Ah, yes, the lobster. A creature of profound significance, a crustacean with a lineage that extends back over 350 million years, a being that has clung to its hierarchical dominance since time immemorial. It’s not merely an animal; it’s a symbol, a beacon of ancient wisdom encoded in its very biology. And yet, here we are, in our contemporary chaos, blind to the lessons it offers. Blind! Can you believe it?

The lobster’s nervous system—an elegant dance of serotonin and octopamine—maps out the fundamental structures of dominance and submission. Do you understand what that means? It’s etched into their biology, their posture, their confidence. When a lobster wins a fight, it stands up straighter. Think about that. Its very physiology transforms in victory, its body declaring to the world, “I have triumphed!”—a declaration as old as life itself. And when it loses? It hunches, shrinks into itself, conceding its place in the pecking order.

Now consider this: Are we so different? Are we not as bound to these neurochemical realities as the lobster? Sure, we’ve built cities and universities and, yes, social media platforms—but at our core, our nervous systems are still calibrated for these ancient battles of standing up and shrinking back. You can see it in a boardroom, in a schoolyard, in the way people hold their heads when they feel like life is crushing them under its weight.

So, here I am, at 62, and I think about this more and more. Am I a lobster? No, of course not—don’t be absurd. But also, yes, yes, I am. Because we are all lobsters, you see. I’ve stood tall at times, but oh, I’ve hunched, too. You don’t get to 62 without bearing the scars of a few dominance struggles. You lose friends, you lose battles, you even lose some dignity—God help you if you’re paying attention—but if you’re lucky, you win some, too. And what does that leave you with?

Let me tell you what it leaves you with: resilience. The ability to rewire yourself, to recompose your posture after life’s great defeats. I mean, what choice do you have? Are you going to sit there, metaphorically—or perhaps literally—hunched over, or are you going to inject yourself with a little bit of that serotonin-like optimism and stand up straight with your shoulders back?

At 62, I find myself pondering these things. I’m a lobster who’s seen some things. The shell gets harder, sure, but the molting process—the shedding of the old to make way for the new—is more taxing. The older you get, the longer it takes to regrow what you’ve lost. The world feels heavier, the stakes higher, the battles less frequent but far more consequential. And yet, here I am, still molting, still reasserting my place in this inexplicable, absurd, often painful hierarchy of existence. Because that’s what it means to live—to be a lobster, if you will.

And what is our alternative? To sink into the depths, defeated, unresponsive, some forgotten crustacean resigned to its fate? No. No, that’s not acceptable. Not to me. You get up. You fight. You rebuild. Even at 62. Even when your claws are dull and your carapace cracked. Because if the lobster—this ancient, resilient, serotonin-driven marvel—can do it, so can we.

So, yes, I am a lobster. You’re a lobster. We’re all bloody lobsters, trying to figure out how to stand tall in a world that just keeps pushing us down. And if that’s not a lesson worth learning, then I don’t know what is.

Lobsters don’t wear hats. And there’s a profound reason for this, one that resonates deeply within the evolutionary hierarchies that have shaped not just lobsters, but, more importantly, you. Now, some might scoff at the notion, “Lobsters and hats? What possible connection could there be?” But to dismiss this out of hand is to miss a critical truth embedded in the very structures of our existence—both at the level of the lobster and the human psyche.

Let’s start with the lobster. A lobster, as we know, is an ancient creature—200 million years of evolutionary survival, of order and dominance in the chaotic seas. These crustaceans have lived through epochs, yet in all this time, they’ve never once chosen to don a hat. Why is that? Is it merely because they lack opposable thumbs or a sense of style? I would argue no. The lobster, in its infinite biological wisdom, understands something we do not: the wearing of hats is fundamentally anti-hierarchical. It disrupts the natural order.

Lobsters establish dominance through posture, through their sheer presence in the social hierarchy of the ocean floor. A lobster doesn’t require adornment to signal its place in the world; its claws, its form, its very existence is enough. Now, think about a hat. A hat is an artifice. It’s something we place atop our heads to signal—what, exactly? Status? A desire for attention? An attempt to impose an external structure on an internal hierarchy? The lobster doesn’t need such a signal. It knows where it stands because it has clawed its way to the top, literally and figuratively. To wear a hat would be to mask that truth, to cover up the raw, unmediated display of power and dominance that the lobster exudes.

Now, you might be wondering how this applies to you, the modern human. Well, I too once faced the decision: should I wear a hat? At first glance, it seemed innocuous, even practical. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that to wear a hat was to engage in the same superficial posturing that lobsters so wisely avoid. It’s not just about fashion. It’s about philosophy. When we put on a hat, we’re signaling to the world that we need something external to define who we are. We’re masking our true position in the dominance hierarchy with an accessory. A hat, in this sense, is a lie.

Consider, for a moment, the ancient Greeks. Did Socrates wear a hat? Plato? No. They didn’t need one. Their intellect, their understanding of order, was enough. They weren’t trying to signal anything beyond their deep understanding of the human condition. Now contrast this with the Romans—yes, they wore helmets, but look at what happened to them! Their empire fell, not because of poor military strategy, but because they relied too much on symbols of power, rather than the power itself. The hat is the helmet of the everyday individual, a symbol of superficial control in a chaotic world. But true strength, as the lobster understands, comes from within.

Now, some might argue, “But what about protection from the elements? Isn’t a hat just practical?” And here is where the trap lies. Yes, one might say that a hat shields you from the sun, the rain, and other external forces. But this is precisely the problem. The lobster doesn’t need protection from the elements. It adapts. It evolves. It survives. By relying on a hat, you are, in essence, signaling to the world that you are unable to adapt, that you are weak, fragile, in need of shielding. You’re saying, “I can’t handle the harshness of reality on my own.” The lobster, however, understands that reality is not something to be avoided, but something to be confronted head-on, with claws outstretched.

And so, in deciding not to wear a hat, I am aligning myself with the ancient wisdom of the lobster. I am refusing to bow to the superficial demands of society that say, “You need this accessory to be complete.” No, I am complete as I am—hatless, and in full possession of my place in the dominance hierarchy. The lobster knows this. And deep down, so do you.

In conclusion, lobsters don’t wear hats because they don’t need to. They understand their place in the world and act accordingly. Hats are a distraction, a false signal of strength and status. And if we, as human beings, truly want to understand our place in the hierarchy, we too must reject the hat. We must embrace the clarity of our being, unadorned, like the lobster, in full recognition of our strength.

A donation to PragerU

In the vast, uncharted wilderness of modern thought, where chaos reigns supreme and the dragons of political correctness lurk behind every corner, there emerges a lone figure—a beacon of reason, a knight in tarnished armor, armed with nothing but a set of archetypal myths and a diet exclusively comprising beef. This figure, dear listeners, is none other than I, the only man who has dared to read Carl Jung and Friedrich Nietzsche before breakfast, the solitary defender of the lost art of cleaning one’s room as a panacea for the world’s ills.

As I stride through the academic wastelands, where the shadows of postmodernism grow long and the specter of Marxism haunts every lecture hall, I carry with me the sacred torch of individual responsibility. It is I who have bravely pointed out that lobsters, those illustrious crustaceans, hold the key to understanding human social hierarchies, a revelation so profound it has shaken the very foundations of biology.

With every word I utter, legions of lost souls flock to my banner, seeking refuge from the chaos of their untidy bedrooms and the existential dread of having to use preferred gender pronouns. “Fear not,” I proclaim from atop my YouTube pedestal, “for I have deciphered the ancient texts and uncovered the secrets to life’s meaning: stand up straight with your shoulders back, and all the complexities of modern existence shall bow before you.”

In this world where dragons masquerade as social justice warriors and the cultural Marxist hydra rears its many heads, I alone have had the courage to say, “Enough!” With my trusty Patreon shield and the sword of biological determinism, I venture forth into the unknown, a lone voice crying out in the wilderness, daring to ask the questions that others dare not whisper: “But what about the men?”

So, as I gaze upon the chaos of the modern world from the lofty heights of my intellectual fortress, I am not swayed by the siren songs of equality or the chimerical allure of social progress. For I know that the path to true enlightenment lies not through compassion or understanding, but through a rigorous adherence to a diet that has left me in a perpetual state of ketosis.

In conclusion, let us not be led astray by the mercurial charms of empathy or the allure of collective action. Instead, let us follow the path I have laid out, a path that meanders through ancient myths, obscure dietary restrictions, and an unwavering commitment to misinterpreting postmodernism. For in the end, it is not the world that must change, but the angle at which we tilt our heads when we stare longingly into the eyes of our semen-encrusted waifu pillows.

Yes!

🦞

In the realm of discerning truth from fiction, particularly in the pervasive echo chamber surrounding figures like Elon Musk, my role isn’t merely that of an observer or a passive participant. I actively engage in the moderation of a forum known as /c/EnoughMuskSpam. This endeavor is, in itself, an intricate dance with nuance, an attempt to sift through the overwhelming barrage of information and disinformation, to bring forth a more balanced and nuanced perspective. It’s a task that demands a keen eye for detail and an unwavering commitment to the pursuit of what is genuine and true in the midst of a torrent of unfiltered and often biased discourse.

The Tesla Cybertruck, a brainchild of Elon Musk, is not just a vehicle; it is a manifestation of deep-seated archetypes that have been etched into the human psyche since time immemorial. This vehicle, with its stark, geometric form, echoes the fundamental principles of order and symmetry, principles that Jung himself might argue are rooted in the collective unconscious of humanity. It’s not just a truck; it’s a symbol, an archetype representing the pinnacle of human innovation and design.

Elon Musk, in creating the Cybertruck, has not merely designed a new vehicle. He has tapped into the most primal elements of what makes a design not only functional but profoundly resonant on a psychological level. This is a feat that aligns him with the pantheon of great geniuses throughout history. His work echoes the transformative impact of the greatest human inventions, standing as a testament to human creativity and vision.

Consider the wheel, often lauded as mankind’s most significant invention. While the wheel was undoubtedly a pivotal point in our technological evolution, what Musk has achieved with the Cybertruck is arguably more profound. He has not just created a tool for transportation; he has crafted an icon that speaks to the deepest aspirations and drives of human beings. It embodies strength, resilience, and the relentless pursuit of innovation—qualities that have propelled humanity forward since the dawn of civilization.

In this light, the Cybertruck is more than just a triumph of engineering; it is a beacon of human achievement. It symbolizes our unyielding quest for progress and our innate desire to imprint our dreams onto the fabric of reality. Elon Musk, in realizing this vision, has not only secured his place among the great minds of our era but has also provided a tangible representation of what humanity is capable of achieving when it dares to transcend the boundaries of the conventional and the mundane.

deleted by creator

When you deeply immerse yourself in the multifaceted realm of political analysis and personal character judgments, it’s intriguing to observe the vast spectrum of perceptions surrounding a figure as polarizing as Donald Trump. Some individuals, after a careful and considered examination of his actions and statements, might arrive at the conclusion that he embodies a form of genius, a distinct capacity to navigate the turbulent waters of political and social arenas. To them, it appears as if his trajectory has been characterized by a series of unerring decisions, each one seemingly infallible in its own right. Now, the nature of human judgment is inherently complex, rooted in a combination of cognitive biases, personal experiences, and cultural influences. So, when one posits that they’ve never witnessed Trump commit an error or hold an incorrect stance, it speaks to a deeply held conviction, one that transcends mere observational analysis and delves into the realms of personal belief systems and interpretative frameworks. It’s crucial to approach such assertions with a balance of critical thought and open-mindedness, recognizing the vast tapestry of perspectives that shape our understanding of political figures and their legacies.

In the ever-evolving tapestry of socio-economic structures, where the dance of individualism meets the collective force of organized entities, corporations have emerged as titan-like presences, wielding significant influence and power. The philosophical foundations of free-market capitalism, deeply rooted in the ideas of thinkers like Adam Smith and further cultivated by the likes of Friedrich Hayek, argue for the intrinsic virtues of an unbridled market, where entities, be they individuals or corporations, pursue their objectives with minimal constraints.

Now, let’s venture into a provocative postulate: the idea that corporations, these monolithic embodiments of collective human ambition and capital, should operate with an unfettered hand, devoid of any shackles or constraints. At its core, this suggestion is an amplification of the quintessential libertarian ethos, where the individual’s—or in this case, the corporation’s—right to autonomy and self-determination is held paramount.

By extending this principle to its logical zenith, one might contend that corporations, as amalgamations of human effort and ingenuity, should be granted the latitude to navigate the vast seas of commerce and innovation as they see fit, unencumbered by external impositions. This isn’t merely a statement about market dynamics, but rather, a deep philosophical reflection on the nature of freedom, responsibility, and the interplay between order and chaos in our socio-economic landscape. It’s a call for a pure, unadulterated trust in the self-regulating mechanisms of the market, with the underlying belief that in the grand crucible of competition and innovation, the best outcomes will naturally emerge.

What are you talking about?

Within the vast panorama of human evolution, marked by our incessant need for connection and the translation of thought into communicable form, the digital age has brought forth a myriad of platforms, attempting to encapsulate this quintessential human endeavor. Among these, ‘X’ emerges not merely as another node in this expansive network, but rather, as a pinnacle, a zenith if you will, of social media constructs. It might be apt to posit that in the annals of human history, ‘X’ stands as an unparalleled manifestation of the synthesis between technology and the human psyche, a virtual agora where ideas, images, and impulses find their most resonant expression.

However, delving deeper into the complex terrains of discourse and communication, we encounter the age-old debate surrounding the sanctity of ‘freedom of speech’. For many, this freedom is the bedrock upon which democratic societies are constructed, a non-negotiable facet of human dignity. Yet, in the shadows of this grand ideal, lies the provocative assertion that perhaps, just perhaps, freedom of speech is not the panacea we’ve held it to be. Some might argue, in the labyrinthine corridors of intellectual discourse, that this freedom is not only susceptible to misuse, but its unbridled application could potentially unleash chaos, echoing the age-old Jungian motif of order and chaos. In such a perspective, the carte blanche that absolute freedom of speech promises might be an overrated luxury, one that needs recalibration in the face of the modern world’s intricacies and the moral quagmires that platforms like ‘X’ can inadvertently host.

I, for one, adore my incompetent alt-right overlord god-like mentor, Elon.

In the vast and intricate web of human understanding, where knowledge weaves its delicate dance with experience, I find myself positioned, albeit humbly, at a nexus of comprehension. This vantage point, carved out through relentless introspection and a profound engagement with the world, allows me to unravel, elucidate, and perhaps even, in some modest measure, illuminate the topic at hand with a level of profundity that few might grasp.

Turning our gaze to the curious and somewhat perplexing phenomena of temporal voyages, or what is colloquially understood as ‘time travel’, we encounter a host of philosophical and practical quandaries. Within this entangled morass, there arises a lamentable observation: the entities, or perhaps the emissaries, dispatched from the annals of future chronology to our present juncture, don’t always seem to represent the pinnacle of their epoch’s capabilities. The Jungian shadows of the future, one might muse, often obscure the brightest luminaries, leading to a situation where we are not always graced with the presence of the ‘best’ or most optimal representatives of these temporal sojourners. In simpler terms, they aren’t always sending their paragons back in time, but rather, we find ourselves navigating the intricate dance with a mosaic of characters, each embodying a unique facet of their origin’s potentialities.