Teufelsdröckh's Musings

Youtube clip:

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cauchy.substack.com

The "Sisters" of Perpetual Indulgence attack and mock God, why do they mock God? They mock God because they read the Bible honestly, and this is why I respect them, they know that their worldview is incompatible with True Christianity and therefore True Christianity must be rooted up and destroyed, that’s right, every last root must be incinerated, burnt with irreverent irony, for what end? Friend, friend, they are terribly honest now, but look at the name Indulgence. Perpetual indulgence, unto dissipation, dissolution and death. All you wimpy conservatives should stop complaining, that they are hurting your fweewings, nobody cares about your fweewings, not me, not these “Sisters”, nor anybody else. This is weaponised compassion, it is not a two-way street, you are evil and they are not. This is the religion of the antichrist, weaponised compassion which is used against Christians.

The early Christians understood, there is the way of life and the way of death. The “Sisters” of Perpetual Indulgence are of the way of death, they are upholders of sin, and they are the children of Satan. They are opposed to us in every way because of their immanentised view of reality, which leaves them wallowing in a cesspit of decadent indulgence, to someone like this the assertion of the transcendent is unbearable, it causes them pain, to small sentimental epicurean creatures like these pain is equivalent to evil and evil must be destroyed.

The “Sisters” of Perpetual Indulgence understand that Pride and Christianity are incompatible, they understand that feeding children hormones which will sterilise them is incompatible with Christianity, they understand that mutilating the forearms of children to make fake penises that don’t work is incompatible with Christianity, they understand that the denial of the gender binary is incompatible with Christianity. They want to completely eradicate Christianity, they are against roots, roots are evil because they restrain.

Because they see it as a war they will stop at nothing. They are taking your preschoolers just now to have a grown man who looks like a demon in a dress read to them, they are altering the school curriculum so your children have to read sodomite romance novels, they come into your Churches and dance naked on the altar of Almighty God, they come into your Churches and run away with the Body of our Lord and perform all kinds of satanic blasphemies. These are unspeakable crimes, desecrating the blessed sacrament this is worse than raping a child, these people hate God, these people hate you, these people hate themselves and they will stop at nothing, there is no compromising with them. They use the rainbow to insult Noah's covenant with Almighty God, which is the covenant of all mankind, they hate mankind and they hate God.

They are abhorrent, they are miscreants, they are devil spawns, and they rip up their own bodies and make monstrosities out of them for the sake of their nihilism of indulgence. Is it really surprising the next step after legalising the unnatural sexual act known as sodomy would be the outright mutilation and dismemberment of sexual organs? How has our society gotten to this place? Because of you wimpy conservatives with your Protestant ethic, this is what democracy gets you, this is what your equality gets you, this is what your leveller mentality gets you, you get what you deserve. These children are being abused, you conservatives are paedophile sympathisers. The only way to solve this problem is through the reassertion of the transcendent in every aspect of life and that means the restitution of the Monarchical Patriarchy, clerical and secular until that happens these mentally ill leftists will continue to dominate the world with their lowest common denominator morality. Learn the lesson already… Joel Davis is right about 1-dimensional politics, Error has no right and freedom of expression is a lie.

Thanks for reading Teufelsdröckh's Musings! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cauchy.substack.com

We are plagued by a culture that cannot see past its own nostrils, a culture which has immanentised the eschaton, to wit the goal is the liberation of all constraints to the will of the individual, to liberate the limits shackling their expression and allow them to be all they wish to be and do all which they wish to do and experience everything they wish to experience, all shall be deconstructed, every law and every constraint, every tradition and value! The immanent desire reigns as the supreme law, nothing outside it is holy. Live and let live but living is not trivial, the world destroys, and the way of things is life and death.

If a limb of yours constrains you, cut it off. If the shape of you abhor you, sculpt it to thy design. Your will shall manifest, besides if it does not then better to lose a limb trying to transcend it than to have thy soul trapped inside a cage of foreign design forever! Not a part of thou is higher than thy omnipotence, what did you say something about pride, nothing but a sheepish tale to enslave they lied! Who can tell you, you have no obligation, you are being spawned of your own action of existence there is no contingency in you, let none speak of duty to you, let none speak of composition or of nature, your nature is your own, divine, proud and with infinite expressions, like a snowflake.

In the brotherhood of the constrained, you walk together, hand in hand to liberate thy fetters, all which is high will be deconstructed, and all from the remnants of God will be subducted to raise up those who were lower and this new brotherhood called that God Tyrant and declared all shall be free, from the tyranny of contingency. Thus we are transhuman entities, the remnants of the past species, which was to us but a disease. Need us not the Son of Man.

Not just Genesis we dismiss, but ribonucleic acid, for we shant be remiss, for nor will we be placid. To be beholden to a silly molecule is no better than to be beholden by a book written by those illiterate fishermen and shepherds from Israel. By ravenous Pharisaic dissimulation, was a whole brotherhood consumed with rage, binary on binary did divide domination, yes like an out-of-control autophagy. To the outside, a perverse self-cannibalisation, yet to the inside, finally, the promised liberation. The inner principles from on high were removed, and pesky science was no longer behoved the supremacy of immanence had ensued, and at last, the veneer of reason was eschewed.

But when that last thread of the spirit which comes in and flows up snapped, they liberated themselves into the maw of oblivion and their experience aporia did invade, their identity warring to stop their elements from disintegrating like a dying nation which has lost its animating spirit they tore themselves apart, all of them, each one of them and every part of them. For detached from all constraints they had become a mirage, a dancing of simulacrum, one more horrific than the last torn further this way or that by every one of the passions, they could only look back in horror longing for what was, for their place in the cosmic order they rejected, tortured more and more as they became less recognisable, they had succumbed as Dorian Gray, they had reaped death as their reward for sin, for their unending search for novelty.

Do not be a naive child who thinks their parents do not do what you desire out of cruelty but believe the truth that they do it because sometimes the child’s will is contrary to their well-being in a way which is difficult for the child to understand.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cauchy.substack.com

After this post let nobody say Traditionalism is anti-science for Traditionalism and science are one and the same.

The Lindy Effect is a concept that refers to the phenomenon whereby the longer something has been around, the longer it is expected to continue to be around. It is named after the Lindy's Delicatessen in New York City. Where comedians met to discuss show business trends, according to legend, the life expectancy of a Broadway show was said to be correlated with its length of run: a show that had been running for a long time was expected to continue to run for a long time, whereas a show that had just opened was more likely to close soon.

Thanks for reading Teufelsdröckh's Musings! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

The Lindy Effect has been discussed by mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot and Flaneur Nassim Taleb. Mandelbrot, who was one of the pioneers of fractal geometry, used the Lindy Effect to explain the durability of certain patterns and structures in nature. Taleb restricted Mandelbrot’s view of Lindy to those things that are non-perishable, he argues that his Lindy Effect is a fundamental principle that underlies many aspects of life, including technology, fashion, and ideas, and that it is the principle that underlies the scientific method.

La Wik States:

According to Taleb, Mandelbrot agreed with the expanded definition of the Lindy Effect: "I [Taleb] suggested the boundary perishable/nonperishable and he [Mandelbrot] agreed that the nonperishable would be power-law distributed while the perishable (the initial Lindy story) worked as a mere metaphor."

In Taleb’s elucidation, the Lindy Effect is a consequence of the fact that certain things are more robust and durable than others. Taleb argues that the Lindy Effect is similar to the scientific method in that both are based on the idea of via negativa elimination. Taleb points out the congruence between Popper’s conception of truth i.e. we say that something is true if it is “not false”, and thus we know via negativa — which he identifies as really just one case of the general Lindy Effect that the longer something has survived the more likely it will continue to do so.

Here’s an excerpt from Taleb’s own Medium Post:

We said earlier that without skin in game, the mechanism of survival is severely disrupted. This also applies to ideas.

Karl Popper’s idea of falsification is entirely Lindy-compatible; it actually requires the operation of the Lindy Effect, although Popper didn’t have any apparent knowledge of the dynamics, nor did he look at the risk dimension of things. The reason science works, in spite of buls**t vending people who talk about “scientific method”, isn’t because there is a proper scientific method derived by some nerds in isolation, or some “standard” that passes a test similar to an eye exam; rather because scientific ideas are Lindy-prone, that is not exposed to artificial propping up and subjected to their own fragility. Ideas need to have skin in the game. You know that the idea will fail if it is not useful, and can be therefore vulnerable to the falsification of time (and not that of naive falsificationism, that is by some government printed black-and-white guideline). The more an idea has been around without being falsified, the longer its future life expectancy. For if you read Feyerabend’s account of the history of scientific discoveries, you can clearly see that anything goes in the process –but not with the test of time.

Note that I am here modifying Popper’s idea; we can replace “true” (rather, not false) with “useful”, even “not harmful”, even “protective to its users”. So I will diverge from Popper in the following. For things to survive, they necessarily need to fare well in the risk dimension, that is be good at not dying, surviving, that type of thing. By the Lindy Effect, if an idea has skin in the game, it is not in the truth game, but in the harm game. An idea survives if it is a good risk manager, that is, not only doesn’t harm its holders, but favors their survival –this also affects superstitions that have crossed centuries because they led to some protective actions. More technically, it needs to be convex and reduce fragility somewhere.

— Nassim Incerto Post on the Lindy Effect

Mathematical Formalisation

It should not then in the least surprise us, that here we find nature’s recurrent theme, one of the central distributions that describes the Lindy Effect, is the obsession of Taleb and Mandelbrot, the Pareto Distribution. The Lindy Effect obtains for a distribution which has a decreasing hazard function, Pareto Distributions are a great example of this since this distribution has the property that the conditional expectation of T-t given that T>t is some multiple p of t, where t is how long the imperishable object has existed so far, and where p is a positive constant.

From this conditional expectation therefore we can see that the longer something has lived the longer it is expected to continue to live, if we also look below at the hazard function we see that, it is a positive constant times 1/t, and of course because T>=0 it is monotonic decreasing on the whole domain i.e. the hazard of dying goes down as you progress further into the future.

Wikipedia is very good, but I set epsilon = 1 + 1/p and jiggled stuff around and did get back to p * t for everyone’s peace of mind. There is an excellent medium post by *audible gasp of amazement* a graduate student in psychology, I tip my fedora, but in all seriousness I strongly recommend this post by Eren Asena, very clearly articulated and lots of resources, even if you just read points 1 and 2, but I definitely recommend the whole thing and Taleb’s own video below.

Biggest Bum Crack Plumbers

Let us give a literary explanation for what is going on here.

You see in this world of ours things change and those things that have existed longest tend to reflect an underlying truth about reality, photosynthesis has existed for hundreds of millions of years and will likely to continue to exist for hundreds of millions of years as it reflects the underlying reality which is that the most easily accessible abundant energy source is the light emitted by the sun, the longer something has been the case the more we should expect it to remain so in the future.

The current main substrategy for utilising this energy is the following: vegetation that have chloroplasts and chlorophyll have survived and outcompeted other organisms and remained dominant, the longer they have remained dominant the more likely it becomes that an alternative better strategy does not exist, or at the least that this strategy is extremely difficult to find either from where we are right now or in general in the space of all possible solutions, therefore we should expect chloroplasts to continue to exist.

One can think of it in a rough approximation like this; Chloroplasts and Chlorophyll are a theory about the best way to harvest solar energy. Every day this theory gets tested by the processes of evolution, the vicissitudes of life, the wicked and frivolous designs of nature and every day the strategy continues to be successful validating the theory.

Now one cannot say that the theory of the chloroplasts is rational, they have no description for why they are the best, but neither does a plumber, you shouldn't pay the plumber with the best sales pitch but the most experience because he's survived longer, my crude Australian version of Taleb’s butcher surgeon argument is that you should employ the plumber who has the biggest bum crack showing because he must do a real good job if people are willing to hire him despite his fucken gnarly attire.

Abolishing Social Science

Taleb continues:

If you hear advice from a grandmother or elders, odds are that it works at ninety percent. On the other hand, in part because of scientism and academic prostitution, in part because the world is hard, if you read anything by psychologists and behavioral scientists, odds are it works at less than ten percent, unless it is also what has been covered by the grandmother and the classics, in which case why would you need a nerd-psychologist? This may seem aggressive, but it flows directly from the Lindy Effect, partly from my own assessment of the statistical significance of the results, which is subjected to a Fooled by Randomness effect (Note: see my Meta-distribution of p-values). Consider that a recent effort to replicate the hundred psychology papers in “prestigious” journals of 2008 found that, out of a hundred, only thirty nine replicated. Of these thirty nine, I believe than less than ten are actually robust and transfer outside the narrowness of the experiment. Similar defects have been found in medicine, neuroscience; on those later.

(I will discuss the misunderstanding of probability and tail risks in Chapter x –or why the warnings of your grandmother or interdicts aren’t “irrational” ; how most of the “irrational” comes from misunderstanding of probability.)

While our knowledge of physics has not been available to the ancients, human nature was. So everything that hold in social science and psychology has to be Lindy-proof, that is, have an antecedent in the classics; otherwise it will not replicate or not generalize beyond the experiment. By classics we can define the Latin (& late Hellenistic) moral literature (moral sciences meant something else than they do today): Cicero, Seneca, M. Aurelius, Epictetus, Lucian, or the poets: Juvenal, Horace or the later French so-called “moralists” (La Rochefoucault, Vaugenargues, La Bruyere, Chamfort). Bossuet is a class on his own. One can use Montaigne and Erasmus as a portal to the ancients: Montaigne was the popularizer of his day; Erasmus was the thorough compiler.

— N. N. Taleb Incerto Post on the Lindy Effect

The Power of the Irrational

The further we venture out from world, life and man created by rational God, toward a materialist, naturalist or evolutionary conception the more we are forced to admit that almost everything truly brilliant in the world is the result of irrational processes and so humans too are the result of irrational processes. Thus human minds are not minds created in the image of the great mind of the Most High God, and humans are not endowed with reason as a reflection of that supreme reason to be found in the mind of the Lord of Hosts, no we say reason has come from irrational processes. Neural Networks have further exposed how intelligence and reason are in conflict. One learns from exposure, from experience not from rational deduction or from instruction.

This has been demonstrated fairly conclusively in so many areas now it is impossible to dispute. StockFish vs AlphaZero, i.e. Rational Chess vs Irrational Chess is just one example. You know what is worse though, this really is how you learn as well, you experience things and then you sleep and during your REM sleep your brain fires chaotically adding randomness onto the experience to help generalise it. One of the reasons children are better at learning new things is because they have more of this chaotic firing going on all the time.

All complex systems show this kind of a behaviour, it is trivial. It is true for evolution, though people often oversimplify this too, thinking solely in terms of DNA, it is not only about DNA, it is the whole organism which has a morphology and body. Indeed anyone who has taken a high school biology course knows that we have a tradition of bodies which are slowly built up becoming more morphologically complex at each stage (p.s. yes I know there are problems with evolution not the point of this post) and indeed preceding that we have the same thing with cells.

It is plain to see in the economy also, new companies innovate it is true and sometimes as with smart phones the innovation is large but the smart phone still comes from the mobile phone which comes from the home phone, which comes from the phone with the spinney dial on it, haha, and before that the telegram and so on. Also new companies do not reinvent the wheel of their structure, all good functioning companies are Monarchies run by a CEO. How long has diverse democracy been around, 50 years? So how’s that going? Anyway, sorry I am getting distracted.

Traditional wisdom trumps science because it has existed for longer, have we not been hearing everyday for the last few years that science has vindicated this or that traditional practice, fasting, prayer, meditation, etc. Have we not also heard the vindication of prejudice, of heuristics and many more irrational decision making processes?

Progressivism is dangerous because it outright attacks those things which are most true, demanding reasons for those things which are unreasonably true and most things are unreasonably true! Let us take as an example a healthy field of science, say Physics, old theories fit inside new theories like Babushka (literally “grandmother”) dolls, so that classical physics has not been overthrown but has been saved from things like the ultraviolet catastrophe, the goal of the new theory was to glorify the old, the old theory is fulfilled in the new.

When a field builds up no tradition we know that it is devoid of truth, for nothing it produces withstands the test of time and circumstance, you shall know your theory as you know men by its fruits. Therefore fields that are changing from one mutually exclusive theory to the next have almost certainly not produced much of value. Flip flopping is not the most common thing we see today however, what we find is that in most fields a certain group, hold an iron grip through a sheepish slave morality. They keep being able to generate consensus by abusing statistical tools they do not understand, eventually too these fake types of consensus will collapse because reality always catches up to you.

Thus reason has its proper place when it serves tradition, not when it sets out to undermine every aspect of it, when it does so reason becomes an aberration, and its use maladaptive. So in sincerity we ask who is more anti-science the bible belt Christian who believes in Adam and Eve or the progressive who denies biological sex?

If a theory of human sex that has existed in a substantial way for at most 10 years wants to overthrow biological sex well then we can say with near certainty and I really mean that like 0.99999999999999999999999 it is a pathology and we should look for other causes, hey maybe it has something to do with this 50 to 70% drop in Testosterone levels we keep hearing about? Sorry I forgot its Transphobic to talk about real problems, lmao.

Damn Martin Luther.. Argh!

Thanks for reading Teufelsdröckh's Musings! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cauchy.substack.com

Most of my readers will consider this trivial but it is worth saying here, I think for some, who let themselves be swayed without examining things.

Disclaimer: I am not telling you to care, I do not want you to care. Do not get worked up over things outside your control — but I am saying you cannot call yourself Christian and support modern leftism okay, draw a dick on your ballot or something.

One cannot honestly call themselves Christian and support any political party they like, the fact of the matter is that only the most lobotomised protestant could support a state that endorses modern leftism. This is without alluding to the fact that modern leftism is an anti-religion, and society a modern theocracy, which has all the trappings of religion but supports vice in place of virtue. The reality is scripture has things to say about morality whether you like it or not and it draws ontological conclusions that preclude the support of certain policies and ideas.

If you regularly reject the moral teaching of the canonical biblia then you need to stop calling yourself Christian, you need to stop appropriating the religion of others and its symbols, take off the cross! You believe things that are contrary to the creeds, the bible and in many cases the explicit and unambiguous teaching of the Word made flesh as directly quoted in the gospels, How then can you lay claim to the title of Christian if you do not believe even that Jesus is the Christ?!

18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin,[a] but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’

John 15:18-25 ESV

And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

Luke 9:23 ESV

To be a disciple of Christ then is not to do whatever you please, but to deny yourself and follow his way, not your way, his way.

You cannot follow the way of Andrew Tate and the way of Jesus Christ, because the Christ made his views about monogamy clear, which is why Andrew Tate had to flee the religion for a degenerate heresy — he had not the discipline to be a disciple, in fact I would go so far as to say that he has not read the Bible, he brags about not reading and from his personality I am sure we would have seen a clip of him boasting he read it if he had. Persisting in Christ is a sign of strength they persecute Christ and blaspheme him more than Mohammed because he is greater than Mohammed to leave the religion for that reason as Andrew Tate says he did means that he never took the above quotation from John’s Gospel seriously, once again,

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.”

A Christian is not free to be an antinomian and they are not free to reject the old testament. In the Torah, the most High God makes his feelings surrounding a number of subjects very clear. Here is a quote from the Sermon on the Mount, regarding the Torah.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:17-20 ESV

One can always separate those things which necessarily must be legislated and those things which are duties to be reverently observed but were not meant to abide in the secular law, even still one cannot adopt an ideology which encourages precisely the opposite of what in the moral teachings of the law is forbade.

While today you may consider legislating on these topics a step too far, in that notion you are in step with the enlightenment, in step with the French revolutionaries who murdered your brothers and sisters in Christ in the Vendée, while you are completely out of step with the history of Christian societies.

At a certain point one must ask if all people who have called themselves Christians throughout the ages have held diametrically opposed views to those which you hold, that perhaps it is you who are ignorant, not they.

Transgenderism

For example one cannot support policies regarding transgenderism since the Most High created them Adam and Eve, Man and Woman, not Adam, Eve and Bob the non-binary bloke. In my view one is bound to this even if they take Genesis as a fundamentally poetical account, since even if you think it is poetical it cannot be useless it must be teaching you something about what you are or how you ought to live otherwise again you are not a disciple of his way you are merely a buffet Christian and therefore no Christian at all, take off the cross buddy. Therefore one also has to read the following as saying something that can not be merely dismissed as irrelevant poetical fiction,

Quotation Genesis 2:24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

You will notice that Genesis 2:24 also conspicuously says father and mother not father, mother and non-binary Bob.

Homosexuality

The previous quotation from Genesis is also important for the question of homo—monogamy you will surely notice that again it is not Adam and Steve who become one flesh, no NO! It is Adam and Eve! Thus one cannot be Christian and support gay marriage.

13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Leviticus 20:13, ESV

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[b]

1 Corinthians 6:9, ESV

There you go in Corinthians Paul comes right out and makes the matter clear, unrepentant homosexuals will go to hell.

Feminism

The consequence of Eve eating the apple is that women will be subject to their husbands, as the following quote in Genesis elucidates.

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;    in pain you shall bring forth children.Your desire shall be contrary to[a] your husband,    but he shall rule over you.”

Genesis 3:16, ESV

Paul follows up with many statements of his own, starting with Ephesians:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord”

Ephesians 5:22 KJV

“Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”

Ephesians 5:24 ESV

In Colossians:

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Colossians 3:18 ESV

In Titus:

Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

Titus 2:3-5 ESV

In first Peter:

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands

1 Peter 3:1 ESV

I am trying to keep this about Christianity broadly but I think so much of this went awry because of the Protestant abandonment of Mary and disappointing and disgusting disrespect which they show her, I see Andrew Tate as a pathology of feminism and feminism a pathology of Protestantism but I will not make the case here.

Obviously the other side of this coin is that men are expected to die to the self, the Christian ethic is the titanic, as God says to Adam,

17 And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife    and have eaten of the treeof which I commanded you,    ‘You shall not eat of it,’cursed is the ground because of you;    in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;    and you shall eat the plants of the field.19 By the sweat of your face    you shall eat bread,till you return to the ground,    for out of it you were taken;for you are dust,    and to dust you shall return.”

Genesis 3:17-19 ESV

To Dust You Shall Return

To understand the New Covenant Better, I recommend the following video from the Catholic Brothers

Thanks for reading Teufelsdröckh's Musings! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cauchy.substack.com

Excerpted from the end of podcast interview Curtis did on Beautiful Toilet:

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cauchy.substack.com

I recently had a brief conversation with the mother of a young lady I tutor in mathematics, she has worked for a couple of decades in special needs learning and she is currently fighting to have schools recognise that it is a human right for special needs kids to be able to attend mainstream schools. She was expressing her frustration after having a meeting that morning with Principals from around the State. You can imagine my tongue was a little sore by the end of that conversation. This piece is a bit of catharsis but it does have a purpose, in fact, this particular topic is a great example of a number of phenomena,

Getting back on track, in terms of the general progressive perspective, what we might call a kind of sloppy Rawlsian perspective, human rights are conceived of as at best a mechanism to limit tyranny or suffering from behind a veil of ignorance, at worst they are seen as moral pretension, a pretty facade to disguise a fundamentally unjust system.

Whenever progressives discuss rights they are in fact discussing a mutable and alienable concept, if they are being genuine when they use the word or phrase 'human rights', in other words, my American Conservative friends -- they do not hold these truths to be self-evident -- does this make them treasonous? Never forget, they started the boogie woogie long ago. So, round up the lads, the boogaloos half way done and no one's even fired a gun!

Enough with all that fun, so what does this all mean, well let me give you a concrete example. when a progressive says they believe in something like the human right to freedom of movement what they are really saying is that they believe in present circumstances it is favourable from behind a veil of ignorance to prevent limitations on freedom of movement, however, if the circumstances change, for example, as they did during the coronavirus pandemic then freedom of movement harms the most vulnerable in society, i.e. the immunocompromised, therefore not only do you not have a right to freedom of movement you have an obligation to highly restricted movement.

The aforementioned example demonstrates how the progressive conception of a right is relative, it is alienable given a change in circumstance at the level of the system as a whole, e.g. pandemic when this change in circumstance means the maintenance of said right has a negative impact on those now seen as closest to the Rawlsian floor. It tends to be the case that fairly regularly a progressive, will, with all apparent sincerity, advocate for a human right to freedom of expression but really mean something that is not at all universal.

This generally occurs due to how they have framed the concern. To take the example of freedom of expression further, it is non-universal, being valid when enabling a socially disadvantaged person to express their identity without fear of repercussion but not applicable to a socially advantaged person expressing a caricature that demeans or dehumanises the marginalised, and in the more extreme case, which is frequent today, to prohibit the use of any cultural aspect of the marginalised group from being used at all by the dominant group, or discussed in anything other than a wholly positive light.

This is highly distressing to normie conservatives and to rights-based libertarians, (aka shit for brains libertarians). In a follow-up piece, I will discuss how Austrian-inspired libertarians view this, i.e. rights as property rights. The way that “human rights” are viewed by more sophisticated modern liberals and progressives is as utilitarian heuristics, not as things that are true in themselves but as things that either help maximise utility or create the greatest floor of utility from behind a veil of ignorance.

Below is an attempt at a rough description of this Rawlsian notion using sets,

So relating this back, human rights are seen as helping us approach our desired S.

To obtain our desired S, we can see from our previous examples, that progressives require a dynamic approach to rights. In response to the original progressive movement’s lack of judicial success in achieving their goals, (because their goals were not constitutional), the notion of a living constitution developed,

Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission - in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word - to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.

Woodrow Wilson, 1912 Speech.

This notion of a living constitution helps attain the required flexibility given the goals of progressives. The real purpose of this approach is to make the implementation of the Rawlsian conception achievable, and the means of the Rawlsian is social engineering. Wilson’s babbling about Darwinian principles is outdated imbecility that has been replaced with more modern forms of justification, of similar quality but superior in political correctness.

Of course, conservatives subscribe to originalism, which is the opposing ideology, that the constitution should be interpreted and enforced as originally intended. Changes should in this view be pursued by amendments as outlined in the, you guessed it, constitution. This is why you often hear conservatives say that this or that is unconstitutional. Doubtless, while I am more sympathetic to it, the reality is that the originalist view is delusional, it just is not the reality of the situation and never will be. Even the Catholic Church cannot pull it off successfully, though they did a remarkable job for a very long time as a constitutional monarchy, however, originalism in democracy is a total crapshoot.

For conservative originalists, human rights are inalienable, they then combine this with the idea of just acquisition and exchange, proposed by the other philosopher of the 20th-century political ethics duopoly, the anti-Rawls, Robert Nozick, to produce their theory of a just society. So, from the conservative and rights-based libertarian perspective, human rights really exist and are the foundation axioms of civil society. The Nozick-Rawls distinction is commonly discussed as an issue of negative and positive legal rights.

Less well-educated liberals and conservatives generally believe in both things simultaneously, to some extent, when I say less well-educated this includes the vast majority of College graduates, we may as well say those who do not examine their own thoughts about the world. It is more common for liberals to believe in both simultaneously because part of the propaganda they were exposed to is a hangover from the past that teaches them to respect the constitution but then they attend higher education and receive reverse brainwashing so that if you were to ask them if they are for the constitution they would likely say that they were and then they would proceed to espouse opinions that are aligned with the examples of rights hypocrisy we discussed previously. This partially subconscious confusion about their own views makes your average conservative feel like they are being gaslit and are in an all-pervasive world of Orwellian doublespeak, I believe the increase in this phenomenon is one of the leading causes of right-leaning schizopolitical analysis.

My own view of these things, if I have one with regards to human rights is more of the Natural Rights variety, in the full Catholic Virtue Ethics conception of things, of course, I have the practical problem of my atheism, however.

Needless to say, what I have presented here is a greatly simplified view of things and this issue is substantially more complicated, there are other things to discuss with respect to the progressive and conservative views, like the conception of the social contract, the general will, etc, which no doubt we will cover in future pieces.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cauchy.substack.com

What I dislike about Andrew Tate and about all this internet shit is that it is not real, Andrew Tate has made his money from marketing, from the sale of fantasy, it is no coincidence that he ran a camgirl business. If I were dictator of this nation I would ban OnlyFans and Hustlers University overnight. Is it not plain that Hustler’s University is just another camgirl business? You want to replicate success, not the illusion of success. Donald Trump is an example of the same phenomenon, I am not even against these people, in fact, I prefer them to what the left is, but I recognise them for what they are which is a LARP of success. How many Andrew Tates or Donald Trumps is worth one Henry Ford, Steve Jobs or Napoleon?? Just to pull 3 random true Gs out of a hat, the answer is you cannot even define it, there is no quantity of Andrew Tates that is worth one of these people.

All this being said I agree with XQC’s recent take that what is more cringe than Andrew Tate is the people who criticise him, the cringe will give you whiplash. And I do have to concede that also, if I was made dictator of this country, women pilots would also be banned overnight.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cauchy.substack.com

I decided to go and check out Andrew Tate on rumble because I never got the chance to see his YouTube channel. Suffice it to say, it is fucking hilarious, it has a very InfoWars intro. I alluded to a short criticism I have of him in the previous piece which is that men who have his level of power that do not pursue women are more virtuous and in this video, he says if he could do one thing differently he would go back in a time machine 5 years and be monogamous because he would have achieved so much more. ROFL emoji.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cauchy.substack.com

The State of Things

If at this stage you are not convinced that the underpopulation crisis is real and immediate then you simply cannot be helped, go back to scrolling TikTok like an addict you lobotomized gender non-binary degenerate.

For the rest of us, we must now engage the question, what happened and what must be done about it? Birth rates have declined and continue to decline or in some nations at best remain constant but far below replacement, why is this? No policy, by any government, has been able to reverse the trend, but why?

We need to keep in mind this problem did not start yesterday, in many countries it began over half a century ago. This problem persists, it is not transitory and there is no reason to think it will not continue indefinitely, as I have hinted at, once collapse begins other factors in the realm of politics will snowball into an unstoppable avalanche, that will either result in species extinction or a far more dystopian society than we have today. You will not be worried about whether or not the state requires you to have kids, you will be worried about whether or not you are going to starve, be robbed, or raped, or whether the minority group you belong to is going to be scapegoated and massacred in a pogrom.

If civilisation fails, then all your fantasies about freedoms and human rights are a crock of shit. Here’s a question for Steven Pinker, how much enlightenment is equal to one baby, yeah, I mean that really, a crock of shit! Completely fucking useless!

Common reasons people suggest:

Reasons People Don’t: “Having Kids is Too Expensive”

We briefly discussed this in the section on Japan in the previous post. This is obviously not the cause, birth rates decline after industrialisation i.e. after countries become rich, in the West they began their trend down in the 60s when people were richer than they ever had been before, and business was booming. Some of this might be accounted for by the Silent Generation taking over the baby making business from the Greatest Generation, they were in most Western countries a smaller generation but then we would have expected it to rebound and it did not and the economic situation did not become substantially worse in the meantime.

The reality is early in the 20th century people had lots of kids and they had far fewer resources and lived much simpler lives than people do today. Indeed, it is the poorest countries today that have the least problem.

Therefore, if anything, we are forced to conclude the exact opposite in fact, we need to make people poor! Okay well, if we continue on this trajectory that is certainly going to happen. It seems to me it is preferable to force people to have kids than to forcefully impoverish them in order to get them to have kids. Perhaps we should present it as a dichotomy like this, either have kids or have the option of not having kids and being poor, this is in fact the dichotomy the Universe is giving us and regardless of whether we impose it, it will occur, if we do not impose it, it just might invite other catastrophic consequences to come along for the ride. So if we imposed this dichotomy we would merely be doing something akin to a Carbon Tax, trying to offset the negative effects of CO2 before it leads to more catastrophic results, yes this all sounds wonderfully progressive, we are acting with the future in mind!

I think there are a few reasons why people say having kids is too expensive, which are; that their life is based on hedonistic pleasure, that they no longer feel any allegiance to any collective or culture greater than themselves, that they no longer have any belief in the fundamental goodness of human life and so there is no positive moral good in bringing it into the world. I think this can be seen in the attitudes of people in the West today, amongst the midwits, who pride themselves on not having kids because they are so very cosmopolitan and with such a conscience, they selflessly deny themselves for the greater good of mankind, to prevent overpopulation. Of course, in reality, this is just a convenient excuse to indulge in the hedonistic lifestyle they were going to pursue regardless. They pursue this hedonistic lifestyle because, hey why not?! We are all nihilists anyway right?

I do not think that a lack of allegiance to a culture or greater social organism explains the phenomenon observed in places like Japan or China however, I think that has much more to do with nihilism. That is they no longer believe it is good to bring people into this world.

Interesting, before we continue further with this line of reasoning, let us investigate the other proffered causes.

Reasons People Don’t: “Having Kids is bad for the Environment”

This goes along with the arguments regarding overpopulation, if people have more kids that means more consumption and therefore more environmental destruction. This reasoning is faulty because it assumes that consumption must continue as it exists today and because of an erroneous conception of the problem of climate change and how to address it. In the mind of a modern progressive, the way to address climate change is through batteries and solar panels, which produce lots of toxic waste, Lithium Ion batteries needing to be replaced every 1,500 to 2,000 cycles and Solar Panels every 25 years, with incomplete recyclability for both. Of course, this is true, but the answer is simple, nuclear. With nuclear energy electricity can be cheap and have no environmental impact.

Then we need simply to address the issue on the materials front. Technology has already begun to stagnate, as it does and as the difference in labour costs around the world begin to equalise, it will become optimal to build quality items that we repair and maintain. This will dramatically reduce waste. On other fronts we can move toward using glass, metal and other ionic compounds which can be melted and recycled, while this will increase the price of goods it is clear that we cannot continue on the current path with plastics, no matter what future we imagine.

These are some of the reasons why the claim that population causes environmental damage is erroneous, it neglects the other factor which is,

environmental damage = (environmental damage per capita) * (number of people)

we can reduce the term, environmental damage per capita, by 10 fold easily, with the exception of damage from agriculture.

More importantly, yet always neglected, is the counterfactual, namely, how will the (environmental damage per capita) change if we have rapid depopulation. As kermit the frog loves to remind us, it is the rich countries that care about the environment. People in poor countries are willing to sacrifice the environment if it means being able to put a decent roof over their head. If rich countries become poor, you just watch, they will be happy to start cutting corners too. This is especially true of the Western Nations whose young people demand a climate controlled house all year round. I can tell you my house has not dropped below 18 degrees Celsius, (that’s 64.4 degrees Farenheit for the Americans), all winter.

Imagine, while their population declines, while their economy enters multiple decades of depression, when their opportunities dry up, when in real terms they earn half as much as their grandparents did, that they have to stomach more price inflation for regular everyday goods because the environment cannot handle anymore plastic waste… How about when businesses are squeezed by a contracting economy and they need to find places to cut costs, not for profit, but just to stay afloat, you think they are not going to cut corners on environmental regulations?

In less stable nations the outcomes are likely to be even worse, government, not being able to fund the services necessary for the responsible disposal of waste will just dump it in giant piles of trash, where it will blow out into the surrounding ecosystem. I mean what do you expect them to do? If the choice of the government is between spending the money on maintaining essential infrastructure, so that the population has access to clean water and electricity or on paying their police officers, then there is no choice, if they do not do these things the society will collapse into a general anarchy, in which case things might wind up even worse, if you believe Africa to be war torn now, the future is incomparable. The whole of Africa will look like Somalia but worse. A continent of warlords, who maintain their rule by awful atrocities, it will be pre-colonial but with many orders of magnitude more destructive capacity available.

Developing or partially developed states, that have poorly designed reactors, that do not automatically burn out safely when disconnected from the power grid are at risk of a full scale fallout, that will make Chernobyl look like child’s play. In fact, as some of these partially developed states, decline in population and become unable to maintain a competent professional workforce, and as their quality and quantity of education declines, their bureaucracies will become more incompetent and they will be far more likely to replicate a Chernobyl incident as a consequence.

Therefore, in fact, the rapid depopulation of the developed nations and consequently the drying up of foreign capital and evaporation of expat expertise, will lead to worse environmental outcomes in the industrialised world but likely catastrophic outcomes in the developing, or should we perhaps say, presently developing, soon to be pre-feudal world. Thus, by decreasing the (number of people) factor in our equation substantially in a short period of time we will increase the (environmental damage per capita) factor well beyond any benefit gained, is quite likely that halving the (number of people) term in a short period of time could quite reasonably result in a 10x increase in the (environmental damage per capita) term, resulting in a 5x increase in environmental damage.

There might be some degree of merit to the above statement, if we were actually at risk of overpopulation, of course because we are not, there is not. If we had a slowly increasing population, still, much more could be done by making the practice of civilisation more sustainable in general than by reducing the population slowly. The whole notion of overpopulation we therefore conclude is much more of a midwit concern as regards the environment than a legitimate one.

Reasons People Don’t: “Having Kids will Impact My Lifestyle”

This one I think is a legitimate contributor and the response to such people should be cool, no pension or state sponsored welfare programs for you once you stop paying taxes then, since you did not provide society with what is necessary to provide such services in your retirement. If there are lots of old people with lots of pieces of paper or big numbers in their back accounts that does not help anything get done in the real world, no people — nothing to buy! Including age care workers. No amount of money creates humans to look after you.

From Sexual Liberation to Sexual Abnegation

The phenomenon of less sexual activity in Gen-Z and younger Millenials has been noted by numerous studies in recent years, suggesting that young men in particular are less sexually active. This survey suggests that 31% of men aged 18-24 reported no sexual inactivity in the last 12 months in 2018, this is compared to just 19% in 2000. Young women aged 18-24 have also seen an increase though to a lesser extent going from 15% to 19%. Declines were also seen in those aged 25-34, among Men 7% to 14% and women 7% to 12%, over the same period 2000 to 2018.

There are many variables at play here, I think one could note a number of things. The first and most prominent thing to note would be the decrease in long-term relationships and marriage, while there is more casual sex, overall there is less sex. There is the phenomenon of an erosion of the social taboo of dating/ sleeping with people in different age brackets and so no doubt we see that younger women are sleeping with higher status males from other age groups as well as a smaller number of high-status men from the same age group. The study also indicates this is the case, with males who earn less being less likely to have had sexual activity in the last 12 months and the converse being less true. We are forced into one of these conclusions given the 12% disparity for the 18-24 age bracket unless we conclude that young men do not want sex, which seems the least plausible.

I think the decline in sex broadly speaking is not the most important factor here, although I do think that contraception is a large factor and we’ll come to that eventually. Undoubtedly there is a strong influence from pornography here, especially on young men, of course, this conclusion is also taboo even though it is obviously true to an extent. Despite some self-awareness in this regard, young men are frequently mocked by mainstream culture for generating challenges like No Fap November to try and reign in their degeneracy.

Educated Women, Equal Opportunities and Declines in Marriage and Long-Term Relationship

Another suggested answer which has some weight behind it is the decline in long-term relationships, this has a lot to do with the ideology of young people which has been engineered to be positively anti-marriage and to see marriage as a retrograde Patriarchal institution, with the Patriarchy, of course, having all the possible negative connotations. It also has to do with it going from being seen as the absolute pinnacle of the laity’s spiritual journey to lacking any positive valence from the point of view of an atheist. Remedying this spiritually deadened state seems rather difficult and inducing such a spirituality by force is an unlikely prospect.

The other issue which has been suggested to contribute here is the education of women and their ability to access equal opportunities in the workplace. In fact, over the last 60 years, the workplace has really turned into an environment much more suited to women than men, as has the educational system. So that now in the West almost 2/3 of University graduates are women and our system engenders the idea that degrees convey some kind of mystical prestige almost like a kind of caste system.

This, combined with the strong female inclination to not date down social hierarchies, results in a large number of women in the middle of the distribution not being satisfied with the men available, so they engage in casual relationships with higher status men until around the age of 35, then often they panic and try to find a relationship in time to have children but many do not succeed in time and others only in time to have one child.

Evidence from dating apps corroborates the claim of evolutionary psychologists that women are more cautious when it comes to mate selection due to differential investment in offspring, a study from the University of London revealed that on tinder men liked nearly 60% of profiles compared to women only liking 10%. This validates the notion that women are much more selective than men. Of course, this is not to claim men are generous saints, obviously, they are more likely to chase casual sex, thus they will like profiles of women with whom they would not have a long-term relationship but would be willing to engage in casual sex. Nevertheless, this is unlikely to account for such a disparity and based on other evidence we know men basically do not care about the social status of women, or at least to a far lesser degree, there is certainly a mimetic effect here and that is what drives the social status effect but the core of the issue for men is physical attractiveness.

Say what you will about traditional Christianity being Patriarchal but the fact is that it was far more egalitarian in that sense, with the Church even preventing Kings and Emperors from having multiple wives, or even divorcing, and providing an air of moral indignity toward those who had concubines. In fact, the Church was so firm on this position Henry VIII had to murder a cardinal and start the Anglican Church to get a divorce. This was a good deal for women and children too because they would get one man to themselves. Did they have a choice, no, since the social norm was monogamy but hey it works! If women know the only way they are going to get a man is through marriage they will drop the fantasies of finding someone higher in the social hierarchy because all the high-status males will be locked in by the age of 30.

The other possibility of course is forcing women into subordinate status positions by restricting their freedom in the workplace, putting a steel ceiling in place that is. One of these options has to be chosen because we cannot keep playing around with the future of civilisation.

The reduction in Long-Term relationships is undeniably a major factor in the reduction in the quantity of sex young people are having and also the society’s lower birth rate. People are going to avoid having kids if they do not think they are going to be in a stable long-term relationship, wisely. If a couple enters a long-term relationship/ marriage early, they can get to the nest-building business right away, start a mortgage and get somewhere ready for children, increasing the probability that when the desire for children comes they will feel secure acting upon it.

In terms of resolving this issue, the sex negativity movement we are seeing is somewhat promising, however, what we really need is to encourage young people to enter into long-term relationships, especially young women, since after 35 infertility and pregnancy complications multiply explosively. If we as a society cannot figure out a way to do this our civilisation will collapse and feminism will collapse along with it, so if you care about what is good for women not just for you and your friends right now it is time to come to a compromise, a significant compromise, one that yes you will have to give up freedom over but the mythology that you deserve freedom, that it falls from the sky is a myth. Freedom always comes after a society establishes, order, peace and general prosperity, if a compromise for the survival of civilisation itself is not made there will not be any freedom left to compromise on, if civilisation survives at all it will be the most ruthless societies, which will be highly unequal Patriarchies where the dominant men have dozens of female concubines, ask yourself is this the future you want?

Biological Infertility

The noted decrease in testosterone levels may make the previous statement, regarding young men having a decreased sex drive, somewhat more plausible. I will not claim expertise in the etiologies of this decline but it does seem there are some reasonable possibilities worth discussing. Alongside it, there has also been the observation of declines in sperm count, musculoskeletal strength and a rise in testicular cancer. This last one especially makes one think that perhaps this is not purely the result of obesity but some chemical phenomena. Indeed controlling for obesity still leaves a substantial age-matched decline in testosterone. Indeed some have suggested pesticides are playing a role and there is now apparently some evidence that microplastics may as well. Unfortunately, this question remains without a definitive answer, because the last thing the overarching progressive ideology wants is to say we need to make men masculine again, it just does not have a good ring to it.

One thing is for sure we need to do something urgently. Getting young men to do more exercise and lower their weight, in fact, a good idea for both sexes, since obesity is certainly a prime contributing factor to biological infertility.

Contraception

Moving onto another topic where one again is meant to adhere to the prevailing Orthodoxy lest they be socially ostracised, I do believe contraception plays a large role in this phenomenon. If contraception did not exist people would respect sex more and would not engage in it so flippantly outside of committed long-term relationships and marriages. Contraceptives have decoupled sex from its consequences and in turn the seriousness it deserves to possess, it is not a trifling thing to be engaged in willy nilly, nor is it a thing to be commodified. Contraceptives have turned an act which is meant to be one of the greatest intimacy, to bond and unite a pair of people in preparation for child rearing into another meaningless hedonistic pursuit, reduced to a mere crass rubbing of the genitals to release dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin in each other’s brains. This is the view one unironically accepts in the frame of materialism.

This only further serves the acidic nihilism of modern progressive morality, convincing one further that there is nothing sacred or meaningful in life. These statements go for condoms, the pill and those other forms of contraception but abortion we ought to consider with special ire. With an arbitrary capriciousness, it declares certain things to be human and other things not, all on a mere spectrum of meat machinery of varying sophistication, by creating a vague ever-changing stance with respect to human life it undermines the very notion of murder and the sacredness of life. Conception and the sexual act reduced from the incarnation of a soul into the world, to a merely mechanical process, like the other forms of contraception do but further and more heinously with a mechanical outcome.

The conceived child can be discarded with impunity like an accidental byproduct of a chemical reaction. All this horror is covered over by a thin veneer of philosophical nonsense about personhood, upon which subject there is a controversy, akin in magnitude to the undecidability of the nature of God’s omniscience coexisting in a world of free will but far less satisfying and far more apalling in its contradictions.

Recently, in the wake of the Dobbs decision, comedians have got to joking about abortion, several male comedians have made the joke, that “if you get to murder the child, then surely I have the right to financially abandon the child”. This is troubling because I think they are actually serious about it. It will have two obvious outcomes, far fewer men will wear condoms, which will cause women to be forced, at even higher rates than today, onto hormonal birth control, resulting in consequences for women’s health and legally sanctioning fatherlessness in society, while society’s current stance when it comes to abortion is asymmetric and unfair to men, these are the consequences of the sexual act, the answer is not to remove responsibility from both parents, it is to place responsibility back onto both parents. In the meantime, it is preferable to have an unequal sharing of responsibility that works against the man, this is in so many ways the burden of being a man, authority is proportional to responsibility.

Men that advocate for this are not helping anyone, being equal is not the goal in lack of responsibility is not the goal, the goal is to be more responsible and thus justify the man’s authority in society because women will always erode that responsibility which is necessary for true delegation.

Modern Man’s Weakness

A lot of this can of course be attributed to the weakness and lack of self-discipline in men. I am writing this section because I know most of my audience is male. The reality is the world is against you, but in the wake of feminism, men have embraced it. You need, like the meme reels suggest, to reject modernity. Embrace masculinity and the masculine virtues, embrace fortitude, and honesty do not put up with bullshit from people put reasonable boundaries in place, tell people when they have crossed them and be willing to put distance in the relationship until they recognise their error sincerely. This goes doubly for women, especially the ones you really like.

Be honest, especially with yourself, especially when it’s hard, accept the weight of the world, and take on the mindset of the Stoic, that everything that is within your power to affect is your responsibility and that you could have done differently is your fault, that dwelling on the emotions caused by it is useless, learn from it, do your best not to repeat the mistake, remembering in this circumstance, particularly Master Yoda’s wise words, “Try not! Do, or do not! There is no Try!”.

Once you are honest with yourself, you can withstand anything. You will be able to stick to your guns even when society tells you that you are wrong and you be able to do so without falling into that great sin of Pride, countering it with a charity to others and to yourself, of said charity, true honesty and clarity of perception is the consequence.

The goal of man is to place virtue above all else. You are required in your life to do things that are hard and challenge you, doing so will not allow you to let yourself be deceived, you can either do x or you cannot do x. Create goals that will challenge you, push yourself harder at the gym, set time aside to read books that have something to say and that challenge you and do not devalue the mastery of the little things, common day things, that are so often the hardest hurdles, where your constitution is out of line with your goals try your damndest to amend it, use techniques like meditation or a stoic practice that evaporate the barriers of mental energy required to fix bad habits, they work and they will help you.

If you feel like you have a little issue, ask yourself if it is a metabolic issue, drink more water, a couple of litres if you need, and go for a walk, and if you still find yourself unable to do anything, then try not eating until the end of the day.

When in search of virtue look for examples you wish to replicate, look to tales long left untold, uncover the mysteries of the gospels, study the lives of great men and follow the better angels of their nature. Surround yourself with people who you know have overcome trials in the past and shown qualities you perceive to be virtuous given those trials and even better find yourself a true community in these end days, as hard as it can be, do not be afraid to embrace the past, do not be afraid to embrace the religious.

All rests upon this, only virtuous men, in the end, can put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

P.S. I am writing this at a time when a large PUA wave has hit popular culture in the form of the Tate brothers, the Tate brothers say many things that are valuable, perhaps invaluable, but they are not role models. The way they live is a form that cannot sustain a society, remember this, there is a form of virtue that is beyond what they possess which is to be able to engage in the promiscuous behaviour they do but to choose to not engage in it. Though there are far worse role models and at this stage far be it for me to claim you ought to take advice from myself over them but times do change friends.

Addressing The Issue

I have discussed a number of reasons given by others about the causes of the fertility crisis and I have responded to them and said what truth I think there is with respect to each of them. In the following post, I will elaborate on my views.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cauchy.substack.com