I know I’m not the first to say it, so I’ll just add to the noise. Dylan Mulvaney is not right in the head.
Here is a video of him pretending to be a 6-year-old girl:
As the pendulum continues to build momentum as it shifts from left to right, Dylan Mulvaney is going to be one hell of a loser.
The insolvency of Silicon Valley Bank has resulted in a run on the banks, which has resulted in more insolvent banks. The Red Pill community has pointed to SVB’s prioritization of DEI initiatives as being a significant factor in the bank’s collapse, and note with a sense of irony that wokeness may have knocked over the first dominoes that may result in a collapse of the global economy.
Of course, it’s also pointed out that SVB may have been targeted by Uncle Sam for having been friendlier to the crypto market. That sounds kinda conspiracy-theoryish, but if that’s the case, I’d say that that effort backfired, considering that Bitcoin shot way, way up in response to the SVB collapse.
More banks have since collapsed due to bank runs, and I’m seeing the more Red Pill types celebrating the accelerated collapse of the woke movement. While I can get behind that, it’s a little disturbing that there are people who seem to be cheering on the destruction of the global economy. It’s enough for me for the institutions to come to the realization that the woke movement is of no benefit for them to get behind. But considering how much harder it would be for everyone if the global economy were to collapse, I wonder what benefit it would be to anyone if things came to that.
Perhaps there would be some benefit, if only to slap more people awake to the true nature of the woke movement, and if people as a whole were to ditch the crutch of the victim mentality in favor of living on one’s merits. Which they may end up doing out of necessity, if things get difficult.
My foresight is not great. If I had better foresight, I would have understood the true nature of the global economy before majoring in Electronics. Live and learn, and all that.
But still, I can see what would come about if economic difficulty were to necessitate meritocratic living. It would mean that ideas such as wokeness would be viewed in terms of its virtues, which wouldn’t be much outside of its ability to manipulate algorithms. Even now, entertainment companies are slowly coming to the realization that woke messaging negatively impacts the quality of their products, which is part of the reason why viewers are starting to turn against subscription-based streaming services. And now, we’re seeing banks collapse after investing in numerous DEI startups.
While the pendulum is already shifting against wokeness, economic uncertainty would further push the general public into meritocracy as they seek out a way of life that actually, you know, pays the bills. Projecting victimhood seldom does as much, and is becoming increasingly evident as being the sport of the interpersonally manipulative.
When matters are difficult, people turn to merit to get by. It’s when motivated by survival that people look at themselves and other people in terms of what they have to offer. That’s the most practical course in challenging times. Because men tend to have greater upper-body strength than women, and the physiology that lends them more towards physically-involved labor, men tend more towards more dangerous jobs that usually pay better than clerical jobs. This means women would tend towards management of resources and maintaining relationships, in part because their relative lack of physical endurance would mean that this would be the safer option for them, but also because women tend to have minds that are better suited to such things. While feminists wouldn’t like it, more women would return to the trad wife life, even if only out of necessity and in consideration of what they’d have to offer in consideration of their innate attributes.
Considering this, what the woke movement shouldn’t want is challenging times, as woke pet causes tend to thrive more in the prosperous conditions that allow for the luxury of societal experimentation, erroneous philosophies, and the inflexibility of thinking that would result from the rigidness that is characteristic of the woke cult.
Yet, challenging times is just what one can expect, considering that it is the natural consequence of experimenting with ideologies such as wokeness.
There’s a teacher in New York by the name of Remy Elliott (certified as Jeremy William Elliott) who decided that it would be a good idea to do a video on her TikTok account in which she assigned various gender identities to Nintendo characters, such as Mario and Princess Peach.
According to her TikTok presentation, “Mario came out so long ago most people forgot”. Not only that, she claimed that Luigi is demisexual, Princess Daisy is bisexual and polyamorous, Toad is ready to come out as a trans-girl, and Yoshi completed transition to a male, complete with breast-removal surgery that left no scars.
As I read about this, it became apparent to me that the presentation was a joke, which was something that Remy did assert. But even so, to make a presentation like this when representing your school district as an educator seems like an insanely bad move.
But just in case you doubt where this piece of work stands in the culture war, Remy claims to have a trans flag, a bisexual flag, and a non-binary flag on her desk at her work, which would be at school. She did this to show just how accepting she was of these things.
The only reservation she had concerning what she shared with her students concerned her polyamory, because that “is not in the conversation”. But she did confer with administrators, who agreed that it would be appropriate with her to speak with students about her relationships.
I disagree. A teacher’s job is to teach, preferably on the topic of the class in question. It’s certainly no place for any educator to bring up personal matters, especially not personal matters of a sexual nature, and certainly not with students who are still minors. What’s even more vexing is that the school district’s administration, after hearing of Remy’s polyamory, approved the teacher to speak of it, rather than immediately shooting it down for the repugnant idea that it was, or at least recognizing the potential for controversy and bad press.
She said: ‘This is not a conversation that conservatives are having at all. They’ve decided… like, you can’t do this at all, there’s no place for it.
So, now we know what a depraved half-wit does when she ignores any voice of reason. She’ll upload a presentation to TikTok which bullshits about the sexual identities of Nintendo characters.
‘And that just shows such a lack of thought and care. They’re not understanding of the people. They’re children as people and where they’re at.’
And, no surprise, she’s of a mind that determines that it’s ageist to say that it’s wrong to introduce sexual deviancy to children.
Notice how she’s registered under the name “Jeremy William Elliott”? She is actually a he.
So yeah, we have yet another case of a man identifying as a woman, likely in an attempt to make it easier to approach children about sexual matters.
She added: ‘It’s also strange to point out that they have genders and sexualities, as being a cisgender heterosexual man is in fact a gender and sexual orientation.’
How he arrived at the conclusion does not follow. The fact that Mario is apparently straight does not make it unusual to talk about the genders and sexualities of Nintendo characters. In fact, there are some cases where mature, adult fans may prefer to speculate about this topic, to the end of coming to a better understanding of the characters in question. Putting aside, of course, the fact that the characters in question are seldom, if ever, sexualized in the official materials. What makes the matter unusual in Remy’s case is that he wished to publicly have the conversation as an educator, with dozens of ninth-graders presumably involved.
‘As part of my DOE employment, despite being primarily hired as an English Teacher, teaching our established and vetted sex education curriculum was not only something I was hired for, it was something I was trained and qualified in.’
That was a shitty move on the DOE’s part. After all, Remy can’t be counted on to present the sexualities of Nintendo characters in good faith. I’ve been a Nintendo fan for decades, so I can take issue with many of the claims that Remy makes.
For one thing, Mario and Luigi are evidently straight. This is presumably one of the reasons behind why they go after princesses Peach and Daisy. They want some of that vertical smile. For Toad to transition to a girl would be redundant for his franchise, because his sister Toadette is already a character in those games. Then there’s Remy’s assertion that Yoshi had “top surgery”. Yoshi is a reptile. Reptiles don’t have mammaries.
She added that she only ever spoke of her personal life ‘within reasonable limits.’
It’s great to know that Remy is willing to draw the line somewhere, even if that line should have been placed well before telling minors that Princess Daisy is “hella bisexual”. But, who knows? Maybe Remy will do another installment where she points at Samus Aran as being trans, and Link as being a closet fairy. Yoshio Sakamoto and Shigeru Miyamoto don’t seem to be in any hurry to represent the perversity of the moment, so perhaps Remy will step forward to help them out?
When bad people are writing hit pieces about you, you know that you’re doing something right. Author Chaya Raichik of Libs of Tiktok fame knows exactly what that’s like.
Chaya is now a children’s book author, having just published No More Secrets: The Candy Cavern, available for purchase on Bravebooks.us.
As I’ve pointed out before, narrative is a valuable tool in communicating important moral lessons. This holds up whether the lesson is delivered to children or adults. While works of fiction have the notable fault of being fictional, and therefore one can make the moral anything they want, it’s still the case that these are valuable in making certain topics easier to approach.
As many of us are becoming increasingly aware, when people ask children to keep secrets, it often to the end of manipulating the child into doing or saying something that they may not otherwise do or say. And because they possess the naivete intrinsic to a child’s state of mind, children can be easily manipulated. Because of this, it’s important that we teach children to speak up when something doesn’t seem right.
While one may read this book and understandably see parallels with the current scandal involving teachers tricking children into going trans, the fact is, this book’s core lesson extends in principle to anyone who would attempt to use “keeping secrets” as part of the grooming process.
I recall from my college days that a sociology professor told the class that one of the ways that a predator can groom a child is by asking them to keep secrets. Oftentimes, it’s something subtle, like letting a naughty word slip, then asking the child not to tell their parents that they said it. If the child does tell their parents, then that’s a sign that that’s the kind of kid that the predator is better off not messing with. Sometimes, the process of grooming involves testing the waters in various ways to determine whether it’s safe to proceed. Predators are often more methodical than they are given credit for.
Similarly, we need to teach our children that if anyone tells them to keep secrets from us, it becomes really important that they share those secrets with us. Because even if that person seems like they might be fun or trusting, that person might be trying to take advantage of them in some way.
Also, big props to artist James Scrawl, whose art in this book is simply adorable.
The forces of depravity and perversity know that they’re going to lose the culture war if they were to only attempt to appeal to adults, who see their ideology for what it is. Because of this, they are pivoting to attempting to appeal to children, whose minds are still pliable, and are therefore easier to take advantage of. We need to teach our children to speak up when something doesn’t seem right.
We also have a duty to teach our children a love for the truth. After all, if our children don’t have a love of the truth in their minds, someone else can come along and fill them up with whatever they want.
Before wrapping this up, I’d like to point out a couple points of contention that leftists have concerning this book. Because, for some reason, it’s leftists who have a problem with a children’s book that encourages behavior that could keep children safe from dangerous predators. Go figure.
Pseudo-intellectuals love using the concept of projection as the “NO U” of psychology, to the point that they actually think it’s clever to point to wanting to keep children safe from predators as evidence that they are a predator.
While it’s no surprise to me that leftists have little respect for human rights, they usually keep their hands closer to themselves than to suggest that someone is subject to illegal search and seizure for raising a concern, just because that concern isn’t favorable to leftism.
I honestly cannot fathom what an ignoramus that a person would have to be to suggest that a person may be guilty of something just by saying that it’s bad to do it. To spell it out: You cannot further a thing by furthering something that is the negation of that thing.
I suspect that weshlovrcm doesn’t actually believe what he’s typing. After all, a person who forms such a stupid thought and internalizes it as a sincere conviction should lack the capacity to purchase a device and a subscription to a telecom company, in addition to whatever else he needed to do to send his message, unless a government-appointed handler set all this up for him.
Which, if that were the case, would only upset me even more, because that would mean that I indirectly paid for him to access the internet.
Not to worry, we know that those ones are a problem, too. However, pointing out that there are predators in different institutions does not mean that we are no longer concerned with the ones in the institution that we are currently discussing.
There is no need for the diversion. Or, there might be, considering that your ilk thinks that calling “projection” is clever, and that expressing concern indicates guilt.
Arbitrary second example, indicating that these people really seem to dislike churches. But here’s the thing: church attendance is not compulsory. People can decide not to attend a church, or any church. And they can decide not to bring their children with them. This contrasts with public education, which in many cases is compulsory.
If you hate churches so much, just don’t go. No one is making you. You may stand to benefit in a huge way if you were to pay attention to the sermon, but if you were to not go, churches would have slightly less problem with wishy-washy bench-warmers whose hearts are not really in it.
I pulled these nuggets off of this page. There’s more, if you care to read them. But if you’re up for smarter reading, here’s a link to purchase Raichik’s new book.
The left seems to have no problem with throwing money at problems, as long as the money is not their own. And they’ll happily do so, with little respect for the underlying causes of those problems.
Here’s yet another precious moment:
There’s a reason why the left tends to swing more for younger voters, and that’s because they don’t think younger voters have the insight needed to recognize the left’s platitudes as being as naive and vacuous as they are.
Oftentimes, you’ll hear one of them say that there are N number of homeless people and M number of houses (where N < M), and therefore solving the homelessness problem is as easy as putting one in the other. This sounds appealing if you don’t understand the nuances of the matter, which might be the ignorance that they are banking on.
The fact is, people who are homeless are usually homeless for some compelling reasons, and unless the underlying reasons for their homelessness are solved, the act of scooping them up from off the streets and dropping them off in a vacant home will probably only solve their problem for about a week.
For one thing, people become homeless because they struggle with drug addiction. That’s being generous, of course, as in many cases, it’s not so much a struggle as it is a full-on embrace, to the point that a person deems them more important than anything else, including having a roof over their head.
And that makes it more interesting that California is actually providing homeless drug addicts with the free drugs that they’d need to continue their addictions.
Another problem has to do with mental health. Some people have a difficult time holding down a home by reason of mental illness. While these people could be institutionalized and therefore treated, mental clinicians in the western world are largely dependent on voluntary committals. This is made unlikely in cases where one’s paranoid delusions result in them distrusting the professionals who could otherwise help them.
How does one go about solving this problem? I don’t know, but it’s one major underlying problem behind the homelessness crisis.
Perhaps it’s the case that Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett is truly unaware of the nuances behind the homelessness problem. But it’s hard to dismiss the possibility that he’s aware that the problem is more difficult to solve than just dropping homeless people into empty houses, and he’s counting on you not having the insight to question him about it.
In either case, it’s not a good look.
I grew up with the likes of Batman, so it kinda saddens me to see how things are going for the Dark Knight, and his compatriots in western comic books. But at the same time, I don’t want to see Batman succeed for the wrong reasons. And with DC and Marvel comics having become full-on woke rags, it’s pretty much necessary for those comic companies to tumble, if it means that they’ll learn a few things as it happens.
If you’ve been following along, you already know that manga has been killing the hell out of western comics. As I’ve already covered, manga sales in the year 2020 were three times that of DC and Marvel sales combined. As pointed out by Deb Aoki on Twitter, EuropeComics has posted a graph which visualizes just how much hell is being killed out of western comics:
To further highlight the mayhem:
The first four publishers on that list are manga publishers, and each one of them outsells both Marvel and DC combined, with Marvel and DC placing numbers 7 and 8 behind Korean webtoon publishers.
It looks like no one is buying western comic books anymore, and I wonder why?
Oh yeah, that’s right. It’s because Marvel and DC have gone full-on woke, with DC having started a yearly publication starring characters whose sexual preferences are the most front-facing aspects of their personalities.
Did DC really publish this with the expectation that anyone reading it would feel like they’re being taken seriously?
Now, I get it. Your boomer parents and grandparents grew up with Hanna Barbara bullshit like Hong Kong Phooey, and would therefore feel threatened by anything from across the ocean that might challenge them, which has a lot to do with why they’re among the few left who are currently providing Marvel and DC as much support as they have. I also get that they grew up in an age where it was rare for cartoons to be made for anyone besides children. Even so, the idea that children don’t deserve better products just because they’re children is just an excuse to produce inferior products, which in turn conditions children into becoming adults willing to settle for mediocrity.
I read manga because manga takes me seriously enough to present me with entertainment without beating me over the head with the blunt end of whatever misguided moral that the publisher wanted to push, as though they couldn’t trust me to think for myself.
If the story is about a golden-haired dude battling it out with a galactic tyrant on an exploding planet, the comic doesn’t need to do anything to further justify itself. If some cook is facing off against his dad because of some deep-seated grudge, we don’t need a PSA telling us not to pick on people who like buttsecks. If some deranged scientist performs horrific vivisections just to enhance his capacity to explore come caverns, he’s plainly the bad guy, it’s not necessary to make him a Nazi, as well.
If western comic book heroes are to succeed again at some point in the future, they’re going to have to go back to being, you know, heroes. It’s going to take a whole lot of swallowing to down all the pride needed for Batman and the Avengers to come back up from where they currently are.
But in the time it takes for them to do it, I’ve got plenty of other things to read.
The following cartoon was brought to us by Twitter user Fight the Patriarchy. The feminist apparently got the idea that she could take the language that men direct towards women, which feminists find annoying, and turn matters around by showing a cartoon with women directing similar compliments towards men:
Sorry, I got distracted with some fond memories.
The above comic was posted to social media with the idea that it would pwn teh pAtRiArChY, but something different happened. The idea of being complimented like that was something that men loved.
And really, who wouldn’t?
It would seem as though the answer to that question would be feminists, whose distrust of other people is so extreme that they assume a subtle sexual proposition in mere small talk.
Even if such a proposition were present, where’s the controversy? Just like men, women have the capacity to express disinterest at any point in any interaction, and to do so is a trivial social inconvenience.
When one person complains about an experience as a person of one gender, it seems to be the tendency of people to assume that there must always be an equivalent experience for the other gender.
But that’s not always the case, because men and women are different. Many of those differences are obvious, such as the fact that women can get pregnant, and when that happens, they spend nine months giving of their energy and nutrients to help develop the life that’s growing inside them. This being the case, women have a tendency to proceed with more caution in the courtship process, considering that the outcome would be a significant investment of their time and energy.
Though, from what I’ve seen, women have a tendency to take initiative. But I understand that not everyone has had the same experiences as me.
Men and women are different. And those differences should be understood and embraced as beneficial for society, rather than a reason to complain about oppression and play the victim, as the tendency of certain people is.
But even with those differences, I think society would be better still if a certain subculture, feminists specifically, were to learn a few things about taking compliments without assuming ulterior motives. But considering that the typical feminist is characterized by a distrust of those they perceive to be in the outgroup, they’re well set up to surpass expectations.
WARNING: The story being discussed is enraging. If you have anger issues or are susceptible to committing acts such as vehicular homicide, you might want to give this one a skip.
Once again, I’m absolutely not kidding. If you continue, the story in question might ruin your day, maybe even your entire week.
Townhall’s Mia Cathell did an excellent job investigating this story, which got almost no media coverage from the legacy outlets. What story am I talking about? You might want to sit down for this.
An activist gay married couple decided to adopt two boys from a Christian adoption company that focused on special needs children, so that they could sexually abuse them, use them to produce explicit material, and pimp them out to other pedophiles in Georgia.
What a lot to unpack. If you’re interested in reading the story for yourself, here’s a link to part one of Townhall’s four-part series. I won’t comment much on details of Townhall’s findings here, because you can just read them yourself. But I do want to make some observations.
Obviously, the corporate mainstream information media would only grudgingly run this story, if they did so at all, considering that the idea that a gay couple could also be pedophiles and get away with abusing a couple children that they adopted for as long as the Zulocks did would not fit the narrative.
But for the rest of us, when we see someone loudly boast of their sexuality as being their most important and public-facing aspect, it would not be surprising in the least to see that person go on to commit an act of sexual misconduct. Obviously, we would not want our own children to spend any amount of time around them.
But in the case of the Zulocks, they were to the point that even other pedophiles thought that they were going too far, and one of them decided to turn them in.
What I’m curious about is how the two men got the money needed to quickly build a mansion for themselves right after adopting the two boys. And not only that, they took trips to places all over the country. One of the two was a bank teller, and the other was a low-level government employee, so just based on that alone, the two would have lacked the means to live so extravagantly. Somehow, I get the idea that the answer would piss me off.
I know that when it comes to matters like this, the term “allegedly” is useful, especially if it turns out the accused were innocent. But the Zulock men had already confessed. Even if they were to plead “not guilty” to the charges, their confessions might come back to bite them.
When it comes to criminals like the Zulocks, it’s fun to think of creative punishments. But in their case, they’re facing life sentences, so no Sparta kicking them off tall buildings. But I think it would be sufficient to put them in with genpop and allow nature to take its course.
You know that one kid who, when the class was taking a quiz, the teacher would sit down next to her and help her through it? She now has a voice on the internet.
A writer at IQfy is now experiencing post-vax regret, and tried blaming those who warned her by pretending that they didn’t.
No, I’m not kidding. Here’s a link to the article in question.
As the world struggles to come to terms with the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, one question that continues to surface is why the unvaccinated didn’t do more to warn us about the potential dangers of being injected.
Could it be because it wasn’t their job? Or could it be that they, like myself, did warn you, and you ignored us? Or could it be that our warnings to you for your benefit were being actively suppressed?
Of course, it’s still possible that you’ve heard sufficient warning to discourage you from making the wrong move, but despite your belief in yourself as a free-thinker, you lacked the drive to inquire concerning the matter, and followed the crowd like a herd animal.
While well intending citizens lined up, did the right thing, and received their COVID19 vaccinations — now seeming to do more harm than good — their unvaccinated friends stood by and let them do it. Some of them said too little. Some said nothing at all.
Even though they knew what we didn’t.
Don’t get carried away. We did warn you. Not only that, you had access to the same information that we did. You just poo-pooed it, dismissing the warnings as the ramblings of conspiracy theorists.
Now that you got the mRNA vaccine, you’re finding out that it’s not turning you into Spider Man. Instead, it’s causing you problems, and in some cases, it’s killing people.
You laughed at the people who warned you. Now, we’re laughing right back.
Our blood is now on their hands.
Those are strong words. But the unvaccinated had access to important information about the potential side effects of vaccines. They knew about the risks of severe allergic reactions, blood clots, and other serious health complications. They knew that vaccines did not immunize us. They knew it wasn’t effective, and that they can cause more harm than good.
“Our blood is now on their hands.” The battle-cry of the deceived.
Here’s a better idea: rather than try to take it out on the people who tried to warn you, why don’t you instead put your blame on the people who stuck you, which is right where it belongs.
If all these professionals are so smart, they’re the ones who should have known better.
They knew all of that, but instead of warning us, the unvaccinated chose to remain silent. They chose to look the other way and not speak out about the potential dangers of vaccines. They let millions of good folks who did the right thing (at the time) fall to death and disease, and many antivaxxers even gloated online about how their coin flip had been the right bet. The more diabolical even urged folks they disagree with to “get boosted.”
It has become all too clear. The silence of the unvaccinated was a dangerous, sociopathic, and irresponsible decision that has had serious consequences for those of us who received the vaccinations.
And silence is, after all, consent.
I remember that those of us who knew what was going on wanted to warn you, but we were being threatened. We wanted to warn you, but the establishment was doing everything they could to make sure that you went through with it, even going as far as threatening to shut down the social media accounts of those who would warn you, denying us a voice. And they went as far as threatening our livelihoods and careers, denying us a paycheck, as a possible price to pay for trying to warn you.
You should be blaming the establishment, or at least owning up to your own choice, which you made with agency. But instead, you’re blaming the people who tried to warn you? And on top of that, you’re pretending that we did not?
It is time for the unvaccinated to take responsibility for their actions and to work with the rest of us to find a solution to this crisis. We cannot afford to let their selfishness and lack of action continue to harm our communities. It is time for the unvaccinated to step up and do the right thing.
It occurred to me that maybe you deserved it. When presented with a choice, you went with the untested injection. When people warned you, you either ignored them, ridiculed them, or participated in ostracizing them. Even if you did none of those things, you had access to the same information that we did, but you weren’t inquisitive enough to seek it out. You were careless about what went into you, and now you’re paying the price.
Of course, if someone refuses to exercise proper inquisitiveness, it’s just a matter of time, and a question of how. In the case of many like you, it was an inadvisable medical procedure. They could have just as soon dumped all the money they saved into NFTs. Or they could have had 6-11 servings of wheat per day because the food pyramid told them to. Or they might think they could make their car more energetic by adding Mountain Dew to the gas tank. Or they might pick a fight with someone who was on the sex-offender registry, only to get shot in the face. Or they might attempt an SQL injection, only to somehow destroy their own home network.
In this world, people do stupid things. And sometimes, they try to shift the blame to someone else for not warning them not to do it.
The unvaccinated should by any moral measuring stick have done more to warn about the potential risks — to help us make informed decisions about our health. And they must now ask us for our forgiveness.
And, hand to heart, we may just give it to them.
Aw, how very gracious of you. But you have it backwards. Do you really not remember how the vaxxed ignored the people who warned them? Do you not remember how the vaxxed shunned them and threatened their livelihoods?
And you think we need your forgiveness?
Because we are good people. We took those injections because it was the right thing to do — until it wasn’t.
You’re not, and it never was.
Stupid is not malicious, but that changes when it tries to divert the blame.
Fine then, I’ll do what I’ve been doing, year after year, near the end of the year. I’ll post an image that I feel describes the year pretty well.
Like the last three years, I’m just going to be lazy and share something that I found by using the internet, without bothering to shop it:
A theory that has gained popularity in recent times is the Strauss-Howe generational theory, which suggests that major conflicts occur in cycles of 80 years. When applied to the USA, one can point out that roughly 78 years separates the Revolutionary War from the Civil War, and roughly 76 years separates the Civil War from America’s involvement in World War 2. It’s been roughly 77 years since the conclusion of World War 2, so proponents of the Strauss-Howe generational theory are buzzing with the possibility that we are heading towards another major conflict.
Of course, the idea that major conflicts occur because they abide by a schedule is silly. Therefore, there must be something different to which we can attribute this apparent pattern (of course, the similarity in difference in time between these events could be mere coincidence). One possibility is that the difference in time (about 80 years) is the time it takes for most of the members of a generation old enough to remember a conflict to pass away. And without the benefit of the memory of a major conflict, younger generations won’t appreciate the urgency of preventing a similar conflict from repeating itself.
While the generation that fought in World War 2 is held in high regard, the sad fact is, most of the lessons that the western world learned in its light has been forgotten. It’s generally agreed upon that the Nazi Party was bad, but in a cynically unconstructive manner, many of today’s politically involved try as hard as they can to paint their rivals with Hitler’s virtues. In distorting what the dictator was really about, they play a huge part in unlearning the lessons of the war. There is a certain irony in that, mere decades after the Socialism of Hitler’s National Socialist German Worker’s Party (Nazi Party, for short) was overcome, that countless pseudo-intellectuals tout the benefits of Socialism in coffee shops and college campuses, mainly because they don’t want to work. What’s more, while the same pseudo-intellectuals decry racism, they’re overlooking that Hitler’s racism was the end result of following Darwin’s ideas concerning natural selection to their consequence, an evolutionary theory that the same people accept without question.
One might wonder what would cause a major world conflict, especially in today’s age.
Today’s uninformed like to pretend that most major conflict that has occurred over the course of history has been over ideology, with atheists in particular believing religion to be the prime driver behind conflicts. However, most people who have ever lived that weren’t Muslim wouldn’t care whether someone far off were to bow, kneel, and scrape before some graven image N times a day, so long as they themselves got to live in peace. The fact is, most wars that have ever been fought have been fought over resources.
In light of the ongoing war in Ukraine, this winter could prove to be a tad difficult, particularly for Europe. For one thing, Ukraine and Russia are energy rich (with Ukraine’s energy sector having been of particular interest for the Biden administration). In light of tariffs on Russian oil and disruptions in Ukraine’s energy supply, Europe may find itself on a strict energy allocation for the next few months.
What’s more, Ukraine has been one of the world’s top exporters of wheat, and the top producer of wheat for Europe, aside from France and Russia, the latter being the world’s number 1 wheat exporter.
To illustrate, the following chart from Wikipedia shows countries listed by export of wheat:
Wheat is kind of a big deal, as wheat is used to make foods that are substantial in calories, and calories are one of the major sources of energy that humans use to live. If a substantial source of calories, such as wheat, comes to be in short supply, more people could end up going hungry. And when people go hungry, unrest is an anticipated result.
According to the Strauss-Howe generational theory, when a major conflict does erupt, it usually involves the most powerful weapons that are available at the time. Based on this reasoning, we might think that we might be looking at the prospect of nuclear war. During World War 2, atomic weapons were being developed, and a couple of them were deployed.
But are nuclear weapons really the most powerful weapons available? Or has the communication age changed the nature of warfare, to the point that information has become a more powerful weapon?
In times past, wars could be won by kinetically attacking the civilian population, which would then lose interest in war, and no longer want to support the war effort. Thus, it was of paramount importance that the armed forces defend the civilian population. Today, there’s no need to deploy a nuclear weapon, as to weaken a country is as easy as producing a steady stream of bullshit that is designed to systematically destroy people’s minds.
The fact is, we live in an age of fifth-generation warfare, which revolves around the use of cyberattacks, misinformation, and psyops. While Alex Jones has become the right’s butt-monkey, he did have a point when he pointed out that there is a war for your mind. State actors understand pretty well that a demoralized population is less likely to get behind its government, and would tend more towards subversive movements, which could unsettle standing dominant economic powers.
Considering all this, I think that 2023 might be an interesting year. If you live in a big city, and have the means to get out of it, it might be a good idea to do so.
Magnetricity 