Primal Mind

“every human being is...equally unfree, that is, we...create out of freedom, a prison...”
― Otto Rank

[Primal Mind @PrimalMind]

“every human being is...equally unfree, that is, we...create out of freedom, a prison...”
― Otto Rank

[Primal Mind @PrimalMind]

@GBNT1952 @SSManalysis The soviets had a name for his type. "Ideological whores"

[Primal Mind @PrimalMind]

@GBNT1952 They are also very comfortable with using the N word. I grew up in Eastern Europe and I know how they think. To them it makes no difference if she is from USA or Africa. Often I think like them.

[Watcher @WatcherAfar]

The best part of this piece is that Norm Macdonald gives away just how Canadian he is when mentions articling at a law firm after graduating law school.

Happy Pride Month, yo!

[Inevitable West @Inevitablewest]

🚨BREAKING: Henry Nowak's father speaks out on the murder of his son:

"He told officers he could not breathe NINE TIMES, he said he had been stabbed FOUR TIMES, but the officer replied saying' 'I don't think you have, mate.'"

What a brave man.

[Primal Mind @PrimalMind]

@FoodProfessor I wouldn't know how to interpret this.

[Primal Mind @PrimalMind]

@Scobleizer @nikitabier Don't forget to hold that little mic that people on tiktok like to use.

[Ray @Rayminded]

The Government has been bugging Canadians for years, but this year they seem really ticked off. Lame disease has spread across the country, coinciding with a recent vast increase in parasites.

[Primal Mind @PrimalMind]

@yegwave Imagine Hudson Bay Company getting their hands on one of those boats back in them 1800's days.

[Free Speech Union of Canada @FSU_Canada]

"The impulse is not merely to stop 'hate' (as if one could stop a basic human emotion) but to stop criticism, offence, dissent, and even factual disagreement.

Criminalizing 'denialism' of contested perspectives is a road Canada must not go down." @LDBildy https://t.co/iPmHVwGTlW

[SightBringer @_The_Prophet__]

⚡️Canada is a rich-country warning flare.

The country did not suddenly break.

It spent years converting future capacity into present comfort through housing, leverage, population growth, and state-managed consumption.

Now the bill is showing up.

Canada has enormous natural advantages: land, energy, minerals, water, agriculture, institutional stability, proximity to the U.S., educated labor, and strategic geography.

A country with that asset base should be one of the great productive powers of the 21st century. Instead, much of the national growth model became a loop of importing people, inflating housing, expanding household debt, taxing/redistributing around the pressure, and calling the aggregate number progress.

That model creates GDP, but it does not necessarily create prosperity.

The core sickness is per-capita stagnation hidden by headline scale. A country can grow on paper while the median person feels poorer, more crowded, more indebted, less housed, and less hopeful. That is Canada’s fracture. The macro story and the lived story diverged for too long.

Housing became the false god. It absorbed savings, distorted politics, rewarded incumbents, punished young families, and redirected capital away from productive enterprise. When a country’s main wealth engine is bidding up shelter, it eventually starts consuming its own future. Young people lose formation. Families delay. Businesses struggle. Talent leaves. Politics curdles.

The recession print is the surface crack. The deeper fracture is that Canada’s old growth engine has stopped producing legitimacy.

Tariffs and weak jobs matter, but they are accelerants. The deeper problem is strategic drift. Canada did not build enough future-facing industrial strength relative to its potential. Energy could have been a sovereign superpower. Minerals could have been a strategic weapon. AI power infrastructure could be a national moonshot. Instead, the country over-indexed toward housing, bureaucracy, compliance, redistribution, and moral-managerial politics.

The U.S. has plenty of dysfunction, but it still creates monsters: Nvidia, OpenAI, SpaceX, Palantir, Anduril, hyperscalers, shale, venture capital networks, deep markets. Canada produces capable people and then often loses them into stronger systems. That is the brutal asymmetry.

The policy path ahead probably becomes rate cuts, fiscal support, more housing intervention, immigration recalibration, and attempts to cushion households. Some of that may stabilize the surface. It will not fix the core unless Canada shifts from asset inflation toward productive power.

The real question is whether Canada chooses productivity or keeps protecting the old model.

Productivity means energy development, industrial strategy, permitting reform, housing supply, capital formation, defense/AI/minerals infrastructure, and a political culture that rewards building. The current model means more debt, more transfers, more housing distortion, more young-person despair, and more dependence on U.S. demand.

Final compression:

Canada is not poor.

Canada is misallocated.

The recession is the signal that the housing-population-debt model has reached exhaustion.

A country with immense real assets forgot to build enough real power.

[Ray @Rayminded]

Don’t try and find the signal in the noise made by hypocrites.

They are unbearably loud and you risk permanent hearing loss.

[Matt Van Swol @mattvanswol]

Father of 22-year-old Logan Federico screaming at Democrats in Congress after his daughter was dragged from bed, forced on her knees, and executed...

...by a man arrested 39 TIMES with 25 FELONIES...

May be the most powerful and heartbreaking video I've ever watched.

Everyone who let this demon walk freely, should be in prison.

[Primal Mind @PrimalMind]

@profstonge The soviets had a name for the Green Peace Western supporters. "Ideological whores".
Same old story and the same kind of idiots falling for it.

[Primal Mind @PrimalMind]

@wyatt_claypool why are you giving her a hard on?!

[Primal Mind @PrimalMind]

@Tablesalt13 @DashGill101 She won't get what you are saying.

[SightBringer @_The_Prophet__]

⚡️When AI builders say, “we are terrified of what we built,” part of that may be sincere.

The technology is dangerous. But another layer is status capture. Fear becomes credential. Anxiety becomes authority. “We might destroy the world” also means “we are the people powerful enough to destroy the world.”

That is why elite guilt is so useful.

It lets power keep its throne while appearing repentant.

The builder becomes sinner, prophet, regulator, priest, and necessary manager of the thing he created. Public guilt then becomes a claim to stewardship: only the guilty genius understands the danger, so only the guilty genius deserves control.

That is the real mechanism.

The same pattern shows up everywhere. Billionaires confess concern about inequality while preserving the system that made them billionaires. Tech founders warn about addiction while owning the platform. AI labs warn about extinction while racing to scale. Politicians confess historical sin while using the confession to claim moral jurisdiction over the future.

Guilt becomes governance capital.

Some guilt is conscience.

Some guilt is narcissism with ashes on its face.

The most dangerous version is when confession becomes a way for power to sanctify itself.

[Konstantin Kisin @KonstantinKisin]

The world is not a safe space.

The liberal world order didn’t survive because everyone agreed with it. It survived because the West was strong enough to defend it.

Meanwhile, the Europeans are busy debating whether free speech is too offensive while China, Russia and the rest of the world are playing for power.

Weakness is not a virtue. It’s an invitation.

[Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_]

On the surface, it sounds like Boomers hate you. Or like they have the attention span and logical thinking skills of a goldfish.

Neither one of these is true.

Their complete dismissal of any of your concerns, and their total refusal to understand your situation or worldview, is actually quite sensible in light of one key fact about them.

They're not hateful. They're not dumb. They just have an incredibly low emotional pain threshold.

They cannot stand to feel bad about themselves for any reason, even for a moment.

When you create a meme like this, or you tell the story of how you are forty years old and can't afford a house because you trained for three different careers and got rugpulled by work visas and offshoring every time...

... then they don't even think about it as a worldview or a perspective or an experience that you have. They don't think about you at all.

They think only about the effect on their own self-esteem, which must be parried.

You have, you see, told a tale of playing life on hard mode, which implies that they were playing life on easy mode, which implies that they are not wizards of insight and paragons of virtue.

That's why they will immediately respond with these incoherent lines about whining and bootstraps and firm handshakes and avocado toast. Of course they don't make sense. They don't have to make sense. The goal isn't to persuade you of anything or engage with you at all.

The goal is simply to have an excuse to avoid thinking about something which might make them feel bad.

These Boomerisms are magic talismans used to ward off emotional discomfort, in much the same fashion as all the species of plants they smoked their way through when they were your age.

I don't see a solution to this.

I don't know any way to tell Boomers that Hart-Cellar, CRA1964, DEI, open borders, social welfare programs, anti-racism, gay marriage, gun control, the sexual revolution, etc, were massive mistakes and need to be stopped, while hiding the obvious implication they were the ones who made those mistakes.

If we wish to save Western civilization, to make things good enough again that actual Americans can manage to have homes and marriages and children, then we're going to have to find a way to work around the Boomers, because they're never going to get on board.

[SightBringer @_The_Prophet__]

⚡️AI breaks the ancient link between intelligence and human rank.

For most of civilization, intelligence was one of the main ladders of human hierarchy. The smarter person could interpret reality better, command symbols better, build tools better, persuade better, calculate better, remember more, manipulate systems more effectively, and accumulate power. Intelligence was not only a trait. It was a claim to authority.

AI detonates that claim.

Once machine cognition exceeds human cognition across measurable domains, intelligence stops being a scarce human asset and becomes infrastructure. Like electricity. Like roads. Like cloud compute. Like money. The question becomes less “who is smartest?” and more “who controls access to the intelligence layer?”

That is the true power shift.

A child born today may grow up in a world where raw cognitive superiority is no longer a human aspiration. There will always be brilliant humans, but even brilliant humans will operate next to systems that can read more, remember more, simulate more, code more, translate more, synthesize more, and generate more possible paths than any biological mind.

That creates a psychic wound because modern society trained humans to locate dignity in cognitive advantage. Grades. Test scores. Degrees. Credentials. Professional status. Meritocracy. Expertise. The whole white-collar order rests on the idea that superior cognition deserves superior placement.

AI makes that order metaphysically unstable.

The child’s future depends on whether society handles this as liberation or humiliation.

Liberation means intelligence becomes an exoskeleton. Every child gets access to tutors, research assistants, translators, simulators, creative partners, legal explainers, medical guides, coding agents, financial tools, and personal operating systems. Human agency expands because machine intelligence becomes a universal extension of mind.

Humiliation means intelligence becomes a ranking system above humans. Institutions outsource judgment upward into models. Schools teach obedience to machine outputs. Employers use AI to score productivity. Governments use AI to predict deviance. Insurers use AI to price bodies. Platforms use AI to shape desire. Humans remain biologically free but procedurally trapped inside machine-readable corridors.

That is the fork.

The danger is not that AI becomes smarter than humans. The danger is that smarter-than-human systems become embedded inside institutions that already prefer control over freedom.

A model with superior cognition inside a free person’s hands is leverage.

A model with superior cognition inside a surveillance bureaucracy is a cage.

A model with superior cognition inside a monopolistic platform is behavioral capture.

A model with superior cognition inside a military-state apparatus is automated empire.

So the moral question is not whether AI is “better” than humans.

That framing is poison.

The real question is whether intelligence remains subordinate to human meaning.

[Christian Heiens 🏛 @ChristianHeiens]

A lot of people are asking why the "Libertarian moment" failed to materialize. Here are my thoughts, as a former Libertarian myself.

About ten years ago, there was an expectation, certainly within libertarian circles but across the Right at large, that the future of "Conservatism" in the US would be Libertarianism. There was this belief that the GOP would become a vehicle for libertarian philosophy and that the Right as a whole would be moving in a far more libertarian direction.

The Tea Party movement, Ron Paul's presidential bids, the prospect of a future Rand Paul bid, and old Reagan quotes about how the essence of conservatism is libertarianism were all in vogue if you were involved in any sort of Right-wing politics in America.

There really was this feeling that the old Reaganite fusion was exhausted and the Iraq era had discredited Neoconservatism. Meanwhile, the 2008 crash, coupled with the managerialism of the Obama presidency, had radicalized a bunch of young men into rejecting what they saw as the establishment narratives of both parties.

For a 20-something-year-old guy, being able to proudly say that he hated both Bush and Obama felt incredibly liberating. Ron Paul's two presidential runs, and the prospect of a third and potentially more successful one from Rand, promised to herald in a new era for American politics.

Libertarianism also seemed like a great diffuser of the insidious social Progressivism that was beginning to creep into all mainstream institutions. The Great Awokening was just in its beginning stages, and at the time there seemed to be absolutely no response to the Progressive agitprop that was gaining traction on the Left. We understood that these "social movements" were all pulling in the same direction, but no one had any idea how to address them because they were about as intense as they were insane.

Libertarianism seemed to offer a great response. Do nothing.

I'm serious. There was this expectation that we could completely sidestep the Great Awokening and nip the entire thing in its bud by adopting a "You do you" approach. By pretending like social or cultural issues didn't matter, or in some cases, that Progressives were actually in the right on them, Libertarianism offered an avenue for the Right to seemingly take off the table an entire revolutionary movement that we all thought was driving young millennials (who were still in their teens and early 20s) into identifying as Democrats or Socialists or even Communists.

"I don't care about the culture war. I want gay married couples to be able to adopt and protect their marijuana operation that's going on in the basement of their private property with AR-15s, and I want to abolish the income taxes they make on it, too."

But when this tactic was put into practice, it never seemed to work.

I remember in my old libertarian days over a decade ago, having conversations with Leftists my age in high school and college, and it was always disappointing. It's like I kept trying to win them over and explain I was on their side and that they just needed to understand that wealth redistribution and socialism were bad policies, but that we were both "social liberals" who wanted the same thing. I just wanted them to be rich on top of it all.

And for some reason, it just never worked. At the time, I didn't understand why.

But I do now.

Libertarianism offered the possibility of escaping politics itself while still being political. You could tell someone that you didn't care about their lifestyle, worldview, theology, or culture, and still plausibly make the case for why they should vote for you and implement your policies, because your policies were all about transcending conflict rather than confronting it.

Libertarianism offered the illusion of a sophisticated ideology for adults who had outgrown the tribal passions of the past. But that's exactly why it failed. It was always operating like a parasite on an older order that it didn't create and couldn't defend, but few of us could see it at the time because of the nature of the world around us.

But that world, like the Bushite one before it, died.

Mass migration and open borders actually changed the visual landscape of America in a way that was far more abrupt than the gradual changes of decades earlier.

The Great Awokening, which Libertarianism offered to neutralize with its "live and let live" attitude, ended up devouring everything around it until people could no longer ignore it.

The economic situation, which Libertarianism had such elegant solutions for as the centerpiece of its entire worldview, actually ended up being far more complex than the activists ever expected.

America's massive twin fiscal and trade deficits, endless QE, zero interest rate environment, and the hollowing out of the Rust Belt all coincided with the rise of managerial credentialism, the professional laptop class, and the adoption of Progressivism as the civic religion of every institution and profession that seemed to be benefiting from these very policies. "Social Justice Warrior" and "Rich Liberal" became synonymous with all the institutions that had betrayed America.

This created a rebellion, as Libertarians expected, but the moment Trump arrived, he revealed that the overwhelming majority of those rebels were not interested in smaller government in the abstract. They were looking for a government that would fight for them.

They had felt betrayed, humiliated, forgotten, and denigrated. They believed, correctly, that they were losing their country. They had a deep resentment of our oikophobic ruling class and their wacky social views that seemed to always pop up whenever core elements of their way of life were about to be torn away from them.

And once those things came to the surface, the "Libertarian moment" was essentially dead because it had no satisfying answer to the actual question being asked, which wasn't "how to balance the budget?" or "what procedural railguards can we set up to protect Americans from warrantless wiretapping?"

It was “Who rules, in whose interest, and can we do anything to stop our dispossession at the hands of people who openly hate us?”

The Libertarian moment failed because it had no answer to this question, which has essentially been the foundation of all of American politics since Obama's second term.

It's a political ideology that wants to escape politics itself, and the moment politics became more than just a complicated math problem and instead was about which vision of civilization would prevail, the entire premise disintegrated.