New video:

What should white people do?

https://youtu.be/bDbIBKCBwZk

Video looks at entryism vs parallel system building.

A lot of the vid's focus is parallel communities, ala Orania. People felt strongly about Asha Logos' vid A Call to Return to the Land, and this is some of my own thoughts about making a project like that successful.

YouTube

White Man's Path Forward

Heya guys. So a lot of people have been expressing a desire to make parallel communities. An admirable goal, but a goal that is going to need a ton of work from serious, mature individuals with a lot of self-control. Allowing in people who don't fit that…

You've heard of supernova, a star exploding. But there is a regular nova, too.

"Nova" comes from Latin "novus." Which means new.

So a star nova is the creation of a new star! ... Kinda.

If you were to look at a piece of sky, map out the stars, and one day observe a bright new star there, it might not be new, but rather a star that went from too dim to see and now suddenly bright. So, new to you.

Well, this might be your chance to engage in some amateur astronomy if you're interested. To observe a nova.

In a binary star system, T Coronae Borealis, a Nova was observed on May 12, 1866. It had been magnitude 10 brightness, which you might be able to barely see with binoculars if you're in a very rural area. It went to magnitude 2, which is about as bright as Polaris, our "North Star." Stars less than 3 or 4 magnitude can often not be seen at night under city light pollution.

A Nova was observed from that same system February 9, 1946.

This is called a recurrent Nova. And we are expecting to observe it again at some point in the next 29~ months. After that you likely won't be able to observe it again during your lifetime, if it continues to happen every 80 years or so.

So, how could you observe this event? Simple, you need to go out, identify and familiarize yourself with the Corona Borealis constellation. See what it looks like. See if you can memorize it. It would be great if you could draw it from memory. You'll really notice Alphecca, the brightest star in the constellation.

If you go out every week or so and look at the constellation, eventually you'll go out and see a star that's just as bright as Alphecca. Even if you don't look at the news, you'll notice it right there. "What the?? Was that always there?" You'll see why they called it a new star. Over weeks and months that star will slowly fade and fade until it's gone in light polluted skies again.

Why does this Nova happen? I mentioned it's a binary system. All nova are in a binary system.

It's a red giant and a white dwarf, and some of the material is being sucked off the red giant into the white dwarf. As this material accumulates, eventually a runaway nuclear fusion event is triggered, releasing a ton of energy.

Want to solve the housing crisis in the west? My 3 Step plan:

Step 1) Mass deportations. Fewer people means less demand for homes.

Step 2) Overhaul zoning and building code laws. Construction of homes and adding into existing homes and properties can be prohibitively expensive (permitting sometimes costing more than the actual building materials) and so bound up in red tape that only the rich can afford it. Unacceptable. Zoning and building codes should be there to prevent the city-wide fires or industrial hazards that threatened our communities in the past. They should not exist to make sure every house is done in some sort of ideal or uniform way to maximize what the code writers like. Removing the barriers to construction can increase the supply of homes, reducing price.

Step 3) Federal tax on unoccupied single family homes. Banks and speculators shouldn't be able to sit on empty homes, holding them off the market waiting for a potential future where home values are up for them to make a buck. Tax is tripled for any person or entity who is holding over 5 unoccupied single family homes. The goal is to move homes out of the hands of people who are doing nothing with them and into the hands of people who want to live in them, or who are at least willing to put in the work to get them rented out at the new, lower, housing prices.

Many people don't take property crime seriously. And it's idiotic.

If someone spends their entire summer cleaning their backyard, painting a fence, landscaping, gardening. And then someone comes by and graffitis the fence and rides their bike in the garden, rips up the grass. They haven't just damaged property, they've stolen hundreds of hours of labor from that person. You only get 10 summers this decade, and they took 1 of those summers from the victim.

This is not a small or insignificant thing. Vandals, thieves, arsonists and other property criminals are engaging in absolutely abhorrent behavior. And it needs to be taken way more seriously than it is.

I'm not diminishing violent crime like assault. But the fact that people think car theft and property destruction is some sort of minor crime is insane, and part of why many American cities become total crap holes.

Those people now run our society.

"I won't eat the bugs!" They shouted.

What's wrong with the bugs?

I submit: The problem with the bugs is not that they are bugs. The problem is with the elite push for """progress""" and the hatred of our ancestors and our past.

There is a group of people who have a lot of influence in our society. And they have a lot of hate. They hate white people. They hate 'colonialism.' Their view is that white people, centuries ago, went around and ~interfered~ with others, creating every problem and inequality today. White people have always been sick and oppressive, and they spread that sickness to everyone else they came into contact with.

They would accuse people on the 'right' of looking at the past thru rose colored glasses, that we unduly perceive parts of the past as healthy and wholesome. That may sometimes be true. Meanwhile they have glasses of cynicism for the past. Nothing has ever been good, nobody has ever been healthy and happy, we have never been more functional in our familial or spiritual life than right now. America has never been great and the past was fundamentally evil.

So it's natural that they would look at anything that exists right now, or in the very recent past, and think it could very easily be improved by simply changing things up. Almost any change is likely to produce some good results, especially if it creates distance from our evil past and in the direction of nonwhite cultures.

In other parts of the world they ate bugs, but not much beef. Americans ate a lot of beef, and didn't eat bugs (or only ate very few of them, often for novelty reasons like chocolate covered ants and the famous "worm" in the tequila (mezcal) bottle) so if we get rid of beef and eat the bugs, we'd be less like us and more like them. We'd be better.

White culture has been about intact families with the husband as breadwinner? Anything that dismantles that is good.

Objective, rational and scientific approaches are how white people mapped the world and got us to the moon? Then start to celebrate "other ways of knowing" and "lived experience" as preferable alternatives to objective truth.

Honestly I don't really have much problem with eating some bugs. I've eaten crickets, ants and scorpions. They're fine, and raising some of these might be good ways to make use of, what otherwise would be, agricultural waste. And I think reducing waste and finding uses for things is great. 'Waste not, want not' being a big part of the culture I grew up in. But I'm not interested in supporting the media push for bugs when they are motivated by a hatred for my ancestors, my people and me.

"I won't live in a pod!" They shouted.

What's wrong with the pod?

I submit: The problem with the pod is not that it is small. The problem with the pod is that it's not yours.

If you built a small cabin, one room, and started a family in it, you would be living like Thomas Lincoln (Abe Lincoln's father). It would be cramped. But it would be yours. Tom might not have had much, but he didn't have to call up a landlord and beg to be allowed to hang a picture on his own wall. What was his was his. Anything he wanted to put a hole in, paint or otherwise change was up to him.

This is why a tiny home on your own property, especially in a county with limited building codes and zoning laws, is absolutely nothing like a pod in the city. Because I don't object to small living quarters, I object to the increasing centralization of housing, and the idea that we could all end up sending our money to the BlackRocks of the world for the 'privilege' of living in their buildings and under their rules.

So when I see people online suggest that they will 'resist' the live in the pod push by getting a mansion, I feel like they're missing the point. If you rent a mansion from BlackRock, you're still in a pod, just a big one. That mansion isn't the opposite of a pod, a tiny hobbit hole in the side of a hill, where no one could tell you how to live, would be.

I've seen people online dismiss the idea that AI mates (AI Girlfriend, AI Boyfriend) could be a threat, and it will forever be just for fringe losers who can't manage a relationship with a real person. The people who say that, if they were alive back then, would have said porn and erotic fiction was also only for fringe losers as well. Now erotic fiction has exploded, and it's hard to find non-porn-using men for scientific studies. These people with no forsight couldn't see how porn could be anything more than a dirty video store no one wanted to be seen entering. They had never even heard of Weimar republic.

One of the reasons AI girlfriends (and boyfriends) are inevitable, if nothing is done to stop it, is the financial prize. People want love. They want affection. And sex. It is a deeply, genetically, ingrained desire. And the deeper the desire, the further people are willing to go to satisfy those desires. And the more it can be exploited.

Imagine if instead of men and women turned to each other to fulfill that desire, they turned to a product you owned. Imagine the potential of monetizing affection and love itself. Once their love was reliant on your company, your product, your profit potential leaves orbit.

So you set your highly intelligent team of programmers, assisted with AI, to create software to mimic an 'ideal mate.'

Sure, that software can't engage in physical touch... right now. There may be hardware peripherals you could sell for that later. Maybe even a neural-link device of sorts, then you'll be able to stimulate all senses in the brain of the user. Like they're in the same room as their AI mate. But for now you lay the ground work. You create voice and dialogue. You create visuals. Now they can "see" the mate and "hear" the mate. Trial and error, start to build up a great first date. Your software could be charming, witty, funny. Your software could be totally captivated by the user talking about their fringe interests. Even people who aren't looking for a software mate could be lured in with software assistants, helping them with tasks, but are designed to drop subtle hints and invite romantic escalation.

You need to build a psuedosocial bond between that person and your software product. The stronger the bond is between that person and your software, the more you could potentially monetize it. Which means there are ample financial incentives to make AI mates increasingly believable and appealing to all people.

And think of the potential with allowing people to have a more ~streamlined experience~ than with human mates. With humans, you might have disagreements about you interrupting them. But AI mates can be given infinite patience on dealing with rude behavior. You don't even have to better yourself to get along with your AI mate. You don't need to put in the work a relationship would normally require.

And if you are able to get this far, and build all these psuedosocial relations with your customers, they will become your most ardent defenders if someone tries to stop what you're doing.

"We're not hurting anyone!" They'll say. "We should be able to peacefully interact with software in the privacy of our homes!"

Maybe you're reading this and feeling like this is a sort of nightmare scenario. Where human love is exploited for financial gain and the consequences for our society and the people being exploited are totally ignored. The people who say stuff like "AI girlfriends will only appeal to losers, it will not have a large society wide impact" is not only incorrect, it's heartless and cruel. All they're saying is that they believe the victims will be contained to intellectually and emotionally vulnerable men, a class of people they hold in contempt and believe deserve to be exploited.

I have seen some criticisms of evolution, Darwinism and genetics on the right. But honestly not much in the 'far right' circles I'm in. Most of us believe in blood, after all.

But occasionally someone does say something against it.

I submit to you: broad criticisms of evolution, Darwinism and genetics is almost always either insane and incoherent.

The few times it is not insane tends to be when the entire conversation is perverted. Someone is spewing insanity, arguing for abject nonsense claiming their position is Darwinistic or from an evolutionary perspective. Framing the debate so that all who disagree with them are "anti-science." So the person criticizing their view is correct to do so, but might fail to see how that person's claim that their views are logically the result of a Darwinian world view is nonsense.

Examples of people making idiotic claims that they might try and portray their view as consistent with, and logically follow from, Darwinism/Genetics/Evolution:

-Biological fitness is a moral good
-Racemixing to is an objective good as it increases genetic diversity, which is also an objective good
-Human taxonomy and race/subspecies classifications are nonsense because we are of the same species

There are many more examples. Many of these are due to the fact we, as conscious beings and move with "purpose." Our language drips with purpose. It's usually useful. So it is exceedingly difficult to speak about amoebas and their genetics without it, even if it is not correct to do so. And whatever we say infects what we think. The inverse of Steve Sailor's "What goes unsaid eventually goes unthought." It's common for midwits discussing evolution to pull random prescriptions from descriptive world views all the time. The imprecise goal-oriented language infects their brains.

The Darwinian world view contains immense explanatory power. Naturally any changes to your world view could impact your goals, your purpose. But that doesn't make your goals objectively consistent with descriptive frameworks. You can not derive an 'ought' from an 'is.'

The world is filled with those things that emerge and endure. This applies to all things. But obviously, it has special applications to those things that self-replicate. Things that become factors in their own emergence and reemergence in way things that do not replicate do not.

https://twitter.com/IntellectEmbarg/status/1766534845964968412

X (formerly Twitter)

Intellectual Embargo (@IntellectEmbarg) on X

I have seen some criticisms of evolution, Darwinism and genetics on the right. But honestly not much in the 'far right' circles I'm in. Most of us believe in blood, after all. But occasionally someone does say something against it. I submit to you: broad…