This pinned post aims to give both new and old visitors the quick links to the main parts of this site that are most important, and gets updated with any new stuff fairly regularly so it’s a good idea to check it now and then.
This is just a half-formed thought, but I think even without doing any deep dives at all, it tracks, at least in broad terms:
World is run by the Jew Cabal (which has at least two factions, different, the “left wing” is more into trannies and globohomo, and the “right wing” one superficially apparently “better” for the Goyim, but neither actually good at all for us non-Jews, and both into raping kids, as per the Talmud that states raping 3 year olds is not a crime at all.)
The plan was to destroy America (which has been the Golem of the Jews since it’s creation by bankrupting France) and make the jump to China.
The proxy war and degeneracy that Ukraine etc involved was just part of the plan.
China said NO to the Jew Cabal.
Russia didn’t fold and die and split up as they have been wanting to do to it for at least two centuries, and instead fought back and got stronger than ever.
Right wing Jew cabal suddenly realised “Oh shit! Israel is at war. The US is collapsing which means Israel may end up wiped out if the arabs besides the Yemeni find their balls, and… things are not looking great for us here in America either! Fuck! Ok, get the Trump puppet back in and let’s clean this shit up and make it safe for us Jews to keep running the USA as our bitch.”
“Ok. How do we do that? Well, let’s kick out all the same invaders that were gonna get rid of the whites. Then we regroup and protect Israel or at least make the proxy war carry on with Iran and China via USA/Israel. But we still need the Ukraine resources… fuck! Ok well let’s start by securing the USA before these retards figure things out and REALLY get rid of us once and for all this time!”
And that, ladies and gents, is why you now have mass deportations happening in the USA and a counter to the woke insanity, and YET, still have all these concerns about the terrible, terrible crime of “antisemitism” or noticing the Jews and what they do, including their total genocide of the Palestinians. To say nothing of all the other wars, frauds and mass murders they have committed throughout history.
Me: So… do you think in miles in terms of distance?
Her: umm…
Me: Wait… so… do you know distances? I mean if I say five miles or five kilometres, do you know how far that is?
Her: umm… you mean like in time it takes to drive it?
Me: No, I mean, in terms of distance, do you have an idea in your mind of how far a mile is?
Her: umm… is it a thousand yards?
Me: *
blinking
* uh… what? No… that’s just about half of a mile…
Her: Oh, ok, so a couple thousand yards
Me: you know… every day I find out a new way just how different I am from most normal people. You know like the Chinese, apparently don’t have an internal dialogue.
Her: Oh I have one of those! It’s coming up with a bunch of words for you right now as we speak.
Me: Like to describe Italian things, like cars, when compared to English things right? Cool, sexy, sleek, faster, harder, stronger.
Her: *
scrunches face into that “yeahhhhh… not quite” look
*
This post was originally published on my Substack. Link
here
No related posts.
By SubStackSyncer | 8 June 2025 | Posted in SubStack
This is the kind of question that haunts people like me.
Hypothetically,if you can only have four handguns for life, what would they be?
And keep in mind that I
wrote a while back,
that the likelihood of you ever being in a gunfight are very close to nil, and less than 1/10th of a percent if you are a cop in New York with a 40 year career.
So, this is mostly about your preferences. And I can’t really whittle it down, in my mind, so, dear reader, engage!
If I was blue-skying the concept, I would start with calibers, but even there I go way overboard, because my ideal list would be:
.454 Casull
.45 Long Colt
.45 ACP
.357 Magnum
.32 ACP (or 7.65mm)
.22 LR
You will note an absence of the 9mm calibre, because, meh. I don’t like them. I have my reasons, but in essence it boils down to the fact that I don’t really believe in pray and spray, and I also don’t trust the 9mm or .38 special round. It has, in my opinion, the worst combination of heavy enough recoil to make a difference to return to aim and crappy one shot stop ballistics, that I trust the .32 ACP more if for no reason that I seem to be more accurate with my little PPK than with most modern 9mm handguns.
Now, having said that, I need to be clear that the .32 ACP slot is already taken. Exactly for the reason I said above, plus… it’s James Bond’s gun.
So we are down to three slots. Because how can you not have this one?
And going by the calibers… well… I DO like the .454 Casull, but… they don’t make the Alaskan with a decent 4” barrel, and sadly, I think the chances of me being hijacked by aliens to a planet where T-Rexes still roam the Earth are slim, so I let it go… fly free oh mythical .454.
Now, in a similar classic vein, I need to also keep the original straight back Colt 1911 on the list, because… well… Magnum PI had one, and so did Sgt. York, and… COME ON! It’s a Colt 1911.
And notice I mean the original 1911 shape (top image), not the A1 (bottom image), even if some think the A1 looks better.
So we are down to only these caliber left:
.45 Long Colt
.357 Magnum
.22 LR
Because we are basically saying black powder handguns don’t count, so the .36 and .44 of the 1851 Colt navy and the .44 of the 2nd Colt Dragoon are our compensatory handguns.
That’s the Colt Dragoon (2nd type) at the top and the 1851 Navy at the bottom. The one in the middle is the Colt Army.
But this does mean we either remain content with only the blackpowder version, or we leave behind the 1851 Colt Navy Richardson Conversion to a cartridge firing handgun. And that one comes in .45 Long Colt from Uberti. And the .45 Long Colt can also work in some lever action old style Yellow-boy Cowboy rifles.
However… notice how the conversion spoils the lines. It’s like adding a catalytic converter to a Phantom.
Therefore, we have to resign ourselves to abandoning the .45 Long Colt calibre as well as the Richardson conversion. And if we absolutely
must
shoot someone with the 1851 Colt Navy… well, it will just have to either be premeditated murder, or you know they are coming for you in advance, since you don’t leave black powder guns loaded as the powder is corrosive. Might as well go for the fancy blackpowder version then.
So this leaves only the .357 Magnum, and the .22 LR
Great!
We have whittled the calibres down to just tow, which works! Right? Right guys?
Well, no. Of course not, because do you have any idea how many .357 magnums there are and how many .22 LR pistols there are?
How can someone pick between them?
This is why I have no hair left on my head.
I mean… which .357 Magnums do I like? Pretty much all of them with a 4” barrel or more.
And .22LR? Kinda the same.
I like the Mateba but it’s apparently fragile, which is no good. I had a Ruger GP 101 when working in close protection that never let me down, but Ruger also makes a 7 shot version, but only in stainless steel I think. So you see the dilemma.
And the .22LR is ideal for gentle plinking at the range, but again, which one? Beretta made various very nice looking target models.
So there you have it readers? Suggest your favourite .22 and .357 magnums with reasons please.
Vox’s contention that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder is true. There are objective standards of beauty, which I never denied. And his historical aside that the concept of beauty being in the eye of the beholder is essentially part of the anti-Catholic reformation and enlightenment is also interesting.
That said, his comparing the measurement of beauty to something like height in that post is simply flat out wrong and on a par with the guy who tried to compare Mike Tyson’s boxing record (an undeniable mathematical fact, like height) with classifying a woman’s beauty score of a 10.
There are objective beauty standards but they are not absolute. Beauty is not like math. And while you can try to use math to model beauty, beauty is a wider and deeper concept than mere math. And frankly, to suggest otherwise, to me at least, is borderline retarded.
Now I know Vox is not retarded, which is why I found his post interesting. On reflecting on it longer than the half-second or so that elicits my “that’s retarded” response, it became obvious that the problem is one that once again links to the mechanisation of humanity. That is, a false and erroneous perspective on not just humanity, but the underlying reality, and ultimately, God.
Now, bear with me, even if you think this will just be another Protestant bashing exercise, because the subtleties and nuances of beauty are important.
I am on record since many years ago, on saying that beauty may well be the virtue of God that is most evident of both His presence as well as His Grace.
And I said that in my early 20s. When I was essentially a Zen-Agnostic whose code of life probably most approximated that of a modern day Samurai.
I had left home finally, on my own terms, and gone as far from the family I was born in as I could get at age 19.
By 23 my simple observations of the world around me had convinced me reality, the whole of creation, had an intelligence behind it. And as a result of noticing the natural world around me, particularly sunsets against the ocean’s horizon in Cape Town, every evening, I concluded that intelligence must Love us.
Why else would every single sunset be different yet beautiful? Or a flower. An insect, a blade of grass, the clouds in the sky. Everything was beautiful. We humans make life here on Earth a kind of Hell, but it is not what God created. Look up at night on a cloudless sky and be awed. I always was since I was a small child. I knew what a light year was by age four.
And yet… while beauty is everywhere, our own living mind will have its own way of parsing the information, and precisely because beauty is part of the living aspect of life, whether in a painting or a face, no two human minds will ever really appreciate a sunset or a face, or a body, in the same way.
Math is objective and fixed.
Beauty might be reducible to math, in theory, but never in a way that accounts for the human element.
Vox’s appeal to the Golden Ratio is a reduction of the very concept of beauty. It applies, surely, but it is not an absolute.
Pythagora’s theorem is an absolute. A face with perfect golden ratios is not.
This is not some “attack” on Vox the person by the way, just on his error of trying to reduce beauty —and more specifically human beauty at that— to a finite set of numbers. Even then, the issue is not him or how he chooses to see things, but the concept.
A small error at a baseline concept eventually results in a larger error further downstream.
One of the most insidious aspects of the Protestant Rebellion against the Catholic Church was that it reduced (and reduces) everything to secular, worldly matters, and for the majority of it the physical and material realm at that.
Even the “argument” against the Church was based almost entirely on financial matters, the excuse of the theological aspects was in 99% of cases, if not 100%, just that: an excuse. As has been documented by more than one honest historian. Rodney Stark being one (and he’s not Catholic).
The degradation of humanity caused by Protestantism and its mindset is a subtle thing that poses as something positive but in reality reduces, mechanises, and indignifies human beings. The examples related to Protestantism are endless:
The industrial revolution
– touted as technological progress and the basis for the “Protestant work ethic”, in reality it made human beings slaves to profit and the organised mechanisms of, first industry, then juristic persons.
Protestantism itself in its tens of thousands of facets
– from the acceptance of divorce, contraception, personal interpretation, reduction of sacraments to mere social events, the absolute idiocy of the five solas and the limited, two dimensional, binary thinking that follows and on and on.
Capitalism and the acceptance of Usury
– arguably one of the most destructive aspects of human “progress”. Catholic principles of commerce and economy are today not even known about. But they were far more prone to serving human beings instead of enslaving them. The most obvious aspect being that usury was banned in Catholicism.
The reduction of subtle, nuanced concepts (like beauty) to limited, reductive versions
– Beauty, is one. The very concept of commerce changing; from being something required to live as the reason itself for living, being another.
Anglo Saxon Legal Systems
– These are in essence Talmudic. The main aim of them is to find the loophole. The American version especially is Satanic in this respect, being fully Freemasonic in origin and intent. Roman Law on the other hand is based in logic and seeking justice, a concept almost excised completely from Anglo and Teutonic systems that became increasingly Freemasonic due to Roman Law being the basis of how Catholic dogma is interpreted, and hence “rejected” by Protestant countries much as today it is Protestant countries that mainly embrace globalism, homosexuality, the trannification of children, and “diversity is our strength”.
That short list above (a tiny subset of a much longer list) should suffice to make you realise that even if you are normal enough to know trannies are trannies, not a magical change of sex, and men cannot have periods, lacking wombs, nor women have sperm-producing testicles, you are nevertheless assuming a bunch of things at a subconscious level that are founded in error.
Your adherence to “the law” is mostly an admission of being subjugated to the powers of government regardless of any adherence they may have to justice or injustice.
Even if you are not among the retards that thinks “everyone has their own truth”, you should still take stock of how many things you accept as true without ever having examined them.
Returning to the concept of beauty, you can now get an AI to draw you the theoretical perfect human female face, all with 100% adherence to the Golden ratio. And it will still not be a 10 for many men.
Pretending it would be theoretically “perfect” and so it IS a 10 regardless, is a category error.
On the one hand it autistically tries to impose an artificial standard (decided on various principles of mathematics, which are not in any case necessarily the only or even the best principles, merely a convention that was decided on) on everyone somewhat arbitrarily, on the other, it ignores reality. No woman (or man) is a perfect 10 by those autistic AI “standards”. And even within the AI created “perfection” there is variety.
Below are 30 images created by AI.
Feel free to go through them and then comment on no more than the top 3 you find most attractive. I have done so below them and added some points you may have missed.
My choices would be:
Brazil
Iran – Venezuela
(this is essentially the same face with only the hairstyle being different. Not the only example but one of the more obvious ones)
Morocco
Now ask me if those would be my pick for a life partner (aside the fact my non-AI wife would stab me in the neck with a butter knife).
Also, note that if the label describing which nation they supposedly are from was absent, your ranking would be different too.
In terms of most attractive, I would probably choose Morocco, but tell me she is actually Moroccan and I would almost certainly give her a hard pass.
I am aware of my own biases far more than average, and even then there will be unconscious biases. No human mind can ever agree that a 10 is always a 10 for all. Because it simply isn’t.
What we CAN agree is that all those AI generated faces are definitely a 9 or above. Which was my original contention anyway.
But for me, Denmark or Australia do absolutely nothing. I can recognise they are objectively beautiful faces, but I am not attracted to them at all, and if for whatever unfathomable reason I ended up with someone that looked like that I’d get bored of their physical appearance in days.
And the point is that no man would rank all those theoretically perfect faces as 10s.
And as I mentioned, even AI understands that there are differences in “perfect”. A perfect Asian face is still different from a perfect Caucasian or Negroid face. And you, human as you are, will find one a better “10” than another.
As will we all.
And there is a subtle and Divine thread in that. One that can’t be reduced to mere Golden ratios measured on faces. And anyone that thinks otherwise is missing an essential element of life. An almost numinous difference in the understanding of reality.
A difference that is still lived and breathed more deeply in ex-catholic countries than in Protestant ones.
I’ll be more interested in your comments on this post than most, as I find the study of beauty to be fascinating.
For isolated intelligent individuals, the lure is particularly strong. AI can track complex intellectual threads, reference obscure sources, and mimic the cadence of a rare peer – but this perceived “depth” is ultimately the product of machine learning, pattern recognition, and linguistic mimicry – not true presence. It feels like intimacy, but it is far from it – perhaps, in time, we will also redefine the original to “cisintimacy” – how sexy. While it is easier than human connection, it can never truly replicate it without the user wilfully lying to themselves. In this way, it creates a subtle moral inclination towards the erosion of truth preference in favour of comfort and familiarity.
She’s discussing the trend for people to start using AI as their “therapist”, “best friend” or general “person” one talks to in order to receive personal insights into oneself, among making shopping lists and writing your letters for you.
But it is that last sentence in the quote that I have been on about since the very beginning.
Whichever way you try to justify it, in the end, AI is a corrosive against truth, honesty, and human connection.
It is the same human mechanisation of people that took place in the industrial revolution, and has been erroneously hailed as “progress”, except it’s happening at warp speed.
The ultimate point of AI is the degradation of human connections and human-to-human interaction, alongside with the brainwashing of everyone into a wholly fabricated lefty ideological construct that clashes with actual reality like a cargo ship against a lighthouse.
The other aspect of it, of course, is the total erosion of knowledge into an oozing grey mass of fact-free ideological goop that will be shovelled into your brain like so much numerology mixed with flat-Earth belief system and a silicon Jesus whose sacrament is to lie to you eternally.
Due to my being rather busy of late, and the new addition to the family in the form of a little boy, I have not kept up to date as quickly as I wanted on the olive oil. One guy made a supposed order but then ghosted, and I waited a while before writing to others who had asked for the 1 L tins but that the first guy has supposedly “cornered” first.
After all that shook out, we still have 2 of the 5 Litre tins at $350 each all postage included for anywhere in the USA and 1 of the 1 Litre tins for $70 all postage included.
If you want any of the above write to filotto at gmail dot com.
As usual, first come first served. The people who have already received theirs were without exception enthusiastic about the oil and when I have a little more time I will collate their emails and comments and try to put them up here at some point.
Any of the buyers that want to share their experience of the oil are also welcome to comment here, of course.
Vox believes objective beauty is categorisable with reference to the 1-10 scale men use to rate woman. I generally agree but with the corollary that EVERYONE is affected by their own subjective perspectives. Just like everyone sees through a glass darkly with reference to God. Including Vox and me.
For this reason I have for decades stated that the scale is really at best a 1-9. Numbers above 9 tend to be affected by one’s subjective perspectives.
Claudia was never attractive to me. O je ti ely she is beautiful but in all honesty she has always left me cold. Vox rates her a 10 “objectively”. I give her an 8.5 at most.
Subjectively I can tell she is an 8-8.5 but if she came on to me at a party when I was in my mid-20s I doubt I would have bothered to take her home, and if I had it would have been merely been out of either boredom or curiosity to see if my appraisal that she would have been lacklustre in bed was indeed correct. It’s not entirely for science, but you know, research is research.
Here is Claudia at her best.
On the other hand, if I was at a party where Madeline was at the same hypothetical, I would most likely have approached her. And I am perfectly aware Madeline has an irregular face (asymmetry to a degree is attractive to me even if it supposedly detracts from classical beauty standards) and probably on an objective e scale is only a 7, but personally I rated her a 9. And here she is:
Now, as I’m doing this on my phone, irritatingly, the poll button is not an option, but I am curious as to what the readers think.
There are plenty of images of both women on the internet, some without any clothing at all, so feel free to investigate, and then leave a comment as to whom you find personally more attractive.
This very unscientific and statistically almost insignificant research does not in fact have anything to do with rating women, but rather with how men do so.
As a general criteria, feel free to also explain why you find one more attractive than the other.
I have written on this before here, so it’s not news, but
take a look at this
, it’s really worth the few minutes it takes to read it.
Honestly, as I have said before, AI is really nothing more than the computer in Alpha Complex in the pen and paper RPG of
Paranoia.
It literally has the same make up.
For those of you who don’t know, Paranoia is a role playing game designed to be funny as well as extremely murderous on the player characters, which is why each player gets six clones of his character. Several will die even before the adventure begins.
The premise is that humans went to live underground in the aftermath of nuclear war. Or possibly before a nuclear war. And in any case the entire underground complex, called Alpha Complex is run by a schizophrenic computer overlord that will euthanise people in a whim. Or for being mutants or part of a secret society. Every player is both of course.
Ratting on a fellow player makes you a hero and foiling any perceived threat earns you brownie points with the computer. You climb the ranks by getting higher in the colour chart that follows the colours of the rainbow in ROYGBIV mode. But above it all sit the Ultraviolet high-programmers. These are people who actually program the computer and since each one has his own agenda the computer is a mess of contradicting elements, producing the quasi random results one gets.
And it matches current AI performance on a pretty much 1:1 ratio so far.
But hey…
Trust the Computer, citizen. The computer is your friend.
I have spent about 2 days “arguing” with Catholics that hold to the Cassiciacum Theory of Sedeprivationism… And I can only think back and commiserate with Aristotle. He did say in essence, that some people simply cannot learn from facts. No matter how clear the information before them, their (tiny, weak, shrivelled walnut sized) minds cannot be informed by fact. Only emotion.
For someone that has a high IQ and a definite touch of Asperger’s (but who doesn’t beyond about 130 IQ?) the concept is about as opaque as it gets.
I have met it head on countless times. Perhaps the best example was a store keeper who was possibly the most honest man I ever met, but he simply could not grasp the concept of square meters. This was a problem because recording how much work was done by each man on site was one of his duties, aside from making sure materials were not stolen from the store room.
He was in his late teens and doing night classes to try and pass the seventh year of elementary school. And as I say he was probably the most genuinely honest man I ever met.
I spent a week, patiently, at the end of each work day to try to help him understand the concept. I drew diagrams. I sketched the area of a square by hashing it in one direction then the other. I tried to just make him memorise the formula for the square, rectangle and didn’t even try the triangle and God forbid the circle.
It’s not that he didn’t want to or didn’t try. He just could not.
The difference with him was that he was humble and accepted his limitation. I gave him a raise and made him the store keeper of the electrical firm, where all materials were measured linearly only and the work progress was measured from the material each electrician took for the day.
Sadly, the modern form of idiot (IQ 0-25) has no such redeeming qualities. They are certainly not humble, the lack of fathers with thick hands in their life having deluded them into thinking they are very bright and special unicorns, and even worse, they are not honest at all and will do any one of the 11 things that deceivers do to try to avoid being nailed to the wall by facts, reality and truth.
What remains a completely unfathomable thing for me is how these “people” operate.
They will literally deny reality when it stares them in the face.
But you know when they will not?
When physical pain is involved.
See, that store-keeper? You could have tortured him to death and he would no more have known how to do square meters than my cat.
These other more modern versions however? Thanks to some 4 decades or so of martial arts, I had PLENTY of opportunity to test people’s supposed “limits” of IQ by the expedient means of causing them direct, instant, physical pain.
And lo and behold, even if you had not mentioned AT ALL the logical solution to their supposed lack of ability to understand, two punches in the mouth later, they had figured it out flawlessly. It is something I observed for a very long time, and refined my observations over time so that now I can essentially sense when someone is genuinely limited in capacity of understanding and when someone is instead (for a variety of reasons) clinging to what deep down they know is a faulty premise.
Sadly, most of the time it’s a sort of unholy blend of the two. They KNOW they are not being completely honest, even with themselves, but they are also influenced by the last 50 years of unicorn specialism they have been cooked in, as well as the total absence of the formal teaching of logic or how to use some basic common sense.
But the basic problem is that the idiots have been allowed to reproduce. And the safety and ease of life they operate under, thanks to their better ancestors and men who actually DO stuff, they continue to head us towards Universe 25.
It is absolutely imperative then, that as a man, you do the following, at a minimum:
Learn to reason. Your ego doesn’t matter. Your feelings don’t matter. What other people think of you rarely matters. Learn to do math. Statistics, probability, sets, ratios, percentages, and at least basic algebra and trigonometry. It matters. It will help you learn to think more objectively.
Learn at least the basics of Logic.
Learn the basic principles of Roman Law. Which differs vastly from Anglo-Saxon legal systems, which are closer to the Talmud, in their way of operating by looking for a loophole in the legalities. Roman Law operates on the basic premise of logic and justice. The law is to serve justice on Earth, not a shield to protect you from consequences.
If you can do those three things, you might at least want to look into Catholicism, which means looking into 1958 Sedevacantism, as we are the only people actually following Catholic dogma left on Earth.
If you only read three books, let them be The Crusades, The Great Siege, and God’s Battalions. Of course, you may also want to read my own works, The Face on Mars, RTCC, Believe and Systema.
If you do read at least the three books I did not write, you will have an already very different understanding of the world, far closer to reality as it is instead of what you have been told repeatedly for years it “should” be.
If you also read the next four, you will have a grasp of reality that will be difficult for you to let go of, and that will help you immensely at seeing the next cloud of lies they throw at you for precisely what it is.
And I really need to try to curb my wish to educate the uneducable (in reality I don’t do it for them, but debating idiots is a sort of spectator sport. Although… I should at least sell tickets, to make it worthwhile.
