Article also available on my website.

As usual, the YouTubers have got it all figured out, folks. A man who talks about secret societies and gets millions of views is a fraud, and whatever he said needs to be perceived with caution.

I myself have a tendency to accuse people of this a lot of the time... But I would say what matters more than views these days is what tribe they're a part of. What communities have the most influence and meaning to people? In fact, what puzzles me about why people have a problem with Jiang, is how quickly they are willing to attack his character before his actual ideas. A lot of people these days have an ego-based urge to just feel like they're "on top" of all the info, and are afraid of looking like suckers who fell for a scam artist of some kind.

I think a lot of the conspiracy theorists online these days seem to care more about feeling like they're in some kind of "the know" instead of wanting to satisfy their urge to learn and make sense of things. They say things like "it all just leads back to aliens and we can't do anything about it," or some over the top generalization like that. But I think if we are humans of this world, it's our responsibility to try and understand and discuss the real politics of these group as well.

Like Jiang, I have my own opinions of certain groups that I believe rule other groups. He seems to believe particularly in how followers of Jacob Frank are the true group that is moving behind the scenes. I personally am unsure about this theory myself, and think people are paying too much attention to Israel. I believe the main group that has used these other groups to divert attention from itself have been the Jesuits. But either way, I think Jiang and myself are both more honest people just trying to learn. Not just people trying to always say "I know what's on top."

I personally learned about him around the end of last year like a lot of others, and spent some good hours listening to his lectures. One thing I liked about him in particular was that "facts" and the history were only part of what he liked discussing.

Part of what Professor Jiang tells his students is that the significance of holy scripture such as the Bible is at foremost poetry, explaining to people how literature and the arts are what shape the world, as they are what shape our languages and interpretation of everything.

He doesn’t just care about the feeling of having the facts. He cares about human purpose and spiritual evolution, describing our higher identities as the divine spark within us that our bodies don’t directly show. He’s said things that indicate that he’s not trying to be a part of one tribe in terms of religion or whatnot. He understands that we have purposes in this world that involve creating things that are valuable beyond the physical realm. As well as analyzing the meaning behind different books of the bible, or even studying more controversial books like the Gospel of Thomas.

I particularly liked his lecture on Modernism and Individualism, and how he explains the problems with those two ideologies. It particularly started in the early 1900s, and there appeared to be a mysterious ambush creeping up on every department of society, such as changing the ideal style of literature, the birth of "Psychologists," and a publicization of everything we consume.

He talks about how authors that scholars often praise, like James Joyce and Virginia Woolf, wrote books that were not designed to be enjoyed be a normal reader the way most classic poetry is. They're books that are considered to be "great" because they make so many complex references to other old books, and that the reader should be required to do vast amounts of research to actually understand them. This leads to this belief that we should be respecting these authors as if they're geniuses, when in reality they're not giving anything meaningful to the readers the way a lot of authors previously wrote.

James Joyce went to two Jesuit Universities, and would often praise other books, only to perhaps stab the true authors behind the back by trying to take away what was valuable about them. And the fact that he was friends with a similar author who's name was Virginia raises red flags as well, given that the state of Virginia is Jesuit territory, and that the Catholics use the Virgin Mary as a symbol of Lucifer.

Ironically, one of the authors he claimed to like, Fyodor Dostoevsky, tried to warn people about these Modernist ideas that were creeping up around the end of his life. At the end of his book, The Brothers Karamazov, he writes a lot about the hypocrisies of Psychologists and how they don't really know how to judge people. They can only look at things from one dense angle.

I’m not saying that all of that is bad, but Individualism and Modernism are in my view basically another work for Ayn Rand’s Objectivist ideology, and it’s the kind of ideology a lot of the technocrats and entrepreneurs that were so vocal a few years ago were all preaching so much.

I used to spend a lot of time in crypto groups, and as you might guess, that is basically the ideology of most people who are into crypto. And while there are some exceptions, I think the majority of people who are so into crypto like I used to be are very selfish and are simply people who have lost sight of their personal purpose. On top of this, they are often very susceptible to social media and as a result, they start expressing their exaggerate beliefs about AI... And then they profit off of AI investments, which reinforces their delusional beliefs, and then they spread that belief to more people, and the ugly cycle goes on and on.

Not to get too deeply into that topic, but while most people have probably realized by now that AI was mostly just hype, there are some people out there that just don’t get it. And I think it’s overall due to their inability to see outside of material value.

These people are particularly attached to that idea of Individualism. They always talk about things like the government as if it’s the enemy, and that they can fight fire with fire with more capitalism; get away from the system with Bitcoin or whatever coin, and run off into blue yonder.

The Constitution of the United States starts with We the People. This means that we are the government; we just aren’t taught that way. And I find that most of the time when you look at how “corrupt” groups act, they are not always breaking the law; they just understand and follow the rules. The idea that we are alone against this evil government is one of the Jesuit’s favorite plays.

A Jesuit once said that The Catcher in the Rye is a book that you should read over and over again, as that was a foundational book on that ideology of rebellion. Just like the premise of that cringey movie, V for Vendetta, where the main character is basically the direct celebration of the Jesuit, Guy Fawkes.

The concept we have of fighting against a government, or even other examples, like how when we pay off debts, we think we are paying off "our" debts. Usually it's actually that our Birth Certificates, which only mark a corporate entity with your same name. The human self is actually the Secured Party Creditor. I'm not claiming to be an expert on that subject, but there is a reoccurring theme that occurs in our delusions of our "Individual Citizen" selves. It's a form of self sacrifice. Like Cecil B. DeMille said,

It is impossible for us to break the law. We can only break ourselves against the law.”

But if these critics are willing to admit that conspiracy theorists can be controlled opposition as well, then they should make sure they are tested to those same standards.

There is a channel that’s very popular with a lot of the AI/Crypto people right now called Hidden AmuraKa. I’ve noticed that a lot of these obsessive “run away from government” privacy nuts such as Mental Outlaw, Eric Murphy, Denshi, or others, almost all participate in this sub-culture I find rather annoying, where it’s always the same style of meme-art in the thumbnails. A perfect little subculture for a controlled opposition figure to infiltrate by mimicking such behavior, as this Hidden AmuraKa guy does. It’s one of those little things that unconsciously gives the viewer a nod, like “We’re on your side!” “We’re not trying to please any corporation here!”

And sometimes I've seen good content from those channels. There was once a crypto related chat server I ended up in where once I unintentionally garnered support from the leader of the group because I posted a Luke Smith video that had that style of thumbnail. Yet interestingly enough, this same person once deleted a video I posted from Professor Jiang. And yes, the leader, as well as multiple in that group had expressed how they were supporters of the Hidden AmuraKa channel.

Ironically, coming from a YouTuber who studies numerology, his name goes exactly to 56 in Ordinal Reduction, which as I've explained in previous articles, is the number of the Jesuits. If you search Freemason, or the number 33, you'll get all sorts of videos of his contributing the the current trend of obsessing over Freemasonry... but Jesuits? 56? Oddly not. So yeah, I'm not making any exact statements, but to me this channel seems like a textbook example of controlled opposition.

This user is also openly a sponsor for Metalicus Blockchain, which is one of those crypto that has a cult-like following. It's usually associated with Proton/XPR. I'm not making any statement about how well or badly those could do as investments, but I do find it strange that a channel that tries to tell people about how to make sense of world events is telling people to invest in something at all; I think that is some weird fear-based propaganda by default... But try explaining that to one of these dipshits that believes cryptos are the only savior toward our tokenized economy. In other words, just their voluntary self sacrifice and enslavement to the cult of individualism.

The creator of these two crypto projects, Marshall Hayner, has spent the past few years being another Elon Musk bootlicker who likes to make heroic sounding esoteric tweets. Metallicus Blockchain ($METAL) also has a total supply of 666,666,666.

Another idea I've heard a lot of the people bring up these days is the idea that "Satan is actually good, because our matrix was created by bad guys." Okay, but it could also just be that Satanists are bad.

I think the reason some of these people have been suckered into following channels like this is use their personal greed for money to distract them from other interesting stories about hidden technology. While they keep deluding themselves about AGI being right on the corner, David Wilcock recently died after having spoken about missing scientists that spoke about Anti-Gravity technology. I don't know much about Anti-Gravity, but it could be.

But from what I’ve seen, these personal attacks on his character, such as how he went to Yale University, do not hold up as ideas of him being controlled opposition. People often mention Yale because of Skull and Bones, but they never bring up the Jesuit universities the presidents have been to like Georgetown and Fordham, both of which the Trump family members have attended.

But like I implied above, I think being distracted by these Jesuits like Hidden AmuraKa is just some people’s natural consequence due to their greed for money and inability to get off the internet. If you ask me, those behaviors demonstrate one of the most harmful cults within itself, while Professor Jiang’s ideals are based off of creativity and love. I know which one I’d rather be with.

Following my article on Charls Carroll, as well as my video discussing the signs of this, I’ve still been thinking about whether MDE are run by Jesuits with a certain agenda.

Cudos to Charls Carroll for… sort of responding to my article.

Instead of just looking at it in the sense of a certain group, I think I should just start off by saying that this kind of influence group, especially Sam Hyde, might have a literal authoritative power when he makes some of his public statements.

The main thing that gets me thinking this is his Dear Elon video.

I don’t think this video was just a message to support his community; it may have been an actual lawful order Elon received under one of his bosses, and this video was just one form of it.

It’s overall a stance on why we shouldn’t be looking at things like social progress and AI from a quantitative perspective all the time, and how that is linked to letting into too many immigrants who are messing up the quality of the average American.

It’s interesting how at one point, he literally describes Rome and Babylon as “great nations…” I was a little surprised about that, given that the Catholic Papacy is the continuation of the Roman system.

At the same time though, the Jesuits appear to have, at least on the surface, a more liberal stance on immigration, supporting it. The Superior General, Arturo Sosa, has publicly denounced Trump’s deportation policies over the past decade.

But I can’t exactly say these people are known for their honesty. It could be a part of their learning against learning methods.

On top of this, I think Sam Hyde made a particularly similar statement to the Jesuits’ thoughts on society and how “most people are just bad.”

And after making statements like that, he and his friends have said things like “I see why politicians do what they do,” justifying their actions by means of the bad things the citizens do, too.

In the official Jesuit magazine, America, there was an article where someone wrote when describing the way the United States was founded:

This is the same mentality that Sam Hyde says he believes in, and he says it with quite an understanding.

Let’s also dive into his famous antisemitism, as antisemitism has risen more and more throughout the years along with the rise of hatred for Isreal.

My general opinion on Israel is basically this: The Jews in the bible, and the Jewish identity in general should not be compared to Israel in the slightest. Unfortunately, it is likely that almost all actual “Jews” were wiped out.

There is an interesting rumor that Japan, particularity it’s predominant Yamato Clan are actually half Jewish, and were people over the 12 Tribes that escaped to there and cross-bred.

On top of this, some of the stereotypes, such as Jews owning the banks, just don’t add up. The main reason is probably because of the Rothschild family, but Rothschild actually sounds like the two German words (Rot + Schild) that make up the term Red Shield, which is a catholic term. The founder of the Rothchilds as well as his children were all members of the Knights of Malta; the first Catholic military order. They have always been catholic; just happen to be Israeli as well.

But the question should then be brought up: Who are the people truly behind the power coming into Israel? I would say in my opinion it is two possibilities: Either the Jacob Frankists who follow his philosophy of Pax Judaica, or it could be that that group is now one and the same with the Catholic church. Some theorize that the Frankists took over the Jesuits; and some vice versa.

The Frankists are one of the many satanic-like groups of people who appear to have Jewish routes, but are anything but Jewish if you understand their actual beliefs.

They originated a lot of the sexual abuse and corruption that came into things like the perverse studies of Sigmund Freud which our psychological industry is still mostly based around today. These people believe that it’s a good thing to sin, believing it to be a freedom from our world.

But I am wondering right now if perhaps we’re seeing a war between the two. The Roman Catholics behind the scenes may be satanic and awful too, however at least they are the ones that have always seemed to set the ground rules for our little matrix we live in. I believe that is why they founded out society off of Abrahamic religions.

So in other words, a lot of these esoteric secret societies I think are created as an attempt for people to free themselves from the matrix that the Catholics keep in place with their limiting beliefs.

Of course, in order for the them to fight them, they have infiltrated and controlled most of these secret societies all the time; such as Freemasonry or Illuminatti; some of which they probably controlled from the very beginning.

I think both sides are wrong; they are circle jerking each other. The truth is, we need freedom but we also need the corrupt governing power that the Jesuits run because people like Sam Hyde are right when they say most people are sinners. We will continue to have this circle jerk as long as humanity continues living.

Will that mean more surveillance and control in the future? It could be, but frankly I don’t think that’s gonna be all bad. There are still a lot of messed up people out there, and they have to manage them somehow.

What if the real reason behind Sam’s antisemitism is to serve the Jesuits’ intention to fight against Pax Judaica? He’s just the member of one bad group, but a bad group fighting another bad one. And if calling them Jews is what they have to do in order to give these Frankists a hard time, maybe that’s what they believe in.

Either that, or again, they could be on the same side.

I believe what may happen is similar to what Professor Jiang says about the future. Power will continue to slowly go to Israel as it rises as one of the biggest nations, and people, as a result, will get more and more angry, and more and more misguided by antisemitism.

As a result of this, not only will this assist in the Catholic Church’s love for religious divisiveness, but more importantly, it will help play out what the book of Revelations may have been designed to do: Bring them to the “good” side. And with Sam’s whole “Romans are good” stance, it is worth thinking about.

What I mean by this is that people will see Israel as the bad guys, and then the Catholic Church will come and say “Hey guys, we know they’re evil. Come support us and we’ll fight them together!”

This is the dangerous future that they want. And if you follow it, you’ll either be supporting the same side, or just supporting the opposite side of one coin.

Christianity has become so popular over the past few years on the internet, but I don’t think many of them actually sit down and think about what sects of it they should trust, or what their idea of an accurate bible is. It’s a complex question but one of the important questions to discuss.

Am I saying that I disagree with all of these opinions he’s expressed? No. I actually believe that a lot of these beliefs are true, and that the Jesuits may be the best option we have for a social order compared to the other corrupt groups. But if you want to live a good life, I wouldn’t recommend participating in that war of power.

Overall, I really do like him, and I think he truly makes a lot of great commentary on politics and creativity. Jesuit or not, I support Sam Hyde and his show for now. But always be vigilant in case somebody is trying to get you to play along with their “side.”

I have been an all-in on crypto kind of guy for the past five years, and if one thing is clear, many things are smoke and mirrors. On top of that, there are always many layers and veils to understanding it all.

But even early on, I started to notice a behavior within myself, as well as what became something I saw in certain other kinds of people. If I were to put it simply, it’s Libertarianism (or as Martin Goldberg likes to call them, Lolbertarians).

And that is the ideology I used to have, as do many people I respect. But I feel now that instead of trying to subscribe to any ideology, there is the admittance that your individual values will always come at odds with the collective of the world, and different values will change over time.

That kind of free market, “leave people alone”-type attitude is most certainly what the early Bitcoin scene was full of. The word decentralization, in particular. But anyone who understands crypto now probably knows that a lot of it is centralized; in fact, by nature it is a means of centralizing things, sometimes.

Most of what I am invested in is exciting and offers decentralized solutions for things in some ways, but I also notice the partnerships with large centralized entities that are interested in these protocols, too. It’s not like they won’t be getting a piece of the blockchain pie as it expands; I think that’s clear now given how much government is gotten involved.

But what do I mean by the “Bitcoin Boomers”? They’re almost always millennial guys, preaching their old style internet ways, emphasizing the user of independent servers, disconnecting from the system, Matrix, XMPP, etc.

And God bless them; I follow a lot of them actively. But these people I think need to realize why most people don’t take the time to do these active steps for personal online sovereignty. The way society works, they will deliberately make it harder for you to run these things on your own; I’m just saying.

Luke Smith is one of the main role models of this movement, I think. And I love his videos; but what I like about him is that he says he does all this online nerdy stuff not for the sake of just being snazzy, but for the sake of overall being able to disconnect from the internet and not be a part of social media.

Most people, on the other hand, I feel do it to brag, or to go on about how they made one thing on their daily online life more convenient. I personally prefer the Luke Smith way; using the computers independently and efficiently as a means of not getting sucked into the noise.

One example of this hypocrisy, I think, is Mastodon. It’s basically the left wing’s way of trying to imitate what the right wing tried doing years ago with sites like Minds; a decentralized version of social media; the Fediverse, as they call it (I like how it sounds like “The Feds”). You can host a Mastodon server entirely from your own VPS, and on top of that connect to other’s servers so that you can’t be banned, have control of your data, etc.

But I think it’s obvious that the whole point of social media is to have a centralized mindset, and to be attached to the internet in ways that will be poisonous regardless. I would say the average person simply making an account on X and using it sparingly demonstrates a more truly independently-minded person compared to someone who cares so much about their fake online identity that they setup their own server for it.

On top of that, without giving examples, I couldn’t help but notice that practically every time Mastodon comes up, it seems like it’s being used by perverts. I even saw a server directly dedicated to drawing child pornography, even admittedly so. You can claim the creators of Mastodon aren’t to blame, but it shows something about the type of people who build on it.

But even the more libertarian people I think don’t understand crypto the way they should. You only ever hear them talk about the same few cryptos in the past ten years… Bitcoin, Monero, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum… But overall it’s like they’re allergic to DeFi or any real innovation in the blockchain space.

And hey, I can assure you there’s validity to that; plenty of exciting tech ideas in crypto I’ve looked into that totally fell apart. It’s hard to know what blockchain is really being used for even now, but for the record when it comes to AI, Digital ID, Virtual Objects, Edge Computing, and a few other overlooked areas, I am 99% certain it is a lot more important than people believe.

It’s true that oldies like Bitcoin and Digibyte are more decentralized than most other coins, but my whole thing is… Who cares? They still seem to think that the only purpose for crypto is payments. A sign that they simply don’t do much research on it, if you ask me.

Another thing I would call a hypocrisy is this protocol called PeerTube. It’s basically BitTorrent but turned into YouTube, where you upload your videos on your own server, and those who watch it both download and upload bandwidth at the same time. Those who upload bandwidth end up contributing to the bandwidth of the overall platform, reducing waste and still letting people host videos.

The only problem I have with this is… It already exists in a better form, and most people simply seem to not know out of their own lack of research: Edge Computing. Or as it’s also called, DePIN. Basically Edge Computing can do that, but with all types of data, whether it be file sending, caching, streaming, or anything that need to transfer data.

But the best part is, everyone who runs a node gets paid to run it, and that’s the natural incentive. In fact, even BitTorrent themselves tokenized into a DePIN to some degree. So Edge Computing is more immutable leg up from this decentralized way of powering bandwidth, where you get paid the more computing power you provide, just like with Bitcoin.

But there was literally a time where I spoke to a coder my age who talked about himself like he a was a big tech guy, telling me about PeerTube but at the same time making fun of me for talking about a certain Edge Computing project that was doing the same thing on a site called Theta.tv. Theta.tv was taken down due to a lack of interest in the specific site (it was only meant to be proof of concept for Theta Network), but it still boggles my mind how some people seem unable to comprehend the obviously better choice.

I feel like the one who came closest to explaining these kinds of people was Sam Hyde in this episode of his show. Decentralization and libertarianism does still sounds like a great ideal to me in a way, but to expect it to simply work with everyone the same way, I think has proven that simply holding onto an philosophy doesn’t fix every problem.

I do still try to live my life in a more independent way than most; I’ve learned to follow a lot of Luke Smith’s approaches to money, looking at it as a means of eliminating liabilities as opposed to simply trying to get wealthier. I don’t waste my money on silly scams like Health Care or the S&P500. I don’t have a car. I work 3(ish) part time jobs as opposed to a full time one, and make sure most of my time is spent being productive instead of just being a consumer. I’ve done a decent job learning to avoid the slavery most people cycle themselves into.

I used Luke Smith’s guide (with a lot of help from AI as well) to setup my own nginx-run website, hosted on a more decentralized domain provider (paid with Monero) with a VPS hosted on Edge Computing. I used it, for example, to setup my own privatized Google Drive, where on nginx you can set certain directories to be “indexed” where you can simply have an area in your filesystem that you can view publicly on a browser. You can even password protect that directory as well, all within the control of your own files. Probably the closest thing to real online data privacy, although like some people in this space have said:

I feel like the moment you eliminate distractions and consumerism in this current society, you’ve hacked most of the matrix already. So I really do respect the true libertarians, if you want to call them that. But I also think it’s dangerous to be oblivious to crazy rate of progression and events happening to everyone right now, particularly in the case of AI and privacy.

If you really care about your privacy, you really ought to look into how much of the backbone of AI may go into certain crypto projects, and how owning some of that infrastructure could be one of the greatest means of protection, no matter how you run your life outside.

I prefer to wait until the hype has died down to get a more clear view of what happens on these incidents. It feels to me like it was more recent, but just before 9/11, Charlie Kirk was shot while doing one of his talks at Utah Valley University for his American Comeback Tour run by his organization, Turning Point USA.

I think what happened really was shocking, but at the same time, I think people ought to just think, is there a specific lesson to be learned from this? It seems as in politics, not only is it designed for every news story to follow the Hegalian dogma of Left vs Right wing, but the truth is politics is getting more and more personal.

COVID-19 made it clear that issues like Vaccines and Masks were not simply an opinion you could keep away from normal life; people were segregated based on their opinions. With Charlie Kirk, I think his assassination was another warning sign that political things can get personal and out of hand fast.

To be transparent, I would say my opinions sympathize with the right wing more on this, but I want to explain my critiques about them, too.

I thought the behavior of people who celebrated his death were disgusting, and I’m glad so many people called them out. Frankly, you don’t see that kind of death-celebrating behavior from nearly as many conservatives.

I also heard other rather manipulative arguments of people trying to rationalize the fairness of his murder. Particularly I was hearing people claim that Kirk was indirectly some murderer just for saying his opinions on gay people. He quoted bible verses such as

“A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” ~ Leviticus 20:27

This was enough to make some people call him a murderer who wanted to stone people to death. Not considering the countless inferences one could make from such a verse, they somehow think that it has to mean humans stoning other humans to death?

I would imagine any true Christian would not condone committing violence towards another in general, as that simply goes against most of the scripture’s loving messages. Why can’t a term like being “stones with stones” be metaphorical? It makes more sense to me that way, given that it’s meant to be described as a natural and absolute consequence; it would have to mean that the punishment for gay activity is something beyond another human being’s judgement or punishment.

I even heard one YouTuber say he was Bisexual, and that was enough to call himself person who’s very existence was apparently threatened until Charlie Kirk’s words. How entitled can you get? Calling Kirk “dangerous” or “murderous” for something like this is just a selfish argument, because it’s a means of undermining the killing that actually happened, which was to him.

But while I myself got frustrated at one side here, I can’t help but feel the Right Wing, and perhaps Christians in particular, were hoodwinked in the midst of all this negativity.

There came to be a message: Be scared for your life. Carry a gun at all times. I even heard a lot of people say they want to avoid going outside of their house as much as possible; too many crazy violent leftists.

Sounds oddly similar to how the left was acting during Covid, doesn’t it?

I have no problem with carrying a gun, but there were a lot of smart people I listened to who seemed to take his murder as some sort of marching order to either act completely in personal defiance to leftists, or to even act more radical than them.

I’ve watched almost every episode of the Sam Hyde show, although I’ve also previously stated my suspicions about him and his friends having their own agendas they may be pushing too.

The very title of this video, This is You really tells a certain message. This video seemed to me like practically a marching order, even saying some blatantly radical things like “quit pretending the constitution matter” (I’m paraphrasing). Saying things like this where he seems to suggesting people to break the law is something I think is never a good message. For the record I think we do still have a strong constitution. If you want to hold a gun, I hope you can wherever you go.

But people seem to often believe our rights have been objectively stripped away simply because of incidents they hear on the News, or seeing bad stories of things that happen to so many others.

I say if you really want to get back at the left and teach them a lesson, try to be more kind and calm about this situation. Don’t forget what happened to Kirk, but don’t let other people push the patriotic part of you into feeling obligated to be so conflictual.

It’s interesting also how a lot of conservatives got so sensitive when people brought up conspiracy theories. Personally I saw some evidence of his death being a part of a Freemason ritual, which would make sense, as Freemasonry has always been linked pretty close to the founding of the Unites States. Although I do think Freemasonry is just a distraction from more powerful Papal forces. But nonetheless, that’s the secret society people are choosing to be distracted by right now, just like the Illuminati a decade ago.

There seem to be some weird stories with his wife as well, such as seeming to be faking her sadness of his death.

So I’m just saying, if this was all set up, shouldn’t you consider that you shouldn’t get so angry and divisive about it?

I feel like there has been a lot of talk of a bad financial collapse next year, or in the coming months. I feel like this is true, and it worries me, but I think that whenever something like that happens, it is for the greater good.

In the case of this one, I think it will be about a mixture between the collapse of reliance on Fiat currency as well as the old fear of AI taking away people’s jobs. Well, instead of thinking in terms of how much the dollar may inflate (or disappear), I think it’s best just to think in terms of value.

People like Elon Musk and others who appear to be in the “know” of the future tend to overall have a positive perspective on it, saying that it will come to bring about an age of people no longer having to work for a living, or to say the least reduce the amount of time it takes.

I feel like what people truly fear the most is AI and robots taking away their purpose for what the fight for in life. But I say if you’re so scared of that, then whatever you were doing must not have served much purpose to begin with.

Say if you manage a sandwich shop at some franchise that forces an annoying amount of unnecessary regulations, and you spend your time complaining about that one autistic employee who cuts the onions to slowly. “We would’ve made $100 more dollars in sales today if it weren’t for his slacking!” Well, if that’s the extent of your critical thinking then that’s the exact kind of job you deserve to keep working.

But what I find so barbaric is the idea that someone who works that kind of job actually believes that it’s some sort of necessity. Do some people really not have an idea of how machines have been capable of doing most of that work for decades? How machines have slowly crept more into those jobs already?

If you think from a more dense point of view, only thinking about what is currently convenient, then yes it might seem purposeful. And while I understand the fear of paying the costs of living make it difficult to comprehend things as accurately, the idea of machines taking away those jobs is nothing but a collective improvement in terms of providing more food for people.

Real purpose is about believing in something that the majority of society fights against you for. That is the only way to truly work in a way where you are driven by a belief to “put a dent in the universe,” so to speak. And you cannot feel that kind of passion without a sense of ego and competition; a sense of dislike for something that is out there that you wish to fight against. And what is that kind of purpose overall driven by? Thoughts and emotions.

Even if what you’re fighting for is something that another person finds to be silly and unnecessary, it doesn’t matter. We all have our own problems and experiences that drive us differently.

But while I do believe AI is getting to that point of AGI sooner or later, it is interesting how right now we’re at a time where even the biggest tech experts seem to have know idea how to further advance things. Sam Altman has implied numerous times that he doesn’t feel ChatGPT is capable of really doing anything more than it already has; most other competitors haven’t really done anything inventive or different.

While I do think AI shows purpose, I also think people’s expectations of it are a little unrealistic. The way AI generally works is really not much more advanced than the way a search engine works. And one such issue with that right now is the fact that Large Language Models and the obsession with Deep Learning just end up creating a centralized system that results in nothing but a waste of money and energy.

I think that a more individualized approach should be taken for AI in its current phase, where an Intelligent Agent can learn and grow along with its developers for different purposes.

But it’s for this reason why I find it to be a little delusional when people think that the creative side of AI is something that will bankrupt artists or force them to “compete with the AIs.” I don’t think I’ve ever heard a real artist say such a thing, but some people who are thinking too much in their left brain, however, have.

AI artwork will have its place in some ways, but to claim that its capable of creating experiences catered to the human mind I think simply stems from this assumption that an AI can just “do a bunch of complex things fast” and thus magically accomplish it.

Again, the topic goes back to the subject of value and the amount of purposeful work necessary for something. When you make a drawing, song, or any kind of artform, it’s not just a drawing. It’s a message of some kind. Every art form has some kind of belief and purpose that a person put their intents in in some way.

So when you type in a Prompt to an AI image generator and expect it to create something interesting, that’s not different than telling yourself one sentence and expecting yourself to automatically draw it on a paper. Whether you’re an analog artist, digital artist or whatever, all you’re ever really doing in your head is writing a bunch of prompts in the same way. It’s just that your mind naturally writes itself so many prompts and so many ideas that it ends up being far more advanced than the AI; and more impotently, those “prompts” are naturally catered towards you personal desires and purposes.

While I’m not saying that AI art is invalid as art, the claim that it is capable of entertaining the human mind does not make sense when you type a short prompt of info into some centralized database. Not to mention, the very creators of such AI art generators have admitted that it’s most just recycling images and effects that have already been created).

To expect an AI to generate art that truly captivates you, you would have to probably type essays worth of prompts to truly get the ideas right, to the point where you’d end up doing so much work on your own that you might as well take advantage of your natural abilities as a human being. Normal art is no different; just a bunch of ideas with a few happy accidents to add on. And the feeling that you fought to create that artwork is a nice bonus.

So I suppose my point is overall that everything is energy and everything is an exchange of work and value. AI is not some magical new invention; it is just something that has come together more, and most people struggle to understand its place.

There has always been a conversation between fans of The Legend of Zelda series on whether it should be categorized as a Role Playing Game or not. RPGs are usually known for certain factors such as your progress being based on how much you up your stats and how many potions you buy. Like Legend of Zelda, you usually wield a sword and fight in a similar setting. But nobody likes to call it an RPG, and I think I know why.

Zelda has, by definition, always been an RPG, however the question to people ins’t about whether that title is accurate. The problem is that calling it an RPG doesn’t do it justice. On it’s Base Layer, it is an RPG, yes. But does it simply count your number of Gil and Potions? Does Link simply level up based on the number of monsters he slashes? Nintendo has always made sure to go through whatever lengths necessary to avoid this.

Yes, there are a few different weapons and shields that you can acquire; but it’s always more creative than that. The difference in items and equipment aren’t just based on how many Rupees you have; they’re based on where you are in the story. Every item has more of a unique purpose. Instead of a black box that lists all the items in your menu, you get a whole screen dedicated to every possible item in the game, with sections to visually organize this. The only exception to some of these traits would be Breath of the Wild, but in exchange it adds other unique elements that keep it from following a typical math-based format for progression.

Every RPG element, such as the overworld, the fighting, et cetera are all taken to a more creative and purposeful level. Almost like they view the traditional RPG as a Base Layer to expand upon. It is an RPG, but it’s just doing what they all should be doing and provides more unique value.

I’m explaining all of this for one reason: Crypto!

In this previous article, I wrote about the origins of Vatoms, in other words, the original word for NFTs and Virtual Objects. The invention of these objects were the first example of showing a real use behind Blockchain technology (apart perhaps from Reggie Middleton’s Veritaseum a couple years earlier, inventing peer to peer trading software). In other words, Zelda is like a Blockchain was the NFTs included.

But recently after I wrote that article, and about how Eric Pulier, CEO of Vatom, was primarily the Vatom’s inventor, he went and published something that appears to go beyond even the NFT layer: The NFFT.

Eric’s Substack

The Non-Fungible Fungible Token (NFFT)

Summary: ERC741 is a new token type that combines the qualities of fungible and non-fungible tokens. The name comes from combining ERC20 (the standard for fungible tokens on ethereum) with ERC721 (the most common non-fungible tokens). ERC741s energize fungible token economies, ushering in a new era of gamified decentralized finance…

Read more

2 years ago · 8 likes · Eric Pulier

Pulier is still running Vatom (which is being powered by the original BLOCKv protocol), but it seems as though yet another layer has now been built on the already massive NFT protocol. The main purpose of this complex proposal is for all Non-Fungible Virtual Objects to be able to flip between being NFTs and normal cryptocurrencies interchangeably, allowing for these objects to be more freely utilized and gamified.

This is the full presentation on what the NFFT to is supposed to be. He and his brother talk about how you can have a fun set of NFTs that have millions of AI-generated captions. It’s not about whether all the captions are very funny; it’s about turning these NFT sets into a social experience.

You don’t like the image or the caption of the NFFT you got? Then switch it to being fungible again so you can attain its monetary value. It’s a great formula for any kind of community based coin, as well as adding value in numerous ways by its nature. They compare it to Tik Tok in the sense that you could have an endless supply of these objects and swipe from NFT to NFT, such as a bunch of video shorts. They’re thinking about what drives human engagement as well as expanding its use of the Blockchain.

When I think of their concept of being able to “flip” these tokens, it makes me think that NFFTs could be the Legend of Zelda of Blockchain. They’re taking a good genre, like an RPG, and expanding more upon it. It’s not about getting rid of its original form, but it’s about showing what the invention was really capable of. Like Eric explains at the start of his presentation, a caterpillar evolves into a butterfly!

Crypto has a history of being considered a scam by many, all to suddenly be important to that same majority as soon as they already see Bitcoin roaring up for another cycle. So far this cycle has been found to be every four years, with this year looking like the market’s fourth bull run.

The majority of people seem to end up losing money in crypto due to them treating it like a hype train, or thinking “this is the moment it’ll skyrocket 100x” instead of treating it patiently and really thinking about the reason there’s a market in it to begin with.

The part I really don’t think people understand enough is how to understand not only the utility for a project, but more specifically what the current cycle is really going to be into. Even a lot of committed, pro-crypto people seem to be unable to leave certain mindsets.

The huge hit in 2021 was NFTs; or at least, a super-basic, boring version of NFTs that don’t even represent what they were originally supposed to be used for. The obsession with simple collectables instead of understanding the real potential of tokenized metadata was what turned that part of crypto into what is mostly now looked back on as a dying trend.

I know a lot of smart people who still hold a lot of NFTs that have little to no utility apart form being collectible and community-based. I’m not saying those assets don’t have value; community is always super important. But just as how the last bull run has basic NFTs as a sort of trend, I think people need to realize that there are much more important and long-awaited developments of blockchain that are really showing more purpose and potential. In fact, I feel this is the year we can really start to see crypto be adopted to the mainstream, perhaps much sooner than it currently seems.

Most crypto investors are still in this proud mindset where they feel just owning crypto is enough to go against the “bad guys” and move payments towards everyone having their own wallet, like in El Salvador or something. Most of this I think is the fault of all the Bitcoin Maxis out there.

Peer to peer capital markets are certainly a revolution, but I think that that kind of technology is going to be used on the backend in order to primarily facilitate stable coins and the transferal of fiat currency for the average user.

Saying that everyone in the future is going to be using MetaMask for everyday payments is like saying that everyone who uses a computer knows how to program. And technically even clicking the Send button in your wallet is a programming command in the blockchain.

People will be clicking send, but in the most simplistic means possible. Look at Velo protocol’s Orbit app, for example. This is launching in the coming months and could potentially jampack Asia with a new convenient way to buy retail groceries through their phones, as well as quickly exchange their actual fiat through the use of QR Codes and the app’s simple UI.

Velo is partnered with the CP Group, which owns pretty much everything retail-related in places like Thailand. And QR codes are much more common there, as well.

Or look at Stronghold; associations with companies like Visa and IBM, again designed to facilitate their own private stable coins simply to power fiat payments.

A lot of people are still fixating on the pure blockchains and the huge partnerships they have, such as Ripple and Stellar, but the two projects I just mentioned are both powered by Stellar. We’re now seeing real building at completion for these different chains we were excited for years ago. But I feel too many people just want to focus on full-blockchains like buying Solana or Cardano despite how high their market caps already are. Layers 2s have been doing much better for the most part, and that’s because companies are finally actually implementing what the base blockchains were made for.

And of course NFTs are still important; but saying Bored Apes are the meaning of an NFT is like saying the first website with no content apart from one static page is the meaning of the entire internet. NFTs, almost at their very inception, were originally designed to be reprogrammable and interchangeable. If you look at the loyalty program Visa announced a couple months ago, tied with what companies have been getting into like Frito Lay’s Web 3.0 Campaign and KFC’s Golden Bucket Campaign have done with “Smart NFTs”, you would see that customers could get digital assets with nothing more than the need of a QR code, not even having to download an app.

And these kinds of digital objects not only work in tandem with Augmented Reality and Google Maps the way games like Pokemon Go introduced, but grant businesses a new way to advertise their own products in ways that can gamify a virtual object as well as actually give something of value to the customer without even having to buy something.

Say you play a virtual scavenger hunt for certain digital objects around a map and if you collect enough, you get a gift card from a local retail store. Instead of wasting your time with an ad that barely even lets that business profit, they simply give you something for real without actually having to hand you a thing, and grab your interest and attention in more creative ways.

These NFTs are technically still bits of “money” being transferred to the customer, but the important thing is that it doesn’t feel like that; it just feels like it catches your interest, and is legitimately fun. I can’t wait until this technology gets more adopted to the mainstream, which according to the people involved, could potentially happen in the coming months.

Vatom is fully powered by BLOCKv, which is the originator of these “Smart NFTs” that are helping give tokenization a real purpose without the need to make the end user actually need to understand crypto.

Another part of crypto that I think is becoming a big deal is DePIN: Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks. These are blockchains that are designed to use the Edge Storage on our computers to collectively power and cheapen and use for anything involving bandwidth or cloud storage to power services such as APIs, Cloud Storage, or just about anything a service like Amazon Web Services (AWS) currently can, for cheaper and less censorable to boot. It’s also a way to control Digital Rights Management (DRM) on all video powered by that Blockchain, such as Imagine Replay and their NFTs that function the same way a Netflix subscription does.

We’re seeing this with Theta Network, Render, Arweave, Cudos, and many more. This is something I’ve been paying attention to for years; it’s no different than the way BitTorrent runs (which has also tokenized now). But this time, people get compensated for every bit of bandwidth they contribute, measured fairly based on such.

Sad to say though, that despite the normalization and simplicity of a lot of these technologies and how well they can work with the average customer, people of both the crypto and anti-crypto crowd think it’s a question of Blockchain vs. Traditional Finance. Blockchain is just the next step in advancing and layering the internet. In fact, technically the concept of Web 3 (The Semantic Web) was coined before Bitcoin was even created, by Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web himself.

For example, he created a protocol called Solid which is a non-blockchain service that allows all of your data to be protected and privatized before you connect in any way to the internet, protecting both your data and identity. It’s like every individual having their own web server for their data in a simplified way. There are also other means of decentralizing the web without blockchain, such as FreedomBox or Syncthing.

This idea that Web 3 is a fight against the elites is pretty easily disproven by how much groups like the World Economic Forum have both spoken about blockchain as well as partnered with Blockchain companies such as Casper Labs.

A lot of people still have this presumption that Bitcoin was created by some individualistic anarchist, when the hints of inventions leading up to Bitcoin were already apparent and in the open for decades in the past. Some people like Bix Weir even argue that it was planned for before at the dawn of the internet.

I think he makes a good argument for people like Alan Greenspan and Steve Jobs; given his expertise in computerized banking. It doesn’t mean Bitcoin is a good thing or a bad thing; but do you really think people in power didn’t see something like this coming, and didn’t want to get ahead on it before most other people did? I’m not saying that those people were even corrupt people, I’m just saying they were real inventors and understood the future.

I think it’s silly when people in crypto still say “Not Financial Advice, this whole crypto thing is still a risk and we don’t know if it will work out” when it’s pretty much as confirmed as can be that it is that important. But it’s people who don’t allow themselves a greater perspective to understand what cryptos are really able to be used for. It’s like what Reggie Middleton (the founder of Decentralized Finance) always says, it’s not a question of crypto vs. no crypto, it’s just a technology.

Society, for almost all of its history, has almost always been governed by religion in some form or another. You can’t really have a government without some sort of agreement on beliefs in the first place (although you can simplify them quite a bit). Most of society in the past couple thousand years has been influenced by the moral values of Christianity.

Christianity teaches people many morals that encourage them to sacrifice themselves for other people and to focus on the interests of others before focusing on personal desires. For example, celebrate how a man died for other people’s sins instead of being rewarded for living for his own accomplishments (although some view the story of Jesus’s crucifixion differently). It is arguably the true origin of socialism and communism.

Perhaps the only popularized religion that differs from this is Judaism. It’s one of the only times that the Bible tells them what appears to be the exact opposite:

At least from what most devout Jews seem to gather from the Torah, they have often raised been throughout the generations to believe that they are “God’s chosen people” and believe that others, or as they call them, the “goy,” should be treated as lower. This discriminatory philosophy appears to be what has governed Israel for generations.

As for how many Jews actually live by this, I don’t know. But it is unusual considering the way most religions teach their followers to put themselves below others.

In my opinion, the Jews are still not truly treating themselves well if they view the “goy” as less important than them. However, I think that their teachings are equally as destructive as a Christian putting his fellow man above himself. I believe all religions create problems against equal opportunity due to their nature; if you deliberately try to follow any belief system or philosophy, you are already projecting a lack of personal liberty by feeling the need to follow somebody else’s advice on how to live.

But whatever religion you believe in, it’s no surprise that Jews are hated so much by others. It’s not a matter of whether they’re more evil or not; it’s because their philosophies are so opposite to the ideals taught by most other religions.

I am not, however, claiming that there hasn’t been political corruption and discrimination brought about by Jews across history. Maybe I’ve been watching too many Bitchute videos, but I haven’t found any arguments against some of the claims I’ve heard, particularly relating to the history of the Soviet Union and communism.

It appears to me that the true origins of both World Wars were a result of Germany standing up against Jewish cronyism between the Soviet Union and numerous European countries. In 1939, Germany claimed that Poland had stolen their land, and as soon as they began fighting to take the land back, numerous countries, such as Britain and France happened to join against them to “protect the freedom of Poland.”

But the Soviet Union invaded Poland that same year, yet never received any backlash from Britain or France when they did the same as Germany did. And they didn’t even have a claim that Poland was originally their land, anyway.

Britain and France are two countries that are generally written as heroes of World War II, but I believe they may have just been cronies for the Soviet Union and other countries, many of which were coincidentally run by communist Hebrews. Poland, the land Germany was fighting, was run by Roman Zambrowski, a communist Jew, as well as Hungary, which at the time was led by Mátyás Rákosi, another communist Jew, as well as Ana Pauker, the communist Jewish leader of Romania, Rudolf Slánský, the communist Jewish ruler of Czechoslovakia… The list goes on and on.

Despite communism appearing to be the mentality of caring for your fellow man, it was nothing but enforcing people’s roles and rights, which often led to nothing but discrimination and ruin. But the interesting thing is that while a lot of Jewish people at this time appeared to have a lot of corrupt power, they were communists.

Regardless of what really happened during World War II, my question is why people in the United States are so worried about the power Jews seem to hold. In a place like the Soviet Union or Israel, where the laws are based on discriminatory religious policies, I can see the harm a lot of the Hebrews may be causing, just as I can see the harm The Vatican causes from their own Christian beliefs.

But it appears to me that these days, Americans believe that the Jews are taking over their country, too. They pull out statistics on the high percentage of Jewish people owning all sorts of industries, which I agree are true. However, there’s a big difference when the actual laws of the country allow for freedom of business.

Socialists often like to point out pie-chart statistics to show how much richer the small, higher percentage of people are in this country and how much less most people have. Of course, they never bring up the fact that just because one group gains more wealth, that doesn’t mean anything was actually taken from the poorer margin. It just means more wealth and resources were created, so everyone should actually be happier.

It’s this kind of manipulative statistic that makes people worry about whether certain groups, like the Jews have taken everything over. Despite the fact that even the poorest people in the United States live better-quality lives than the average person anywhere just 100 years ago. You have to not only take money into account but also balance wage increases with inflation over time, as well as remember that the quality of many resources, such as computers, TVs, refrigerators, washing machines, etc., has gotten both higher and still costs much less than what they did just a couple decades ago. The number of hours people have to work to earn a living wage has substantially decreased over the past 200 years.

Sure, that high margin of Jews running things is probably due to a long history of cronyism, but I believe that in this country, the Jews are still mostly remaining on their own turf and playing by the rules. Granted, there are still cases where politicians have committed violations of freedom of speech in order to seemingly from biased partnerships with Israel, such as when Governor Ron DeSantis signed HB 269. However, he had to temporarily flee the country in order to do that; what he did was probably borderline illegal if he was truly following the American laws he should be following.

But my point is, I feel like with freedom of capitalism, the kind of corruption and cronyism that Jews have committed in other countries cannot naturally happen. Yet despite this, I hear modern-day nationalists and Neo-Nazis say that people are getting poorer due to “unchecked capitalism”. These people might not understand the very history they’re trying to expose about the communism of the Soviet Union and the many countries they had partnered with in the past.

I believe that when the United States was founded, the First Amendment, despite popular belief, was already something that had to have contradicted all religions in order to have been written. Because almost no religion allows for freedom of religion, the entire function of a religion is based on discriminating against other beliefs in some way.

It is commonly assumed, for some reason, that the Founding Fathers were Christians. Yet much research actually indicates that George Washington and Ben Franklin were Freemasons. Freemasonry is a religion (and has, as it happens, been linked to Judaism as well) that has changed and arguably been taken over throughout history. The belief system of Freemasonry, at least back in the 1700s, was more close to the concept of having no belief system at all; arguably it was closest to Atheism (although Atheism today is often a division of Christianity in terms of most Atheists’ morals and belief systems), or perhaps Stoicism.

I think that the United States is one of the few places where, while Jews are free to expand wealth there, they are equally free as any other person. And maybe they are in more power than one would like, but I don’t see how regulating businesses, nationalizing people, or the Christian philosophy of enforcing people to live for others is anything but a repetition of the corruption Jewish people have brought upon people in the past and present.

At the same time, Christopher Columbus has often been theorized to have been a Jew, and part of his inspiration to find new land was the hope for a place where Jews would be free from discrimination as well. Creating a land that follows only natural law as well as avoiding any of its basing’s off of religion is the way to make all religions happy, and I would argue that it’s already worked. Though we might not be in the prime of its success.

Subscribe now

I’ve never felt very interested in this year’s rise of publicly accessible A.I. technology, but I was listening to Eric Pulier, a very accomplished tech entrepreneur, and how he has very serious concerns on the subject.

He is currently using his co-patented technology to run Vatom, an advanced digital asset platform that is taking a more advanced approach to what most people know as “NFTs”. This kind of NFT, also known as “vATOM”, is reprogrammable, interchangeable and designed for numerous purposes such as use with A.I.; they also call them “Smart NFTs”. The platform is designed to be simple and easy for people to use, even if they have no knowledge that they’re even interacting with anything related to Web 3.0. In fact, the goal is moreso to merge Web 2 and 3 together.

He considers the current idea of what most of us know NFTs to be, such as static collectables, to be the “Web 1.0” phase of Blockchain. It’s not much different than when the World Wide Web just began, and it was hard for most people to understand its real potential due to how long it took for the internet to become a place where people could actually interact freely and create digital identities. Just like how most people today think that crypto is dead, it’s just like when people in the 90s said it about the internet. They’re right that Bored Apes and CryptoPunks lack a future; it’s just that this is groundwork for the necessary technology.

In 2014, the first “NFT” in the sense that most people know it, was created by Kevin McCoy and Anil Dash. It was an NFT in the sense that it was the first time someone placed an image onto a Blockchain, but that alone is arguably not the true definition of what NFTs, or “Smart NFTs” are supposed to be.

These were first created in 2015, and since then, Reeve Collins and Eric Pulier have been working together to create what they consider not only a more useful platform for NFTs, but also to merge more human interaction with technologies like A.I..

While many of us agree that A.I. shouldn’t necessarily be repressed and regulated, and these people are adamant innovators of technology, they are still concerned about certain problems that have come up because of how much power A.I. already has, as well as how ignorant most people are of that reality.

He says that about 40% of online interactions on social media are run by bots (automated fake accounts). It may have started as a tacky marketing technique to up activity on certain websites, but at this point, bots and fake accounts, boosted with the power of A.I., have become so overpowering that they have figured out how to bypass CAPTCHAs, start IM conversations with people, and create socially and ideologically influential posts on social media.

They have also become intelligent enough to deliberately learn how to trick people into thinking they’re real people behind the screen. It’s all a matter of gradual Machine Learning (or Deep Learning; whatever the hell you call it). He even suggests that trends like QAnon may have been mostly A.I.-driven. A little ironic given that a lot of the QAnon followers were saying whoever “QAnon” was had a Quantum Computer at their disposal; maybe that was QAnon’s way of partially admitting it. I think QAnon is a good example of the way people can be controlled due to identity-related issues, and the way one determines how well they feel they are accepted in certain communities.

When I think about this concept of people’s identities and communities being affected on social media platforms, when often times we lack the guarantee that we’re even talking to real people, it sounds very true to me. I’ve interacted with a lot of internet trolls on a lot of sites, and not only has it become more commonplace for even kind people to start committing malicious online activity, but a lot of it often involves people creating fake accounts in order to create an illusion of community.

I personally think that if you need a majority to support you, then that makes you weak. But it seems to be, especially given how easy it is to create multiple fake accounts on most websites, that a lot of people give in to the urge to create fake accounts all for the sake of making themselves look like they have a community to belong in. This is probably driven most by the desire to belong for those who feel their identities are inferior.

Even on a site like Twitter / X, where you have to have a phone number in order to create a new account, I still see fake accounts all the time. Granted, I think most of the time people can tell when these accounts are fake, but it gets me thinking, especially considering how much political influence is on Twitter these days.

In fact, one site that I know is super easy to create a fake account on is Reddit, which also has a reputation for political influence, particularly from liberals. And given how text-based Reddit is, where nobody even expects you to show your face or any proof of identity, think about what happens when so many A.I. bots can take over even highly secure websites.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those long, grammatically correct Reddit posts full of political writings, or even arguments you may have had with people on there, could very well just be digital identities. Quite literally arguing with computers, and unknowingly being emotionally influenced and controlled by these bot accounts. And keep in mind, it’s a part of the bot’s job to make sure it doesn’t admit to what it actually is.

But despite the danger, I believe that people who utilize this kind of technology in ways that both make it simple and easy for the average consumer to want to use, as well as mix it with human engagement, can manifest a healthy balance without damaging human society. And what better people to do this than businessmen like Eric Pulier and Reeve Collins, who help run the technology to mix A.I. and NFTs with both real-world interaction as well as specific other industries such as education?

Pulier believes the inevitable future of our broken education system can utilize this technology, not only to make it easier to teach students but also to allow students to actually perform tasks as part of the education and be rewarded in digital assets measured based on the tasks they complete.

I also like how Vatom is one of the only NFT/Metaverse projects I’ve found that understands that the Metaverse isn’t just about putting on VR goggles and escaping reality. It’s simply an advanced User Interface that can be used more so with Augmented Reality; the same thing Pokemon Go was known for. In fact, Niantic, the company that worked with Nintendo to create that game, is now partnered with SmartMedia Technologies, which is the company that works side by side with Vatom. Again, going out into the world to find digital assets not only gives them more purpose but also brings about community and human interaction in ways that are more naturally enjoyable.

A year ago, Vatom recently worked with Frito-Lay to print millions of QR codes onto bags of potato chips, and it caused millions of every day people to take out their phones and receive a vATOM without even having to know it was an NFT. Their ease of use, programmable NFTs are also designed so that people can have control of their own digital “identities” in just the NFT itself, not even necessarily needing a wallet or anything beyond.

They also demonstrated this human interactive technology at a conference in New York, where people could find vATOMs of butterflies, where people could find these digital butterflies and immediately receive rewards, such as Starbucks gift cards, just because they found and clicked the butterflies through their phone’s camera and GPS.

They also believe these can rid the need for advertisements as a whole, because instead of having a banner ad, you could replace that ad with a link to a vATOM that automatically gives you a digital asset with utility.

I believe that while A.I. and the internet are inevitable technologies, people often believe that our future involves interacting in a completely different and completely fake kind of virtual society, often compared to Ready Player One. But I think nature and humanity, while possibly at threat to some degree, will find that our personal desires do not align with that kind of interaction. Digital interaction will have to elevate natural human communication and connectivity, not deter from it.

Subscribe now

In society today, particularly in the past few decades, the idea of the Arts and Entertainment often seem to be viewed as an escape from labor and productivity. Our culture often automatically identifies work with activity we don’t enjoy, and often complains about when the media has business-related interests influence artistic works.

Don Jolly is an excellent freelance Writer/Journalist (although his online publication, encyclopedia.zone is down now) who’s very observant of the kind of fakery people in society like to project most of the time. He posted a video a few years ago talking about the problems he had with Disney, and how heavily their movies seem to be governed by marketing. He believes that Disney’s mixture between business-based interests and their movies destroys the purpose of art.

I never grew up being exposed to many Disney movies; I didn't develop the kind of identity-related attachment a lot of people have with the characters of those films. But I can understand that feeling from other movies I saw a kid. Don Jolly talks about how that kind of identity-based attachment of relatability/belonging creates a strong influence on people, often even influencing the way people think politically.

But while I do agree that Disney usually has a sense of fakery and unauthentic vibe to most of their productions, I feel like they’re often given the short end of the stick from people solely due to how large of a business they are. You hear all sorts of conspiracy theories and complains, like “You know, Walt Disney might’ve been a racist Nazi, blah blah…”

My partial reaction to that sort of thing is “Who cares?”, but I also feel like whoever Walt Disney was, as well as the others who manifested that business, they had to have overall done something right in order to create the empire they did. It also must have been a constant challenge.

You often hear people use the word “consume” in a sleazy context, but products and services are governed by one thing above all else: your desires. I’m sure there was a lot of sleazy marketing. And I’m equally certain that if Disney hadn’t done it, other businesses would’ve done the exact same thing.

But the point of this article isn’t just to defend by basic beliefs in free markets, it’s to talk about how I believe work and production are naturally just as “entertaining” to people as the “arts” are. But I think the two are basically Yin and Yang. Often times, when I see a movie, play a game, or whatever piece of media that triggers feelings of emotions in me, those feelings have to be relative to something in real life.

And often times, I find that a lot of the “enjoyment” is not about taking a break or escapism, but rather inspiring me to be productive in real life in some shape or form.

We have it very confusing in society today, because a lot of people are poor, and a lot of people work jobs they don’t particularly enjoy. But even then, I find that there are still parts of any job I’ve worked where there’s joy. You know where that is? When I’m feeling genuinely productive.

I wouldn’t say I’ve ever worked a job where I’ve felt I’m contributing to some sort of essential service. I have no doubt that every position in the place I currently work could be replaced by machines (although there’s often unwritten human qualities that make up part of it). But I realized that most of my mood during the job is based on two things:

1. How things are currently going in my life outside of work. If things are stressful in life as a whole, I feel like work is crap no matter how easy/hard the tasks are.

2. How much I’m actually working! As long as there aren’t other annoying barriers in the way, such as communication errors, fear of being fired, etc.

Believe me, I don’t believe in sugar coating a miserable job experience. If I did, my balls would’ve probably shrunk by now from medication (In fact on the contrary, my foreskin is actually starting to grow thanks to my new Mantor!). But I believe as long as you know how to truly grasp the concept of what “work” really is (which certainly does not directly correlate with what your job is), you realize that the American lifestyle of “Living to Work” is not the kind of enslavement that I used to fear and oppose.

In terms of certain traps that cause people to be unhappy and depressed in life, I believe there are many. And yes, the 9-5 routine (which I thankfully have never had to follow in the blue collar jobs I’ve worked) I think is a poisonous one most of the time. But I’ve noticed that it’s those people in particular who seem to always be going on about their future retirement, vacations, and overall just living for the sake of not working. Ironically, I would’ve thought those white collar folks sitting on chairs would be the ones who are happier in their more comfortable positions. But if you think about it, that sort of comfort probably overall enslaves them greater.

There is a great presentation from Yaron Brook on what art meant to different cultures across human history. One thing that found interesting was that in ancient Egypt, the art and sculptures were very colorless, and frankly very boring. Egypt’s culture was governed by strong beliefs in an obsession with the afterlife, enslaving other people, and overall living for the sake of preparing for the next life instead of living their lives in the present. Even with the “work” the slaves did, it wasn’t really amounting to any exciting goal that anyone really wanted. The real slaves, I think, were the leaders resisting progress and productivity, and their arts manifested in tandem with that lack of creation.

In school, we were shown that the image of slavery is some muscular sexie black dude hitting his pickaxe on the stone, sweating in the sun. Yeah, that is bad (at least assuming that situation was forced). But I say real slavery, or should I say lack of individuality and freedom, is lifelessness. There’s another video from Don Jolly where he says when people are working a miserable job and they say “Everything’s fine,” it’s like “The sound they play in the slaughterhouse to keep the cows in check”.

This is true, but that doesn’t mean that a job on your feet where you’re physically tired is the real slaughter. I would say that the real slavery comes from the true definition of slavery, which has nothing to do with labor:

Slavery is the condition in which one human being is owned by another.

Yeah sure, you do have a boss, and there’s the fear of being fired and everything. But think about the big picture. As long as everyone is given the same opportunity to create a business of their own and become their own boss, I say that the job is the opposite of slavery. If you’re doing anything that’s getting you paid, I say that's a plus.

Real slavery is when people are treated like property; especially in directly enforced ways. People say jobs are organized slavery because we usually need them to pay to survive, but again, it’s not the job that’s to blame. One thing that I consider real slavery would be taxation, for example. Or another form would be when politicians try to enforce their ideals onto the businessmen in the name of their ideals.

Perhaps some people would then consider things like paying rent or paying for a house to be slavery. But at least in that case there’s a landlord who is running a business in a mostly free way; so I don’t think there’s any problem coming from that formula, even though rent is often too high in my opinion.

It is easy to lose sight of what real work and productivity is, but I believe productivity always aligns with personal empowerment. Any arts and entertainment that you create is, of course, work. If you have a job you don’t like, but you create art as a pastime, then that are is where you’re actually working much harder in; even if you don’t think of it as work.

As someone who’s into crypto, I’ve noticed a problem in the attitude in most investment-related communities. I swear to God, the next time I hear some smartass mouth that stupid Warren Buffet quote, I am going to explode.

First of all, I can assure you that in crypto, staking is a very normal and common thing anyways, but often times too much of that passive income obsession, and obsession over your yield can lead to scams and failed projects. A lot of the time if you stake the native coin/token on a PoS Blockchain, you moreso do it for the sake of staying in the loop. If it’s the same yield that anyone can get, you don’t really get a competitive advantage just because your share is technically higher; especially considering inflationary tokens, which I believe is often the same in the stock market.

I have nothing against seeking passive income strategies, but believe me, I have a lot of experience in this. I’ve written about some before, usually in support of them if I think they’re contributing to financial/technological progress, and have a real purpose.

Subscribe now

But I realized the real problem I have with that quote: “work until you die”… I asked myself a very simple question one day: Why not work until you die? People are so obsessed with wanting to escape their lives, believing that that entire work formula is wrong. But like I explained, I think this whole idea of resisting work is ironically the exact problem!

I’ve realized that while building wealth is good for you, you can’t just treat it like a shield against having to join the working class. If you approach it that way, then you’ll just be all the weaker.

The most important thing I’ve learned about investing is that as an investor, you are still partaking and contributing to the “work” of whatever you’re investing in. I’ve found myself genuinely excited by watching the progress and productivity of the Blockchains I invest in; it is partially about my ROI, but it’s also because the work goes together in tandem with my stake in it.

How am I supposed to feel confident in my investment if I don’t know that they’re doing something productive? And that’s the good part. Not only have I made so many friends and partaken in a real community with some of these projects, but we genuinely cheer and gain fulfillment when we see more updates and most of all see how the technology can be used in society. One thing I like to look out for in crypto, for example, is projects that not only have a clear use-case, but do things that I myself can see how I’d benefit from right now. That way I can know for certain that it has value. For example, I upload files to Theta Edge Store all the time, and because I understand their protocol, I trust that the files stay up better than any other service, and get to invest in Theta at the same time!

So yes, retirement and passive income are okay, but like I said, the joy really comes out of the productivity and business that you see. It’s not going to come from whatever some government entity deems are your “Retirement years” or whatever. If you’re too old to do physical work, maybe it’s time to “retire” from the job you’re doing, but it’s natural to do some form of productivity. I don’t say this out of any moral virtue signaling; I simply say it because I think it, and I’ve come to believe it solely out of seeking my own self interest.

I was reading the book Equal Is Unfair: America's Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality by Don Watkins and Yaron Brook, and I realized something strikingly different about the past culture of the United States compared to now:

People today would think of a song about building bridges and machinery as some lame country song (with some exceptions, such as when the iPhone was released), but the idea of cheering on productivity is never lame to the human mind. Even songs about sex are still productivity; just that you’re producing cum with your own state of the art machine-parts!

But again, you see this kind of excited and artistic attitudes within communities who really care about what is being built, like what I mentioned in the Theta community!

This is not some sort of unnatural business-corrupted creativity. I think that true business drives creativity! It is true that America is a work-based culture, but real work is about working for yourself in some form. I believe that if I lived in what most would consider “retirement”, I would just end up working in some form anyways in order to follow my desires.

Subscribe now

This, I felt was obvious to everyone else at that time who was supporting Trump, listening to Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, yadayada. But it turns out I was wrong. Before I knew it, there was just as much discussion about being pro-free speech and anti-SJW as there was about telling people “SJWs and Socialism aren’t linked. It’s just a coincidence”, and by that time, those people were following The Daily Wire, and appreciating the open-minded and polite attitudes of these people, practically worshipping people like Peterson to the point that it got creepy sometimes.

A lot of other former Trump supporters took the “I was wrong about being conservative; I was just too hung up on SJWs” route. They seemed to come to the conclusion that liberalism was the answer, all because they hadn’t thought it out broadly enough. That was what gave rise to BreadTube that mainly went on between 2018 and 2020.

Around the time of 2015, the boom of what became known as the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) was slowly weaved (poetic, I know!); namely, in my opinion, promoted by Joe Rogan’s podcast. Very quickly, this innocent looking fun comic started interviewing an uncommon amount of people on the conservative side of things, primarily clipping and emphasizing talks about when their freedom of speech was obstructed, and why whatever statements or jokes they made deserved to be heard out.

At first, I felt this was a great freedom of speech move, as a lot of us Zoomers put up with the same bullshit with the kind of arrogant parents and school teachers we had growing up, always acting entitled towards us and never wanting to leave their political bubbles.

But looking back, I think this “skill of listening” that Joe Rogan became so popular with became a manipulation tactic. I’m not saying that any one person in particular is responsible for this, but I do think that particularly the IDW became, quite literally, a web of lies.

Personally, I thought people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson would be at their fame’s end within a year after their jolts of fame, as while they are both well-studied people in certain areas, they still only became famous due to speeches and incidents they had on college campuses.

In fact, college campuses at this time were the primary ground for these people to get recognition, such as the Weinstein brothers. You know… Bret Weinstein, the average science professor who is not apparently more than just that due to a completely unrelated incident at Evergreen State College… And even dumber than that, his chubby bro Eric, who literally hasn’t been involved with academia for 20 years, yet coined the term for the IDW) because we’re now apparently supposed to think he’s important).

My personal entryway into what you could consider the “Dark Web” was from someone who got straight-up cancelled and fucked over by them after about a year… Maybe that’s not specific enough; pretty sure they’ve cancelled and fucked over numerous conservatives. But I’m talking about Milo Yiannopoulos.

It’s hard to find all the videos of his talks from back in the days of his Dangerous Faggot Tour of 2016, as he was banned on YouTube long ago, and most of the “conservative” movement made up lies about this guy being a pedophile. Ironic, knowing that he was a victim of clerical abuse himself as well as having exposed multiple pedophiles (if I recall, he said three in total) during his days as a reporter for Breitbart. His tour was often talked about like it was a rock band of the 70s touring their music; it was the cool thing, he pissed off the kind of idiots we all wanted to see pissed off, and it was thought-provoking entertainment!

They didn't even bother trying to pin any actual sex crime on him. They just reacted negatively to a joke he made about clerical abuse; the kind of joke standup comics get away with making all the time. But as Milo of all people understood, that's the power of manipulative journalism. By the time the rumors had been disproven, no one cared anymore, and people like Joe Rogan described him like a washed out pop star.

But one thing Milo often pointed out during his talks, was that Liberals liked to use tactics to make people think they were “their friend”. As in, if one wanted to be pro-freedom and go against whatever they believe to be political corruption, then people would think that groups like Black Lives Matter were their friend, because they liked to appear very anti-establishment and free-minded. But Milo would often point out the realities of those groups, like how BLM wasn’t even run by a black guy, for example…

But I think what he said about groups wanting to “look like your friend” was very meaningful, and can actually be applied the same way to people like Peterson and the IDW. It’s just that this time, it happens to be more right-wing types that are pretending to be your friend.

The real reason people like Milo or Owen Benjamin got cancelled from this so-called conservative group was because they were more true to what real conservatism is, which often suggests ideas of racism, capitalism and most of all, a different framework of morality.

It seems to me like the moral and philosophical framework of the IDW always remained from the same pattern of thinking that liberals hold, meaning that it it did nothing but sucker the more of thin-skinned types of conservatives and Trump supporters into becoming liberal socialists as the years progressed.

And say what you will about the 2020 election, but I find the fact that we had a Democrat president take office to be no coincidence. Especially considering that most of the time, both Democrat and Republicans have a history of having two terms in office, when Trump only ended up with one. Not to mention, I found it particularly spinless how apologetic the IDW-types got when it came to incidents like January 6th.

But more specifically, I believe the whole influence the IDW all shared was the part about being open and listening to each other’s points of view without obstructing free speech. Which is all well and good until you think about if that really gets you anywhere in the end.

What I personally have found over the years is that you should be more one-sided in political debates and thinking. You should develop beliefs on what ideology could potentially always be wrong and evil. it doesn’t mean shutting down people’s freedom of speech, but it does mean having an actual purpose and goal in politics, instead of just whacking off the subject of free speech.

I have come to believe, both historically and objectively, that the very concept of liberalism and socialism are always destructive and leads to sadness for humanity. I think of capitalism and protection of human rights as the main goal in politics; either way, I think that it’s unnecessary a lot of the time for the average person to need to engage in politics themselves, as nature allows us to run our lives through capitalism without the need of being affected too much directly by government control (generally, at least in most of the United States).

And if any IDW retard wants to claim I’m being closed minded, or obstructing free speech because of how I want to destroy liberalism as much as I can, then they are being hypocritical. They end up talking to their audience as if you can’t judge a person’s character by their political beliefs, and if you do, then you’re immaturely attacking their character, and are failing to listen to them. You’re not properly adhering to the IDW’s “This is what a HEALTHY Disagreement Looks Like!” cult.

If you ask me, you’d have to be crazy to not think there’s a connection between a person’s philosophical beliefs/personality and their politics. The reason you can’t reason with some BreadTube tool about capitalism is because they are sometimes thinking about concepts such as selfishness and altruism, and even concepts such as the meaning of power and personal joy completely differently; often having completely different morals. But like I said, the IDW seems to have the goal of denying the need to get personal with anybody.

But here’s my concern on the IDW preachers. What was the main audience they were attracting throughout the Trump years? Conservatives; almost always. Everyone knew it. Yet Joey ol’ Joe kept claiming that his macho-muscles stretched across the entire political spectrum, always so open minded, not having judgement… Until he just so happened to land on the judgement of endorsing Bernie Sanders for president.

If you ask me, this was an organized ploy to convert conservatives and capitalists to support socialism and believe people like Bernie were their “friend” all along. Clearly people like Joe Rogan fail to have understood the actual meanings behind all their talk in favor of human rights and freedom if they end up just promoting people like Bernie Sanders as “misunderstood” people who were just apparently right all along.

I also felt like Joe Rogan’s move from California to Texas was another fake form of “escaping the radical left”. Liberalism seemed to suddenly increase rampantly in 2021, such as COVID-19 mask mandates increasing and more shootings happening ever since Joe Rogan publicly moved there. It became almost a trendy thing, where so many people were fleeing California for Texas. I agree that California is probably the worst state in the U.S.; but that was the case for pretty much… Pretty much forever, since California’s very inception.

California’s population was formed from impatient fools who wanted to get rich quick and follow the Gold Rush. Of course, the only people who made money off the gold rush were those who exploited those fools; that is, the ones who sold the jeans, pickaxes etc. The ones who really thought about the backend of how to be productive. California has been a population of immature people who want to follow whatever the majority is doing, as is the general mentality of a liberal who believes in majority voting. It also represents the kinds of people who want wealth to come to them without truly earning it; again, similar to socialist thinking.

If Joe Rogan truly was pro-freedom and really knew how to think for himself, I think he would have left California years before this sudden campaign came for everyone to leave. sure, the government restrictions due to COVID-19 made California’s anti-humanistic laws more apparent, but if you ask me, people should have already felt unhappy with the way California was run. Yet people of the IDW like Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro often were located in California and never moved out until 2020.

Another problem I noticed as a result of these people is that most of the time, when someone such as myself goes and points out their hypocrisy and fake-conservatism, people on the left always use their flaws as an excuse to say “See? We leftists were right all along! They suck, so we’re automatically smmmmexie ourselves (Suck our dicks)!”

I also find it hypocritical how the IDW have often touted how they are against Cancel culture, yet have cancelled numerous people from their own groups, such as Milo, Steven Crowder and Owen Benjamin.

Recently, Russel Brand was being attacked for something involving sexual harassment (I don’t really care, so I’m just gonna forget about citing it), and while I suppose I don’t believing in cancelling his following due to it, I find it hypocritical how people didn’t want to cancel him yet people like Milo or Nick Fuentes are apparently too awful to support.

And for the record, Russel Brand was a terrible actor back when he was doing that stuff over a decade ago. And a very obnoxious and arrogant public figure in general. But because of how much he appears to have changed, and how he claims that the political spectrum is just “an illusion” (or whatever he last said), these IDW supporting morons think he’s brilliant for his open mindedness. He claims capitalism is bad, yet he’s now being backed by large businesses like Rumble, so... Ain’t that what you call being a powerful capitalist?

I honestly feel like the point I have made here has been said many times already; at least by certain people I follow. But I can tell you without a doubt that I have gained a lot by deliberately not following much Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson over the past few years, and feel that they have their ways of trapping and manipulating people just like any other group.

On another note, I also feel like people are overly supportive to Elon Musk solely because of his friendship and association with these people. I have nothing against a businessman doing what he likes, but I do sometimes worry about how centralized a site like X could potentially become. Then again, that might be the way society is collectively choosing to turn, regardless.

There is nothing wrong being full-on against certain political ideologies. And people like Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman are not better than you for being too cowardly to make his own political statements.

Subscribe now

Objectivism is a philosophy that I believe has stood its ground since its discovery from Ayn Rand in the 40s. To this day, I think it’s pretty amazing how much it challenges many different kinds of political and philosophical speakers/writers today. In fact, I think there are a lot of smart people who have half-assed reasons for going against the teachings she wrote about, and it always seems to be when individuals/organizations feel its a threat to them in some way.

But ironically, I find that applying objectivism to your life is the most free and enjoyable way to live your life. It’s just that human beings have a natural tendency to want to willingly shell themselves from allowing themselves personal joy and liberty. People act this way for their own delusion of protection; on the surface, they fear living for themselves paints about picture about them as a “selfish” person, without admitting that that ego-based concern is in a way selfish already.

Our society is so obsessed with the idea of undervaluing ourselves to the point where most people consider downplaying themselves as something to brag about. Whether it be in religious communities, or scientific communities, it often leads back to people arguing that they are insignificant, and frowning upon those who think highly of themselves, as if they are being too selfish or ignorant.

In today’s generation, I would argue that the scientific community has more dominance than it ever did. Although people don’t seem to realize how often atheists or “science-minded” thinking is still influenced by religion. Science has always been an every-changing concept because it is the human beings’ study of the natural world. But as I’m sure any scientist worth their rock salt would agree with me on, is that human beings have limitations to their ability of thinking, as well as to how much of the natural world we are even capable of currently perceiving.

I have nothing against progressing in the realm of science, but there are also times where I simply don’t believe the science. This is where a lot of people assume one is being ignorant, “denying” science. But really it’s those very people who call me ignorant who are the ones losing sense of their natural reason.

Science is helpful to us, of course, but can you objectively ever be certain of something scientifically? Logically, the answer is an obvious no. And anyone who says science is ever 100% certain is both basing their faith off of other human beings (with their own limits), as well as being historically ignorant.

Every crazy belief that we were taught about in the past, such as believing Africans weren’t human beings, or believing that germs form on food/liquid by magically out of thin air.

The fact that a lot of this science has changed and been debunked does not automatically mean that our society has reached greater “progress”. In fact, I think it’s very unlikely that most of our science will remain proven in the next few generations. It would be mathematically unlikely that our generation just happens to have all the science correct this time, just because we’ve been told it is.

In other words, I believe that a lot of the time, people don’t truly base their scientific view of reality based on what they’ve truly discovered, but just on faith in something, whether it be a group of people, or religion. Same concept.

Like I said before, there are a lot of philosophical similarities to atheism and religion when it comes to the subtle nihilism is they encourage.

In religion, for example, people are encouraged to feel that they should be subservient, whether to God, a set off commandments, or some form of morals that’s based on faith in external texts as opposed to reason. This comes in many forms. For example, it is encouraged to build Christian chapels with ceilings far higher than necessary for a room to send the symbolic message to people that they should think about how God and other higher beings are greater than them, wanting the people to pray in subservience and respect.

There’s an interesting part of Ayn Rand’s book, The Fountainhead, where the protagonist, Howard Roark, builds a church, The Stoddard Temple, that is designed to have the opposite effect. The building is designed so that when someone walks into it, they are going up stairs, so that they can feel they are being uplifted and empowered instead of feeling like God is something that they are lower than.

The Stoddard Temple also features a statue of a naked woman in a state of exaltation, unafraid to express her joy and desire to positively show her body. The entire temple is designed to make human beings feel uplifted and respected in the most carnal ways possible.

Artwork by Adam Kanovsky. He’s also done a lot of other digital portraits from The Fountainhead.

This quickly becomes the most offensive piece of architecture ever built, and the media goes mad. One newspaper writes an article with a photo of Roark where the caption reads:

“Mr. Superman”… Not even an insult in most cases, yet because of how attached society became to one’s own self destruction and lack of personal empowerment, the collective of people became so afraid to simply allow the encouragement of self love that they used all their power to attack the one man who did.

It seems to me like in society, the scariest thing to do is often to simply talk positively about yourself and humanity. It is that very action that makes any weak altruist or religious individual feel like their beliefs and self-destructive lifestyles are attacked, because it goes against all the time they’ve spent suffering for the sake of their beliefs. They don’t feel that you deserve to be happy when they have suffered. But they also fail to realize that they could be happy too if they simply gathered the courage to admit that they can learn to base their lives off of self-interest too.

Another example that I find to be irrational nihilism is in our modern science, however. For example, astronomy and modern science tells us (without enough proof, in my opinion) that we are likely living on one of the only planets in a series of galaxies with life on it, and that we’re overall surrounded by a vast outer space (that we would die if we entered). Makes us sound very “insignificant”, doesn’t it?

Of course, those same people don’t pay attention to the numerous bits of research that suggest contradictions to those claims. For example, there’s never been any explanation from modern scientists about why the sun and the moon appear the exact same size as each other from our earth. Insanely unlikely to be some random coincidence in the form of random stars and planets… They tell us it’s because the sun is larger but a grater distance from earth, but that honestly makes it seem even more unlikely.

I think that sometimes people willingly choose to believe certain claims about our natural world not out of reason or looking at all the evidence, but still basing it off of their choice to feel disempowered, afraid to suggest any scientific research that would suggest that a human being is more important, or could have been created by another conscious kind of being; that kind of thinking makes us people sound rather arrogant.

This leads to my primary concern. For the most part, I have nothing but support for the people of the Objectivist movement such as Ayn Rand herself, and Yaron Book, who is the current leader of the Ayn Rand Institute. I think when it comes to many subjects, particularly economics and the support for Laissez-faire capitalism, I agree with them.

But I feel like some subjects they haven’t thought enough about, and feel the need to have a certain answer to them instead of just realizing that there is no certain reason-based answer sometimes.

I once asked Yaron Brook what he thought of theories that question the traditional beliefs on the shape of the earth (I am what what most people label as a “Flat Earther”), and his answer was basically claiming that he had faith in “credible people” as well as partially admitting that he didn’t know for certain, only trust the resources of other people.

He also mentioned “seeing the curvature” from a plane, which is just an illusion that people come to believe based on the way the edges of airplane windows are shaped.

To be fair, I don’t it’s necessary for the the Objectivist movement to have to have an answer to every science-related question, but there seems to be a need to have a certified answer of denial to claims that go against traditional science. I’m not convinced that how science is based on reason.

Scientists has been bought out numerous times in history, such as when they told people that sugar and grains were good for you, or have simply been wrong historically. For example, the movie Don’t Look Up (casting aside Adam McKay’s usual cringe) was a movie with a message claiming that the government is ignorant of what scientists warn them about, but history has already proven that the “scientists” have been wrong about these alarmist warnings many times.

But to be fair, I believe most objectivists have still spoken out against he contradictory nature of the Climate Change panic. But I don’t see why the same reason can’t be applied to other realms of science as well. I myself still believe that human beings hold a certain role in climate issues, but only in certain specific areas; I think when it comes to being pressured into losing our natural resources, such as upping gas prices and stopping up from building/owning land, we should be more free.

Another issue I never understood about Objectivists is Abortion. Why has Ayn Rand and every Objectivist always been pro-abortion? I understand their emphasis on individual rights, and I agree that you should be able to do what you want with your body even if it harms you, but Abortion simply isn’t the same subject.

Objectivists, I can assure you, are still against murder, because even when your moralities are based on selfishness, murdering somebody else is also self-destructive, unless done in self-defense. It goes against what the founders of the Unites States as well as other societies call “Natural Law” or “The Law of Mankind”. In other words, if you steal and murder, or if you break contractual agreements, you will naturally cause a bad reputation for yourself and it will be of the destruction for both yourself and others.

Government is still here to enforce the protection of these individual rights, so it is not an enforcement against ones freedom, but rather a necessary enforcement for freedom.

Now I could go on into my opinions on what stage of the fetus makes a baby alive; some say it’s when the heart is beating, some say it’s when the embryo first starts to form, but I can confirm with pretty much 100% certainty that late-term abortions where the “fetuses” survive, often with serious birth defects, happens on an average of 10,000 times per year.

The debate on abortion simply shouldn’t be a matter of individual liberty or what one does with their body. If one claims that, then they’re completely ignoring even the idea that they’re talking about the life of a second individual, and I don’t see how always allowing abortion is protecting human liberties whatsoever.

Maybe there are cases where abortion isn’t murder when it’s in early stages, but to say the least, I think our society needs greater studies and consensus on this before making claims such as “abortion is okay”. It sounds rather self-destructive to everyone involved. And speaking of what I was saying about natural law, there are a lot of studies that have suggested that having an abortion causes numerous health problems for that woman. There are a lot of resources that also claim the opposite; that those mental health issues are just a myth… But they’re often from medical industries that I think may be paid to say that. Keep in mind, Abortions are not cheap. They have financial incentive to lie for the sake of getting more patients.

While I haven’t felt satisfied with every answer that Objectivists provide when it comes to our natural world, I still think the philosophy itself is a great help to humanity. In a sense, it’s very basic, so debates on how to apply it to certain realms of science and health care will probably never end, but I think for many people is has helped them break out of self-destructive cycles, and influenced people to be more productive and competitive and business and technology, shedding away the limitations that rigid belief systems enslave us to.

Just know that collective group-think can have a negative and controlling effect sometimes even among other groups of Objectivists; we’re only human, after all.

Subscribe now