I asked Grok to divide humans into two species, those who like quiet and those who like noise:
If we want to divide humanity into two new categories: Those who prefer quiet and those who prefer noise, using conventional anthropological nomenclature, what would we call these two species?
Grok:
If we were to formally split Homo sapiens into two daughter species based solely on their innate, heritable preference for auditory environments (quiet vs. noise), anthropologists would follow the binomial nomenclature established by Linnaeus and subsequent taxonomists.Here’s the most conventionally correct way this would be done:
The quiet-preferring species (the one that values silence, low decibels, and minimal anthropogenic sound): Homo silvicolus
Etymology: Latin silva (forest, traditionally associated with natural quiet) + -colus (from colere, “to inhabit”).
Literal meaning: “the forest-dweller” or “dweller in quiet places.”
Common name: Silvics or Silent sapiens.
The noise-preferring species (the one that thrives on high decibels, constant stimulation, urban soundscapes, loud music, etc.): Homo strepitus
Etymology: Latin strepitus (noise, clamor, din, uproar).
Literal meaning: “the noisy one.”
Common name: Strepies or Clamor sapiens.
Full taxonomic treatment (as it might appear in a paper):
Subtribe: Hominina
Genus: Homo
Species:
• Homo silvicolus sp. nov. – the quiet-seeking hominid
Holotype: a 32-year-old librarian who winces at leaf blowers
Diagnosis: marked aversion to sound levels >45 dB; seeks acoustic refugia
• Homo strepitus sp. nov. – the noise-seeking hominid
Holotype: a 28-year-old festival DJ who owns 12 Bluetooth speakers
Diagnosis: positive affective response to sound levels 85–110 dB; produces noise for social bonding
Alternative classically grounded names people sometimes joke about:
Homo tranquillus (“the calm one”) vs. Homo cacophonius (“the harsh-sounding one”)
Homo quietus vs. Homo loudens
Homo shazamus vs. Homo boomboxicus (less serious, but internet-approved)
So, in the style of a 19th-century naturalist publishing in Proceedings of the Anthropological Society, the two new species would most properly be:
Homo silvicolus and Homo strepitus
…with the eternal footnote that these two species still interbreed freely at music festivals and family reunions, producing confused hybrids who wear noise-canceling headphones to nightclubs.
I’ve written about this before, but since it’s so important, I’m posting about it again – in the form of screenshots from X and a little commentary of my own:
A few comments claim that this is not deliberate deception, but simply a clerical practice:
Let’s take this at face value. It makes no difference; either way, it means that we CANNOT use such statistics to point out how high “White” crime is – because it includes many criminals whose race is only officially “White,” but who are actually mestizo or black.
We find that most leftist/antiwhite arguments boil down to flawed logic. This is a case in point. Whether this phenomenon is technically legal or not makes little difference. The result is that “White” crime-rates are grotesquely inflated because of it.
It’s also important to point out that every claim has a counterclaim. There’s always somebody on the other side of the argument who should be defending the practice or policy.
My question is: Where are they? Why is it that we’ve been bringing this up literally for years, and (to the best of my knowledge) the only response, from official sources, has been silence?
When it looks like antiwhitism, and we’ve been screaming about it for so long, and all we get in response is silence, we must conclude that it’s deliberate antiwhitism – at some level. Otherwise, official sources would be defending themselves. We’d see articles about it in legacy media and “fact-checkers” would have tackled it. I’ve searched Snopes, and I’ve done several Google searches. No results came up.
There’s a concept in Judaic law: Shethiqa kehodhaya. It means “silence is agreement.”
I’ve read two biographies of Adolf Hitler, and I’m not ashamed to say that he had some traits I find admirable. He wasn’t a comic book villain. He was a real, complex, human being – just like the rest of us.
But Jewamongyou, you can’t PRAISE Hitler. You can’t admire him or defend him in any way, especially since you’re JEWISH!
Oh yes, I can. I hate him for what he did to my people, but I will not one-dimensionalize him. That would be a cop out, intellectually lazy and, in some ways, dangerous.
Similarly, I will not one-dimensionalize the Nazis, or even the neo-Nazis of today. Here’s an interesting video I just watched:
To the extent that NPCs understand it (very little), they’ll dismiss it as veiled neo-Nazi rhetoric. Yes, it is that, but it’s also a very good explanation of Weimar Germany and how it transitioned into Nazi Germany. It might also be an accurate prediction of America’s future.
The video takes us up to the point where strong men were forged in response to a regime of depravity and looming Communism. So far, so good.
As for what happened next, Hitler’s reckless expansionism and genocides, hopefully we can avoid these next time around.
The world is full of lazy, dishonest, people. Nazism didn’t arise because evil people got up one morning and decided to do evil things. If we don’t want Nazism, perhaps we should get rid of the Weimarism.
I’ve been busy with real life lately. A sickly friend and fun stuff like snorkeling. However, I do need to vent my spleen upon these pages as a form of therapy.
It’s a form of therapy; under no conditions are you to actually read this!
Firstly, I found a short video on X where Steven Crowder is trying to debate some black guys at a barber shop:
Steven Crowder went to a barber shop and answered questions no holds barred ?
I won’t knock him for trying, but generally speaking it’s a waste of time trying to debate blacks on racial issues. We don’t even speak the same language.
At some level, when humans have conversations, it’s about dominance. Rarely is it purely an exchange of ideas, and rarely are both parties primarily there to learn from the other side. However, with Africans, it’s much more obvious that the primary purpose of conversations is to gain dominance over your opponent. This is why their conversations tend to be so loud. It’s not about who is objectively “right” or who has the best evidence to support his position, or even who can deliver it most effectively. It’s about who is louder and who projects the most strength. This is also why they repeat themselves so often, sometimes reciting the same phrase ten times or more. Loud vocalizations are a means of projecting dominance. It doesn’t even matter much what’s being said, as long as it’s said loudly and with conviction.
There is no evidence that the art of debate ever took root in Africa, though it was practiced in Asia and the Middle East. Structured debates are, in my opinion, a crowning achievement of Western civilization.
I’m not saying that black people CAN’T debate, but their natural craving for dominance, and their natural excitability, serve as obstacles. Hence, it’s usually a waste of time for a White person to try debating a black person. I’ll point out that it’s also usually a waste of time trying to debate a White person – or even a JEW.
This brings me to my next topic.
I’ve found myself trying to debate Israelis about their pronunciation of Hebrew. More accurately, some Israelis have taken issue with my comments on various platforms – and attacked me as ignorant. When I show them the evidence that Israeli spoken Hebrew is very different from ancient Hebrew, they get very defensive – more so than in years past.
Why? I think it’s because we’ve seen a lot of attacks on Zionism/Israel recently where Israelis are described as “Europeans who colonized Palestine.” Some people have made the connection between Israel’s German-style Hebrew and the claim that Israeli Jews are actually European colonizers.
This woman is 99% right about Israeli Hebrew, but I wish people would stop weaponizing the bastardization of Hebrew to support "Palestine." pic.twitter.com/wL8OrzNgNu
My view is that it’s a valid point, but it doesn’t somehow delegitimize Jews’ claims to the Holy Land.
Israelis, for the most part, are so invested in their “native language” and its supposed status as “heir to ancient Hebrew” that they’re blind to the obvious. Frankly, I’ve grown tired of debating them, as they’re hopelessly biased.
To them I say, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too!” They (as in Israeli elites) made a decision to promote Europeanized Hebrew exclusively. This was the policy for decades. They can’t now turn around and claim that this Yiddishized jargon is an organic product of the Land of Israel with a legitimate claim as an indigenous Semitic language. No. They “didn’t want to sound like Arabs” – and it just so happens that Arabs sound a lot like ancient Jews. As a consequence, they sound like Germans. It was their choice. They can still defend their claim to the land, and Israel has enough positives that it deserves to exist – but don’t deny the obvious, because it casts doubt on all the other (genuinely strong) arguments for Israel’s existence.
I was at a supermarket today (yesterday) and noticed a young woman also shopping. From her appearance, and the way she was dressed, I strongly suspected she’s Jewish. There aren’t many Jews in this part of Dominican Republic. When I see one, I try to say hello. It’s mostly secular Israelis I encounter. This woman is religious. I figured she’s married to one of the Lubavitcher rabbis in town.
I said something to her in Hebrew, and she quickly responded. We chatted, and it turned out I was right; she is married to a local Lubavitcher rabbi.
Perhaps I should recap my own history with Judaism and with Lubavitch Hassidism. I became religious at 15, and a while later I was taken in by Lubavitch in a somewhat nearby city. I lived in their facility for a couple of years, finishing high school. After that, I moved across the country to a yeshiva (a Jewish rabbinical school) in New Jersey. The yeshiva was run by Lubavitch. During my time there, I realized that the Lubavitcher version of Judaism wasn’t for me. I moved to Israel and remained Orthodox, but not Lubavitch for many years. I drifted away from religious observance about 25 years ago.
The woman mentioned to me that tomorrow (today) is Yom Kippur. This is the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, and fasting is mandated by the Torah. It’s the only day of the year that the Torah obligates us to fast – but I don’t fast; I’m not religious anymore…
… and yet I’d rather not know exactly which day Yom Kippur falls on until after it’s passed; otherwise, I feel guilty eating. Religion does that to a person, even years after becoming secular.
Shortly after falling asleep, I had a nightmare. I was in a bus in what looked like Jerusalem, Israel. Shortly before my stop, I saw a tiny little girl crying in the middle of the street. No adults were around her, and traffic was whizzing by her. Nobody paid her any notice. I was horrified and yelled at the bus driver to stop the bus; I needed to rush out to comfort the little girl and help her get to safety. I woke up shaken. I was tormented and troubled.
It took me a while to figure out that the little girl is my soul. It still feels lost without the shelter of Judaism. Religion will do that to a person; I don’t think a person ever truly gets over it.
I’m not against religion. I think it’s necessary for a functional society in most cases. Societies that abandon religion stop having babies or they adopt some sort of secular religion, such as Communism or Wokism.
It must be especially difficult for ex-Muslims, considering the hold Islam has on so much of the world and how pervasive it’s becoming everywhere in the West. If there are any ex-Muslims reading this, I hope you take comfort in the fact that it’s not Allah who’s constantly calling you back into the fold. Rather, it’s something psychological that’s built into our very DNA. As for me, I find salvation in other, more fulfilling, ways than organized religion.
I just spent a few minutes watching a YouTube video by a guy who comes across as very intelligent, but who leans left. It’s not a long video, so please watch it for yourself:
I spent quite a bit of time browsing the comments, and they all say essentially the same thing: “Brilliant video! Anybody who disagrees is a NAZI!”
I guess I’m a Nazi then. Here’s my comment:
Your reasoning only applies to the state of being a homosexual, which a person has no control over. However, the ACT of homosexual relations does affect well-being. It most certainly does cause the spread of disease and certain health issues. AIDS, Monkey Pox and continency problems are examples linked to this practice. Therefore, by your own reasoning, it can be judged to be “immoral.” FURTHERMORE, you stated in another video that (paraphrasing here) sexual violence in video games is “immoral.” How so? In what way do such fantasies cause a detriment to wellbeing more so than homosexual sex. The opposite seems to be true.
Yes, he actually did make a video where he argued that sexual violence in video games is immoral – but not other kinds of violence. I objected to that too. In my view, fantasy cannot be, in and of itself, immoral. I don’t care how distasteful you think it is. your disgust doesn’t make someone else’s fantasy “immoral.”
Anyway, it’s extremely frustrating for me to see literally hundreds of people glossing over the distinction between sexual preference and an actual sexual act. One involves choice while the other arguable does not – and that’s a distinction the creator hinges his entire video upon!
Will anybody actually address my objection in comments? Probably not, partly because it’s a 7-year-old video, and partly because if those people are already so blind as to not see the issue initially, then nothing I say can change that; they’ll simply fling ad hominem attacks at me.
Perhaps, one could argue that people have no choice but to act upon their sexual preferences, that it’s unreasonable to expect them to refrain from sex their entire lives. Anybody making this argument would have to extend the same reasoning to pedophiles. I doubt they would do so. Also, difficult as it may seem, it is possible to be celibate one’s entire life. Therefore, it is a choice.
I was chatting with a Canadian guy by the pool recently, and he was smoking Canadian cigarettes. They don’t smell as bad as American cigarettes. Some Canadian cigarettes have very little odor. Therefore, I was okay with sitting near him and socializing. Our conversation turned to snorkeling, and I suggested that we could develop a brand of cigarettes that can be smoked underwater. I’m known for my brilliant ideas.
With the help of Grok, I came up with a brand name and some advertising ideas. The brand would be called DeepDraws. Our typical customer could be described thusly:
People who might smoke DeepDraws are likely a mix of adventurous, independent, risk-taking, and non-conformist personalities. They’re the type who thrive on exploring the unknown—think divers or travelers who seek out unique experiences, like smoking underwater. Their independence shines through in their willingness to break from convention, enjoying something as unconventional as DeepDraws suggests. Risk-takers at heart, they embrace the challenge and novelty, while their non-conformist streak sets them apart from the crowd, valuing personal expression over societal norms.
Here are some advertising images that Grok came up with:
Now that we have some general marketing ideas, all that remains is the very minor issue of developing the technology.
Along similar lines, we should also market treadmills that are equipped with ashtrays. That way, smokers can more easily enjoy a few puffs while getting their workout.
Amren has officially announced this year’s conference. I saw this yesterday, and it triggered a dream. It’s a dream that highlights an inner conflict I’ve struggled with, and which I’ve touched on here.
I had a friend who’s been attending Amren conferences since they started. Like me, he’s Jewish. Obviously, like me, he’s pro-White. We would talk fairly regularly by phone and hang out together during the conferences – until one conference when I befriended Jason Kessler. He’s the man who organized the now infamous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. As its name implies, it was meant to bring various factions of “The Right” together to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. Unfortunately, it included neo-Nazis. Even more unfortunately, the grotesquely biased Charlottesville police department engineered confrontations between the participants and Antifa. As intended, this led to violence and the rally permit was revoked. Much has been written about this. Bottom line, the rally set back our cause quite a bit. Kessler, arguably, made some mistakes.
We all make mistakes. I think that his heart was in the right place, and he took our struggle to the streets. This is worthy of respect.
My guess is that my Jewish friend didn’t see it that way. He (apparently) broke off our friendship. Kessler was too cozy with antisemites. As far as I was concerned, if somebody respects me, knowing that I’m a Jew, then he can’t be much of an antisemite. If we have common cause, I’ll respect him back.
Edit: It turns out it was simply a misunderstanding. My “former friend” is still my friend; we had simply lost touch. I am, of course, very happy about this!
For personal reasons, I missed last year’s conference, and I’ll miss this one. I haven’t had to experience the awkwardness of seeing my former friend face to face. I do hope to attend next year.
In my dream, I was chatting with a close relative of my former friend, and this person was encouraging me to attend the upcoming conference. At some point, the former friend had to relay messages between us, which he did – but he refused to speak to me directly as my own person. When I tried confronting him about it, he ignored me. The rest of the dream is a blur, but I think I did end up attending the conference.
There’s a word for a person who befriends the enemies of his own people: Traitor. I don’t respect traitors. I don’t respect Jews who work against the Jewish people. I don’t respect Whites who work against the interests of White people. I don’t respect ANYBODY who works against the interests of his own people. If a nationality is flawed, then try to fix the flaws. We try to fix the flaws in our own children; we don’t usually hate them for the flaws.
Am I a traitor for my tolerance of antisemites? I don’t think so; I’m not encouraging the antisemitism, just pointing out that it’s largely provoked by Jewish antiwhitism. Trying to promote dialog is not the same as cavorting with the enemy.
Many, if not most, White-nationalists expect Jews to be traitors to our own people. They admire men like “Brother Nathanael ,” (thanks for the great write-up, Luke!) who spew venom against Jews at every opportunity. This is the wrong approach; it looks a bit like hypocrisy.
On this blog, and more recently on X, I defend the Jewish people (when warranted) and I defend Whites. I’ve defended men like Eric Aarvoll, who founded and runs RTTL (Return To The Land).
I just saw that he did a long interview with Nick Fuentes. I didn’t watch it. I found it disturbing, but not surprising. Maybe it’s not as bad as I think. I don’t think I can stomach two hours of Fuentes.
90% of the time, my support is not reciprocated. Typically, I’m ignored. Sometimes, I get responses such as this:
My former friend, and many others, would say, “Well DUH!! They’re neo-Nazis. Of course that’s how they’re going to react!”
To what extent is the pro-White movement infected with virulent antisemitism? It’s hard to say. Many people who should be considered “pro-White” distance themselves from the movement because of its association with antisemitism. It looks like the vast majority of publicly pro-White people are Jew-haters to one extent or another. Even Jason Köhne, who has made it very clear that he’s not “anti anybody,” has grown bitter toward Jews – and my assumption is that his bitterness is toward ORGANIZED Jewry such as the ADL (which has caused him a lot of grief). I’ve noticed that Köhne writes “jews” and “jewish” in lower-case. Jared Taylor, by no means an antisemite, has been tweeting news clips of obviously Jewish villains demonstrating their hatred against White people.
As they say, “it is what it is.” I’ve also been pointing out the Jewishness of those villains. Why? Because it upsets me and because I want people to know that I don’t consider those antiwhite Jews to be my brothers and sisters. I consider them to be vermin.
Does it bother me that my efforts are ignored by neo-Nazis? It shouldn’t. We shouldn’t seek the approval of those whose obsession in life is our extermination. On the other hand, it would be nice if some of them softened their stance and took a more reasonable approach.
As for Jason Kessler, he has softened his stance. I don’t know if I played a part in this or not. He’s a thoughtful man, so more likely, he simply realized how toxic and unhealthy it is to base one’s life upon the hatred of other human beings.
Will my former friend see the light and welcome me with open arms to next year’s Amren conference?
After decades of pushing hatred against the greatest allies of Jews and Israel, White Americans, the ADL is now SHOCKED that its own policies have brought about a rejection of Zionism. Most of the non-White world does not share Christian White Americans’ love for Jews and Israel. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that White-replacement polices, which the ADL has aggressively supported for years, have now led to the largest union in America, the National Education Association, to reject the ADL.
Nation’s Largest Union Severs Ties with ADL, Citing Group’s Weaponization of Anti-Semitism
A union representing millions of teachers is distancing itself from the Anti-Defamation League, claiming the organization has too broadly leveraged the label of anti-Semitism.
The action came Sunday, according to the New York Post, which noted the National Education Association is America’s largest union with more than 3 million members.
“Allowing the ADL to determine what constitutes anti-Semitism would be like allowing the fossil-fuel industry to determine what constitutes climate change,” NEA delegate Stephen Siegel said during the weekend meeting.
Siegel previously wanted the NEA to slam the Biden administration for supporting Israel during the war in Gaza that began after Gaza-based Hamas slaughtered Israeli civilians on Oct. 7, 2023.
The teachers’ union dropped the ADL as an education partner, saying the ADL is too quick to label criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism…
The ADL called the vote “profoundly disturbing” and said that “NEA activists” were out to “further isolate their Jewish colleagues and push a radical, antisemitic agenda on students.”
“We will not be cowed for supporting Israel, and we will not be deterred from our work reaching millions of students with educational programs every year,” the ADL said.
Liora Rez, the founder of the group StopAntisemitism, said the NEA has left the mainstream behind.
“The most radical fringe has taken over the NEA and they actively promote bigotry against Jews and lies about the Jewish state. Rather than trying to educate our children, they want to indoctrinate them to hate each other,” Rez said.
While it’s unlikely that the National Education Association itself has demographically shifted as much as America as a whole, its members surely see themselves as now representing an increasingly non-White, non-Christian America – and its promotion of antiwhite material, over the past few years, is strong evidence that it prioritizes the views of non-White and non-Christian Americans. Since a majority of younger Americans fall into this category, we can see why this is so.
The ADL: “Let’s promote the replacement of White Christians with non-Whites and non-Christians!”
The NEA: “Wow! You’ve done a great job advancing this agenda. Thanks so much, ADL…”
The NEA: “By the way, this new demographic doesn’t give a shit about Jews or Israel, and we must reflect these attitudes in our policies going forward.”
I’m in the process of moving. It’s a policy of mine to consume, within reason, whatever food and drink I have available prior to the move. I’d rather carry it in my stomach, or as extra fat, than in a suitcase.
One of the items I chose to dispatch was an almost finished bottle of Haitian rum. Haiti may be a shithole, but they do make some fine rum. I found this out when a Haitian contractor invited me to try some last year.
Anyway, it put me in the mood to blog, and here I am…
Democrats are shrieking about the recent Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of district judges from interfering with presidential orders.
Conservatives and Trumpists are hailing the ruling as a huge win for America. The truth is more complicated. Some day, there will be another Democrat president – and he’ll be able to single-handedly destroy the country. For the time being, however, it’s a huge win.
Yes, Democrats are shrieking about this Supreme Court ruling, and they’re also shrieking about deportations of illegal immigrants, the arrest of judges and the Alex Padilla episode (where a Democrat senator was tackled while disrupting an event).
Democrats seem to have an endless store of rage at their disposal. They constantly claim that Trump “violates the Constitution” – the same Constitution they ignored during the Biden presidency. They rail against the violation of protocols and the disrespect for traditions.
At some level, they’re right. Trump, and the Supreme Court, are venturing into dangerous territory… but Democrats left no choice.
The way I see it, Democrats (AKA “socialists” and “Communists”) have figured out how to game the system to ensure their own victory. They opened the gates to millions of illegals in order to give themselves more electoral votes, they planted hundreds of activist judges so that those judges could thwart the will of the people, they prosecuted crimes selectively based on ideology and race…
… and then they have the audacity to complain when conservatives notice and tweak the system in order to prevent future abuses. If Democrats care so much about the rule of law and the Constitution, perhaps they should have avoided abusing them when they were in power. Had they refrained from abusing them, there would be no need to change them or reinterpret them now.
In conclusion, if you value a system, then don’t abuse it when given the opportunity. Of course, few Democrats value the system; they only “value” it to the extent that they can manipulate it for their own nefarious purposes.
