Monthly Archives: August 2018

Content is downstream from power

… Which is just another way of saying art is downstream from power.

Art changes, evolves; used to be paintings of successful hunts in caves, clay figurines of fat women, then became paintings of rich people and classical music, now has become video games and, last but not least, online shenanigans like videos, social media, blogging, streaming and whatnot, which we colloquially refer to as ‘content’.

So a content creator is just the 21st century term for an artist. As always, everybody wants to be an artist, a free-fought spirit. But the golden rule of art has not changed, will never change: art is downstream from power.

The myth is that art somehow exists in a vacuum, that it transcends its environmental limitations.It does not. Art is an expression of the elite, of those in power, for those in power are the ones that allow said art to exist. Who decides which art is worthy of fame, is worth millions? Only those that can actually pay millions.

In the same vein, art is vulnerable; you can never be sure if your content appeals to the elite that allows its existence, but if you want to make a living out your art, you better well sure it does appeal to the right people.

So here we also see why there is the myth that art exists in a vacuum: it is a leftist lie, originating in the leftists’ desire to barnacle himself to power by kissing power’s ass: ‘this show is amazing and unique and special, you should really watch it!

In truth we have the inevitability of the patron system. Patron → Artist. That is the way. Lorenzo D’Medici pays Michelangelo, Michelangelo sculpts statues that Lorenzo likes. Lorenzo D’Medici dies and power falls into the hands of someone who does not like Michelangelo, Michelangelo flees. The principle is not so hard.

It is a truth of nature that a disproportionate amount of power tends to fall into the hands of a small group. Similarly, a disproportionate amount of content platforms are in the hands of a small group. Youtube is owned by Google, so you bet that content out of line with Google’s ‘be evil’ policy is demonetized or banned, exactly like Trump tweeted. Similarly, Instagram is owned by Facebook, so you best not fall out of grace with Zuckerberg if you want to be on those platforms. My personal favorite however, is Twitch, which in this blogger’s humble opinion is where the freshest content is at. Twitch  is streaming, like live tv on the internet, but included is a chatroom in which every viewer can type their thoughts as they watch the stream, and the streamer can live read those comments and respond to them. It’s the best; pure live content, created by streamer and audience simultaneously.

Now, who owns Twitch? Drumroll… Jeff Bezos bought it in 2014! It is part of the Amazon empire. So once again, it is obvious that Twitch content creators best not fall out of line with their patron, whose opinions are channeled pretty clearly on his personal blog, the Washington Post.

(Also, to stress the power relation between the patron and the artist: watch this excellent video. It’s a great napkin analysis of how much money the biggest streamers earn on Twitch in comparison with Bezos. Basically, Ninja, a Fortnite streamer and the most famous content creator on Twitch, who on a daily basis draws a filled Amsterdam arena of viewers, will make perhaps 100 million dollar in his lifetime, which Jeff Bezos makes on a daily basis. For Bezos, Twitch is chump change.)

Now while it is scientifically proven that 95% of power lies with the top 1%, if you find enough small fry patrons to directly sponsor you, that works just fine. But even here we find no such thing as a safe vacuum. After all, you need some sort of sponsoring platform. Take Patreon: owned by Jack Conte, operates in San Francisco, just around the block from Silicon valley. You bet that Patreon removes artists not in line with its politics, which it in fact has already done multiple times.

Or take it even a step further: direct peer-to-peer sponsorship. How will your patrons pay you? Through Paypal? Silicon valley baby!

Which is not to say Paypal blocks every artist it politically disagrees with. After all, you can still donate to Heartiste through Paypal. But they have banned other artists, and perhaps they will ban Heartiste one day if he becomes too large of a threat, like Alex Jones.

So we see that, once we start tracking the money we end up with the institutions that control the flow of money, and surprise surprise, the people heading these institutions are the elite, are linked to the same people that head Facebook, Google and Amazon, are part of the same group who decide what content gets through to the mainstream.

So where does this leave us.

First and foremost, this information is a red pill, not a black pill. If it were a black pill, we would conclude that the only option is to go full sell-out mode, to produce only art we know will be liked by the elite. This is a valid strategy. But not the only one.

The simplest strategy is to simply not monetize your content. Stay under the radar. But although some fine art has been created this way, the fact of the matter is that a) everyone wants make money and b) most people like to reach an audience.

If you are not concerned about (a), by far the the most insane strategy would be to build a self-sustainable grid hidden outside the reaches of those in power. With the use of crypto, self-built energy grids, property, anonymity and several passports one could theoretically pull this off. But you’d have to be a true madman. I know of only 1 man who claims to be pulling this off.

Another, slightly saner strategy lies in riding the tiger, which is to say: to test the waters, see what you can get away with and what not and adjust accordingly. It is obvious that those in power are not in power like Ingsoc is in 1984: there is a lot of chaos, a lot of infighting. It took years before Alex Jones was banned, arguably too many years to effectively squelch his voice. Murdoch Murdoch, after being banned from Youtube, is still advertising on Youtube. Even the Daily Stormer, which for a while seemed to be stomped into the ground, is back and very easily googled.

So, the red pill is that content is downstream from power, that power is mount Olympus and content is the city at its foot. But the white pill is that [The Current Year] is not like 1984, and that where there is a will, there is content.

The Adjustment Bureau is crap

I hate small talk, almost as much as I hate repeating myself. I’m just not that kind of guy.

Because I hate repeating myself I do not pinpoint this blog into a specific category. It is not exactly a political blog, but it is not not a political blog. It is also not a sewage culture commentary blog; I’ve done my share of sewage culture commentary, I do not want to make it too repetitive.

But you can not always escape the machine; if the entire mass entertainment industry is geared towards sewage, some of it is bound to spill over in your personal life. So maybe the occasional venting will turn the spilling into a force for good, namely dank content.

I just watched The Adjustment Bureau, and it was a glaring reminder of why I avoid Hollywood movies like the plague. In it, Matt Damon plays a promising US politician who might one day be the next president. He falls in love with a girl, but discovers the existence of mysterious men with hats who are actually angels following a mysterious plan made by ‘the chairman’ who is actually God. In that plan Matt Damon is not supposed to fall in love with the girl, so the angels stop them from being together. Matt Damon protests because love = love but the angels say that The Plan must be followed and Matt Damon must become president of the US and the girl must become a famous dancer which won’t happen if they are together. Since the angels have superpowers it seems like Matt has no chance, but lucky for him a black angel takes pity and helps Matt teleport through doors, stopping the girl from marrying an NPC. Together they try to escape by teleporting to the Yankee Stadium and the Statue of Liberty. A confrontation with the angels ensues, but God admires Matt Damon’s bravery and rewrites The Plan so love can be love. The End.

The movie is pretentious, boring and empty. It was obviously made in the pre-Trump era. Matt Damon supposedly represents a new kind of politician, one that is raw, honest. In his ‘best speech’ he so refreshingly honestly tells his audience that everything about his outfit is calculated and that they paid an expert 7400 $ to tell them exactly how scratched his shoes are supposed to be. It is of course obvious that Trump, who wears big red ties down to his crotch just because he likes it, is this president, although the movie makers are no doubt horrified by the comparison. Matt Damon is raw and honest, but not thatraw and honest! Matt Damon was liked by CNN, was featured in the New York Times, made high fives with Daily Show folk! In other words, Matt Damon was supposedly raw and fresh, entirely within Hollywood-accepted political system, which at the end of the day makes him just another empty suit, while Trump, breaking with Hollywood morals, is actually raw freshness embodied. You can’t change a broken system by playing by the rules, yet that is exactly what the Adjustment Bureau tell us.

The movie of course completely lacks this bit of self-reflection, and as a result is pompous and pretentious in its propagation of progressive values. The nod towards homosexuality acceptance (love = love) can not be missed, including the message that somepeople just stick to the bible too much but never fear because HollywoodGod changes the bible! That the 1 angel who helps Matt Damon is black can also not be missed. And of course there is the speech by an archangel about ‘God retreating when Christianity picked up steam, leading to the tewwible Dark Ages, and God later returning to give the people the Enlightenment’ which was incredibly cringe-worthy, though probably the best part of the movie in that it rewrites history in a way that is opposite of the truth yet understandable to normal people, making them feel like they have insight into history on similar level to Harvard history professors, which indeed is very true, just not in the way you’d expect.

Can I think of any good qualities? … No, not really. The Adjustment Bureau is really just Hollywood wearing the skin of Christianity to make God say progressivism is the one True religion.


C’mon man, write something…

I like to watch Youtube. I wished I still liked reading books as much as I used to, but I find I rarely have the patience. Books have too much ego; why read 80.000 words on a subject if I can find the same information online, condensed in a 10 minute clip, or a 500 word blog post.

The internet has saved me, in that without the internet I would never be the man I was today, in the situation I was today. Without the internet, chances are I would have ended a bitter man. Instead I feel blessed for where I am today.

The trick about the internet is to integrate it with your life. Being an anonymous blogger makes this harder, because you are always filtering what to say and what not to say, although it is not an insurmountable obstacle. I was watching a video on Casey Neistat in which he said that the purpose of his vlogs was never to give people full insight into his life, merely to provide good content. I get that.

It’s funny how the internet allowed abstract thinkers to piece together the forgotten laws of the natural world. Once you have pieced something together, those pieces cannot be broken again without you knowing they are being broken. For me, those pieces are abstract, like fractals. But different people work in different ways, so the function of the internet differs accordingly. Yet the principle of that which has been seen, cannot be unseen, remains.

Hence the reason Youtube content leans right even if Youtube organization is left; what you see happening in front of your own eyes is much harder to deny than what you never see. For instance, in the offline world, I might say that Sub-Saharan Africans are primitive, feral. Which would freak out a random leftist. An argument would ensue, including statistics, counter-statistics, arguments, counter-arguments, and without audience little possibility of mutual understanding. Lots of energy involved for minor gain.

For instance, I might say: ‘have you seen the Ugandan parliament brawls?’, implying that its participants act like monkeys. Yes, says the equalist, but the exact same thing happens in Ukraine, implying whites do the same.

But if I then link the video of an Ugandan brawl and link the video to the Ukrainian brawl, it is obvious that they are nothing alike. In the former, members of parliament shout on tables, throw chairs across the room and hit other members with a microphone stand. In the latter I count 6, maybe 10 guys actively participating in the brawl, with the remainder of members calming them down, breaking up the fight. It is an entirely different matter of conduct, and it is obvious to any viewer. It makes the point damn effectively.

So I guess the next big breakthrough for leftism will be technology to create fake videos.

It is infinitely true that the right generally just wants to be left alone. Personally I would like to be left alone and do my own thing. But retreat is unwise, weak. Need to be strong, build strong borders.

The fighting itself often gives no direct positive feedback, which can weigh on one, but sometimes you suddenly find yourself in a very favorable position, without notice, without anyone telling you so, but like it was always so. Funny how that works.

Pewdiepie also fights in his Pewnews videos, videos which are better than any official news channel, since in every video he stresses that ‘he is not supposed to give his opinion’ but continues to do so anyway.

I wish I had more to say, but this is all I have.

Male chain of command

I figured out how to deal with women before I figured out how to deal with men. For me, women have always had a special glow, something enticing. Turns out women, for me at least, are easier to deal with — it is instinctive for a woman to want to belong to a male’s in-group, if the fundamental requirement of the male demanding the need for the woman to belong to his in-group is met. This goes for all women, whether you have sex with them or not.

(so, theoretically, if a woman ever accuses you of raping her, the correct response would be to treat her with the fury of a thousand suns, while a single tear rolls down your cheek.)

With men it is different. It looks similar, but it’s totally different. Both shit-test, but if a woman shit-tests you, it is to figure out if you are strong enough for her to want to belong to your in-group. If a man shit-tests you, it is to figure out if you are weak enough for him to take your status. One tacitly invites conquerors, the other tacitly seeks to conquer.

Women belong to any in-group that conquers them, men form their own in-group.

Leftism is turning on the in-group by breaking down borders between in-group and out-group. Hence leftist fathers sacrificing their sons to the out-group; the ultimate in-group betrayal.

The Dark Enlightenment has broken free from the enlightenment by re-establishing in-group and out-group borders: you say you are with me? Prove it. And then prove it again. And again. Only in the act of cooperating with me do I know you are on my side.

The consequent question has been: how wide do we re-establish our in-group? Human eyes have big whites around their irises for communication, so it is obvious that we are at our strongest in a group. But which group?

The lie of white nationalism is that all the white men in all the nations share a special unspoken bond. This is nonsense, as observed in the leftist white father sacrificing his sons to the out-group. Similarly, I have heard enough war stories from my granddad to know that even close friends may betray one another when life or death is on the line. White men have a long history of stabbing each other in the back.

So we aim for a better means of cooperation. We consider religion — after all, religious movements are required for large scale cooperation, as nazism descended from lutheranism and as progressivism descended from puritanism, although neither of these are the religions we are looking for. Christianity did pull it off for a long time, so perhaps Christianity is the religion we’re looking for, but obviously, has its issues.

The thing about religion is that personnel is policy. You may have the most beautiful scripture in the world telling you how to do good, but if the preacher interprets it to do evil, it don’t mean squat. So it is not a matter of writing the scripture and calling it a day, it is a matter of tinkering and adjusting and tinkering, depending on your personnel.

The conclusion for optimal political cooperation is that we need a king, or an emperor, or a CEO, or a dictator. Whatever you want to call it. Put a white hetero male at the top. Well does not have to white, hetero, or male, it is just extremely likely that the person who by capability rises to the top will be white hetero male. Apex predators tend to do that. Like Trump.

In its simplest form, all our religion needs to say is that it is just for the apex predator to sit upon his throne. Essentially we’re saying: ‘look at this group of gorillas. Look at the alpha silverback. It is good that he is the alpha silverback. It is natural that he is the alpha silverback.’ Our intent with this is not some power-fantasy in which imagine ourselves as the alpha silverback, our intent is that if the chain of authority leads to a formalized leader, the chain of authority works, entirely in line with natural law. By giving the leader the power to say ‘no’ and to follow through on the act of saying ‘no’, we grant respect, honor and cooperation to the leader and his subjects. The system becomes human, as opposed to the mindless bureaucracy that inevitably accompanies a dying democracy.

Every functional group has a leader. That is simply the way things work.

So we are monarchs after all. Of course, we realize the system is imperfect: Trump will surely be a wise king, but what about his son, his grandson, his grand-grandson? There is no guarantee for quality through the generations. That is why it is the Dark Enlightenment: it recognizes that humans are imperfect and thus all attempts to bring in the next world into this are misguided at best, blatant lies at worst.

So we see that while men are not buddies 4 life, they aren’t islands either, and they in fact instinctively respect the chain of command. It is just that the need for the chain of command has to be demanded by its leader, has to meet an actual need.

On a Sky King twitter thread someone broke down how friendships between white males work. He said something in the lines of: white men share an unspoken understanding that they go through life alone, that each bears his own responsibilities. I thought that was very nicely said. I think that adds to the thing I felt missing from Aristotle’s description of friendship but couldn’t quite put my finger on: implicit in any good friendship is the knowledge that, while you share a laugh today, you may never know what tomorrow holds, and hopefully it is more laughs, but it might just as well be something entirely different. That’s just how life works.

“The Intellectual Dark Web”

A minor rectification of names. The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) is supposedly intellectual, dark and on the web, but it is in fact just the newest generation of cuckservatives, of controlled opposition. Guys like Sam Harris or Ben Shapiro are the exact opposite of what the propaganda machine leads you to believe: they are the Boring Offline Tours (BOT). Only Jordan Peterson has some semblance of intellect, but unfortunately this interview is the final nail in his coffin as controlled opposition.

The thing about the IDW is that the name just does not apply. ‘Dark web’ implies anonymity, implies speaking truth to power, implies that if you took the dark web into the light of day, you’d be in jail. That members of the supposed IDW enjoy prominent media positions, big posters with their faces plastered on them and sold-out venues tells us they are the opposite of the dark web and that we are once again being conned by the media.

As for the intellectual part; it is absent, or at its very best it is packaging red pill truths in a sugary purple pill coating. Observe the ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ bending like leaves in the wind to justify journalists preaching white genocide, to justify rampant misbehavior by females, to change the conversation from what everyone is thinking into the conversation that those in power want you to think about.

Jordan Peterson stood out as a man of some eloquence and intellect, lending most credence to the IDW, therefore it is the saddest to see him fall so fast.

The earlier linked interview, titled ‘an Invitation to the Intellectual Dark Web’, is a 90 minute interview between JBP and an incredibly stereotypical virtue-signaling leftist, whose main point seems to be that he is incredibly empathic for the disaffected. In fact he is so incredibly empathic that he can’t help but hate happy people and wants them to suffer as much as he himself suffers for the poor.

Naturally his conduct and name, Hurwitz, made my spider senses tingle, and surprise surprise: Hurwitz is Jewish. Every. Single. Time.

When honest, investigative people watch this interview, they thus think: ‘a Jewish journalist writing for the NY Times who is highly involved in the democratic party? Isn’t that an extremely typical description of the radical left Peterson rails against?’

But instead of saying what is on everyone’s mind, Peterson redirects the conversation and introduces his leftist friend as an intellectual beacon of integrity and honesty to all his viewers. Peterson fails the shit-test.

To all of Hurwitz’ aggressive moral posturing, the appropriate response by Jordan Peterson is to call him out on that. That would be to do what is Right. Leftism is after all a giant shit-test: the leftist will agitate wherever he can and take advantage of the disaffected, but if you recognize the shit-test for what it is and call him out on it, you will have passed the shit-test and not be taken advantage of. Leftists are much like women in this sense.

JPB fails the shit-test, and he does this in exactly the same way, when you rub up against your woman and she says ‘not tonight honey I have a headache for the 50th time’ you say ‘oh huh that’s so sad I hope you feel better soon.’ Wrong answer: you were supposed to get the underlying hint and realize the conversation was not about the headache. In interviewing Hurwitz’ as if he were serious about cooperating with the right instead of what he is actually saying, namely wanting to kill the right, Peterson fails the shit-test, fails to speak for the disaffected white men he is said to represent.

Peterson rose to fame because he fought: first against radical left legislation, then against feminists. But it seems he is done fighting and is now breaking bread with our enemies while telling us these enemies are our friends.

The conclusion of the real IDW is that fighting is inevitable and good, and if a man after 2 fights is only seen breaking bread with our enemies, never with our friends, the only conclusion is that he too has become controlled opposition, has joined the BOTs.

To be entirely fair to Peterson, I don’t think it was his intention to be controlled opposition. It just sort of happened that way. We all have to come to terms with the demise of the West, and we all do it in our own way. In mourning, a person goes through different emotions before coming to terms with reality – denial, anger, depression, bargaining, acceptance, in no particular order, although denial is usually first and acceptance last. Peterson has gone through depression, has expressed anger, and is now obviously bargaining with his enemies, hoping for a peaceful resolution. Clearly his enemies are flattering him enough to make him believe a peaceful resolution is possible.

There is no peaceful resolution, at least not one that does not first include war, does not include the dismantling of the Cathedral. If you want peace, prepare for war.

While it is understandable that Peterson does not want to see it, it makes him a pawn to does who do see it, or those who do not see it and do not care about it. Peterson thinks we can talk ourselves out of this mess if we just listen to one another. Mr Peterson, some people just want to see the world burn, and unfortunately these people are running the show and the way things are going, they will have their way before you can say ‘clean your room bucko.’


Break’s over, back to business.

Not entirely satisfied with my previous post so let’s try again.

Yesterday I was driving by a church and its big engraved letters on the front read: ‘JESUS WILL SAVE US.’ I wished my gut reaction was: ‘Yes! Deus Vult!’ but it was not. My actual gut reaction was: ‘yeah right.’

I can not pretend to be something I’m not. I’m not a Christian. But at the same time, I’m not not a Christian. My bloodline has been Christian for centuries. But that faith is gone and no amount of wishful thinking is bringing it back. Jesus was a wise teacher, and the bible is a wise book. But the dead will not save us.

That said, calling Jesus a miracle faker is futile and disrespectful – why would I hate on my ancestors? This to me seems a much more compelling argument for respect than Christians’ insistence that Jesus will save us. No, he already saved us, cut the man some slack, this time we have to come up with something new.

So debates about the literal versus metaphorical nature of Jesus’ miracles are not so relevant. Either Christians conquer society once again and I’ll bite my tongue, or something new comes along which by necessity will be respectful towards Jesus which will render moot my annoyance of Christians acting holier than me.

I have very little faith in Christians reconquering society. All I’ve met are cucked beta soyboys intermingled with the occasional silver tongued psychopath. Perhaps on the internet it is different, perhaps there are more shades of Christians, but so far I am not so impressed. I like Jesus, but I dislike these Christians. Well I like Christians, I dislike their moral posturing. ‘Jesus will save me’ said the young white girl surrounded by 5 black men. If everything around you is burning and you say: ‘this is fine, this is OK’, yet I see everything is burning, how the hell can I take your faith serious? Similarly, those Christians who do see everything is burning: how long am I supposed to wait for a miracle? How am I supposed to organize, if every time I quote scripture Christians meet me with some other scripture that is sufficiently vague that in their mind it counters my point? These are not fertile grounds for cooperation.

So. If Christians want to cooperate with me, they will have to show respect and trust me to do the right thing, instead of demanding me to show respect and trust them to do the right thing.

Saint Darwin in this sense is not so much a helpful suggestion as it is a statement of belief, a cross to ward off fake Christians. And there are many fake Christians, for rarely does a Christian accept the full implication of evolution; he tends to wriggle around it. I am told that the Catholic church holds no official position on evolution, yet with every Christian I meet it is never: ah, evolution..! It is always: evolution, but…. Similarly with vaccinations: yes some side-effects remain to be seen, yes the pro-vaccination witch hunt is out in full force, but polio was a nasty disease and we have eradicated it. Any child walking around with deformed hands in 2018 is a permanent advertisement that Christians can be pretty anti-Darwin.

If you, my dear Christian reader, are deeply and inexcusably offended by this, by all means: pray for me tonight and never read this blog again. That is all.

Now, back to where my faith does lie. If that church sign had said: ‘JIM WILL SAVE US’ I would have responded very enthusiastically. Unfortunately Jim misses that touch of delusion that makes him say: ‘the way to the Father is through me’. Sad. Though on the plus side it makes him humble and consistent and consistency is really the most you can hope for.

Part of me just wants to resolve this religion issue here and now, to draw borders around it, say ‘this is the new religion’ and call it a day. But it does not work like that. Life flows, changes, evolves. The religion that will allow Western society to rise out of its debris is at this point as undefined as Christianity was before it raised the debris of the Roman empire out of its dark ages. So even if I refer to the new religion as Jimianity, I am being preemptive, and it is best to let time take its course and see where this shining white pill takes us.

Christianity & Darwin

Still on my break, but I’ll squeeze out a post.

So, it seems Christianity not entirely dead like the parrot in the Monty Python sketch, at least Jim does not think so, and some of my readers don’t think so either. The reasoning goes as follows: Christianity worked great for many centuries, most especially in England from 1660 to 1820. If we can go back to that, if, say, king Trump does like king Charles the Second and reinstates Christianity as the state religion, suddenly holiness spirals are low status again, science is high status again, and white males are high status again. Problem solved.

To this my objection has been that Darwin and his natural laws falsified Jesus’ miracles. But, says Jim, I am not the first to think of this, in fact saint Augustine already thought of this many centuries ago and warned people not to take Jesus’ miracles overly literal, overly Gnostic. Since Augustine was Saintified, his views have been incorporated into Christianity, therefore for me to bring up the plausibility of Jesus’ resurrection and hammer on it is me being holier than saint Augustine, hence me being disruptive.

I can get behind that logic.

The main purpose of religion is to prevent holiness spirals so we can all just get on with life. If Christianity can do that once again like it used to do, who am I to reinvent the wheel? I have no problem getting behind Christianity if it is capable of what Jim thinks it is capable.

Now there are those that accuse me of not having faith, or of faking faith in order to use religion for my own selfish purposes. This accusation is stupid. Well not the accusation that I use religion for my own selfish purposes, that is obviously true, but the accusation that I fake faith . I burst with faith. Always bursted with faith. When I was a prog child, I organized charity drives to raise money for poor children elsewhere in the world because I bursted with faith. Now that I am older, I still burst with that same faith, I just do not want to be burned again by fake prophets. I want to get it right, so I am cautious and approach the matter as detached as I can before I get attached. That is all.

In order to get Christianity right, there remains one important matter, namely to merge Christianity with the Dark Enlightenment. How? Simple. Saintify Charles Darwin.

Saintifying Darwin kills many flies in one swoop. For one, evolution is as obviously true as the coffee I just drank. Take the example of the giraffe’s recurrent laryngeal nerve — it branches off the vagus nerve towards the larynx, and just like in humans it does so by traveling under the aortic arch of the heart. In mammals with short necks this is no problem, but with the giraffe this means the laryngeal nerve, which connects the brain with the vocal chords, is about 5 meters long, about 4.8 meters longer than it needs to be. This makes perfect sense from the perspective of incremental evolutionary changes (e.g. a longer and longer neck) leading to unnecessary complexity.


Darwin was right, absolutely revolutionary in his thinking while remaining humble throughout his life; it is Righteous to praise him for his feats.

Then, it blows the mind of As-Holy-As-Jesus Christians, who invoke God’s power every other sentence and claim that it is not the 3 laws of combustion that make a matchstick burn, it is God’s will. These Christians are the reason Christianity is on the brink of death, for their dismissal of evolution, of Darwin, of nature, of natural law, makes them low-status in the eyes of everyone with an open and fair mind. Many people have an open and fair mind.

Then, it also blows the minds of progs and atheists, who every time a Christian yells ‘evolution is not true!’ gloat and feel superior to Christians. By taking away their prime scientific weapon, saying they never fully understood it and that it belonged with the church all along, I would be very surprised if not at least 1 prog head would literally explode.

Finally, it answers the riddles of the enlightenment Christianity has been struggling so much to answer. Why shouldn’t we let in hordes of Muslims? Because Darwin said it’s stupid. Why shouldn’t we be cucked? Because Darwin said it’s stupid. Why should we control our women? Because Darwin said it’s stupid not to do so.

So. #SaintifyDarwin. Let’s make it happen.