I was agitated enough by your link to Rayne Fisher-Mog or whatever that I posted the following, which I'll repop here for pure amusement:
"I apologize for the latergram response to this post; I'm picking it up via Katherine Dee.
Two minor points:
"Sometimes your kid is in the car when you drive past an ICE abduction and you have to pull over or another person could be taken, gone."
No, you don't *have* to pull over, because your first and fundamental responsibility is to your child. This shouldn't have to be explained to anyone. Children, unlike illegals and ICE Nazis and performative performers, have no agency. They have no power. They are entirely at your whim. Would you have this same attitude towards someone who drove by a casino and just "had" to leave their child in the car? Or a junkie who just "had" to score and therefore took their kid into that situation? You might respond that these two situations are not morally equal to the "prevent a deportation" situation, but to do so is to miss the point. Parents must protect their children first, because no one else will. The only difference between Renee Good and Susan Smith, from the perspective of a parent, is that Renee got her warm and fuzzy feels from the Internet, not a boyfriend. Had Ashli Babbitt been cradling a child when she got headshot, I doubt you would have written about "Sometimes you're driving by a stolen election and you just HAVE to storm the Capitol".
Second point: Kat's point about the "real bullets" is correct and you're mistaken, because her frame is correct and yours is mistaken. Yes, in a conventional protest situation, rubber bullets and less-lethal methods are used by default. Your mistake is to see the Minneapolis situation as yet another protest kayfabe for bored white women, another pussy-hat march or Million Moms or Antifa-in-Charlottesville game for social credit points in the American system.
Renee Good was not the main character in the ICE Minneapolis situation. ICE was not there to be protested against. ICE was not there to deal with Renee Good. ICE was there to deport criminals and illegals. The choice of the Minneapolis "community" to protest it was Main Character Syndrome at its finest. This wasn't an opportunity for protest. It was a law enforcement activity. When you are busy enforcing the law against people who are provably dangerous, you use real bullets. Had ICE been there to offer Renee Good an opportunity for protest, they would have been obliged to do crowd control. They were not, and they were not."
I'm sympathetic to your first point, though your second less so -- how is it MCS? This is the same frame I use with people who are genuinely pro-life: you have to put yourself in the shoes of someone who literally believes that a baby is being murdered. With ICE, you have to put yourself in the shoes of somebody who literally believes a crime is being committed.
'With ICE, you have to put yourself in the shoes of somebody who literally believes a crime is being committed.'
I could not agree more -- but even so, at that point you're not "protesting", you are interfering with the cops.
To use the modern equivalent of Godwin's law: Lon Horiuchi shot Vicki Weaver in the head while Vicki was holding her infant because he was in the middle of a law enforcement operation, not a protest about gun rights or rural living.
Let's say that you believe in the inalienable right of Americans to smoke crack. Therefore, you are going to forcibly interfere with raids on crack houses and then attempt to "de-arrest" crack dealers. If you think that you'll be facing rubber bullets, because this is about YOU and YOUR PROTEST or YOUR ACTIONS, then you have MCS.
If I want to go down to the Capitol and protest a law, I can and should expect to be treated with some variety of kid gloves. If I want to stand between cops and criminals, even if I disagree with the characterization of the latter as such, I have to be adult enough to accept that my frame doesn't hold sway here.
There's probably a better way to express all of this, but...
You don't think they're raping children or participating in occult practices? Clearly you haven't read the Epstein, Clinton, Podesta files, there are plenty of smoking guns on those points. Unsubbed.
Breath of fresh air ty. I'm a gay millennial and have had similar thoughts comparing gay culture with the looksmaxxing discourse of my younger male straight gen Z friends. The way they talk about other men is so different from how older generations of men talk about each other. In some sense it seems good that these younger men can openly appreciate the beauty of other men without it feeling like a hit to their masculinity, but on the other hand I feel bad for those who are especially beholden by the discourse because its such a reductive way of thinking about beauty. Physical beauty is obviously important, but there is also something to be said for personality and integrity, and all other virtues that can transform how we perceive another person. I think most people can relate to the experience of first perceiving someone as not so attractive based on their physical appearance but then having the initial impression transform into attraction after getting to know their great personality. It seems like the younger generations have become cynical about that.
you were finally onto an interesting post with your observations about satanism and elites and then you bailed on it without establishing any foundation.
My first thought on the conspiracy was that I wasn’t committed to believing that the elites are demon worshippers, but I wouldn’t put it past them. But the more I think of it, it almost feels like people are using demons as a scapegoat to avoid confronting the evils humans can do on their own. Blaming the elites’ misdeeds on demonic possession/manipulation seems to take away a certain amount of moral responsibility for their choices that I’m not sure I’m okay with.
Still, I understand the appeal of demons as a concept. It doesn’t feel good to know what humans are capable of, so this externalization probably has some benefits at least from a mental health perspective.
Jeez guys, save up for a trip to Korea, don't do your own eye surgery, that's the worst thing I've ever read on the default blog and that is saying a lot
I’m a straight woman utterly confounded by the “PSL scale.” Justin Bieber is barely above normie? This has made me really interested in men’s perceptions of other men’s attractiveness
“heterosexual men reproducing the non-reproductive logic of a culture that was never oriented toward reproduction”
Most heterosexual activity today is not oriented towards reproduction. I don’t see this changing for decades:
The slow divorce of sex from reproduction (which as you point out includes the sexual revolution) stems in my view from a fertility cult that was foreign and inappropriate for the United States in the first place.
Central to every religion is a fertility cult. The Protestant religion, with its deeply-seated monogamy, was developed in Northern Europe, in a climate very different from that of most of North America. Most minority religions in the United States, such as Catholicism, Judaism, etc. are also similarly monogamous.
The inability of such a system to provide a satisfying personal and family life for the majority of participants inevitably leads to secularization and a decline in public morals. Neither the religious right, with its adherence to a system inappropriate for local conditions, nor secularists, who have no good system to replace the fertility cult whose limitations they point out, have the ability to form a stable social compact. The result will inevitably be further social decay and political violence.
Ultimately, after the dust settles (that is, several decades of either civil war, foreign invasion, or both), only a theocratic government that includes polygamy as part of its fertility cult can create a stable long-term social compact. The Constitution will be preserved; but religious life will be totalitarian in nature.
It may seem far-fetched. However, humans learn quickly in traumatic and painful circumstances. The deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti still shock the body politic; soon, they will seem normal, and then, the episode will be seen as a peaceful time before the troubles really began.
After enough cities burn (burn like Dresden or Tokyo, not like the LA riots), more Americans will be sufficiently disillusioned with their cherished political views to embrace what seem like unthinkable alternatives today.
"But I don’t think straight men are borrowing from gay men. I think gay culture got there first because it was already operating on different rules from the mostly reproductively-oriented heterosexual world. Centuries underground, no default script for family formation, no reproductive telos baked into the relationship structure, no real institutional scaffolding until very recently. Gay men — particularly gay men in the United States — were the first men who had to operate as pure individuals on the sexual market, evaluated by other men, optimizing for other men’s standards. The body dysmorphia, the chemical escalation, the frictionless ranking systems: these are what happen when male sexuality encounters itself with no mediating structure."
Bingo! And well stated, thorough, concise, accurate.
There was a Swedish documentary circa 2011, Hjernevask (Brainwash) which was pretty eye opening about everything sex-stereotype oriented. He took the long road to say a lot of the same things. That was where I learned that like, the avg body count for straight men is like 20, straight women 10-15 or something... and gay dudes, in the 100s, and lesbians, in the SINGLE digits. Because outside of the change in reproductive possibilities, all the same dynamics apply (or don't apply) landing on typical in-grown gendered instincts for mating going awry, and reaching odd Schelling points.
"I’m a strong believer that PUA culture is downstream of the Sexual Revolution"
Absolutely. I was a total simp playing the boomer book of dating in my 90s youth: hopeless romantic, goody two shoes, straight and narrow, prove to women I'm safe and a gentleman, and that's what every woman wants! *ahem* NOT, as they used to say. And then I fell into a PUA rabbit hole and after a couple years of trying it out and reading theory, I realized, nope, this whole thing is just the natural reaction to realizing that ideological feminism changed the dating landscape, and these guys are reverse engineering and optimizing for what actually works in the world the Progressives created. Plain and simple Machiavellianism.
“the balls to finally just call someone a big fat retard, no throat-clearing required.”
Millennials were the first generation of Americans to live their entire lives in a society where women were explicitly favored over men. Throughout history, these “opposite day” social conditions are typical of a society about to undergo dynastic change, being either overthrown by internal proletariat (revolution) or external proletariat (foreign invasion), or some combination of both.
Calling someone a “gay Mexican manlet neo-Nazi” takes no courage whatever since it’s just parroting the party line - I.e. it serves the interest of discourse policers, who are usually white females. Calling someone a “fat gay stupid nigger” is far more offensive even though it’s linguistically similar.
If you don’t believe me, try slinging either set of insults on, say, TikTok, and see which gets you strikes on your account. I even got a strike over there for this very tame observation (At this rate I will probably stop using the English language over there in a few years):
“The woman in the video isn’t even human-sized. That kind of obesity shouldn’t be normalized.”
Ridiculous! America needs overlords who can’t speak English, like England after 1066. Civil liberty goes hand in hand with half-breed aristocrats who will simply rape and kill your entire town if you annoy them (which is easy since, you know, they don’t speak English). Not like ICE in Minneapolis; more like leveling the town and turning the survivors into serfs who till your new estate (In Norman England this was called “the harrying of the North” and “the burning of Southwark”). I digress…
I have one other comment about looksmaxxing which I will post momentarily…
“32 people who reportedly died in ICE custody in 2025”
The number is undoubtedly higher. The Phoenix Program of South Vietnam and the White Terror of so many Cold War satellites has finally come home to roost.
“they understand political conflict as spectacle, a movie they can star in without consequences.”
This is the default attitude across most Americans, including those operating America’s foreign policy.
“South Asian men: skin bleaching, colored contacts,”
I don’t think this is accurate. Most South Asians are far too dark for this to have any effect. From what I’ve read, some Indian men LARP as blax to appear more attractive. Also helped with college admissions. Win-win.
I think that's partially right -- but it's more of an ingrained thing than Rosenfield's piece suggests. Like, it's in the fabric of our nation kind of ingrained. I think Good had an awareness of what protest actually was. IDK if my distinction makes sense. Agree it's higher, btw. I've seen horrific shit with my own eyes.
I didn’t read the Rosenfield piece and have been trying to avoid paying too much attention to Minneapolis since it’s truly insignificant compared to what lies ahead. I believe you, though.
I was agitated enough by your link to Rayne Fisher-Mog or whatever that I posted the following, which I'll repop here for pure amusement:
"I apologize for the latergram response to this post; I'm picking it up via Katherine Dee.
Two minor points:
"Sometimes your kid is in the car when you drive past an ICE abduction and you have to pull over or another person could be taken, gone."
No, you don't *have* to pull over, because your first and fundamental responsibility is to your child. This shouldn't have to be explained to anyone. Children, unlike illegals and ICE Nazis and performative performers, have no agency. They have no power. They are entirely at your whim. Would you have this same attitude towards someone who drove by a casino and just "had" to leave their child in the car? Or a junkie who just "had" to score and therefore took their kid into that situation? You might respond that these two situations are not morally equal to the "prevent a deportation" situation, but to do so is to miss the point. Parents must protect their children first, because no one else will. The only difference between Renee Good and Susan Smith, from the perspective of a parent, is that Renee got her warm and fuzzy feels from the Internet, not a boyfriend. Had Ashli Babbitt been cradling a child when she got headshot, I doubt you would have written about "Sometimes you're driving by a stolen election and you just HAVE to storm the Capitol".
Second point: Kat's point about the "real bullets" is correct and you're mistaken, because her frame is correct and yours is mistaken. Yes, in a conventional protest situation, rubber bullets and less-lethal methods are used by default. Your mistake is to see the Minneapolis situation as yet another protest kayfabe for bored white women, another pussy-hat march or Million Moms or Antifa-in-Charlottesville game for social credit points in the American system.
Renee Good was not the main character in the ICE Minneapolis situation. ICE was not there to be protested against. ICE was not there to deal with Renee Good. ICE was there to deport criminals and illegals. The choice of the Minneapolis "community" to protest it was Main Character Syndrome at its finest. This wasn't an opportunity for protest. It was a law enforcement activity. When you are busy enforcing the law against people who are provably dangerous, you use real bullets. Had ICE been there to offer Renee Good an opportunity for protest, they would have been obliged to do crowd control. They were not, and they were not."
I'm sympathetic to your first point, though your second less so -- how is it MCS? This is the same frame I use with people who are genuinely pro-life: you have to put yourself in the shoes of someone who literally believes that a baby is being murdered. With ICE, you have to put yourself in the shoes of somebody who literally believes a crime is being committed.
'With ICE, you have to put yourself in the shoes of somebody who literally believes a crime is being committed.'
I could not agree more -- but even so, at that point you're not "protesting", you are interfering with the cops.
To use the modern equivalent of Godwin's law: Lon Horiuchi shot Vicki Weaver in the head while Vicki was holding her infant because he was in the middle of a law enforcement operation, not a protest about gun rights or rural living.
Let's say that you believe in the inalienable right of Americans to smoke crack. Therefore, you are going to forcibly interfere with raids on crack houses and then attempt to "de-arrest" crack dealers. If you think that you'll be facing rubber bullets, because this is about YOU and YOUR PROTEST or YOUR ACTIONS, then you have MCS.
If I want to go down to the Capitol and protest a law, I can and should expect to be treated with some variety of kid gloves. If I want to stand between cops and criminals, even if I disagree with the characterization of the latter as such, I have to be adult enough to accept that my frame doesn't hold sway here.
There's probably a better way to express all of this, but...
You don't think they're raping children or participating in occult practices? Clearly you haven't read the Epstein, Clinton, Podesta files, there are plenty of smoking guns on those points. Unsubbed.
I’m not much of an Epstein apologist: not much ? just say not a apologist.
I’m not an apologist at all
good girl.
This is such a baller essay! So many cool insights. ❤️
I think we should just all be Marxists/socialists. “Dark Woke” is just a spicier brand of liberal.
Thinking of Martina while I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martina_Big
Breath of fresh air ty. I'm a gay millennial and have had similar thoughts comparing gay culture with the looksmaxxing discourse of my younger male straight gen Z friends. The way they talk about other men is so different from how older generations of men talk about each other. In some sense it seems good that these younger men can openly appreciate the beauty of other men without it feeling like a hit to their masculinity, but on the other hand I feel bad for those who are especially beholden by the discourse because its such a reductive way of thinking about beauty. Physical beauty is obviously important, but there is also something to be said for personality and integrity, and all other virtues that can transform how we perceive another person. I think most people can relate to the experience of first perceiving someone as not so attractive based on their physical appearance but then having the initial impression transform into attraction after getting to know their great personality. It seems like the younger generations have become cynical about that.
These guys want to live in the Omegaverse.
you were finally onto an interesting post with your observations about satanism and elites and then you bailed on it without establishing any foundation.
It’s the format, these are basically lists of shower thoughts then I turn the ones that work into articles
If you do turn it into an article bear in mind that you are heading south. The connections are much closer than you seem to think.
It’s definitely not Theistic Satanism, even if he had an interest in sex magick and thelema.
Be careful of the definition game
I don’t think it’s a game. I think there’s a meaningful difference here
My first thought on the conspiracy was that I wasn’t committed to believing that the elites are demon worshippers, but I wouldn’t put it past them. But the more I think of it, it almost feels like people are using demons as a scapegoat to avoid confronting the evils humans can do on their own. Blaming the elites’ misdeeds on demonic possession/manipulation seems to take away a certain amount of moral responsibility for their choices that I’m not sure I’m okay with.
Still, I understand the appeal of demons as a concept. It doesn’t feel good to know what humans are capable of, so this externalization probably has some benefits at least from a mental health perspective.
Jeez guys, save up for a trip to Korea, don't do your own eye surgery, that's the worst thing I've ever read on the default blog and that is saying a lot
I’m a straight woman utterly confounded by the “PSL scale.” Justin Bieber is barely above normie? This has made me really interested in men’s perceptions of other men’s attractiveness
“heterosexual men reproducing the non-reproductive logic of a culture that was never oriented toward reproduction”
Most heterosexual activity today is not oriented towards reproduction. I don’t see this changing for decades:
The slow divorce of sex from reproduction (which as you point out includes the sexual revolution) stems in my view from a fertility cult that was foreign and inappropriate for the United States in the first place.
Central to every religion is a fertility cult. The Protestant religion, with its deeply-seated monogamy, was developed in Northern Europe, in a climate very different from that of most of North America. Most minority religions in the United States, such as Catholicism, Judaism, etc. are also similarly monogamous.
The inability of such a system to provide a satisfying personal and family life for the majority of participants inevitably leads to secularization and a decline in public morals. Neither the religious right, with its adherence to a system inappropriate for local conditions, nor secularists, who have no good system to replace the fertility cult whose limitations they point out, have the ability to form a stable social compact. The result will inevitably be further social decay and political violence.
Ultimately, after the dust settles (that is, several decades of either civil war, foreign invasion, or both), only a theocratic government that includes polygamy as part of its fertility cult can create a stable long-term social compact. The Constitution will be preserved; but religious life will be totalitarian in nature.
It may seem far-fetched. However, humans learn quickly in traumatic and painful circumstances. The deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti still shock the body politic; soon, they will seem normal, and then, the episode will be seen as a peaceful time before the troubles really began.
After enough cities burn (burn like Dresden or Tokyo, not like the LA riots), more Americans will be sufficiently disillusioned with their cherished political views to embrace what seem like unthinkable alternatives today.
Ok I’m done commenting on the article
"But I don’t think straight men are borrowing from gay men. I think gay culture got there first because it was already operating on different rules from the mostly reproductively-oriented heterosexual world. Centuries underground, no default script for family formation, no reproductive telos baked into the relationship structure, no real institutional scaffolding until very recently. Gay men — particularly gay men in the United States — were the first men who had to operate as pure individuals on the sexual market, evaluated by other men, optimizing for other men’s standards. The body dysmorphia, the chemical escalation, the frictionless ranking systems: these are what happen when male sexuality encounters itself with no mediating structure."
Bingo! And well stated, thorough, concise, accurate.
There was a Swedish documentary circa 2011, Hjernevask (Brainwash) which was pretty eye opening about everything sex-stereotype oriented. He took the long road to say a lot of the same things. That was where I learned that like, the avg body count for straight men is like 20, straight women 10-15 or something... and gay dudes, in the 100s, and lesbians, in the SINGLE digits. Because outside of the change in reproductive possibilities, all the same dynamics apply (or don't apply) landing on typical in-grown gendered instincts for mating going awry, and reaching odd Schelling points.
"I’m a strong believer that PUA culture is downstream of the Sexual Revolution"
Absolutely. I was a total simp playing the boomer book of dating in my 90s youth: hopeless romantic, goody two shoes, straight and narrow, prove to women I'm safe and a gentleman, and that's what every woman wants! *ahem* NOT, as they used to say. And then I fell into a PUA rabbit hole and after a couple years of trying it out and reading theory, I realized, nope, this whole thing is just the natural reaction to realizing that ideological feminism changed the dating landscape, and these guys are reverse engineering and optimizing for what actually works in the world the Progressives created. Plain and simple Machiavellianism.
“the balls to finally just call someone a big fat retard, no throat-clearing required.”
Millennials were the first generation of Americans to live their entire lives in a society where women were explicitly favored over men. Throughout history, these “opposite day” social conditions are typical of a society about to undergo dynastic change, being either overthrown by internal proletariat (revolution) or external proletariat (foreign invasion), or some combination of both.
Calling someone a “gay Mexican manlet neo-Nazi” takes no courage whatever since it’s just parroting the party line - I.e. it serves the interest of discourse policers, who are usually white females. Calling someone a “fat gay stupid nigger” is far more offensive even though it’s linguistically similar.
If you don’t believe me, try slinging either set of insults on, say, TikTok, and see which gets you strikes on your account. I even got a strike over there for this very tame observation (At this rate I will probably stop using the English language over there in a few years):
“The woman in the video isn’t even human-sized. That kind of obesity shouldn’t be normalized.”
Ridiculous! America needs overlords who can’t speak English, like England after 1066. Civil liberty goes hand in hand with half-breed aristocrats who will simply rape and kill your entire town if you annoy them (which is easy since, you know, they don’t speak English). Not like ICE in Minneapolis; more like leveling the town and turning the survivors into serfs who till your new estate (In Norman England this was called “the harrying of the North” and “the burning of Southwark”). I digress…
I have one other comment about looksmaxxing which I will post momentarily…
“32 people who reportedly died in ICE custody in 2025”
The number is undoubtedly higher. The Phoenix Program of South Vietnam and the White Terror of so many Cold War satellites has finally come home to roost.
“they understand political conflict as spectacle, a movie they can star in without consequences.”
This is the default attitude across most Americans, including those operating America’s foreign policy.
“South Asian men: skin bleaching, colored contacts,”
I don’t think this is accurate. Most South Asians are far too dark for this to have any effect. From what I’ve read, some Indian men LARP as blax to appear more attractive. Also helped with college admissions. Win-win.
I think that's partially right -- but it's more of an ingrained thing than Rosenfield's piece suggests. Like, it's in the fabric of our nation kind of ingrained. I think Good had an awareness of what protest actually was. IDK if my distinction makes sense. Agree it's higher, btw. I've seen horrific shit with my own eyes.
I didn’t read the Rosenfield piece and have been trying to avoid paying too much attention to Minneapolis since it’s truly insignificant compared to what lies ahead. I believe you, though.
Argh I’m not done writing my comment I’ll post the rest in a new comment. I hit “send” too quickly and then kept re-editing
Ok, waiting with baited breath..
> bated
Mnemonic: breath abates when you hold it. Baited breath means you ate sushi
See? That, you’ll remember
I was baited... into responding!!!
😂