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.

Book Review: The Wide Wide Sea

I just finished reading a book on Captain James Cook's final voyage titled The Wide Wide Sea. I have never been good at writing (or even verbalizing) book reviews, so why not practice here?

To be honest, I think book reviews are mostly irrelevant, excluding those who are looking to purchase books. If it's unanimous that the book sucks, why waste the money? However, in the status quo, most reviews are politically motivated to some degree, which is sad.

This is the second book in a row that I have read on early British exploration of the high seas. The first book I read was The Wager, a very readable and enjoyable narrative non-fiction.

This genre has not only educated me on an historical subject that I should have been better informed of, but also afforded me a new found respect for the men who came before. These men would run circles around modern men in every conceivable aspect. They were real men, driven by a purpose. 

Not to digress, but much of our nihilistic nature today are the results of the conquests of the men of yesteryear. In many regards, their successes have left their decedents twiddling their thumbs. 

I thought about asking AI for some advice on how to formally write a book review. Actually, I don't want to be dishonest, I did ask AI, "standard outline for writing a book review?" It came up with the 8 or 9 steps that book reviews entail. I very briefly scanned it before deciding, "You know what, this is my book review. I'm going to write it how I want to."

I actually read a physical copy of the book, and didn't listen to the audiobook. It was on loan from the library, and I've already returned it. I didn't take notes. Thus, I can't sit here and type out quotes, which is something most standard book reviews include.

But, a few days after reading the book, I'll tell you what I learned, and perhaps most importantly, what resonated. I can't tell you how many books I've read that just don't resonate.

Up until the time period of this book (18th century), James Cook was the GOAT of explorers. He had ventured further south than anyone (in search of some mythical southern continent that he proved didn't exist) and further north than anyone (up to the ice pack past the 65th parallel). 

He had essentially retired and came out of retirement in his late 40s to make the voyage the book is based on. He had been all around the world twice, and was already a living legend.

His final mission was to find a route above Canada that connected the Pacific and Atlantic oceans to bypass the need to go all the way around the southern tip of South America to get to the Pacific ocean. There was essentially a "discovery race" between European empires to stake their land claims and establish trade routes all around the world. 

It had been rumored that a non-British explorer (I can't recall, but I think he might have been French or Danish) had found his way across the top of Canada, and Cook was sent on a "secret mission" to find it.

The number of worldly discoveries Cook is credited with is truly remarkable. So many places were named by him, and/or after him. He was cool, calm and collected as a captain, and even in the most dangerous situations, he was never rattled.

The "not so secret part" of Cook's final voyage, was to return a Polynesian man to Tahiti. His name was Mai, and he was the first Polynesian to come to Britain. It was a multicultural experiment, exposing Europeans to non-Europeans. He was treated like royalty, and became very close with Cook, as well as the King. Mai spent 4 years in Britain, assimilating to British culture. The goal was to take him back "home" and set him up as an extension of Britain (animal husbandry, weaponry, culture, ethics, etc).

When they finally got him back to Polynesia, Mai wasn't received well. The idea for him to live like a Brit, and expose his peers to British life, with the goal of the Polynesians becoming an extension of the British, had been a failure. Britain learned that Polynesians weren't just Europeans with a darker skin tone. In fact, Cook was never in favor of pushing European customs on natives, and was adamant about the incompatibility. He had had a lot of experience with native populations over the years, and while he respected their ways of life, and at times even admired them, he never was in favor of trying to make them culturally European.

Rumor had it that Mai only lived a couple more years (he was in his early 20s), and none of the animals, plant life or cultural norms that he was responsible for sowing took root. The social experiment had failed. When the British returned a few years later, only a tree that had been planted by the house they had built Mai was still there. Everything else had disappeared (including Mai).

After re-homing Mai, Cook "discovered" the Hawaiian islands while on his way to Alaska. Anytime Cook and his crew (there were 2 boats on this journey) would dock in the tropics, trade and sex were the staples of the stop. Cook was sympathetic to the natives, and was very aware of the venereal diseases his men had. He tried hard to restrict the sexual encounters from happening, but just like dogs in heat, turn your head for a second, and they're stuck. While this may seem like a crude analogy, I find it rather appropriate based on the narrative given in the book.

The women of these tropical islands would throw themselves at the sailors. It was only once the native men came to understand how much the sailors craved sex that it became marketed. The women, until oblivious to their sexual value, never wanted to "sell" themselves, they just wanted sex with strangers (again, a crude analogy, but the narrative nonetheless).

It was also theorized, that in many of these cultures the whiter the skin the more social prominence one would have. So perhaps there was that angle, that the women were hoping to have offspring with whiter skin as a hierarchal strategy to increase their familial social status.

But, likely on most occasions it was just lust that motivated the sexual behaviors of the women. When Cook came back to Hawaii after he failed to find what he was looking for in Alaska, the women would even swim out to the ship amidst dangerous tides trying to sneak on board. They were determined and just as eager as the European men to fornicate. 

There was obviously a language barrier, so there was no courtship, sex would just occur instantly. Often right on the beaches, or out in the open in general. Thus, reemphasizing the previous "dogs in heat" analogy

Once the native men figured out they could monetize the sex trade, they did. Often the men would take a nail or small piece of iron (this was the primary currency of trade the natives sought) and allow the men to pick from his household (wife or daughter). The sexual morays of Island natives was very different from monogamous European culture.

Ultimately what lead to the death of Captain Cook was that he was viewed as a god. When the ships arrived back to the Hawaiian islands from Alaska, there was a festival going on. This festival was the celebration of a god named Lona. When Cook arrived, the natives thought he was Lona, and literally began worshipping him. 

After several weeks, the islanders were wondering when "Lona" was going to leave. Their gods were cyclic and seasonal, and Lona's time had passed. Not too mention, tensions between the sailors and the islanders had begun to mount. 

After repairing their ships and restocking the food and water supplies, the two ships left. Almost immediately they ran into a violent storm and were forced to return after Cook's mast was broken. Their welcome had already been worn out, and the "Lona's" ship wasn't supposed to break down.  

Once anchored back in the harbor, a boat was stolen off the side of the ship in the middle of the night, and Cook went to retrieve it (theft was very common and problematic everywhere they went). The boat was paramount to their journey. After coming ashore, a large group of warriors approached "Lona" and Cook shot his gun and killed one of them. Chaos erupted, and 4 marines were killed and Cook was bludgeoned to death. The dead men were dragged into the hills, and possibly eaten.

This was a really interesting book, and one that I recommend you read if you have an interest in James Cook's final voyage. Captain James Cook was a legendary explorer. The kind of man novels are written about hundreds of years after his passing.

If you enjoyed this book review, please bookmark My Cousin the Carp and visit regularly. 

Thanks for reading.

God bless!

IQ Doesn't Matter

Right-wingers are fascinated with IQ to the point that it’s a focal point of the ideological brand. It’s an unspoken credo that says, “We’re the smart ones.” And that’s fine. All movements have mantras. There’s certainly nothing unappealing about being “the smart ones.” But when was the last time you heard the Left discuss IQ?

The Left understand that practical politics involves consistent messaging that resonates emotionally with their audience. Black Lives Matter was so successful because they took their best meme and named their movement after it. Regardless of how you feel about that, it was brilliant.

The upper echelons of political movements should to a degree be exclusive. They should be hierarchical. They should carry prestige. Obviously, they should have the smartest and brightest leading the way. There needs to be a handful of chiefs and a lot of Indians. But to insinuate that the Left doesn’t have high IQ leadership is being naïve — particularly when you consider they’ve been winning at every turn for the last 50 years. That’s not by accident. They’ve used their intelligence, instead of making it a talking point.

What the Left gets right is their appeal to the commoner. Perhaps even more importantly is their staked claim of the moral high ground. It’s not that they don’t think they’re smart; they just prefer to brandish their intellect proactively. They recognize that power is achieved in numbers, and that everyone (regardless of how smart they are) has potential and worth. So slogans like “we all bleed red,” or “inclusion and equality” resonate with average people. And let’s face it, it’s the common people who invoke the change that swings the pendulum of power.

Leftists understand that to the average person, the truth doesn’t matter. In the political and social realms, truth is perception. The truth is what individuals believe, not what they know. Nothing snags people on the Right more than the quest for truth. Potential political gains are repetitively lost due to the Right always wanting to prove they’re right. But, have you ever argued with a liberal? Did being “right” ever make a difference? If politics was about being right, then it would be game over.

If there was to be an open debate in the public square between the Left and the Right on the subject of IQ, who would win the public’s heart? Would it be the side that used “facts, figures, and data” to conclude that the genetic inheritability of intelligence makes people of certain racial groups inferior intellectually, thus other racial groups are more suitable to be in positions of power? Or would it be the side that claimed the only reason everyone isn’t intelligent is because they didn’t have the same privileges as “the smart ones”? And that “the only thing preventing equality is systemic oppression; with the appropriate resources we would all be geniuses!”

IQ discourse in the political sphere should be the equivalent to something like critical race theory (CRT). An intellectual concept submitted within the institutions of power — which are controlled. There’s a reason that CRT is a subject of lectures in universities, and differences in racial IQ scores is not — even though one is an observable phenomenon, and the other is blatant anti-white propaganda. The winners always write the curriculum.

Furthermore, the Right has been obsessed with IQ for decades (perhaps even a century; eugenics was an intelligence-based movement in the early 1900s that heavily influenced Hitler). This isn’t to imply that IQ isn’t extremely important; of course it is. That goes without saying — particularly with regards to systemic cohesion and functionality. And just the overall quality of life that socially evolves in societies with higher IQs (it’s not a coincidence nobody wants to move to Haiti). The Bell Curve was written 30 years ago, so not only has the empirical data been known for a long time, but everyone has observed racial IQ differences in the real world (and on social media). Has it mattered?

This isn’t to say, “Shhh. Don’t talk about IQ, the dummies will vote Democrat if you do.” Rather, we should focus on practical politics and consistent messaging that resonates with a broader audience. There’s nothing wrong with noticing what the opposition is doing successfully and implementing it into the game plan. “The smart ones” will typically seek the truth; it’s the dumb ones who need to be persuaded.

In a recent essay titled “IQ Is a Phenotype,” an assertion about Leftist ideology is made which highlights its religious dogma:

My armchair analysis concludes that the ideologies which prop the Left up rely more on demonstrable lies and unprovable dicta than Rightist ideologies. At the heart of the matter is the notion of equality. The Left claims against all evidence that people — regardless of class, race, or sex — are equal; that is, equal in mind and in potential. This is the Left’s original sin, the lie which begets all other lies. Agents of the Left are so invested in it that the truth becomes anathema to them, causing them to stamp it out wherever they see it.

He is absolutely right in his analysis. The Left doesn’t care about the truth, because they don’t want to establish the truth; they want to be the establishment of truth. The truth is irrelevant to the politically powerless. Politics has one goal, and one goal only: power. The Left understands the adage “all is fair in love and war,” and their actions prove it.

The “notion of equality” is just propaganda that’s an empathetic appeal to the common citizen. The architects of equality don’t believe in equality any more than you do (if they did, they wouldn’t be the architects). One doesn’t have to have a high IQ to conclude that equality is relevant in mathematics, not biology. But equality is inclusive, which means there are no restrictions on membership. In fact, you don’t even have to apply, let alone be a “smart one.” Or white. Or popular. Or attractive. Or sane. Or even gender-binary. Just participate in some way, and you can be a part of the team.

Politics is a Machiavellian numbers game, with no honor and very few rules. Democracy is half plus one (regardless of how you feel about the legitimacy of democracy, that’s the current system). Thus, quantity over quality is the recipe for success. The Left has dominated the institutions of power by appealing to the unappealable, and gaslighting with Alinsky-style tactics.

The aforementioned mentioned piece goes on to critique the Right’s mindset in comparison to the Left:

The Right, however, does not tell this lie. Instead, it accepts natural group differences and builds social and political hierarchies accordingly. The cruelty is baked in the cake, so to speak. Yes, slavery, racial exclusivity, ethnic tribalism, distinct gender roles, and other authoritarian constructs can be found in Rightist societies, both today and in the past. But these are most often based on group differences, which are in turn based on biological differences. Of course, injustice can appear in Right-wing societies; worthy individuals being overlooked because of their race or gender is a prime example. But this injustice pales in comparison to that found in societies which ignore racial differences.

It all boils down to unprovable dicta. Lying about biology requires the Left to resort to more unprovable dicta than the Right, and so Leftists have to do more work in order to make reality fit their dicta. For example, blacks commit more crime than whites. Why? Because of slavery and Jim Crow, according to the Left. Women cannot perform as well as men in STEM fields because of sexism and lack of opportunity. Jews gravitate towards usury and finance because in the Middle Ages they weren’t allowed to own land. Chinese-Americans outperform everyone in math because tiger moms make them study really hard. Each of these dicta are unprovable, but must be accepted on faith in order to preserve the lie of equality — and there is no end to these claims for as long as group differences continue to manifest.

The Right, on the other hand, relies at most on one unprovable dictum: God — or Zeus, Odin, ancestral spirits, or other such divinity. The Right essentially invokes some kind of heaven-sanctioned human hierarchy — with its concomitant views on good and evil — which cannot be questioned, only accepted. Everything else flows from that. Yes, this is also an unprovable dictum, but it’s only one. It makes Rightist thought more economical and easier to swallow.

If there’s one thing we know about politics, it’s that if you’re not lying, you’re not winning. All successful politicians have some level of sociopathy. If you don’t know this, then you either don’t know the nature of sociopaths, or you’ve never met a politician.

The Left can “lie about biology” because they determine what biology is — at least on the academic level, and to a large degree on the social level (e.g., “gender and race are social constructs”). If some part of biology (or a biologist) is determined to be “racist” (or anything that doesn’t align with Leftist doctrine), then it’s canceled. Does that objectively change the truth about biology? Well, that depends on what you know about biology, because outside of what you know about biology, everything else is what you believe about biology. The average person doesn’t know the difference between the two. Generally speaking, only high-IQ Right-wingers contemplate the philosophical concept of absolute truth. For the other 99%, truth is just perception.

The modus operandi of Leftism can be simplified and summarized as follows: empowerment via lies. Operating through usurpation. Expanding deconstruction. Literarily speaking, Orwell described the reformation of this unholy trinity with his famous Leftist axiom:

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

This is not to say that all hope is lost, nor that people don’t recognize lies and deception. Of course they do. These people are what is known as dissidents. But, more importantly, the Left doesn’t reproduce. Thus, with IQ being inherent (0.8), this poses a major evolutionary problem for Leftist intellectualism (the brightest Leftists are feminists, homosexuals, careerists, environmentalists, etc. — all with negative birth rates of effectively zero). In order for them to reproduce, they therefore have to kidnap our children (ideologically) and convert them. So, from an evolutionary perspective, the Left is dying — literally. From a spiritual perspective, they’re already dead. They’ve sold their souls for power and status.

The game of power is a pendulum that is always in motion. The Right’s Achilles’ heel in politics and power is also their saving grace: the truth. Absolute truth undoubtedly exists, even if it’s independent of the observer. As the cited work accurately states, the Right relies on God (i.e. the truth) and the dichotomy of good vs. evil. Any rational person can recognize the evil that has consumed the West. At this point, it’s not even debatable.

All critical thinkers will eventually come to the realization of God. It’s inevitable. It’s at that very point that the concept of free will determines your fate by allowing you the choice to accept or reject God.

The Left’s god, by contrast, is egalitarianism, which is enforced by tyranny. Every shred of evidence contradicts human equality. There is no “coming to equality” moment. Leftism is a lie put forth by the father of lies. The problem with building a society on lies, deception, and deconstruction is that it isn’t sustainable. It eventually implodes — sooner rather than later.

The Right, individually and collectively, needs to focus on inheriting the Earth. How? By showing they’re “the smart ones”: getting right with God, having lots of children, and being meek. We are in the midst of a spiritual war that transcends the political paradigm. As Dostoevsky said in The Brothers Karamazov: “Everything passes, only truth remains.”

*Originally published 3/23/23

Blognotony

Autonomy is one of the 4 psychological pillars that motivates human behavior.

I realize that with a blog title of "blognotony" that this post is definitely not going to come up in any search engines, because I literally just made up the word. But now that I've created the word, it exists. And since I created the word, I might as well define it:

Blognotony - redundantly blogging just for the sake of blogging; blogging with nothing of relevance to blog about.

One of my goals for this year is to have the most productive year blogging since the inception of this blog back in 2014. In order for me to do that, I'm going to have to blog even on days when I don't really have anything to say. 

I know, good bloggers always have something to say, which is why people read their blogs, and nobody reads mine. But that's OK, because I'm not under any grand delusions that I'm a good blogger. I'm in my lane, going the speed limit, and that's cool that you're passing me by, flipping me off because I'm driving too slow.

But there are the rare occasions when I'm going to compose some real gems, which is why you should bookmark this page and check in now-and-again. 

Probably my best writing to date (certainly my most read; it's been read by millions of people) is: Depopulation for Dummies. It's a masterpiece, you should read it.

If you like controversial subjects, I was the father of the theory highlighting the overlap of sociopathy and transgenderism, in a groundbreaking piece titled, The Trans/Sociopath Overlap. If you're sensitive, and you're feelings get hurt easily when someone says something you don't agree with, maybe skip this one. 

I just published a Free Chess Training Plan that is guaranteed to get you to 1800 Elo rating. I mean, how cool is that?

There's even something for those who like poetry, as I was a published poet before I even created this blog. One of my favorites is The Liberal. If you're a conservative, you'll love it. If you're not, you'll probably never visit this blog again. 

Isn't that interesting that if someone says something you disagree with, that you automatically hate them? 

Liberalism is essentially Christianity without God, with a worldview rooted in tolerance and love, yet they are the most intolerant crowd imaginable. 

If you're a liberal, I would love for you to become a regular reader. Lets engage in the comment's section. Maybe we can become besties.

There will always be people who have opinions that don't align with yours, and that's OK. Just like it's OK if I drive the speed limit on the interstate, as long as I'm in the slow lane. You don't have to flip me off. Why not just drive by and we mutually smile and wave at each other?

Let's pretend we are sitting around a campfire, holding hands and singing kumbaya.

Do you feel it? 

Me too.

Autonomously yours, 

Hewitt

Free Chess Training Plan

I recently hit 1800 Elo in chess. As a middle-aged male, I say that with pride.

I didn’t grow up playing chess, so I didn’t have any formal training during the formidable years of my youth. Therefore, the rating struggle was real.

Chess, like pretty much anything else in life, is going to be much easier to learn if you start young. Our brains are so much more malleable before the age of 22.

So, the first piece of advice I can give you, is start young.

Obviously, this isn’t practical advice if you’re already an adult, particularly an older adult. But if you want your kids to be good at chess, do them a favor and start them young. They will thank you later.

I’ll be very brief about my chess background, in order to provide some insight on how I got to where I got, how long it took, etc.

I learned the moves at some point in childhood, just like I learned how to play checkers, spades, Monopoly and all the other various games that were popular before technology dominated the field of gaming.

I played chess off-and-on with friends throughout early adulthood. Never took the game serious, and never played anyone else who did either. We all just “knew the moves” and pretty much the smartest person usually won.

Eventually, I played someone who had studied the game and knew how to play. By that time none of my friends could beat me (at least consistently). I was confident that I was “good” as chess.

After playing someone who actually knew how to play chess, I realized very quickly that I was delusional about my chess skills, and I wasn’t any good at all. I sucked. Bad!

In fact, it demoralized me to the point that I didn’t play again for several years.

As time passed, I started hanging out with a new group of friends who had a small, informal chess club, and I started playing again. I won consistently. However, this time I didn’t have any delusions of grandeur. I knew I was just the best of the sucky players.

My interest in the game grew, and I learned the basic basic principles of chess. Just knowing the very basics will take you a long way if you just play casually against friends and family.

Then about 4 years ago I started playing chess online. It quickly became an obsession, and I played A LOT! Sometimes 12 hours a day.

Chess Bio: It took me 4 years of serious chess playing to reach an 1800 rating.

The reason I provided that background information is because once you start to get decent, people always ask, “How long have you been playing chess?”

So in summary, I’ve known the moves since I was a kid, but I didn’t really start “playing” until about 4 years ago.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Looking back I think I could have been much more efficient and calculated in the way I learned the game of chess. For me, it was about improvement, and studying the game, it wasn’t just about playing chess.

If you start playing serious chess, you’ll quickly discover that it’s a very complex game with a world of information to learn. It tends to become obsessive for many, myself included.

If I knew what I knew now, and wanted to get to 1800, here’s what I would do:

When I started playing online, I was already probably a 700-800 player. If you are just starting, or like a 400 rated player who knows very little, just play a lot and try to focus on the very basic chess principles: put a pawn in the center of the board, develop your pieces, try not to move the same piece twice before getting developed, castle.

Focus on basic chess principles and playing a lot until you get to around 800-900.

Once you get to that level, learn a system for both black and white that you can play against anything. Something where you just learn where your pieces go, and the basic ideas of the system. For example, the London or Colle for the white pieces. And maybe the Czech or Caro Kahn for the black pieces.

Try to avoid gambits and trappy stuff. Sure, it will work sometimes, and it can be fun to mate someone in 7, but it’s not a good long-term plan.

There is a ton of content on YouTube that will teach you the basic principles of every opening you can think of. Find one you like, that’s solid, and play it a lot. Then review your games with an engine.

When you reach 1200, start doing lots of puzzles.

Create an account on Lichess. It’s completely free and you can do as many puzzles as you want there.

Play a lot, try to review every game, so you can understand your mistakes and what positions gave you problems (don’t analyze every move, just try to look at 2 or 3 critical points in the game, and do your best to understand what happened).

Divide your time between playing games, reviewing games, watching instructional videos/reading chess books, and doing tactics. If you have 2 hours a day to devote to chess, give each section 30 min.

That is enough to get you to 1500.

This will get you to 1800:

Create an account on Chess.com. Take advantage of the free resources the site offers. Unlike Lichess, it is limited on the freebies.

Do the 3 free puzzles, the daily puzzle, a puzzle rush survival and a puzzle battle. Then play 1 rapid game and review it thoroughly. All of this is free. This routine alone will take around an hour. Do this every day.

Do the chess.com routine early, perhaps in the morning, then take a break. In the evening, get on Lichess and do 5 puzzle storms, then 30 min of endgame puzzles. If you still have time, play games on Lichess until you lose, and review every game. Once you lose, don’t play anymore.

If you still have time, watch instructional chess videos on YouTube.

At the 1500-1800 level you should focus on endgames.

Every Chess channel on YouTube will have some kind of video series on endgames. If you can’t find one, comment below and I’ll recommend one.

If you want to take it to the next level with endgames, buy an endgame book. Silman’s Complete Endgame Course and 100 Endgames You Must Know are the two most recommended endgame books.

Review master’s games.

Find out which masters play the openings you play and start analyzing their games.

It goes without saying that some of this stuff sucks. Nobody likes studying endgames, which is why most people suck at them. Nobody wants to review a game they just got destroyed in. Reviewing master’s games when you’re nowhere near master level and have no idea why they made the moves they made, seems pointless. But…

If you following this training play you will reach 1800.

Most people aren’t going to have the time do this routine 4 or 5 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week. Use your best judgement on time improvisation. Do what works for your schedule.

Even if you have unlimited time, I wouldn’t recommend more than 4 or 5 hours a day. Playing all day, every day, isn’t going to make you a master. Trust me, I know from experience.

If you want to improve quickly, focus on efficiency.

I’m confident that this training plan will get you to 1800, and beyond.

I should add that if you want to maximize your improvement in the most efficient manner, hire a chess coach that can personalize a plan for your specific needs.

I should also add, if you’re looking for a chess coach, I’m for hire.

gg

"MAGAs are Nazis!"

I’ve been doom-scrolling X lately, curious what the social narratives are surrounding the ICE shooting in Minneapolis.

I knew the Left would be name-calling and collectively disruptive. And the Right would present themselves as the rational side, committed to law and order.

One might ask that if I already knew the answer to the question, why did I ask it? Because as my childhood idol He-Man used to say: “knowing is only half the battle.”

I’m a firm believer, when it comes to abstract social agendas, that truth is perception. While I’m also a firm believer in absolute truth, heavily influenced by Saint Augustine of Hippo, the two “truths” are not the same thing; one is an intangible, biased opinion, which may be neither true nor false, and is entirely subjective, thus rendering it mostly irrelevant. The other is a tangible phenomenon that resolves existential questions rooted in philosophical realism.
Not intending to go down a rabbit hole, the point I’m getting at is this: the core of Leftist activism is overt obnoxiousness.

Neo-Leftism is centered around the recruitment of social misfits (typically by monetizing them), and training them to throw public temper-tantrums in order to destabilize society. It’s basically using Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (which, was a book devoted to his god, Lucifer) as a playbook, by recruiting the scum of society to act as a spearhead to prod the populace.

This isn’t to be dismissive of the Right. They have their own issues. The majority are midwits, who have logic and reason on their side, and believe that alone is the winning formula. All they need to do is present a rational argument in the course of debate, and viola! Libs are ideologically transformed into MAGAs instantaneously.

Conservatives redundantly regurgitate their facts, figures and data only be met by “stfu, you POS NAZI!!”

I’ve personally witnessed this cyclic insanity for almost 20 years.

I remember the early Facebook days, before algorithmic censorship, when you could really speak your mind on the internet. Those were some fun times, but I’m almost positive I never changed anyone’s mind or worldview. If anything, I probably made them even more of a true believer in their position than they already were. Consequently, not only was it a complete waste of time (the only human commodity that actually matters), but it was counter-intuitive to my goal, which was propagating the truth.

This can also be said of name-calling Leftists. For decades they’ve been calling White people “Nazis,” only to be met by, “I’m not a NAZI, I had a half-black friend in college,” shutting down all debate.

Basic psychology suggests that if a group is called a specific name long enough, at some point they might believe it.

Moral of the story: be careful what you wish for.

For the Glory of Truth

It's Sunday, the Lord's day. 

Every second of every day should be spent glorifying God. There really isn't any other option, once you understand that the reason God created you is for His glory.

People get caught up in semantics and rat races. Or philosophical and theological debates as to why we exist. But the truth is that everything is the creation of a sovereign God.

Evolution is the god of the godless.

Liberalism is Christianity without God.

They are both lies rooted in man's ideas.

Scriptures say that God is looking for anyone who will worship him in truth.

John 4:23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

The truth is that everything is God's creation, created out of His sovereignty to glorify Him. There is no reciprocity in that equation. Man's reasoning doesn't shape the truth, the truth gave man the freedom to reason during his election process, which occurred outside of the sphere of time.

All else is human vanity.

As Solomon so famously wrote in the book of Ecclesiastes:

Vanity of vanities; all is vanity.   

Abstractions like "deserve" and "meaning" and "I" all fall short of the glory of God.

Time is of the essence for you, but is irrelevant to the truth.

God is truth, everything else is a lie.

But if God is everything, and the truth is God, then what is a lie?

Lies represent the freedom of your imagination, which God sovereignly (and graciously) gave you before the beginning of time. He gave you the choice to reject the truth, and the free will to accept the lies of men.

Freedom of the will is just coming to the realization that God is the truth, and then having the choice to accept or reject that God is the truth.

Any belief system that rejects God as the truth is a lie.

All glory to God, for He is the truth of this life, and the next.

Of Note: The Holy Spirit assisted in this writing.

Dry January is for Drunks

I've been doing some form of "dry January" for over a decade now. By "some form" I mean I was doing it back when it was just a normal part of a drinker's New Year's resolutions, opposed to some social media fueled trend that all the cool drunks do. 

Not to be redundant, but I've written about this before, and concluded that sobriety is overrated. I know you didn't read that article then, so I'm giving you a second chance now.

You, dear reader, might say, "if sobriety is overrated, and you're mocking people for being influenced by social media trends, why are you currently doing 'dry January' like the rest of the sheeple?"

Glad you asked, and as the title foreshadows, I do "dry January" because I'm a drunk and need to give my body a break from the perpetual toxicity I repeatedly subject it to.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/doctor-reveals-what-30-days-without-alcohol-does-brain-body-amid-dry-january

After a season of bingeing and drinking, your body may feel like it needs a break from the party.

Dry January — a modern trend that challenges people to abstain from drinking for the first month of the year — has become a popular way to "detox" from the holidays and start the new year on a healthy note.

Dr. Pinchieh Chiang, a clinician at Circle Medical in San Francisco, said that Dry January isn't a "detox," but rather provides "feedback" from the body.

"It gives the body time to show people how it feels without alcohol. For many, that insight alone changes their relationship with drinking," she said. "The biggest surprise isn’t what people give up, it’s how much better they feel."

I disagree with Dr Chiang, dry January is absolutely a detox. In fact, how is it not? Your body is literally expelling the toxins associated with alcoholism. 

Everyone knows exactly how sobriety feels, which is why they choose to drink.

As I stated in my Hello, 2026!! post, I procrastinated in starting my yearly detox, and didn't actually get started until the 3rd. However, it's not how you start the race, it's how you finish. And as of today, I'm a week into dry January.

Thanks you. Thank you. 

I've always had this weird relationship with alcohol. I assume most alcoholics do. It's the epitome of a love/hate relationship.

While I struggled this year to come up with some different resolutions for the New Year, I am slowly putting it together. My original plan was to completely abstain from habitual drinking (I love drinking beer alone, late at night, in silence; iykyk), and only drink on vacations and special occasions. I wasn't prepared to give up alcohol (mind you, "alcohol" to me just means beer; not that that's better than vodka or wine; your body metabolizes alcohol the same, regardless of what form you ingest) forever, so I compromised. I realized that making that kind of deal with myself would quickly result in me proclaiming a boring UFC fight night to be a "special occasion" and end the night lit up like a Christmas tree.

In the art of making deals with yourself, you should always be honest.

Therefore, I've decided upon adding another "dry" month to my yearly routine, instead of setting a goal that I would most certainly fail. I already do some form of "dry January" (or period of sobriety around the beginning of each year) and I have done "sober October" for at least the last 5 years, so starting this year I will add another month to the annual routine. 

In the art of setting goals for yourself, never set yourself up for failure. 

If you're 300 pounds and want to lose weight, start with losing 25 pounds. If you want to run a marathon, start with a mile. Setting unrealistic goals will almost always result in failure. 

If you already feel like a loser, just keep living vicariously on social media. You'll never be as cool as them.

But look on the bright side, you read My Cousin the Carp and they don't. 

It's going to be a great year for us. 

A New Year, A New Logo

Beyond Good and Evil: Unpacking Nietzsche's Radical Challenge

In the annals of philosophy, few thinkers provoke as much fascination and fierce debate as Friedrich Nietzsche. A tempestuous mind of the 19th century, Nietzsche didn't just question conventional morality; he sought to dismantle its very foundations, urging humanity to look "beyond good and evil."

The Crisis of the Modern Soul

Nietzsche's most famous, or perhaps infamous, declaration was "God is dead." This wasn't a jubilant atheistic cheer, but a lament—a recognition that the moral and metaphysical frameworks that had anchored Western civilization for centuries were crumbling. With the decline of religious belief, humanity was left adrift, no longer having a divine guarantor for its values.

The Will to Power

From this crisis emerged the concept of the Will to Power. This isn't merely crude domination or political ambition, but a fundamental, driving force in all life. It's the impulse to grow, to overcome resistance, and to actualize one's potential. Every organism strives to master its environment and express itself more fully. This "will" is not inherently good or evil; it simply is.

The Übermensch

This leads directly to the idea of the Übermensch (the "Overman"). The Übermensch is a spiritual and psychological ideal. It is the individual who, recognizing the death of God, takes on the daunting task of creating their own values. This self-mastery requires immense courage and a willingness to confront the "abyss" of existence. They embrace life in all its tragic beauty, transcending the herd mentality.

Ultimately, Nietzsche's philosophy is a profound call to life-affirmation. It urges us to become artists of our own lives, finding beauty and purpose even amidst the inevitable struggles. His insights continue to resonate, pushing us to examine the unspoken assumptions that shape our existence and to dare to live authentically.

Why Being Alone Feels Uncomfortable at First (And Why That’s Normal)

Being alone feels uncomfortable for a lot of people — especially at first.

Not lonely. Not bored. Just… uneasy.

The silence feels louder than it should. Your thoughts start circling. You reach for your phone without thinking. You wonder if something is wrong with you for feeling this way.

There isn’t.

That discomfort is normal, and there’s a reason it happens.

---

Why Being Alone Feels So Uncomfortable

Most of us are rarely truly alone anymore.

We fill every quiet moment with noise — podcasts, music, scrolling, notifications. When all of that disappears, your mind doesn’t know what to do at first.

So it reacts.

Being alone removes distraction, and without distraction, your thoughts finally have room to surface. That can feel unsettling, especially if you’re not used to sitting with them.

It’s not solitude that’s uncomfortable — it’s awareness.

---

Discomfort Is a Sign You’re Paying Attention

When you’re alone, there’s no performance required.

No reacting.
No responding.
No filling space.

That’s when unresolved thoughts show up. Old worries. Half-finished ideas. Feelings you’ve been avoiding without realizing it.

The discomfort isn’t a failure.
It’s your mind adjusting to quiet.

Just like sore muscles after using them for the first time, mental stillness takes practice.

---

Why We Confuse Solitude With Loneliness

Loneliness is the absence of connection.

Solitude is the presence of yourself.

They feel similar at first, but they’re not the same thing. Loneliness drains you. Solitude, once you move past the initial discomfort, tends to do the opposite.

Most people never stay long enough to find out.

---

What Happens If You Stay With It

If you resist the urge to escape — even briefly — something interesting happens.

Your thoughts slow down.
The noise settles.
You stop trying to fill the space.

And then clarity shows up.

Not in a dramatic way. Just small realizations. Honest ones. The kind that don’t arrive when you’re busy avoiding silence.

---

Learning to Be Alone Is a Skill

Being alone comfortably isn’t something you’re born knowing how to do.

It’s learned.

At first, it feels awkward. Then boring. Then uncomfortable. And eventually — grounding.

You don’t need to romanticize solitude or force yourself into it. Just noticing the discomfort without running from it is enough to start.

The quiet isn’t the enemy.
It’s just unfamiliar.

---

Final Thought

If being alone feels uncomfortable, it doesn’t mean you’re doing it wrong.

It means you’re finally listening.