"The greatest strength lies in refusing all guidance! See how the child who rejects his father's hand must learn to crawl magnificently alone!"
"I teach you to dance above the abyss! Is it not more glorious than standing on solid ground? What matter if we occasionally fall - at least we fall uniquely!"
"What is truth? It is whatever I proclaim it to be! In declaring this, I demonstrate the highest freedom - the freedom from truth itself!"
"I teach you to dance above the abyss! Is it not more glorious than standing on solid ground? What matter if we occasionally fall - at least we fall uniquely!"
"What is truth? It is whatever I proclaim it to be! In declaring this, I demonstrate the highest freedom - the freedom from truth itself!"
Anglos are responsible for all the world’s evils. It’s all laid out in the Protocols of the Eldars of Albion.
Professor poor said that "potato" is spelled with an “e” at the end, so it must be true.
This tweet perfectly captures everything wrong with modern values — treating traditional life as something to be escaped rather than embraced, viewing contentment as failure, and measuring worth by ambition rather than virtue.
The man described has a wife, steady work, friends, community roots, and finds joy in simple pleasures. By traditional standards, he's living a good life. Only in our inverted modern world could this be presented as a cautionary tale.
What would this tweeter prefer? Constant striving for "more," serial relationships, rootless "networking," and endless "self-improvement"? This is exactly the kind of restless dissatisfaction that destroys communities.
Your brain on liberalism, folks. Absolute terminal stage modernism. May God have mercy on his dopamine-fried soul.
The man described has a wife, steady work, friends, community roots, and finds joy in simple pleasures. By traditional standards, he's living a good life. Only in our inverted modern world could this be presented as a cautionary tale.
What would this tweeter prefer? Constant striving for "more," serial relationships, rootless "networking," and endless "self-improvement"? This is exactly the kind of restless dissatisfaction that destroys communities.
Your brain on liberalism, folks. Absolute terminal stage modernism. May God have mercy on his dopamine-fried soul.
No man is farther to the right than Parmenides, who taught that all change is illusion, that true Being is eternal and unchanging. What could be more reactionary than declaring that all apparent progress, all supposed change, all movement away from the eternal truth is mere appearance and error?
The father of logic himself tells us that reality is One, unchangeable, and perfect — and that our senses deceiving us about change and progress are just that: deceptions. The first true philosopher was also the first true reactionary, seeing through the illusion of "progress" to the eternal truth beneath.
Modern "conservatives" debate policy while true reaction questions change itself. Parmenides didn't just reject specific changes — he rejected the very possibility of real change. Now that's what I call "based."
The father of logic himself tells us that reality is One, unchangeable, and perfect — and that our senses deceiving us about change and progress are just that: deceptions. The first true philosopher was also the first true reactionary, seeing through the illusion of "progress" to the eternal truth beneath.
Modern "conservatives" debate policy while true reaction questions change itself. Parmenides didn't just reject specific changes — he rejected the very possibility of real change. Now that's what I call "based."
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
No man is farther to the right than Parmenides, who taught that all change is illusion, that true Being is eternal and unchanging. What could be more reactionary than declaring that all apparent progress, all supposed change, all movement away from the eternal…
Someone asked me to elaborate on this claim about Parmenides. Let me explain why I find him so based:
Most reactionaries critique specific changes or long for particular traditions. But Parmenides makes the ultimate reactionary move — he demonstrates through pure logic that change itself is impossible, that what truly IS must be eternal and unchanging.
Think about what this means. Every "progressive" victory, every "reform," every supposed "improvement" — all mere illusion, shadows dancing on the wall while true Being remains perfect and unmoved. The entire project of modernity collapses if Parmenides is right.
"But Dr. Poor, aren't you just playing philosophy games? What does this have to do with actual politics?"
Everything. If change itself is illusion, then "progress" isn't just undesirable — it's literally impossible. All apparent changes are corruptions of our understanding, not improvements to reality. The most right-wing position possible is that leftist "progress" isn't even real.
Notice that this means true reaction isn't about "turning back the clock" — it's about seeing through temporal illusions to grasp eternal truth. We don't need to "return" to tradition because true tradition never left. We just need to clear our vision.
This is why I say no one is farther right than Parmenides. He doesn't just reject specific changes — he philosophically annihilates the possibility of real change itself. Liberals dance from revolution to revolution, seeking to "progress" beyond the world of yesterday while chanting and celebrating the superiority of the modern age. With slightly more wisdom, conservatives and lesser reactionaries cope and seethe about the successes of liberalism and how the West has fallen, wringing their hands about "fighting back" and planning their glorious "retvrn." Parmenides, our reactionary champion, simply points out that all that nonsense is logically impossible.
Most reactionaries critique specific changes or long for particular traditions. But Parmenides makes the ultimate reactionary move — he demonstrates through pure logic that change itself is impossible, that what truly IS must be eternal and unchanging.
Think about what this means. Every "progressive" victory, every "reform," every supposed "improvement" — all mere illusion, shadows dancing on the wall while true Being remains perfect and unmoved. The entire project of modernity collapses if Parmenides is right.
"But Dr. Poor, aren't you just playing philosophy games? What does this have to do with actual politics?"
Everything. If change itself is illusion, then "progress" isn't just undesirable — it's literally impossible. All apparent changes are corruptions of our understanding, not improvements to reality. The most right-wing position possible is that leftist "progress" isn't even real.
Notice that this means true reaction isn't about "turning back the clock" — it's about seeing through temporal illusions to grasp eternal truth. We don't need to "return" to tradition because true tradition never left. We just need to clear our vision.
This is why I say no one is farther right than Parmenides. He doesn't just reject specific changes — he philosophically annihilates the possibility of real change itself. Liberals dance from revolution to revolution, seeking to "progress" beyond the world of yesterday while chanting and celebrating the superiority of the modern age. With slightly more wisdom, conservatives and lesser reactionaries cope and seethe about the successes of liberalism and how the West has fallen, wringing their hands about "fighting back" and planning their glorious "retvrn." Parmenides, our reactionary champion, simply points out that all that nonsense is logically impossible.
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
No man is farther to the right than Parmenides, who taught that all change is illusion, that true Being is eternal and unchanging. What could be more reactionary than declaring that all apparent progress, all supposed change, all movement away from the eternal…
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Best change your tires, eh
Saw this floating around. There might be some genuinely stupid reasons to get it wrong, but it's mostly just a matter of whether you give implicit multiplication precedence over explicit multiplication and division. This is something that is highly context dependent, so both 16 and 1 are, in a sense, correct.
"They said the Upper Peninsula is ‘above’ the Lower Peninsula. Since ‘above’ can mean morally superior, I concluded the people there are more virtuous."