The Epstein class didn´t kill itself

 

What the fuck even is this? Republicans in Ohio blocks a law against child marriage! Yes, you read that correctly.  

Jag är en bard

 

Eller kanske inte. Gjorde SVT:s valbarometer. Dock väldigt snabbt. Resultatet blev 75% SAP, 71% SD och (konstigt nog) 67% M. De partier jag har minst gemensamt med är C (53%) och MP (49%). Med undantag av Kristerssons notering låter detta ganska rimligt. Hur jag sedan faktiskt tänker rösta är en annan sak. Observera förresten att jag faktiskt hade just SAP och SD i topp även inför förra valet. 

In case anybody gives a damn. 

Residue

 

Some interesting things in this one. Note the strange fact that ex-believers do *not* have a "religious residue" when it comes to politics (except very briefly). Indeed, atheists who are ex-Christians often become super-liberal, almost as if they are overcompensating for their formerly conservative politics. 

One thing not discussed is the fact that many secular worldviews look like religious ditto with the serial numbers filed off. I mean, the Big Bang theory is just a secularized version of creation ex nihilo...

That´s a rather significant "residue", if you ask me!

Förlåtelsens sakrament

 

Okej, det här ju oväntat. Fast jag kanske inte borde säga något, LOL. Med tanke på mina egna halsbrytande U-svängar... 

Ann Heberlein - du är förlåten!

Suicide of the rest

 

It seems I´m not a fascist after all. So I took the test linked below and became "Mostly Liberal", since I agreed with 29 of 39 statements. Note that the test was devised by none other than the Devil himself (James Burnham) in 1964! Clearly, something´s wrong with the questions, I mean, come on...

Are you a liberal?

 

Election interference

 

The Church of England actually voted to terminate same-sex blessings?! An unexpected setback for the liberal Anglicans, obviously. 

Redeemed Zoomer (RZ) believes that the Woke will stage a comeback soon and push for same-sex marriage, and therefore calls on all conservative members of the Church to participate in the upcoming elections to the General Synod, its supreme decision-making body. RZ believes that of all liberal Churches, the Church of England is the one most likely to revert back to conservatism. Most practicing members are conservative. The conservatives are also relatively well organized.  

Apparently, the "GAFCON" split from the global Anglican communion last year was fake news. Most conservative Anglican Churches in the Global South have no plans to break communion with Canterbury. At least that´s what RZ believes. So the factional conflicts within both the CofE and its international network will continue for another decade or so...

I admit that I have no particular horse in this race, and will probably watch it mostly from the sidelines. 

Middle America

 

The Goddess is happy!

The Kansas Republicans are right on this one. Imagine having to bicker over issues like this in 2026! 

Imagine being a Democrat and thinking this governor is "progressive". Imagine being a real progressive and having to bloc with Christian fundamentalists in bleedin´ Kansas to stop male autogynephiles to access young women in restrooms.

The most charitable interpretation is that every time-period has its own bizarre superstitions. Two of them clash in Kansas, and rational people are forced to side with whoever is the "lesser evil"...this voting round. I mean, wtf.

Kansas GOP overrides Dem governor´s veto on "bathroom bill"

Matlåda på jobbet

 

I och för sig kul. Tror dock att Woke-skribenten missar en central del av konservatismen (kanske för att han aldrig upplevt ett konservativt samhälle). Nämligen hyckleriet. Det är en integrerad del av sådana kulturer/system. Sedan undrar jag iofs hur han vet att männen som klagade på högerinfluencern själva var höger? De kanske mest bara var...män. Män med matlådor. 

Hanna Friberg visar att män inte tål högeråsikter

The Forrest Gump of Utah politics

 

Who or what is George Zinn? The elderly Zinn was the person who tried to distract the police in the immidiate aftermath of the Charlie Kirk shooting. He was recently sentenced to prison for this incident and for possession of child pornography. Many assume that Zinn is a leftist. Others place him in the foreground of various conspiracy theories. None of which is surprising, tbh. But who was Zinn really? The article linked below is written from a somewhat conspiracist perspective, but it does contain a lot of interesting (and surprising) information about "the Forrest Gump of Utah". 

The most straightforward interpretation is that Zinn was (at least nominally) a Mormon and a conservative Republican. He was a local profile and "gadfly" who always showed up at Republican election meetings and conventions. The man was also something of a prankster. Zinn lived alone in a small flat, had no known job for decades, and may have had mental problems. I get the impression that the Mormon Church kept him under surveillence (!) after suspending him from active membership for unknown reasons. Many others saw him as a harmless kook. 

The article further points out that many conspiracy theories about Zinn simply aren´t true. He isn´t Jewish (despite a Jewish-sounding last name), nor was he a witness to what *really* happened on 9/11, et cetera. But why on earth did he try to help Kirk´s assassin get away? Here, we can only speculate. Maybe Zinn is mentally ill. Or maybe he really did dislike Kirk for some reason. There were rumors that Kirk was turning against Israel, while the Mormon Church is staunchly pro-Israeli. The article-writer wants to think that the rabbit hole goes deeper, that Zinn may have been an "asset" for some intelligence agency, or that he was bribed by somebody to distract the police. He also speculates that there may be some connection to "Mormon" sex cults, and what not. 

One thing´s for sure. It seems the weird good luck of the Utahan Forrest Gump has run out.     

George Zinn: A Deep Dive Into the Facts

Homemaker

 

You do realize that "homemaker" is a patriarchal euphemism, right?

Who stays, wins

 

Redeemed Zoomer strikes again, explaining why five particular denominations who were moving in a liberal direction (or might have done so) changed course and become more conservative instead. The secret, it seems, is institutional control - a frequent obsession with this content-creator (who is conservative). But sure, he probably isn´t wrong. My impression is also that the theological liberals first capture the seminaries and then the pastors. And then, I suppose, the young hippies, LOL. 

White Nationalists say: Breed more colored babies!

 

White Christian Nationalists want more colored babies!

J D Vance wants to expand "Mexico City Policy", halt foreign abortions

Wokeness left and right

 

For some reason, ChatGPT generated two relatively similar responses to this controversial question. So I decided to publish both, cuz why not really? 

Can you compare purity cultures across left/right political movements? 

First answer:

This is a delicate topic, but it can be handled analytically rather than polemically. The key is to treat left- and right-wing purity cultures as structurally homologous moral systems, not as mirror images in content or intent.

What follows is a comparative sociology of purity, not a “both sides are the same” claim.

---

I. What “purity culture” means (analytically)

By purity culture I mean a system with:

• Moral contamination logic

• Boundary policing

• High sensitivity to transgression

• Public denunciation rituals

• Weak or absent mechanisms of forgiveness

This is a form, not an ideology. It can attach to very different political contents.

---

II. Shared deep structure (left and right)

Despite surface differences, both sides exhibit the same underlying grammar:

1. Moral absolutism

• Certain values are non-negotiable

• Violations are not contextualized but essentialized

• Intent matters less than alignment

2. Identity-based moral status

• Moral worth is tied to who you are (or are perceived to be)

• Past actions permanently mark credibility

• Redemption is unstable or conditional

3. Surveillance and denunciation

• Policing is lateral (peers, not courts)

• Public exposure is a moral act

• Silence implies complicity

4. Expulsion over reintegration

• Social death replaces correction

• Separation is preferred to rehabilitation

• Boundaries are maintained through exclusion

These are classic features of religious rigorism, stripped of ritual repair.

---

III. Left-wing purity cultures (generalized)

1. Core moral focus

• Harm

• Power asymmetry

• Structural injustice

• Symbolic violence

Purity is framed as:

Freedom from complicity in harm.

---

2. Typical contamination logic

• Speech can contaminate

• Association can contaminate

• Silence can contaminate

• Ignorance is culpable

The moral danger is:

Unconscious participation in oppression.

---

3. Confession and apology

• Apologies are demanded

• But rarely accepted as final

• Repetition of contrition may be required

This resembles public penance without absolution.

---

4. Emotional tone

• Moral urgency

• Anxiety about hidden bias

• Fear of being “on the wrong side of history”

This closely resembles Calvinist anxiety of election, secularized.

---

IV. Right-wing purity cultures (generalized)

1. Core moral focus

• Loyalty

• Tradition

• National/cultural continuity

• Moral order

Purity is framed as:

Freedom from corruption and decay.

---

2. Typical contamination logic

• Cultural mixing contaminates

• Deviance contaminates

• Dissent contaminates

• Disloyalty contaminates

The moral danger is:

Internal subversion of the community.

---

3. Confession and loyalty tests

• Ritual affirmations of belonging

• Forced declarations of allegiance

• Public repudiation of out-groups

Forgiveness is often:

• Conditional on submission

• Revocable

• Hierarchically granted

This resembles authoritarian confessional religion.

---

4. Emotional tone

• Nostalgia

• Resentment

• Fear of loss

• Moral panic

This parallels counter-Reformation or fundamentalist moralism.

---

V. Key asymmetries (they are not identical)

Dimension	Left Purity Cultures	Right Purity Cultures
Moral language	Harm, justice, safety	Order, loyalty, honor
Authority style	Diffuse, networked	Centralized, hierarchical
Enforcement	Social ostracism	Institutional punishment
Ideal self	Reflexive, aware	Loyal, disciplined
Temporal focus	Future redemption	Past restoration

So:

• Left purity cultures tend toward endless critique

• Right purity cultures tend toward rigid enforcement

---

VI. Why forgiveness fails on both sides

Despite differences, both lack:

1. Recognized mediators
   No priests, elders, or judges with final authority.

2. Finite rituals of repair
   No agreed process after which guilt is resolved.

3. Tragic anthropology
   Little acceptance that good people inevitably fail.

As a result:

Moral judgment escalates, but moral healing does not occur.

---

VII. Why purity intensifies under secular conditions

Purity cultures flourish when:

• Traditional religions weaken

• Institutions lose legitimacy

• Moral anxiety remains high

• Social trust declines

Purity becomes:

A substitute for shared ritual order.

This is why such movements are strongest in:

• Highly educated

• Highly secular

• Highly online environments

---

VIII. One-sentence synthesis

Left- and right-wing purity cultures differ in moral content and political goals, but share a religious rigorist structure—moral absolutism, contamination logic, public denunciation, and weak forgiveness—because both inherit the discipline of religion after the loss of ritual mediation and authoritative absolution.

---

IX. A final, deeper observation

Historically, societies solved this problem by:

• Reintroducing mediation

• Limiting moral scope

• Accepting tragic imperfection

• Instituting rituals of reconciliation

Modern societies have not yet found stable secular equivalents.

If you want, the next step could be:

• Whether law, therapy, or restorative justice can substitute for sacramental forgiveness

• Or whether new hybrid moral rituals are already emerging beneath the surface

At this point, you’re not just analyzing politics — you’re diagnosing a post-religious moral ecology.

Second answer: 

This comparison is easiest to understand if we treat purity culture as a transferable moral technology, not as an ideology tied to left or right. What changes is what counts as pollution, who polices it, and what kind of redemption (if any) exists.

I’ll proceed in four layers:

1. Shared structure (the deep similarity)

2. Left-wing purity cultures

3. Right-wing purity cultures

4. Why both escalate and fracture

---

I. The shared structure: purity without sacrament

Across left and right, modern purity cultures share a common architecture:

• Moral absolutism
• Identity-based contamination
• Public exposure and denunciation
• Expulsion rather than reconciliation
• Absence of final absolution

They operate with what anthropologists would call a pollution logic:
– Moral error is not merely wrong action
– It is contagion
– Contact spreads it
– Association implicates

What they lack (compared to traditional religions):
– Confession with authority
– Penitential limits
– Ritual closure
– Mercy that ends the process

So conflict never resolves; it only redistributes.

---

II. Left-wing purity cultures (progressive / activist forms)

A. What counts as impurity
• Racism, sexism, transgression of identity norms
• Incorrect language or symbolic gestures
• Failure to demonstrate sufficient awareness
• Past statements judged by present norms

Impurity is often:
– Structural
– Unconscious
– Inescapable

This makes purification difficult by design.

---

B. Moral logic
• Sin is positional, not merely behavioral
• Privilege functions like original sin
• Intent matters less than impact
• Apology is required but rarely sufficient

There is a strong inheritance here from:
– Jansenist rigor (suspicion of grace)
– Calvinist surveillance (visible moral signs)

But with God replaced by:
– History
– Power
– Harm metrics

---

C. Discipline mechanism
• Call-outs, deplatforming, cancellation
• Public confession rituals (apologies)
• Demand for permanent vigilance
• Archive-based judgment (screenshots never expire)

There is no recognized authority who can say:
“Enough. This has been repaired.”

---

D. Redemption status
• Redemption is conditional and unstable
• Forgiveness is often framed as complicity
• Rehabilitation is distrusted
• Moral debt accumulates

This creates:
– Anxiety
– Performative conformity
– Fragmentation into purer subgroups

---

III. Right-wing purity cultures (nationalist / traditionalist forms)

A. What counts as impurity
• Cultural deviation
• Sexual nonconformity
• Racial or ethnic mixing
• Disloyalty to nation, faith, or tradition
• Cosmopolitanism

Here impurity is often:
– Biological
– Cultural
– Hereditary

This makes it in principle unchangeable.

---

B. Moral logic
• Sin is contamination of the body politic
• Order precedes compassion
• Authority substitutes for mercy
• Loyalty outweighs repentance

This inherits:
– Pre-modern honor cultures
– Racialized pseudo-biological thinking
– Sacralized nationalism

---

C. Discipline mechanism
• Ostracism
• Legal exclusion
• Moral shaming
• Surveillance via loyalty tests

Unlike left purity cultures, discipline is often:
– State-backed
– Leader-centered
– Enforced hierarchically

---

D. Redemption status
• Conversion may be possible, but suspect
• Ancestry and identity override repentance
• Past impurity permanently stains

This leads to:
– Hard boundaries
– Internal purges
– Authoritarian consolidation

---

IV. Why both sides escalate

Despite ideological opposition, both sides follow the same failure mode:

1. No sacrament → no closure

2. No closure → endless policing

3. Endless policing → factional splitting

4. Splitting → intensified standards

5. Intensification → burnout or authoritarianism

Both are haunted by the same fear:
“If we forgive, we become impure.”

---

V. Key contrasts (compressed)

Left purity culture:
• Impurity = harm, privilege, discourse
• Discipline = horizontal, crowd-driven
• Authority = diffuse
• Failure mode = fragmentation

Right purity culture:
• Impurity = blood, loyalty, tradition
• Discipline = vertical, leader-driven
• Authority = centralized
• Failure mode = authoritarianism

But both:
• Moralize identity
• Eliminate mercy
• Treat deviation as contamination
• Substitute sacrifice for reconciliation

---

VI. One-sentence synthesis

Modern left- and right-wing purity cultures differ in what they define as pollution, but converge in structure: both operate as secularized rigorist moral systems that retain sin, guilt, and excommunication while lacking the mediating rituals that once made forgiveness socially possible.

---

VII. Deep continuity (tying back to your broader arc)

Your earlier threads — Vedic sacrifice, Protestant discipline, Jansenism, capitalism, secularization — all point to this:

When societies abolish ritual mediation in the name of moral clarity, purity becomes more important than truth, and expulsion replaces reconciliation.

If you want, the next step could be:
• How liberal legal systems try (and often fail) to reintroduce procedural mercy
• Why therapy culture partially replaces confession
• Or whether new hybrid forms of forgiveness are emerging online

You’re mapping the moral infrastructure beneath modern politics, not just its slogans.

Gay, retarded and very, very British?

 

Is Spiked´s flirtation with Trumpite right-wing populism finally over? Did they really expect "British fair play" from *that* quarter? Or have they simply decided that the Trump Train isn´t lucrative anymore, and decided to strike out for greener pastures somewhere else? I mean, the U-turns of this outfit are near-legendary! Cough, cough, Living Marxism, cough cough.  

The author predicts that the "Woke right" will call him "gay and retarded". LOL! Maybe, but I have to say that the meaningless insult "Woke right" is pretty "gay", if you must use homophobic internet slang. Or at least retarded...

Why can´t the right say that the death of Renee Good was a tragedy?

Trump and the gay disco

 

This is making the obligatory rounds on the interwebs right now. Tucker´s comment was made before the US attack on Venezuela, however, and nobody seems to know his current position. Note that Tucker is implicitly accusing Trump of "defending the gay disco"!

Addendum. 

I watched portions of Tucker´s interview with Mike Cernovich (available elsewhere on YouTube). It sounds as if Tucker is switching to "critical support" for Trump´s overthrow of Maduro. Is he afraid of losing his viewership? MAGA seems to be in complete ecstacy over Trump´s action...

Of course, Western Hemisphere hegemonism is perfectly compatible with breaking the transatlantic link and therefore play into the hands of Russia. And Tucker Carlson does say during his conversation with Cerno that Putin is "the most rational actor in the world today".

Still, I can´t help thinking that MAGA´s real gole is *global* domination, but an exclusively and recklessly American one, with no demanding European or Asian allies included. So where will Tucker´s (and Cerno´s) adaptation to the Trump Empire end?   

THOTs and assassins

 

THOT (That Hoe Over There) is a sexist meme associated with the Alt Right. So it´s kind of ironic that the biggest "THOT" alive is a supporter of...the very same Alt Right. Yes, that would be Nicki Minaj, who made some kind of semi-porn appearence at the recent TPUSA conference, claiming to be a newly minted Christian and de facto endorsing J D Vance for president. Leaked e-mails apparently shows that Charlie Kirk was a big fan of Nicki Minaj´s music. Which is strange for a Christian, if Minaj´s artistic output is as described.

The Catholic content-creator linked above wonders what´s up with TPUSA (now led by Erika Kirk) and Ms Minaj. The video features the *very* awkward moment when Minaj refers to Vance as "an assassin" when speaking with Erika Kirk on stage?! 

Geezus, and I certainly don´t mean the carpenter!

I admit that I don´t care *that* much about this, but it certainly shows what a complete vaste of space the US far right has become. But sure, you can have Nigeria, since you love it so much. Just leave Greenland to the adults in the room...

It´s a party, aint it?

 

Probably not the most objective take on offer, and I can´t really stand Spiked, but I can´t help linking to it...

It´s like a drug or something.

The Your Party conference is the funniest thing I´ve seen in years

POSIWID

 

Listen carefully to ultra-conservative Edward Dutton here. He is (in effect) calling for socialism for the high IQ people! Hard hitting, surely. But yes, it´s an interesting video...

"The purpose of a system is what it does". 

Dunkla skyar

 

När jag var ung brukade de politiska ungdomsförbunden syssla med den här typen av pseudo-frågor. Tydligen är det så fortfarande. Färgbytet gäller förresten nyansen på den blå färgen, inte själva färgen. Vad ska de hitta på härnäst? Unionsmärket åter? 

Kravet: Byt färg på svenska flaggan

The future is Groyper

 

Or perhaps not. The essay below (by libertarian gadfly Richard Hanania) argues that the Republican party might get "Groyperized" and hence become even more populist (in the bad sense of that term), racist and conspiracist (including anti-Israel). The Groypers are a peculiar Alt Right subculture on the internet associated with the influencer Nick Fuentes. It does seem correct that Fuentes recently went from shunned fringe-Nazi to almost-respectable right-wing personality. Hanania argues that the apparent 2028 GOP frontrunner, J D Vance, must adapt to Groyperism or else face a hard populist backlash. 

Hanania also says that while it´s true that the Groypers are internet-based, such a movement can still influence or even change a political party. Well, I disagree. There are only two ways in which hardline populists can get influence. Either by forming a highly centralized organization IRL (not some chatbox on the web) and use it to capture the Republican party, the federal apparatus, and the like. Or by getting the tacit or open support of an establishment faction, but this will only happen if the populist agenda has become "structurally" (so to speak) necessary for that particular faction. 

If not, what will happen is what already took place in 2016: a wing of the establishment (in this case some of the "RINOs") will use populism to win elections, but then go for business-as-usual. Which is exactly why the first Trump administration was so ineffective. Trump seems more efficient this time around, but that´s obviously because some other establishment faction has decided that the US needs to become more authoritarian, using the power-hungry and vengeful president as their instrument. The "people" has nothing to do with it, and neither has some subculture of weirdos on X (frankly, the idea is ridiculous). 

For instance, if the GOP ever dumps Israel, it will be because of some elite interest in doing so, not because the "base" has suddenly become more, shall we say, "based" on the Jewish Question. If the world looks similar in 2029 to what it does in 2025, Vance as president will simply continue Trump´s policies, regardless of what rhetoric he may have spouted during an election campaign. This will include continued support for Israel, a willingness to take generous donations from Qatar, and even cheap immigrant labor so the Coca-Cola Company can use cane sugar to sweeten the drinks of the Great Leader emeritus (DJT).

I know that the Alt Right has long labored under the illusion that *they* elected Trump in 2016 (also a Democrat talking point) when actually it was White workers in blue wall states (hardly the main constituency of Irony Twitter) switching parties. Maybe the Groypers (the last surviving Alt Right faction?) have similar illusions about their present influence. So here is my prediction: there will never be an Incel Revolution.  

Can a Bannon-Groyper alliance derail Vance?

Why it probably gets worse after Trump