Photons do not exist.
Only the field exists.

Einstein with his ret*rded idea has held back physics for more than a century. Even Robert Millikan, who measured the photoelectric effect's frequency dependence, told him to let go of the idea.

ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/… Anti-photon by Willis E. Lamb.
files.catbox.moe/yc2mof.pdf

Well, well, @AnthropicAI pulled the rug on all of its users.

It introduced Sonnet 4.5, under the pretense that it was better than Opus 4.1. The benchmarks were all cooked. Opus 4.1 is still superior to Sonnet 4.5.

Yet they used this as an excuse to lower usage limits on Opus! @AnthropicAI If you subscribe to their non-API plan they're not even transparent about how much usage you're getting.

They got people hooked to this and now they're raising the price by 10x as layoffs continue. This is the expert squeeze happening live.

There was never a "chosen people" if the context is God.
You're likely thinking of Satan (Yahweh) and the "divine council" where Elohim (plural) got to divide up humanity and Yahweh got assigned the most evil bloodline in the world.

(it's in the Torah lol, several places too) The funniest thing about arguing with Torah believers is using their own material against them.

The real purity is in the gospel and nothing else but the true words of Jesus Christ our only saviour.

AI Economic Meltdown: The Coming Expert Squeeze /🧵

There is a frenzy today that is seemingly unstoppable -- the process of replacing human workers with AI. On another front, the idea that AI has now reached a level beyond the smartest human beings is promoted by CEOs like Sam Altman, Dario Amodei and Elon Musk. In cases where humans aren't replaced, they're expected to augment themselves with AI models to increase their productivity.

On the opposing side, there are people who speak of the technology as impractical, overhyped or down right dangerous. This thread is going to take a different angle to these people: I will demonstrate not only this replacement will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, but why we are locked into this process (which has become an inescapable ponzi scheme) and it will culminate in the destruction of western economies.

In this short thread I'm going to show you why, starting with the economic feedback loops, the limitations of the technology, and finally human psychological dependency and the incentive process. To bring it all together, I will explain why the entire western economy is now dependent on this hype, and why the alternative is also collapse of a different kind.

I will start with the main driver of this trend: the economy. The economic feedback loop

Tech companies and other firms all over the world are in a frenzy to fire as many employees as possible in order to minimise their payroll, keeping investors happy and increasing their stock price even as the real economy around them collapses.

Excluding algorithmic trading, the economy ultimately involves exchange between humans and groupings of humans (i.e. human run entities). The fewer people you have working, the fewer people you have buying things, the less money ultimately flows into large corporations without the public being forced to subsidise them via government grants.

It also goes the other way around, the lower the demand for people with certain skills, the less money groupings of people will offer, and the fewer people will develop these skills. The incentive is thus a feedback loop, the more successful the companies, the more successful the workers, the more both grow upwards.

The promise of AI is to cut this loop open, allowing companies to theoretically lower their payroll to near zero, moving that line item to either data centre costs or the cost of AI models hosted by other companies. This has flow-on effects too: the fewer individual contributors you have, the fewer managers, HR representatives and middle managers you need. Companies are also incentivised to disintermediate and flatten their hierarchies.

With all the hype this seems like a risk-free gamble until you break apart the assumptions and consequences. There are two main assumptions:

1. The cost of using AI models will remain cheap.
2. AI will be able to continuously fulfil the duties of humans in all domains that they replace or augment.

I will disprove assumption (1) later in this section and disprove assumption (2) in the next section.

The up-front cost is seemingly sending many people into unemployment, and driving down the consumer economy. Of course, it is never that simple and rarely linear or even reversible. In taking this gamble, these companies will lose centuries of inherited experience both at the individual contributor and the management level.

This has already been done before. Entering the late 1970s, the United States had a tight grip on world exports and industries with very few exceptions. This was all off-shored over the next few decades until the US was deindustrialised. Today, the US struggles to produce tanks and artillery shells, as the last few workers that still know how retire and the economic incentive for their replacement disappears.

Software engineers, spreadsheet jockeys and other service economy workers will soon be facing the same calculus as industrial workers did during that time. They will quickly move on, or move out of the United States and other western nations. Ironically, these are the very skills needed to keep data centres running smoothly, AI models fed with data (after all it's the information technology that is upstreaming these data feeds and data creation events) and even the AI models developed. Albeit, the full effect of this will not be felt for the time being.

White Christian values explained #1
Why you should never speak ill of the dead. /🧵

Have you ever punched your fist in the air when you're really energetic or angry? Notice how it hurt your muscles almost the same way as making contact with something? Sometimes more, even though it's an empty punch? Every action has a reaction, and of course, your muscles, bones and joints will ultimately have to absorb the energy you used to throw your fist outwards.

When something comes out of you, especially when you attack someone, unless you are fundamentally broken, it's the same deal. If you attack someone and they don't fight back, a normal empathic person would back away or even try to make it up to the person attacked. This is part of why turning your other cheek, to a brother, is the most powerful answer to someone who has wronged you.

[Note: When I speak of "people" here I mean specifically white people. I don't believe neurology, physiology and spiritual essence is universal. In this work I hope to make us more relatable to those who do not understand why we do and say certain things.] Those who keep attacking after the other side backs away or doesn't respond, are fundamentally broken. Their empathic unit is gone. Without empathy you will not be able to relate to people around you, or even understand yourself. It's an isolated hell that I don't want to even imagine. You can be surrounded by the entire world, but you will always feel alone, even on your interior.

This is why people flee a guilty conscience, often why even murderers turn themselves in or leave clues hoping to get caught. They want that part back after realizing what they have lost. Often, they will even yearn for punishment, feeling that in making a penance perhaps their soul will be redeemed.

Some even take their own lives over this, it is that strong of a force, much like an open punch, when you commit a crime that cannot be reversed, the force of your bloodied hand will ultimately come towards yourself -- inwards.

Ben Shapiro has just taken over the Turning Point USA organisation that Charlie Kirk started.

And there you have it, the real motive behind Israel's assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Quote: "I'll pick up Charlie's mic and continue his work" - Ben Shapiro

Body Count Infinity UK is still disastrous but not as bad as Australia.
US is better than both.

The Apocalypse: Discarding Enlightenment's Veil /🧵

The most dangerous form of deception is inception. The type you are not even aware of and take for granted so deeply that it forms the very lens in which you see the entire world. An idea planted so deeply in everything you read and think about that it becomes like a mind parasite that consumes the energy of every thought and formation of intuition. Worse yet, is the denial of any possible mediation as a priori -- that is, the complete disembodiment of being, at multiple levels.

I suppose it's important that I start with a concrete example, something that is taken for granted so deeply by the majority of thinkers that it may appear insane to even question such an unassailable statement:

"I think, therefore I am." (Cogito, ergo sum) - Descartes

This statement is easy to digest for most people, but as I hope to make you see by the end of this thread, flips reality on its head. Reading this statement as a living person it contains true statements on both sides.

You're surely "thinking" while reading this statement.
You surely "are" while your vision (or hearing/feeling if blind) traces over each word.

True, therefore true?...

So it almost appears, as one reads it, a tautology. That isn't quite what Rene Descartes meant, he was going for something more abstract -- that you think at all means you are, independent of anything else. In fact, in rejection of everything possible, the ultimate atomised individuality.

At a higher level, what this statement said is the following: Epistemology conditionally proves ontology. That is: the metaphysical is now conditional to its rational formulation. This is a sharp departure from Platonic forms, which exist in a transcendental realm independent of so-called rational thought. In a sense, Descartes in his "Meditations" captured everything in reality (including God, lol) and trapped them within his oddly shaped head.

You see, the "cogito" statement itself is far bolder and less personal to the reader than it appears to the reader. The "I" is very much Descartes or anyone who chooses to deploy his theory. This formed what is termed Cartesian dualism: a "non-physical" indivisible mind ("res cogitans") and a completely mechanical physical body ("res extensa"). The former's existence, in the observer's mind, proves the existence of the latter, but this is later extended to everything.

It is this theory we will initially dissect, destroy and later, invert entirely, arriving at a result that will surely surprise most people. One thing I want to point out is that if you are like me, you've probably never really even questioned this dual of the mind and body -- it has likely been drilled into you since birth. Perhaps the more religious of you refer to this mind as a soul? Did you know that there was an alternative that Descartes successfully killed for most people? Not only that, this alternative philosophy was so old and established that it is undateable. Older than Platonic forms. Yet, today, most have never heard of it despite it once reigning supreme. We'll return to this later in the thread, and with all we have learnt about reality with our recent findings and instruments, I believe it will form a true revelation. An apocalypse, in the proper revealing sense of the world rather than the popular sense of physical destruction.

Now returning to the question of the so-called enlightenment, which I believe is the reverse of said apocalypse, Descartes, formed the philosophical pillar of the enlightenment. Almost every single modern philosopher you have heard of since him, has taken his dualism for granted, even as they defeated every other part of its formulation. This includes figures like:

Spinoza (even adopting the framework from a monist perspective), Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Marx. Any philosophy, ethics or science built on the other's formulations will be irreparably tainted by the flaws that we will be attacking in this thread. All of today's dead society is built upon this idea, even your online social interactions!

Interestingly, Nietzsche rejected the framework altogether and even predicted that someone would write this very thread you are reading, and yet still came to the same awful wrong conclusion his own way. Actually, the only* person to get things right was David Bohm, because he removed the veil himself in his book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" (1980) -- but didn't synthesise the conclusion because he was a very gentle, cautious and serious man who didn't get to live to see the vindication of his theories. Unlike Descartes, Bohm was not only a philosopher but also a physicist. A man who wielded both ontology and epistemology.

For reasons related to this, we are going to be forced to examine not only Descartes in this thread, but also the science pillar of the enlightenment. This other pillar was formed by Englishman Francis Bacon. Bacon worked in almost the opposite direction as Descartes but towards the same goal.

For Bacon, reality is as follows: "It has been tested empirically, so I can build on it". Seems reasonable, right? In fact, you might say, it's even harder to argue against this than Descartes! We will quickly see how flawed empirical evaluation is, but there is one sleight of the hand you could miss in adopting both of these. Bacon restricts the scientist from thinking about philosophy, and Descartes restricts the philosopher from using their senses thus conducting science. A double severance at either end. Only through their institutions can knowledge be gained. This was the beginning of compartmentalisation.

Meanwhile, both of them rejected everything that came before them -- Bacon going as far as using Abrahamist/Yahwehist symbolism, of smashing four different kinds of "idols". Descartes invoking a demiurge-like demon which steals his senses and ability to measure.

When taken both together, their "enlightenment" leaves us in a collective amnesia and creates a dual: a scientist and a philosopher, one restricted to measurements and , and another trapped in his thoughts forever. Neither of whom have any connections to the "idols" of the past, smashed to bits by these two curious men.

Descartes promised a utopia, as did Bacon in "New Atlantis", should their formula be followed. Bacon proposed "torturing" nature until it spilled the beans about the truth through empiricism. Descartes on the other hand, declared primacy of human consciousness, denying it to animals and instead deeming them mere machines or automata. This essentially severed our connection to nature, beyond just the past. Today, as humans are deemed "animals" too, we find ourselves under the same kind of harmful assertion.

I will not stop at these two though, I will take you all the way to today in 2025. All the way to quantum mechanics, LLMs, discoveries about space, time, nature and beyond. The "enlightenment" was damaging, in fact, it gave birth to disastrous revolutions, dehumanisation, savage wars, absolute nihilism, destruction of faith for many and desolation in the form of the loneliness epidemic. You will quickly come to understand that these two men, or more accurately, those behind these two men, intended this exact outcome.

But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is all about us achieving what they never could: the unveiling of reality. This cannot be done by myself alone! In fact, that's the entire point of this thread, as you will see, the unveiling is something that has to be done by the entire world, but it is precisely this moment that this unveiling is not only possible but inevitable. The unveiling is communication about this, about destroying each boundary and veil they have put up for us. We finally have the tools and knowledge to do it.

If I do not write this thread, someone else shortly will! The hard work has already been done, arguably, thousands of years ago, by ancient philosophers, by Jesus Christ, by early Christians, by Bohm and many experimentalists, technologists today. For the latter though, this is not the singularity that the transhumanists wanted. 😂 Instead, this will be, a restorative one that will most definitely awaken everyone from their collective amnesia once a critical threshold is crossed! The anti-thesis is our current dying society, there will be no synthesis in the Hegelian fashion, we will absolutely smash what they built and transcend it.

Are you ready oomfies? If so sit back, relax, and enjoy this thread about philosophy, science and teleology -- purpose.

* I will note that Heidegger, Whitehead and Merleau-Ponty rejected the Cartesian framework and worked beyond it. They came very very close to connecting epistemology (the how), ontology (the what) and teleology (the why) together, but missed some key results due to their lifetime window. If they were alive today, they would have been writing this thread instead of your Baka! May they rest in peace. ❤️
Let us first immerse ourselves in Renaissance Europe to fully appreciate the scientific, philosophical, religious and ultimately political context which resulted in the veil over our eyes today.

We begin in 1440, when the German inventor Johannes Gutenberg invented printing press. This device allowed new and old ideas could be propagated at great speed, enabling advancements in technology, literacy and even artistic pursuits. It was the social media of the time, but like every tool that could do good, it could also cause great harm!

In the early 1500s, Martin Luther used the printing press to succeed where his predecessors failed, launching the protestant reformation and sinking Europe into chaos. The catholic church's normal methods of dealing with such "heretics" did not work, and in the aftermath the church became far more defensive and inflexible towards any challenge to its authority.

In the meantime, the literacy rates across Europe skyrocketed, creating the perfect conditions for advancements in technology -- and the need for reading glasses. This meant lens making techniques would have to advance rapidly, creating a demand for optics books, which the printing press readily provided. These two technologies had a synergistic economy with each feeding demand for the other. One particular town in the Netherlands, Middelburg in the Zeeland province, became the centre of excellence for lens making. In 1608, this resulted in the invention of the telescope, which would finally put some cosmic assertions under the test.

Two years later, Galileo would use this telescope to make a discovery that would change the course of history despite it being a very minor one in retrospect. To understand why, we have to take a little step back from technology and science, then step into the world of philosophy and theology.

The catholic church's authority was coming under challenge, and its teleology through papacy undermined. The church, at the time, favoured the Aquinas scholasticism which was a more complex and purposeful method than the Hegelian dialectic most people today would be familiar with.

At the time, Europe had largely adopted an Aristotelian metaphysical view, after much of his work was transmitted to the continent via the Moors of Spain. Aquinas developed the scholastic method by which opposing viewpoints can be reconciled, usually to reinforce the Catholic church's scriptural viewpoints, without contradicting the trends of the time. This became exceedingly difficult as more observations of the cosmos and nature became known. Yet, the church still preferred this gradual approach which protected teleology while ontology and epistemology flourished -- fulfilling the church's guardianship role.

One particularly troublesome conflict was the 3rd century AD Ptolemaic model of our Solar system, inspired by Aristotle. In this Ptolemaic model, all the planets, stars and our current sun (Sol) orbited the Earth, with a twist! They all went through epicycles along their orbit, compensating for the motion of the Earth around the sun.

It only takes a moment of consideration to find an issue with this model: Due to Mercury and Venus's closer proximity to the sun, their epicycles would have to overlap each other's and the moon's. This means that we should see "phase cycles" that the Ptolemaic model could not account for and these were only observable by the telescope! The Ptolemaic model which established the Earth as the centre of the universe with everything else orbiting, couldn't be right. Well before the telescope's invention, Copernicus had already worked this out by doing away with the epicycles altogether:

This was not accepted however, and without any contradictory observations, people held on to existing views. Why would the church even care about this? As the Catholic church's (and almost every other mainstream sect) maintains that all its canon scripture was divinely inspired, these particular verses would create an obvious contradiction:

Psalm 104:5 - "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
Psalm 93:1 - "The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."
Psalm 96:10 - "Say among the nations, 'The Lord reigns.' The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."
1 Chronicles 16:30: "Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."

In 1610 Galileo made the inevitable observation of multiple phases of Venus, and quietly shared his empirical work in 1611. Jesuit astronomers took notice, and readily replicated the result. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine requested a formal opinion from the Collegio Romano mathematicians. They came up with the perfect solution that accommodated the church's requirements: Adopting the Tychonian model, nearly identical to an even older 4th century BC model by Heraclides*, where the Sun, Moon and stars orbit the Earth, and the planets orbit the Sun:

Galileo published his Venus observations in 1611, but did not advocate for any particular view. He was someone who even taught the geocentric model, and it took him until 1613 to accept his own observations and begin to advocate for the heliocentric model. He wrote a letter to the Italian mathematician Benedetto Castelli where he made a very bold statement, that his empirical results took primacy over scripture -- and that the latter should only be a matter of faith.

Just three years later, the church declared the heliocentric model, and Copernicus, heretical. Galileo was formally warned by the church, but continued to advocate for it in private and conduct research in this direction. In 1632, he published a work "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" which he set up as a scholastic argument, advocating for the geocentric model.

In the book, dialogue took place between three fictional characters:

Salviati (representing Galileo)
Simplicio (the word resembling sempliciotto which means 'simpleton')
And an observer, Sagredo.

In the book, Salviati made amazing arguments, while Simplicio struggled. More corrosively, the Pope (Urban VIII), had made almost identical arguments to this character. To maintain plausible deniability, Sagredo would declare no winner at the end of the book.

The Pope, who was so far quite lenient towards Galileo, felt rightfully betrayed by this mockery and straw-manning.

Just six month later, Pope Urban VIII placed the book on a ban list, ordering a halt to its distribution. The printing presses complied, and even protestants did not like Galileo's actions. He was placed under house arrest shortly afterwards, and conducted some research on inertia which we will revisit later in the thread.

Galileo was what you would call a scientist today, concerned with empirical observations more so than scriptural interpretation. He, like any nerd today, failed to read the room and paid the price for it. He didn't appreciate the complicated political, theological and societal considerations that the church had to balance. So he got cancelled for his trouble.

A far more politically adept albeit destructively secretive observer, Rene Descartes, correctly read the room. He was writing a book (Le Monde) advocating heliocentrism, but immediately ceased work on it in light of Galileo's arrest. As this represented many years of his work, this surely left a very bitter taste in his mouth. After Galileo's arrest, Descartes saw the scholastic method along with theology in general, as a barrier to what he thought of as progress. A barrier that needed to be torn down along with the history and perhaps even the deity behind him.

Descartes was Jesuit educated, and somewhat politically adept, but extremely hard to collaborate with and not a particularly good mathematician. Despite the fanfare over his various contributions, other than one polynomial curve, none of them were particularly new -- he just understood the correct way to publicise himself. As you will soon see, Descartes was indeed more of an influencer than either a mathematician or a philosopher. In his discussions with Fermat, he often misrepresented his work and stubbornly held onto his own inferior and sometimes incorrect assertions.

Despite his lack of scholarly skills, his work would soon leave its mark on the world -- creating nightmares beyond our imagination while inducing amnesia upon the Earth.

Next up, let's dive into his "philosophical" works, being careful not to make the mistake of engaging with his theatre and as you will soon discover, the dark ritual he imposed on his readers.

* Heraclides had Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun, the Sun orbit the Earth, and everything else including the Sun orbit the Earth with epicycles.

Sorry Craig, we have LLMs now.

https://twitter.com/craigkellyAFEE/status/1938360373121339701

Oh no no... looks like a certain tribe has been busy.

If YHWH is God, why would God give satan control over the entire world?
Before you say "to test us": James 1:13

And this, along with all that was said by Jesus, proves that the book of Job cannot be from God.

https://twitter.com/Humbum337/status/1937429334710476890

I’m going to be severely attacked for this so I won’t publish it.

Bunker Busters and Armageddon /🧵

The war with Iran has been authorised by the psychopath in chief Trump. From the very beginning, at the start of his term, he placed a proverbial Chekhov's gun on the fire place at Diego Garcia: B-2s.

The threat wasn't the stealth but the load. Before I begin, it's important to understand some characteristics of the B-2 bomber. What it can do and what it cannot do.

The B-2 is not a magic stealth bomber, it has a physical extent and is easily detectable by a competent enemy -- it is usually escorted by fighter jets.

The BAP sphere people pushing JD Vance out of no where?
Paid by Peter Thiel, his mentor.
Musk's fall out with Trump? Peter Thiel calling in a favor to have advanced leverage on Trump so the Palantir deal remains in place against populist push back.
LA riots? Casus Belli. /🧵
They want white people to feel attacked by their pet brown demons, so that we act reflexively and accept their demon system.
Ignore the spectacle.
Understand that you are completely alone -- none of that stuff matters at all!
What matters is we are all alone *together*. :)

I was really afraid of losing my mind due to the volume of things I have read over the last two month, and extended, since December when I refocused on my long term research subjects. Though I'm sleepless and tired, I now know far more than I did before.
The strangest thing? /🧵 In the past a lot of the things I learnt over the last two month, I took for granted as true without really knowing why.
I learnt all of it over the last two month and connected almost everything I've ever written, with the exception of one important event (9/11).

Have you heard of the concept of "True Name"?

Let's start with Finnish mythology:
"If you know the birth of something it gives you the power to reverse it, & gain control over it"

This idea occurs ALL OVER THE WORLD, but you probably have never heard of it. Neither had I... /🧵

https://twitter.com/cirnosad/status/1932454959506952694

In Egypt, everyone is believe to have multiple parts:

Khet = "physical body"
Sah = "spiritual body"
Ren = "name, identity"
Ba = "personality"
Ka = "double" or "vital essence"

If you destroyed everyone's Ren, their Ka would disappear. They also had something similar to Finns.

The golden Thaler by Magedeburger is one of the most elusive coins for gold coin collectors.
Why?
The "Thaler" is the origin of the word, "dollar". It is the origin of the dollar sign ($), and has "NU 21" inscribed on it.
This is the most powerful and evil symbol in the word.

https://twitter.com/cirnosad/status/1932443805602685180

How many dollars would it take for you to betray everything you've ever stood for?

Reasoning LLM = Free brain storming partner, amazing archivist and research assistance.

The moment you allow it to write for you without imposing a structure on its time you lose the ability to write, surrendering that ability to it through the transactive memory between you./🧵 This is nothing new.
This is a process discussed by Jacques Ellul.
This is a phenomenon William Morris tried to stop and failed.

There is a price to efficiency that you don't notice until it's too late. The regularisation of everything is hell itself!
You are valuable, remember,

The biggest lie of all is the idea that Sol is not a chaotic electromagnetic system that has a large external driver.

Plasmas aren't just hot gasses, they're necessarily ionised. Why is the atmosphere of the sun much hotter than its surface? We know nothing about the core. /🧵

https://twitter.com/nenecallas/status/1913403766218412248

Why do we see stars disappearing and appearing all over the universe. Do we even have a gravity model of this that isn't a "black hole" clown show? (No). Even a plasma model is out of our reach for now.
Why are we so sure Betelgeuse is about to "blow"?

US wins because it protects its allies territory like it was its own.
The "good guys" lost because they abandoned or betrayed each other.

The consequences for Syria's destruction are being felt right now, but the history books will regard it as a coup de grâce. /🧵 The US spent literal trillions of its money and its allies money on the destruction of Syria. It wasn't a nice to have but an essential move.

Now Iran's missile bases are continually within tactical firing range.
There's no Syrian army or air defense force anymore.

Engels before and after.
The overpressure was clearly coming from an elevated position.
There is no target on the ground that could potentially create this kind of damage -- no "warehouse" or "weapons depot" to use as cover.

Open and shut case. Nuclear attack. ☢️
No one can explain how all of that material combusted simultaneously and went into the air as one block either.
We have some unclear video of what appeared to be a nuclear mushroom cloud and a Rayleigh Taylor instability. The sun behind this made me think there was a second much larger explosion initially.

What's wrong with the wifejak meme and why are wifeguys such cringelords?

Why does it evoke such a primal rage in real men and a defensive reaction among low-T white knights?
Most importantly, what is the true and dark purpose behind it?

It's actually a much more important question than it appears to be on the surface. So important that shill commentators on the "right" launched an impressive gay-defamation campaign against Nick Fuentes to try and salvage it. They have failed, but the risk this meme represents still lingers. I believe by fully dissecting this meme we can unravel their intent and make the whole thing backfire through counter-subversive awareness.

I will trust that by now, you have come to accept that this wifejak meme is astroturfed. It is not organic! It was flooded on image boards, a sh*tcoin was made around it and major accounts who push pro-regime narratives from the "right" pushed it in unison and forced it down our throats. Nevertheless, I will demonstrate that it indeed could only be an astroturfed meme.

What the hell is this meme and what is in it for the regime?

As strange as it may sound, this wifejak meme is homosexual in nature, reflecting the state of all relationships that are allowable in the west. The intent is to sell this onto a generation that has so far rejected participation in relationships, and by overcoming this "hesitation", giving them stakes in a system that has largely lost them. They need men because a massive war is coming and recruitment numbers have plummeted to almost nothing for white men, whom they wish to render extinct.

This probably confuses you or sounds like a huge leap or stretch -- how could this possibly be related to a silly doodle, right? Is Korobochka finally losing it after covering way too many wars? If this is you, you MUST read this megathread to its conclusion.

To make this conclusion water-tight we must understand the origin of this meme and what that entails: what has been imbued within it by its creator -- who actually had nothing to do with the PSYOP associated with it!

Then, to understand the risk it represents, I must explain what memes truly are. You know the name, you kind of know what they make you feel, but you probably don't quite understand what they truly do and how they're made. I don't want to get too deep into human psychological models, but some understanding of them is absolutely necessary to truly dissect the meme and the PSYOP behind it.

To put it all together, I'll explain the ultimate goal behind this meme and how it's connected to global state power and our current collapsing rates of fertility. This meme is actually proof of a strong disconnect by state actors, I believe it not only failed but actually BACKFIRED. As such, this thread may very well inform them and allow them to calibrate their next attack -- this was one of my concerns!

Yet, should this thread receive sufficient distribution among other meme warriors, we may exploit the holes left behind by it and take so much ground that the enemy will have brand new problems on their hands. With this in mind, don't forget to RT and share, not only this tweet but all to follow, and share across all networks available to you.

So sit back, relax and enjoy this mega-thread by your trusty shrine maiden hunter, Korobochka. ❄️

/🧵 Origin of the Wifejak meme

Let's begin with the meme itself, as understanding how this meme was developed and dissecting it carefully will give us insight into what it truly represents.

Wojak, formerly widely known as "feels guy" first appeared on a Polish image board back in 2009.
It was often used to express wistful or melancholic feelings towards a particular subject, often paired with "tfw" or (that face when). This expressive meme was often used for commentary about our current dark situation and the feeling of helplessness towards it.

The format was perfect -- and the wojaks mutated, into countless other memes adaptable to different personality types, situations, often bad stereotypes of people. One of my favorites are the soyjaks, which are becoming their own category of memes.
The meme itself is just a bunch of dark strokes on a white background, but our brain miraculously associates it with an emotion without requiring prior contact or memory with it. Humans fill details in from their past experiences and artistic expression of said details requires both empathetic observation and introspectiveness. It is a natural meme and this is why it became so popular!

People who mutate memes will render other expressions, situations or truths, imbuing a bit of themselves in their creations in the process, or using their power of empathy to imbue bits of others in it! It's from observation and creation that memes are born, and artistic expression and imagination -- as well as freedom to render such things -- is the lifeblood of image board culture that dominates all of modern internet society.

There is one particular, and rare, form of wojak that represents something that is the complete inverse of the feels wojak. If you've never used image boards, you have probably never encountered the following unnerving meme, the sociopath wojak:

When this meme is usually dropped on image boards, it represents some dramatic and inhuman realization that upturns assumptions within the thread. Sometimes it's just someone LARPing as a sociopath who is either enjoying sadistic pleasure out of an unfortunate situation or exercising absolutely no empathy towards a subject!

Ironically, creating this artistic work did require empathy from its artist, as it is excellently portrayed in the eyes of the observe -- it is meant to be unnerving. This could not have been drawn by a sociopath! It would require at least empathy or introspection -- and sociopaths lack that.

The rarity of this meme is due to the nature of memes, which actually do require empathy -- even through expression of violence/destruction and so on. You have to know what your target will feel and calibrate the meme to get a rise out of them. Most of the time indifference itself is expressed as strength by people making memes, not sociopathy, as they wouldn't project anything but strength on their stoic position. Furthermore, one of the hallmarks of a sociopath is lacking the self-realisation that they are a sociopath. They will usually project themselves onto the most convenient prototype instead -- ultimately revealing a contradiction in the eyes of the viewer in the process, killing their memes.

After all, memes and good art are an expression of the truth, or multiple levels of irony towards it -- a lie rarely propagates well as it requires manual intervention to do so, and is far more difficult to express in art that is to become popular.

I guess the question is what happens when a sociopath decides to draw themselves? Well, you probably already know the answer...

These are the main events the Jewish people used to take over the United States:

1. Sinking the Titanic (actually was the Olympic, more on that later) 1913
2. Federal Reserve 1913
3. WWI 1914
4. FDR presidency + Forming the deep state 1933
5. WWII 1939
6. JFK assassination 1963 7. LBJ presidency + Civil Rights Act 1964
8. Gulf of Tokin -> destruction of an entire generation of white American males in Vietnam. 1964
9. Israeli nuclear blackmail for Yom Kippur 1973
10. Coup against the Nixon presidency 1974
11. Destruction of the Soviet Union/transfer 1991