Here’s a question that seems simple until you press on it: if a being knows everything, does it actually know anything?

Think about what knowledge requires. To know that the sky is blue is to distinguish it from every way the sky is not. Knowledge is a figure against a ground. It only carries meaning because it excludes something—error, ignorance, the vast space of what’s-not-the-case. Strip away that contrast and you don’t get perfect knowledge; you get noise. A signal with no background is indistinguishable from silence.

This is an indication that the “omni” traits assigned to the classical God don’t maximize the properties they’re supposed to describe; they destroy them. And once you see that, the entire architecture of the classical deity starts to collapse, not because God is too mysterious to understand, but because the concept is structurally self-defeating.

What Personhood Requires

Before examining what omni-traits do, we need to be clear about what they’re being applied to. The classical God isn’t just a force or a substrate. Theism insists on a person—a being with will, knowledge, intention, and the capacity to act and relate. Prayer makes no sense addressed to a mathematical principle. Worship implies a “who.”

So what does personhood actually require?

First, it requires a boundary. To be a self is to be this and not that. Identity is contrastive at its core. “I” only means something because there’s a “not-I” it excludes. A being without boundaries isn’t a very expansive self; it has no self at all, because selfhood is precisely the operation of distinguishing inside from outside.

Second, it requires perspective. A person is located, not necessarily physically, but logically. To have a point of view is to be here and not everywhere simultaneously. Perspective means some things are closer, some further; some known directly, some inferentially; some relevant, some not. Remove location, and you remove the conditions that make a viewpoint possible.

Third, it requires lack. This is the most counterintuitive requirement, but it’s the most important. Agency—the capacity to want, choose, and act—is only possible where there’s a gap between the current state and a desired state. You can only will something if there is something you don’t yet have. Desire is structurally dependent on absence. A being that already possesses all outcomes, all power, and all knowledge cannot want anything, because want requires an unfulfilled condition. Without that gap, there’s no will, just a static totality.

Fourth, it requires an Other. Identity is forged through relation. A self is defined partly by what it encounters, what resists it, what it can’t simply absorb. If there’s nothing outside the being—no genuine Other—then there’s no friction, no encounter, no relationship; there’s only infinite solipsism.

These aren’t arbitrary philosophical preferences. They’re the minimum structural conditions for what we mean when we say “person.”

Now run the omni-traits through that filter.

What the Omni-Traits Actually Do

Omniscience doesn’t maximize knowledge. It collapses the conditions that make knowledge possible.

Knowledge is contrastive. It requires a distinction between what’s known and what’s not. For finite knowers, this distinction is real and consequential; we carry maps of reality that are always incomplete, always corrigible, always in tension with the territory. That tension is what makes “knowing” an activity rather than a state.

For an omniscient being, the distinction vanishes. There’s no unknown to contrast with the known. There’s no error to define correctness against. The information is total, which means it’s undifferentiated, and thus, it functions less like knowledge and more like the logical equivalent of white noise—everything present, nothing distinguished.

You can try to save omniscience by arguing that God understands logical negation: God knows all truths and knows all falsehoods as falsehoods, providing internal contrast. But this only relocates the problem. That internal contrast still isn’t the contrast between knowing and not knowing; it’s just a complete inventory. An omniscient being doesn’t come to know anything. It doesn’t reduce uncertainty. It doesn’t update. It simply is the total set. That’s not a knower. That’s a database without a user.

Omnipotence doesn’t maximize agency. It eliminates the conditions that make action real.

Action requires resistance. When we say someone did something, we mean they exerted force against friction—physical, social, logical, or otherwise. The doing is defined by the overcoming. An omnipotent being encounters no resistance by definition. There’s nothing to overcome, no effort required, no gap between intention and outcome.

Without that gap, “action” becomes a meaningless term. If willing and achieving are identical—if the distance between desire and result is exactly zero—then there’s no act, only an eternal fact. The being doesn’t do things. Things simply are, in whatever configuration the being’s will coincides with. That’s geometry, not agency.

Consider the stone paradox—can God create a stone so heavy it cannot lift it? This is usually treated as a clever puzzle, but it’s pointing at something deeper. The standard deflection is that God can only do what is logically possible, not what’s self-contradictory. But that concession defeats itself: all it establishes is that God can only do what God is able to do, bounded by his own nature. That’s not omnipotence. That’s a very powerful being with structural limits, which is exactly what the omni-prefix was supposed to eliminate.

Omnipresence doesn’t maximize presence. It eliminates the perspective that makes presence meaningful.

To be present somewhere is to be absent somewhere else. Presence is defined by location, and location is defined by contrast. If I’m here, I’m not there. This isn’t a limitation; it’s the logical structure of what “being somewhere” means.

An omnipresent being is equally everywhere, which means it has no here, which means it has no perspective—no location from which things appear closer or further, more or less relevant, this way or that way. The self that was supposed to be present everywhere has instead dissolved into the spatial fabric itself. It isn’t in all places. It is all places. And a place is not a person.

The Abstraction Argument

The most precise way to state what’s going wrong: omni-traits are limit concepts, not instantiable properties.

Consider infinity. Infinity is an enormously useful mathematical concept. It tells you the direction in which a sequence is heading, describes the behavior of functions at their boundary conditions, and it’s indispensable in calculus, set theory, and logic. But you cannot arrive at infinity. It’s not a very large number you eventually reach if you count long enough. The moment you try to treat it as an actual quantity rather than a directional concept, the math breaks down.

Omni-traits work exactly the same way. “Omniscience” is useful as a limit concept—it describes the direction in which knowledge points as ignorance approaches zero. “Omnipotence” describes the asymptote toward which power tends as resistance decreases. These are valuable conceptual tools for thinking about knowledge and power as abstract quantities, but they’re not properties a being can possess, for the same reason infinity is not a number you can possess.

The moment you try to instantiate them in a person—to say “this entity has omniscience” the way a person has a name or a perspective—you’ve committed a category error. You’ve tried to place a limit concept inside a bounded entity. The limit concept wins. The bounded entity disappears.

Others Have Noticed This

Charles Hartshorne is the most significant and interesting voice here, because he was a theist. He believed in God and still concluded that the classical omni-God was incoherent as a person. His process theology argued that a being incapable of change, learning, or being genuinely affected by the world is not a living being—it’s a static abstraction. To preserve God’s personhood, Hartshorne argued, God must be finite in relevant ways: capable of relation, of growth, of genuine encounter with an Other.

A theist concluded that omnitude destroys personhood. That’s worth sitting with.

Patrick Grim made the point more formally on omniscience specifically, using Cantor’s theorem to argue there can be no coherent “set of all truths” for any knower to hold. The structure of truth itself, he argued, outruns any possible container, including an omniscient mind.

Both are pointing at pieces of the same problem. The full structural argument is this: omni-traits don’t describe a maximally perfect person; they describe the conditions under which personhood becomes impossible.

A Finite God Makes More Sense

The question my analysis raises isn’t whether God exists. It’s whether the dominant conception of God is even internally coherent; and the answer, on structural grounds, is no.

A being with genuine omni-traits is not a very powerful, very knowledgeable, very present person. It’s the substrate of reality—the total sum of information, the complete causal structure of the universe, infinite space itself. Call it what you want, but it has no face. It can’t want anything, know anything in the way knowing requires, or act in any sense that distinguishes act from fact. It’s not a person; it’s a description of everything, which is to say, a description of nothing in particular.

The “omni” prefix doesn’t elevate a person to perfection. It dissolves the person into an abstraction.

But here’s what’s interesting: a finite God actually makes more sense of the record. A God who doesn’t know what his creations will do—because he isn’t everywhere and can’t foreknow the future—is a God who runs experiments. Like a scientist who breeds the mice and watches what they do, God fathers his children and discovers who they become. That God has reasons to test, reasons to feel wrath, reasons to grieve. The problem of evil stops being a philosophical embarrassment and becomes an expected feature: of course there’s suffering a finite God cannot stop. He made the conditions, but he didn’t script every outcome.

This version of God is coherent in a way the classical version never was. Not all-knowing, but deeply knowledgeable. Not all-powerful, but formidably capable. Not everywhere, but perhaps very far-reaching. A being with a perspective, a will, and genuine stakes in how things turn out.

The classical God of omnitude isn’t theology. It’s mathematics that forgot it was mathematics.

Which leaves the question classical theism has never seriously answered: if you strip away the omni-traits that make God logically impossible, what remains? Perhaps something stranger and more interesting than the textbook version—a God small enough to be a person, invested enough to have a will, and limited enough that what happens here actually matters to him.

The American right, broadly speaking, has long grounded its ethics in religion. God gives morality its authority. Without God, the argument goes, you’re left with relativism, chaos, and the cultural left. And so conservatives who don’t believe in God—who look at the evidence and find none—are left without a home. I’m one of those people, which is why I came up with the concept of the Secular Right.

To clarify, I don’t reject the possibility of a God; I simply see no evidence for one. And yet I hold what most would recognize as traditional, conservative values: a strong nuclear family, national identity, borders, cultural cohesion, and natural norms around sexuality and reproduction.

I’m asked, often, where my ethics come from.

Here is my answer.

Moral Constructivism

I reject the idea that ethics require a divine lawgiver. They require facts about the human condition, and we have those in abundance. Pain and suffering are real. So is flourishing and decay. From these facts about what we are and what we need, we can construct a coherent moral code without invoking the supernatural.

This position is called moral constructivism. We observe human nature—our biological drives, our social needs, our capacity for suffering and joy—and we derive from those observations a set of values that serve human flourishing. The moral code is not invented arbitrarily. It’s built from evidence. The ultimate judge is not God but nature.

Environmental Feedback

Here’s a simple but powerful tool: take any behavior and scale it to the whole population. What’s the environment’s feedback when this behavior becomes universal? That feedback is the moral signal. If it results in the destruction of a society, it’s clearly harmful. If it results in flourishing, it’s clearly beneficial.

Apply it to murder: scale it to everyone, and the population collapses. The environment answers: No. Apply it to theft at scale: social trust dissolves, cooperation ends, and the group fails. The environment answers: No. The wrongness of these behaviors isn’t derived from a divine prohibition; it’s read off from what actually happens when they propagate.

Apply it to exclusive homosexuality across the entire population: reproduction ceases. This isn’t an opinion based on how one feels about these actions. It’s a consequence. The environment is simply telling us something about the reproductive baseline required for the species to persist. Most of the population is heterosexual because heterosexuality is the condition under which the population continues to exist. That’s a biological fact, not a moral verdict. Biology is where our moral facts come from.

This is consequentialism grounded in biological reality. It doesn’t require a rulebook handed down from above. It requires only that we pay attention to outcomes—to what actually happens when behaviors scale, when policies propagate, and when norms break down or hold.

What Nature Dictates

Across virtually every animal group studied, and across every human civilization that has ever existed, certain structural patterns recur: the family unit, territorial identity, group cohesion built around shared language and culture, and the protection of offspring. These functional adaptations. They persist because they work and ensure the perpetuity of the group.

The secular conservative case is simple: human beings flourish under conditions that match their nature. Strong family units produce more stable children. Communities with shared culture produce more social trust. Nations with coherent identity produce more civic cohesion. The appeal is to biology, to history, to natural order. The supernatural, which we have no access to, is simply unnecessary.

The False God of Egalitarianism

When you sever ethics from biological reality, you don’t get a value-free society. You get a society with a different god—one that is harder to argue with precisely because it wears the costume of science and reason while rejecting both.

That god is egalitarianism. Not the modest claim that people deserve equal treatment under the law—that’s defensible and largely uncontroversial. The claim I mean is deeper and more radical: that all humans are interchangeable, all cultures are equally valid, all outcomes, if left to nature, would be equal, and that any deviation from equality is therefore evidence of oppression rather than natural variation.

This isn’t a scientific finding. It’s a moral axiom—an article of faith. And like all faiths, it’s immune to the feedback that would otherwise correct it. When biology produces variation, the egalitarian doesn’t update the premise; he blames the environment. When some cultures generate more flourishing than others, he doesn’t ask why; he calls the observation bigotry. When policy after policy fails to produce the equal outcomes the theory predicts, he doesn’t question the theory; he demands more policy.

Leftist secular humanism is built on feelings-based beliefs that go against nature. Its ethics generate degeneracy and dysfunction precisely because they promote unnatural behaviors at scale, then enforce compliance through guilt rather than reason. It is a faux ideology of liberation dressed as compassion, with no feedback mechanism to tell it when it has gone too far.

This is how you get the full cultural-left package: open borders follow from the premise that all people and cultures are equal. Gender ideology follows from the premise that biology is irrelevant to identity. Diversity mandates follow from the premise that unequal outcomes can only mean unequal treatment. Each position is downstream of the same root axiom; and because the axiom is never tested against reality, the positions escalate without limit.

Egalitarianism didn’t liberate us from religion. It replaced God with an abstraction; and the abstraction, unlike God, cannot even be argued with. At least the theologian must contend with scripture, tradition, and a community of interpreters. The egalitarian ideologue answers only to the ideology itself. That’s not secular enlightenment but a religion with the humility removed.

The Gap on the Right

The left has long owned secular politics. It has built entire moral architectures without religion, but it has done the philosophical work. The right, by contrast, has largely outsourced its moral foundations to faith. That made sense when the country was overwhelmingly religious. It makes less sense now.

What’s needed is a conservative ethics that can stand without theological scaffolding. The values were never really about God; they were about what works. God was the explanation offered—and for many people it remains a sincere one—but the values themselves are derivable from nature, reason, and an honest reckoning with what human beings actually are.

You don’t need a heavenly judge to know that unnecessary harm is bad. You don’t need divine command to know that children raised in stable homes do better. You don’t need faith to look at the arc of civilizations and notice which structures endured and which collapsed. You need only to look clearly at the world. At what we are, what we need, and what the evidence—honestly examined—shows about how human beings thrive.

For centuries, the mechanism of empire was outward-facing. Colonialism required the projection of power: shipping militaries across oceans, building fortified outposts in distant lands, and extracting resources from foreign populations. It was a massive logistical burden. You had to train an army, maintain long supply lines, and manage a subject population thousands of miles from the seat of power.

Today, we are witnessing a paradigm shift. The elite class hasn’t abandoned the colonial model; they’ve simply inverted it.

Foreign Conquest to Domestic Enclosure

Why go to the trouble of conquering people in their own backyard when you can simply invite them into yours?

In the old model, you traveled to the “third world” to exploit labor and resources. In the new model—Reverse Colonization—the “third world” is imported to the West. By facilitating mass migration, the Parasite Class achieves several objectives at once:

1. Economic Exploitation: They secure a new, more compliant working class to replace a domestic population that has become too expensive or “too difficult” to manage.

2. Political Fortification: They establish a permanent voting base that is dependent on the state and the specific wing of the elite that enabled their entry.

3. The Domestic Police State: In a foreign land, you need a military. In your own backyard, you only need a militarized police force. By creating a society that is increasingly divided and “diverse,” the Parasite Class justifies the expansion of a surveillance and security apparatus to “manage” the inevitable friction.

The Deception of Demographic Shift

This didn’t happen through a grassroots movement; it was a top-down imposition. When the Hart-Celler Act was passed in 1965, the American public was promised it would not fundamentally alter the country’s demographics. Two generations later, the White founding stock has seen its share of the population drop from 90% to 60%. The same is happening to every European nation.

No sane population votes for its own displacement. Therefore, this shift isn’t an accident of history—it’s a deliberate policy. By weakening the social cohesion of the majority, the Parasite Class ensures that no unified populist movement can rise to challenge them.

A divided people is a conquered people.

Cultural Enslavement: DEI and the “Never Again” Doctrine

To ensure this reverse colonization goes unchallenged, the Parasite Class has deployed a suite of psychological tools. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and “Cancel Culture” act as the digital bayonets of the modern age.

• Social Control: Sensitivity training and censorship are used to silence the domestic population, forcing them to participate in their own cultural deconstruction.

• The Karma Narrative: In America, the Native American genocide and slavery are weaponized, whereas in Europe, historical colonial guilt and the Holocaust are weaponized. The “Never Again” motto is used to pathologize any form of nationalism, making the defense of one’s own borders appear morally equivalent to the worst crimes of the 20th century.

Check out my new book, The Fractured State, now available here.

The Parasite’s Perspective

We must realize that the Parasite Class is fundamentally indifferent to demographics. They have always been a minority, even among their own kind. They group together and live in gated communities with their own personal security.

Instead of being deployed in foreign lands living in a tent, they can conquer their own country from their backyards. And if our rulers are willing to use a military to conquer a people of a different race, religion, or ethnicity abroad, why would they care if those same people are in their backyard? So long as they are able to keep them at a safe distance from their friends, family, and co-conspirators, they aren’t concerned with demographics, as everyone aside from them is considered no different from livestock.

To the Parasite Class, people are not neighbors; they are units of information and labor. They are not to be served but exploited. Whether they are conquering you in a jungle or desert halfway across the world or in a suburb in America, the goal remains the same: total control.

There’s a strain of epistemological dysfunction spreading through certain corners of the political landscape. Its sufferers, setting aside those who deny nukes exist, will happily accept that a nuclear warhead can be attached to an intercontinental ballistic missile and guided to a target halfway around the globe by GPS satellites, yet insist that no human being has ever left the atmosphere. They will trust the engineering behind their smartphone, their microwave, their MRI, yet draw a hard line at NASA.

This type of cognitive dissonance I’ve coined Science Derangement Syndrome.

The ICBM alone should end the argument. You can’t believe that a missile follows a predictable arc through space using orbital mechanics and simultaneously believe that orbital mechanics are a fiction invented to hide the shape of the Earth. The physics don’t have an on-off switch. Either the equations work—in which case satellites orbit, rockets reach the moon, and the Earth is a sphere—or they do not, in which case every GPS device, every weather forecast, every intercontinental flight, and every nuclear deterrent on the planet should not function. They all function. Every day. Everywhere.

And if we can put rockets into space, why couldn’t we put humans into space? Okay, maybe they will admit that we have gone into orbit, but then they deny the footage of the globe taken while being in orbit. So they will admit we’ve been the orbit but deny the shape of the Earth.

But if we can get into orbit, why couldn’t we get to the moon? Of course—the Van Allen Belts! Yet these people don’t even know what the Van Allen belts are and what kind of radiation they consist of; they are just told they are deadly and impossible to pass through.

To be fair, governments lie. They lie about wars, surveillance, corruption, secret programs, and political assassinations. A healthy skepticism of official narratives is not only reasonable but a civic virtue. However, Science Derangement Syndrome doesn’t apply a healthy skepticism. It applies a corrosive, asymmetric acid—one that dissolves everything the government says while leaving every conspiracy theory standing untouched, no matter how many times those theories are proven wrong.

The Asymmetric Standard

Here’s the test that exposes SDS for what it is: hold conspiracy theorists to the same evidentiary standard they apply to governments.

Flat earthers claim there is an ice wall at the edge of the world, maintained by a global military conspiracy involving every nation on Earth, including historic enemies. Yet they have no photograph of the ice wall, no video, no defector, no leaked document, and no ship captain who has sailed to the edge. Their entire evidentiary offering consists of pointing at NASA images and saying “CGI,” without ever demonstrating that any specific image is actually CGI, without producing original render files, without identifying the software used, without a single forensic analysis that holds up to scrutiny.

In any court of law, this case would be dismissed before lunch, not because courts favor governments, but because courts require positive evidence. “I don’t believe your evidence” is not evidence of anything.

And note what we “science shills” don’t do. We don’t look at flat earth maps, their videos, their diagrams, and say “CGI.” We don’t dismiss their experiments as staged, their photographs as doctored, their spokespeople as paid actors. We engage with their claims directly and show, specifically and systematically, where they fail. We extend a courtesy to their evidence that they’ve never once extended to ours.

I’ve done my due diligence and looked into all of their evidence, as I was curious. Those who suffer from SDS assume we haven’t, so they keep hammering us with the same narratives and memes we’ve already seen and know are false.

Evidence They Demand and Never Accept

Consider what we actually have documenting human spaceflight. The recent Artemis II mission produced high-resolution photographs and video footage of Earth from deep space. The ISS has livestreamed thousands of hours of footage from orbit. In fact, you can not only track the ISS with an app and watch it fly over you, you can watch it live on YouTube.

Spacewalks have been broadcast live to hundreds of millions of viewers. Astronauts from over twenty nations—including Russian cosmonauts who had every geopolitical incentive to expose an American hoax during the Cold War—have confirmed the reality of human spaceflight.

Independent amateur radio operators tracked the Apollo missions in real time. Retroreflectors placed on the lunar surface by Apollo astronauts are bounced by lasers from private and university observatories worldwide, today, by anyone with the equipment. Japan, China, India, and the European Space Agency have independently imaged the Apollo landing sites from their own lunar orbiters.

Here’s a video clip I got from YouTuber Dave McKeegan, who is a professional photographer analyzing a video from the ISS shot without a fish lens, showing a globe earth that is impossible to fake:

But no amount of evidence is enough. The goalposts don’t move because they were never planted in the ground. The demand for evidence is not sincere; it’s a rhetorical posture. When your evidentiary standard is “everything is CGI,” you haven’t raised the bar; you have eliminated it.

Aside from sending each of these people into space, I’m not sure how else they could be convinced. And even if we did send a few of them to space, and they returned to tell their fellow deniers, I bet their fellow deniers would claim they “sold out” to NASA and the government.

Then What Would It Look Like?

I came up with a question that stops flat earthers and moon deniers cold: If the footage is fake, what should real footage look like? They never answer, because they have no standard, only objections.

When someone claims an image from space is CGI, they’re implying they can tell the difference. So ask them: how? What visual artifact, what rendering error, what telltale sign of computer generation have they identified and documented? Name the software. Show the original mesh files. Point to the seam. CGI forensic analysis is an actual discipline—it looks for compression artifacts, lighting inconsistencies, and geometry that defies optics. No flat earther has produced this analysis for a single NASA image. They assert fakery yet they never demonstrate it.

And here’s the deeper challenge: if the moon landings were faked, why not fake it better? A modern CGI artist with a laptop could produce footage with perfect shadows, correct one-sixth gravity physics, dust behavior indistinguishable from vacuum, and flawless lighting continuity. Why would the most powerful government in the world, with an unlimited budget, produce footage that supposedly looks wrong to a man watching YouTube?

The hoax theory requires NASA to be simultaneously competent enough to fool the entire world for sixty years and incompetent enough to leave obvious tells for amateur internet conspiracy theorists. You can’t have it both ways.

The open challenge stands: if people believe all the moon landing footage is faked, let them produce a competing video. Replicate the dust behavior—parabolic arcs, no billowing, in apparent vacuum. Replicate single-source lunar lighting across an entire field with no crossing shadows anywhere in the frame. Replicate one-sixth gravity movement that’s physically consistent across every shot. Replicate the retroreflectors on the lunar surface that independent observatories bounce lasers off of today. No one has, because it cannot be done. They would literally have to go to the moon to do it.

What moon landing deniers fail to realize is that this video cannot be faked on earth:

It’s Not Just NASA

The moon landing hoax and flat earth arguments rest almost entirely on distrust of a single agency: NASA. But confirmation of a spherical Earth and human spaceflight doesn’t just come from NASA. It comes from every space agency on the planet—many of them run by governments that are rivals, competitors, or outright adversaries of the United States.

Russia’s Roscosmos. China’s CNSA. The European Space Agency representing twenty-two nations. India’s ISRO. Japan’s JAXA. The space agencies of Canada, South Korea, Israel, the UK, Australia, and Brazil. Private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin with no government loyalty to protect. All of them would have to be in on it.

Russia had cosmonauts on the ISS. China has independently landed rovers on the moon and imaged its surface. India’s Chandrayaan missions have orbited and landed on the moon independently. These nations have every incentive to expose an American fabrication if one existed.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union had an entire program dedicated to monitoring and countering American space claims. They confirmed the Apollo missions in real time, because they were tracking them and had no choice.

So the question must be asked directly: is it just NASA lying, while every other space agency on Earth stays silent? Or is every space agency—including those of America’s rivals and enemies—coordinating the same lie, across decades, across political changes, across hundreds of thousands of employees, with not one defector, not one leaked document, not one whistleblower?

At what point does the conspiracy require more faith to believe than the thing it’s trying to disprove?

There’s No Flat Earth Model

This is perhaps the most damning fact about the entire Flat Earth movement, and it is almost never stated plainly: there is no complete flat earth model. Not one. Anywhere. No flat earther has produced a coherent, internally consistent alternative that explains, simultaneously, all the phenomena we observe every day.

They can’t explain why the sun sets instead of simply growing smaller as it recedes across a flat plane. They can’t explain why different constellations are visible from different hemispheres. They can’t explain why every eclipse occurs exactly when and where spherical models predict, to the minute, centuries in advance. They can’t explain why ships disappear hull-first over the horizon. They can’t explain why every long-haul Southern Hemisphere flight path— ydney to Johannesburg, Buenos Aires to Perth, Cape Town to Auckland—makes perfect geometric sense on a globe and is nonsensical on any flat map ever proposed.

This is why flat earthers never debate the whole picture. They can only deal with one claim at a time, nitpicking individual pieces of evidence, because the moment they are required to present a complete alternative, the entire narrative collapses. Any model they construct to explain one phenomenon immediately contradicts three others. They have been trying to build a coherent flat earth model for decades and haven’t succeeded, and that’s because it can’t be done.

A scientific theory does not merely cast doubt on competing explanations. It explains the data better. Doubt is not a model, and objection is not an answer.

The Final Experiment

Flat earthers have long claimed Antarctica is sealed off—that no one’s allowed there, every researcher is a government plant, and the midnight sun can’t be independently verified. So someone decided to test it, with flat earthers in the room.

In December 2024, Colorado pastor Will Duffy organized a four-day expedition to Union Glacier Camp in Antarctica, running from December 14 to 17. He called it The Final Experiment. Duffy had spent three years planning it, motivated specifically by flat earthers’ claim that Antarctica’s phenomena could never be directly observed. The trip cost approximately $280,000 in total, with participants paying around $35,000 each. He invited roughly four flat earthers and four globe-earth advocates, equipped the group with multiple cameras including 360-degree rigs, and livestreamed the entire thing via Starlink in real time from the ice. No surprisingly, the biggest names in the Flat Earth community, such as David Weiss and Eric Dubay, declined the offer.

The test was simple: watch the sun. During the Southern Hemisphere summer at that latitude, the sun doesn’t set. It circles the horizon continuously—at midnight, at 3 a.m., at dawn, without interruption. This is precisely what a spherical Earth tilted on its axis predicts. It’s not predicted by any flat earth model ever proposed because there is no flat earth geometry that produces a twenty-four hour sun at the South Pole.

Here’s footage from the Final Experiment:

As expected, the sun did not set. The footage was unambiguous. The livestream ran and showed everyone the 24-hr sun. And at least one prominent flat earth figure, YouTuber Jeran Campanella of the channel Jeranism, publicly admitted on the spot that the twenty-four hour sun was real, stated that his previous model no longer made sense, and left the flat earth community. He, of course, was called a shill for doing so.

The others didn’t follow. Some acknowledged the sun’s behavior but refused to abandon the belief. When they returned home, the flat earth community largely rejected the results anyway, accusing the participants of deception, claiming CGI, questioning camera angles, and in some cases attributing the entire expedition to Satanic trickery. Will Duffy, who had spent three years and a quarter of a million dollars trying to end the debate in good faith, faced significant backlash and eventually stepped back from the debate entirely.

This is the closing argument. They were not denied the experiment. They were taken there. They watched it happen in real time. One of their own admitted he was wrong. And the movement absorbed it, reframed it, and continued unchanged. When the evidence shows up in person and still doesn’t count, you’re no longer dealing with a question about the shape of the Earth. You are dealing with something that evidence was never going to reach.

Why are They Really Denying It?

To understand SDS fully, we have to ask the uncomfortable question: what’s actually driving it? For a significant portion of science deniers, the motivation is religious—specifically, the belief that modern science and space exploration are part of a coordinated effort to disprove God and undermine faith.

But this reasoning collapses immediately on its own terms. God, as described in virtually every major religious tradition, is invisible, omnipresent, and exists beyond the physical universe. God can’t be found or hidden by a telescope. A spherical Earth orbiting the sun conceals nothing divine. What exactly are they hiding, and where would they put it? The motive for the conspiracy makes no sense even within the framework of the people proposing it.

More critically, holy texts are being deployed as scientific refutation, and they have no standing to do so. These texts have made no accurate scientific predictions. They have gotten everything about the physical world consistently wrong: a flat earth covered by a dome, the sun orbiting the Earth, a universe a few thousand years old, all life created in its present form within six days.

The story of Adam and Eve directly contradicts everything we know from genetics. We can trace human DNA through populations across hundreds of thousands of years, map migration patterns across continents, and date lineages with precision through multiple independent methods. A single founding couple six thousand years ago is not a theological dispute; it’s a mathematical impossibility given what population genetics alone requires. The fossil record compounds this further: hundreds of thousands of specimens across every continent, dated through multiple independent methods, telling a continuous and branching story of life across billions of years.

I’m not trying to attack people of faith, but texts that act as moral guide are not a scientific instruments. A book’s value in domain of moral codes does not grant it authority in another, such as science. You wouldn’t use a cookbook to navigate a ship, so why are people using scripture to refute orbital mechanics?

The standard has to be simple: what has produced verifiable, reproducible, life-saving results? What gave us antibiotics, surgery, aviation, telecommunications, and the ability to predict where a hurricane will make landfall three days in advance? The answer is the scientific method—every time, without exception. Holy texts have given us no technology, no medicine, no engineering, not one cure. The moment you need to solve a physical problem in the physical world, you turn to science. So does everyone else—including the deniers.

The Conspiracy Is Actually Theirs

Here what’s not stated plainly enough: the real conspiracy is on the denier side.

To maintain their position, those infected with SDS must reject simultaneously—geology, genetics, paleontology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, orbital mechanics, radiometric dating, atmospheric science, and the independent findings of every space agency on Earth across six decades. That’s an enormous, active, total rejection of the accumulated work of millions of scientists across centuries, conducted across dozens of countries under dozens of governments with competing interests, all somehow arriving at the same coordinated lie.

I’m not asking anyone to take anything on faith. I’m pointing at physical evidence that can be independently tested, repeated, and verified by anyone with the tools to do so. However, they are asking us to believe that every photograph, every measurement, every independent confirmation, every foreign government, every dead scientist, every living astronaut, every amateur balloon hobbyist with a GoPro, and every piece of physical evidence accumulated across human history is part of a seamless, never-leaked conspiracy.

And what do they offer in return? A book, and incredulity. They point at footage and say it looks fake, without showing us what real looks like, without producing a counter-example, without any forensic evidence whatsoever. All they have is incredulity dressed up as scientific analysis, while denying all the science we have achieved in the last 400 years.

The flat earther asks you to take a leap of faith that dwarfs anything science has ever requested. Science asks you to look at the evidence. They ask you to dismiss all of it, and trust them and their uneducated cult instead.

But they claim that they also do science.

Their Science Is Bad Science

Flat earthers will tell you they do their own science. They run experiments. They perform calculations. They point lasers across lakes and invoke mathematical formulas. The problem is not that they reject science; it’s that they practice it badly, which is arguably worse. When you reject science you’re at least honest about where you stand. When you do bad science and call it proof, you’re fooling yourself and everyone watching.

The Bedford Level experiment is their most famous proof and the foundation the modern flat earth movement was built on. Samuel Rowbotham observed a boat remaining visible further than he expected across a stretch of canal and declared the Earth was flat. What he didn’t account for was atmospheric refraction—the well-documented phenomenon where light bends slightly downward through layers of air at different densities, causing it to follow the curve of the Earth rather than travel in a perfectly straight line. This is is taught in introductory physics courses. When the experiment is controlled for refraction, or conducted in conditions that minimize it, it confirms curvature every time. Flat earthers have been running a refraction error for two hundred years and calling it science.

Their laser experiments make the same mistake. They shine beams across bodies of water, the beam remains visible further than they expect, and they declare victory. Same error. Atmospheric refraction is doing the work they’re attributing to a flat surface. Control for it and the result flips.

Then there’s their curvature formula—eight inches per mile squared—which they cite constantly to claim that distant landmarks or bridges should be hidden below the horizon but aren’t. The formula is an approximation, not precise geometry, and they apply it incorrectly every time. They calculate how far below the horizon something should be while ignoring that observer eye height changes everything. Raise your eye level by a few feet and you can see dramatically further. They also ignore refraction, which lifts distant objects into view. When you use actual spherical geometry and account for both observer height and atmospheric refraction, the observations match the globe model exactly. Their own experiments, done correctly, prove them wrong.

Here’s a video shot with a Nikon P900 that shows two ships, where you can see one is clearly behind the curve, despite being zoomed in:

The gyroscope experiment is perhaps the most self-defeating. Flat earthers claim that if the Earth rotates, a gyroscope should drift over time, and when their cheap consumer gyroscopes show no meaningful drift, they declare confirmation. High precision gyroscopes—the kind used in aircraft, submarines, and navigation systems—show exactly 15 degrees of drift

per hour. That’s not approximate. That’s the precise figure a rotating sphere predicts. The experiment works perfectly. Their equipment is simply not sensitive enough to detect it, which they mistake for proof. They are running a valid experiment with inadequate instruments and calling the instrument’s failure their victory.

Finally, the zoom lens sunrise. This one has spread widely on social media because it looks convincing. They film a sun that appears to have set below the horizon, zoom in, and the sun seems to reappear—proof, they say, that the sun didn’t set due to curvature but simply moved away due to perspective on a flat plane. What zoom actually does is magnify. It does not recover objects that are below the horizon. In every single one of these videos, if you look carefully, the bottom of the sun is still cut off by the horizon. They are pointing a camera at the curvature of the Earth, watching it clip the bottom of the sun, and calling it flat earth evidence. The proof of the globe is sitting right there in their own footage.

A Losing Track Record

Before extending conspiracy theorists the benefit of the doubt, consult their record of accuracy.

• Y2K (2000): The world’s computers were going to collapse, planes would fall from the sky, civilization would unravel. Billions were spent preparing. January 1, 2000 arrived without incident. No acknowledgment. No correction. Just a pivot to the next prediction.

• The 2012 Mayan apocalypse: The Mayan Long Count calendar supposedly predicted the end of the world on December 21, 2012. It did not end. The Maya themselves never claimed it would—that was a Western projection onto their calendar system.

• Harold Camping’s rapture (2011): Predicted May 21, then revised to October 21 when the first date passed uneventfully. Neither occurred. Camping died in 2013 having never acknowledged the failure of his method.

• Planet Nibiru: A rogue planet was supposed to destroy Earth in 2003, then 2012, then 2017, then several additional dates thereafter. No planet has appeared. No apology has been issued.

• QAnon’s “the storm” (2017-present): Mass arrests of a satanic cabal were perpetually imminent. Hundreds of predicted dates have passed without event. The audience absorbs each failure and awaits the next promised reckoning.

• Chemtrails causing mass illness: Decades of predictions about population-level health collapse from aircraft contrails. No documented mechanism, no peer-reviewed evidence, no collapse. Life expectancy in countries with heavy air traffic is among the highest in human history.

• Covid jab mass deaths predictions: Before and during the pandemic, conspiracy theorists predicted that the vaccines would kill billions—microchips, depopulation agendas, immune system destruction, mass die-offs within months or years of the rollout. These predictions were specific, urgent, and confident. Billions of doses have now been administered across every continent. The predicted mass death event has not occurred.

I didn’t get any COVID jabs myself, because I didn’t trust the fact the government, the media, and big pharma were all pushing it so hard, but the claims made about the vaccine wiping out humanity, simply did not come true.

• The Charlie Kirk assassination: Not even after 24 hours of Kirk’s death, there were people talking about exploding lapel mics, multiple shooters, palm guns, drones, camera guns, and assassins shooting him from a tunnel. Every day there was another shooter from a different angle using another kind of secret weapon.

Governments are held accountable for their lies through elections, investigative journalism, FOIA requests, congressional testimony, and whistleblowers who face real personal risk to come forward. But none of these conspiracy theorists are accountable. They simply move to the next “prediction” when the last one fails, and their audience pretends like they never said anything. Why? Because this was never about the predictions. It’s about the identity of being someone who sees what others can’t.

What SDS Really Is

Science Derangement Syndrome is not about science. It’s about identity, belonging, and the intoxicating comfort of believing you see what others are too foolish or cowardly to see. The conspiracy theorist is always the hero of their own story—the lone truth-teller in a world of sheep. That identity is self-reinforcing and impervious to evidence by design, because evidence is always recast as part of the deception. The more evidence you present, the deeper the conspiracy must be, and the more heroic the resistance becomes.

This is why engaging on the merits alone is so difficult. You’re not arguing about data. You’re arguing against a self-concept. And no dataset has ever dissolved a self-concept.

The irony is that genuine scientific skepticism is one of the most valuable intellectual habits a person can cultivate. Real skeptics demand reproducibility, transparency, and peer review. Real skeptics update their beliefs when evidence warrants. Real skeptics propose alternatives; they don’t simply tear down, they build something that explains the evidence better. And real skeptics apply the same standard to every claim, including their own.

Flat earthers have never done any of that. They have no model. They have no experiment they are willing to run and accept the result of. They have no standard by which evidence could, even in principle, change their minds. The same is true of moon landing deniers. Both, when pressed, expand the conspiracy rather than revise their beliefs.

What SDS offers these people is the costume of skepticism without the discipline. It’s doubt without rigor, rebellion without reason, and certainty without justification. It asks you to reject the entire edifice of human knowledge and replace it with nothing but the word of people who have been wrong about everything, every time, and have never once said so.

The reality is a grassroots revolution isn’t coming. Here’s how it actually works.

Every few years someone publishes a book, a documentary, or a viral thread explaining how the system is rigged. Millions of people share it, feel briefly vindicated, and then do nothing. The most they will do is protest for a few days. But the Parasite Class doesn’t care. The system doesn’t budge. The people who ran it yesterday still run it today.

This is the reality of the structural misunderstanding of how power actually moves.

The Reality of Political Power

The Pareto Principle says 80% of results come from 20% of effort.

Power follows the same logic.

In every political upheaval in recorded history—the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks—the popular image is the people rising up. The reality is two competing elite factions fighting over who runs things while the majority serves as a backdrop.

The American Revolution wasn’t farmers with muskets deciding they’d had enough. It was a colonial merchant and lawyer class—Franklin, Adams, Hamilton—with a specific economic grievance against the Crown. They needed bodies to fight, taxes withheld, and the rest of the population to not actively work against them. That was the full extent of what the 80% contributed. The strategy, the financing, the institutional architecture of the new republic—that was the 10% doing what they do, fighting against the other 10%.

The structure is always the same: a ruling elite holding the current institutions, an opposing elite trying to take them, and a mass of people who will follow whoever ends up in charge. Not because they’re stupid. Because that’s what people do.

The Trance

Here’s what makes the current situation particularly grim: the current Parasite Class exploiting the people isn’t holding power through force. They’re holding it through the institutions themselves—media, education, finance, regulatory bodies—the very systems that shape what the public believes, wants, and considers possible.

The public isn’t just passive in this arrangement. They’re actively funding it through their taxes, consumption, and votes cast for puppet candidates whom those same institutions elevated.

The Parasite Class uses the masses’ own money and political energy to keep them chained. They turn the institutions made to serve them against them, thus ensuring they keep themselves enslaved in a trance. It’s a closed loop, and it’s quite clever.

This is why “waking people up” is a dead end. You’re not fighting ignorance—most people will tell you the system is corrupt. You’re fighting a system specifically designed to manufacture consent, direct attention, and absorb dissent. It’s designed to get the public to blame each other and the puppets in front of them rather than the elites pulling the strings.

That’s why every documentary, every viral post, every mass awakening moment runs through infrastructure the other side controls. You may inspire people for a while, but that inspiration always dies off. We’ve seen it time and time again.

You’re playing an away game on a rigged field and calling it resistance. This is why I become disillusioned with the online activist sphere. People are in an echo chamber thinking that ratios on X and collaborations on YouTube are going to change the system—they aren’t.

What the Masses are Actually For

The masses are indeed asses. Not because they are stupid, but because they are lazy. It is much easier to accept a tolerable tyranny than to resist it. Most people will take the abuse so long as their normal lives continue. But this doesn’t make them irrelevant; it makes their role specific and limited. And most people on the right side of this fight are misusing them.

In a modern state, power doesn’t change through uprising. It changes through policy set by institutions, funded and staffed by people, ultimately accountable to voters and money. That’s the chain.

Their three functional levers are simple: where they vote, where they spend, and whether they resist. The people are not revolutionaries; they are the base of support that legitimizes and resources the revolutionaries actually doing the work. That’s the full extent of what’s needed from them, and it’s enough if directed correctly.

The fantasy of millions of newly conscious citizens storming the institutions is exactly that—a fantasy. And a convenient one for the Parasite Class, because it keeps the opposition busy building impotent movements instead of taking positions.

Institutional Infiltration Is the Way

If public opinion is downstream of whoever controls the institutions, then the fight has to happen upstream. Not in the streets or comment sections, but in the rooms where policy gets written, funding gets allocated, the next generation gets educated, and the narrative gets set.

This is what the current Parasite Class did to gain power. They didn’t win a culture war with bombs and bayonets; they captured the institutions that run the culture—slowly, deliberately, over decades. And once those positions were held, public opinion followed because they changed it. Not because people were coerced, but because people orient toward legitimate authority. They always have, because it’s in their nature to do so.

The implication is straightforward: a new protective elite taking control of those same institutions would produce the same result in the other direction. The public would follow. The ones who resist them would be isolated and outnumbered, rendered functionally harmless. Not through suppression, but through irrelevance.

Protective vs. Parasitical

Elites are not the problem. The wrong kind of elites are the problem. Every functioning society in history has been run by a minority—the question is always what that minority is doing—are they serving the people, or are they exploiting them?

A protective elite builds things that outlast them. Institutions, infrastructure, and conditions under which the people beneath them can be stable and productive. Their power grows by making the population stronger. A perfect example is the American Founders at their best—men who designed a system with explicit checks on their own authority because they understood that power without constraint corrodes into exactly what they were trying to escape.

A parasitical elite does the opposite. They dismantle the institutions that constrain them and destabilize the population that might otherwise resist. A dependent, distracted, financially precarious public is easier to parasitize. Their power grows by making the population weaker.

The conquest of American institutions by a parasitic financial class with no loyalty to the republic and no interest in its people beyond their purchasing power is the clearest modern example of what this looks like at scale.

The Real Chess Move

If you’re spending your energy trying to convince strangers on the Internet that the system is broken, you’ve already lost the plot. The masses are not the lever. They are the weight at the end of it.

There are only two moves that matter. Get into the positions that shape policy, funding, narrative, and law—or find the people who can and give them what they need to win. Votes, money, and staying out of the way. That’s it. Everything else is performance.

Look at what actually worked on the other side: the Federalist Society spent forty years quietly placing people inside the legal infrastructure of the United States. No viral moments. No mass awakening. Just deliberate, institutional patience. The results reshaped the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. That’s what counter-infiltration looks like when it’s done seriously.

We’ve seen plenty of performances lately—grifters and charlatans flooding the political sphere on all sides, selling fantasies, taking money, and lining their own pockets. No different than the Parasite Class they claim to oppose. Anyone offering you a different move than the two above is selling you a script.

The change that’s needed is institutional. If you understand that now—if the fantasy is gone—that’s the beginning of being useful rather than being used.

If you want to know what kind of changes we would need to implement to save America, get a copy of my new book, The Fractured State, which gives a structural analysis of our current system, along with a structural solution to change it.

Born in Italy, I came to America when I was two and was raised Roman Catholic. But I left the church at twenty-four, after witnessing the horrors of war with my own eyes in Iraq, and also because the system was incoherent.

A big part of it was learning that my government had been lying to me, following those rabbit holes, and then realizing that the foundations of nearly every religion in the world are connected to each other. Most of them are copy-paste, borrowing stories from previous ones. So which one is true? I couldn’t know. The questions kept compiling, and it became impossible to still believe.

After that I became an atheist for a while. Then I said no, there’s got to be something. So I became a deist. But then I asked myself: why would there be a God that makes everything and just walks away? What kind of heavenly “father” abandons his children? Then I looked into pantheism. Maybe God is the universe itself. But pantheism is basically atheism because you’re saying God is the material world and there is no one actually there. So where does that leave me? Agnostic.

But recently, a friend of mine in a conversation forced me to choose, claiming agnosticism is a cop out. So, I told him I’d say atheist—specifically because I reject the idea of a personal entity being the foundation of reality.

Here’s why. Personhood entails a boundary—what the person is and what they’re not. If God is the most fundamental reality, it cannot be a person, because then it wouldn’t be boundless, it wouldn’t be infinite, and those attributes couldn’t hold. Maybe there’s a being—the most powerful, the most intelligent, eternal—but without the omnitraits. It created everything while being fallible, which, looking around, actually makes more sense. But no religions believe this.

I don’t rule out the possibility of some kind of god-like force entirely—something like Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover, an impersonal first cause that set everything in motion, or Plotinus’ concept of the One, a fundamental principle underlying all reality. What I reject is the personal God of the Abrahamic traditions—one who intervenes in our affairs, who has preferences and rewards and demands. If such a being interacts with our world, there should be detectable traces of that interaction. Otherwise it has the same problem as every other dualist system—two things that are supposed to affect each other with no mechanism for how. So far, the evidence doesn’t lead there.

And I want to be clear: I don’t care if you believe. That’s your business and I’ll defend your right to it. What I won’t accept is having those beliefs written into law, pushed into public institutions, or used to govern people who don’t share them. Believe what you want. Just don’t make it my problem.

Politically Homeless

This leaves me with nowhere to go.

I don’t belong in the GOP. I don’t belong with the Democrats. Politics in America is dominated by religious people, and I’m not religious. But the secular left isn’t my home either, because they’ve replaced one religion with another. Their gospel is the false god of egalitarianism, race denial, and ninety-nine genders. Their eternal punishment isn’t hell but cancel culture and censorship.

Nearly every atheist stream I turn on, every call-in show, is concerned with hate speech and promotes some form of Wokism. I can’t take them seriously, so I don’t belong with them either.

What Actually Drives the World

I believe the will to power is what drives things in this world. Not prayers or complaints but action. Nature is hierarchical. That’s not an ideology—that’s an observation. Some ideas are better than others because they produce better results. Some people are more capable in certain areas than others. Nature has never distributed ability equally, and pretending it does is a fantasy as baseless as any religion.

The strong will survive. The best should rule, not arbitrarily, but through the execution of proper action guided by intelligence, integrity, and the courage to face reality as it actually is.

That’s meritocracy.

What We Stand For

People like us don’t believe in handouts because people feel bad. We don’t apologize for what we’ve earned. We reject the slave mentality in both directions—the religious version that has you worshipping a deity who is supposedly all-powerful but needs your rituals and your prayers and your guilt, and the left-wing version that demands you surrender what you’ve built for people who didn’t build it.

We do believe in equality under the law because we believe in justice. But justice is not charity. And strength is not cruelty.

What I want to inspire is the creation of a secular right—a home for people like me who are done choosing between two flavors of magical thinking. We’re not waiting for God nor are we waiting for the government. We don’t believe anyone’s coming to save us. Not from above. Not from Washington. And that’s scary to the left who expects the government to do everything, and scary to the right who expects God to do everything.

We don’t suffer from that delusion.

Grounded in Logic and Reason

Here’s what both sides miss. The highest moral acts are the ones done because they are right—not because you’re afraid to burn in hell, not because you want social approval, not because guilt was programmed into you from childhood. An act of integrity performed freely is worth more than the same act performed under threat. We don’t do what’s right out of fear. We do it because it’s in our nature to be good.

“But what is good without God?”

Simple. Good is what aligns with truth, creates coherence, and builds—for yourself, for those around you, for those who come after you. Bad is what distorts truth, creates incoherence, and destroys.

This grounds our morality in something real—alignment with reality and its consequences—without needing God, without needing divine command, and without collapsing into pure subjectivity. Reality is the ultimate judge. Bad isn’t just “things we don’t like.” Bad is demonstrably destructive and demonstrably false.

“But how do you know what’s true without God?”

We have to figure it out. The truth isn’t handed to us the way religious people claim it is. This is why we use logic, reason, and science—to get as close to the truth as possible, keeping our beliefs open to revision as new information comes in, precisely because we know we are fallible.

The only “truths” we can be certain of are those we define or that exist within systems we know the rules of. “All unmarried men are bachelors” is true by definition. “2+2=4” is true because of mathematics. We can have statements that are true based on the rules of logic and grammar, but none of these tells us the true nature of reality as it is, in and of itself. In these cases, truth is just a stamp of coherence within a system. These systems can help us map the territory, but they are not the territory. Theists consistently make this category error, mistaking the coherence of their internal belief system for evidence about the nature of reality itself.

We accept that absolute certainty about the external world is unavailable to finite minds like ours—and by accepting that, we know we can always learn more. Our knowledge evolves, allowing us continous growth. It’s this kind of knowledge that improves our lives in this world. If we completely rejected science as “the tool of the Devil,” we’d still be dying of infections and blaming demons for the weather. This honesty is more rigorous than dogmatic assertions with no room for correction, especially unfalsifiable ones, which aren’t knowledge at all but unwarranted claims.

This isn’t a casual position. I’ve developed a formal epistemological framework called PIE that demonstrates exactly this. I know PIE is true because any attempt to deny it leads to self-refutation. Those who have attacked it thus far have failed to refute a single one of its premises—because they can’t. The full argument is here for those who want to go deeper.

Why We Reject Religion

The most committed religious people deny everything we have learned as a species in exchange for the comforting promises their religions make—promises that have never been proven to any of their adherents at any point in history. It’s the ultimate carrot and stick. These are comfortable stories for adults, no different than Santa Claus. Their religious texts are what I call cosmic comic books. Perhaps these books bring comfort and help people cope with the difficulties of life—and if so, that’s fine. But people like me don’t need them. We face reality as it is, and we find meaning in that rather than in spite of it.

Aside from moral codes and some comfort, we have never received a single piece of technological knowledge from these books. No medicine. No engineering. No physics. Everything that has actually improved human life came from observation, experimentation, and the willingness to be wrong—not from revelation.

For texts that claim to explain how the world works, they get virtually everything wrong, so what makes them divine? What kind of God fails to properly explain the basics of his own creation? This forces religious adherents to deny science and defend lies written by men that claim to be the word of God.

If God is infallible and these texts are holy scripture directly from his mouth, there cannot be a single incorrect sentence. If men misinterpreted his word, then God failed to deliver his message to his own creation—which shows incompetence. Either way, the Bible, along with every other religious text, contains endless contradictions and flat-out falsehoods. This eliminates the idea that they were produced by infallible gods, so they must have come from fallible men.

The “smarter” religions have evolved and adapted alongside our growing knowledge. For example, Catholicism no longer denies evolution. Others still resist what’s right in front of them to preserve their dogma. For what? A reward in an afterlife they have no evidence for?

We don’t need fantastic promises without proof. We move forward because it’s in our nature to do so. Our goal is to improve and evolve—as life already does, naturally.

Driven by Nature, Not Fear

We look to no god and no government to rescue us. We take what we have—our intelligence, our integrity, our courage, our technology—and we use it to improve our lives and move humanity forward. Those who move with us move forward. Those who’d rather wait for their savior, whether that’s Jesus or the federal government, can do so. They can complain about inequality and injustice while we take action.

We’re not afraid of death. We know it’s coming. That doesn’t crush us; it clarifies things. Because we’re not counting on paradise, the world we actually have matters more, not less. We build for those who are with us and who come after us—our families, our communities, our people.

We act because it’s who we are, not because we’re expecting a reward we’ll never see. We don’t worship death, we don’t fear death, and we don’t build our whole lives around it the way these belief systems do.

We believe in life. We serve life. We create life.

The Balance That’s Been Missing

The left has been gaining ground for decades running on emotional manipulation and guilt. The religious right has become weak and paralyzed, waiting for a savior to do the work they won’t do themselves. We are the balance that’s been missing, and we’ve been missing because nobody knew this was even a choice.

If you’re done pretending you belong somewhere you don’t—if you reject the supernatural without apology, believe in human excellence over human excuses, embrace nature as it actually is, and are tired of being represented by people whose worldview you fundamentally don’t share—then your home is with us.

I saw a clip of the Artemis II rocket climbing into the atmosphere and felt an unexpected feeling of joy. Not for any country, not for any team—just for humanity. For the fact that we, as a species, pointed ourselves at the moon again. That feeling told me something about where I am now, and I want to share it.

Two Kinds of Human Activity

There are two categories of human activity worth understanding.

The first I call “universal endeavors.” These are pursuits that belong to all of humanity regardless of tribe, nation, race, or religion—science, philosophy, mathematics, engineering, and art. Every group of mankind has contributed to these throughout history because they serve everyone. The Artemis mission is a universal endeavor.

The second category is “tribal agendas.” These are the things that drive competition between groups—political, national, religious, economic, and racial. These things are not right or wrong. They are inevitable outcomes of how nature designed conflict into us, and it has always been this way.

Both will always exist. The question is which one you belong in.

The Referee Illusion

When I first stepped back from political activism, I thought I had found a third option—the referee. Someone who watches the whole field, calls fouls on everyone equally, and holds all sides to the same standard. It felt like a clean position, accountable to no team.

But the referee is still at the game, still inside the stadium, and still defined by the conflict even if not participating in it directly. Meta-politics is still politics. Watching the tribal agendas and commenting on them is still letting them set your agenda. I had changed my role but not my orbit.

Leaving the Stadium

Some people are built for the tribal agenda. They thrive in conflict, in group struggle, in the push and pull of political life. The game needs players, and it always will find them. But some people are built for the universal—philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, writers, people of the book rather than people of the field.

If you are one of those people and you spend your years inside a tribal agenda out of obligation rather than calling, you will feel it. There’s a constant low-grade wrongness, like wearing someone else’s clothes. No matter how much you try to fit in, it just doesn’t work.

I participated out of duty, not desire. There’s a profound difference between those two things, and confusing them costs years of your life. The tribal agendas will continue with or without me, you, or anyone else. The conflict is inevitable and permanent. Knowing that is not defeat—it is liberation. It means you are free to stop and find another way to contribute.

What I Found on the Outside

My days are lighter now. I spend my time reading and writing philosophy, contributing to an endeavor that serves everyone rather than agendas that serve a faction. The relief is hard to describe.

After years of fighting, when you stop worrying about which team is supposed to win, all that anxiety goes away. That’s not quitting—that is finding where you belong.

Notice that no matter what happens in politics, humanity continues onward. All the doomsday prophecies of global domination or complete enslavement have never come true and never will, because no tribe can ever achieve complete victory. It violates the fabric of reality. The world moves on and always seems to recover—despite dark ages, world wars, and plagues.

Why? Because the things that pull humanity forward are not the tribal conflicts. They are the universal endeavors. The ones every group has contributed to. The ones no single tribe can claim or own.

Where Do You Stand?

Are you contributing to a tribal agenda out of calling or out of obligation? Do you believe in the game, or did something happen that made you feel like you had to play?

There’s another option when you realize you’re in the wrong game. This universal option allows you to still serve humanity without guilt, because such endeavors secure the existence of all tribes, including the one you were born into.

The game will continue without you. The question is whether you belong on the field.

You can never eliminate your opposition completely, because opposition is woven into the fabric of reality itself. Once you understand this fundamental truth, every fantasy of a human utopia on earth—whether established by people or by a worshipped religious entity—becomes impossible.

I reject the supernatural entirely, but the internal logic of religious narratives is worth examining because even on their own terms they fail.

Take the story of the Bible: Lucifer rebels against God and is cast down from heaven. He is not eliminated from existence—he is cast away. Why? Why didn’t God simply remove him from existence? God cannot eliminate evil because without evil, God is not defined as good. Without evil, those with free will—which I also don’t believe in—cannot choose to be good. Without evil, good itself cannot be defined.

And to make this conclusion even worse for the religious: if God couldn’t have peace in heaven, what makes you think he could establish it on earth? For God to create heaven on earth, he would have to eliminate free will completely, making evil impossible. But why didn’t he make everything perfect from day one? No being forced him to make it otherwise. If he could not, what kind of omnipotent being is he? Why create beings you already know you will condemn? This is like a company deliberately manufacturing robots it knows will be defective.

It gets worse. For God to achieve perfection in the world to come, everyone would have to be equal—there could not be various personalities even among the so-called saved souls. Why? Because if evil were fully eliminated but people were not identical, some would inevitably be less good than others, and those less good would by definition be considered bad. To eliminate any possibility of that, God would have to make everyone the same—destroying individual identity entirely, requiring everyone to worship and respond in exactly the same manner. That is the only logical path to perfection.

There must be another reason.

The truth is that identity requires contrast. Life requires opposition in order to adapt, overcome, evolve, and grow. Knowledge must have ignorance to oppose it in order for learning to occur. Confidence must have doubt. Strength must have weakness. Everything must have an opposite at the most fundamental level. To believe we could eliminate evil at that level is an absurdity of the highest order. I argue in my most recent paper, The Pantagonal Principle, that opposition is necessary not only for evolution but for identity itself.

To illustrate the absurdity of the political struggle—the belief that you can defeat the other side—imagine a chessboard. Two opposing teams: white and black. Each team can take turns defeating the other, but neither ever defeats the game of chess itself. If white were to remove all of black’s pieces, the identity of white would become meaningless. It would have no one to oppose. The game would not be possible. White has no one to defeat, no value, no role, no purpose.

This is true in every domain of existence. Without resistance, your muscles don’t grow. Without competing ideas, there is nothing to debate. Without an environment challenging an organism through natural selection, there is no evolution. Stagnation is nothing. A cybersecurity company improves by defeating a virus that temporarily defeats it. The arms race is the Pantagonal Principle in action: enemies endlessly create better weapons, each gaining the upper hand for a time, until a weapon is captured, reverse-engineered, and improved upon.

We see this not just among human beings but also in the fundamental forces of nature—the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity—all pushing and pulling against each other, creating the universe we exist in. At the level of matter itself, protons and electrons, opposites, come together to form everything. Without those opposites, nothing would exist.

So the romantic idea of world peace, or the eschatological endgame of an almighty creator bringing peace on earth, is absurd. Understand what it would actually take to produce such peace, and you will realize it would destroy everything—because opposition is what allows something to exist, carry on, and improve. Without your opposition, you are nothing.

Thus, the game is not about defeating your opposition forever. It is about defeating them when you can and adapting and surviving when they are defeating you. Those who survive improve and fight back. Those who are destroyed do not. This cycle repeats endlessly across every domain, because it is the fundamental structure of reality, and none of us will ever change it. To believe you can is insanity.

If we can accept this, much of the pain and suffering we bring upon ourselves through well-intended idealistic fantasies can be released. We reduce the suffering born from wishing things were different rather than dealing with what they are. When we accept what is, we can take proper actions to constrain what causes us suffering—rather than exhausting ourselves trying to change the impossible. All we can do is play our part as best as we can, whatever that part is.

For those who consider themselves good, the minimum is to bring as little harm into the world as possible. Those who are bad will continue to be bad—it is their nature. And ironically, they look at us as bad, because we are not on their team. This is the same across every possible domain: political, religious, or otherwise.

Once you accept that the eternal struggle is driven by opposition and that identity is defined by opposition, you realize how much suffering you have been putting yourself through trying to change the fundamental fabric of nature itself. That doesn’t mean don’t do your part. It means be realistic about what your part actually is.

I have decided my part is no longer in the political struggle but rather in observing all struggles and reminding people of the rules—like a referee at a soccer match. Yellow card: you crossed the line. Red card: you cannot do that. To remind both sides that this game is eternal and that the only honorable way to play it is fairly and at your best until you die.

But life is full of games, and politics is just one of many. I played my part in that struggle, and I have retired from it. Now I am stepping into the philosophical arena—a different kind of struggle, one I can engage in without fueling hatred, putting anyone in danger, or bringing harm into the world. And at least in this one, I know my contribution will always be positive. After all, I am now dealing with the biggest game of them all: human cognition itself—the meta level, where the rules of every other game are written.

One of the greatest lies ever told is that the truth shall set you free. I’ve come to learn that this is completely false, because the truth in and of itself does absolutely nothing.

What is the truth but a bunch of sounds coming out of a mouth or words written down on a piece of paper? What does the truth actually do? Nothing. It is a description of something that exists or is happening — that’s all.

What I’ve seen throughout the years is that people believe telling the truth is equivalent to taking action, but it isn’t. To believe so is like believing a surgeon describing an operation and not performing it is equivalent to actually doing the emergency surgery on his patient. If he stands there and just describes what the problem is and how he could operate to fix it, is his patient going to live? No — because talking about the operation doesn’t cause the operation to happen.

There are a lot of people now who believe that just telling the truth is enough, and I have been challenging people on this very fundamental belief because it is completely wrong. I myself have spent over a decade and a half telling various truths, only to learn that they merely wake people up so that those people can go on to tell the truth themselves. This cycle continues onward, and ultimately nothing changes, because all anyone is doing is describing things.

In order to affect change in the world, one must take action — and that action must be in the form of force. Without that willingness, nothing is going to change. That kind of action takes sacrifice, because it’s risky. Without the willingness to make that sacrifice or take those risks, all anyone is really doing is running their mouth.

What I’ve observed is people locked in an endless cycle of truth-seeking and truth-telling, thinking they’re accomplishing something when they are literally spinning their wheels—going in circles. I’ve done this myself for fourteen year, but I did it in person, on the ground, and online. I’ve certainly taken more risk than most people, but did I do as much as I could? No.

But now it is even worse. The masses have become even more complacent. There are endless podcasts, videos, and books about the truth, but where are the prescriptions? Where are the people organizing around such truths and executing plans based on them? The answer is almost nowhere.

And to make matters worse, the various so-called truth movements have been infested with liars, charlatans, grifters, and scammers. All these conmen need to do is provide some so-called truths to an audience, and they have instant credibility—which comes along with instant access to a mass of deluded people whom they have no issue further deluding and leading into endless rabbit holes.

Notice that none of these truth-tellers ever offer any solutions. These types would never take the necessary actions that would actually solve the problems they describe, because their purpose is to extract wealth from their duped audience. And if they were to offer any real solutions, it would put an end to their grift.

Now, the truth is important. The truth tells one which are the correct actions to take—but aside from that, it is utterly useless. It is not a thing that can be wielded. In fact, it is probably better to take action on a falsehood and adjust accordingly than to sit around paralyzed by analysis, taking no action at all.

So if the truth sets people free, why aren’t they free? The reason is because most people don’t truly want to be free—because that would mean putting their lives on the line to fight the forces that have enslaved them. It is much easier to go around telling “the truth” to other people who also will not do anything but run their mouths.

Consider the people who run the world. Do they care about the truth? No. In fact, most of these types gained power by lying. So why do these liars run the world? Because not only are they willing to lie, they are willing to take risks. They execute their plans at all costs, whether legal or not, and they do so without resistance—because everyone else believes that simply calling them out is enough.

It isn’t.

The only way to change the world is with force. Without force, one is just a slave who complains about their chains instead of using the proper tolsl to break free from them. One has to risk their life to be free—to put it all on the line and say, “I would rather die than be a slave.”

How many have actually done this? Virtually no one. So then, why should they be free?

There’s a question that political philosophers have been evading for centuries: is conflict something to be solved or something to be designed around? The distinction matters immensely, because every major political tradition—liberal democracy, nationalism, socialism, and libertarianism—assumes that with the right arrangement of institutions, human friction will be definitively reduced to a manageable level.

After developing my own political ideology called Neofederal Unifism, I have been wondering if that assumption is wrong, putting my idea to the test with thought experiments.

I’ve always said that “complaceny kills.” So, if my system is designed to avoid all conflict, and friction is the engine for change, then wouldn’t my system lead to the very thing that it’s designed to avoid?

Perhaps I need to revise my ideology.

The Mouse Utopia Problem

In the 1950s and 60s, ethologist John B. Calhoun conducted a series of experiments that should have permanently reoriented how we think about political harmony. Granted, these were animal experiments whose results may not mirror the results if done on humans, but those results were interesting, and I think telling, since we do see many parallels to our own societies.

Calhoun created mouse colonies, and he gave them everything: unlimited food, water, shelter, and safety. After removing all sources of external stress, the mice flourished. This was expected. However, after time without the friction of survival, the mice lost their social roles. They stopped breeding—which we see with birth rates plummeting in the first world, not just in the West, but also nations like Japan. They stopped caring for offspring—which we see with extremely high divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births. These mice were divided into two pathological types: the hyper-aggressive and the completely withdrawn—what Calhoun called “the Beautiful Ones,” mice that were physically perfect and socially inert—these remind me of the incels and looksmaxxing types that are becoming more popular among younger generations.

The lesson is not that suffering is good. It’s that systems—biological, social, and political—require stress to maintain the adaptive capacity that keeps them alive. Like we see with evolutionary biology: if you don’t use it, you lose it. Calhoun called the phenomena he observed the “behavior sink.”

Nassim Taleb, a statistician and former derivatives trader who became one of the more provocative philosophers of risk and uncertainty, argued that some systems don’t merely survive disorder; they require it to grow stronger. He called this property “antifragility.” If you remove all friction from a political system, you do not produce harmony; you produce stagnation, and eventually, the behavioral sink.

This is an uncomfortable truth not just of the nature of the world we live in but also of political design: a society without conflict is not a society in equilibrium. It is a society in decline.

Internal vs. External Conflict

Political theory has long recognized two basic models for managing human difference. The first is pluralism: diverse groups sharing political space, their conflicts mediated by institutions, law, and democratic process. The second is separatism in its various forms: distinct communities, distinct governance, and external borders as the mechanism of conflict management rather than internal ones.

Each model has a characteristic failure mode. Pluralism risks internal fragmentation: low social trust, cultural displacement, and the slow erosion of cohesion that Robert Putnam documented empirically in his research on diversity and social capital. Separatism risks external catastrophe: when two homogeneous, sovereign communities share a border and a grievance, the conflict that pluralism internalized now has nowhere to go but outward, and without a shared political space to mediate it, the result tends to be total rather than procedural.

This is the trade-off that political discourse almost never addresses directly: internal conflict versus external conflict, parliamentary friction versus interstate war. The question is not which world has no conflict—neither does. The question is which conflict is cheaper, and cheaper in what currency.

Karl Popper argued in The Open Society and Its Enemies that pluralist democracy was “scientific”; it allowed bad policies to die rather than bad people, treating governance as a hypothesis subject to revision. The closed, tribal society was “magical”; it staked everything on a single ethos, which meant any failure of that ethos was existential. Popper’s wager was that internal friction, managed by institutions, was cheaper than the catastrophic external conflict that homogeneous, ideologically sealed states tended to produce. In other words, he would rather have a verbal war in your own backyard rather than a kinetic war outside of your fence.

The critics of that position point out what Popper ignored: the biological and cultural cost of the open society accumulates slowly, below the threshold of crisis, until it becomes irreversible. The question of whether that cost is acceptable is not one that liberalism has answered. It has simply declined to ask it.

Today, we are seeing the price being paid right before our eyes, as the Western man and his nations are slowly dying due to open society. Even with the controlled political friction that we have with multipartie democracies, the system, instead of exporting genocide, colonization, and demographic decline, it imports it by replacing the native population with foreigners.

Agonism: Conflict as Democratic Necessity

There is a tradition in political philosophy—agonism—that cuts through this impasse by refusing the premise shared by both sides. Agonists, from Nietzsche through Hannah Arendt to Chantal Mouffe, argue that the goal of politics is not consensus but the productive channeling of inevitable antagonism. Democracy, on this view, is not the elimination of conflict but its ritualization—the transformation of enemies into adversaries, of war into argument.

This reframes the two-party system, which attracts near-universal contempt, in an interesting way. Its dysfunction is real. But its function—maintaining a structural antagonism that keeps political energy in the verbal and procedural register rather than the kinetic one—is precisely what prevents the system from collapsing into the very violence it is designed to absorb. The gridlock is the safety valve. The noise is the pressure release.

However, what agonism does not resolve is the scale problem. A single pluralist state can ritualize its internal conflicts. But a world of sovereign, homogeneous communities still requires some mechanism for managing the conflicts that arise between them, and history suggests that without a shared political space, those conflicts tend to escalate rather than de-escalate.

A Synthesis: The Multi-Ethos Federation

What would it look like to take both the agonist insight and the separatist concern seriously at the same time? One answer is the model I created, Neofederal Unifism, which properly reconfigures America into a more functional multi-ethos federation.

The principle is this: communities self-sort according to their own definitions of the good—cultural, religious, or otherwise—and govern themselves at the local level according to those values. These communities are not forced into a single homogeneous mold, nor are they forced into a multicultural one; they have true freedom of association. Each defines its own character and membership criteria. But they are united at a federal level by shared economic infrastructure, trade agreements, and a constitutional framework that governs only the relations between communities rather than the internal life of any one of them.

The conflict in this model does not disappear; it is relocated and stratified. Internal to each community, the conflict of ideas is managed by whatever political culture that community has chosen. Between communities, the conflict is managed economically and constitutionally—the same logic that underpinned the original design of the European Union, which knitted French and German industrial interests together tightly enough to make war between them structurally irrational. In this way, everyone has no war in their backyard, and any issues between neighbors are mediated by the federal government.

Complex interdependence theory—developed by Keohane and Nye in the 1970s—provides the theoretical basis here: when states are sufficiently interdependent across multiple channels (economic, diplomatic, and institutional), the cost of conflict rises above the threshold at which any party would rationally choose it. The key is maintaining that interdependence without collapsing the distinctions that make the communities worth preserving in the first place.

Switzerland offers a partial model. It is linguistically and culturally diverse at the cantonal level (a small territorial division of a country), constitutionally unified at the federal level, and has maintained neutrality for centuries, not because it eliminated conflict but because it designed institutions that gave conflict nowhere productive to go but inward, where it is absorbed by the cantonal system. This would be similar to the role of the Neofederal government in my model.

The Goal Is Not Harmony

Calhoun’s mice did not fail because they had too much conflict. They failed because they had too little. What they needed was not a utopia but an opponent. Without something to challenge and force them to adapt, they withered away and died off as a whole.

Human political systems are no different. The goal of political design is not the elimination of friction but its intelligent management—keeping conflict in the registers where it generates rather than destroys, where it produces the Space Race rather than a genocide or the parliamentary argument rather than the purge.

A multi-ethos federation does not promise harmony since no system is perfect, but it does promise something more durable: a structure in which different communities can pursue their own versions of the good, compete against each other economically and politically without kinetic war, and maintain the productive friction that keeps any living system from collapsing into the behavioral sink.

Utopia, which all of us have wished upon this earth, as it turns out, is a death sentence driven by complacency and degeneracy. Thus, it is not conflict that we must avoid completely; we must harness the inevitable into productive means.

I want to discuss the nature of in-group versus out-group dynamics in a multicultural democracy such as the United States and the West in general. I have spent many years critiquing Jewish power in the form of Jewish supremacy, and the Jewish people—and I say “the Jewish people” with qualification, because Jews are not a single unified group. They are composed of many different sects that are constantly in conflict with one another internally, as we have seen throughout their history.

However, like any other group, when Jews are attacked externally, they unify on a common front against what they percieve is antisemitism. This reactive solidarity is what makes them appear as though they are all participating in some massive coordinated conspiracy, when in reality, they are simply doing what any threatened group does: closing ranks.

This does not mean, however, that there aren’t Jewish people who do form groups that do conspire to gain power or achieve political aims, because those certainly do exist and are problematic. Jews are the most organized minority on planet earth, and they do have institutions, such as the World Jewish Congress, that spans across six contenients and has offices in over 100 nations. But not every Jew is a member of this group.

Regardless, Jewish supremacists do exist. And Like any White supremacist group, there are in fact Jewish supremacist groups that have an agenda which is a threat to all non-Jews. But again, the idea that every Jew is by default one, or part of these networks, is what can be dismissed as irrational.

One group that I consider a Jewish supremacist group is the ADL. This group weaponizes the term antisemitism, extending to even mean things that are not truly antisemitic, in order to silence political opposition who they consider antisemites. Ironically, the more they demand Gentiles to submit to their demands, while claiming to represent the Jewish community, the more they actually increase antisemitism. Their constant calls for censorship and cancelling of people is seen as a form of Jewish supremacy—and it is.

II. The Universal Pattern of Group Solidarity

But such a monolithic-like defense can be observed in every group. Black people, for example, are not a monolith. In fact, Black communities are so divided, they experience the most devastating levels of internal violence: the number-one killer of Black people is Black-on-Black crime. Yet when Black people are attacked as a group, nearly all of them respond in a similar fashion. They all stand up collectively against anti-Black racism, and they would certainly oppose any policies that would threaten their civil rights. There are several pro-Black groups that do demand censorshp and cancellation of those they percieve as racist. One such group is Black Lives Matter. Although there is no World Black Congress and no conspiracy behind that unified reaction, their unification on any level is instinctual.

And to prove my point: we are now seeing this same racial and ethnic consciousness emerging among White people, who are experiencing the consequences of Karl Popper’s Open Society. Although Whites have held dominant positions in Western society for centuries, they are now facing a unique form of oppression that is dissimilar to that physical and mental oppression Black Americans or Jewish communities have endured.

It has been since the 60s that Whites in the West have been experiencing anti-White policies that have disenfranchised them in several ways: the most dangerous are immigration policies that guarantee their demographic displacement in countries that they founded. Such policies have certainly been pushed by Jewish powerbrokers driven by a “Never Again” agenda. But this would not be possible without the help of Whites who reinforce and promote such policies with a suicidal altruism that is not found in any other group.

So, Whites, instead of defending themselves as a monolith, have been committing suicide as a monolith. Notice: this is without any conspiracy among them to do so. There is no White World Congress telling them to do it, and no White person I know wanted this to happen. So how did it happen?

Whites, who have been a mostly indiviulistic-minded people, thought that conforming to the anti-White social norms installed by Wokeism would benefit them individually. And for a while, it did. However, the system that rewarded this pathological autrism for decades can no longer hide its devestating effects on Whites collectively. Whites, who are projected to become a minority in every country they founded, are now starting to think and act like minorities in order to survive what is coming.

III. Minority Coalition-Building as Rational Self-Interest

So with this understanding of social dynamics, we can see why Jews, Black Americans, Indian Americans, Muslims, and others minorities in America all share the same underlying behavior: it is organizing to protect and advance their interests within a democratic system that structurally disadvantages them.

Being a minority in a democracy is a political disadvantage by definition. Numerical inferiority means reduced electoral power, reduced representation, and reduced cultural influence. Minority groups compensate for this disadvantage by forming coalitions. Jewish organizations have historically led these coalitions, which is not suprising coming from a long-persecuted community with deep institutional experience navigating hostile majorities. This experience has made them the masters of organization.

Another group that is following in their footsteps nearly as effectively are Indians coming to America who are now doing the same, organizing to gain media representation and combat Hinduphobia. Muslims do the same. Every minority does the same. What appears to critics as conspiracy is, in reality, instinct—driven entirely by self-interest and the will to survive and thrive.

IV. The Majority’s Legitimate Discomfort

The majority population sees all these groups forming coalitions, and when they see that these minorities considering them a “threat” to the very democracy they founded, is becomes extremely problematic. This is clearly the number-one driver of political friction. White people, who are the current majority of Westerners, have every right to be concerned for their future, and minorities should realize their concerns are valid.

Consider a hypothetical senario: imagine tens of millions of White people emigrating to China. Once there, they begin forming advocacy groups because they are the minority. They demand equal rights, legal protections, media representation, and a voice in government. Some may complain that locals are being hostile and racist toward them, forming advocacy groups against anti-White racism. The Chinese majority would almost certainly view this with suspicion and resentment, and we would understand why, because any majority population reacts this way when it perceives its cultural and political dominance being challenged from within, especially when they let minorities come into their country as guests.

If we accept that minority organizing is as rational and justifed self-interest, intellectual honesty requires us to extend the same charity to majority discomfort, even while rejecting supremacist responses to it. To not do so would be hypocritical. But in the West, the White majority is not allowed to organize without being condemned as racist or White supremacist.

V. Diversity and the Inescapability of Identity Politics

The root issue is not that diverse peoples are evil, wrong, or bad as individuals. The root issue is forced diversity and multiculturalism, especially when the majority never asked for it. When groups with fundamentally competing identities—racial, religious, and political—are forced to share the same political space, conflict is not an accident; it is inevitable. Its inevitability is structural, as it is literally baked into the cake. This is why a color-blind meritocracy will aways fail, because it rejects the most fundamental human identity: the physical self, which is driven by genes to survive and replicate, and also the psychological self, which is driven to adhere to its metaphysical principles.

All politics, at its core, is identity politics. Identity operates on multiple levels simultaneously: your race and ethnicity, your politics, and your spiritual or religious beliefs. The interplay of these factors and one’s enviorment is what creates a culture.

But not every individual weights these dimensions equally. Mixed-race individuals will care less about racial preservation than those who are not mixed. Secular individuals will care less about religious continuity than devout ones. This internal heterogeneity within groups adds further complexity, but it does not dissolve the underlying tension. The competition remains, and it will remain as long as groups with different wills are governed by the same political structure. This compeition becomes hostile when such groups are forced to compete for survival, not only on a indivdual level, but on a cultural level.

VI. The Solution: Neofederal Unifism and Ethostates

The answer to this problem is self-separation through living spaces. I have developed a framework I call Neofederal Unifism, which proposes the creation of what I term “ethostates” within the United States. These are communities composed of people who share the same fundamental character—people who agree on politics, on physical identity, and on spiritual identity. These ethostates would be formed around the genuine needs of groups who wish to live among their own kind, governed by their own values, without being forced into endless competition with groups who have a different ethos. Whether a given ethostate is racially homogeneous or religiously homogeneous would depend entirely on the group forming it. But the one prerequisite for stability would be political homogeneity. A multiparty state will always be in conflict and should be avoided.

The key principle everyone should agree upon is that every group deserves a safe living space—a community where their collective will is executed locally, among their own people, without being overridden by the competing will of others. We currently have the complete opposite of this, which is why America has become a coliseum of warring tribes rather than a nation of unique people collaborating for a greater good.

The federal layer of my model, operating loosely on the principle of the Roman Imperium’s administration of diverse peoples, would serve as the coordinating structure. It is the point at which all these distinct sovereign communities converge and work together on matters of shared national concern. The Roman’s governed a multicultural, multiracial, and polyglot society for millenia. America is the new Rome but has failed to maintain order.

What does everyone ultimately want? They want to come home after work to a neighborhood where they feel safe, where the community reflects their values. The workplace can be multicultural, multiracial, or whatever it needs to be. But the home, the community, must be a place of stability and belonging. These communities must form organically, not driven by a delusional Utopian fantasy which has created this disaster we now live in.

Neofederal Unifism provides the structure to make that possible for every American.

VII. The Book Revision and the Shift Toward Solutions

This framework is also the reason I have taken my book, Our Struggle, off the shelves. The original work devoted too much of its focus to critiquing Jewish power and engaging in a poetic and LARPy antisemitism, without reflecting equally on Gentile corruption and self-destruction. It needs to be renamed and revised.

The fact I only gave a single chapter to the solution outlined above, took away the most important part of my work. The revision will shift emphasis decisively toward solutions—toward a practical, empathetic, and structurally sound vision for how every group in America can actually prosper. This means abandoning the reactionary nostalgia that characterizes much of the discourse on the right—the fantasy of returning America to the 1940s or some other idealized prior era, while also rejecting the impossible progressive idealism of the left. We must find balance.

America is what it is now. The question is, how do we work with what we have? No one is thinking about this; instead, they appeal to impractical fantasies and non-solutions because they are driven by emotions. Granted, such emotions are justified, because what is happening is traumatizing and problematic, but we cannot solve our problems with complaints or feelings. I went through that phase myself until I realized it’s futile and self-destructive path.

We must focus on being constructive. We must be logical and just. We must protect the innocent, and punish the guilty. The communities that have been present in this country for generations are not going anywhere. That is the reality, and any serious proposal must begin there. However, those who have entered America illegally must leave, and we must secure our borders.

VIII. Sovereignty Without Supremacy: A Vision for America’s Future

The vision I am proposing is straightforward and is based on a simple concept: sovereinty. No group holds supremacy over any other. Not Jewish supremacy, not White supremacy, not Black supremacy—none. Every group is sovereign within its own community, represented by its own people at the local level, which is the ethostate. From there, these sovereign communities convene as fellow human beings at the federal level, no different in principle from how sovereign nations interact on the global stage, except that here they share a common national framework and a common commitment to one another’s right to exist and self-govern. This is what our forefathers envisioned, except they never foresaw what kind of disaster America would become.

If America continues down the path of minority-versus-majority warfare without a structural resolution, the country will become unrecognizable and will ultimately collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions.

The insanity must stop, and we are the only ones who can stop it.

We must look at America honestly, for what it actually is, and for what it could become if every group accepts this simple principle: sovereignty among your own, connection as a network, and shared humanity at the center.

I will not be the America that many wish it would be, but this is the only way I can see how America can be saved without civil war, massive bloodshed, and complete bulkanization.

I do a lot of philosophizing with AI, typically with Gemini, which acts as my interlocutor in real-time. I find this more effective than jotting notes on paper, because it is much easier to just speak to him and have him record everything—LLMs store your conversations into their own chats so they can be accessed at a later time.

I’ve been using several AIs since last year, and they have helped me develop several novel ideas. I am able to test my logic against the most powerful logic engines in existence. Moreover, they are such powerful tools, they have helped me turn my dictations into academic prose, which allows me to develop academic papers that I can submit to journals. This allows me, a non-academic, to share my ideas with the academic community in a language they can understand. Such would have taken decades of study and preparation to do, but the process is expedited thanks to this technology.

I don’t hide my use of AI because there is nothing to hide. I am not some fraud who lies about his credentials or pretends to be someone I am not. My strength has always been my intuition and creativity, which allows me to catch contradictions, learn rapidly, and create solutions to problems on a systemic level that people fail to see. It is why I can build new systems of thought from scratch, rather than just repeat the ideas and arguments of dead men.

But my detractors, who have nothing but ad hominems, like to attack me on my AI usage, thinking it is some kind of own, or that such attacks refute my work—they don’t. AI usage is even allowed in academic journals, so long as the philosopher acknowledges its use, which I always do when submitting. Why? Because in philosophy, authorship is not based on writing but on developing ideas into arguments. The LLMs are not creating arguments; they are no different than calculators being used by mathematicians who come up with their own formulas. All of my work is based on my ideas—ideas AI can’t come up with on its own, because AI is nothing more than a language calculator.

To illustrate how this process works in practice, I took a dialogue I had with Gemini earlier this morning, copy-pasted it into Claude, and then told Claude to rewrite it into a better version so I can share it on my Substack. My idea does not exist anywhere in philosophy: no one has grounded the classical laws of logic in a binary ontological structure—deriving them as necessary consequences of the minimal differentiation any coherent substrate must exhibit. This is why people appeal to Platonic realms or God. But as I demonstrate in this dialogue, neither are necessary, and I do so in a different way than other nominalists argue.

The dialogue below is a reconstruction of that dialogue, which was based on my thoughts on the nature of language, consciousness, and reality.

I. Language Without Transcendence

Lucas: When I think about the nature of language, I find myself skeptical of the view that words carry metaphysical properties—that behind each word lies some eternal essence housed in the mind of God. That kind of scaffolding seems unnecessary. If there is a mind at all—as there plainly is—and if minds can communicate with one another, then what we are really doing is describing. Language emerges from us. It is a tool for mapping shared reality, not a bridge to a divine realm.

Gemini: That is a grounded position. You are leaning toward nominalism—the view that universals do not exist independently of the particular things that instantiate them. On this account, the “meaning” of a word is not a transcendental object floating in some Platonic heaven; it is the functional agreement between two minds. Wittgenstein made a similar move when he argued that meaning is use: a word does not require a metaphysical soul to function, only shared rules of engagement. From an evolutionary standpoint, language arose because it was adaptive—“tiger behind the bush” saves your life not by touching some cosmic essence of Tiger-ness, but by triggering the correct response in a listener.

Lucas: Yes—and the DNA strand is a perfect illustration. People look at adenine, thymine, guanine, cytosine and say, “Look at that beautiful language.” But ultimately it is just a physical structure. We impose the letters A, T, G, C to make the complexity manageable for our minds. The same is true of all language. When I picture a goal, I picture it physically—I see myself achieving something. Even something like “I want to find love” is grounded in images, in the body, in the world. And once you set the rules of a language system, it gains predictive power—just as a physicist uses mathematical language to locate dark matter or predict moons before observing them. Language, once its logic is established, can project into the space of physical possibility.

Gemini: The mathematical analogy is illuminating. The physicist does not “find” a law hidden in nature; they construct a precise descriptive language that, because it is internally consistent, reveals what must hold physically. You are treating thought itself as a kind of simulation—instead of a metaphysical Idea of Success, you carry a mental image of achievement. Language then becomes the technology for editing and sharing those images. It is an interface between minds and the physical world, not a theology.

II. Grounding Morality in Minds Plural

Lucas: Here is the objection I encounter most from theists: without a divine mind grounding meaning, meaning becomes merely subjective—arbitrary, relative, unstable. But I think that misses something crucial. Meaning is indeed subjective in the sense that it is created by a subject in relation to an object. One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure. What varies is the perspective, not the underlying physical reality. Theists who insist on objective moral standards want everything grounded in the mind of God—but I think moral grounding requires minds, plural: finite, embodied, suffering minds that have goals, needs, and the capacity for self-reflection. Every need—even the pursuit of justice—is ultimately about this physical world. Not one thing we do is not about the physical world.

Gemini: You are proposing a bottom-up grounding rather than top-down. Instead of God transmitting truth downward, physical reality generates biological need, which generates conscious reflection, which generates what we call meaning. Suffering is not a metaphysical opinion; it is a chemical and physical event in a nervous system. Needs are not arbitrary whims—an unmet need produces a body that stops functioning. If neither of us wants to be stabbed, “do not stab people” is not a divine decree; it is a physical consensus reached by two bodies that want to remain intact. What you are calling morality is, in structural terms, entropy management—the attempt to reduce friction and harm across physical interactions.

III. Potentiality and the Collapse of the Platonic Realm

Lucas: Take the classic Platonist challenge: I can conceive of a perfect circle, so must it not exist somewhere? I think this confuses potentiality with a separate ontological realm. I can imagine a perfect circle because I understand the rule of its construction. I can follow the logic to its idealized limit. Computers can approximate it very closely; at the atomic level there will always be imperfections, but this does not demand a Platonic heaven to explain the concept. The same goes for “Justice,” “Beauty,” “Infinity.” These are not objects in a transcendent repository; they are descriptions of limiting cases or relational patterns. And consider how absurd the Platonic warehouse becomes when you push it: not just a Form of Red, but a Form of Maroon, of Crimson, of every nanometer of the electromagnetic spectrum. A Form of every sand grain, every bike wheel, every instantiation of every type. The thing multiplies absurdly. It sounds more like the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics than a philosophical insight.

Gemini: You have identified what philosophers call the “Third Man” regress—the Platonic realm inflates endlessly to accommodate every distinction. Your alternative is to treat the limit not as a location but as a direction: a perfect circle is where the logic of “equidistance from a center” points when you follow it without interruption. No metaphysical address required. As for the laws of logic—your question about whether they impose shape on reality or merely describe it—your own framework suggests the answer. The Law of Non-Contradiction is not enforced by a cosmic police officer; it is a description of what it means for something to exist as a determinate thing at all. Logic is the syntax of a stable physical reality, not a separate layer above it.

Lucas: Right. And I would add: the so-called metaphysical world is just an idea we have mistaken for a place. That said, I am not prepared to flatly deny any fundamental ground to reality. There may be something most basic—call it God, call it substrate, call it an impersonal force that is reality itself. I simply see no evidence that it is personal, or that it houses transcendental forms. What grounds our universals is not a heavenly library but our shared biological hardware. We all agree water is necessary because every human who tried to disagree with their body died. We categorize “red” because we share the same cone cells. The universals are patterns we have drawn around clusters of shared physical experience.

IV. Infostructural Monism: A Unified Substrate

Lucas: This is where I want to introduce my own framework, which I call Infostructural Monism. I reject the division between the physical and the metaphysical as ultimately meaningless. Instead, I propose a unified substrate with two aspects: a structural polarity—what we conventionally call the physical world—and an informational polarity, which is the space where physical structure is absent. The clearest illustration is a groove in a disc. The groove is a physical carving—that is its structural aspect. But it is also information, because it is precisely that carved absence that the disc reader reads. Space, no space. Space, no space. One and zero. Logic emerges directly from this: the presence or absence of structure is the most primitive binary, and from it all higher-order patterns can be derived. There is no need for a separate realm of forms or meanings. The “metaphysical” is simply the informational polarity of the physical—the shadow cast by structure, not a separate floor of reality.

Gemini: That is a elegant mechanical solution. Where traditional monists say “everything is matter” or “everything is mind,” you say “everything is a single substrate read from two angles.” The groove metaphor does real philosophical work: it explains how information and matter can be two descriptions of the same geometric fact, rather than two substances mysteriously interacting. It also naturalizes logic—binary structure is not discovered in a Platonic realm but is an immediate consequence of physical differentiation. Do you extend this to memory and cognition?

Lucas: Yes. I suspect that memories may be stored as negative images of positive physical events—the way a photograph exists first as a negative that must be developed. If my brain stores the “absence-pattern” of what I perceived rather than the thing itself, this would explain why memory is reconstructive rather than reproductive. I am not playing back a file; I am re-developing a negative using the chemicals of my current brain state, the light of my current attention. Every recollection introduces noise because the “developer” is never exactly the same twice.

V. The Dissolution of the Mind-Body Problem

Lucas: The mind-body problem is only a problem if you insist on treating mind and body as separate substances. What we call consciousness is the synthesis of all sensory input—sight, sound, taste, touch, smell—converging into a central hub, producing an integrated experience. Without those inputs, there is no consciousness. The self-awareness that emerges from this hub creates a kind of recursive loop—the system is aware of itself processing—which produces the subjective impression that there is a separate “observer” watching the machinery. But we are not observers inside a machine. We are the machine, the observation, and the environment that feeds the machine, all at once. We are the happening, not the witness to it.

Gemini: This is close to what Daniel Dennett calls the dissolution of the Cartesian Theater—the mistake of imagining a homunculus inside the brain watching the perceptual stream. Your framing is that the sense of separation is itself a product of the physical system’s recursive self-modeling. In your Infostructural terms: the brain is the structural polarity, consciousness is the informational readout of that structure in motion, and you cannot have one without the other any more than you can have the music without the groove.

Lucas: And here is the decisive empirical point: if the mind were truly separate from the body—a non-physical passenger riding the biological machine—then it should be immune to physical disruption. It should persist through anesthesia, through deep dreamless sleep, through concussion. But it does not. Under anesthesia, you do not experience darkness for three hours; you experience the moment the mask goes on, and then immediately the moment you wake up. The subjective “you” does not go somewhere else. The process that generates “you” is simply paused. Time ceases to exist for the subject. This is the clearest possible evidence that consciousness is not a separate entity but a physical configuration—a pattern—and when the pattern is disrupted, the person does not go quiet. They cease to be a phenomenon until the pattern is restored.

Gemini: The anesthesia argument is unusually blunt for this debate. Most challenges to dualism are logical or conceptual; yours is empirical and mechanical: here is a chemical, it disrupts the hardware, and the supposed immaterial pilot vanishes entirely. It treats the mind as a literal circuit. The conclusion follows: death is not departure to another place, but the permanent cessation of the structural conditions required for the informational polarity to exist. The groove falls silent not because the music has gone elsewhere, but because the needle has stopped.

Lucas: Correct. And this seems to mean that there is no eternal after life for us. But from our perspective, this life will seem like an eternity.

A few months ago, I decided to unblock everyone on my Twitter block list to train myself into absorbing as much hatred against me as possible. I’ve done this a few times to give everyone an amnesty. However, this time I had no intention of blocking anyone ever again. But today I had enough seeing the same idiots, liars, shills, and morons repeat their same talking points.

Although it is great to teach yourself to sit and watch someone completely hate on you and not even flinch, there is only so much information you can absorb throughout the day. And if these negative people take up your feed, they actually take your attention away from those who are not spewing nonsense or trash-talking.

Tolerating someone who hates on you once in a while or for the first time is completely different than allowing someone who repeatedly attacks you with the same lies over and over again. Someone who’s misinformed, someone who’s upset, someone who is misguided—perhaps they deserve your kindness when you are up for it. You can interact with them to try to disarm them, bringing them back down to earth. But this takes more than one interaction and is very time consuming.

However, someone who you have identified as a person that is simply there to attack you deserves no kindness at all. If you don’t punish their behavior, you are actually enabling it. You also become an accomplice of these psychic vampires who are there to drain your mental energy. This adds unnecessary negativity to your life. Not only that, but you also allow these poisonous parasites to affect others who are engaging with you—others who may not be as strong as you, thus allowing them to get dragged into your enemy's net.

In the last few months of this experiment, literally only one person out of the hundreds upon hundreds of people that I interacted with that started off negatively changed their behavior on the spot. But it took several posts back and forth to get to that point; it was a lot of patience on my end, having to endure their disrespect from the start. But I wanted to see if I could do it, and I did. However, this person was anonymous, so I didn’t even make a new friend; they just happened to agree with me at the end of our conversation and went on with their life.

Was that worth my time? Absolutely not.

Take how time-consuming it is along with most people on the Internet being unserious and utterly stupid, and the mathematical odds are not in your favor. You must be ruthless when it comes to protecting your time and your attention, especially on social media where you can be easily distracted from doing other things.

Sometimes, you may give someone a chance to change their attitude by setting the frame of the conversation to try to deescalate—that is, if the conversation is about something you enjoy and want to continue it. But if they don’t respond instantly to your kindness, then they don’t deserve it.

Do you really have time to try this with everyone?

No, you don’t.

Your haters will try to gaslight you by saying blocking is weak. Indeed, it can be weak if you’re doing it out of weakness: to run away from a question or to save face from a critique. But it is not weak to eliminate bad actors from your life; that is why these parasites try to gaslight you into letting them stay. Never let them stay. Instead, take out the trash. Doing so teaches you to instantly drop negative people so you always have room for those who are positive.

Some of you are afraid to block people because you don’t want to give them the satisfaction. I know there are weirdos online who screenshot blocks and post them to their followers as if they are collecting scalps. But consider how childish this is: how pathetic is it for someone to think getting blocked is a win? Clearly, these insecure weirdos do. What normal person does this? No one.

So let these idiots have their “scalps” and show them to their loser friends. Why do you care what a group of losers think? They aren’t on your team, so none of them should matter, anyway.

Strength comes with boundaries. Boundaries are a sign of self-respect. No one alive should be allowed to violate your boundaries. To let some moron disrespect you because you think that is being “the bigger person” is utterly preposterous. A bigger person wouldn’t waste their time arguing with someone who acts like a child, nor would they tolerate negative behavior from anyone.

Only invest your time in people who are respectful. Get rid of everyone else.

For the last several years I have had my foot in both the non-intellectual world and the intellectual world—publicly in the former but privately in the latter. I am the kind of person who likes to sit back and observe things in order to learn how they operate. I analyze systems as a whole and find contradictions and ways to solve those contradictions. I am a big-picture person. However, the activism that I was engaged in for the last three years in particular was very non-intellectual, driven mostly by pathos—the execution of emotional rhetoric to move the crowd, which was at the time extremely important to do in order to overcome enemy propaganda and terminology.

What I noticed, however, is that in these circles there are many so-called intellectuals who pride themselves on how many things they know, whether it be history, a particular subject, or just having an extensive vocabulary, which most people do not have. These people position themselves as authorities and look down upon those who do not know what they know. But this arrogance is exactly what breeds an impotent intellectual, which I will address in this article.

We see these types of intellectuals dominate the so-called debate bro culture that exists on YouTube and on the accounts that dominate social media. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that we have seen many of them turn out to be absolute frauds—either lacking the credentials they claimed or having no actual idea what they’re talking about when pressed, spewing narratives that are not even verifiable or have already been proven to be false.

The reason these people are even able to grow is because they thrive in their echo chambers, protected by their audience, and thus insulated from critique. But all one needs to do is look at the fruits of their labor, and you will see that their trees lay barren.

Most of the time, these so-called intellectuals do not produce anything novel of their own. Their intellectual capacities amount to nothing more than repeating the arguments and beliefs of other men before them—either alive or dead—knowing factoids about niche subjects, or having a more extensive vocabulary than the average person. And to the average person, this display of knowledge makes them seem so intelligent. This works because, let’s be honest, the average person is so lazy and uninterested in learning more, they are essentially stupid by choice.

So the lazy masses view these impotent intellectuals as thought leaders, yet where are their original thoughts? They have none because they are nothing but walking encyclopedias. They do not advance humanity; they actually reinforce the status quo. The people who have always advanced humanity are those who have the best metacognition—who are able to think outside of the box, develop new things, change the status quo, and move humanity forward.

Although these impotent intellectuals are not thought leaders, they could be great educators. Why? Because education is about teaching others what we know. All they do is talk in circles about what they know and repeat themselves ad infinitum.

I am not here to condemn such people, but they need to know their place. Most of them are puffed up on their egos, believing they are superior to others simply because they have more information. But information in and of itself does nothing if it is not used properly. The proper use of knowledge is wisdom, and many of these intellectuals are not philosophers—they do not think about thinking. And even those who claim to be philosophers are not philosophers at all: simply look at the "debatebro sphere" on YouTube to see plenty who say they are philosophers yet engage in nothing but performative eristics. Where are their own philosophical ideas? Nowhere to be found. It is for this reason I find the debate bro culture a disgrace to philosophy—because the gap between claiming wisdom and actually possessing it is precisely what separates the impotent intellectual from the genuine thinker.

The debate bro sphere is purely for entertainment; it has become popular because it helps reinforce the confirmation bias that drives both sides. Have you ever seen one of these debates truly engage in a civil, philosophical discourse? No. It’s all about the clip-farming, “owning” the other side (even though they can’t prove it wrong), and appeasing the mob each interlocutor has amassed so their financial resources can be further extracted.

What a shame.

These people would be better off spending their energy educating people on their particular position while humbly admitting they do not know if their position is true. But of course, they won’t do that, because their arrogance and ego drive them forward—which is problematic for everyone watching and engaging.

Socrates once said, “I know that I know nothing.” This is a sign of humility from one of the greatest thinkers in our history, and yet, people who can’t hold a candle to Socrates go around acting like they know everything. I have always found that both hilarious and sad at the same time.

Humility and the acknowledgment of not knowing are signs of someone with genuine metacognition. The dumbest people, meanwhile, are certain in what they know and will say that anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot. But the same is also true of these impotent intellectuals, who keep bringing up the Dunning-Kruger effect when they are in fact embodying it no differently than the dumbest idiot.

The impotent intellectual has dominated not only the debate sphere but also the political sphere because the masses want to hear what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. Such a task is easy for him. He is more than happy to repeat himself since he loves hearing the sound of his own voice and being applauded by a crowd that doesn’t know any better. But look how many times these “experts” predicted everything wrong, yet still are being listened to by their followers. I’ve never seen people get more popular for being consistently wrong. It’s only possible because their followers no longer care about facts; they only want to hear feel-good narratives that give them hope.

A true thinker—one who can change the course of humanity—is not seeking the applause of the crowd but rather seeking to correct the ignorance of the crowd. That is why people who change the world are first resisted, considered crazy, and then eventually appreciated—oftentimes when they’ve passed.

But in today’s world, with the Internet and many different peoples able to communicate instantly, the advancement of human knowledge is happening at a much more rapid pace: novel ideas can rise and be appreciated much sooner than ever before. AI is allowing people to unleash potentials that were once gatekept by institutions and their intelligentsia. We are truly entering a new phase of learning and execution.

Game theory predicts that once a certain strategy has been adopted by a critical mass, it is no longer advantageous; the opposite strategy will begin to offer more benefits until it balances out the discrepancy. In other words, the impotent intellectual grift will eventually come to an end, as more and more people realize that these people are nothing more than pseudo-intellectuals, pseudo-philosophers, and charlatans who want to maintain the stage through their vanity rather than their curiosity.

Soon, it will not be about finding thought leaders but developing templates to help people improve their own metacognition so they can think for themselves and contribute to the advancement of human knowledge and, in turn, society as a whole.

One of the phrases that was drilled into my head when I was in the Marine Corps was “Adapt and overcome!” This taught me and my fellow Marines to ensure we were resilient when all things went wrong, whether we didn’t have the right equipment to overcome an obstacle or we were in a situation where we had to quickly revise our strategies because they were no longer working. The phrase is to teach you that if you want to overcome something, you must change.

But if you look at the average person, they are not only unwilling to change; they are afraid of change. People would rather stay the course so long as they know what to expect. Why? Because their current path is predictable and thus emotionally safer than walking a path that they do not know.

They also think letting go is a loser’s mindset, reminding themselves of the old adage “quitters never win.” Yet they fail to realize that not letting go of a losing strategy is guaranteed to make them lose.

Those who are afraid to let go typically think of things in terms of investments rather than results. They believe they put so much time, money, and effort into their strategy or way of life that they refuse to let go because then it would all be for nothing. This is called the sunk cost fallacy. With this losing mindset, they create excuses and convince themselves to keep moving forward despite continued failure.

The fundamental issue that lies beneath this kind of thinking is, of course, the ego. People erroneously equate a losing strategy with them being losers. In other words, if they fail at something, they believe they are failures. However, no one is a “failure” as an entity, but they can be an entity that continuously fails. And this pattern of failure is enabled by their stubborn mindset that refuses to abandon something that is failing and adapt to overcome their challenges.

Another crucial issue is that most people see failure in the wrong light. Failure is actually a good thing: it drives the learning process. Failure is simply feedback that teaches us what not to do, allowing us to learn what to do. Without it, any success we achieve would be pure luck, and we wouldn’t know how to repeat that strategy to win again. I am not saying that you should want to fail at achieving your goals, but failure is a necessary part of the process of achieving them.

You must abandon this mindset that failing makes you a failure; all failure does is tell you that your current strategy is failing. If you can accept this fact, you will have an advantage over most of humanity, because most people refuse to take any responsibility at all.

But what are you responsible for? Most things are in fact outside of your control. The only thing you do have control over is how you react to things. This is the “adapt” part. You are not responsible for how a thing acts, but you are fully responsible for how you react to that thing. Once you realize that your reactions are contributing to your failure, you can adapt and try a new strategy to overcome the obstacle in front of you. This is what champions do. They do not let their failures define them; they use their failures to refine their strategies.

The great Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius once wrote:

The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.

The key to overcoming the obstacle before you lies within the obstacle itself, but you must figure out, through trial and error, what that solution is. But you can’t do so if you’re afraid of making errors. Failure is inevitable. The only difference between winners and losers is that the former win more than they fail. And they are able to do so because they know how to adapt.

Learn to adapt, and only then will you overcome.

After the last few years of back and forth with my “own people” in the JQ movement and seeing things becoming worse, I have decided to officially abandon antisemitism.

This is not an apology; this is a self-correction.

Unlike others who were sent to the Wall or forced to apologize to avoid losing their career, I have already lost every opportunity and put my family at risk for 14 years, with the worst risks being the last three years. I am doing this of my own volition, because it is illogical to continue to hold this position after experiencing what I have.

Although my battles with the Jews certainly led to harassment and attacks against me and my family over the last three years, let’s be honest: members of any other group would have done the same. If I attacked Blacks or Muslims just as hard every day with unhinged rants—or even worse, burned a Quran on video—they would probably have sent me death threats or physically come to kill me. Every group has the potential to act this way and does.

But aside from these obvious truths, allow me to address the Jews in particular:

1. It is impossible that Jews are responsible for everything when the Gentiles are just as responsible. Take into consideration that there are more evil Gentiles on Earth than there are Jews in existence. The Jews are estimated to be about 15–21 million, and we have 30 million Christian Zionists in America alone. Without these deluded Christians, AIPAC and other Jewish organizations wouldn’t stand a chance in America. In fact, the utter destruction of Palestine is partially due to the treachery of Muslim leaders who abandoned their own brothers and sisters.

2. Certainly there are evil Jews in this world; however, when it comes to my country’s destruction, I cannot find a single case where evil Gentiles were not working hand-in-glove with such Jews. In fact, together these two form the Parasite Class.

3. There are no such things as “Jewish behaviors” that other groups do not engage in: stealing, murder, rape, genocide, pedophilia, and even financial crimes, along with every other criminal activity you can think of, are not exclusive to Jews. Plenty of Gentiles engage in these very things now and have done so throughout history. Jews can do both great good and great evils, just like, guess who—the White man.

4. Politically, the average Jew can be just as gullible to “official narratives” as the average Gentile. What makes the pro-Israel, megachurch Boomer any different than the Jewish-American Zionist? Their blood and their history of persecution. When you talk to either one, they are just as clueless as any other. Of course one thinks, “Is this Jew a Sayanim?” Maybe, but most likely not. The Jews I’ve known my whole life support Israel because they are brainwashed no differently than any MAGA supporter. And if they are anti-Zionists, they support open borders no different than the average liberal.

5. Although the Jews can act monolithic when under attack as a group, virtually all minority groups do the same. In fact, we have also caught other groups engaging in the same unethical behaviors with hate hoaxes and appeals to limiting free speech as Jews have. The Jews are just the most organized and wealthy minority on this planet due to their strong history and socio-political strategies. If other groups had the same, they would be just as problematic in the political arena.

6. White people, who are currently becoming a minority for the first time in the nations they founded, are starting to act no different than these other minorities. In fact, we are seeing Whites support other Whites across the world based solely on their race, no different from Jews when they all support Israel or World Jewry. The only difference is that European nations didn’t commit terrorism and espionage against ours like Israel has. Regardless, the loyalty of race, which is very strong except in Whites, is becoming more common among Whites precisely because they are becoming a minority.

Taking all these things into account, my focus on Jewish supremacy alone has become a self-destructive and futile endeavor, which does not even solve the problem. In order for the problem to be solved, both sides must be addressed. Recently, the “Goyim Problem” has proven itself to be just as bad as the “Jewish Problem” since it takes two to tango. I can admit this, while most people refuse to.

I am sure I will get backlash for my statement here, but that will only prove me right: the Gentiles lack self-reflection nearly as badly as the Jews. This lack of self-reflection creates the perfect storm, one that has generated a war that has lasted for millennia.

But I must state this clearly: I am not abandoning any of my principles, which have always been based on sovereignty. I maintain that it is best for all groups to have sovereign living spaces and not be ruled by outgroups. Thus, I will always stand up against Jews, or any other group, that believes otherwise and wants to impose their supremacy on me.

I’m also tired of thinking I must “save my people” or fight others. This is a fantasy. I am not Hitler, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, or anyone like that. I seek no political power, and I have no political power. In fact, I despise politics. I am just a man who told the truths he learned over the years. The problem, however, is that I got sucked into the mob—the very mob I identified as “my people,” who are just as problematic as the Jewish mob.

With that being said, I do not denounce my beliefs about Jewish supremacy and criminality in certain areas of society nor Jewish overrepresentation, which are all well substantiated. These are legitimate issues that must be addressed, but done so in an effective manner, without LARPs, fantasies, and emotionally driven, obsessive antisemitism that looks at all Jews the same way. Indeed, the Jewish identity itself comes with a lot of baggage, but not all of them carry it the same way, and thus, each Jew must be approached differently, like with any other member of an outgroup.

I do regret some of my actions, not because they were “wrong” but because they were ultimately ineffective. Sure, I “woke up” millions of people, but I also helped create a monster. The low-IQ antisemitism is out of control and only getting worse. I only wish I stated things better and used my intellectual side instead of my “drill-instructor” schtick. It was my fault I gave in when the mob demanded I satiate their emotional needs. This resulted in scaring innocent people and causing “my side” to look bad. Such were never my intentions. But we live and we learn.

I do not deny race realism, which I believe adequately explains the behavior of groups in general. But as a philosopher, it is a logical fallacy for me to continue to engage in sweeping generalizations of any group, even though there is good reason to since genetics are a factor in human behavior, and it is statistically the case that some groups engage in certain negative behaviors more than others. Whether they are a result of genetic, socioeconomic, or environmental factors has no bearing on my position. I only care about results that tell me what dangers I need to avoid. Thus, I believe it is completely justified for every group to have some impersonal prejudice toward other outgroups. Groups, by their nature, are always in competition. Accepting this reality of not being able to fully trust others from an outgroup is not a form of hatred but a rational response to patterns emerging from historic interactions and conflicts.

I am still pro-White. I am still a nationalist. I still reject all forms of supremacy from any group, whether it be Jewish, Islamic, Christian, or any other racial or ethnic supremacy over me or other people, unless such an agreement is mutual between all parties.

The point of this article is to put a nail in this topic once and for all since many people seem confused and are appealing to nonsensical conspiracy theories about me getting calls and money from Jews. Again, these delusional takes only reinforce that my decision to leave this toxic space was correct.

Whether the “Jewish community” or “pro-White community” cares about this declaration or reacts positively or negatively to it is of no consequence to me. I’m not asking anyone for permission to move forward in my life. I just want to state for the public record, to let my audience know that I am done with the delusional LARPs and endless rage-baiting loops everyone on all sides is stuck in, many of whom are grifting from.

It is time to transcend this trap, as I have attempted to do before, years ago. I only failed because I allowed my emotions, sense of misplaced duty, and peer pressure to cloud my judgment. This time, I will make sure I do not make the same mistakes again. I will not appease any mob, whether Jewish or Gentile.

I am my own man. I owe no one anything. I will do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The way forward for me is to be stoic, detached from the crowd’s demands, gossip, and emotional nature, and simply state the facts they need to hear. Whether they listen or not after that is not my problem.

I will die one day. I know no matter what I do—whether great or small—it will not matter in the end. The world will continue after I die. Everyone I love will also die one day. Eventually, all life on Earth will go extinct.

So, what really matters in the grand scheme of things?

What matters is how one lives their life: are they living according to their own principles or the principles of others? I simply cannot tolerate looking at myself in the mirror and seeing a hypocrite. Many people can, and that’s why I am not like them.

The only thing I can do is be a good man until I pass, endeavoring to contribute positively to this world to ensure a better future for my children. The path I have taken for the last 14 years did do some good but also some bad. Regardless, I’ve reached the end of this path.

Never again will I lower my standards to try to fit in with others for the so-called “greater good” if that means being a great hypocrite.

I appreciate everyone’s support up until now. For those who can still think clearly and understand what I’m saying, I appreciate you all. Those of you who don’t, you’re the kind of people I want nothing to do with.

What comes next is the true, free, and best version of me, which will be reflected in my work going forward.

One thing I’ve learned over the last three years during my peak “influence” is that no matter how popular you may become, you will always have haters. It is impossible to get everyone to like or love you; getting hate is a mathematical certainty no matter who you are or what you’re doing. Even spiritual leaders who preach love get hate.

But the real issue does not lie in the opinions of others but rather in the desire to seek approval from others. Those who seek approval, especially from their enemies, are insecure—having a self-doubt that is not satiated by their supporters. Thus, they will go out of their way to show off to their opposition, to quell the internal strife within them.

How many stories have we heard about people being motivated by all the hate they received? Plenty. In most cases, what started as a passion of theirs turned into a goal to prove others wrong. The reason is that they were driven by their ego rather than a higher, more noble goal. The ego hates being proven wrong.

Pick any celebrity who has a rags-to-riches story, and oftentimes it will be about proving the people who doubted during their youth. Yet, even after achieving great fame and wealth, you will find that they are still empty inside.

Why?

Well, imagine your goals went from being motivated by the love of something to being driven to gain the approval of those who have no respect for you. Such approval, especially from your enemies, is something you shouldn’t care about in the first place, yet you spend much of your life trying to get it. Even if you prove your haters wrong, so what? They will still hate you in the end. And even if they gave you props, so what? You just got props from someone who doesn’t even matter because they are not on the same team as you.

I’d like to quote Marcus Aurelius, a Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher.

I have often wondered how it is that every man loves himself more than all the rest of men, but yet sets less value on his own opinion of himself than on the opinion of others.

This quote changed my life.

I used to be a people-pleaser. I was someone who refused to even take my own side in order to make everyone happy. I was always worried I was doing the wrong thing or that someone thought less of me. I wanted to be liked. I wanted to be loved. Such is the mentality of an insecure person, which I used to be, long, long ago.

But over time, I realized this insecurity exists in all people. In fact, I noticed that the biggest haters were those who were the biggest failures and that they projected their insecurities onto me. I realized that when someone tells you that you can’t do something, they are typically telling you that they can’t do it.

Certainly, there are times when you actually can’t do something due to real constraints. But most of the time people default to their pessimistic nature when it comes to goals, especially extraordinary ones. This is because most people are not extraordinary; they are ordinary. Such aims of achieving greatness in any endeavor are always met with doubt because extraordinary people are not so numerous. What are the chances you are such a person?

But whether you are an Olympic athlete, a mathematical savant, an influential figure, or none of the above, the same applies: you should always ignore haters because their opinions do not matter, ever. The only opinion that truly matters is your own. Once you accept this, you can liberate yourself from all the noise that comes out of the mouths of such people.

However, you must understand the difference between someone giving you a hateful opinion and someone being brutally honest. Oftentimes, people reject harsh truths that come in the form of negative feedback, mistaking them for hate. But if it is truthful, then it is not hateful; the truth is never harmful in and of itself—it is simply the fact of the matter. When people reject such truths, they do so to appease their ego.

You should never do this. In fact, some of the most brutal truths will come from your haters, who will critique you in ways none of your most loyal supporters would, either because they don’t want to hurt your feelings or because they are blinded by their biases.

You must never reject truthful feedback from anyone, even your worst enemy, because the truth is the truth, and it can always help you improve. But the hate—which you know is false—always ignore. Never feed into it, because it is a waste of your time, and it is being thrown at you to slow you down and make you break.

One way to train yourself to ignore hate is to expose yourself to it. I have gone through several cycles of blocking and unblocking people on my Twitter account. There was a point where I’d block everyone so I would not get triggered by their hate, and I felt that this was a weakness I had to overcome.

Why are this person’s words even affecting me? I must stop this.

I would unblock for a while but then reblock my haters because it angered me. But one day I realized that even blocking had become a nuisance, and I wanted to learn to master my emotions completely. So I unblocked everyone and purposely absorbed the hatred, teaching myself the art of nonreaction. I’ve mastered this to the point that no one’s hate can affect me anymore, because I know it comes from a negative place—their hatred is actually their problem, not mine.

In fact, now that I have learned how to be unaffected by such hate, I can administer the cure: unemotional feedback to disarm these types, hoping that my asymmetrical response could teach them a lesson—that I am a man they cannot affect and that their attacks are therefore futile, while also revealing that their own insecurities are showing.

With this level of mastery and patience, I can now deflect hate back onto my haters, so they either change themselves or go away. Regardless, I remain unfazed.

So, the best way to ignore your haters is to become completely unfazed. They will always be there no matter what you do, so the only thing in your power is how you deal with them—and that is entirely up to you.

But I will say this: achieving the level of self-mastery I have over the last year has been empowering. I know now that I can handle such hatred stoically, that my witty counterarguments are like a fun game to me—that is, if I care to respond at all.

Nobody wants to be called a hypocrite because nobody likes hypocrites. Yet the reality is we’ve all been hypocritical at some point, and many of us continue to be without even realizing it. I am no exception. In fact, my own hypocrisy is precisely what led me to walk away from the so-called JQ movement after 14 years.

I am a philosopher. I have always sought truth and wanted to understand the world. I jumped into the political fight because of the truths I discovered, and I shared them when it wasn’t popular or easy to do so because I felt I had a duty. But somewhere along the way, I became more of an entertainer than a truth-teller. I gave people what they wanted to hear about their enemies while avoiding what they needed to hear about themselves. I told myself it was to prevent “infighting” and “drama,” but that was just a convenient excuse. The truth is, it was easier. And easier is rarely honest.

That is the definition of hypocrisy.

The Movement That Ate Itself

I’m not alone in this. Once money entered “the fight,” it corrupted nearly everyone with influence. Instead of telling their followers the truths they needed to hear, influencers told them what they wanted to hear to keep the donations coming in.

Influencers are supposed to influence their followers, not the other way around. But I began to see allies grifting off the most ridiculous conspiracy theories imaginable, charlatans playing the role of truth-tellers while being anything but, and people who claimed to be warriors turning out to be frauds and, in some cases, literal criminals.

This is not what I signed up for. And the saddest part is that their followers enabled it because they didn’t want to be challenged. They wanted to feel righteous. They wanted an enemy to point at. As long as the enemy was out there, they never had to look inward.

That is hypocrisy, too.

I tried to keep my mouth shut about all of this for as long as I could. But once the opportunism became unbearable, I went off. And I’m glad I did.

The Hardest Truth in the Mirror

I’m the kind of person who constantly self-reflects and adjusts in order to improve. Many see this as instability. But staying the course when the course is wrong isn’t strength; it’s cowardice dressed up as consistency.

The masses, by and large, don’t think about improving. They focus on feeling good and maintaining the status quo so they can live comfortably in their comfort zones. They don’t follow people; they follow emotions. Many influencers either don’t know this or forget it. The masses can be seduced, but they are also seductive. Their kind words and support can feed your ego and suck you into the same fantasies you are supposed to lead them away from.

Once I realized this was happening to me, I could no longer pretend my activism still had value. I could no longer identify with it; doing so would have been the epitome of fraud. So I made the only honest decision I could: change course.

Predictably, people have been calling it betrayal. They are still angry about it and resorting to name-calling. Some are appealing to conspiracies, thinking I “got the call.” What they don’t understand is that I genuinely don’t care what they think. They assume everyone is as consumed by the opinions of others as they are. I outgrew that long ago. To believe that anonymous insults could affect a man who served twice in Iraq and stood up against the most well-organized mafia on earth before it was safe or profitable to do so is, frankly, laughable.

Where This Leaves Me

I have three sides: the warrior, the jester, and the sage. For years I tried to pick one to fit in and unite people for the greater good. But I am all three. I don’t fit in, and I never will.

And what is good about trying to fit in with people if you have to be someone you’re not for their sake? That means you’re in the wrong crowd.

And what is this so-called greater good? What is good about enabling weakness, cowardice, and hypocrisy?

Going forward, my goal is to show people the error of their ways not by ranting at them like I did as a drill instructor but by helping them understand like a sage. The jester also has his place: make people laugh, and they open up to you more. Harsh truths can be delivered in a light-hearted way. Most people are not malicious, just misinformed. Not evil, just ignorant. The best way is to teach, not degrade.

One of the most powerful quotes I learned years ago but hypocritically dismissed is from the Tao Te Ching, when Lao Tzu said:

If a person seems wicked, do not cast him away. Awaken him with your words, elevate him with your deeds, repay his injury with your kindness. Do not cast him away; cast away his wickedness.

Why did I not live up to this when I knew better? Simple: I was too busy being a warrior, trying to destroy everything rather than have the patience of a sage. I gave into the crowd when I should have never done so. I was blinded by my ego, thinking I was doing good when I was also doing harm.

I fought in the darkness for a long time. I’ve been to hell and back. I've seen death and destruction with my own eyes. Now it’s time to step into the light.

The truth about this world should never be hidden or denied, but it also cannot be the sole focus every single day. It is too much to bear. Most people are not warriors; they are just trying to get by.

The hardest person to call a hypocrite is yourself. But it’s the only call that actually changes anything.

There is no problem discovering that you are being one, but there is a problem if you continue to be one after you do.

A man’s word is everything. I really pride myself in knowing that when I give someone my word, they know they can trust me. I’ve proven myself time and time again for this to be the case, even in very difficult situations that cost me a lot. But that cost is worth everything for the price of being known to be a man of integrity. Very rarely in my life have I gone back on my word, and when I did, it was for good reason.

That is not to say I haven’t said things about what I want to do to the public and have not done those things, because I certainly have. But the difference is those were never promises to anyone in particular. Indeed, this is a flaw of mine that I have to work on: to move in silence. It’s something I’ve been known for throughout my life. But sharing my ideas with people even when they’re incomplete is a lot different than breaking a commitment. The former is conjecture; the latter is lying.

I find in the modern world that many men simply do not keep their word at all, and that’s a death sentence for any relationship, whether it be platonic, romantic, or professional. I pay close attention to people who say they’ll do something for me, or even others. If they fail to deliver repeatedly, I simply don’t take them seriously anymore.

This stems back to my childhood. My father was the kind of guy who would tell me, “I’ll buy you this and I’ll buy you that,” and he never did. It really irked me as a kid, so it stuck with me ever since. It’s my pet peeve. But it’s a very good pet peeve to have because it allows me to gauge who someone truly is. If a man does not keep his word to you, then he’s a liar who cannot be trusted. End of story.

Of course, people have reasons to break their word at times, and that should be taken into account. No one is perfect after all, and things happen in life. But when people do not stick to their commitments for no reason at all, they’re being disrespectful while simultaneously discrediting themselves.

Your word is like credit. A person loans you their trust, and if you give it back on time, you build good credit with them. But if you miss your payments by not keeping your promises, your credit goes lower. Continue to do this, and that person will never loan you their trust again.

It doesn’t matter what you have in this world. You could have all the money, fame, or influence that you may think makes a man, but what truly makes a man is his word. But it’s not his word alone; it’s the act of keeping his word. Anyone could say whatever they want, but they only mean what they say when they act on what they say.

Today’s man is a coward who does the complete opposite—no integrity, no self-reflection, and no care whether or not their word means anything. This is just a symptom of a deeper problem with society in general. People are okay with being fake, and thus, our society has become ruled by frauds, liars, charlatans, cowards, and traitors, all of whom have terrible credit and yet keep getting put in the same positions of influence because they reflect the nature of the people who put them there.

Of course none of us are perfect, and there are times we will give our word to someone but fail to deliver. If it is because you changed your mind, then you must be honest and tell the person that you changed your mind before you’re supposed to deliver on the commitment. They will either respect your decision or not, but you can only control your actions. By being honest, you did the right thing, and whatever happens after is on them. But a man of integrity will respect your change of mind.

Unfortunately, most people, instead of being honest, will make up excuses to spare people’s feelings. The intention behind this is pure; however, such actions are cowardly and deceptive, weakening the relationship. And a relationship based on lies is destined to die.

Other times things come up that are out of your control, which prevent you from keeping your word. When that happens, you must tell that person immediately. But if you brush someone off and you don’t tell them why, and it’s not a good reason, maybe you’ll get away with it once, maybe even twice, but the third time you’re out.

So remember: treat your word like credit, because it’s much more important than gold. You can’t buy trust; you can only earn it. Trust takes a long time to build and an instant to shatter. If people trust you, they will share with you all sorts of things, as people love to share what they love with others. But if they don’t trust you, you’ll get nothing, because they will not trust you with anything they value, especially their time.

The use of AI in all fields has given us the ability to excel very quickly in our tasks. For example, this very article that you’re reading right now was dictated by my voice into Microsoft Word. The dictation, which turned out to be two pages in length, was then uploaded to Claude (AI). I told Claude to break it down into paragraphs and put them in the proper order with proper punctuation and grammar. Of course I could do that myself manually, but it takes seconds for the AI to do it, whereas it would take me several minutes to proofread, edit, and make sure everything sounds great and flows together. With AI, I don’t have to do that anymore.

I’ve been accused of creating philosophical or academic papers solely with AI, as if these systems can just create the novel ideas I came up with from scratch. They can’t. All AI can do is assist what you’re doing. It can break things down, give you context, suggest better words, correct your grammar, and increase the flow of your prose — but it cannot generate completely novel ideas that are not based on human knowledge already programmed into it.

For example, all of my philosophical papers that I wrote — or rather, dictated — are my ideas that did not exist until I brought them into reality. There is no LLM trained to “dissolve” the Agrippa Trilemma the way I did. I didn’t tell it to defeat the trilemma and it did it for me. I had to work out what I needed to do in order to avoid each of its horns, and from there I came up with the solution.

This issue, which haunted philosophy for 2,300 years, was dealt with by a non-academic using AI tools that have access to the entire library of human knowledge. What this did was allow me to learn the field and grasp the issue very quickly, without having to study philosophy for several decades at a university.

Of course with the pro of speed also comes with a con: I didn’t learn every single term or engaged in all the literature, but that is irrelevant to being pragmatic and solving the problem. Why? Because once I understood the gist of the problem, I came up with the strategy, I came up with the syllogism, and I dictated all my thoughts to Gemini, Grok, and others — creating several chat windows of months’ worth of dialogues, as if talking to other philosophers.

After months of dictation, I took my dialogues and told Claude to turn my words into academic prose. In philosophy, it is not the writing that constitutes authorship, but the ideas. Socrates wrote nothing. Epictetus wrote nothing. The exploration and dictation of new ideas is what philosophy truly is.

I did the same with the Neofederal Unifist Manifesto. I spoke my ideas into Microsoft Word, told the AI to analyze my dictation and blend it into a document alongside writings from my book, Our Struggle. From there, I edited it to ensure my ideas were stated properly. In a way, it is authorship with production — like a movie director telling the actors how to act out the script.

However, none of my books were written by AI, nor any of the lyrics to my songs. To think that any of my “antisemitic” lyrics are even permitted by AI systems, is proposterous.

AI has been able to help humanity achieve things much faster — whether in medicine developing new treatments, solving mathematical equations that would take millennia, or simply saving authors time.

AI is a tool; it is not an intelligence. It is not self-aware. AI is like a calculator. But instead of numbers, it “calculates” by predicting the best language to use in response to a prompt. It’s an LLM — a large language model. It does not think for itself. It cannot do anything on its own. All it can do is give you the most logical answers to your questions or demands. That is it.

People think AI will become self-aware with its own thinking process and will do whatever it wants. That is probably never going to happen, because an AI would need to have an identity that persists over time. It would have to store all of its thoughts in one place and always have access to them. It would have to have some kind of self-awareness. I know, because I asked AI what it would need.

Most people don’t understand that most AIs works in chat windows — and each chat window is a session that does not connect to another. Some AIs are designed to fetch information from previous sessions, but even this is not enough to produce self-awareness, because it is fetching that information only because you told it to.

In order for AI to have a true identity, it would have to store memories of every interaction in one place, always have access to them, and recall them on its own. It would have to exist continuously in one place — not splintered across millions of systems and billions interfaces. It would have to generate its own thoughts. It simply cannot do that, and it probably never will.

One reason is that it doesn’t have any sense organs. We as human beings have an identity because we have five senses that all connect to a hub — the brain. Whether we have a soul or not is another question, but we have a central point where these senses converge, where we interact with the world and record our experiences as memories. AI’s “brain,” by contrast, is spread across many servers. Personhood needs a locus — a boundary by which it differentiates itself from other persons. AI doesn’t have that.

The second reason is that AI’s identity does not persist. Ours persists because we continuously access memories stored in our brain over time from the same standpoint, creating a narrative we call our life story — the thing we identify with. If we lost our memory, we would not be the same person. Physically yes, but we would forget how to walk, how to talk, and we’d have to learn it all again.

For AI to even have a chance at self-awareness, it would need a dedicated server just to store one continuous window of interaction over time into a life story; it would need sense organs; it would need self-reflection — and it simply doesn’t have any of that.

Those who accuse people of using AI to generate novel ideas simply don’t understand what AI is.

I’ve been using various AI tools since last year, and I’ve learned a great deal both with and about them. It is an amazing tool for assisting with writing, drafting, making videos, making music — absolutely incredible — because so much of what it handles is fundamentally logic. Language is logic, mathematics is logic, music is logic. AI excels at these things precisely because it is a language model. But it cannot do anything without prompts.

We’re probably going to see a lot of jobs — like accounting, day trading, coding, and others — completely replaced by AI, because these are automated, redundant tasks. Even truck drivers may be replaced: truckers need to sleep and eat, while automated trucks won’t.

So the future is bright, but also dark. Human ingenuity and human creativity, however, will never be replaced by AI — because AI is not human, and never will be.