guy saying, "lol oh really?"

This is the essence of "racism." It's virtue signaling by single white women and Jews, because at their core they are bad people who want to feel good about themselves.

If they would just put their faith in the Word of Truth instead of the "N word" they would find the hope they are missing.

God Bless!

Why Do You Drink?

Welp, I did it. I drank a 12 pack to celebrate the ending of dry January and I feel like shit.

You remember that old country song that goes something like:

Tell me Hank, why do you drink?

That was a real banger back in the day, wasn't it?

I can remember being in those Texas honky-tonks getting drunk and listening to music like this.

Y'all probably don't know nothing about honky-tonks. 

It's just another word for a country bar. 

I've pissed-out a pretty penny in many a honky-tonk listening to some country music.

Country music is the best. It's music for the soul. It's mostly about getting drunk over some woman. Who can't relate?

Remember this one?

You don't know nothing about no David Allan Coe. 

He was drunk the day his momma got out of prison.

I should be drunk while I'm writing this. Then I'd have an excuse for the poor content. It's pretty pathetic to crank out this kind of crap and admit that you're sober.

If you're still reading at this point, you definitely don't have ADHD. Maybe OCD. Or an elevated BAC. But, like, OMG! Who is your PCP? Do they prescribe TRT? Do they accept BTC?

See what I did there?

Pure genius.

I'm just rambling now. That's the cool thing about the autonomy of blogging. You can just type whatever you want. It's like your fingers have a mind of their own. 

Pure improve, I say.

I wonder if I was a rapper in a past life.

BRB.

Oh yea, I knew there was something I was getting at.

Why do you drink?

Bloggin for the Noggin

It's the last day of January. 

I'm sitting here drinking coffee at 6 in the evening. But, since January is over, that means I can drink something much stronger than coffee.

Dry January was OK. Nothing eventful happened. I did a lot of chess puzzles. I always do a lot of chess puzzles. 

Have I told you that I'm really good at chess?

I mean, objectively good at chess, not just thinking I'm good at chess. 

I was determined to be "good" at chess, therefore I concluded via objective reasoning that 1800 Elo was the criteria for one to claim that they are "good" at chess.

Your boy is 1900.

Your boy is good at chess.

Check out the game below if you want to destroy the King's Indian Defense.

I'm looking forward to drinking beer again. But it's weird. Because as much as I like to drink beer, I don't like the fact that it's a vice.

Everyone has vices. 

What's your vice?

Mine is obsessive chess and cold beer.

I suppose those vices could be much worse. Imagine if smoking meth was your vice? Or eating your boogers? Or blowing one of those whistles at ICE agents.

Those vices would suck.

I knew a dude in high school who admitted to me that his vice was sniffing women's dirty panties. He would literally sneak in their laundry room and look for the dirty panties and sniff them.

I've heard that some women make money selling their worn panties online.

Anyway, good for them. 

If I could sell my worn boxers for money, I sure would.

Beer time.

Cheers!

Why Are Leftists Obsessed With Anarchy?

Another anarchist recently got killed "peacefully protesting." This one had a pistol.

I don't think anyone supports people being killed by authorities. 

I also think that everyone supports citizen's right to protest. There's nothing wrong with that. But it seems so ironic to use the laws of a nation to protest the very law that makes it a nation: a border.

Without a border, what's a nation?

Anarchists are true believers, I'll give them that. They hate law and order so much they're willing to die for it. That's some serious devotion.

I think we all are subject to the biases of perception. But my perception is fueled by the question: How is the United States a better and safer place to live with millions of illegal criminals residing within it's borders?

Every other country on the planet has borders, with laws to the enforce them. That's the world we live in. Someday that might change, but for now the nation-state is the way of the world.

I recently wrote a philosophical piece titled Is The Search for Meaning Meaningless? The premise can be assumed from the title. 

These anarchists, who are mostly paid agent provocateurs, don't have any meaning in their life. Most of us can relate. The status quo is efficient at dulling the soul. This is why we need God.

Our desire for meaning is God's way of calling his sheep.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

These poor anarchists are mostly overweight, unattractive, single white females and homosexual men.

They have no meaning in their lives. And they seek to fill that void by taking on the struggles of the oppressed. On the surface, this is a noble cause. They are doing what they believe is right, while consequently adding meaning to their life.

In my piece on meaning, I briefly discussed the philosophy of Camus:

Camus concluded that struggle itself providing the meaning to live. That we should accept that life is meaningless and revolt against it.

So our meaning becomes: struggle until you die.

Sadly, our societies have devolved to the point that the youth want to lay down their lives protesting the rule of law. 

These women should be at home, married with children. Smiling and happy. Sad and struggling. Living life as God meant it to be lived.

These homosexual men should be married. Repenting. Working. Struggling to provide. Being a positive example for his children.

It's easy to be divisive, and look at people and pass judgement. 

These anarchists are sad and lonely, desperately looking for a reason to keep on living. Looking for meaning in their life.

They've turned their backs on God. 

It's not my place to speak for the Lord. But maybe God has reciprocated. 

Not everyone will be saved. In fact, most won't be: 

Matthew 22:14: For many are invited, but few are chosen.

We don't choose God; God chooses us:

John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you...

It's not a coincidence that most of these anarchists are coincidentalists. They don't believe in God. In fact, most hate God:

John 15:18–19 If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

Scripture has all the answers you're looking for: 

Matthew 7:7–8 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. 

Don't think for a second that we aren't in the midst of a spiritual war. Satan has an immense legion of minions.

Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Put on the armor of God:

Ephesians 6:11 & 13 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes... so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground.

May God have mercy on your soul.

All Glory to the Truth!

UFC 324 Recap: Paddy vs Gaethje

The Paramount+ era has officially begun for the UFC.

Doing away with the PPV model is long overdue. 

$100 to watch 5 fights was always a ripoff. Besides, in the digital age anyone who wants to watch something for free will just find a bootleg stream anyway. I'm not sure what kind of money and resources the UFC put into fighting PPV piracy, but I doubt it was free.

Paramount+ is like $9 a month, or $90 a year. If you're an avid UFC fan, and the UFC will put out quality cards every week, that's not a bad deal. 

Speaking of quality, if you didn't watch it, the Paddy vs Gaethje fight was a real banger. It'll be a fight of the year candidate come December. 

Pimblett came in as a 2-to-1 favorite. I think most people thought Paddy would walk through an aging Gaethje, mostly based on what Pimblett did to Chandler. But he didn't. It was a very close, violent and entertaining fight. 

If you have a chance to rewatch the fight, you should.

Gaethje is aging (37), and has been in a ton of wars. I wonder how "punch drunk" he will be a decade from now. 

Have you heard Chuck Liddell talk recently? I think he might be the poster child for retired fighters staying retired. Luke Rockhold, I'm talking to you.

Nonetheless, Gaethje was in great shape and took it to the younger Englishman. 

Paddy battered Gaethje's with 48 body shots and 25 legs kicks, but they never seemed to take a toll on Justin later in the fight like I thought they would. That was surprising to me.

I remember when Paddy first came on the scene, I couldn't stand him and thought he was way overrated. I thought he lost the fight with Jared Gordon.

I think Pimblett has proven to be quite a bit better than everyone expected.

One has to wonder what the future holds for Gaethje as the interim champion. I didn't think he would beat Paddy. I thought he would look old. But, he obviously has quite a bit left in the tank. That being said, I just don't see him beating Ilia or Arman. 

But he was a 2-to-1 dog to Pimblett. And I think he is 8-3 as the underdog. 

I'm not a gambler, but if I was I wouldn't bet against Gaethje against either of them. In fact, the oddmakers will probably have Gaethje at least a 3-to-1 dog against either of those two. 

I'll leave you with this advice: if Justin fights Ilia or Arman on the White House card and is a big dog (at least 3-to-1), put a few shekels on Gaethje. When you win big, don't forget me. My BTC address is in the sidebar :)

Unillama Piñatasaurus

Most writing today is artificial. I'm one of the few writers left who use real intelligence, instead of synthetic.

There's nothing wrong with AI as a tool. If you're lazy, have writer's block and can't think of anything to say, just type something random into AI (or even just say it, you don't even have to use your fingers). 

My contemporaries could care less. They will say, "I write all my own stuff, too. I just use AI to help me brainstorm." 

But that's not actually true. Run "their" writing through an AI checker and you'll see. Whoever your favorite "writers" are most likely use AI for some, if not most, of their material.

I recently wrote a piece titled, Social Engineers Want AI to Think for You. It's decent. You should read it. It's certainly better than any generic AI slop that you read on your other bookmarked sites.

It doesn't seem like a hard thing to comprehend as to why AI "thinking" and "making decisions" for people would be a bad thing.

But then again, I'm sure most people 20 years ago thought, "Staring at these smart phones all day can't end well for the human condition."

I've often said that knowing is half the battle. The other half is behavior.

It doesn't take "the science" to tell people about the potential downside to staring at a phone all day. Just like it doesn't take geniuses like yours truly to tell you that "artificial" intelligence actively replacing human intelligence probably isn't going to turn out well. 

Well, assuming who you are, I suppose.

Remember, "artificial" just means "man-made." 

It's not like AI is some kind of organic, independent operating system of intelligence. It's been programmed by Man.

Go talk to AI about any controversial social issues and see what it says.

Try to get it to say "bad" words. Not curse words. Of course it will say those. But "offensive" words, that might hurt people's feelings. Maybe not "words," but get AI to discuss the ideas that represent those words. That's probably a better way of putting it.

AI is programmed to indoctrinate you, by thinking for you. It is slowly replacing the modern education system. 

AI is Orwell's Big Brother. He is watching.

To be frank, me writing this is just a waste of time. I mean, not really. I'm a writer, I write. But, from the perspective of people reading this and then deciding that AI is bad and they aren't going to use it, that's not going to happen. 

I'm not an influencer. I just know the answers.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I write for the future. For my legacy. And for my family tree. 

Writers like me are relics. We are a dying breed. Appreciate us while we are still here. 

Is the Search for Meaning Meaningless?

"When man first developed the ability to reason, he walked down to the river and killed himself."

It weird what you remember from your time reading, and what you don't.

I remember that quote from several years ago. 

I have no idea what the context was, or who said it, but it stuck with me.

There are a lot of things that "stuck with me" over my years of reading, but a lot more that didn't.

Like a lot of men throughout history, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the meaning of life. I have read a lot on the subject. But nothing has ever satisfied that curiosity. 

Sure, I remember some quotes here and there. But, I wonder if anyone ever actually read a philosophical book on "the meaning of life" and discovered the answer they were seeking.

There are so many books that people read, then recommend. Books like Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning," come to mind.

I read the book. I think I might have even read it twice, because it is a book that comes up in recommendation lists perpetually. Aside from the suffering he describes (I wonder if the narrative plays into the popularity of the book), nothing about that book is memorable for me. 

"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide."

I remember this quote from when I was reading Camus. It was his way of asking man's most important question: is life worth living?

Camus concluded that struggle itself providing the meaning to live. That we should accept that life is meaningless and revolt against it.

So our meaning becomes: struggle until you die.

Maybe that's the kind of meaning you're looking for, but it doesn't provide the meaning I'm looking for. 

"Life swings like a pendulum backward and forward between pain and boredom."

Schopenhauer believed life didn't have any meaning. He believed the idea of "meaning" was just a way to mask the will, which was the essence of reality. 

We are either stuck in the pains of desire, or the inevitable boredom after the fulfillment of those desires. 

Once we get what we want, we want something else. 

As a Christian, I find meaning in the belief that God created me. Not just my body, but my consciousness and spirit. Unlike The Atheist, I find the idea that the order of the universe is some kind of random chance to be beyond absurd.

For a Christian, meaning is to be known by God.

If God chose to have grace upon you before the beginning of time, would we suffer from an existential crisis?

Perhaps God creates the desire for meaning within his elect as a way of calling his sheep.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

Meaning could be an illusion of the will, as Schopenhauer says. 

Maybe it's revolting against the meaningless of life by embracing the struggle, as Camus said.

Or our desire for meaning could be God's way of calling his sheep.

Ecclesiastes 1:2 Vanity of vanities; all is vanity

Social Engineers Want AI to Think for You

I’m late to the game, because I’ve always been a procrastinator. 

So writing about AI’s artificial “intelligence” might be an antiquated subject at this point.

Nonetheless, here’s my take:

So, I’ve recently got into the whole “AI” thing. I’m trying to be trendy, while simultaneously doing my best to use it to my benefit like everybody else is. I have friends who are like, "I use AI like a personal assistant."

That’s the entire concept of technology; to use it and not let it use you.

The biggest problem with the rapid advancement of technology has been it’s ability to corrupt the human condition. This isn’t to say it’s “innately” motivated, or been programmed to do such (while the latter is certainly up for debate), it’s just to say that the human condition acts as a vacuum and technology has overwhelmingly filled that void.

I have solicited AI’s opinion on a number of things over the last few weeks. From financial advice to updating this blog to image creation.

It’s very odd to me that I can have dialogue with a specific AI (Gemini, for example) and get what I consider to be some pretty decent analysis or advice, then the next day use the same AI to revisit the information, and it’s like I’m talking to something/someone completely different. The responses are totally different.

It reminds me of “tech support” from the early 00s. You know, when you had a problem with something and you called the toll free number associated with the American company and a barely-fluent Indian answers after 30 minutes on hold. You spend the next 10 minutes asking the question like they are 5, only to finally get “I understand. Hold on one minute while I transfer you to that department.” This continues for however long you are willing to play the game, before you finally hang up.

For the most part AI just seems like a more personable version of a search engine.

Honestly, the only difference to me is that AI gives specific answers or recommendations as opposed to the selections that require autonomy that the search engine provides (pre-censorship Google was probably superior to modern Gemini in practicality and efficiency). It’s like AI takes the thinking out of it, and relieves any analysis paralysis.

Allowing AI to think for us is certainly an area for concern. Particularly when we know that AI is indoctrinated.

For example, yesterday I was writing a piece on MLK, and I wanted an image of MLK waking up from a nightmare. Gemini refused to make the image. When it finally agreed, it presented an image of MLK looking as if he was startled in his bed with a caption over his head that read “I have a dream!” It refused to create an image of him waking up from an obvious nightmare.

How weird, right?

I guess MLK isn’t allowed to have nightmares in cyberspace? Or AI is “smart” enough to know what I was getting at, and refused to participate in thought-crime.

Btw, if you’re curious of what I was “getting at,” MLK’s “Dream” was a Nightmare! is the piece in reference.

If you check it out, let me know what you think.

Nonetheless, I started thinking about what AI actually is, as opposed to what we tend to think it is. Or, more specifically, the common perception of what the average person has about AI. Now, maybe I’m projecting some here, but I think we have this idea that AI is some super-duper “brain” that someday might take over the world because it’s a superior version of human intelligence.

Did artificial sweetener replace sugar? 

Did artificial grass replace grass?

Is there anything artificial that is better than the real thing?

It’s funny because I actually just typed that question into my search engine (I didn’t want to ask AI), and the only thing it came up with was... you guessed it, AI:

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Efficiency: AI can process information, generate content, and make decisions faster and more consistently than humans in specific tasks like data analysis, language translation, or image generation.

Scalability: AI systems can scale to handle millions of tasks simultaneously—something impossible for humans.

AI hasn’t done anything for me that a basic search engine couldn’t do. I take that back, the AI Suno created a few songs for me. That was pretty cool.

But, if Artificial Intelligence is objectively better than Human Intelligence, it will be the first conquest for artificial superiority.

What say you?

MLK's "Dream" was a Nightmare!

Today is MLK day. A federal holiday in the United States. In fact, it's the only federal holiday that honors an individual.

How odd is that? A country with a history of objectively great men, and the only one to get their own holiday is a controversial man named Michael King Jr (aka Martin Luther King Jr).

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of critiquing King as a person. It doesn't really matter who he was, or what he was. His legacy is what it is. Some unknown blogger isn't going to have any relevance on King's legacy one way or the other. But, I write as a reference for the future, without little interest in amending the past. 

"Change" is the slogan of Commies.

MLK's dream can be summed up as this desire for a multicultural utopia where nobody notices skin color. At the time of this writing, that "dream" is over 60 years old. 

Several mantras were harvested from King's dream. Sayings like, "diversity is our strength," and "We all bleed red" come to mind. Like King's dream, it's all propaganda. Nobody actually believes this stuff, it's social engineering by those (usually of a certain "persuasion," shall we say) who wanted desperately to change the demographics of the United States.

"Diversity is our strength" is the biggest lie ever told.

I didn't know King, he was gone before I was born. Therefore, I have no idea what his true intentions or beliefs were. He might have been a great guy. Again, this is irrelevant to his legacy. It wasn't his character that people cared about, it was his "dream" of change that was relevant.

Multiculturalism was a social experiment that failed. 

It actually failed from the beginning. The same people who promote diversity (i.e. fewer white people) are the same people who hate colonialism. If colonialism is bad, how is diversity good?

All the great European explorers were well aware of the incompatibility of non-Europeans with European cultural and customs. That isn't to belittle non-Europeans in anyway. That's just to say there are important differences, that when socially fused in the form of forced mass "diversity," it doesn't result in "strength." It results in conflict. 

Before the tolerant tyrants decided he needed to be censored, Heartiste used to say: 

diversity + proximity = conflict 

The culture wars of the early 2000s are irreconcilable. 

I think most people agree that it's time for a divorce. This dream of diversity has been a nightmare. To be honest, it's always been one. Frankly, I think this is one of the few things that both parties agree on. 

Non-whites seem to strongly (and openly) dislike whites, and they frame that disdain in a coordinated code of top-down conformity (i.e. racism, white supremacy, white privilege, Nazi, etc). Whites (at least conservative whites, there are a lot of anti-white whites) have been indoctrinated since King's dream to believe that the worst thing one can possibly be is pro-white (i.e. racist, white supremacist, Nazi, etc), so they express their frustrations with more socially acceptable complaints, even though they're still called the same names. 

I speculate that if you were to inject a truth-serum in conservative-leaning whites, and ensure them that nobody would know their response, then ask them if they had the choice to live in an all-white America or the current multicultural version, most would choose the all-white version.

Sadly, most people will read the above paragraph and instantly be triggered. They will say, "This guy is some kind of racist. How dare he even suggest that white people would only want to live around other white people! The only whites who would want that are Nazis."

In the self-help world there's this idea that: there's no such thing as problems, only solutions.

One day we will see a reversion of change. I don't know when that day will come, but it will. The pendulum of power is always swinging. Change and progress can be good things if they're organic. The social changes brought forth in the 20th and 21st centuries were all propagated and instigated by social engineers with an anti-white agenda. Nothing about it was "organic." In fact, most of it was brought forth through fear generated by power and force. Historically speaking, that type of "change" always fails.

As the chaos of change continues to compound, a correction will certainly come. 

Until then I'll keep dreaming that one day we will wake up from this nightmare.  

Peace and prosperity to you and yours.

God bless.

The Atheist

Discussions with atheists are always rather interesting. I italicize interesting, because I've often said that "deserve" is the most subjective term in the English language, perhaps excluding interesting.

With that being said, a recent discussion with an atheist quickly centered around "objective reality."

Now, as you the reader well know, truth is perception is a theory I have had for quite some time.

A continuum within my philosophical repertoire is the concept that “truth is perception.” This hypothesis is derived from the theory that mortal man is incapable of knowing absolute truth, only relative truth. Since we are unable to escape the limitations of human consciousness, the lens of perception becomes absolute for the observer. 

That post was from 10 years ago, and I still think it rings true today.

This isn't to say that objective truth doesn't exist, it's to say that our perceptions aren't objective in the abstract sense. That doesn't mean that some couldn't be objectively true, it just means they are esoteric and metaphysical within the course of debate.

While atheists don't view their "belief" as a religion, I wholeheartedly disagree. Sure, it can be looked upon as just a reactionary or deconstructive mindset, but when it becomes one's identity, to the point that it is devoutly espoused and overtly dogmatic, it is religious.

It is rather obvious, to the point it doesn't need to be discussed much, the reason atheists don't want to consider their religion a religion: atheism is a belief-system in nothing. 

Who wants to worship nothingness?  

Any religion with a god is better than a religion without one.

This leads me to my interesting discussion. The atheist insinuated that "objective reality" was his god. Now, he didn't say this in so many words, but this was essentially his rebuttal to everything ("I have faith in objective reality."). When I pushed him on "objective reality" by asking him what it was, and to "show it to me," he ironically said to "open my eyes."

The reason for the above-cited "truth is perception" reference was to say that he and I both have a belief system. He can't prove his anymore than I can prove mine. However, if we are attempting to establish objective truth by "opening our eyes," it would seem that logic would be on the side of creation or God. That doesn't make me "right" anymore than he "wrong," but to view reality through a subjective lens and proclaim it "objective" is by my own definition, "perception of truth."

I've always thought that any serious contemplation of existence can't be equated to zero. There has to be a god of some kind, even if that "god" is a computer programmer from the future running a simulation program:

The simulation hypothesis proposes that what one experiences as the real world is actually a simulated reality, such as a computer simulation in which humans are constructs

My personal opinion is that there are 3 different kinds of atheists: 

- the pseudointellectual LARPer who thinks atheism is for smart people.

- the nihilist who oozes discontent and self-loathing.

- the former Christian who lost faith and is looking for the convincing argument to return to the faith.

I think most Christians go through a phase where they doubt their faith. I'm sure God even expects that from most of his flock. I know I went though a phase during my intellectual years where I questioned everything. That's the entire premise of individual enlightenment via intellectualism. 

I never proclaimed myself an atheist, that was just too silly to fathom. But I did go through a time of agnosticism, in which I never denounced God, but I did adopt the fence-sitter position of, "How do I know if there is a God or not?" 

I eventually concluded that even taking the wrong position was better than taking no position at all.

I slowly realized that this is the essence of free will. That when one comes to the knowledge that there is a God, God's free will give us the choice to accept or reject his grace.

If you haven't already, I encourage you to read last Sunday's post: For the Glory of Truth. 

For God is the truth, the life and the way.

Amen.