An Errant Conclusion

The amusing thing is that the author, and the publishing industry, imagines this somehow says anything about the decline of young white literary men as opposed to the death of the literary mainstream:

It’s easy enough to trace the decline of young white men in American letters—just browse The New York Times’s “Notable Fiction” list. In 2012 the Times included seven white American men under the age of 43 (the cut-off for a millennial today); in 2013 there were six, in 2014 there were six.

And then the doors shut.

By 2021, there was not one white male millennial on the “Notable Fiction” list. There were none again in 2022, and just one apiece in 2023 and 2024 (since 2021, just 2 of 72 millennials featured were white American men). There were no white male millennials featured in Vulture’s 2024 year-end fiction list, none in Vanity Fair’s, none in The Atlantic’s. Esquire, a magazine ostensibly geared towards male millennials, has featured 53 millennial fiction writers on its year-end book lists since 2020. Only one was a white American man.

Over the course of the 2010s, the literary pipeline for white men was effectively shut down. Between 2001 and 2011, six white men won the New York Public Library’s Young Lions prize for debut fiction. Since 2020, not a single white man has even been nominated (of 25 total nominations). The past decade has seen 70 finalists for the Center for Fiction’s First Novel Prize—with again, not a single straight white American millennial man. Of 14 millennial finalists for the National Book Award during that same time period, exactly zero are white men.

In other words, they’ll publish inferior work that no one wants to read, their audiences will dwindle, and their publications and awards will become completely irrelevant until their only hope for survival is lobbying for government grants based on the idea that they used to be important.

Meanwhile, young white men will continue to write, continue to innovate, and continue to invent just as they have been doing for centuries. And they will build new institutions to replace those their ancestors built, and perhaps next time, they won’t fall for all the arguments about the need to relax their rules and lower their standards in order to let the women qualify.

Does anyone think the Hugo and Nebula winners of today are better than they were 50 years ago? Does anyone believe that what is published in The Atlantic matters anymore? Of course not. We don’t even read any of these things anymore, precisely because they no longer matter.

No magazine has ever discussed my fiction. And yet the readers compare it to Tolkien (unfavorably) and Martin (favorably), and when the playing field was level – as opposed to algorithmically managed – my works on political philosophy were outselling both Marx and Machiavelli.

DISCUSS ON SG


Infertility is the End of Democracy

A highly astute observation on how the ascent of the so-called nationalist autocracies and the demise of the so-called democracies appears to be inevitable due to the way these democracies heavily bias their policies toward the least-productive members of their societies:

As far as I can tell, the most notable political science results of the 21st century is democracy cannot work well with low fertility rates. All converge on prioritizing retirees over workers and immigrants over citizens escalating social transfers beyond sustainability. I think this means we should try to understand non-democratic regimes better since they will represent the majority of global political power in the future.

It seems to me that the great graying and mass immigration simply are the end of democracies as we understood them. Just as failure to manage an economy and international trade were the end of Soviet Communism as we understood it. Low-fertility autocracies seems to have little trouble with reindustrializing or waging war when needed. These used to be 20th century strengths of high-fertility democracy!

This is simply another way that enfranchising and educating women, and encouraging the 30 percent of young women who historically married and had children to enter the work force, is both logically and observably incompatible with societal survival. It’s a viable path for a limited time, and it may even be considered a highly desirable path by many, but the now-observable fact is that viability comes with a built-in time limit which is remarkably consistent with the recorded lifespans of many historical societies.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can see the fundamental flaws in the underlying assumptions of failed past ideologies.

  • Communism: the idea that production will take place without a profit incentive.
  • Libertarianism: the idea that consent is a valid or viable basis for morality and legality.
  • Democracy: the idea that the collective will of the people exists in any meaningful sense or is relevant to the ordering and sustainability of society in any way.
  • Representative Democracy: the idea that an elected elite will meaningfully represent the wishes of the people
  • Constitutionalism: the idea that words on a piece of paper, interpreted by a political elite, will preserve the intentions of the society’s founders.
  • Elefthemporism: the idea that you can replace your native people with foreigners and buy the weapons required by your armed forces from your enemies.
  • Neoliberalism: the idea that the various idiosyncracies of the post-WWII order are of immutable significance for future orders.
  • Conservatism: the idea that yesterday’s status quo is the high point of human existence and any departure from it in any direction is dangerous and wrong.

Personally, I think the reason the “democracies” are failing is because they are fake, evil, and literally gay, but it is without question true that a societal lack of fertility and the inevitable evils that result from it will eventually render even the ideal Platonic form of liberal, constitutional representative democracy non-functional.

DISCUSS ON SG


Forget the Third Term

Three terms wouldn’t be enough. The God-Emperor has 873 more terms to go. 3,495 more years!

Bookmakers view US President Donald Trump as one of the top picks to win the 2028 election, despite the two-term constitutional limit, Newsweek has reported, citing the latest betting data. According to an article published on Saturday, British betting company William Hill has listed Trump as a favorite to win the next presidential race with 5/1 odds, giving him a 16.7% chance of securing what would be his third term in office.

Vance has done very well as Vice-President so far, but he’s not the right man for the top job. Donald Trump Jr. would be a braver and much better choice for holding down the fort until Barron is old enough to ascend the Cherry Blossom Throne.

DISCUSS ON SG


The Evil of the Devil Mouse

Just in case you didn’t fully comprehend the complete extent of Disney’s inversion and devotion to pure Satanic wickedness, note that they not only race-mixed the bird, but they even got rid of the bluebird, the innocent symbol of spring and hope, and replaced it with a carrion-eating black vulture, an ugly symbol of evil and death.

Fortunately, most Americans are onto them now. The live-action inversion of the animated Snow White appears to be bombing harder than even the most negative projections had anticipated. If the reports of a $16 million Friday box office are correct, and assuming past patterns hold, the film’s opening three-day weekend should be around $34 million, which is way below the disastrous $50 million industry projections of a bomb and even worse than the $37.5 million worst-case estimate by Box Office Theory.

This would point to a domestic total of $85 million, which would be an absolutely brutal catastrophe for the Devil Mouse, particularly in light of the fact that the flow of government funds to it are being actively disrupted.

I would go so far as to say that the Devil Mouse may not survive four years of a second Trump administration.

DISCUSS ON SG


Operation SkyBack

The God-Emperor 2.0 is sending more than half a million foreigners home:

The Trump administration will be revoking the legal status of hundreds of thousands of Latin American and Haitian migrants welcomed into the U.S. under a Biden-era sponsorship process, urging them to self-deport or face arrest and removal by deportation agents.

The termination of their work permits and deportation protections under an immigration authority known as parole will take effect in late April, 30 days after March 25, according to a notice posted by the federal government. The move will affect immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who flew to the U.S. under a Biden administration program, known as CHNV, that was designed to reduce illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border by giving would-be migrants legal migration avenues.

A total of 532,000 migrants entered the U.S. under that policy, which was paused soon after President Trump took office, though it’s unclear how many have been able to secure another status that will allow them to stay in the country legally.

It took 500 years for the Reconquista to free Spain. At this pace, it wouldn’t take the USA 4 years to remove the consequences of the entire post-1965 mass invasion. Again and again, we’re seeing the God-Emperor 2.0 demonstrate that was formerly deemed unthinkable and impossible is actually quite doable.

DISCUSS ON SG


Forget Scott Adams

If I was any more accurate as an anticipator of future events, the mainstream media would be demanding that I be burned as a witch.

I remember Vox saying to just write “I don’t want your Mark of the Beast!”, if filling out a vax exemption.

“Evidence produced on discovery includes exemption review committee template guidelines revealing that three (3) specific religious affiliations (Rastafarian, Dutch Reform, and Christian Scientist) received preferential treatment leading to approval, while other religions (Catholics, Christians, et al) received harsh scrutiny and demand for more information likely leading to denial.” 

“72. On October 5, 2021, RERC updated the approval/denial criteria adding “Template Responses.” Under “Approved,” is stated, “With at least a basic explanation of faith and its opposition to vaccination, requests based upon the following organized religions should be approved: Christian Scientist, Dutch Reform Church, and Rastafarian.” Also newly added, those who mention “Mark of the Beast” in their request have a lesser burden of explanation. Under “Denied” — “… Catholics, Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Buddhism …” would be denied without elaborated explanation. Also added under “Denied” — anyone writing that “the vaccine will modify one’s DNA” or “the vaccine will prevent future reproduction.” 

Remember, rhetoric is always much more convincing than dialectic when dealing with NPCs, particularly NPCs on a mission of some kind. For example, which statement do you think is going to be more effective in convincing a die-hard Democrat with Trump Derangement System to shut the hell up and avoid talking politics with you after she asks a leading question about what you think of Drumpf.

  • Well, I don’t agree everything the President is doing, but I think he’s, you know, doing some good things. I mean, you have to admit he’s uncovered a lot of government waste!
  • You mean the God-Emperor? I love the God-Emperor! 3,500 more years!

Notice that both appeals to Christianity and science were rejected, whereas merely mentioning “Mark of the Beast” was met with approval. Why? Because the rhetorical message sent by the latter indicated that the individual was a) not inclined to cave, b) serious about their beliefs, c) a hard out.

Never attempt to moderate or be circumspect about your sincerely-held beliefs. And remember, no one is more contemptuous of the lukewarm than God.

DISCUSS ON SG


Tween Shakespeare and Shakspere

Ron Unz is finally convinced that “William Shakespeare” was not William Shakspere of Stratford-on-Avon. Which, to be honest, was always pretty obvious considering how unlikely it was that a near-illiterate tradesman who owned no books and never traveled outside of England could have possibly been the great Bard of English literature.

Chapter 1 devoted more than a dozen pages to a very thorough review of the actual name of the Stratford native, demonstrating that in nearly all cases it had been spelled “Shakspere” by everyone in his family across several generations, with the relatively few exceptions generally being those variants produced by clerks who misspelled it phonetically. Meanwhile, that name had never been associated with any of the plays or poems of the great literary figure.

But apparently, the growing early twentieth century challenge to Shakespearean orthodoxy by Mark Twain and others led the academic community to “kill off” Shakspere’s actual name around the time of the 1916 tercentenary of his death. As a consequence, almost all the many appearances of “Shakspere” in published articles relating to the Stratford native were henceforth replaced by “Shakespeare,” thereby partially concealing the identity problem from future generations.

The second chapter focused upon Mr. Shakspere’s six known signatures, showing these to be illegible and seemingly illiterate compared to the many signatures of other prominent literary figures of that same era. This contrast was very apparent from the numerous images displayed.

The next chapter compared the actual paper-trail of Shakespeare with that of some two dozen other contemporaneous literary figures. Ten different categories of evidence were considered, including education, correspondence, manuscripts, book ownership, and death notices. For each of these items, many or most of the other writers yielded such material, but in the case of Shakespeare—the subject of the most exhaustive research efforts—everything always came up totally blank.

Another chapter focused on examples of “the Dog That Didn’t Bark.” With the publication of his plays and poems, Shakespeare had become an enormously prominent literary figure throughout Britain, yet oddly enough nobody seemed to have ever connected him with Mr. Shakspere or the other Shakspere family members living quietly in Stratford. The essay focused upon ten individuals considered “eyewitnesses” whose extensive writings survive and who should have mentioned the great playwright who lived and died in Stratford but who said nothing at all. For example, Queen Henrietta, wife of Charles I, was enormously fond of Shakespeare’s plays and during a visit to Stratford she apparently spent a couple of nights at Shakspere’s grand former home, then owned and occupied by his daughter and her family; but although hundreds of the Queen’s letters have been collected and printed, she never referred to that visit in any special way.

Shakspere’s shrewd business dealing had established him as one of the wealthiest men in Stratford at the time of his death, but not only did his lengthy will lack any literary flourishes, there was no mention of books, nor any plans for the education of his children or grandchildren. He seemed not to have owned any pieces of furniture that might hold or contain books, nor any maps or musical instruments. All this was in very sharp contrast with the many surviving wills of other writers or playwrights.

A short chapter of a couple of pages noted that although the deaths of so many lesser literary figures were marked by an outpouring of tributes and elegies, with some of the individuals even honored with burial in Westminister Abbey, no one seemed to have taken any notice whatsoever of Shakespeare’s passing in 1616. For example, Ben Jonson was then considered close in stature, and upon his death in 1637, at least thirty-three separate elegies were published, but none at all for Shakespeare.

However, as is his wont, Unz goes even deeper. I’ve never quite understood all the arguments for the Earl of Oxford, as I’ve never felt that the author of the sonnets attributed to “William Shakespeare” was necessarily the author of the plays; they have never read as if they were to me. But Unz’s article goes even deeper than that, as the modern ability to analyze texts appears to have nailed down the actual author of the plays, as well as explained the difference between the style of the sonnets and the style of the plays.

It’s very much worth reading if you consider yourself to be an even modestly well-read individual.

UPDATE: the author of the work cited by Unz has a new post, and a new paper coming out, demonstrating that Ben Jonson and others knew the real author of Shakespeare’s plays:

In fall of this year (2025), June Schlueter and I will have an academic paper published that we do expect to make some mainstream news. The paper confirms that no fewer than three satirists identified Thomas North as the original author of Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Much Ado About Nothing, Julius Caesar, and Timon of Athens. An abstract to the paper reads as follows:

In this article, we discuss numerous independent proofs that Thomas Lodge, Thomas Nashe, and Ben Jonson all satirized Sir Thomas North as the well-traveled, continental, translating playwright who wrote the “Ur-Hamlet” and other source plays used by William Shakespeare. The satirists identify North as their target in ways typical of the era, including punning on North’s name, quoting his translations, and referencing personal details like his unusual travel experiences and his family manor at Harrow on the Hill. Importantly, we also report here the results of an AI program analysis that also confirms Lodge was, indeed, spoofing North.

DISCUSS ON SG


Uneducation Factories

The God-Emperor 2.0 can’t just stop with banning the Department of Education. The entire public school system needs to go:

A new report has found that Illinois has 60 public schools at which zero students reported grade-level proficiency in either reading or math. Across the Prairie State, there are 23 schools, including 18 in Chicago, where no student demonstrated proficiency in either subject in 2022, according to an analysis of state data by Wirepoints. Another seven Illinois schools had zero proficiency in reading alone, and 30 had no students with proficiency in math alone, the study found.

Even calling these institutions “schools” is a misnomer. They’re Uneducation Factories. The children would be better off if they were just allowed to play all day, unsupervised, in the nearest park or field. More of them would learn how to read too.

DISCUSS ON SG


A Message from Big Bear

Unauthorized has been deplatformed again from a payment processor. Out of the blue and we had been very careful and cautious.

It’s a bummer but I’ve been doing this a long time. You people are the real treasure not some algorithm or some green paper with runes on them. We will find a way and it’s all a blessing.

And although it can feel demoralizing, to spend all year inching our way back from the last fire. All while we watch what is restricted. The poison, the lies. But in time we will look back at the blessing it is and have a deep laugh at what was revealed. Thanks for sticking with us. Onward to the good the true and the beautiful.

If you still needed proof that what we’re doing matters, the fact that Unauthorized has been deplatformed again for absolutely nothing at all should suffice to demonstrate that we are. Of course, there wasn’t even an accusation of anything specific, just an airy assertion of some metaphorical “violation of policy” that neither refers to a specific policy nor points out any actual violation.

And to add inept insult to injury, the button to request a review of the unjustified action did nothing but lead to a dead link.

There is no need for demoralization nor will any despair be entertained for even one second. This is not a surprise, we’ve been through this before, and we already have multiple alternatives that have been in the works for as long as three years, including some unusual ones that may surprise you a little. UATV will continue to operate uninterrupted and unchanged, the creators will continue to stream, more new videos, music, and audiobooks will continue to be uploaded, and we will come through this stronger than before, as we always do.

Conflict is in the air we breath. Conflict is the water through which we swim. It is conflict that makes us who and what we are.

We will keep you posted. For fastest and most regular updates, get a free subscription to the UATV substack.

The Ride Never Ends.

DISCUSS ON SG


Fake Prizes for Propaganda

In case you weren’t convinced that Nobel Prizes are just another fake Clown World propaganda prize, consider who was awarded the most recent not-Nobel for Economics:

Why Nations Fail was shortlisted for the Financial Times and Goldman Sachs business book of the year award 2012.

I read the book shortly after the publication since the authors spent quite some time analyzing China and contrasting with the US. I found they had very little original insights and merely recycled western stereotype caricature of China while their praise for the US somewhat unwarranted. I soon forgot the book.

If this is just another book that doesn’t age well, no one would have noticed, and I won’t be writing about it. After all, it’s par for the course for “social science” books to echo the ethos of the time when they were published. They are often dead wrong and people move on to the next shiny object.

However, 12 years after the publication of the book, the esteemed Nobel economics committee decided to award the authors the Nobel prize for this work.

So I re-read the book and did some research on what others thought about it when it first came out. I found my original impression of the book was validated and there were serious critiques, most presciently from Ron Unz of Unz Review. Let me dwell into this.

Robinson and Acemoglu analyzed the economic institutions and performance of numerous countries in the book. As the major economies of the world, China and the US were given special attention.

The authors used China and the US as the examples of what they characterized as “extractive” vs. “inclusive” systems.

They argued that China was destined to fail as it had an extractive economic system run by a venal, self serving elite. On the other hand, the US would win with its inclusive, democratic system run by rule of law, democratic check and balances, and broad citizen participation in decision making.

The Chinese system was described as closed from competition, incapable of innovation, and run by corrupt authoritarian leaders. Robinson and Acemoglu contended China’s economic performance to date (at the 2012 publication date), while impressive, was unsustainable and would falter.

They stated the US economic system thrived on creative destruction as the inclusive institutions encourage competition, reward innovation, and provide opportunities for new entrants into the market. The authors argued that the U.S.’s success was not due to geography, culture, or natural resources, but rather its inclusive institutions and an elite that work to advance the interests of the population.

13 years after the publication of the book, you have to wonder what planet Robinson and Acemoglu lived on when they wrote the book and what kind of ideological blindness has led the Nobel economics committee to award the prestigious prize to them.

Ironically, the only reason nations fail that is actually related to economics is if they are dumb enough to buy into free trade, and worse, open immigration. Women’s right and educating women are much more serious problems, as the collapsing birth rates everywhere from Japan and South Korea to Germany and Italy suffice to demonstrate.

But the thesis presented by Messrs. Daron Acemoglu, James Robinson, and Simon Johnson is so obviously irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that they couldn’t even correctly identify which nations are presently crippled by an “extractive system, run by a self-serving ruling elite”.

Then again, the fact that Paul Krugman, of all people, was awarded one of these prizes is sufficient to prove its worthlessness. That’s just embarrassing. If these awards were legitimate, Ian Fletcher, Steve Keen, and your favorite dark lord would have all won at least one.

DISCUSS ON SG