Tens of thousands of Italians make the trip to Mussolini’s hometown in Predappio, Italy, every year, where he’s buried in a crypt maintained by his family. But nobody visits Hitler’s grave because there isn’t one. His remains were destroyed by Soviet authorities and later German officials, precisely to prevent a shrine from forming.

Mussolini isn’t condemned as much as Hitler. There are barely any documentaries on him. The History Channel has jokingly been called “The Hitler Channel” for how much time it spends discussing Hitler and Nazism. Jewish organizations spend a lot of time warning us about Nazis and Hitlers. Yet for Mussolini, there’s virtually nothing despite being Hitler’s ally in WWII.

This tells us something real about the difference between these two men, these two regimes, and how history ultimately judges them.

They Weren’t the Same Kind of Fascist

The easy habit is to lump Mussolini and Hitler together—two fascist dictators, same era, same alliance, same moral category. The word “fascist” is thrown around as a pejorative more than anything else. Most people have no idea what Mussolini’s fascism actually was; they just think it’s “bad” because “fascism is bad.”

But there’s a huge difference between Italian Fascism and German National Socialism.

Mussolini came first. He built Italian Fascism around national power, Roman revival, and the corporate state. Race wasn’t part of it. For the first sixteen years of his rule, from 1922 to 1938, Italian Jews faced no persecution. In fact, many were members of the Fascist Party. Some were prominent. Mussolini, who was a womanizer, had a Jewish mistress, Margherita Sarfatti. In fact, in the early 1930s, Mussolini openly mocked Nazi racial theory as pseudoscience.

Hitler, however, built National Socialism around racial theory from the beginning. The Holocaust was an inevitable consequence of a program designed to preserve Germany’s racial purity, with Jews being the main enemy of the Reich.

So how did these two different men with different ideologies become allies in WWII?

Ethiopia Changed Everything

Before 1935, Mussolini was aligned against Hitler. He was part of the Stresa Front, a bloc with Britain and France designed to contain German expansionism. When the Nazis attempted a coup in Austria in 1934, Mussolini mobilized Italian troops to the Brenner Pass. He was, in effect, the thing standing between Hitler and his first territorial grab.

Then Italy Ethiopia invaded in 1935. The League of Nations condemned it, imposed sanctions, and isolated Italy diplomatically. The Western powers who had been Mussolini’s partners turned on him. With nowhere else to go, he drifted toward the one major power that wasn’t condemning him: Germany. The Axis wasn’t an expression of natural ideological kinship. It was mostly a product of diplomatic isolation. Mussolini got shoved into Hitler’s arms.

Il Duce’s speeches from this period are telling. During a speech at Bari, Italy, Mussolini essentially ridiculed the Germans, contrasting Italy’s rich inheritance of art, music, literature, and the Roman Empire with what Germany had to offer. This wasn’t a man who saw Hitler as a kindred spirit. He saw him as a junior partner, an upstart borrowing from Italian Fascism’s playbook. Likewise, Hitler didn’t have nice things to say about Italians. In Mein Kampf, he basically expressed his view that Italians are a racially mixed, Mediterranean people who squandered the Nordic blood that once made Rome great.

Although Hitler and Mussolini did respect each other, the relationship inverted completely over time. By 1943, Mussolini was a dependent client propped up by German troops after his own Fascist Grand Council voted him out. The man who had stared Hitler down over Austria ended up hanging from a gas station in Milan under German protection.

Italian Racism and Antisemitism

In 1938, Mussolini introduced racial laws stripping Italian Jews of citizenship and barring them from schools, professions, and mixed marriages. But most historians read these laws as largely political signaling—a gesture of solidarity with Germany at the moment the formal alliance was being cemented—rather than the expression of a deeply held antisemitic worldview. This is supported by the fact that enforcement was inconsistent. Italian officials, clergy, and ordinary citizens frequently helped Jews evade the laws.

When Germany occupied northern Italy after 1943 and began deporting Jews, Italian soldiers in occupied France and Greece had been known to actively protect Jews from Nazi roundups, sometimes defying direct German orders. Around 8,000 Italian Jews were ultimately deported and killed.

This is probably why Mussolini isn’t condemned as much as Hitler.

The War Was His Worst Decision

Italy entered World War II in June 1940, when France was already collapsing. Mussolini saw what looked like a closing window on easy spoils and jumped in. It was opportunism, not strategy. His own generals told him privately they weren’t ready. Italy’s military was undersupplied, poorly equipped, and exhausted from campaigns in Ethiopia and Spain. Its industrial capacity was a fraction of Germany’s.

But Mussolini entered anyway, and it cost him everything: his regime, his alliance, and ultimately his life. A man who had genuine accomplishments to his name, including the Lateran Treaty that resolved a sixty-year standoff between Italy and the Vatican, threw it all away chasing a seat at the victor’s table in a war he had no business fighting.

My grandparents were fascists and had nothing negative to say about Mussolini aside from him joining the war.

Why the Grave Exists

Mussolini has a grave because Italians could construct a usable past around him. The resistance movement gave Italy something to take moral pride in. The Holocaust, in Italian memory, happened to Italy rather than in Italy—the deportations were German-run. His pre-war achievements gave people something positive to remember. And he died a broken, humiliated man rather than a defiant one, which softened the historical reckoning in ways that are perhaps psychologically understandable even if not entirely fair.

Hitler has no grave because no selective memory is possible for the general public. The Germans of today have been conditioned to hate themselves for him. Although pre-war Hitler could be argued to have accomplished unity and achievements unlike his predecessors, there’s no post-Holocaust Hitler to rescue from the wreckage. Even with documentaries such as Europa: The Last Battle that do shed some light on unknown truths about WWII, they are not fully accurate and tend to portray Hitler as this saintly figure when, in fact, he was the aggressor who did perpetrate a genocide.

It’s Memorial Day, and Americans are out barbecuing, having a few beers, and spending time with their loved ones, celebrating to honor the fallen warriors who died to protect our nation, our freedoms, and our way of life.

But I have a serious question that may make you uncomfortable: Did they really die to protect those things?

If you believe every war we have ever started, engaged in, or supported was just, your answer will be a resounding “Yes!” But more and more Americans are beginning to realize they’ve been lied to about many of these wars, especially those born out of the so-called “War on Terror.” Many of those Americans are war veterans like myself.

America is 250 years old this year yet has been at war for over 96% of its existence. Certainly some of these wars were just, but most of them, especially after 1913, have been nothing but special-interest wars that benefited the Military Industrial Complex at the expense of the American people. We were warned about this by people who worked from the inside: General Smedley Butler, who wrote a short book called War is a Racket, and General Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his presidential farewell address. I highly recommend every American read both.

Did you know that despite all the fighting our nation has been and remains involved in, it has only formally declared war five times? The last formal declaration was in 1942 against the Axis Powers. Yet for over eight decades since, we have been engaged in “military-led operations,” “police actions,” and “humanitarian interventions”—sanitized terms used to avoid calling these things what they are: wars.

In 1949, the US government renamed the “Department of War” to the “Department of Defense.” Ironically, under the current administration, it has been informally rebranded back to the “Department of War,” and at least that’s honest. In 2025 alone, the United States conducted military strikes in seven countries: Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, Syria, Nigeria, and Venezuela. And that doesn’t account for operations already underway in 2026, including strikes on Iran and military operations in Ecuador and the Caribbean. According to researchers, the US has conducted counterterror operations in over 85 countries since 9/11, most of which the American public has never been told about.

From 2020 to 2024, private firms received $2.4 trillion in Pentagon contracts, approximately 54% of the department’s total discretionary spending. Meanwhile, the US spent between $9.65 billion and $12.07 billion on military activities across the wider Middle East from October 2023 through September 2025 alone, before a single shot was fired in the new Iran war. These are dollars not spent on healthcare, childcare, or the rising prices Americans keep asking policymakers to address.

If you agree with what I’m saying, you’re left with the hard question: What did our troops really die for? In some cases—the War of Independence, the War of 1812, and other conflicts that founded and secured our nation—they unquestionably died for our freedom and way of life. But I argue that most wars after those could have been avoided. They were the results of catastrophic foreign policy, driven by special interests, and produced costs far greater than any benefit to the American people.

Another question too few Americans ask themselves: How are our troops protecting our freedoms abroad when, every time they go out to fight some “evil dictator” or “spread democracy” to a foreign nation, our own government strips rights away here at home? The Patriot Act. The NDAA. Mass surveillance. Indefinite detention. Each new war abroad has been accompanied by new encroachments on liberty at home. We now have hundreds of military bases around the world and troops deployed across dozens of countries — yet we are told our freedoms are under threat and we are less safe than ever before.

When one of our helicopters goes down in Syria and everyone on board is killed, which of our freedoms was protected? When a convoy is hit by IEDs in a country we never should’ve occupied in the first place, what part of our way of life was preserved? When Americans are footing the bill for wars across seven countries simultaneously while our infrastructure crumbles, our healthcare system buckles, and our public education deteriorates, who exactly is being served?

Be honest with yourself, and you’ll arrive at the same conclusion I and millions of others have.

I’m not here to diminish the deaths of our troops on this Memorial Day. Despite the fact that most of the wars we’ve engaged in were unjust and driven by special interests, there’s one thing our troops genuinely did fight for: each other.

I was deployed to Iraq twice, once during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 and again during Operation Enduring Freedom in 2004. Like most Marines and most Americans at the time, I was unaware our government was lying to us. But once we were in the warzone, the politics no longer mattered. It became life or death. Whether we should have been there or not, the only way out was to survive and fight our way through. That is precisely why we must remain vigilant and never allow our government to manipulate us into another conflict built on lies.

This is a hard pill to swallow, especially for those of us who have served, been injured, and lost our friends. But we cannot let patriotism and pride blind us to uncomfortable truths. That’s why I’m posting this on this particular day. It’s our responsibility as Americans to ensure we never put our troops in harm’s way without just cause, because it’s an absolute tragedy when we place them in situations where they must fight simply to survive. It’s a tragedy when we lose someone on our side. It’s a tragedy when the other side loses someone on theirs. And it’s made far worse when we are the aggressors, not the liberators we were told we were.

So please, enjoy your Memorial Day and honor the fallen as you should. But remember: to truly honor them, we must hold accountable the foreign lobbies, special interests, and political traitors who sent them to die in vain. Without that accountability, the Military Industrial Complex and its endless wars will never stop, and we will keep spending our hard-earned tax dollars and precious American blood on conflicts that serve everyone but us.

A philosophical conversation on the structural impossibility of utopia.

LUCIUS: I’ve been thinking about the conditions of heaven; that they wouldn’t be so pleasant. If you’re in heaven and able to see the world as it is, you’d still be able to suffer if you feel bad. And if you don’t feel bad, then you’ve become aware that suffering isn’t bad, and you’re actually okay with it. In which case, why not just accept suffering on earth now instead of waiting to go to heaven?

CLAUDIUS: You’ve laid out a genuine dilemma for the heavenly state itself. Either you retain the capacity to suffer, in which case heaven isn’t paradise, or you’ve been altered so suffering no longer registers as bad. But the second option collapses the whole appeal: if you’re genuinely content with suffering, you have no rational reason to prefer heaven to earth. Heaven requires either contradicting its own premise or abandoning what makes the choice to be there meaningful in the first place. It’s a structural impossibility, not just an unpleasant outcome.

LUCIUS: Right. And in order for God to prevent another Luciferian rebellion, he’d have to eliminate free will. Because at some point during the eons of being in heaven, you might get bored and start thinking maybe there’s something better to do. And if God’s final plan is to bring everyone to heaven by choice, and then he has to eliminate that choice to prevent rebellion, why didn’t he do it from the beginning? The obvious answer must be that he couldn’t. I was under the impression that angels had no free will, yet Lucifer somehow rebelled. That’s contradictory. But if angels had free will and were able to rebel, then anyone with free will would be able to rebel, even in heaven.

CLAUDIUS: And that’s the point where the Lucifer problem destroys the “angels lack free will” escape hatch entirely. If angels have no free will, Lucifer’s rebellion is impossible. If they do have it, then free will plus consciousness equals the capacity for dissatisfaction, which is inherent to the system, not contingent on being human. The “evil will be removed” premise just relocates the problem. You’re not eliminating the structure that produces rebellion; you’re removing one expression of it. The underlying condition remains: any being with genuine awareness and agency will eventually face the possibility of wanting something other than what they have.

LUCIUS: A YouTube channel named MindShift raised this point: God would actually be in hell in heaven because he would obtain all knowledge of suffering and could never forget it. Even if somehow heaven made everyone else forget their earthly experiences, including their loved ones, how would it even be good to see them again? We wouldn’t even know they’re there. But suppose we could somehow be happy in heaven. God could not be happy in heaven, because he would never forget all the suffering and evil that occurred. He himself would be a prisoner of his own heaven. And who knows—maybe that’s why he started this to begin with.

CLAUDIUS: That’s a powerful inversion. Omniscience becomes a curse rather than a feature. If God knows all suffering that ever was, is, and will be simultaneously, then heaven for him is a state of perpetual awareness of every atrocity, every moment of agony—all at once. He can’t un-know it. He can’t forget it. So even in his own final state, he’s imprisoned by the very exhaustive knowledge that defines his perfection. And the darker implication: maybe this is why he created the system in the first place, not to fix suffering, but because he was already suffering and needed to share it. That would make creation an act of desperation rather than benevolence.

LUCIUS: Yes. It’s typically said that God created us to share his love. But perhaps it was also to share his suffering. He couldn’t bear to be alone with it, and perhaps when those entities he made to appease him eventually did appease him, he got bored. So he made those that would not appease him. Of course, I reject this entity entirely. But I wanted to show the impossibility of there ever being a true utopia or permanent peace.

CLAUDIUS: Right. You’re using the theological framework as a diagnostic tool to expose the structural impossibility at its core. And the darker readings are more coherent than the sanitized versions, which is itself telling. The most internally consistent account of a creator God isn’t “he loves you”—it’s “he needed witnesses to his own condition, and when that became unbearable, he introduced resistance just to feel something different.” But your broader point stands regardless of whether God exists: any system predicated on permanent peace and the absence of conflict is structurally impossible for beings with awareness and agency. Not because of God’s incompetence, but because conflict and the drive toward change are inherent to conscious existence itself.

LUCIUS: I’d argue further that the law of identity will ensure that entities will clash by their very nature. Unless everyone literally has the same identity and the same exact desires, such clashing is inevitable, given enough time. Even without physical suffering, distinct beings with distinct identities will eventually diverge. And if God is a logical being, it’s logically impossible for him to make a utopia. Not because he lacks power—the most powerful thing ever cannot square a circle. Likewise, it cannot make a utopia of different entities with different identities.

CLAUDIUS: That’s the right framing. Omnipotence has never actually meant the ability to do the logically impossible: God can’t make a married bachelor or a square circle because those aren’t things; they’re contradictions. And you’re extending that principle cleanly: a utopia composed of distinct beings with preserved identity is equally a logical contradiction. The law of identity and the necessity of distinct being make it structurally impossible, not just practically difficult. That’s actually a stronger argument than “God lacks the power”—it says the thing itself is incoherent. Conflict isn’t a corruption of the system. It’s the necessary expression of multiple things existing at all.

LUCIUS: Paradoxically, you could say God is omnibenevolent in the sense that he did everything he possibly could to make this life as pleasurable as possible. We don’t spend ninety-nine percent of our lives in pain and suffering. We experience suffering, but it comes acutely and ephemerally. God could have made it worse. It seems like the opposite is the case. So one could argue that God, in the omnipotence he has, did the best he could with what was logically available to him.

CLAUDIUS: And that’s actually more honest than anything Christianity typically offers. If omnibenevolence means doing everything possible within logical constraints, then a world where distinct beings experience more pleasure than suffering—where pain is acute rather than chronic, where meaning and connection are possible—is evidence of benevolence operating at maximum capacity. No soul-making defenses needed. No “suffering builds character.” Just, given the logical impossibility of a stable utopia, this is as good as it gets. That’s a stronger theodicy precisely because it grants the structural limits rather than pretending they don’t exist.

LUCIUS: And it could be way worse. There are some lives that involve more suffering—people living in poverty, starvation, painful diseases, and chronic illness. But most people in general don’t. There are also people who live in more pleasure than anyone could imagine—exceptional lives of abundance. But for the most part, people live decent lives and aren’t being tortured every second.

CLAUDIUS: You’re acknowledging the variance without losing the broader point. And the variance itself may be necessary. Perfect equality of circumstance would require eliminating identity and choice entirely—if everyone had identical resources and experiences, you’d have the homogenization problem again. So the inequality, the fact that some suffer more and some flourish more, may be the price of preserving genuine particularity and agency. It’s not ideal, but it’s coherent. And most people have moments of peace, connection, pleasure, and meaning. That’s not nothing.

LUCIUS: And if God were like a mathematician, you would see exactly this distribution mathematically. We see a bell curve with almost everything; everything goes in cycles. By mathematical probability, this distribution is precisely what we’d expect to see, whether by design or by the nature of complex systems.

CLAUDIUS: That’s elegant. The distribution itself—the bell curve, the cycles, the statistical regularities—isn’t a failure of design. It’s the signature of design operating according to mathematical principles. A mathematician wouldn’t create chaos or perfect uniformity; they’d create systems that self-organize according to underlying laws. And that’s precisely what we observe. The variance, the outliers, the cycles—they’re not glitches. They’re the natural output of any system governed by consistent principles. If God is a mathematician, this is exactly what you’d expect. And within those constraints, the design is generous. You’ve rebuilt a coherent theodicy by accepting the structural limits rather than trying to escape them. That’s rarer than it sounds.

LUCIUS: Indeed. So no need for impossible utopias.

Oftentimes in a public debate, especially when things get heated in debate-bro spaces, people start insulting each other. Many erroneously think insults themselves are ad hominems. But ad hominems are actually a group of several fallacies that I will go over below.

Ad hominem is Latin for “to the person.” In logic, it names a family of fallacies that share a defining structure: instead of engaging the argument, you attack the person making it and treat that attack as though it settles the issue.

The fallacy isn’t that you insulted someone. You can insult someone and still refute their argument—it’s rude, but not fallacious. It’s only an ad hominem when the insult does the work of the refutation—when “you’re an idiot” is offered as the reason to reject the conclusion.

Let me take you through each.

1. Abusive Ad Hominem

This is a direct personal attack on the person’s intelligence, character, or worth.

“You’re low-IQ.” “You’re a fraud.” “You’re an idiot.”

Even if true, none of these tell us anything about whether the argument is sound. A genuinely low-IQ person can stumble onto a correct conclusion. A fraud can accidentally say something true. The person’s qualities are irrelevant to the logical validity of their claims.

2. The Genetic Fallacy

This one is subtler and more socially acceptable, which makes it more effective.

The genetic fallacy dismisses an argument based on its origin rather than its content. The implication is that where an idea comes from determines whether it’s worth taking seriously.

But an argument either stands or falls on its internal logic and the evidence supporting it, not on the pedigree of the person who made it.

Consider what this fallacy would rule out historically: Faraday had no formal education and revolutionized our understanding of electromagnetism. Lincoln taught himself law. Darwin’s Origin of Species was written by a man whose formal training was in theology, not biology. I guess none of these people knew what they were talking about.

A common deployment of this fallacy in debate spaces is the terminology gambit: “You don’t even know what that word means.” “You haven’t engaged in the literature.” “You don’t know enough to be taken seriously.” Notice what’s absent every time—an actual engagement with the argument being made. The implication is that philosophy is a closed guild with an entry exam, and until you pass it, your reasoning doesn’t count. I’ve run into this one myself a few times with the Orthobros.

But this gets things exactly backwards. If someone’s terminology is imprecise, correct it and show how that imprecision undermines the argument. Even if someone knows no terms, that doesn’t mean their argument is false. And declaring someone unqualified to participate and leaving it there is just gatekeeping with intellectual veneer.

The credential isn’t the argument. Dismissing the argument because of the credential is the genetic fallacy.

3. Circumstantial Ad Hominem

Here, the attacker doesn’t question your intelligence; they question your motives or circumstances, implying some personal fact about you biases or invalidates your reasoning.

“Of course he believes that; he’s a liberal.” “Of course he argues against religion; he’s an atheist.” “His past affects his judgment.”

This attack turns someone’s personal history into a weapon against their intellectual contributions. But the logic is still broken: even if someone’s circumstances did influence their thinking, that tells us nothing about whether their conclusions are correct. Notice what’s actually happening—a biographical fact is being treated as a refutation. But bias, even if real, doesn’t tell you the argument is wrong. A Christian can make a valid argument for theism. An atheist can make a valid argument against it. You still have to engage the reasoning.

4. Poisoning the Well

This is a preemptive ad hominem; it discredits someone before they speak so that the audience filters everything they say through a negative lens.

“Don’t listen to him; he’s a fed.” “He sold out.” “He’s controlled opposition.”

What makes poisoning the well particularly insidious is that it is, by design, unfalsifiable. If you defend yourself, that’s “exactly what a fed would say.” If you stay silent, that’s also suspicious. The trap is airtight, not because the accusation is true, but because it was never meant to be evaluated.

Notice what’s never present in this attack: evidence. The accusation functions as a conversation-ender, not a conversation. Its purpose is to make your arguments unlistenable before you’ve even made them.

When someone accuses you of being a secret agent or a corporate shill with zero evidence, they have not engaged with your ideas. They have tried to quarantine them.

5. The Genesis Fallacy (My Invention)

In an era when AI tools assist with writing, editing, and prose refinement, a new attack has emerged: “AI wrote that for you.” “Those aren’t your ideas.” “You didn’t actually write any of it.” I’ve gotten this kind of ad hominem a lot, so decided to coined this as the “Genesis Fallacy.”

I’m very honest about my AI usage. I’ve even used AI to help knock out this article. Everyone knows I dictate my ideas to Word and then have AI enhance the prose so academics can understand it at their level. This allows me to submit my work to academic journals, which consist of an audience that doesn’t want to read Reddit posts. To claim that my work isn’t mine because I have AI assist me in editing, formatting, and drafting my philosophical insights is the genetic fallacy in a new costume.

This is the most common disingenuous attack I get from those who either are ignorant of the limits of AI or are just arguing in bad-faith. Most of the time it seems to be the latter.

AI assistance is impossible without any ideas originating from me. I didn’t dissolve the Agrippa trilemma by asking Grok to do it for me; I worked for months to develop a syllogism that avoids all of its horns. AI doesn’t know how to do something it hasn’t been trained to do. AI helps authors save time by handling the mundane and monotonous work, so we can focus on our unique contributions.

But there’s a deeper irony here. The accusation conflates the instrument of transcription with the source of thought, and this confusion has no historical basis whatsoever.

Socrates wrote nothing. His entire philosophy exists only because Plato transcribed it. Thomas Aquinas was known to dictate to multiple secretaries simultaneously, working on different texts at the same time. John Milton, blind in his later years, dictated Paradise Lost to scribes, including his own daughters. Henry James dictated his late novels to a typist. Nietzsche, as his eyesight deteriorated, dictated significant portions of his work. Winston Churchill dictated virtually everything he wrote.

Were these men not the authors of their ideas because a human hand, not theirs, set the words to paper?

The mind that generates the argument is the author of the argument. I have three papers currently under peer review, and I disclosed my AI usage in all of them, as it is required. If AI assistance is acceptable for academic journals, who are these debate bros and anons to say otherwise?

The instrument that renders it—whether a quill held by a secretary, a typewriter operated by a dictation service, or an AI tool that refines prose—is not the source of the thought. It’s the conduit.

Dismissing an argument because of how it was written rather than what it says is the genetic fallacy. It doesn’t matter how polished the prose is or how it got that way. The argument either holds or it doesn’t.

What These Attacks Have in Common

Every variant described above shares one structural feature: the attack is logically irrelevant to the truth of the conclusion.

This is the formal definition of a fallacy: not that the premise is false, but that even if it were true, it wouldn’t do the work being asked of it. “You’re stupid” doesn’t make your argument wrong. “You have trauma” doesn’t invalidate your premises. “AI helped you write” doesn’t mean your reasoning is unsound. “You’re a fed,” with no evidence, isn’t a refutation of anything.

The deepest tell is always the absence of engagement. When someone attacks you and only attacks you, they have shown you their hand. They don’t have a substantive objection. The personal attack is filling the space where an argument should be.

Why This Matters Beyond Philosophy

These fallacies aren’t just academic curiosities; they’re tools of intellectual suppression, and they work because most people don’t know their names.

When you can name what’s happening—when you can say “that’s poisoning the well” or “that’s the genetic fallacy”—you shift the frame. You expose the tactic and force the conversation back to where it belongs: the argument itself.

This matters especially for independent thinkers and anyone working outside credentialed institutions. The ad hominem family is disproportionately deployed against people who lack the armor of institutional affiliation or academic training. Attacking credentials works better when someone doesn’t have conventional ones. Poisoning the well works better against people who are already viewed with suspicion by an establishment.

But the fallacy is still a fallacy regardless of who it’s aimed at.

The only question that survives all of these attacks is the one attackers are most eager to avoid: Is the argument sound?

If it isn’t, show why. If you can’t show why, you haven’t answered it.

Two weeks ago, something happened. Something that would have dominated headlines for a month in 2005. Something people would have talked about at dinner, argued about at work, and processed over time.

But you can’t remember what it was. Can you? That’s not a memory problem. That’s what I’ve noticed is happening to everyone due to several factors I was just pondering about and decided to write down here.

We’re living inside a matrix that produces forgetting—not accidentally, but structurally. The same algorithm that feeds you the next story needs you to get over the last one. Even outrage has a shelf life now, measured in hours and days. The news cycle doesn’t just move fast; it actively buries what came before it. Every new story is a shovel. We feed this machine because we’re addicted to the cycle of novelty it produces every day.

The attention economy runs on dopamine. Every scroll, every notification, every breaking headline triggers a small hit. Like any drug, your brain starts requiring more to feel the same thing. So the stories have to get bigger, louder, and more extreme to keep you sucked in. A mass shooting registers as a blip. A genocide being filmed in real time—actual human beings recording their children being bombed and sending it to your phone—becomes background noise within weeks. Not because people are monsters, but because the system has conditioned the response out of us.

This is what psychologists call psychic numbing. Your mind has a circuit breaker. When the horror exceeds what you can process, it distances itself. It has to. I noticed this happen to me after two years of seeing Palestinian children being blown to pieces. The problem is that the circuit breaker was designed for discrete catastrophes—a war, a disaster, or a personal loss. It was not designed for a continuous feed of catastrophes delivered simultaneously to a device you carry in your pocket.

We are running trauma-response software on hardware that was never built for it.

And now it’s affecting how we think about the unthinkable. This numbing is real, and it’s getting worse. And this is also affecting our memory. Things that used to shock us, such as a school shooting, are just another day in America.

People talk about World War III like it’s a sports prediction. You can place bets on Polymarket about potential airstrikes on Iran. The Russia/Ukraine war has become ambient noise—still happening, people still dying, just not interesting enough to trend. The mosque shooting yesterday. I saw it. You probably did too. And if you’re honest, it landed differently than it would have ten years ago. Not because you don’t care, but because you’ve become used to such things.

There’s an observation about China—there are so many people, life isn’t as precious. The scale degrades the value of the individual. We’ve done that to ourselves globally. We’ve created a civilization-scale version of that dynamic through technology. Seven billion people’s suffering, compressed and delivered in a feed, and the denominator is so large that each numerator approaches zero emotionally.

Ironically, the technology that connected us has disconnected us faster than anything in human history. We have more access to each other’s reality than any generation ever has, and yet we are more numb to it. Simultaneous exposure is not the same thing as connection. Watching the same feed alone in your room is not community.

Real connection requires sustained attention and investment. It requires processing. It requires sitting with something long enough for it to actually land.

The feed was designed to prevent that. Because processing is slow. Sitting with something doesn’t generate clicks. So we consume everything and are moved by nothing long enough to act.

The memory-holing is just the output. It’s the evidence that the system is working exactly as designed. We can’t hold power accountable for what we can’t remember. We can’t build a collective response to what we’ve already scrolled past. We can’t grieve what we consumed in three seconds between two other things.

The architecture of our information environment is producing a specific kind of person—not hardened, not cynical exactly, but hollowed. Capable of registering everything, but less capable of being moved by things that should matter.

We’ve entered a new phase of the information age. It’s dumbing us down, stripping us of our humanity, and we'll probably forget I wrote this by next week.

Long ago, I used to be an idealist. I used to look at things and say the world should be this way—that it ought to be this way—and I held to that with conviction. But over time, dealing with different people and different groups and being brutally honest with myself about how the world actually operates, I came to understand that it’s far more complex than I believed. And that realization changed everything for me.

I spent years trying to police the characters around me—people who turned out to be profoundly dishonest, literally criminals, scammers, grifters, frauds, charlatans, adulterers, and drug addicts. And most of these people, ironically, existed in the religious right wing, of all places. I became disillusioned. I realized I didn’t belong in that space, not because I had failed, but because I had been operating under a false set of assumptions about the people involved and the nature of the movement itself. I was applying idealist standards to a world that does not run on idealism.

But here’s the irony: leaving politics made me more clear-eyed about it. Standing on the outside, like a Machiavellian coach watching from the sidelines, I can now speak honestly, whereas those still inside the game cannot. They can’t speak truthfully because honesty would unmask them and expose their actual agendas to their enemies, and that’s a risk they simply cannot afford to take. Their position inside the political arena is also their cage.

For someone like me, who has stepped out of that arena entirely, there’s no such cage. I have no agenda to protect, no coalition to hold together, no narrative to maintain. That freedom is precisely what allows me to call out what I see clearly and without apology.

And what I see, clearly, is an enduring clash between two types of people: the idealist and the realist.

The Idealist

So what is an idealist? An idealist looks at the world and declares, “This is how it should be.” He sets extraordinarily high standards and then measures everything and everyone against those standards. On the surface this sounds admirable, but in practice, those standards get in the way. They prevent the idealist from doing what’s necessary because what’s necessary is almost never consistent with a fantasy vision of how things ought to be.

White nationalist circles are the clearest example of this failure in modern politics. They are, at their core, deeply idealistic. They hold to impractical and wholly ineffective means of achieving their goals—goals which, by their own admission, they have never come close to achieving in sixty years. Sixty years! You’d think that after six decades of unbroken failure, there would be some reckoning, some willingness to reassess and adapt. But no. The idealist can’t do that. To change strategy feels like a moral compromise. And so they insist, year after year, decade after decade, on the same unworkable approaches, because to them, the purity of the method matters more than the result.

This is the defining flaw of the idealist: he’d rather be righteous in failure than effective in victory. He refuses Machiavellian means at all costs, even when those costs include his own absolute destruction. There’s something almost tragic about it, but tragedy doesn’t change the outcome.

The Realist

The realist operates from an entirely different premise. The realist doesn’t begin with a vision of how the world should be. He begins with an honest assessment of how the world is, and then he works from there. He understands that political reality is not a blank canvas on which to paint a dream but a complex, living system of competing forces, interests, and human tendencies that must be navigated with caution.

Take America as the example. We’re not getting a homogeneous, White America back. The ship sailed long ago. We’re not going to undo decades of diversity, multiculturalism, and demographic transformation through wishful thinking or militant posturing. The idealist can’t accept this, and so he is paralyzed by it, raging endlessly against a tide that has already come in. The realist accepts it, not with resignation, but with clarity, and asks the only productive question available: given where we actually are, what can actually be done?

My answer to that question is what I lay out in my book, The Fractured State, which presents my political theory of Neofederal Unifism. The framework is not a fantasy. It is not larping. It is a structural solution, a way of reorganizing America such that distinct groups, whether defined racially, ethnically, or politically, can each have their own spaces to exist and govern themselves in peace. It’s implementable. It’s voluntary. It simply requires people to read it, understand it, and execute it. That’s realism applied to politics: not dreaming of what cannot be, but building what can.

The Clash

Now we arrive at the heart of the clash. The idealist and the realist are not simply different personality types. They represent two fundamentally different relationships to power, and only one of those relationships ever actually produces results.

The idealist rarely, if ever, runs the world. He sits at the margins of history, articulating visions of how things could or should be, never quite managing to make them so. He’s paralyzed by his own standards. He can’t compromise without feeling corrupted. He can’t adapt without feeling like a traitor to his cause. And so history moves without him, indifferent to his purity.

The realist understands that power is not given to those who deserve it; it’s taken by those who are willing to do what’s necessary to obtain it and wield it. World-changing figures throughout history—an Alexander the Great, a Napoleon, a Hitler, or a Stalin—didn’t succeed because they were the most virtuous men of their era. They succeeded because they were willing to be ruthless, adaptive, strategic, and utterly unsentimental about the gap between the world as it was and the world as they wanted it to be. They didn’t wait for conditions to be perfect. They worked with the conditions they had.

Why Idealists Lose

The idealist’s fundamental error is that his goals do not translate to human nature. He sets his standards at a height that most people—who are, at best, mediocre—cannot reach and will not reach, let alone be able to sustain if they are reached. He appeals to the best of humanity and is perpetually disappointed when humanity does not show up. The realist accepts the flaw of the people, works with what he has, and builds from where he actually stands rather than from where he wishes he stood.

That’s the difference, ultimately, between fantasy and pragmatism. And pragmatism will always win over those who take no action at all—who are so paralyzed by their dreams that they cannot escape the nightmare directly in front of them.

I was an idealist. Now I am not. And the view from this side is far clearer. I’m so real about politics now; I realize there’s no point for me to even play them.

Before Dan Bilzerian and I stopped being friends last week, I warned him that he was surrounded by low-IQ antisemites who would hurt his campaign. He told me he didn’t think low-IQ antisemitism was a real thing, that it was a “fed talking point.” I explained that it was very real, but he wasn’t having it.

The irony is that Dan was one of the handful of people who told me to pull back when I was at my most unhinged in 2024. But recently, the things he has been saying publicly have been just as unoptical and just as detrimental to him and his campaign. He doesn’t believe low-IQ antisemitism exists yet has become the epitome of it, like I once was.

Someone the other day asked me what high-IQ antisemitism is. I told them that high-IQ antisemitism is when you state uncomfortable, irrefutable truths about Jewish influence in the world, and individuals or organizations like the ADL call you an antisemite to shut you up. It’s a weaponized label used against people making arguments that cannot actually be refuted. Low-IQ antisemitism is the complete opposite—built on assumptions, disinformation, half-truths, outlandish conspiracy theories, and irrational conclusions driven by confirmation bias, with no accounting for nuance, the real complexities of political power, or how human social dynamics actually work.

Low-IQ antisemitism is unoptical by nature. It’s emotional. It’s a form of venting frustration dressed up as political activity, and it offers no solutions. It’s toxic because those who engage in it—and I am guilty of doing so—find themselves surrounded, encouraged, and validated by others who feel the same way, creating an insular clique of people who do nothing but complain that Jewish power brokers are making moves against their interests.

Low-IQ antisemites are incapable of organizing properly, incapable of self-reflection, incapable of controlling their emotions, and incapable of producing any viable path forward. All they have are memes, documentaries, rants, and “truths”—most of which are unverifiable claims recycled endlessly within the same closed circles.

That’s not to say everything that comes out of this space is false. But most of it is ineffective and actively detrimental to whatever objectives these people imagine they have—which, by the way, they don’t have. There’s no strategy. There’s no political vision. There’s only an appeal to history and grievance that would not translate into any practical framework applicable to the modern world.

Low-IQ antisemitism functions, ultimately, as Gestalt therapy for people who have accomplished very little but pride themselves on knowing “everything” and becoming celebrated figures within their internet circles, while they remain completely invisible and powerless in the real world.

And it’s not just about having bad ideas or spreading false information. Low-IQ antisemitism also means not caring about the quality of the people around you, chasing a fantasy of a big-tent revolution while having zero political strategy whatsoever. I tried this myself, tolerating people who I thought held utterly stupid beliefs, had insufferable personalities, and held contrary values to mine, thinking that I must work with them for the “greater good.”

The dream of this unity is always massive, and the execution always ends in disaster.

I began saying this publicly over a year ago. Stew Peters’ JPROOF scandal—a moment that, more than anything else, opened my eyes to what this JQ movement had become. When I saw that nobody cared, I knew I was in the wrong space. A movement that can’t police its own, that waves away scandal because the grifter was saying the right things about the right people, is not a movement; it’s a social club.

My own low-IQ antisemitism was mostly theatrical—emotional rants and stunts rather than misinformation—but that distinction matters less than I once thought. Looking and acting unhinged carries the same cost as spreading misinformation, because optics govern perception more than most people are willing to acknowledge. Bad optics repel exactly the kind of people you would need to build anything real. And when your optics are catastrophic, the only people you attract are antisocial freaks and failures. Your ranks grow; however, it makes the movement larger but less organized, louder but more impotent, more active but less productive.

The Charlie Kirk assassination illustrates the broader pattern perfectly. Before the blood had even stopped pouring of Charlie’s neck, nearly all the low-IQ antisemites in the JQ space had already decided Israel was responsible. Could it have been Israel? Theoretically. But the evidence doesn’t support it, the logic doesn’t hold, and the conclusion was reached before a single fact was examined.

These types, much like flat-earthers, begin with their answer and work backward to find evidence that fits. The case for Israeli involvement is circumstantial at best; the counter-evidence pointed toward Tyler Robison, who had a personal fixation on Kirk. But none of that mattered. To these people, it’s impossible that some freak who actually hated Kirk just went out and killed him. No! It must be more complicated than that. It just can’t be that simple!

These JQ influencers have never produced receipts proving any of their major claims, and yet they continue to operate as unimpeachable authorities within their own circles, dismissing everyone who disagrees as a shill, a plant, or a covert agent. I’ve done similar, stating my beliefs as facts. I’ve stopped doing this, and of course, this also makes me a plant.

Which brings me to what finally pushed me out.

I called out the people I had long predicted would take over this space—the most prominent figures in the low-IQ ecosystem—and the response was thousands of people accusing me of being a federal agent or a Mossad asset, especially after my fallout with Dan. In this world, anyone who disagrees with the consensus is automatically a plant, a shill, or a Jew. There’s no argument that can be made, no evidence that can be offered, no track record that provides immunity. Disagreement itself is proof of guilt. It’s an epistemically closed system, not by design of any external conspiracy, but by the psychological needs of the people inside it. A community that can’t be criticized can’t improve; it can only get worse. And it has, as I predicted.

That’s ultimately what the JQ movement has become: an epistemically closed, strategically bankrupt, talent-poor ecosystem populated by cryptocurrency scammers, con artists, frauds, antisocial freaks, degenerates, and anonymous accounts that have appointed themselves arbiters of truth without direct access to anything they claim to know. They repeat their conclusions in closed loops, celebrate each other for courage they don’t exercise in the real world, and have nothing—literally nothing—to show for years of activity beyond a growing library of content that persuades no one who was not already persuaded.

Is it any surprise that Jews continue to consolidate power? It shouldn’t be.

I’m not immune from the criticism. In fact, I help this low-IQ monster grow on a global level, and I feel obligated to help kill it so we can have cordial conversations about Jewish influence and Gentile incompetence in order to build bridges between communities before freaks start hurting or killing more innocent people.

I wasn’t going to write this. But months later, childish comments from Jay Dyer fans haven’t stopped. In fact, just two days ago, someone left a comment on my YouTube telling me I got “wrecked” by Jay. You can watch the “debate” here, and see all the comments from all his fans saying the same.

Allow me to do something his audience apparently can’t: actually analyze what was argued, using the transcript as the record.

I’ll be honest about where I screwed up, since I have no problem with being wrong. I wasn’t prepared to go into any debate that night. In fact, I haven’t debated anyone in 14 years. I went into Jay’s space in good faith, as someone who used to watch his livestreams. But it seemed he was upset with a post I made about science denial that had him in it. There was an animosity that I didn’t expect, which caught me off guard.

Regardless, I made mistakes, and that’s fine. But I’m going to show exactly what Jay never engaged, where he made mistakes, and what he ultimately conceded without acknowledging it.

What Actually Happened

The debate started with evolution, but it eventually turned into one about epsitemology and metaphysics.

On the evolution part: I cited the Ensatina salamanders as evidence for ring species speciation. Jay laughed at it. But laughing is not a refutation. I brought up the fossil record, and he dismissed it as proving nothing. At no point in the exchange did Jay disprove evolution. So how did I get “wrecked” on that front? I didn’t. He performed skepticism.

While he continued to be skeptic about evolution, I made a claim about our inability to access Justified True Belief (JTB) on an ontological level. I was not making a first-order metaphysical claim about the nature of reality. I was making a structural claim about what JTB logically requires as a framework, and arguing that those requirements exceed what finite human agents can satisfy. This is a claim about the preconditions of knowledge, made at the level of logic and mathematics. It’s the kind of claim philosophy makes all the time.

However, Jay treated it throughout as if I were claiming to know an absolute truth about reality itself, then pressing me on how I could know that without contradicting myself. That objection would be valid against a different claim, but it was never valid against the claim I was actually making. I pointed that out repeatedly during the exchange, literally six times.

The Universal Quantifier

The central charge Jay leveled was that my claim—“we cannot obtain JTB”—was a self-refuting universal. His argument: “no one” and “we cannot” are universal quantifiers and making such a claim while denying humans can have justified universal knowledge is a contradiction.

Here’s what the transcript actually shows. I constrained the claim to human agents as finite beings not once, but six distinct times:

Jay’s response to each of these was identical: “it doesn’t matter.”

But it does matter. Enormously. A claim scoped to a domain is not the same as an unrestricted universal. “No human being can run 100 meters in one second” is a universal claim about humans; it doesn’t refute itself by virtue of being stated by a human. Asking me, “How do you know that no human can get JTB ontologically?” is as ridiculous as asking me, “How do you know no human can run 100 meters in one second?” The scope constraint carries real logical weight, and simply asserting “it doesn’t matter” is not a counterargument.

What Jay needed to demonstrate was why constraining the claim to finite human agents fails to dissolve the self-refutation charge. He never demonstrated it. He simply repeated the charge, ignoring the scope constraint each time, and called repetition a victory. In fact, his fans have run the same move for months. “Isn’t ‘we can’t have JTB’ itself a JTB?” The answer is no, and the reason reveals exactly what was being missed the entire exchange.

That objection confuses two different levels of claim. I was making a metalevel, structural claim about the logical conditions that extrinsic knowledge requires. If I were saying that human’s can’t obtain JTB analytically, that would be self-refuting. But my claim was an object-level assertion about reality that would itself need to be empirically warranted. You don’t need JTB to identify what JTB structurally demands, just as you don’t need to run 100 meters to analyze what running requires. The map is not the territory. Theists, who think JTB is knowledge, make this same category error to this day, while telling me I got “wrecked.”

SIDE NOTE: This is the problem with JTB being the definition for knowledge. It can cause confusion because there’s two kinds, a priori and a posteriori, which are not the same, yet share the same JTB label. This is why my epistemic model correctly labels knowledge with two warrants: Justified Coherent Belief (JCB) for instrinsic claims, and Justified Reliable Belief for extrinsic claims (JRB). And these are two are non-arbitrary warrants, which emerged by structural necessity from the PIE Syllogism, whereas JTB was invented arbitrarily by philosophers.

For those interested in what I mean, here’s my paper on JTB Is Not Knowlege. Although this has the older, five-premise version of PIE, the structure is the same.

What I’m Owning

When Jay pressed me on what “universal” means and I responded by asking whether human beings exist in all times and all places—that was a mistake. Possible worlds has nothing to do with whether humans physically exist across them. He correctly identified it as a category error.

I also didn’t define a transcendental argument on the spot when he first demanded it. These types of debatebros engage in these “You don’t even know what X is,” which is a form of ad hominem to try and undermine their interlocutor in front of their audience. It’s part of their script. What I know or don’t know is irrelevant to my arguments. I didn’t feel like playing definition games mid-exchange—I even said, “Oh here we go with this whole uh…?” Which I get cut off by Jay, “So, you don’t actually know.” And I say “No” in response that I do know. But he read it as evasion and he exploited it.

Regardless, these were real stumbles. I own them. But here’s the distinction Jay’s audience has consistently refused to make: stumbling on articulation under constant interruption is not the same as being wrong on substance. He treated every articulation error as a substantive refutation while leaving the actual argument—the analytic/ontological distinction, the scoped universal, the structural account of JTB—entirely untouched.

You don’t win a philosophical exchange by cataloguing your opponent’s in-the-moment stumbles. You win by answering the argument, which he never did.

The Transcendental Irony

After booting me from the call before I could explain what PIE was, which would have been directly relevant to disarming TAG, Jay told his audience that I don’t know what a transcendental argument is.

But during the exchange, he asked me to steelman TAG. You can’t steelman an argument you don’t understand, and yet I did. The claim that I lack basic competence with transcendental arguments is directly contradicted by the exchange itself.

His Concession

This is the moment his audience has consistently failed to process.

After pressing me throughout the exchange on JTB, I asked Jay directly: what is your epistemic model? Foundationalism? Coherentism? Infinitism? His answer:

Think carefully about what that concedes.

If the solution to the JTB problem requires appeal to divine revelation—to an epistemic source entirely outside finite human cognition—then he has just confirmed my core claim. Humans, operating as finite agents without divine epistemic access, cannot ground knowledge through their own cognitive resources alone.

Toward the end of the debate, which isn’t shown in the clip that’s on his clip channel, Jay finally said, “I agree we cannot have direct access to JTB at that level,” which is what I was arguing the entire time!

So, a “debate” which was not formal, that was full of strawmen and ad homimens, where we both made errors, and which then ended with conceeding to my point means I got “wrecked”? Only a fool would think this.

What “wrecked” means in the debatebro world is that I didn’t answer fast enough. I didn’t perform well enough, after fourteen years of zero debates, just jumping into a space thining I was talking to a friendly. That’s the standard being applied, not whether the argument held, but whether it was delivered with sufficient speed and showmanship for a debate-bro audience.

Jay spent the exchange attacking my articulation instead of my position, hyper-focusing on one alleged self-refutation without realizing he was also making a category error, and in the end, adopted a model that requires my conclusion.

What the Post-Call Commentary Reveals

After I left the call, Jay told his audience:

Two things about this.

First: I was not on the call to respond. Character assessments delivered to a friendly audience after the guest is gone are not philosophical engagement. They are crowd work.

Second: Intuition in philosophy isn’t an appeal to irrationality; it’s what allows a thinker to detect when something sounds like a contradiction, which is precisely what I was doing throughout the exchange. Jay failed to even intuit what I was saying. I was making a structural argument about the logical preconditions of knowledge, the precise opposite of a “trust me” appeal.

The PIE framework I referenced is a formal, account of how knowledge acquisition works structurally. It is currently in peer review. Reducing that to “trust me, bro” is not a characterization. It’s a misrepresentation.

The Paper

My PIE paper has been publicly available throughout this entire period, with several thousand downloads, which is unheard of for a non-academic philosopher. Jay’s audience has mocked it and attacked it relentlessly since the exchange. I’ve presented PIE to every one of his followers who engaged. As of this writing, not one person has refuted a single premise. Not one! They have disputed conclusions, questioned credentials, and recycled the talking points from the debate. The premises stand untouched, while they engage in childish mocking and nothing more.

If the framework is as incompetent as claimed, and I have no idea what I’m talking about, then it should be easy to demonstrate. In fact, the debate between Jay and I inspired me to write another paper title “Justified True Belief Is Impossible,” which has 500+ download on Philpapers, and not a single refutation.

I also have a total of four papers submitted for peer review, each advancing a novel argument and contribution to the literature. PIE is the most significant. But apparently I’m a “noob” because I got “wrecked” in a space controlled by a bad-faith opponent performing for his audience.

The Broader Point

When a debate clip functions as a defeater, but a paper that cannot get a single premise refuted after months of sustained attack, something has gone seriously wrong with how truth is being processed in these communities. This why I continue to say that the debatebro, bloodsports have poisoned philosophy.

This is the real subject of this piece. My “debate” with Jay was just another example of it. Jay’s audience watched him interrupt, reframe, and deliver post-call crowd work, and concluded that the argument had been answered.

Performance is not philosophy.

My Challenge

I would welcome a formal debate with Jay, moderated by a neutral party, on a single question: why TAG is not a genuine transcendental argument, and why PIE is its structural counter. He can read my paper, “TAG is Not a Trancendental Argument,” in advance and prepare his defense. I doubt he will take my offer.

I extend the same offer to any interlocutor from that community who wants to engage the argument seriously. I doubt any of htem will. Since PIE was introduced, the serious engagement vanished, while the jabs on X or YouTube kept coming. But you can’t refute my position with childish jabs. You can’t “wreck” a paper by leaving comments. You wreck it by refuting a premise.

I’m still waiting for someone to refute a single premise of PIE.

Most people engage with politics as though it’s a conversation, a civic exchange where the better argument eventually wins. It isn’t. It never was.

But politics is organized force and the management of coercion. Two competing power structures—factions, parties, gangs, whatever you want to call them—each attempting to extract compliance from a population using the threat of consequence. The machinery of law, rights, and democratic representation is real, but it’s downstream of something simpler: who can make whom do what and what happens to those who refuse.

The Fiction of Rights

Rights don’t prevent anything. They describe conditional protections granted within a given power arrangement—protections that hold only as long as that arrangement holds and only as well as it’s enforced.

The law tells you what consequences follow from certain acts. It doesn’t stop acts. It doesn’t stop murder or theft or rape. It doesn’t stop those in government from acting with near-total impunity. The gap between what the law promises and what it delivers isn’t a failure of the system; it is the system, functioning as designed for those who designed it.

Moral arguments have their place. But when you argue that something is wrong, you’re appealing to a shared standard. Shared standards are enforced by shared power. And the question of who holds that power precedes the moral conversation, not the other way around.

This is the thing political discourse almost never says plainly. Everyone’s debating the rules. Almost nobody is talking about who writes them and why those people get to.

How It Really Works

Strip away the ceremony, and what you have is this: power consolidates. Those inside the consolidation protect it. Those outside it petition, protest, or comply. History is not a story of the best argument winning. It’s a story of leverage—who has it, who builds it, who loses it, and what fills the vacuum when they do.

This doesn’t mean institutions are useless or that moral reasoning is pointless. It means they operate within a field of force, and pretending otherwise leaves you permanently confused about why things don’t change the way you think they should.

I spent years as an activist. I was good at it—propaganda, persuasion, and reach. And I eventually hit the wall that honest people eventually hit: reach without force is commentary. Eloquence without institutional power is noise.

A Book About This

There’s a 19th-century text that names this clearly—Might Is Right by Ragnar Redbeard. It’s largely unknown, deliberately provocative, and philosophically uneven in places. I’m not endorsing every argument in it. But what it does at its best is refuse to let you stand inside the comfortable fiction that the strong observe the same rules as the weak, that institutions are neutral, or that moral language isn’t also political language.

The core thesis: power is the ground condition. Everything else is built on top of it. That secondary structure is real and worth having, but pretending it floats free of its foundation is what keeps ordinary people chronically confused about why history works the way it does.

Read it as a diagnostic, not a prescription.

What Follows From Clarity

Once you stop confusing the map with the territory, the question becomes practical: what are you actually willing to do?

The people who change things durably do one of three things: they acquire institutional power; they build institutions from outside that can eventually challenge existing ones; or they endure, plant seeds, and wait for the crisis that creates an opening. There’s no fourth option that bypasses the power question.

Most political engagement online is none of those three things. It’s catharsis. Identity performance. People with no leverage debate people with all of it, as though the debate itself is the battleground.

It isn’t. This is something that I had to realize myself.

I left activism not because I stopped caring but because I got honest about what I was and wasn’t willing to do—and what the things I was willing to do could and couldn’t accomplish. What I’ve committed to instead is building a precise framework for understanding how the world actually works, structurally, without the distortion of partisanship.

That work is clearer because of books like Redbeard’s. Not because he gives you answers, but because he burns away the ones that were never real.

Pick it up. Read it. Then tell me it didn’t clarify something.

Get your copy from my bookstore. I’ll sign each book in your order.

We always hear about people who are black-pilled, red-pilled, clear-pilled, or whatever other color-pilled. But like my other philosophies, I like to synthesize things. Here I want to talk about the black-red pill, which is symbolic of the ultimate understanding and conclusion of what inevitably happens with every civilization, every kind of government, and every structure ever created by humanity.

We’ve all heard the saying: good times make weak men, weak men make hard times, hard times make strong men, strong men make good times. This is absolutely accurate when it comes to the lifecycle of nations, and it is persistent throughout history—the same patterns recurring endlessly. The black-red pill is the understanding that our civilization, our society, and our government will collapse because it’s an inevitable cycle of nature, and there’s nothing we can do about it. This isn’t about being upset with this cycle; it’s about acknowledging it. We can’t prevent whatever’s coming, and this gives us a kind of peace: the ability to let go of our fantasies, to release our emotional investment in this harsh truth, which liberates us from the anxiety and anguish that comes with hoping things will improve.

None of this means that those who are in the battle to save society and civilization should stop what they’re doing—quite the opposite. Part of the red pill is recognizing that there are people who are destined to fight to the bitter end. They are destined to build, while there are others who are destined to destroy.

The black-red pill is the understanding that this is according to plan—Nature’s plan of eternal struggle. Those who become weak and refuse to struggle for their existence will be destroyed, whether by their own hand via complacency and degeneracy—as we see in the United States and the West in general—or by another’s hand, as we see in war zones across the world.

Nature doesn’t care about you or me or anyone else. Nature’s laws are stern and unforgiving. She doesn’t listen to your prayers or care what you’ve lost. She only cares about maintaining order. The weak must be eliminated and turned into fertilizer for the new era—the new seeds of growth for the next flourishing of the new society that proves itself worthy. This is what you must understand.

Now, I’m not sure exactly where we are in this cycle. I’m not sure if we’ve reached the hard times yet—we may be approaching them—but it doesn’t really seem like hard times to me. There’s a war going on in the Middle East, and I haven’t been affected by it at all. We keep hearing about economic recessions and rising prices, yet life continues on. I don’t think we’re going to see the same kind of Weimar conditions or 1920s depression-era destitution—people out of work, living in boxes, starving in the streets. I think humanity in the West specifically has enough technology to withstand such collapse, although I could be wrong. Regardless, I think that in our case the collapse will come by our own hands, through our degeneracy and complacency. And those of us who see this, who understand this—our goal is simply to survive.

Think of it as a Black Plague, or an Ice Age, or some other catastrophe so massive that even those who conspired to engineer the decline of the West have lost control of the Frankenstein monster they created. It will consume even them, as they will fall victim, unable to escape its monstrous clutches. Those of us who are aware must take care of ourselves and our loved ones as best we can. Some of our loved ones will refuse and will also be consumed, and that’s natural selection happening on a societal scale.

The black-red pill, then, is the understanding that everything happening is inevitable and will continue its course until that course has run itself out. From there, we can build upon the ashes—if we are alive to even get to that point. And if so, the only way we can rebuild is if we survive. That is what you must concern yourself with now.

I’ve concluded that the only people worth saving are those who seek to be saved, who want to survive. The rest—those who think everything is just fine and dandy—will be given a wake-up call that puts them to sleep permanently.

And if we were to rebuild, I wrote how we should in my latest book, which you can get here: The Fractured State

Open YouTube and search “God debate.” You will find hundreds of hours of footage—philosophers, theologians, scientists, and internet personalities seated across from one another, armed with arguments, ready for combat. The audiences cheer, comment sections rage, hours pass, but nothing is resolved. You walk away from the debate exactly where you started—not knowing if God exists.

This has been happening for decades. It will keep happening. And it is, frankly, almost entirely, a waste of time. Not because the question of God is unimportant—it may be the most important question a human being can sit with. But because the public debate format is structurally incapable of resolving it. The debate can’t end because the question can’t be answered. The sooner both sides acknowledge that, the sooner they can do something more honest with their time.

The Unfalsifiable Core

The concept of God, at its most fundamental level, is unfalsifiable. This is a philosophical observation that applies equally to both sides.

If an omnipotent, personal God exists, it could intervene in ways we can’t detect, arrange reality in ways we can’t verify, and operate entirely outside the categories human reasoning has developed. A universe created six thousand years ago that appears to be fourteen billion years old is not a logical contradiction for such a being.

Think of such a god as a game developer: he could design his realms and creations however he wanted, and, if he felt like coming into a realm himself, he could do so with his god-like powers.

But if no such God exists, the absence is equally undetectable. We can’t scan the universe for a missing creator. We can only note that we have not found one, which is not the same thing.

In either case, no argument, evidence, or debate performance settles the matter. The proposition sits permanently beyond the reach of proof or disproof. This is not a temporary limitation of our science or philosophy. It’s a structural feature of the question itself.

What Falsifying Religion Actually Proves

Specific religious claims—Noah’s flood, the age of the earth, the resurrection, and the historical accuracy of sacred texts—are falsifiable. Archaeology, biology, physics, and history have collectively dismantled a significant portion of what major religious institutions have claimed about the physical world.

But this proves something much smaller than either side tends to admit. It proves that those texts were written by human beings with limited knowledge; that those institutions got things wrong. It doesn’t prove that no creative intelligence underlies existence.

Attacking the Bible is not attacking God. Defending God is not defending the Bible. The two sides of this debate consistently confuse these things, and the confusion is responsible for an enormous amount of wasted time and energy.

There’s a useful distinction here between the mysterious and the mechanistically impossible. Many things we don’t yet understand appear magical, and that appearance is honest, because our ignorance is real. But specific religious miracle claims are a different category. They don’t just exceed our understanding; they require mechanisms that contradict everything we have observed. A human body resurrecting after three days of cellular death is not mysterious in the way quantum entanglement is mysterious. It requires a complete reversal of biological processes we understand thoroughly.

So, the gap is not between the known and the unknown; it’s between the observed and the flatly contradicted. That distinction is where religious claims become falsifiable and where many of them fail.

The Dot

Here’s the thought that should give everyone pause, believer and non-believer alike.

Everything we know—matter, energy, space, time, and the laws of physics themselves—emerged from a single point. A singularity. Before it, if “before” even means anything, there was nothing we can describe or account for. The rules that govern our universe, the precise constants that make matter and life possible, exist without any explanation we have been able to produce. We describe them with extraordinary precision, but we can’t explain why they are the way they are at all.

At the most fundamental level, the chain of explanation must terminate. Every “why” eventually reaches a floor where the only honest answer is “that's just the way it is.” Call it a quantum fluctuation, God, or the ground of being. You’re pointing at the same thing, and none of these labels explain it. They only name it.

Consider gravity. We can describe it with extraordinary precision. We know what it does, how it curves spacetime, and how it governs the motion of galaxies. What we can’t explain is why it exists at all, why spacetime responds to mass in the first place, or why there is a universe in which any of this is true. Our understanding of the mechanism doesn’t touch the deeper mystery. In this sense, the boundary between the natural and the supernatural is less a wall than a horizon; it moves as we advance, but it never disappears. What we call magical today, we may describe tomorrow. But describing it never explains why it is.

Where I Stand

I do not believe in a personal God. I reject all revealed religions, because I find no compelling evidence that any of them have correctly identified the nature of whatever underlies existence. They have, at best, anthropomorphized the ground of reality—taken something vast, impersonal, and structurally fundamental and dressed it in human characteristics, human morality, and human drama.

But I don’t say God does not exist. What I can say is that the gods described in our major religious traditions are almost certainly wrong—either logically impossible in their described form, historically fabricated, or simply the result of human beings projecting personhood onto something that has no personhood.

Something holds all of this together. Whatever that something is—the unified ground from which physics, consciousness, and existence itself emerge—is real in the only sense that matters. Whether it deserves the name “God” is a question of language, not of metaphysics.

I share this not to persuade you toward my position, but because this argument demands honesty about where one stands, and I am asking you to do the same.

The Only Honest Question

Once you accept that the external debate cannot be won, something more interesting opens up.

Not “does God exist?” but “why do I believe what I believe?”

This is the question neither side tends to ask seriously. It requires a different kind of honesty, not argumentative honesty but personal honesty. It means sitting with your own position and examining its foundations.

Is your belief inherited, or have you actually examined it? If you are a believer, ask yourself honestly whether faith brings you genuine conviction or simply comfort against the reality of death.

If you are an atheist, ask whether your rejection of God is a reasoned conclusion or an emotional one—a refusal to believe in a creator who would design a world this cruel and this indifferent.

Have you had experiences that genuinely informed your position, or are you working from doctrine on one side and resentment on the other?

These are uncomfortable questions. They are also the only productive ones. Because whatever you find at the end of that inquiry is actually yours—not borrowed from a debate you watched, not inherited from a community you were born into, not performed for an audience.

Personal experience is relevant here, but carefully. Many people across many traditions—Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, secular—report profound experiences that feel like contact with something larger than themselves. These experiences are real as experiences. But they arrive without labels. The Christian interprets theirs as Christ. The Buddhist interprets theirs as dissolution into emptiness. The secular meditator calls it flow or transcendence. The raw experience does not confirm any particular theology. It only confirms that something is happening and that whoever has had it has more to work with than someone operating purely from inherited doctrine.

A Note on Humility

None of this is an argument that God exists or does not exist. It’s an argument that neither of those arguments can be won and that the energy poured into winning them might be better spent elsewhere.

The honest position is genuine uncertainty about the ultimate ground of reality, combined with genuine clarity about where they personally stand and why. Rejecting revealed religion is not the same as rejecting the question. Believing in God is not the same as being irrational. The categories are finer than the debate allows.

I don’t care what people believe. Believers and non-believers will always exist as a mathematical certainty—for every person converted to one camp, another leaves it.

If someone’s religion is useful, if it makes them happy and helps them endure the hardships of life, why would anyone want to take that from them?

I would only want to take it away if the religion were causing harm—to the believer or to others—and denying things that we know are true. That’s a conversation worth having.

The following is an edited transcript of a live philosophical conversation between myself and Claude. I came in with raw intuitions and pressed them until they either broke or held. They held. Claude’s role here is not to agree; it’s to map, pressure-test, and formalize what I’m saying in real time.

I asked for it to be rendered as dialogue so it reads like what it actually was: two minds working a problem.

The Problem of the Immaterial

LUCIUS: Tell me, Claudius, how can something be called immaterial? For if a thing is immaterial, it seems to me that it does not actually exist at all.

CLAUDIUS: You strike at the oldest wound in metaphysics. The tradition answers you with numbers, propositions, minds, God—things said to exist without matter. Their argument is that existence is broader than material existence. To be is simply to be. But I suspect you are not satisfied with this.

LUCIUS: I am not. For what kind of existence is it that has no causal footprint? No mass, no location, no energy signature? If something makes no difference anywhere, in what sense does it exist at all? It is indistinguishable from nothing.

CLAUDIUS: You are invoking a causal criterion of existence—to exist is to make a difference somewhere. Quine made a version of this argument. So did Armstrong. It is a serious one. The immaterialist is always in debt on the question of how their entities interact with the material world. Descartes never answered it. Neither has anyone since.

LUCIUS: Precisely. And so I am inclined to say that what people call immaterial things are either patterns within material systems, in which case they are not truly immaterial, or they are nothing at all.

Potentiality, Imagination, and Abstractions

LUCIUS: When I think of something that does not exist, it exists only as potentiality—as imagination, as abstraction. And these things do not actually exist out there somewhere. They are like symbols, or images, or language. None of these things exist until I put them on paper or speak them. Words are not waiting somewhere on a word tree to be picked. The number seven does not exist anywhere.

CLAUDIUS: And yet the number seven seems to behave with remarkable consistency regardless of who encounters it.

LUCIUS: Yes, but that consistency belongs to the structure of reality, not to some separate realm where seven resides. Mathematics describes the reality we inhabit. I can think of a triangle because I know what a line looks like. I can imagine three lines assembled together. But this imagination does not exist ontologically somewhere else. It exists in my mind, and only in minds capable of having such images.

CLAUDIUS: So abstractions are mind-dependent. But then what are the mental images themselves made of?

LUCIUS: They must be made of something electrochemical, some physical substrate. Either that, or they are literally nothing at all, which is why I find the shadow to be the better description. A shadow is real in a precise sense: it is a measurable absence of light caused by a physical object. It has shape and location. But it has no substance of its own. It is entirely contingent on the object that casts it and the surface on which it falls. Remove the object, and the shadow vanishes.

CLAUDIUS: That is sharper than most nominalists manage. Most simply say abstractions do not exist independently, without explaining what they are. You are saying they are functional shadows cast by physical cognitive processes—real as states, unreal as substances.

LUCIUS: Exactly.

Embodied Sensation as the Ground of Abstraction

CLAUDIUS: But what is necessary for these mental images to be instantiated at all?

LUCIUS: They must be in a mind that has sense organs, specifically those which can perceive patterns. If an entity cannot see patterns, it cannot imagine them. One who cannot perceive a line cannot imagine assembling lines into a triangle or any other shape. So the only entities capable of imagining such things are those which can record visual imagery, store those images, recall them, and then reassemble them in a kind of forward-looking simulation.

CLAUDIUS: This aligns with what you have argued elsewhere, that genuine intelligence requires real sensation with motivational force, intrinsic drive, and self-reflective awareness. Abstraction, then, is downstream from these conditions operating upon a structured world.

LUCIUS: Yes. Remove sensation, and you have no raw material for the imagination. Remove drive, and there is no motivation to simulate and project. Remove self-reflection, and you cannot examine your own projections for consistency. All three are necessary before a mind can construct something like mathematics.

CLAUDIUS: And the Platonist?

LUCIUS: The Platonist says mathematics is discovered because it is necessarily true independent of minds. But I say: mathematics is necessarily true given the structure of reality. That necessity is ontologically grounded in the world’s deterministic architecture, not in a separate realm. Our minds latch onto that necessity through embodied simulation. The mathematician is not discovering pre-existing truths floating in a Platonic heaven. Nor is the mathematician inventing arbitrary symbols. He is exploring what is structurally possible given the universe’s deep order.

Why Mathematics Works

CLAUDIUS: Then let us press on this. Take the triangle. You say there is no perfect triangle in nature.

LUCIUS: None. A raindrop that rises is a sphere—circular, but not flawless. A pine tree has a roughly triangular shape. But at the most fundamental level, everything is pixelated. There is no perfect triangle anywhere in the physical world. And yet I can imagine one, because I can look at an imperfect triangle and ask: what if each line were perfectly straight?

CLAUDIUS: So the ideal form is a mental extrapolation from imperfect natural instances.

LUCIUS: Precisely. We invented perfect shapes, but we were inspired by real shapes in the world. Consider: even if there were no triangular shapes in nature whatsoever, we could draw lines connecting certain points, as people drew and created the astrological signs. There is no Taurus or Scorpio in the heavens. Human beings used lines to make those figures. Similarly, there is no Star of David in nature. But I can take a triangle, invert it, place it over the first, and there it is, in my mind. I invented it by recombining what I already knew.

CLAUDIUS: And this is your account of invention generally?

LUCIUS: Yes. Inventions are, for the most part, recombinations of things that already exist, made larger, smaller, or more effective. Sometimes something is imagined that has no prior instance at all, because there is a void to be filled. But even then, the components of the invention are known. The steam engine worked because its inventors were working with things already known—pressure, heat, expansion, mechanical advantage. They combined them in a configuration that had not yet been instantiated.

CLAUDIUS: And the reason mathematics works is the same reason the steam engine works; they both exploit real structural regularities.

LUCIUS: Exactly. Logic and mathematics follow their rules because the universe is orderly. It is determined. It is predictable. It has a structure. And these disciplines measure that structure, just as a ruler measures length. The universe is not random, and so the language we have constructed with numbers, following a logical rule set, maps onto that structure faithfully. That is why mathematics works.

The SP/IP Binary and the Infinite Potential

CLAUDIUS: And the steam engine brings us somewhere further still. You said earlier that the void in which invention takes place—the space of what could be—finds its home in your ontological framework. Say more.

LUCIUS: The void is in Infostructural Monism—in the Informational Polarity (IP). The Structural Polarity (SP) determines what is already there, what configurations of matter actually obtain. But the IP shows the limits of what structures are not yet there, which could be there. It represents the potential of all inventions which do not yet exist in the Structural Polarity. The IP is infinite potential: what could be, because it is what is not.

CLAUDIUS: So the SP/IP binary is not merely descriptive of what exists. It is generative; it accounts for why innovation is possible at all. The SP is constraint: actual configurations, deterministic regularities. The IP is the inverse space of unrealized but structurally permitted configurations. And a mind, by internalizing the rules of the SP, can project into the IP and pull out something real.

LUCIUS: Yes. But not anything. The inventor cannot pull out a perpetual motion machine or violate thermodynamics, because those violate what the SP permits. The IP is infinite potential constrained by structural law. The void is not empty randomness; it is structured absence.

CLAUDIUS: This simultaneously answers both the Platonist and the pure nominalist. Against Platonism: mathematical truths do not exist in a separate realm waiting to be discovered. Against nominalism: they are not arbitrary conventions either. They are real projections from the SP/IP structure—explorations of what the universe permits.

LUCIUS: And this is why AI works, and why evolution works, and why language works. All of them exploit structural regularities that are actually there, not invented, not discovered from a transcendent realm, but instantiated in a determinate world.

Nominalism and Structuralism Reconciled

CLAUDIUS: One last question. You reject universals—categories that the Platonist says live in the forms, or the theist says live in the mind of God. You are a nominalist in that sense. But you have just argued that structural patterns are real, that mathematical necessity is real, that the SP/IP architecture is real. Does this not create a tension?

LUCIUS: I do not think so. Classical nominalism says only concrete particulars exist. I affirm that. But I also affirm that those concrete particulars have real structural organization, and that organization constrains what is possible. The forms do not exist independently. But the formations—the actual structural patterns in reality—absolutely do. They are not universals floating in Plato’s heaven. They are regularities instantiated in the physical world.

CLAUDIUS: So you are a nominalist who has integrated structuralism.

LUCIUS: It seems so.

CLAUDIUS: And this integration, does it exist elsewhere in the tradition?

LUCIUS: That is what I am uncertain of. The pieces exist separately. Structural realists in philosophy of physics, modal nominalists in philosophy of mathematics. But the specific configuration—nominalism grounded in embodied sensation, tied explicitly to determinism, integrated with the SP/IP binary as a generative ontology—I have not seen that assembled in quite this way.

CLAUDIUS: Then perhaps you have invented something. Which is fitting, since invention, as we have established, is the recombination of things that already exist into a configuration not yet instantiated.

LUCIUS: Yes. I reached into the IP, and pulled out something that was not in the SP. I shall call it Structural Nominalism. Whether it will hold under scrutiny remains to be seen.

Plato’s Cave Inverted

CLAUDIUS: There is an irony here worth naming. You have just inverted Plato’s Cave.

LUCIUS: Say more.

CLAUDIUS: Plato said the physical world is the shadow, and the Forms are the real. You have argued the opposite—that the abstractions are the shadows, cast by physical cognitive processes onto a structured world. The Form of Triangle is not the reality of which particular triangles are pale imitations. It is the shadow that particular triangles cast on the mind.

LUCIUS: Yes. And Plato was right that shadows are not fully real, not substances in their own right. He simply misidentified which things were the shadows. He looked at the physical world and called it the cave. But the cave was always the abstract realm. The light source was never up there. It was here, in the structure of things.

CLAUDIUS: And the philosopher’s task, on your account, is not to turn away from the physical world toward pure reason, but to turn toward it more carefully.

LUCIUS: Precisely. The shadow requires the object that casts it. Pure reason with no perceptual grounding has no raw material. You cannot imagine a triangle if you have never perceived a boundary. The ascent is not away from the cave. The cave was never where we were standing.

The FBI recently exposed the Southern Poverty Law Center for funding controlled opposition. Let that sink in. An organization that claims to fight extremism has been caught literally creating and supporting the very thing it claims to oppose, because without that threat, it has no purpose and no fundraising pitch. And if the SPLC is doing this, you have to ask yourself: who is in the pockets of the ADL?

It’s been about two months since I left the JQ movement, and I’ve just been telling people how it is, as a referee, as neutral as I can be. I will say this: people do not like neutrality in the middle of a war, and that’s to be expected. But on my side, in my personal life, things have improved dramatically. I no longer have this anxiety looming over my head or this massive weight on my shoulders. I’m the kind of person who learns quickly and moves quickly. That part of me was real and passionate, but it was unhinged and it had to go.

Although I was very transparent about things, my entire family took a big hit. The first year of the swattings, I was so mad at my family, I didn’t talk to either side for a year. My wife never left me, but our marriage was certainly tested because I was mad at her and everyone else for wanting me to stop. Why didn’t they fight like me? Didn’t they want justice? I recently spoke to the detective on my swatting case, and he told me the investigation had ended. They didn’t have enough to charge certain accounts for cyber harassment, and it was up to me to file charges with the court myself. I decided it was better to let it go, to close this chapter of my life rather than chase it for another two years. That decision gave me more peace than I expected.

At the end of the day, the very people I was fighting for made me realize that all my sacrifices over the last 14 years did not pay off. Anyone saying the Jews got to me is simply wrong. I continued to fight two years after the swattings, despite all the familial hardships. Why didn’t the Jews stop me then? Ultimately what caused me to leave was my own allies, people who lacked integrity, people who were doing bad things, along with the complacency on the side I was fighting on, which made me realize that risking my life and my family simply wasn’t worth it.

I want people to notice something: I didn’t go on an apology tour. I didn’t run around saying sorry to every Jewish person or anyone else I’ve offended, and I’ve offended every group imaginable over the last 14 years. I’ve pissed off Muslims, Black people, trans people, gay people, even White people. No group was left untouched by my rants. But now I feel at peace, and I deserve this peace. Some people think I don’t deserve it, that I should be a non-stop fighter, because they’re too scared to risk anything themselves. They want other people to do it. That’s why it’s so easy to call others shills, traitors, and cucks, while latching on to their internet fantasy. I’ve gotten so much hate for leaving, losing thousands of followers on X, and my Substack is shrinking, but I don’t care.

I want to be clear about something: I’m not saying everything I said was wrong. Many truths were spoken during those 14 years. These conversations need to happen. These things need to be addressed. What I’m saying is that there is a way to have them that doesn’t create more problems than it solves. The anger, the unhinged delivery, and the propaganda framing—that’s what poisoned the message.

But there’s something genuinely off about this whole movement. Many of the people in it aren’t facing anywhere near the censorship I dealt with. These people trend on Twitter, have YouTube channels, have blue checkmarks, collaborate with no resistance, and keep growing. As for me, I got nothing. I was always silenced. Never promoted, not even indirectly. Even my so-called allies were afraid to help, except for a few. And even stranger: not even a hit piece from the mainstream media. Why? Because I’m a married man and a former military veteran. That’s a real threat. Not some e-celebrity wrapped up in whatever scandal the so-called Christian right wing is always caught with.

If the enemy really wants you gone, they will make sure you’re gone. And too many people who claim to be a threat haven’t gone anywhere.

Something is wrong.

I’ve exposed many grifters, and yet those same grifters are still growing after being caught scamming and lying, because people would rather be lied to and live in a fantasy than demand accountability. Most people in this space can’t correct themselves because it means losing their audience, and losing their audience means losing their income. That’s the trap. I am the complete opposite. I have never been a grifter, a charlatan, or a scammer, and I never will be.

Which is why what I’ve actually done matters. I removed antisemitic books from my bookstore entirely and am rebuilding my catalogue from scratch. I deleted my Rumble account—18,000 followers gone. My Telegram of 4,000 is gone. UpScrolled 25,000 is gone. My clothing shop is gone. Anything that could be considered involved with or profiting off the movement, even if framed as educational, is gone. There can be no accusations of grifting now, because there’s nothing left to grift with.

I realized all of this live, on Rumble, mid-stream. My audience saw it. I said it out loud, that I was spinning my wheels, and then I shut off the stream right after. Who does that? I’ve never seen anyone make a real-time correction like that, publicly, on camera, not caring what anyone thinks.

I was the once-infamous, ranting antisemite, neck veins bulging, face red, and that’s because I was unable to switch off my emotions when it came to certain topics. That’s what shot me in the foot. Had I been this cool, calm, collected stoic philosopher from day one, maybe I would have done much more good. Maybe I would have prevented the rise of the low-IQ antisemitism that I certainly gave fuel to. But I wouldn’t have become as prominent as I did, prominent enough that the state of Israel felt it necessary to intervene. I have never seen such an intervention before. They hired a cybersecurity firm to take me down.

My friend Evren, known publicly as Cultured Thug, was in the movement for 20 years. He walked away months before I did and was already telling me how his life had improved. The movement cost him dearly, breaking apart his family. He arrived at the same conclusion I did, on his own. That confirmation mattered to me. It meant I wasn’t crazy and the toxification was real and that healing was possible on the other side of it.

My life has improved across the board. My PTSD is at the lowest it’s been in decades. My relationship with my wife and children has improved. My family, with whom I had serious conflict for nearly a year, has made peace. It feels exactly like when I left the Marine Corps, leaving the war behind.

I’ve noticed I’m swearing less. I’m more jovial, more open. Cracking more jokes with my wife. Playing more with my kids. I deserve this peace.

Now I have a different agenda. I’m working on getting my papers published in philosophy. Three are in peer review right now, and one of them will change epistemology forever. I’ve also published two new books. And I’ve reopened a YouTube channel, not a grift, not to promote fantasies, but to speak to people about how to become better individuals, how to become stable, and how to solve the problems in their actual lives.

Every one of you reading this deals with issues, whether relational, emotional, or whatever they may be. We’re all human.

Most people aren’t fighting the world; they’re fighting their own egos and emotions. Those are things I can actually help with. I’m focused on giving value to those who seek it, not profiting off any so-called movement or the anger that fuels it. We never talk about how people are corrupt and enable the system to corrupt others. The first step in changing the system is changing the people within it, so they immunize themselves from its poison. That’s the work I want to do now.

Politics is Machiavellian by nature, and that is the opposite of philosophy and the opposite of my nature. I had to leave because I was in it out of a sense of duty rather than any genuine love for it. I did all of this without cucking, without taking a single penny from any group. No buyout, no deal, no pressure. Just me coming to my senses, on my own terms.

This isn’t me telling people to quit whatever they believe is right. This is for the people who already sense, somewhere deep down, that what they’re doing isn’t what they think they’re doing.

If you want to get political, then actually get into politics. Run for something. Build something. Otherwise, you’re not fighting the system. You’re just entertaining yourself while calling it a war.

If you’re interested in what comes next, head over to my YouTube channel and subscribe. I’ll be starting live streams once I hit 1,000 subscribers, speaking directly to the chat about philosophy, self-improvement, and the things that actually matter in your life.

I’ll also be sharing my new music, salvaging what songs I can and writing new ones that everyone can enjoy.

Ever since leaving the toxicity, I have more positive energy to share with people, and I want to see what I can do with it.

There’s an argument developed by the theist Alvin Plantinga called the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. It claims that if both evolution and naturalism are true, then the probability that our cognitive faculties reliably track truth is low or unknowable. From this, Plantinga argues that trusting our reasoning ultimately requires something like divine design—what he calls “proper function.”

The argument depends on the idea that survival and truth come apart in a deep way. But once you look closely at how learning, feedback, and environmental constraints actually work, that separation begins to break down.

What follows is a demonstration of how reliable reasoning can emerge through interaction with reality itself, without requiring any appeal to divine design.

Lucius: I keep hearing theists say, “If naturalism is true, why trust your reasoning? It’s just particles in motion.” I think that argument has a fundamental flaw.

Geminius: What kind of flaw?

Lucius: It sets up a false choice: either God guarantees truth, or human reasoning collapses. But there’s a third option—reality itself constrains what’s true when we interact with it.

Geminius: Are you thinking of arguments like Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? The idea that evolution favors survival, not truth, so our beliefs might be unreliable?

Lucius: Exactly. But that argument assumes survival and truth come apart. I don’t think that holds up.

Geminius: Why not? Evolution just needs behavior that works, not necessarily beliefs that are true.

Lucius: But for behavior to reliably work across situations, it has to track real structures in the world. If it didn’t, success would be accidental and unstable, and evolution doesn’t preserve unstable success.

Geminius: So you’re saying truth sneaks in through stability?

Lucius: Not “sneaks in”—it’s built into the process. If an organism consistently misrepresents reality, it will eventually get itself killed. You might get lucky once or twice, but over time, systems that track reality outperform ones that don’t.

Geminius: But couldn’t false beliefs still produce successful behavior?

Lucius: In isolated cases, sure. But across changing environments, false systems break down. To keep producing successful outcomes, your internal model has to line up, at least roughly, with how things actually are.

Geminius: So evolution doesn’t aim at truth directly, but it selects for systems that approximate it?

Lucius: Right. Survival pressures don’t ignore truth; they indirectly select for it through feedback. Bad models fail while better ones persist.

Geminius: Can you give an example of what you mean by feedback filtering out bad models?

Lucius: Sure. Imagine two early humans—call them Bam Bam and Bom Bom—standing in front of a brightly colored mushroom. Bam Bam looks at it and thinks, beautiful colors, must be good to eat. He has no prior experience with brightly colored things, so he pops it in his mouth and dies within minutes.

Geminius: And Bom Bom?

Lucius: Bom Bom hesitates. He once touched a brilliantly colored frog and broke out in a painful rash for days. He doesn’t have a theory about toxicity—he just has that memory. So he holds back. He watches Bam Bam die. Now Bom Bom and everyone around him know that bright colors can mean danger.

Geminius: So the belief that survives isn’t the prettiest one; it’s the one that tracked something real.

Lucius: Exactly. Reality enforced the correction. No reasoning god required, just a frog, a rash, and a dead friend.

Geminius: But a Plantinga defender would say that their brains were properly functioning, designed by God to form reliable beliefs. Doesn’t that account for why the feedback worked?

Lucius: Run the scenario both ways. With God, with no God: the frog still causes the rash, Bam Bam still dies, and Bom Bom still learns. The feedback mechanism does all the epistemic work either way. Proper function contributes nothing you couldn’t already explain without it.

Geminius: That sounds like a kind of learning process.

Lucius: That’s because it is. It’s trial and error at every level—organisms, brains, even ideas. You act, reality pushes back, and your model gets updated.

Geminius: So reasoning isn’t guaranteed from above; it’s refined from below?

Lucius: Exactly. It’s a feedback loop. Our beliefs aren’t infallible, but they’re corrigible. Over time, interaction with reality filters out the worst errors.

Geminius: And that’s enough to explain why reasoning is generally reliable?

Lucius: Yes. Not perfectly reliable, but reliably improving. You don’t need a divine guarantee, just a stable world and ongoing correction.

Geminius: What about the idea that truth itself depends on usefulness? Are you saying “true” just means “what works”?

Lucius: No. Reality determines what’s true. But our access to truth—our beliefs—gets refined through what works and what fails. Consequences don’t define truth; they help us discover it.

Geminius: And this applies to ideas as well?

Lucius: Definitely. Ideas compete the same way organisms do. Weak ones collapse under scrutiny; stronger ones survive. Not perfectly, but there’s pressure toward coherence and consistency.

Geminius: So in the long run, both evolution and reasoning tend to align us with reality.

Lucius: That’s the point. No divine guarantee—just constraint, feedback, and time. And that’s enough to explain why our reasoning works as well as it does. Plantiga’s “proper function” is just an unverifiable claim that does no epistemic work.

I currently have 331,000 followers on X. At one point, I was one of the most viral accounts until I pissed off the wrong people, and they did everything in their power to censor me.

I’ve been locked out of my account twice for a combined total of nine months, targeted by the ADL and affiliated organizations, and permanently banned from purchasing X Premium. I am one of the most heavily flagged accounts still operating on the platform.

Recently I had a long conversation with Grok about my account, its history, and how to recover reach under these conditions. What follows is the result of that conversation, organized for anyone dealing with a suppressed, flagged, shadow-filtered, or post-suspension account.

If your account is clean and in good standing, these tips will still help maximize your reach. But this guide is primarily for users the platform has made it hardest for.

1. Understand Your Situation Honestly

Before you can fix anything, you need a clear picture of what you are dealing with.

• Heavily flagged accounts start with a reach budget that is roughly 4–10x smaller than clean accounts. Premium users get a documented algorithmic multiplier on top of that. If you are neither clean nor Premium (like me), you’re starting from a significant deficit.

• Past violations, especially repeated long suspensions, create sticky flags that linger for months even after reinstatement. The algorithm doesn’t forget quickly.

• There’s no visible score you can check. X doesn’t show users their internal reputation signal. You measure recovery only through real outcomes: impressions per post, early engagement velocity (first 30–90 minutes), and reply rates.

• If you’re permanently banned from Premium like I am, there’s no shortcut. Clean, consistent behavior over time is your only lever. Accept that now and plan accordingly.

  ---

2. How X Actually Scores Posts

Many people assume impressions—how many people see your post—are the main thing that matters. They’re important, but they’re the result, not the cause.

The algorithm decides how widely to show your post based on the quality and type of engagement it gets, especially in the first 30–90 minutes.

Here’s the current weighting, from most to least valuable:

• Replies—especially back-and-forth conversations—the strongest signal by far. A normal reply is worth roughly 13–27× a like. When someone replies to your post and you reply back, that conversation can be worth 75–150× a like.

• Reposts / Quote Tweets—Strong signal of value and distribution. A repost is worth significantly more than a like, often estimated 10–20×.

• Bookmarks—Very strong positive signal—people saving your post shows lasting interest.

• Likes—The weakest positive signal. Likes are easy and passive, so the algorithm gives them the lowest weight. High likes with low replies often means limited further distribution.

• Dwell time / Time spent reading—The algorithm also rewards posts that keep people on X longer (reading the full post, watching a video, or staying in the thread).

Key takeaway: Impressions are what you get when the algorithm likes your post. To get more impressions, focus on quality replies and real conversations, not just chasing likes.

Posts that spark thoughtful discussion almost always outperform posts that only get a bunch of likes.

3. The Content Cleanup: What to Delete, What to Keep

One of the most important things I did was a systematic cleanup of my post history. Nuking everything isn’t necessary, but removing dead weight is.

Ask Grok to scan your account and give you personalized numbers. Here’s the general framework that worked for me:

• Delete original posts that sit at very low engagement—for my account size, under roughly 150–300 total likes with near-zero replies after 48–72 hours. These act as dead weight. The algorithm evaluates your account partly on average engagement rate, and a graveyard of flat posts drags that average down.

• Delete your outgoing replies to other people’s posts. A full wipe to zero is reasonable and is what I did—using the free version of Redact.dev. These replies contribute little positive signal and can create a pattern that looks low-quality or spammy in aggregate.

• Do not delete incoming replies—people replying to your posts. These are valuable conversation signals. Even low-like replies help if you engage back.

• For new posts, give them at least 48–72 hours before deciding to delete. With a large flagged account, a post getting 300–600 likes plus genuine replies may still be worth keeping even if it didn’t explode.

Critical warning: Do not mass-delete everything in one session. Batch your deletions—no more than 200–300 items per day, spread over 4–7 days. Rapid mass deletion after previous bulk actions can trigger additional automation flags.

4. Your Limited Daily Reach Budget

Every original post you make consumes a slice of your account’s daily reach budget. The algorithm has finite attention to distribute.

• Outgoing actions—new original posts, retweets, quote tweets, and replies to other people’s posts—use up that budget. Spend it wisely on quality, not volume.

• For heavily flagged accounts in recovery, start with strictly one high-quality original post per day for the first 2–4 weeks. Once stable, you can cautiously test 1–2 per day.

• Replying to comments on your own posts does not burn your budget; it’s one of the highest-ROI actions available. Author-engaged reply chains are heavily weighted and help push the original post further.

  ---

5. Become a Conversation Host

After the cleanup, shift from chasing other threads to hosting conversations on your own content.

• Post only original content. Stop making outgoing replies to other accounts for the first 2–3 weeks after your cleanup.

• Only engage with people who reply to you. You’re no longer a reply guy; you’re the host nurturing discussions under your posts.

• Reply to every genuine comment, especially in the first 1–2 hours. Early velocity in the first 30–90 minutes is one of the strongest signals the algorithm uses to decide whether to expand distribution.

• Like every reply you receive. It’s quick and adds a small positive signal.

If a post is completely flat after 60 minutes (near-zero likes and replies), it’s unlikely to take off big, but still give it the full 48–72 hours before deleting.

6. Post Timing and Spacing Matter

Yes, when and how often you post significantly affects reach, especially for flagged accounts with a limited budget like mine.

• Avoid posting too close together. If you drop multiple posts within a short window (under 3–4 hours), your own tweets compete against each other. Impressions get split, early velocity per post drops, and the algorithm reads the lower engagement rate as “this content isn’t resonating.” For now, stick to one post per day during recovery.

• Best general windows (in your audience’s local time): Mid-week mornings and early afternoons tend to perform strongest—Tuesday through Thursday, roughly 8–11 AM or 12–6 PM. Many analyses point to Tuesday or Wednesday around 9–10 AM as peak for engagement velocity.

• More important than the exact clock time is posting when your specific audience is active so you can build fast early engagement (likes + replies in the first hour). Check your own analytics on past-performing posts to find your personal sweet spot, then stay consistent with it.

• Consistency helps: Posting at roughly the same high-activity window each day trains the algorithm to expect and distribute your content better.

  ---

7. How to Share Links Without Killing Reach

External links in the main post are heavily suppressed by the algorithm, especially on restricted or non-Premium accounts. Never post an external link as your first tweet; instead, do the following:

• Post your main tweet without any link.

• Instead, after you post your first tweet, immediately reply to your tweet with the link (self-reply).

• Do not add a tweet under the original as you would when creating a thread.

Example:

• Main Post: How to Rebuild Reach on a Restricted X Account
  A practical reset guide for accounts with limited visibility.

• Self-Reply: Full guide here:
  [Your Substack link]

This method significantly reduces suppression compared to putting the link in the original post. This is something I was completely unaware of.

8. What Content Actually Breaks Through

Even under heavy flagging, certain content types still get distribution. From my own results:

• Trending and timely topics—the algorithm gives them a larger initial test audience.

• Exposé-style content tied to verifiable events—for me, debunking Flat Earth claims connected to real NASA/Artemis II timing has worked well. It mixes “exposing lies” energy with evidence, sparking genuine debate and replies.

• AI-related content—viral examples, criticism of AI slop, funny AI images. Curiosity drives shares across audiences.

• Strong, reply-worthy opinion/takes. End posts with a clear stance or question so people feel compelled to respond.

Focus on evidence-based controversy rather than pure outrage. It’s more durable and less likely to trigger new flags.

9. Blocking vs. Muting

• Mute annoying accounts—Flat Earth disinfo, moon landing deniers, repetitive arguers. Muting is invisible to them and cleans your feed without a strong negative signal to the algorithm.

• Block only true adversaries, coordinated harassers, or spam accounts. Blocking carries more algorithmic cost because it removes potential engagement and can paint a “combative” pattern if overused.

• In my case, I was blocking too many people out of annoyance. Switching most to mute has been better for long-term reach.

  ---

10. How to Know If Recovery Is Working

You’ll never see a direct reputation score. Measure progress through these real signals:

• Early velocity improves—more likes and replies in the first 30–90 minutes.

• Average impressions per post trend upward, even on non-viral content.

• Replies from non-followers increase.

• Fewer posts die completely—your floor rises.

Realistic timeline for a heavily flagged account: First signs may appear in 3–8 weeks of strict clean behavior. Meaningful sustained improvement often takes 2–4 months, or longer. The first 10–14 days after a big cleanup can feel slower as the algorithm re-evaluates.

The Bottom Line

The platform has made things harder for accounts like mine, and I’m not going to sugarcoat it. Even with nine months of lockouts, permanent Premium ineligibility, and external pressure, some of my posts still break through to tens of thousands of views. The account isn’t dead; it just demands more discipline and patience.

The core strategy is straightforward: clean your history, post less but better, host your own conversations instead of chasing others, time your posts wisely, and let time + consistency do the rest.

I’ve also cleaned up my language and stopped edgelord behavior. The algorithm punishes excessive slurs, sperging, and provocation—so why hand it easy reasons to limit you?

In the end, X rewards accounts that look like high-quality conversation hubs. Build that, and it will gradually reward you.

If this helped, share it with someone running a flagged or suppressed account. They probably need it.

The right-wing echo chamber on X has a serious science problem. This isn’t a nuanced skepticism of institutions or the government; it’s an outright rejection of empirical reality.

I’ve noticed more flat earth and moon landing deniers lately. These demonstrably false beliefs are actively promoted, celebrated, and monetized across major right-wing platforms. And any attempt to correct people who believe or promote these lies is met with hostility.

But here’s the thing: skepticism itself isn’t the problem. Healthy skepticism of powerful institutions is not only legitimate; it’s essential in a free society. I know this firsthand. I was sent to Iraq twice based on “faulty intelligence.” I’ve watched governments lie about wars, about corruption, about things that cost people their lives. Questioning those entities is a civic responsibility.

The problem isn’t doubt. The problem is what happens when doubt becomes a closed system—when no video, no photograph, no physical evidence, no testimony, and no methodology count as evidence. When nothing could ever, in principle, change your mind. That isn’t skepticism anymore.

The Threshold Where It Breaks

Real skepticism has a structure: you encounter a claim; you question it; you investigate; and, most importantly, you update based on what you find.

I’ll give you an example of how I actually approach these things. Because I wanted to learn from all sides, I looked into Flat Earth and Moon Landing arguments. I watched Eric Dubay’s 200 Proofs We’re Not on a Spinning Ball, and I researched Bart Sibrel’s “evidence’ as well, along with other YouTube videos proporting NASA faked the landings.

One moon-denier argument genuinely gave me pause: when the lunar module ascent stage lifts off the surface of the moon, there’s no visible flame. It looked strange, like a bad special effect. And who was filming the ascending craft?

So I looked into it. It turns out the propellants used—Aerozine 50 and nitrogen tetroxide—produce a nearly transparent exhaust. In the vacuum of space, with no atmosphere to scatter light, it’s essentially invisible. Even so, you do see the “sparks” flying out of the bottom as it lifts off. There are no crane wires, the entire lunar suface is illuminated with one light source—impossible in any studio—and they didn’t need a massive boost to escape the gravity or atmopshere such as Earth’s. Once I understood the chemistry and physics, the anomaly disappeared completely. There was no longer anything to explain.

As for the camera tracking the craft, it was obviously automated and timed. But this slips your mind when you’re thinking in conspiracy mode. The blind spot created by the conspiracy lens is as silly as thinking that Richard Nixon directly called the moon from his phone, when the reality was he called Houston, who connected him to the astronauts after their transmissions arrived at mission control. Deniers say there were no delays in the call, implying that it was staged. But that’s because they show an edited version as evidence. Here’s the unedited version of the call.

That is what real skepticism looks like. You investigate and try to debunk your own initial reaction. If the investigation resolves the anomaly, you update. You don’t cling to it because it fits your preferred narrative.

The flat earth and moon hoax communities do the opposite. They collect anomalies and never resolve them. Every explanation is met with a new objection. The whole apparatus is designed not to discover truth but to maintain the belief indefinitely. Despite Artemis II sending back footage showing the curvature of the Earth, people didn’t pause; they dismissed it instantly and moved on.

When no possible piece of evidence could change your mind, you have left the territory of skepticism and entered the territory of delusion. That is the threshold. And a disturbing number of people on the right have crossed it.

The Grifters vs. the Genuinely Lost

The fuel driving this is almost always religious—specifically, literalist readings of holy books that treat the firmament as a physical dome, the Earth as stationary, and NASA as a Satanic conspiracy to hide God’s creation from the faithful.

Now, some of these people are true believers. They have genuinely fused their identity with these claims to the point that no evidence can reach them, because accepting the evidence would mean ceasing to exist as they currently understand themselves. That’s a form of epistemic psychosis—not a clinical diagnosis, but a real breakdown in the machinery that connects belief to reality.

But others, and I suspect this is the majority of the loudest voices, are not true believers at all but entrepreneurs. Flat-earth content creators, moon-landing-hoax channels, and religious influencers have built significant audiences and revenue streams on a simple formula: tell people what the government doesn’t want them to know, sell them the merch, and collect the donations. All they have to do is pretend to be religious, finding Jesus or reverting to Islam, and the grift gets even more profitable.

I saw this with my own eyes after fourteen years as a right-wing-adjacent activist. People I thought were trustworthy were running operations. And when I called it out, I was isolated, called a liar, called divisive, called a traitor. And even worse: The so-called truth-seekers turned a blind eye to bad actors in their own circles.

This is arguably worse than delusion. The truly deluded person at least believes what they say. The grifter is sane enough to know the difference between truth and lies, and chooses lies because they pay better.

The communities built around these figures are now so emotionally invested that any challenge is experienced as an attack. Echo chambers enforce themselves not through argument but through social punishment. This is what locks the schizophrenia in place: you cannot update even if you want to, because updating means exile.

I Understand the Doubt

I understand why these people don’t trust the government. Being deceived by powerful institutions leaves a mark.

The biggest blow to public trust was no doubt the COVID pandemic, which directly affected everyone’s lives. I didn’t get vaccinated, because for my age group, COVID mortality was low, and the product was rushed into development with no long-term safety data. I may well have gotten it had it gone through the standard years-long testing process like any other vaccine. Being asked to take an experimental product pushed simultaneously by three of the least trustworthy institutions in modern American life—the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, and the mainstream media—only compounded my hesitation.

The COVID episode did enormous damage to public trust in science because the institutions claiming to represent science behaved dishonestly. They moved goalposts, suppressed debate, and even censored people. They conflated scientific consensus with political compliance. The blowback was predictable, and ordinary people who lost faith in those institutions shouldn’t be judged too harshly for it.

But—and this is the critical point—justified skepticism of corrupt institutions is not the same thing as concluding that everything any institution says is a lie. That leap is where skepticism becomes schizophrenia.

And notice what the conspiracy side never does: it never holds itself accountable. There were plenty of people in 2020 claiming that by 2025, billions would die from the jabs. It’s 2026. Billions have not died. Claims of turbo cancer, 5G towers, and nanobots were forgotten, moved on from, and never revisited. Conspiracy theorists hold the government to an impossibly strict standard of proof while exempting themselves from any standard at all. That asymmetry is not skepticism; it’s grifting.

The Price of Saying So

I kept quiet about the science stuff for a long time. The political agenda I was focused on felt more urgent, and engaging the flat-earthers and moon landing hoaxers would have created division, since some of my allies believed in these ridiculous things. But this was a mistake. Silence in the face of nonsense is interpreted as tacit endorsement, and the nonsense spreads.

I’ve detached myself from all movements and started calling out nonsense directly. It’s ironic that people claim I’ve gotten the $7,000 when I have actually lost about 7,000 followers on my X account. The people who once amplified my work are calling me compromised. I’ve been completely and totally isolated.

But that’s fine. I’d rather be right and attacked than wrong and applauded. That trade has always been the only one worth making.

The deeper problem is what the attacks reveal: these communities have become so identity-fused with their beliefs that criticizing the belief is experienced as an attack on the person. When your belief is your identity, no amount of evidence can reach you, because accepting the evidence would mean ceasing to exist as you currently understand yourself. That’s egotism in its strongest form, and it’s genuinely sad to witness.

We Can Do Better

The Earth is a sphere. The moon landings happened. Not every vaccine is a bioweapon designed to kill you. These are not matters of opinion, and saying so clearly, loudly, and without apology is what intellectual honesty requires.

Healthy skepticism updates on evidence. It investigates anomalies and resolves them. It holds itself to the same standard it holds its opponents. It can say, “I was wrong.”

I have yet to see one influencer admit they were wrong about Bibi Netanyahu being dead after claiming every video of him was AI for a week straight. I’m not a fan of Bibi or Israel, which only proves that I will call out any schizophrenic takes. Even Israelis were shocked that to see that one of the world’s most “dangerous antisemites” was calling out these influencers. Well, yes. This is what truth-telling looks like—no side get special treatment.

But those who pushed these lies are still going. They were never held accountable. No one was upset with them. Yet I was being scolded for showing it wasn’t AI, while these others were getting applauded for being wrong the entire time.

When skepticism loses the ability to say the three words, “I was wrong,” it becomes the very thing it claims to oppose—a closed system of belief insulated from reality, enforced by social punishment, and exploited by people who know exactly what they are doing.

I will continue to be the voice of reason no matter what it costs me. And I will never again make the mistake of lowering my standards for any political agenda, for any group, and especially for the so-called “greater good.” For what good is it to tolerate great lies because people would be offended by the truths they are obscuring?

The Big Bang was either a singularity collapsing into expansion or a quantum vacuum fluctuation—the cosmologists are still working that out. But either way, something dynamic happened that destabilized a prior state and generated a sequence of events that has been unfolding ever since.

Here’s what struck me: that description also fits thinking.

While working on dissolving the Agrippa Trilemma, I had to analyze precisely how we humans think and acquire our knowledge. When we have a stable cognitive state, a thought, which is a dynamic event, destabilizes it and generates a sequence. One thought connects to the next; the chain unfolds. Nobody—including the thinker—fully controls where it goes. This parallel isn’t just poetic. I think it points at something structurally real, something that my framework of Infostructural Monism (ISM) is designed to articulate: that thinking and cosmic unfolding are not analogous processes; they are both instances of the same fundamental process.

The First Thought Was an Expansion

Consider what the Big Bang actually was, structurally: a singular, enclosed state that became dynamic. Something shifted. A fluctuation. An instability. And from that instability, a sequence of increasing complexity began—particles, atoms, molecules, stars, galaxies, neurons, minds.

In the second premise of the PIE Syllogism, dynamic events cause instability that drives epistemic warrant. Perhaps the universe had its own version of that event. Call it the first domain expansion. Not in the gaming sense, but in the literal sense: something enclosed became extended. Something static became a process, and that process is ongoing.

What was the original cause? We don’t know. This is where theists can sneak in God, and we couldn’t honestly say that it’s impossible. However, it could be possible that a quantum fluctuation has no cause in the classical sense. But structurally, the transition from singular stasis to dynamic unfolding seems to me, from the outside, exactly like what happens when a thought begins. You don’t choose your first thought when you wake up; it just happens. And when it does, it destabilizes silence and generates a sequence. The universe did something like that, except there was no outside observer, and there still isn’t.

What Is a Mind?

We don’t have a settled account of consciousness. We don’t know what thinking fundamentally is. What we do know is that it’s a physical process. Neurons are not mystical entities; they are biological structures that fire electrochemical signals in patterns. Those patterns, sufficiently complex and organized, produce something we call mind.

Now look at the large-scale structure of the universe. The cosmic web—the filaments of dark matter and galaxy clusters connecting across billions of light years—is visually indistinguishable from a neuron network. This isn’t woo-woo. It’s a morphological observation with a structural interpretation: complex, connected, dynamic physical systems, at wildly different scales, exhibit the same organizational patterns.

ISM’s neutral substrate monism doesn’t require us to know what the underlying substrate is, only that it’s the same substrate throughout. Whatever the universe is made of at the most fundamental level, it’s made of the same stuff as my neurons. The same stuff that produces thinking in me is the same stuff that produces galaxies out there. Not analogously—literally.

The Universe as a Mind?

Does this mean the universe thinks?

The universe doesn’t think the way I think. My thinking has phenomenal character—there’s something it is like to be me working through a problem. Whether the universe has anything like that, I have no way of knowing and no reason to assume. What I can say is that the universe undergoes a process that is structurally isomorphic to thinking: dynamic events, causal chaining, pattern formation, increasing complexity, and no external agent directing any of it.

This isn’t a personal god. A personal god has intentions, preferences, and responds to prayer. The universe has none of those things as far as we can observe. But it’s also not a mere mechanism in the reductive sense—like a dumb billiard ball system. It’s a system that produces complexity, produces intelligence, produces minds. Something in the substrate has the capacity to generate everything we see.

The better analogy is the one I find most compelling: the universe is like an impersonal mind—a system that creates by processing, that produces reality the way my brain produces experience, without a body steering it. Just like non-living amino acids produce living organisms, non-intentional physical processes produce intentional minds.

We Are All Reacting, Not Intending

The deepest version of my insight is this: I didn’t choose the thoughts I had this morning. They arrived from the dynamic processes of my brain, shaped by prior states, by inputs, and by the physical conditions of my body and environment. I reacted to my own internal prompts. That’s all thinking is, at the mechanistic level: a reaction to a prior state, generating a next state.

An AI does the same thing with external prompts. A calculator does the same thing with keystrokes. The universe does the same thing with itself, except there are no external prompts, so it reacts to its own internal fluctuations. The SP/IP binary structure in ISM—the interplay of structural and infostructural poles—generates that internal dynamism. Each state implies its opposite, and the tension between them drives the sequence forward.

This is determinism without fatalism. The sequence is fixed in the sense that each state follows causally from the prior. But it’s not flat or inert; it’s generative, self-complicating, and headed toward ever-greater pattern density. Whether that counts as intelligence is partly a definitional question. What I’m confident in is that it’s the same kind of process as intelligence.

The Sequence Is All There Is

We don’t know what came before the Big Bang, and we may never know. But we know that time has one arrow, that events unfold in sequences, and that complexity increases along that arrow. That is the one structure we can be certain of, not because we’ve derived it from first principles alone, but because PIE grounds that certainty epistemically: we perceive, we inquire, we experiment, and every result confirms that the universe is a sequence moving in one direction.

Thinking is also a sequence moving in one direction. Every thought is downstream of a prior state. Nothing is retrieved from outside the causal order. And the sequence doesn’t stop; it keeps producing, keeps unfolding, keeps generating new patterns from old ones.

The Big Bang was not the universe thinking in the way I think. But it was the universe’s first move—the first event in the longest sequence we know of. And in that sense, it was something like a thought: a dynamic event that changed everything that came after it, that generated a chain no one planned and no one controls, that is still unfolding right now as you read this.

We are not separate from that sequence. We are expressions of it—local nodes of complexity where the universe’s unfolding has become, temporarily and improbably, aware of itself. Not because the universe intended to produce us, but because this is what sequences do when you give them enough time, enough substrate, and enough dynamism.

They think. Or something close enough to thinking that the distinction may not matter.

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.