Everyone is fake outraged and gay!
Female agency in racial supremacy, Economics, AuADHD.
It’s Trumps Economy Globally, Everyone’s a Nazi…
(Adding this disclaimer immediately because I know how the literacy rates look and someone will take my thought exercise about eugenics seriously)
People warn me against discourse or discussion with Nazis, but why? Yes, I am an ideological opponent but I am also sensible, with enough openness to seperate an individual from their framework, and even operate within it to internally-check their logic. I don’t need to morally validate or even approve of an ideology to speak about it, or to its adherents.
You have to do this. People that exist on extremes of political ideologies or tribalism cannot be reasoned with by attacking, ridiculing or outright condemnation of their ideals. Prosecution, even just social, only emboldens people and creates more justification to cling onto their rhetoric.
Before I begin, I just need people to understand the social contract has already been broken. Everyone is a Nazi. I speak so brazenly because we condemn white people for this, but every racial group has an ideology that they are superior to others. If not through fiscal and social capital, then through innate talent or empathy, etc.
I’m indifferent to supremacists rhetoric, however, I am more interested in supremacists mechanisms, and challenging them through good faith.
Let’s take their notion that the white race will be replaced. There are different ideologies that suggest this, but I like to discuss Nazism as the baseline for this belief since it had the largest influence of material result.
Michael Burleigh’s The Racial State: Germany 1933–1945 describes the ideal man (Aryan) as:
Able to trace your family tree back to at least 1800 (sometimes to 1750, especially for SS membership).
Provide birth, baptism, marriage, and death certificates for parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents.
Demonstrate that none of your ancestors were Jewish according to religious records, surnames, synagogue affiliations, or census data.
Tall (6 feet or taller)
Light blond hair
Blue eyes (often described as “ice blue”)
Fair, pale skin
Symmetrical facial features
Straight nose
Narrow jawline
High cheekbones
Athletic, lean, and strong build
Long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull shape
Tough crowd.
With that notion, would it be less or more beneficial to the white race for white women to be more eugenic in their dating practices?
Furthermore, would it be less or more beneficial to the white race for other races to be more eugenic in their dating practices?
I ask this for two reasons:
1. Because there is a large crossover between white supremacists and those that nitpick or outright nag female hypergamous nature.
2. Because of the metaphysical nature of Nazism.
If the Aryan female is ordained by high powers as the most competent and desirable, then it should be encouraged for Aryan females to only procreate with the “6’2, 6 pack, 6 figures” type man, so long as he is Aryan. Because it is so above, it must be so below. Here, materially, in practice.
If the Aryan condition worsens because females are not allowed to be eugenic, then your ideology fails.
If the Aryan condition allows women to be eugenic, and the condition of the race has not improved because Aryan men can no longer materially fulfil the metaphysical truth, then success was contingent on force rather than inherent truth.
Now, if females and males of other races choose to be eugenic, and their racial conditions improve by this, then the notion or belief of being replaced or attacked by non-whites due to superiority disappears.
If eugenics is good for the white race, then logically, it follows that it would be good for other races within the context of whatever the inherent differences initially exist between whites and non-whites. Whether the superiority of Aryans is a cosmic order or rhetorical concept.
Since white people must share the world—not necessarily their countries—borders are allowed to be closed, and I don’t have an issue with isolationism. It would still be beneficial to the goals of Nazism for all females, regardless of race to be eugenicists, no?
I know I’m reasoning with the void, but it was a good intellectual exercise.
Can I Make Low Agency an Economic System?
People who don’t believe they can win under meritocratic, market-based, competitive conditions often gravitate toward a system that promises to erase hierarchy and redistribute outcomes, regardless of input. It’s an emotional shelter for those who feel excluded or victimised by the current system.
This is the final conclusion I’ve come to.
It is their imperative to replace capitalism with some moneyless commune that somehow maintains all social, medial, educational and institutional infrastructure. It promises to flatten inherent inequality by virtue of reducing the socioeconomic conditions that cause those.
This is a gross misunderstanding of capitalist systems and ideology.
It is not the point of capitalism to liberate every single person from oppression, poverty or hardship.
It is not the point of capitalism to remedy other forms of bigotry that could by-pass wealth.
The point of capitalism is to efficiently allocate resources through voluntary exchange, incentivising productivity, innovation, and wealth creation based on individual choice and merit within a framework of private property and market competition.
Turns out! Serfdom and slavery are NOT cheap! It’s actually less expensive and more productive for people to willingly exchange labour for monetary value.
The idea that capitalism perpetuates inequality is ludicrous because inequality exists already within every facet of natural life and cosmic formation.
Capitalism if anything, highlights inequality and intrinsic unfairness because we now have enough income and purchasing power to care.
You can protest, riot and condemn because you have the financial freedom to do so.
Why do you think it was the bourgeois and not the serfs that pioneered the French Revolution?
Viva la revolution… where will leaves to die.
You Have AuADHD Because Mummy & Daddy Didn’t Care…
There has been a sharp rise in Autism Spectrum Disorder and ADHD diagnoses over the past few decades. The standard explanation is that these are innate, genetically determined conditions. But that narrative does not explain the speed or scale of the increase. It is incomplete. We need to look beyond genetics and consider demographic shifts, environmental exposure, and social behavior.
Parental age is one of the strongest factors. Multiple large studies, including Sandin et al. (2014), show that fathers over the age of 45 are around 3.5 times more likely to have children diagnosed with autism. The biology behind it is clear. Sperm accumulates mutations as men age. There are also epigenetic changes and mitochondrial issues that come with older paternity. And yes, people are having children later because of economic pressures and lifestyle changes. But advanced paternal age alone cannot explain everything. Wealthier parents often have better access to healthcare, which means they are more likely to receive a formal diagnosis. So age, status, and diagnosis rates all intersect.
Prenatal exposure is another overlooked factor. Pregnancies today do not happen in the same environment as they did fifty years ago. Cannabis use during pregnancy is so common and often treated as harmless, but studies have linked it to structural changes in the brain and cognitive impairment. Acetaminophen, used casually and often, has been tied to ADHD symptoms, potentially through endocrine disruption or oxidative stress. Alcohol remains the leading preventable cause of developmental disorders, but its effects are often confused with ADHD. Despite this, substance use during pregnancy is downplayed. The medical system is permissive, and the culture normalises it.
I’m breaking the academic mould oh my god, No Dr. would ever, these bitches are lying out the side of they fat addicted necks like fuck!!!!
That is dangerous.
Environment matters as well. The first five years of life are critical. Children need close interaction, human speech, and emotional mirroring to develop properly. But many children today are being raised by screens. “Digital orphaning” is real. When caregivers are distracted, fragmented, or simply absent, the child’s brain suffers. Studies show that excess screen time is linked to language delay, attention issues, and social difficulties. Neglected children, like those in institutional settings, often develop autism-like symptoms. The idea that these conditions are purely genetic falls apart in the face of such evidence.
At the same time, diagnostic criteria have expanded. More subtle symptoms now qualify for diagnosis. Awareness campaigns and education policies have created incentives to label children, especially when diagnoses grant access to services or support. The neurodiversity movement has helped reduce stigma, which matters, but it has also made it harder in some cases to speak honestly about functional impairment or the need for intervention. Calling everything a benign difference ignores real suffering.
So no, this is not just about genetics. Pretending it is only closes off serious discussion. There are real, preventable factors contributing to these conditions, and we should be honest about that. This means asking hard questions about when and how people choose to have children, what substances they are exposed to, how much time they spend engaging with their babies, and whether the system rewards medicalisation over resilience.
This conversation is just getting started. We need to move beyond easy answers and stay grounded in evidence. If we do not, we risk building our future on denial.