For this precise reason, low-IQ antisemites like to deny any intellectual advantage Jews have over White Gentiles, or any other positive attributes they have.

“Since they’re doing something bad, they must be bad across the board, and nothing good has ever come out of them!”

The logic of adopting antisemitic conspiracy theories, I believe stems from this thought process, “since these people are bad across the board, then they must also do these bad things I can’t explain!”.

What separates a high-IQ antisemite from a low-IQ antisemite is that the high-IQ antisemite charges them with what there is demonstrable evidence for and demands a change of their behavior. As I wrote in my earlier blogpost, the basic gentile grievance against Jews is the following:

1. Jews see themselves as different and are in-fact different from non-Jews.

2. Jews act as a collective and have good understanding of their collective interests.

3. Jewish and non-Jewish interests are sometimes at opposite ends.

4. Jewish influence is highly disproportionate to their size.

5. Jews maintain this disproportionate grip on society and use it to advance their collective interests sometimes at the expense of non-Jews.

This obviously becomes even more egregious when Jews demand to be treated nice as minorities, but when they are in the position of majority themselves they like to treat their minorities not much better than Nazi Germans.

I write about it here:

But I don’t want to spend this article complaining about Jews. Rather it is Gage’s emotional reasoning that I want to dissect. Particularly the one he wrote for the Jewish publication.

Also I should mention that:

1. I don’t advocate for antisemitism even though it may appear like it (read my first linked article).

2. I’ve always been against low-IQ antisemitism and have criticized Lucas Gage numerous times in the past for promoting low-IQ antisemitism while he was active so I suppose modern Lucas Gage would be inclined to hear me out if he were to stumble upon this article.

I am purely concerned with the reasoning of Lucas Gage which I am inclined to dismiss because his main reason for conversion has been an emotional experience with two Jews, rather than being convinced by better arguments.

Also, the funny thing is that it is not even the first time he does it, he had to abandon his previous far-right political identity over similar threats he faced from the same community.

But alas, the logical crux of his thesis is essentially the following:

I believed Jews had a proclivity for certain behaviors and that whether an individual Jew was good or bad, Jews as a whole were bad for my people.

Once you accept that premise, the “solution” to the so-called Jewish problem can only be expulsion or extermination.

A lot of things to digest, first of all, at no point of his essay or his other media appearances does he properly addresses the question of Jews having bad proclivities, other than “other groups do it too!” or “they do some good things also”!

The reality is that nothing comes up as the whole package, you can like one thing about the person or the group and openly tell them that you don’t like another thing that they’re doing.

Jewish proclivities for negative things are truly extraordinary, just as their proclivities for good things and I believe it is a moral thing to do, to talk about the bad things that Jews do because the end goal is to reform their behavior.

But most importantly I want to concentrate your attention on the low-IQ “solution” to the Jewish Question which is: “since Jews are so terrible, let’s just expel them or genocide them!”.

The obvious problem with this approach, besides the moral one and of course ignoring the positive Jewish contributions to the economy, culture, science or even humor is that there is a better one.

Since the origin of the Jewish-Gentile conflict is in the friend-enemy distinction, the abolition of such a distinction is the clear way forward and it would require either:

1. Significant reforms of the Jewish tradition and cultural milieu that would make them abandon their ethnocentrism and doing the same procedure for antisemites.

2. Biological assimilation of Jews into the Gentile gene-pool.

I don’t really believe that the first option is likely, but we are definitely moving towards the second option, although it will not impact Israeli Jews who will continue doing what they’re doing.

The second option is already working judging by the intermarriage numbers. Christians in Spain have actually managed to achieve this to a point that around a quarter of the Spaniard population has some Jewish ancestry.

I myself represent the second option as a solution to the Jewish question. Nobody had to expel or exterminate my Jewish ancestors, but my in-group behavior and genetics are in-line with the broader White Gentile predisposition which highlights the biological ingression of one group with another.

Why is it so difficult for these people to think of something practical and not morally questionable? Why should it be either you love Jews and think there’s nothing wrong with them or you hate them and you want to genocide them.

As I have called out earlier, Lucas Gage seems to be going from one extreme to another, which is a sign of mentally unstable personality.

Also if Jews are afraid of biological assimilation (best long-term solution). Then there’s also the third option, although I prefer it less than the second one, which is learn to tolerate each-other but it will require the Jews to tolerate themselves being at the center of negative attention constantly and the existence of open-antisemites like last years’ Lucas Gage.

Anyways, Lucas Gage seems to believe that there is no Jewish-privilege or bottom-up exclusive networks of Jews popping up other Jews in a zero-sum environment.

“The average Jew doesn’t get special benefits just because some of the elites are Jewish billionaires.”

The issue is not “Jewish billionaires”, the issue is Jewish privilege and the refusal of Jews to share it equitably. Did Lucas Gage go to an Italian summer camp? Has Lucas Gage ever visited Italy on a free ticket? Has he benefited from scholarships because of his Italian ancestry? Has Italian religious and ethnic concerns been at the forefront of American politics?

The existence of Jewish privilege can be seen on the micro and macro scales, with the best line of evidence being Jews with stronger identity and stronger membership within Jewish organizations like the Orthodox Jews doing better financially than Jews with weaker identity or membership in Jewish organizations.

Everyone assumes the rich Jew is the assimilated, secular one. The data says the opposite. Modern Orthodox: 37% earn $150k+. Unaffiliated Jews: 22%.

Identity pays.

As you can clearly see, the more Jews are connected to their exclusive community the better is their financial situation. Poorest American Jews: 18% synagogue members. Richest: 41%. Community and money go together for Jews.

Here is how it is for Christians for comparison.

Now, that is just one example of Jewish privilege through networking. There are many more and I don’t really have the mental energy to be listing every single instance of it happening because the scale of this is enormous.

My bigger point is that the Jewish Question does not have to be a choice between worship and extermination. I liked it when Lucas Gage pushed back against low-IQ antisemitism but now he is pretending like there is nothing wrong with them.

What Lucas Gage is doing now is excusing and minimizing Israeli atrocities and only attacking antisemites. The bad aspects of Jews didn’t go anywhere, he just now prefers to pretend like they don’t exist, just like when he was an antisemite he closed his eyes on the good aspects of Jews.

Lucas Gage never left that binary, he only switched sides of it. We had low-IQ antisemitism from him and now it’s low-IQ philosemitism. The content changed, but the approach of one sided thinking has unfortunately stayed the same. Yesterday Jews were responsible for everything wrong with the world but today, after an emotional encounter with two of them, there is apparently nothing left to discuss.

Recently Lucas Gage started to debunk conspiracy theories related to 9/11 involving Jews as well as 9/11 truther claims in general. Notice how he never mentioned what was the chief reason motivating Osama Bin Laden to commit the terroristic attack. I’ll give you a hint, it’s not because “they hate our freedoms!”.

What I see now is Lucas Gage following the same trajectory as Derek Black, a former White nationalist who was invited to numerous Shabbat dinners by a Jewish friend, left the movement, and ultimately became a transgender anti-racist.

Will we see Lucas Gage transforming into Lucia Cage? So, far we’ve only received the Lucas Gage to Lucas Cage transformation…

Subscribe and share the article. I will appreciate if someone shares this article with . Hopefully we can organize a live conversation about this sometime.

Share

Subscribe now

This ranking change every year into something completely different and I honestly find it hard to believe they’re real.

Although my favorite Pornhub insights are intergenerational (which tend to stay consistent) like how boomers enjoy watching cuckold, strap-on and interracial porn which really sheds light on their politics.

So instead on relying on statistics from certain porn sites, I decided to view porn searches, because usually porn searches lead to porn sites. Not everyone is stuck on Pornhub or xHamster. There are a tone of other porn sites and many of them are paid only like clips for sale or onlyfans.

So in my analysis I decided to look into what porn-coded terms people like to Google, because Google really sheds a light into the general public more than niche porn sites.

I started off by looking at relative searches of certain porn categories on google trends and produced results like this:

But it had some limitations that I needed to account for:

1. Low volume of searches for some countries, causing artifacts

2. Some countries search for porn in their native languages

Let’s say I am interested how many people are gooning to hentai porn, first I need to look up hentai searches on google trends:

Done! But it has a bunch of artifacts, so let’s remove them:

Done! But it’s too low and it does not account for countries whose native language is not English.

This already changes the picture. I kept the same methodology to go over other degenerate porn searches.

By the way, here is the regional difference in gay-porn searches among the Russians:

As you can see, it is concentrated in Muslim and other non-Russian areas.

Cubans seem to be especially perverted, Italians too, the Eastern Slavs are hornier than Westerners and Central Asians are even worse. The next category is femboy/ladyboy.

Unsurprisingly to see Thailand being the highest here. Other than that, nothing is surprising.

Cuckold porn looks Arab coded, which may have to do with the fact that they are highly inbreed. Chinese are also gooning to it. The only Europeans who are into it are the Italians.

Now I decided to checkout the favorite German sexual fetish (poop sex) and was surprised and at the same time not really by seeing another Axis power rocking it.

No surprises for pegging there.

The most Anglo-Saxon and Germanic porn that there is:

Fart porn is also Anglo-Saxon coded but not only.

Another Muslim coded fetish in addition to cuckold porn is incest:

Finally, rape-coded porn:

Here is the aggregate sexual degeneracy index:

Finally if you’d like to see some data on Israelis and Jews specifically (as Hebrew was skipped here) as well as some data on fetishes like femdom, BBW, BDSM, blacked, anal, and furry porn you need to become a paid subscriber (I will also show the updated aggregate map):

Subscribe now

Read more

Slave morality is a system of values in which the weak have created out of ressentiment caused by them not being able to defeat the strong in reality and so as a coping mechanism they labelled master’s values as evil, while branding their own values as virtuous.

This is partially, true and the emotional mechanism of bringing down the strong out of envy has scientific backing. Heck, we even have entire ideologies dedicated to it!

But it’s not as easy as Nietzsche put it. Most of the status conflicts are horizontal, they are not between superior and inferior, but are rather between peer and peer. Rivalry is most highly concentrated among peers, not among distant people.

Certainly, egalitarianism is an evolutionary strategy of maintaining social harmony and the weak balancing out their interests against the strong. That is not disputed in the evolutionary anthropology and envy is a valid evolutionary strategy, although itis not just envy, it is primarily a need for autonomy.

But this is not what I want to talk about, because people who are regarded as “masters”, at least in our world don’t necessarily act as master supremacists, they typically adopt the “slave morality” in order to be pro-social. On the other hand, typically it is the ultra-right wing chudcels who find themselves among those with a poor status.

It is in almost everyone’s experience that the strong tend to adopt the slave (popular and egalitarian) morality at least politically and socially while the weak are more diverse in their political views. Both keep their respective status.

Empirical data likewise confirms this, actual status predicts slave morality: the more educated and higher-IQ you are, the more reliably you profess egalitarian, prosocial, anti-hierarchy values (with some caveats like the economic axis and what you are about to read on in the following segment).

People who comprise our elite tend to hold many of the resentful attitudes towards their own population (if they happen to be White), and so the adoption of these “slave” views come from the position of a master ironically enough. A good counter argument is that the elite is not thinking in terms of kin, but view themselves as trans-national and a class-based moral identity group and are willing to use force and threat against their right-wing enemies who are trying to challenge their status.

The relationship is likewise a little bit complicated because a lot of these pronouncements are virtue signaling, and some of elite pronouncements are not carried through the master’s own daily life. The most famous one is children out of wedlock: only 10% of college-educated births are out of wedlock against 62% at the bottom.

Another famous one is about progressives who campaign against private-school but are sending their own children there along with about half of America’s politicians. Dick Durbin most famously killed the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship voucher program for poor kids while sending his own children to a private school and having attended one himself. Some very smart people have labelled this phenomenon as luxurious beliefs.

This certainly reminds me of the Jews (true carriers of master morality) who are supportive of far-left morality for the outgroup while supporting far-right morality for themselves. This is advantageous for them to do from a group evolutionary strategy standpoint.

What is the difference between real behavior and professed? As I wrote in my other article:

In a recent, highly publicized study by Michael Zakharin and Timothy C. Bates, higher intelligence was found to be negatively correlated to both binding (r=-.24) and individualizing (r=-.19) moral foundations.

But is it related to the slave-master dichotomy? Because religion is a big part of deception, with its adherence causing almost no impact on life outcomes (at least among the vast majority of Christians).

This brought me to the realization that, like on many other issues, Nietzsche only saw a part of the picture.

Read more

Not that we weren’t indoctrinated about the 6 million different genders and how being gay was awesome, but that stuff was always separate from the actual government agenda, which was aimed at minimizing HIV and AIDS prevalence and cutting down on unwanted and unprotected sex. That was the whole original purpose of sex education.

Unlike the conservative moralists, I don’t think these aims are bad, or that they should be forbidden from being taught to kids. Maybe not in middle school, but definitely in high school.

My problem with sex education in general is twofold:

1. It didn’t go far-enough.

2. It was highjacked my leftist activists whose end goal is to increase the numbers of the queer community and break up traditional gender roles.

I suppose I will start with the first one and gradually blend with the second point because they are really one in the same.

Formal sex education in the English-speaking world grew out of the social hygiene movement, concerned with minimizing venereal diseases, prostitution and improving the quality of the population using eugenics.

In other words, sexual education was concerned with racial betterment and not with promotion of degenerate lifestyles.

1920s America was filled with imagery of healthy babies, as the Better Babies and Fitter Families contests at state fairs (1910s–20s) became the popular-cultural signature of a Progressive society. To quote the Smithsonian:

While seemingly benign, contests like these reinforced the notion of white Americans having the most desirable characteristics, and implicitly discouraged the inclusion of people who fell outside of that range. By setting scorecards and standards, the contest organizers put forth a hierarchy of humans. As the Pensacola Journal explained in 1913, in these types of contests “A physician scores a baby in precisely the same way as a judge of experience in live stock scores cattle, horses and hogs, and a gem expert scores diamonds. It is first necessary to establish a standard and then to compare each entry or specimen with what is known as a one-hundred percent, or perfect, product.”

A book that I like citing a lot Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era by Thomas C. Leonard (2016) successfully advances the now forgotten thesis that all of the Progressive reforms of last century have advanced White racial interests and right-wing morality more broadly.

They installed instructional pavilions at international expositions... and they staged ‘fitter family’ and ‘better baby’ competitions at state agricultural fairs nationwide. Winning contestants, judged like livestock by local public health officials, were awarded medals inscribed with the motto ‘yea, I have a goodly heritage,’ from Psalms 16.

Sexual education was seen as a venue by which a population could be educated of the values of eugenics, moral sexual behavior and population control. It was believed to be a great way of improving the racial stock as well as improving the social norms towards greater virtues.

Prostitution, known euphemistically as “the social vice,” was a singular preoccupation of progressive reformers, especially those with ties to the social purity movement.

The degree to which sexual education was once awesome cannot be understated. The most direct proof comes from a 1927 survey of 1,665 American schools finding that “1,306 almost exclusively taught eugenics in sex education”, which is to say that Sexual Education was effectively a eugenics class where you learned how to improve the genetic health of your offspring.

The program was entirely altruistic and aimed at social improvement overall, to quote a leftoid professor complaining about it:

You need to reproduce in this way and select a mate to carry forth these traits that are better for society’ and it was implied that if you didn’t do so you were not a being a good citizen.

I asked Claude AI to name me all of the early Sex Education figures, explain their prominence and their attitudes towards eugenics. Here is the result:

In other words, we were once shaming leftists for not being progressive enough on human sexuality, but now the tables have completely turned and instead of discussions on healthy heredity or demonization of certain groups which are more likely to carry sexual diseases we are ourselves getting shamed for not accepting sexual abnormalities.

As I said in my highly powerful video concerning the total inferiority of non-heterosexuals in relation to heterosexuals, certain sexual lifestyles must be promoted over others. I don’t mind being taught about gays and transgenders, but I mind being taught that they are equal to a normal sexual expression, just like I mind being told that having 25 sexual partners is just as good as having 3.

We should instead teach about their suboptimality and advise healthy people against sexual contact with them. At the same time, people who have these sexual proclivities must get educated out of it in order to minimize harmful social impact that their sexuality may cause, or at least contained. LGBTQ is mostly a social phenomenon and it must be treated as such. Stop the spread like we are stopping the spread of the transgender movement.

We must resurrect the Conservative sexual morality back into the front and I’m not talking about zero protections or no kinky-sex. I am purely concerned with the social and reproductive aspect of sexuality. One which minimizes maladaptive lifestyles like poor hereditary characteristics, cheating, rape or incest and maximizes healthy heredity in the age of AI. Not every sexual activity is equal and not every sexuality is normal. The fact that abnormal sexualities exist doesn’t translate to their automatic embrace.

The queer ideologues are themselves hypocrites for enthusiastically embracing polysexuality, homosexuality and transgenderism but not pedosexuality (yes they are also born this way like gays or those with a predisposition towards multiple sexual partners) or rape and incest because the latter three are taboo even though they are perfectly natural and exist in every species.

Our point as right-wing progressives is simple. We are against all maladaptive sexual lifestyles. We are not picking one ill over another based on social approval. We are against the bad ones (including interracial) and are supportive for of the evolutionary progressive ones. Everything causing a suboptimal outcome is by default bad, I don’t know why it is so difficult to comprehend.

So when someone asks me what an ideal sex education should teach, here are 12 things every adolescent must know:

1. Venereal Diseases Prevention

2. People to avoid having sex with

3. The problems with incest or interracial marriage

4. Mate selection in general

5. Learning about human sexualities and which ones are superior

6. Importance of consent and safe sex

7. Sexual control (a lot from Sex and Culture by Unwin)

8. Importance of keeping an above replacement fertility rate

9. The Bell Curve of the Libido

10. Porn and masturbation

11. Male and female anatomy

12. Sex in relation to family and society at large

We must ask ourselves why that isn’t already the case. Why aren’t we teaching our kids proper SexEd. I think the chief villains are the same ones: The Holocaust freakout and Alfred Kinsey, the guy who decided to divorce sex from morality, viewing it purely as a descriptive individual phenomenon, and not as means by which one can improve oneself and society, the way so many other school subjects aim to.

The sexual liberation movement, the institutionalization of feminism, and now the woke queer ideology could never have spawned into existence without that early undermining of the pro-racial and scientifically grounded understanding of sex, right after the end of the Second World War.

The irony is that while prescriptive sexual education was undermined by becoming descriptive, a descriptive state cannot remain descriptive for long, it will eventually fall into a prescriptive state controlled by people of better organizational abilities.

The claim is that Jews naturally support liberalism and democracy because it is advantageous for them, as freedoms and democracy supposedly undermines antisemitism or because they destroy society and since Jews are naturally assumed to be evil or degenerate they are imagined to be supporting liberalism precisely for these reasons.

In my paid subscriber only article I show it is completely the opposite.

Read more

I don’t necessarily endorse everything that is written in this article. But I think it is inevitable that everything I describe will come to fruition. My honest take is that a lot of what I am describing is pretty bad and I would love to avoid it.

The Inevitable Divergence

But first I’d like to address the ridiculous argument of the left, that after thousands of years of further racial divergence, we would suddenly mix together under some shade of brown.

This fantasy was always absurd because it fundamentally misunderstands the dynamics of biological evolution. Populations become further apart from each other with time as mutations accumulate. The Law of Differentiation posits that any organization will eventually transform itself as it becomes more complex. Homogeneity always gives way to heterogeneity because the mechanism of evolution always results in mutation.

In whole organizations undergoing selective pressures, that is organizations operating on the level of groups, variation often creates separate evolutionary paths which could no longer be integrated due to increasing dissimilarity.

The origin of life and the entire field of zoology are the best case example of whole organizations going through the process of differentiation, eventually producing new species that themselves diverge into variations to properly fit with the required niche ecologies.

Any divergent lineage which cannot be brought back to the larger group becomes lost forever as the process of time multiplies divergence between groups over time.

The AI Factor

Under the classic Spencerian model, differentiation cannot proceed without an accompanying integration for as parts specialize, they become functionally interdependent, and this mutual dependence binds them back into a coherent whole. Think of the modern concept of niche-selection. Historically, this interdependence has been great at driving societal progress. However with the rise of AI, the individual becomes reliant on the AI rather than his fellow man and AI thus becomes the force driving differentiation without the accompanying integration.

The nodal processes of human exchange and cooperation that would otherwise knit the various human populations into an interdependent system will begin to atrophy in favor of AI forming individual relationships with humans and ever-increasingly smaller groups of humans.

While the 2020s represents the decade of the emergence of AGI, 2030 will be the decade of ASI + physical robots that would alter the labor market by removing excess migrants who have migrated here to keep the pensioner welfare system afloat.

There will not be a need for them, but there will not be a need for many other humans either, and so it will radically increase already existing inequalities between classes and those who own AI businesses and those who don’t.

The new underclass, created by AI dispossession, will be left behind by this progressive development, not as a temporary lag but as a permanent structural feature of the post-labor economy. They will likely not be reskilled and reintegrated as there will be no economic function for them to perform and so they will not make it past the Singularity.

Post-Human Singularity

What does it mean in practice? Two things: (1) Niche human populations will begin to diverge along their own evolutionary trajectories, based on their chosen body modification, no longer held in integration by necessity and eventually no longer feeling a sense of broader racial proximity.

The advancement in embryo-selection, which allows people to select their offspring for various traits like height, IQ, personality traits, sexuality and resistance to diseases is the first step that would radically hasten the upcoming world order.

As natural selection gives way to artificial selection, the incentives for human cooperation for the sake of survival and common future will evaporate as various human races will be too genetically distant to each-other.

The last 10 thousand years of history has radically sped up the progressive evolution of the European and Asiatic populations from their African ancestors. The new speed of evolution will be similar to the dog’s speed as humans will become self-bred purposefully. This upcoming transformation will not impact everyone equally, people with wealth, access to this technology and will to use it will progress much faster than others and so it will create newer socio-economic differences between various groups that would resemble the differences between Native Americans and Spanish Conquistadors.

Countries like India, Africa with weaker AI infrastructure as well as the underclass and Conservative or Woke moralists living in the West who believe that artificial selection is bad will eventually be discarded by history and die out as a species. When a population is no longer necessary, it will lose the claim to the future.

Eventually with the whole-scale embrace of ASI, our transformation will be similar to the transformation of lab-rats and even smaller organisms as AI will acquire the ability to genetically print humans which brings us to point number (2).

While embryo selection accelerates existing evolutionary trajectories, it remains bound by the limits of human recombination, that is mixing and matching what already exists within the human genome. With the invention of human or biological robot printing, we will create many new humanoid life forms from scratch that will become optimized for post-singularity.

That will mark the departure from classical eugenics to genesis in the Virilian sense, that is the industrial production of novel organic forms. The laws of selection will be triumphed by the laws of organization, the laws of design as understood in Biblical terms. That truly has no precedent besides the Bible and it remains a far-fetched goal (on the AI timescale), which means that it will become technologically feasible within the timespan of a generation and like previous AI advances, it has a strong incentive towards mass-scale adoption.

New Morality

AI is a self-optimizing machine that follows the logic of progressive market evolution. That is, it creates many variations but only selects the best of them for the next stage, and this process is repeated in perpetuity. This optimization logic is stronger than present human moral systems that select for weaker performance. As AI becomes the primary force shaping human evolution, it will inevitably impose its own logic upon the moral frameworks that govern our species.

Current human morality is heavily based on the concept of natural rights, human rights and the golden rule due to a complicated history of conflicts and an era of relative abundance. This has led to population replacement, increasing the role of women in the economy and the proliferation of unoptimized and degenerate lifestyles.

The central dogma is that all humans are created equal, that is of course false, but enough people believe in this lie because, at least in the West, the IQ differences between Whites and Jews as well as Whites and Blacks are up to one standard deviation. It is not multiple standard deviations as will be the case during widespread embryo selection, done primarily by people who are already wealthy, will make the fiction untenable. When the differences expand to tens of standard deviations as will be the case when AI proceeds to create new post-Singularity humanoid species, there wouldn't even be race deniers left to argue with.

Like all human institutions, morality emerged to fulfill the conditions of its time. It is a tool that allows us to cooperate in groups and the usual moral standard which people went by was the Golden Rule - treat others as you would like to be treated. We never applied this rule to lesser species, but we tried to apply it to every human irrespective of their particularities.

That is now in the process of being dissolved. The new ethics of hyper-racism are beyond our present understanding of morality precisely because they exist in completely different conditions. Conditions in which some humans are optimized for superhuman cognition, others are designed for subservience, and still others are rendered obsolete altogether.

The new morality that is now emerging, will serve a new system of organization that would likely transcend multiple human species, instead of a traditional overmen theory, we will have multiple genetically enhanced human clusters for a specific sphere, coming together and agreeing on some common exchange rules.

The upcoming new morality will likely emphasize optimization, efficiency, energy generation and technological progress above collective human wellbeing because the role of AI will greatly expand and the lines of what counts as a human will be very difficult to establish. The values that served humanity must give way to values that serve the techno-capital singularity.

This new morality will be consequentialist, that is, it will be concerned with pursuing ends over means, which means that “human dignity” violations would likely become common-place and people who would stand in the way of this human progress will become discarded (not necessarily killed but isolated and left to die alone).

The film Gattaca probably captures this well, there will be constant screenings for intelligence, a lot of profiling, and other methods of social sorting aimed towards only integrating the best into the economy and society. This is the logical endpoint of a morality that optimizes for continuously improving performance rather than human dignity.

The concept of involuntary celibates will not just apply to those failing to find a mate, but also those failing to secure a job and both will be equally despised by society for being unproductive.

Fundamentally, I think this transformation will mark an end to human solidarity, not as a moral feeling, but there will be massive boundaries to whom it would be applied to. Most likely human solidarity will correspond to the level of ability, each cluster will stick with itself and eventually form a new species.

The dominant social mores of our society will be totalitarian individualism. Totalitarian because the market conditions will become a lot more difficult due to AI, and individualism because of atomization and a greater movement towards more freedom and individual control over various processes.

I do predict some sense of inter-cluster/class solidarity and a lot of anger over what is happening, but I really do think going against techno-capital singularity is futile.

There will definitely will be some elite adjustments and proactive attempts to course-correct what is in the process of emergence, so I do believe that present human morality will likely remain dominant for at least a generation, however it will inevitably give way at the end as it is poorly optimized for new life conditions.

What I expect of the present morality to persist are property rights and other economic and perhaps social freedoms as well, because they’ve historically been the main drivers of capitalism whose latest stage we are now witnessing unfold.

Property rights, in particular are foundational architecture of market exchange, enabling the accumulation, investment, and optimization of capital that fuels the entire techno-economic machine. They are the mechanism through which resources flow toward their most efficient uses, and they will remain essential even as the human agents who once controlled those resources are gradually displaced by algorithmic optimization. In-fact, I’d expect greater care towards property rights than before given AI itself is a form of property. The only thing I’m worried about is an explosion in job supply that would lead towards exploitative contracts.

Social and economic freedoms will also likely expand because they provide variations for the market to select from. Unsuccessful economic and social activities will die out and there is no reason for the market to undergo intervention for the purposes of hastening this process. Post-singularity will demand greater specialization and variation, so there definitely be incentives for greater freedom. At the same time, your every move will be monitored and you will essentially have no privacy. Societies of control are more optimal and as long as you do not commit any crimes, it will not be a problem. The only thing to worry about is algorithms predicting you are about to commit a crime before you even think about it and arresting you or mistreating you in employment because you have a certain gene that may predispose you towards committing a crime.

Which brings me to the next point which is that there will be a massive reduction in violence, we will experience what Herbert Spencer calls as the transition towards peaceful industrial societies that value consent and contract. Any abusers will likely be severely punished and expelled from society.

Moral elements I am confident won’t make it into techno-singularity:

• Compassion for the unproductive

• Egalitarianism

• Universal Golden Rule

• Universal Democracy

• Concept of Human Dignity & Humanity Itself

So that’s that. I will definitely write more posts about AI but not now. The scenario I am describing will happen in our lifetime but, not in the immediate foreseeable future.

The effects from embryo selection will take 15 years to materialize and become a commonly consumed product. Semi-successful attempts of human printing will probably take at least 20 years to emerge.

Until that point, the AI will blur the lines of what is a human by engaging in biological compute, if it is proven effective.

My actual near-term prognosis is that we see positive effects from AI-hyperscaling followed by massive job cuts.

Ironically enough, new businesses will be AI-staffed and so people would actually be luckier in finding employment in large firms rather than in small ones, but it will be the large firms like Amazon who are going to be doing job cuts. This is arguably already happening.

But the biggest hit to employment will come in the early 2030s which is the timeline for mass implementation of humanoid robots. By the 2040s it would radically lower the spending power of people who were not properly integrated into the techno-capital Singularity.

By that point your wealth and status in society will be measured by your proximity to AI. I am also predicting that successful AI trading bots, which will become commonplace by the end of this decade, will drive inflation and stock prices into extreme, making large amount of “fictitious” capital for their owners.

PS: Now that I’m re-reading this, I am quite happy that the topic has morphed from racism being evolutionary destined to AI because it reveals the structure of my own thinking. The logic of the argument simply drove me here. By tracing evolutionary human divergence and racism as its byproduct, I was tracing the emergence of something that is no longer human, but something that is quite evolutionary and racist as a byproduct of its own evolution.

Now, I will not look at the Jewish-organized communist revolution in Germany 1918–1919 because I don’t think that anyone would seriously argue against this being a massive act of disloyalty. Instead I will look into the common claim of German Jews not fighting for Germany in WW1 to the same extent as Gentile Germans do.

Unfortunately because all records of the official investigation were destroyed during WW2, we can only rely on Jewish un-official side estimations for the numbers that go alongside the correct 1910 census data as well as Alfred Roth’s earlier estimation which were based on the leak of official estimations.

The often cited figure for Jewish population in the German Empire is 550,000 souls, however this does not include Jews who were not citizens of the Empire. When they are counted, the total number of German Jewish residents jumps to 615,000 souls. At the same time, because none of the Jewish residents were conscripted into the army, their number must be disregarded in favor of the 550,000 estimate of the citizen population as that is the pool of people eligible for conscription.

The estimation for Jewish soldiers fighting for Germany provided by the head of the Bureau of Jewish Statistics Jacob Segall comes at exactly 100,000 people. Funny enough there has never been another proper estimation besides Jacon Segall and the earlier Alfred Roth’s The Jews in the Army book which reportedly was acquired from a leak of Judenzählung’s findings.

The leak was real. When formally challenged, Reich Defense Minister Otto Gessler affirmed Roth’s numbers on 26 July 1920, in direct response to an official inquiry (Rosenthal 2007, pp.118–122). The figures were then independently corroborated two years later, when General Ernst von Wrisberg published the War Ministry’s own absolute totals for the 1916 census in the second volume of his memoir Heer und Heimat matching Roth’s so closely that historians conclude Wrisberg was the original source, having passed him the data in 1918/19 (Wrisberg, Heer und Heimat 1922, vol. 2; Rosenthal 2007, pp. 118–122).

Unfortunately No verbatim transcript of Gessler’s wording survives, which is why his statement has been read more than one way, most cautiously, as conceding that Roth’s findings were partially correct rather than wholesale accurate (Rosenthal 2007, pp. 118–122).

Speaking of which, here is how they differ:

Roth:

Jews total: 615,000

In service: 62,272

Jews at the front: 27,515

Counted: Jews in uniform on 1 Nov 1916

Dead: 5,000-6,000

Iron Cross I: 900

Iron Cross II: 17,000

Decorated: ~18,000

Promoted: ~2,000

Segall:

Jews total: 615,000, out of which 550,000-555,000 draft eligible Jews

In service: 84,352 then extrapolated to 96,327

Jews at the front: ~80,000

Counted: Jews who ever served 1914-1918

Conscripted+volunteered: 100,000 (78,000 of whom fought at the front)

Dead: 9,216 dead + 873 missing, then extrapolated to 12,000 thousand.

of the roughly 84,352 Jews who fought at the front, 29,874 were decorated for bravery and 19,545 were promoted

Decorated: 29,874

Promoted: ~19,545

My own commentary is that neither figure could be trusted. Roth was a founder leader of a militant antisemitic organization who wanted to ethnically cleanse Jews out of Germany. Segall was a Jewish activist working for the Bureau for Jewish Statistics, whose explicit purpose was to improve Jewish reputation among Gentiles.

The methodological error in Roth’s number is that he counted the full Jewish population of Germany, including residents who were not eligible for conscription and most importantly had no access to data after November 1916. Segall inflated the death count and the decorations from an extrapolation of the available data.

The asymmetry is that Segall’s findings are quoted as authoritative numbers, despite the fact that he had no access to the military archives. Just the 1910 census and private post-war Jewish sources. Roth, was working with the Ministry’s real numbers as of late 1916 but did not have access to them in 1917 onwards.

Because of this, you have to look into other proxies and lines of evidence which may indirectly prove one estimate over another. Military awards is one such example.

Going by Roth’s numbers then out of a population of 550,000 Jews, 18,000 were awarded Iron Crosses for their service in WW1. Meanwhile the 99% of the German population had received 5.4 million Iron Crosses for their service to Germany out of a population of 65 million (so 64.5 million).

The per capita calculation is that one in 30.5 German Jews had received an Iron Cross for their service while among the remaining 99% of the German Gentile population, it was one in 11.9, which is close to Alfred Roth’s numbers. Going by Segal’s numbers its one in 18.4 Jews.

However there are some caveats to lower Jewish decoration, most notable, is that the chief reason could have been antisemitism. For example Between 1880 and 1910, up to 30,000 German Jews served in the Prussian Army, but none were promoted to the rank of officer. However, among the 1,500 Jews who converted to Christianity, 300 were promoted.

For instance, in a far-more antisimetic country to the east, 60,791 of Jewish soldiers had received decorations of one kind or another out of an estimated 5,6 million Jews which is 1 decoration per 92 people. However, just 25,474 of Jews had received the medal of St. George (the Russian equivalent to the Iron Cross) as of May 1917 which is 220 per medal. In total Russia had awarded over 1.5 million St. Georges for a population of 176 million people.

If we control it for mobilization, then 400,000 of the Russian Jews were conscripted into the Russian Army compared to roughly 14 million of Russian Gentiles. This gives us one medal for roughly 15.7 Russian Jews and one medal for 9.3 Russian Gentiles. This is strikingly similar to Segall’s estimation of Jewish non-inflated decorations rate.

On the other hand, during WW2, Soviet Jews became the fourth most decorated ethnic group in the USSR after Russians, Ukrainians and Belarussians, but not among those receiving the Hero of the Soviet Union medal.

This is strikingly similar to the amount of American Jews who have received the highest military recognition (not many):

To further test this theory of antisemitism I decided to look up how many Jews were decorated for their service in other countries during WW1 and here is what I arrived at:

Austria-Hungarian Gold Bravery Medal:

One award per 31,645 Austria-Hungarian Jews vs one award per 13,532 Austria-Hungarian Gentiles. Ratio: 2.34

Among those who served: One award per 3924 Austria-Hungarian Jews vs one award per 2071 Austria-Hungarian Gentiles. Ratio: 1.89

Germany:

One award per 30.5 German Jews vs one award for 11.9 German Gentiles (Roth). Ratio: 2.56. And 2.41 is the per-servicemen ratio.

One award per 18.4 German Jews vs one award for 11.9 German Gentiles (Segall). Ratio: 1.55. And 1.45 is the per-servicemen ratio.

Russia:

One award per 15.7 Russian Jews vs one award for 9.3 Russian Gentiles. Ratio: 1.69. It is difficult to arrive at the per-servicemen ratio because there is no consensus on how many Jews have actually fought in the war. The number of Jews who fought in the war is anywhere between 350,000 and 600,000.

Great Britain Victoria Cross:

One award per 51,600 British Jews vs one award per 100,217 British Gentiles. Ratio: 0.515. And 0.7 is the per-servicemen ratio.

The data is all over the place. I also tried to find other stuff notably on France, US and Italy but the data is really, poor. France doesn’t keep proper records. The number ratio for Italy is 0.12 which is astronomically high and lacks a proper source. And just 3 American Jews had received a medal of honor coming at the per-serviceman ratio of 2.41 which is comparable to Roth’s estimate.

Perhaps the strongest correlation is between states perceived as antisemitic, but the United States is the exception here. Notably I noticed this passage as it relates to France, but these are not decorations:

Despite the Right’s belief that Jews were disloyal, of a population of 190,000 in 1914, 32,000 French Jews were mobilized and 6,500 died (1 in 5 in comparison to the 1 in 6.5 for the French).

The only problem with this is that at least 100,000 of Russian Jews died during WW1 along with 2.8 to 3.4 million Russian Gentiles (civilians included). I didn’t do the calculation because the data is really noise but I am pretty sure that this number beats the French one. That is of course assuming that’s true.

I honestly don’t know how to interpret all of this but I am leaning towards:

1. Jews are conditionally loyal. There are legitimate in-group discrepancies.

2. A lot of data is bunk to draw meaningful conclusions, notably: France, Italy, Russia, and I have already provided plenty of commentary as it relates to Germany’s data. Best data we can infer from is Austria-Hungarian and British and it pretty much confirms my thesis.

3. Form your own conclusion

Here is the final graph:

Subscribe now

The reason I am even writing this article is because he recently stated that White-nationalism is useless because according to him culture can transcend race and since the Irish have initially belonged to an alien culture, they were not regarded as White (White is our culture™), but after they assimilated into our culture™ they became White.

Before I go ahead and debunk these arguments and this logic in general, it is important to remember that Will Sexton was a BLM supporting leftist in 2020. I’m not saying that in order to compromise him, but to emphasize that he missed the 2010s political moment when we engaged and dismantled these ideas. So because he, like many other people who have joined our ranks quite recently, is naturally not familiar with our discourse since the mid-2010s.

Read more

Now approximately 73% of all wealth in the U.S. is currently owned by Americans over the age of 55, and 63% of all American wealth is concentrated in the hands of Boomers and the Silent Generation (who are still alive somehow).

The Congress is likewise pretty old, the average age is 59, while the average age of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence was 44. In contrast, the average age of the Israeli Knesset is 50.

Before we get into the numbers, it’s worth naming the hypocrisy upfront. This is the generation that preached personal responsibility, mocked socialism, and built an entire political identity around pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. They were going to be the last people to demand handouts. Instead they became the most successful recipients of government wealth redistribution in American history.

Many people assume that older generations have always held greater financial and political power than younger ones as a natural state of affairs. Under this view, Baby Boomers controlling 63% of the wealth while making up only 27% of the population would simply be the expected outcome of market forces. This explanation, however, does not hold up. The Boomers’ wealth is largely the product of the welfare state policies of the past century.

Before large-scale welfare reforms of the 1960s, the elderly had much higher rates of poverty than the younger generation (boomers). By 1995, the net worth of a 80 year old was equal to the net worth of a 50 year old. In 1984, households 65+ were 10× wealthier than younger counterparts. By 2015 it had increased to 47×.

The mechanism is not complicated. Social Security and Medicare are pay-as-you-go systems. The money you pay in goes directly to current retirees. When Boomers were working, there were 5 workers per retiree funding the system.

Read more

Interviewing Mikhail Svetov on the Russian Right & West — Timestamps

0:00 Intro / stream goes live
2:49 Why Svetov is exiled in Brazil — criminal investigation for singing a Ukrainian parody song
5:52 The real reason: organizing 40,000–60,000 person anti-censorship rallies in Putin's Russia
7:08 Bitcoin saved his independence — bought BTC in 2012 at under $5, let him reject foreign grant money
10:53 "Russia lives in the future of Europe" — Putin's regime compared to Macron and Merkel
13:57 Russian traditionalism is a myth — Russian women are "some of the least traditional in Europe"
16:00 Challenge: try to find a genuinely Christian-believing woman in Russia
17:06 Dugin exposed — great critique of the West, but completely collapses when asked what he actually wants
19:47 Marine Le Pen banned from elections, Tommy Robinson as a Russian-style dissident in the UK
21:51 Pavel Durov arrested in Paris — European hypocrisy (Kremlin used the exact same arguments against Telegram)
24:45 What IS a European? "You can't have a cultural identity with multiculturalism — it's nothing"
33:52 Putin is advancing race replacement — same as the EU and the US
39:56 Czech poll prefers Indian neighbors over Russians — Svetov: "It's like women who'd rather encounter a bear,
they've never met one"
45:37 Jewish identity: preserved specifically through non-integration — and it's not necessarily a problem
50:17 If he were Russian president: facilitate European immigration, restrict third world, praises UAE model
01:00:06 Milei and Trump are NOT transformational — they play by the old rules and changed nothing systemically
01:10:14 Ukraine war: even annexing territory is a "Pyrrhic victory" — Putin destroyed what he claimed to protect
01:31:27 Why the Russian right mixes Tsarist + Soviet identity: two civic identities collapsed, they're just picking
up pieces
01:40:40 Looksmaxxing is "pretty faggish" — what women actually find attractive in men (Clavicular debate starts)
01:43:38 Clavicular: "sweet-looking for a [expletive]" — charisma matters more than the nose job
01:56:11 Nick Fuentes take — "very talented, does dirty work for the right" but his political project is dangerous

Mikhail Svetov:
https://x.com/msvetov

Subscribe now

Now, I’m not going to be reviewing the video, the damage it caused is immense and frankly there is nothing important these women have uttered which would warrant a proper deconstruction. The only argument they’ve proven is that we need less women in politics.

Unlike the MAGA women in the video, who came across as confused and unprepared, Dean Withers predictably came out on top. Millions of people watched him, and many were convinced. That’s exactly why he’s worth responding to.

I’m not going to pick apart every point he made, though he got quite a few things factually wrong. Instead, I want to focus on the early portion of the video in which he proclaimed that “men are not better at leading than women”. The reason I want to respond to this in specific is because he dishonestly brought up numerous lines of evidence in support of the unstated (and his actual) claim which is that women are better at leading than men.

In other words, he was defending the thesis that there is a natural equality between the sexes when it comes to leadership skills, but all of his “evidence” pointed out to women actually being better at leading than men.

In the class of logic, if I were to defend a thesis that a population A is equal in a specific trait to population B I would proceed to prove that:

1. The performance of population A is identical to the performance of population B on that particular trait under examination.

OR

2. Show that A outperforms B in some measurable contexts while B outperforms A in other measurable contexts which leads to the conclusion that two populations are comparatively similar.

Because (1) is virtually impossible to prove usually feminists dishonestly cherry-picking their way to defend the (2) second proposition but because Dean Withers is a modern Woke feminist he decided to jump to the (3) third proposition instead! What is the third proposition?

3. Show exclusively that B outperforms A across every metric examined, while presenting zero evidence of A outperforming B in any context and then declare that A and B are equal while subconsciously everyone would conclude that B is superior.

This is the standard tactic of left-wing racial identity politics in which the left explicitly proclaims it believes in equality but implicitly makes the argument for White inferiority and the superiority of non-Whites through media, culture and legislation.

If reality is that Black and Brown men commit a disproportionate amount of rapes and violent crime, the left blames it on White men instead while explicitly stating that there are no group differences in crime.

But regardless of Dean’s dishonesty, the arguments themselves still deserve examination. Because if women genuinely are superior leaders, then an honest truth-seeker has an obligation to report that, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes him. I do not get to dismiss evidence simply because I dislike where it points. That would make me no different from the left-wing ideologues like Dean Withers.

One of the central claims by Dean Withers is that men are more emotional than women because they are violent aka responsible for 93% of all the murders.

First of all, violence is just one aspect of emotion, while men are indeed disproportionately likely to be violent offenders, men are also more likely to support punishing violent offenders with death penalty.

And since violence is an emotion, so is neuroticism, shame, fear and disgust. I explicitly did not mention empathy because it makes women feel good about themselves, but the reality is that neuroticism, shame, fear and other emotions in which women are higher than men are bad emotions and while a minority of men do commit violent crime or abuse their family members, a majority of women experience these negative emotions that are not predisposing them to leadership roles.

Of course, none of the women on the show have brought that up which is not surprising considering that women’s general knowledge and political knowledge in particular is catastrophically low!

Also just a question… Would you let a person lead you if they don’t know what the hell they’re supposed to lead you in? I certainly wouldn’t.

Anyways, if you are curious if men are comparatively emotional than women are no. Women are far-more emotional across the board, because they experience greater emotional intensity, including anger.

[Percentages of men and women who show target emotional facial behaviours (top), mean levels of change from baseline in self-reports of emotion for men and women (middle), and mean levels of change from baseline in skin conductance for men and women (bottom). AN 0/Anger, DI 0/ Disgust, SA 0/Sadness, HA 0/Happiness, PR 0/Pride, and LO 0/Love. ND 0/Non-Duchenne or smiles. *p B/.05.]

Most crucially, is that all of these emotions constantly interplay with each other and make women less resilient to stressful conditions which is what matters for leadership skills, your ability to overcome stress.

Anyways, in the alternative universe of Dean Withers, he goes on to spew more nonsense as if it is already proven beyond shadow of a doubt that men are more emotional than women because they are more violent than women.

His explanation for the essentialist female superiority at controlling their emotions better than men (I kid you not), is because they can give childbirth. Funny enough, he even managed to get fact-checked by Jubilee!

Then Dean Withers also claimed that men’s natural overrepresentation in leadership positions like CEOs are because of societal pressures and not because of innate biological ability. He cited the fact that despite there being much fewer female surgeons, patients undergoing a surgery by a female had lower risks of complications.

I immediately decided to fact-check the claim using a large US study conducted on the topic, and yes, females surgeons were treated patients better by a few percentage points. However the male-female difference in neuroticism is much larger! And most importantly, how the hell are we supposed to reconcile women being slightly better than men at surgeries to women leading men across the board and especially among CEOs?

One may as well interpret this finding as saying that because women display greater empathy than men they are more careful during surgery, but consequently the same would not have been true in jobs requiring strong resistance to disgust or jobs in which fear or shame plays a factor.

If I were Dean Withers and I wanted to make an argument as to why females are better than males at leadership, I would go and explore which qualities make a good leader and then I would prove that since these qualities are more present in women than in men, women are naturally better at leading than men are.

Obviously we know that since men are better than women in virtually all of the qualities which amount to good leadership skills, mean dominate among CEOs, startups and other social positions requiring leadership skills and so it would be impossible for Dean Withers to make this argument so he went with the weird projection that male suck at leadership because of their emotions.

Also, taking strategic risks is essential for effective leadership, and risk-taking is associated with both impulsivity and higher intelligence. Women are less prone to risk-taking, and traits typically coded as negative such as impulsivity and novelty-seeking may actually work in men’s favor, while traits coded as positive such as high agreeableness may work against women who seek leadership roles.

Subscribe now

Emotional control is obviously important for leadership roles, but emotions are just one aspect of a good leader. Unfortunately the MAGA women could not have properly constructed an argument as to (1) why men are better leaders than women (2) why they should lead more than women. That requires a proper examination of the Biorealist sciences like evolutionary psychology and understanding of the patriarchal nature of our mammalian species, the recognition that we behave a certain way because we were programmed to behave a certain way by our genetics.

That being said, he is the best summary of the demonstrable gender differences in cognitive ability and personality taken from a large meta-analysis:

Also, it is better to imagine leadership qualities as existing on a spectrum. Some women are better at leading than most men, in-fact I’m certain that the top 1% female leaders is naturally better than the bottom 97% of men at leading, but at the same time, the median percentile of men is certainly better at leading than at least 85% of women. Moreover there are contexts in which women may be better at leading than men. But politics is definitely not an example of this, and we need to limit voting power to those who have demonstrated sufficient political knowledge.

I wish society had broadened the score distributions to things other than intelligence. Much of these debates should not be about averages, but the distribution itself. So the question is never “can women lead?”. The question is: across the full distribution, do men and women perform equally, or does one sex have a higher mean and/or lower variance in leadership-relevant traits?

Best you could find is some occasional article from questionable Ukrainian news source about which gamers have the highest IQ. In case you were wondering, here is what they have gotten:

My immediate criticism of any such list is this: if 50% of Among Us or Rainbow Six Siege players had IQs above 119, most of them would presumably be running the world. There is simply no way a mass-market game like Among Us, let alone Minecraft could cluster at a median IQ of 117 when the global average sits somewhere between 80 and 83. The math just doesn’t add up. We do not have a billion people with IQs above 117 spending their leisure time exclusively on Minecraft and Amogus.

Another article I was browsing has returned with the following estimations: my personal experience in playing Counter Strike left me with an impression that only an uncivilized goy-cattle could play anything like that. The community was toxic and there was barely any thought or strategy put into these games.

Dota 2 and League of Legends are mostly played by tech bros, dorks and other autists so this may be true, although I doubt that their average IQ is higher than 110. At any rate, none of these games featured proper strategy games to likes of Total War, Civilization, Command and Conquer, a city-simulator game, Heroes of Might and Magic or anything by Paradox. You know… the games that I actually liked.

Occasionally these lists do include strategy games but at the same time the average IQ scores they assign to players don’t map up to reality.

It was all true until today, when I stumbled across an actual

Read more

The name Clavicular comes from clavicle which is the S-shaped bone that connects the sternum to the shoulder blade and determines, more than almost any other single skeletal feature, whether a man looks like a man. It is also, crucially, nearly impossible to significantly alter through training, drugs, or surgery. You cannot meaningfully widen your clavicles. You were born with them.

In looksmaxxing theology, the clavicle represents the outer limit of ascension, the structural constraint that defines the ceiling much like the ability of trans women to become pregnant, nearly impossible.

A man who names himself after his skeletal cage and then spends his entire adult life attempting to escape it through outside intervention is trans by default. A person in the process of transition from A to B.

The standard definition of transgenderism relies on rejecting the socially assigned binary, male or female and instead going for the idea that sex and gender exist on a spectrum. And if sex and gender operate as continuum rather than binaries, which is also the claim of trans ideologues, then transition is movement along the continuum can represent a form of transitioning, irrespective if the direction is towards greater masculinity or femininity.

Type 1 is the familiar case: crossing the binary. Male-to-female, female-to-male. Type 2 is what is called gender exaggeration: moving toward the extreme end of your existing sex or gender category. A man pursuing maximal masculinity through hormonal and surgical intervention.

This, by the way is the core thesis of a philosophy paper by Dan Demetriou who got fired from his University position for daring to publishing it.

Both are caused by body dysphoria, the distress of the person whose particular body instantiation does not match what they imagine their body should look like and so they need to transform it into a different, non-genetically determined version of themselves. That is how Braden Peters is in the process of becoming Clavicular.

Clavicular is chemically dependent on pharmaceutical sex hormones to maintain the phenotype he has chosen. His endogenous testosterone production has been suppressed. Much like regular trans people he cannot reproduce. MTF practitioners on estrogen become infertile. Clavicular, on chronic supraphysiological testosterone initiated in adolescence, has also become infertile. Both cases involve the sacrifice of reproductive function in service of a preferred bodily identity. From an evolutionary standpoint, these cases are structurally identical: the individual has permanently traded reproductive capacity for phenotypic congruence with a chosen identity.

Clavicular himself, in a moment of unusual honesty, acknowledged the parallel. “What I do is the opposite of like transgenders. So it’s like they’re like male to female, and I’d be doing like male to male.” He meant this as a dismissal. But it reads instead as an accurate self-description.

When his university confiscated his hormones, he called them “medication” which maintained his “hormonal stability.” Do you notice any parallels? This is the language of someone describing gender-affirming care. He is now dependent on it to maintain his persona, and when they’re off for a few days, just like trans women or trans-men reverting back to their biological sex, Clavicular’s muscles shrink and he starts to look like an average male.

Braden Peters and Clavicular are not the same person. Braden Peters was the kid who woke up two hours early to avoid his parents, sat in his car, counted his daily words, aimed for under fifty. He documented techniques for faking neurotypicality, mimicking the mannerisms of fictional characters, rehearsing stolen jokes, engineering every social interaction is what Judith Butler calls “performativity”.

Identity is not something you have, it is something you do: repeatedly, consistently, until the performance produces the effect of a stable self. There is no authentic inner Braden Peters waiting to be expressed. More like Braden Peters is becoming Clavicular. How is it different than a sissy slutson convinced xerself he is a woman after gooning to the idea of himself being a woman?

It’s a form of identity transformation, away from genetic, towards social construction. Away from something innate and real, into something false and demanding constant maintenance through affirmation. The mogging ritual is worth taking seriously here because it is genuinely the core sacrament of the looksmaxxing religion. As I said in my video analyzing Clavicular’s philosophy, mogging is not about attracting women, Clavicular said explicitly that getting girls has “lost its novelty.”

It is about enacting masculine superiority in front of witnesses. It is, in Butler’s terms, a performative act: something that doesn’t express a pre-existing identity but constitutes one through the act itself. The mog is not evidence that Clavicular is a Chad. The mog is how Clavicular becomes a Chad, over and over, in a process that is never finished because the identity is never secure. This is structurally identical to what trans activists call gender euphoria: the moment of performed identity that subjectively confirms, temporarily, that the transition is real.

Both require an audience. Both require repetition. Both arose out of body dysphoria. Neither is ever finally complete. And neither will ever be complete for they are built upon the rejection of their genetical code.

Subscribe now

I’ve also started working on a YouTube video as I’m planning to return there after not uploading there for centuries. So expect that hopefully by the end of this month or early next month]

My wife and I recently visited Scotland, and in particular Edinburgh, and I have been thinking about that visit in light of the Scottish Parliament recently voting to endorse another referendum on independence.

We stayed in an Airbnb within a stone’s throw of both the Scottish Parliament building and Holyrood, where the King stays when he is in Edinburgh. Before getting into the politics of Scottish independence, though, a few on-the-ground impressions struck us first.

The train station was very well-maintained, and the trains themselves were clean and efficient. When we arrived, it was only a couple of minutes from the station to where we were staying. The building we stayed in was over 250 years old, with a great deal of history and beautiful gardens around it. That sort of thing is hard to replicate. It gave the whole stay a feeling of being surrounded by a country with deep roots.

Even though Edinburgh is one of the more diverse cities in Scotland, and even though we were there during tourist season, it still did not feel nearly as alien as London. There was still a recognizably Scottish feel to the place. You did not feel as if the older character of the city had been completely swallowed up.

We visited Edinburgh Castle, and we also visited the home of John Knox. You see in Scotland, even in its most cosmopolitan city, the history of a practical, independent-minded people still abounds. Knox’s home is a major tourist stop, even though his practical, anti-egalitarian, yet anti-despotic theology would send most people running for the hills today. His legacy still lives on, not just in Scotland, but in America as well, where his covenantalism became constitutionalism.

That is one of the things modern people often miss about Knox and the old Scottish Reformed tradition. It was not egalitarian in the modern sense. It did not believe that all men were interchangeable atoms, or that society could be built on sentiment and slogans. But it was also not servile. It was deeply suspicious of arbitrary power. Kings were under God. Magistrates were under the law. The people were bound together in a covenant. That older Scottish instinct—stern, practical, religious, and resistant to tyranny—crossed the Atlantic and helped form the American constitutional mind.

That older Scotland is still visible in Edinburgh. It is visible in the castle. It is visible in the churches and the old streets. It is visible in the old Parliament building, which was in use before the creation of Great Britain in the early 1700s. That building, near historic churches and many other great buildings, is far more beautiful and dignified than the current Scottish Parliament building.

And that brings me to one of the sharpest contrasts of the trip.

Edinburgh Castle is beautiful. Holyrood has its own historic dignity. The old parts of the city have a grandeur that only centuries can produce. The Scottish Parliament building, by contrast, is ugly. Not just somewhat odd or modern in a tolerable way, but genuinely ugly. The locals we talked to seemed almost unanimous in thinking it was a monstrosity of hideous 1990s architecture.

The outside looks like a total wreck of a job, the kind of thing a toddler could have done better. The inside looks nothing like the grandeur of Westminster. It looks more like a municipal building than a house of parliament. The chamber where the Scottish Parliament meets is decorated like some mid-level American city council chamber. It has none of the weight or seriousness that one expects from a national legislature.

That may sound superficial, but I do not think it is. Architecture says something about a regime. Westminster looks like the seat of an old civilization, even when the politicians inside it are fools. The Scottish Parliament building looks like the product of a self-conscious modern political class trying to symbolize a new Scotland while cutting itself off from the older Scotland that actually gives the country its power and charm.

Walking around town, one was also reminded that politics is never too far away. While we were sitting in a restaurant on a Saturday afternoon, there was a pro-Gaza march going by. It was led by a mixture of obvious foreigners, as well as plenty of redheaded Scots. They waved Palestinian flags and held their signs, but altogether it was quite orderly. No violence broke out. It was political, but not chaotic.

We also saw a small demonstration that same day outside the Parliament building protesting the government’s movement away from the radical pro-trans agenda. What struck me most was how small it was. The total number of protesters could not have exceeded a hundred. Considering the size of Edinburgh and the social liberalism of much of Scotland, that was rather pathetic.

This is a cause that has been cherished by so many in the influencer and elite classes, and yet when we saw it on the ground, it could barely draw a crowd. To me, that showed something important. It suggested that the elite had largely abandoned the issue, or at least turned off the spigot of money, media attention, and institutional pressure. Once that happens, many of these causes are revealed for what they are. They are not mass movements. They are elite projects. Without elite support, the energy disappears quickly.

That is a good example of the truth of elite theory in politics. Many things that are presented as popular revolutions are really the work of institutions, donors, media, NGOs, and political actors pushing from above. When the support from above is withdrawn, the supposed mass movement shrinks down to a few activists outside a government building.

As we drove around and talked to people, we got some interesting impressions from our Uber driver, as well as from people we encountered in shops and other places in casual conversation. We heard from people who thought the Parliament building was ugly. We also heard the view that it would have been a horrible mistake to leave the UK back in 2014. There was a typical view of politicians as windbags and self-important talkers, which seemed about right.

And when you look back to the 2014 Scottish referendum, Edinburgh is especially interesting. The independence side was defeated there by roughly 61–39. If anything, I would expect the number to be even more against independence today in Edinburgh, despite the general left-liberal character of the city.

The polling now seems to show a slight edge for independence if a referendum were held today. But at the earliest, such a referendum would be a year away, and a great deal can change in a year. It is quite possible that Keir Starmer will be out as Prime Minister by then and that Andy Burnham could be the new Prime Minister, giving Labour a temporary sugar high. If that happens, Labour may be even more inclined to reject the idea of independence in Parliament, or at least more capable of rallying unionist sentiment.

That is the thing about this latest Scottish Parliament vote. It sounds dramatic, and in one sense it is politically significant. But in another sense, it is still a vote inside a devolved parliament that cannot simply create independence by wishing for it. The real question is not whether the Scottish political class wants another referendum. Many of them plainly do. The real question is whether the Scottish people, when forced to look at the practical consequences, actually want to leave the United Kingdom.

My impression from Scotland was that it is far more practical than one would think from following Scottish politics at a distance. The loudest voices are not always representative. The Scotland we encountered was not some revolutionary nation on the verge of breaking free. It was an old country, full of history, beauty, and local pride, but also full of people who know politicians are often fools and promises are often cheap.

There is certainly an independent-minded spirit in Scotland. You can see it everywhere. You can see it in the memory of Knox, in the old covenantal instincts, in the castle, in the older Parliament, and in the general suspicion of being ruled too directly by distant powers. But that same spirit is also practical. It does not automatically translate into support for the modern SNP vision of independence, especially when that vision is tied to progressive managerial politics, ugly modern architecture, and the same elite obsessions that have disfigured much of the West.

In that sense, Scotland is complicated. It is old and modern, nationalist and practical, left-wing in many of its institutions but still visibly rooted in an older and sterner world. The Scottish Parliament may vote for another referendum, and the polling may move back and forth, but the real Scotland is not reducible to parliamentary motions or activist slogans.

What struck me most was that Scotland still feels like a real place. Edinburgh, for all its tourists and diversity, still felt Scottish. Its past was not hidden. Its history was not dead. Its older religious and political instincts were still there, even if many modern Scots would not describe them in those terms.

And that is why I came away thinking that the independence question is not as simple as outsiders might imagine. Scotland has every reason to remember that it is a nation. But it also has every reason to distrust the class of people currently claiming to speak in the name of nationhood.

The Scotland I saw was beautiful, historic, orderly, skeptical, and much more practical than its political rhetoric suggests. That practical streak may end up mattering more than any vote in Holyrood.

Share

That being said, for a highly-antisemitic person lik…

Read more

There is a specific human type that never quite gets the scrutiny it deserves. Unlike the antisemite, who has been dissected with forensic obsession since 1945, the philosemite is also has been almost under no scrutiny despite being of the opposite end of the JQ obsession.

Now, I want to be precise here. I am not describing people who simply have Jewish friends, admire Jewish contributions to civilization, or support Israel’s right to exist as a geopolitical position. I am describing a distinct psychological type of people: the non-Jew for whom Jews have become a collective deity that must be worshipped and obeyed. The person whose identity, politics, and moral framework cannot be fully understood without reference to what they think about Jews.

Given that is what people on the far-right and far-left of the political spectrum are reduced too, it is only fair that we scrutinize the psychological profile of people who love Jews more than themselves.

I will start with the “least worst” type before I move into the absolute depths of hell:

The Goy

Level one. The bottom of the hierarchy.

The Goy, as I am using the term here, is not defined by active hostility or active sympathy. He is defined by intellectual vacancy combined with a default political position absorbed from the environment.

This type is typically old and grew up on watching television and has the exact same moral code as Jerry Seinfeld.

He supports Israel not because he has thought about it, or not because he was paid to do it, but because he was raised on Hollywood, which has for decades produced a particular narrative architecture around Jewish identity, World War II, and Israeli statehood. He absorbed it the way a child absorbs anything in the ambient environment: completely and uncritically.

Unlike the Zionist Influencer, he cannot make content about this. He lacks the verbal fluency. This is the type of person that would type “I stand with Israel” in comment section without being able to answer why.

The Goy is despised equally by Jews and antisemites alike. He belongs entirely to neither camp and serves no one’s interests well, including his own. In a different social structure he would be an antisemite, a communist or someone else because at its core the Goy has no personhood. A useful idiot

is what he is.

Read more

View this as purely a quantitative endeavor with no commentary. Perhaps I will eventually turn this into a bigger post or a YouTube video with my own commentary and conclusions, but right now I am simply documenting the research without any qualitative input.

The Army

I immediately set out to verify these claims, beginning with the military aspect. If Grand Dukes are counted as German, then during World War I, Germans comprised a striking 38% of the Russian Empire’s top generals. Vindicated?

Here is how many Russian generals were of German descent in different periods of Russian history according to Claude:

Napoleonic era (1800-1820)~25-30% of generals

Nicholas I era (1825-1855)~20-25% of generals

Alexander II era (1855-1881)~15-20% of generals

Alexander III era (1881-1894)~10-15% of generals

Nicholas II pre-war (1894-1914)~8-12% of generals

Then I have decided to dig further and study Russia’s Civil War generals and here is their ethnic backgrounds:

White Army:

Anton Denikin — Russian

Alexander Kolchak — Russian + Moldovan/Turkic

Pyotr Wrangel — Baltic German

Lavr Kornilov — Russian + Asian

Nikolai Yudenich — Russian

Sergey Markov — Russian

Anatoly Pepelyayev — Russian

Roman von Ungern-Sternberg — Baltic German

Pyotr Krasnov — Russian, Cossack

Mikhail Alekseyev — Russian

Yevgeny Miller — Baltic German

Germans = 27% of the main White Army forces generals if you include Roman von Ungern-Sternberg as a White army general, 18% if you don’t.

Red Army:

Leon Trotsky — Jewish

Sergey Kamenev — Russian

Mikhail Tukhachevsky — Russian

Semyon Budyonny — Ukrainian/Russian Cossack (Don region)

Vasily Chapayev — Russian

Ion Yakir — Jewish

Ieronim Uborevich — Lithuanian (possible of Belarussian descent)

Jukums Vācietis — Latvian

Alexander Yegorov — Russian

Kliment Voroshilov — Russian

Mikhail Frunze — Moldovan + Russian

Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko — Ukrainian

Pavel Dybenko — Ukrainian

Zero prominent Germans among famous Red Generals.

Then I decided to improve my methodology and instead of going based on famous ones I have decided to take a look at all of them combined using this database:

Using Claude for my counting I got the following results:

Here is how Red and White sides compare:

Red Side:

White Side:

These lists didn’t add up to my own calculation and so I decided to look into the labeling and as predicted it counts many Germans as Russians because they were culturally assimilated.

Still, the amount of Germans even if you include those with 1/4 German grandparents is 9% of the total. Consistent with Claude estimates of later Russian army being around 9% German.

The Government

Then I decided to look into the government, how many ministerial positions were occupied by Germans. For my methodology I decided to look at those who occupied the last ministerial position for any sphere:

Nikolai Golitsyn - Chairman of Council of Ministers - Russian

Alexander Protopopov - Minister of Interior - Russian

Pyotr Bark - Minister of Finance - Half German, half Russian

Eduard Krieger-VoinovskyMinister of Railways - German, some Polish ancestry

Nikolai Pokrovsky - Minister of Foreign Affairs - Russian

Nikolai Dobrovolsky - Minister of Justice - Russian

Mikhail Belyayev - Minister of War - Russian

Nikolai Kulchitsky - Minister of Education - Russian of Ukrainian descent

Vladimir Fredericks - Minister of Imperial Court - Baltic German

Ivan Grigorovich - Minister of the Navy - Russian

Vsevolod Shakhovsky - Minister of Trade and Industry - Russian

Alexander Rittikh - Minister of Agriculture - Half German, half Russian

Georgy Ermolaevich Rein of Public Health - German surname, little info on family

Sergei Feodosyev - State Comptroller - Russian

Nikolai Rayev - Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod - Russian

Pavel Stakhovich - Head of State Stud Farms - Russian

Out of 16 ministers 5 were of German descent, though most of them were of partial German descent. If you break it down in terms of genetics, it will appear that indeed 20% of Russia’s ministers having German DNA.

In my previous article I have estimated that people with German ancestry were in charge of the Russian government about 10% of the time.

Diplomacy

The next claim is the German overrepresentation among the Russian diplomats (which I have noticed myself)

Let’s start with the heads of the Russia’s foreign ministers:

Alexander Vorontsov 1802-1804 Russian

Adam Jerzy Czartoryski 1804-1806 Polish

Andreas Eberhard von Budberg 1806-1807 Baltic German

Nikolay Rumyantsev 1808-1814 Russian

Ioannis Kapodistrias 1816-1822 Greek

Karl Nesselrode 1814-1856 Baltic German

Alexander Gorchakov 1856-1882 Russian

Nicholas de Giers 1882-1895 1/2 Swedish 1/2 German

Alexei Lobanov-Rostovsky 1895-1896 Russian

Nikolay Shishkin 1896-1897 Russian

Mikhail Muravyov 1897-1900 Russian

Vladimir Lamsdorf 1901-1906 Baltic German

Alexander Izvolsky 1906-1910 Russian

Sergei Sazonov 1910-1916 Russian

Boris Sturmer 1916 1/2 German 1/2 Russian

Nikolay Pokrovsky 1916-1917 Russian

Out of 16 ministers 5 were of German descent and 3 were of full German descent. Funny enough if we look at the later stage of the Russian Empire it was noticeably less German. Genetically that’s about 25% Germanic.

For ambassadors I have decided to look at the last Russian ambassadors in major countries before the 1917 revolution:

British Empire (Chargé d'affaires) - Konstantin Nabokov - Russian

British Empire (Ambassador) - Sergey Sazonov - Russian

France - Vasily Maklakov - Russian

Italy - Mikhail von Giers - 1/2 Moldovan (possibly some German there) 1/4 Swedish 1/4 German

Spain - Mikhail Stakhovich - Russian

United States - George Bakhmeteff - Tatar (Christian)

Japan - Vasily Krupensky - Russian

Portugal - Pyotr Polikarpov - Russian

Switzerland - Ivan Efremov - Russian

Belgium - Alexander Nelidov - Russian

Netherlands - Nikolai Swerbeyev - Russian

Greece - Elim Demidov - Russian, symbolic Finno-Ugric descent

Serbia - Grigory Trubetskoy - Russian

Romania - Stanislav Poklevsky-Kozell - Polish

Sweden - Anatoly Neklyudov - Russian

Norway - Konstantin Gulkevich - Russian

Denmark - Matvey Sevastopulo - Greek

Argentina - Eugene Stein - Jewish

Persia - Nikolai von Etter - German

China - Nikolai Kudashev - Russian

Germans made only 6.25% of the total. That being said, I did a visual inspection of Russian ambassadors to these various countries and there was a lot of German overrepresentation to major countries like the UK, France and the United States in the middle of 19th century. Perhaps up to a third of all Russian ambassadors in major countries were of German descent, however in the early 20th century their influence has sharply fallen.

If you include the last Russian ambassadors to the Central Powers (1914) then here they are:

German Empire - Sergey Sverbeyev - Russian - (1912-1914)

Ottoman Empire - Mikhail von Giers - 1/2 Moldovan (possibly some German there) 1/4 Swedish 1/4 German - (1912-1914)

Bulgaria - Aleksandr Savinsky - Russian - (1913-1915)

Austria-Hungary - Nikolay Nikolayevich Shebeko - Russian - (1913-1914)

As you can see nothing really changes.

To test out my theory I decided to employ Claude to look at all Russian ambassadors to major countries in the 19th century (Italy, France, British Empire, United States, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire), here are the results:

Germans = 27% of the total. Here is how this breakdown looks like by each country:

Austria-Hungary: Germans: 4 out of 16 = 25%

Germany: Germans: 4 out of 12 = 33%

United States: Germans: 5 out of 13 = 38%

Italy: Germans: 1 out of 5 = 20%

France: Germans: 2 out of 9 = 22%

British Empire: Germans: 5 out of 10 = 50%

Ottoman Empire: Germans: 0 out of 15 = 0%

Administration:

Finally, let’s look at the administration. After excluding Poland, Baltics and Finland here is who governed the provinces of the Russian Empire for 1914:

As you can see the German input is tremendous and like many other things you’re about to see. The only correction I’d make is add more Russian Cossacks like the governor of Kuban Oblast. Anyways, there is basically no other ethnic representation besides the Russian and the Germans as it relates to governing provinces. As I wrote on Twitter:

If you examine gubernatorial appointments in the Russian Empire, it becomes clear that the Russian Empire could be described as Great Russian and German supremacist state. Only Georgians and to a lesser extent Armenians managed to attain some positions within this hierarchy.

Germans made 24% of the total governors of the Russian Empire, although, much of it was concentrated in the Baltics, Central Asia, Finland and Vistula. The European part of Russia in which the Germans reigned over was mostly territories of the Ukraine and Belarus.

Nonetheless, the Russians and the Germans have effectively co-ran the Russian Empire’s administrative borders at the exclusion of everybody else with some minor caveats.

Parliament (State Duma):

Thankfully there is a research article on this topic already so I don’t need to do extra research myself.

All the people of Russia acquired the right to present their
interests during the elections and in the Duma, to form nationally-based
political elites and to master parliamentary political culture.
However, only four deputies of the First State Duma were registered
as Germans. They all represented immigrant communities: Andreas
Widmer, a Lutheran farmer, deputy of a district zemstvo (local government)
assembly in Bessarabia province; Ivan Minkh, the Lutheran headman of a
German colony in Kherson province; another Lutheran, Jacob Dietz, a
lawyer and journalist from Saratov province; and Heinrich Schelhorn, a
parish foreman, owner of a printing house and deputy of the provincial and
district zemstvo assembly of Samara province.

In other words, out of 477 deputies, Germans amounted to just 4 or 0.84% of the total. This means that Germans were actually underrepresented in the one institution selected by something resembling a democratic franchise.

Anyways, I did some extra digging myself and found a list of all the deputies in the Russian Empire’s State Duma. Looking into the Fourth State Duma (1912-1917) specifically, here are the results:

As you can see, the Russian parliament was a Russian-dominated space. Germans amounted to just 2% of the total and overwhelmingly belonged to the Czarist Octobrist party.

Finally I decided to go with the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election after the Czarist regime lost power and here are the results of the first Russian election with universal suffrage:

As you can see both the Germans and the Russians took a heavy hit from the universal suffrage. But the Germans were completely wiped out.

I also challenged Claude on the Jewishness of the Bolsheviks and this is the results:

Cultural and Spiritual Life

German Writers

Thankfully I don’t need to conduct new research because I have already done an ethnic and religious study of the greatest Russian writers of all time and by Russian I mean writers from the Russian Empire and as I have determined Germans were not represented at the early stages of the Russian Empire yet they were not particularly overrepresented at the later stages of the Russian Empire either. For the most part, German overrepresentation means that one or two Russian writers were one eight or one quarter German themselves. Nonetheless here is the data:

German DNA made about 5.88% of Russian writers and poets of the Golden Age Era and 3.5% of the Silver Age Era. However the Russian Empire did not produce a single well known German writer.

Classical Music:

Read more

Read more

In this article, I won’t be talking about how the Russians are killing way less civilians than the Americans or how the Americans are fighting the war way more effectively, while suffering minimal manpower losses. This is all common sense, and if I wanted to make an emphasis on that, then I’d not differ from any other commentators.

Instead, I want to emphasize the psychological aspect of Russian and American decision making in regards to war, and with regards to other aspects of the decision making chain. A difference in mentality between Russians and the Americans or Westerners more broadly.

That is, the American society is able to reflex and course correct whereas the Russian is not and I will show how this is both a strength and a weakness.

The Russian Approach To War

Russia’s fundamental characteristic as a strategic actor is its capacity for endurance and psychological rigidity. It is a national characteristic of the Russian state. The Russian society, shaped by centuries of catastrophic wars, famine, and poor living standards has developed a tolerance for collective suffering that Westerners did not.

The Ukrainian population, likewise, heir to the same historical dynamics, has demonstrated the same quality. Both peoples have absorbed casualty rates and material deprivation that would have produced existential political crises in any Western democracy within months and as we know by the Iranian campaign even within weeks.

The Russian rulers have also developed a very rigid approach to governing their own population, manifested by severe state violence, repression of the opposition and appearing strong which all predisposes them against course correction and for sticking with the strategy that they have adopted no matter what. In the maximalist sense it implies that the entire Russian political and social structure is built on the fiction of infallibility from above and once the ruler had made a decision, the entire country must stick to it or face punishment.

These two factors make course correction nearly impossible. The Russian system lacks feedback loops that function in a similar fashion that it does in the Western states because the Russian regime sees their own population as a potential threat to power, but as a result of that they are able to make unpopular decisions and stick to them.

Perhaps it is my post-hoc rationality, but speaking purely in terms of state aggregation and not in terms of the economy, demographics (debatable) or international law fighting a long war of endurance has probably paid off. It is certain that had Russia peaced out in 2022 and not in 2026 or next year, its gains would have been smaller than they are now. Likewise, the maximalist Russian aims of 2022 did not include land annexations but they did include an unsustainable regime change done in a country which clearly doesn’t want it.

Read more

More than two weeks into this military adventure, we know that Trump has failed in two of his main objectives:

1. Achieving a swift victory and signing peace on terms favorable to Israel and the United States

2. Achieving regime change

In this article, I will not be providing a summary of the military engagement or how each side is faring, I’ll save that for a YouTube video hopefully coming out within a week (as promised). Instead, I want to talk about the psychology of conflict. What makes someone resist, and what makes someone fold? Because as it turns out, you can face an enemy a hundred times your strength and still resist despite taking heavy losses. And I’m not talking about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the American invasion of Vietnam, I’m talking about Gaza. What motivates these people to continue fighting, despite enduring a genocide and total destruction of civilian infrastructure on a scale not seen since the Second World War?

A common understanding of politics includes assumption of rationality among people, particularly the calculation of a cost-benefit analysis without factoring in the emotions, commitment and motivations to fight. Because as it turns out you could launch a war you know you’d lose and suffer devastating consequences at the end, but do it regardless.

You could also defend against an enemy much stronger than you, refuse to make concessions even though on an intuitive level you know you stand no chances in the long run.

The Iranian war situation is one among many in which a weaker country is choosing to resist a much stronger and powerful one (two), doing so asymmetrically, escalating despite having weaker cards, and preparing for a long war of attrition that will cost the Americans dearly.

So the question is, why did Venezuela capitulate, while Ukraine, Hamas and Iran have decided to resist? What is it about the psychology and mental calculations of countries like Iran that are different than countries like Venezuela? At the end of the day, Iran got bombed much harder than Venezuela and its Shia regime was hugely unpopular, whereas Venezuela could have also shown some resistance against the Americans, perhaps dragging the war for multiple months, but they have chose not to do that and become US puppets instead (while keeping the regime).

The Psychology of War

Read more