If a food didn't exist before 1900, don't eat it. This simple move alone will make you healthier than 90% of the population.

This article—**“Frankenstein’s Creature”**—is a sophisticated, Stirnerian critique of modernity, using Mary Shelley’s *Frankenstein* as an allegory for the dangers of **idealism, abstraction, and state power**. It argues that humanity’s turn from tangible, lived reality toward **“spooks”** (fixed ideas like the State, Humanity, Nature, or Family) has produced monstrous institutions that consume the very individuals they claim to serve. Below is a detailed analysis. --- ### **1. Core Thesis** > **Modernity’s fatal error is the inversion of reality and ideal: it no longer seeks to elevate the real but to materialize abstractions—creating “monsters” (like the state, humanism, or environmental absolutism) that dominate and destroy the unique individual.** Shelley’s *Frankenstein* is not just a cautionary tale about science—it is a **myth of modernity itself**, where the creator is devoured by his own idealized creation. --- ### **2. Key Concepts & Arguments** #### **A. The Spook and the Unique** - Drawing from **Max Stirner**, the text distinguishes: - **“Humans”**: flesh-and-blood, unique individuals. - **“Humanity”**: an abstract, moralizing fiction—a **spook** that demands sacrifice. - All spooks (State, God, Nation, Justice, Nature) are **mental constructs** that gain power when internalized, leading individuals to **subjugate themselves** to ideals. #### **B. Historical Dialectic: From Real to Ideal** The article proposes a three-stage historical model: 1. **Pre-modern (“the child”)**: Gods and social bonds are **tangible**—family = kin you know; gods = forces in nature (sun, rain). Abstraction is minimal. 2. **Modern (“the adolescent”)**: The **ideal consumes the real**. “Family” becomes a sacred institution; “the People” replaces actual neighbors; the State claims to *be* us. 3. **Post-modern/Egoist (“the mature” / The Unique)**: The individual **rejects all spooks**, reclaims sovereignty, and creates freely—Stirner’s hoped-for synthesis. #### **C. Frankenstein as Allegory of Modernity** - Victor Frankenstein doesn’t just build a creature—he **materializes an ideal**: the perfect, rational, scientific creation. - But the creature, once alive, **escapes control**—just as the modern state, born of Enlightenment ideals (reason, progress, human rights), becomes **a devouring machine**. - The horror isn’t the monster’s violence—it’s that **the creator is responsible**, yet refuses to take ownership. #### **D. The Modern State: A More Insidious Monster** - Unlike pre-modern rulers (kings, warlords), who were **openly external oppressors**, the modern state **claims identity with the people** (“we the people”). - This illusion makes domination **more total**: individuals **voluntarily submit**, believing the state embodies their will. - Institutions like central banking, public health bureaucracies, and welfare systems are **techno-managerial limbs** of this monster—rational, impersonal, and all-consuming. #### **E. Humanism as the “Last Spook”** - Humanism—the belief in “Humanity” as a sacred entity—is the **culmination of abstraction**. - It leads to absurdities like **anti-human environmentalism**: saving “Nature” (an idea) even if it means eliminating humans (real beings). - As the text provocatively asks: *“What is nature without humans?”*—implying **Nature, too, is a spook** when detached from lived experience. #### **F. The Failure of Stirner’s Hope** - Stirner believed egoism would dissolve the state as individuals reclaimed autonomy. - But **170 years later**, spooks are stronger than ever: surveillance, identity politics, global governance—all demand **submission to abstractions**. - The “Unique” survives only at society’s **margins**, not as a mass movement. --- ### **3. Philosophical & Literary Anchors** - **Max Stirner**: Central framework. The critique of “fixed ideas,” the sovereignty of the ego, and the dialectic of history. - **Mary Shelley’s *Frankenstein***: Reinterpreted not as anti-science but as **anti-idealism**—the tragedy of trying to incarnate perfection. - **Albert Camus (*The Rebel*)**: Cited on the “passion of incarnation”—the violent drive to impose ideas on reality. - **Pre-modern vs. Modern Cosmology**: Echoes thinkers like **Owen Barfield** or **Julius Evola** on the “fall” from participatory consciousness into abstract rationalism. --- ### **4. Rhetorical Strategies** - **Mythic Framing**: Uses *Frankenstein* as a **modern Genesis myth**—science as fallen creation. - **Capitalization as Critique**: “Family” (ideal) vs. “family” (real); “Nature” (spook) vs. nature (molecules interacting). - **Provocative Paradox**: “Environmentalists hate humans”; “The state is us—and that’s the problem.” - **Historical Irony**: Pre-modern people knew they were oppressed; moderns **celebrate their chains** as freedom. --- ### **5. Strengths** - **Original Synthesis**: Connects literary analysis, political theory, and egoist philosophy compellingly. - **Timely Critique**: Anticipates contemporary debates about **technocracy, identity abstraction, and eco-fascism**. - **Psychological Depth**: Captures how **internalized ideology** feels like freedom. - **Radical Clarity**: Refuses compromise with any collective ideal—even “progressive” ones. --- ### **6. Weaknesses / Tensions** - **Romanticizing the Pre-modern**: Ignores that pre-modern life was often brutal, superstitious, and collectivist—hardly a haven for the “Unique.” - **Overstating Stirner’s Relevance**: Assumes all modern ills stem from abstraction, neglecting material forces (capitalism, ecology, technology). - **Elitism**: The “Unique” seems accessible only to intellectual rebels, not ordinary people navigating complex societies. - **No Path Forward**: Offers diagnosis but **no strategy**—how does one live as “Unique” under totalizing spooks? --- ### **7. Connection to Previous Articles** This piece **completes a triad** with the earlier texts: 1. **“The Problem of Hierarchy”**: Archism is inevitable; anarchism fails because it ignores human nature. 2. **“Justice”**: Justice is a spook masking state violence. 3. **“Frankenstein’s Creature”**: Modernity itself is the ultimate spook—**humanism as self-annihilation**. Together, they form a **coherent egoist worldview**: > **All collective ideals are traps. Freedom lies not in reforming systems, but in withdrawing consent from every abstraction that claims your soul.** --- ### **8. Conclusion: The Monster We Feed** The article’s deepest insight is this: **We are all Victor Frankenstein now**. We feed the monster—not with lightning and cadavers, but with our **belief in abstractions**: democracy, sustainability, equity, security. Each time we say “for the sake of humanity,” we sacrifice the human in front of us. Yet the final note is **open-ended**: > *“The future is unpredictable… it will be shaped by what the unique creates.”* This leaves room for **creative resistance**—not revolution, but **individual reclamation**: making art, forming real bonds, refusing to speak the language of spooks. In a world of monsters, the most radical act may be **to remain irreducibly oneself**. In the end, the Creature isn’t under the bed—it’s in the mirror. And the only way to slay it is to **stop feeding it ideals**.

NEW: Trump letter to Norwegian Ambassador Dear Ambassador: President Trump has asked that the following message, shared with Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, be forwarded to your [named head of government/state] “Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT”

>Be pemmican >The OG energy bar >50/50 mix of dried meat and rendered fat >Invented by people who understood survival >Last indefinitely without refrigeration >Complete nutrition in concentrated form >Fuel Arctic expeditions for months >Power Lewis and Clark across continent >Keep fur traders alive in wilderness for years >Single food that conquered North America >Modern equivalent is protein bar with 20g sugar >Which gives you diarrhea at mile three >Progress

Once the herd agrees to mandatory vaccination then it's game over H Kissinger

Concept of God God is a relatively obscure subject in our days. Atheists and other seculars have made sure that our mental spaces are filled with many other trivialities and ideas that we have no need for anything else. We already have so many idols and subjects of worship that God as such has disappeared or greatly marginalized, to just name a few, humanity, rights, holy progress and Science. Existentialists of the 19th and 20th centuries were heavily influenced by Max Stirner, and here we will briefly examine Karl Jaspers’ idea of God and unexpectedly and with joy will find how a true God (in contrast to our modern falsehoods) would have contributed to freedom. Philosophers as a group, are indeed part of the priesthood of the state, and they have replaced the old priest class (together with the rest of intellectuals). The main purpose of this parasitic class is to provide the so-called intellectual and spiritual cover for the bandits that rule us. Either knowingly or instinctively, they have tried for many years to bury the most subversive idea ever, the idea of dialectical egoism. But, even so, the glimpses of it shines through other more benign and “acceptable” projects of philosophy and thought. Karl Jaspers is an interesting example. God’s historical evolution can be told in this way: material God (idol, rain, sun) evolves to immaterial or ideal God (Jehva, Jesus, Allah) to secular God of deists and humanist (laws of nature, science). Then we reach the God of Feurbach (the “Human”) and the late stage Gods with different names: progress, nature, social justice, sustainability and so forth. We can in the meantime see a parallel idea of God, which will open up a refreshing alternative for spirituality and self realization for all who seek these. God is not an object. It cannot be empirically proven. We infer the existence of one thing from the existence of some other thing. When we see smoke, we look for fire, when we see footprints, we look for the feet. We could induce thing after thing, logically we can prove objects that are in this world, but we cannot infer the existence of anything other than the world. He is therefore not rationally provable. Authentic God cannot be a being among beings either. This latest liability to infer God as an object, or prove its existence leads to another way of thinking. We call it the world as God and its laws and its beauty. Such is the belief that the organisation and order of the world, the good in the world is God, but: “.. God, the benevolent creator, exists, we must call to mind all that is ugly, disordered, base in the world.. This gives rise to fundamental attitudes for which the world is alien, frightening, terrible, and it seems as plausible to infer the existence of the evil as of God.” Kaspers starts building his idea of God from the limits of the deistic conception as described above. The world as God is obviously imperfect and unfished. It is also interesting to parallel the world’s imperfection to imperfection of our understanding of its lwas (subject I will come back to in a critique of historical materialism). God is not an object of the world, it also cannot be an object of knowing or understanding. What do we mean by object of understanding? In the deist’s view the world was not the God, but the laws were. It is the laws, or our understanding of the universe was the God. As for example, the famous phrase of Laplace when asked about the God in the solar system: "I had no need for that hypothesis.". Assuming God as the order and laws of the worlds, is a fruitless enterprise. It confronts the problem of evil and cannot reconcile us with it. The God as Kaspers said, then is also or at the same the evil. God is thus not an object of empirical knowledge or knowable or logically provable. God is. What is then this act of being? Being is freedom and the essence of this freedom is being free from the world, rejection of alienation and capture by outer forces. Being thus becomes my own and is my own. In this sense, “God never becomes a tangible object in the world and this means that man must not abandon his freedom to tangibles, authorities, powers of the world; that he bears responsibility and he must owe his decisions to himself.” Kaspers proposes also that God is not a definable entity, it is in the limit of knowledge, and the efforts to capture it in dogma, doctrine or metaphysical system turns it to an idol, or an object of to be known (and proven?), within the world. The opposite holds, i.e. God is unknowable, and a creative nothing, very akin to the unique. God is freedom, to be responsible for oneself. A valid question is what about this new God? Are not I (or indeed Karl Jaspers) inventing a newer spook? A net loss for me if that would be true. Is this true? The answer is a mild no. The concept of God described as unknowable creative nothing is incapable of becoming a path to alienation. This God is the individual’s own freedom and discovery. There is no content in it, the content of it is created in the marginals of ordinary life, at the crisis, illness and/or death. This is to say when the unique deals with life's hardships authentically. This God is not an entity, it is the creation The Unique engages in. I rather like this God and prefer it to the idols of different religions and Gods of pious atheists.

The government has held the Epstein files for seven years without making a single arrest or charging anyone. One thing is certain: protecting pedophiles is a bipartisan issue, and the entire government is complicit.

Israel's plan

Zionist pigs

There never was a Pandemic

Cancer cells have a metabolic vulnerability: They heavily rely on glucose for fuel. Normal cells can use glucose OR ketones. Cancer cells lack the mitochondria to metabolise ketones efficiently. This is called the Warburg effect, discovered in the 1920s by Otto Warburg (won Nobel Prize for this work). Ketogenic diet starves cancer cells while feeding healthy cells. Glucose drops. Ketones rise. Cancer cells struggle. Healthy cells thrive. The research: Multiple studies show ketogenic diet as adjunct therapy improves outcomes in glioblastoma (brain cancer), slows tumor growth, enhances chemotherapy effectiveness, and reduces treatment side effects. Animal studies consistently show tumor growth reduction on ketogenic diet. Human case studies document tumor regression on metabolic therapy. Why isn't this standard oncology practice? Because oncology profits from chemotherapy, radiation, and pharmaceuticals. Dietary intervention can't be patented. Can't generate recurring revenue. A metabolic approach to cancer threatens a $200 billion industry. Dr. Thomas Seyfried (Boston College) has spent decades documenting cancer as metabolic disease, not genetic disease. His research: Cancer is fundamentally a problem of damaged mitochondria and dysfunctional energy metabolism. Ketogenic diet addresses root cause (metabolic dysfunction) rather than symptoms (tumor growth). This doesn't mean "cure cancer with butter." This means metabolic therapy as foundation with conventional treatment as needed. But oncologists won't discuss it because nutrition isn't in their training and it threatens their business model. Patients deserve to know: Ketosis is a powerful adjunct therapy with zero downside and significant evidence.

1950s Austria: Dr. Wolfgang Lutz is treating patients with standard medical approaches and getting mediocre results. Chronic diseases respond poorly to pharmaceuticals. Patients improve temporarily but don't recover fully. He starts researching historical dietary approaches and discovers older literature about low-carbohydrate diets. He's skeptical but decides to try it with patients who've failed other treatments. His protocol: Limit carbohydrates to 72 grams daily maximum, about 6 "bread units." No restriction on protein or fat. Patients can eat meat, eggs, cheese, butter freely. Just keep the carbs low. The results surprise him. Diabetic patients see blood sugar normalize. Obese patients lose weight without hunger. Patients with inflammatory conditions report dramatic improvement. Digestive issues resolve. He continues refining the approach over decades. Treats thousands of patients with low-carbohydrate dietary intervention. Finds it effective for diabetes, obesity, inflammatory bowel disease, arthritis, and various other chronic conditions. 1967: He publishes "Leben Ohne Brot" (Life Without Bread) documenting his clinical experience. The book describes case studies, explains the metabolic rationale, and provides practical implementation advice. The medical establishment ignores it. This is the height of low-fat diet dominance. A physician advocating unlimited fat consumption is heretical. Lutz doesn't care. He has patient outcomes. He continues prescribing low-carb high-fat diets for the next 40 years. Publishes follow-up research. Documents long-term success with patients staying on the diet for decades. 2000: At age 89, he publishes updated research showing patients who'd been on his diet for 30+ years remained healthy with no adverse effects from high fat consumption. He dies in 2010 at age 97, still eating low-carb himself, still advocating the approach he'd prescribed for 50+ years. His work gets rediscovered by modern low-carb movements. The clinical outcomes he documented match what current researchers are finding - low-carb high-fat diets reverse chronic disease. But we wasted 50 years because his findings contradicted the profitable narrative. He had the evidence. The industry had the marketing budget.

The establishment when you eat red meat: Monday: Causing cancer Tuesday: Destroying the planet Wednesday: Clogging your arteries Thursday: Killing the rainforest Friday: Raising your cholesterol dangerously Saturday: Accelerating climate change Sunday: Just generally irresponsible The establishment when you drink Coca-Cola daily: Silence.

Israel: when Iranian regime falls we will strike everywhere in Iran as we did with Syria. #Iran

The people who did this to Gaza are deeply concerned about the safety of armed Protester in Iran.

According to my sources and an eyewitness I met online without a name and picture, the death toll of the ongoing Iranian protests has exceeded 5 million. It was confirmed by unknown sources that the number will gradually increase until the US bombs Iranians to freedom. Horrific

They want you to stop eating beef while: - Flying avocados from Mexico - Shipping quinoa from Peru - Importing almonds from drought-stricken California - Buying soy from cleared rainforest Your local beef from cattle eating local grass with zero food miles is somehow the environmental disaster. The cognitive dissonance is staggering.