'Skeptic' Arrogance and their Demise

We're all skeptical, that's normal, but at one point in our lives, we can't just be on the fence. Being on the fence means you have no actual point of reference for you phenomenology and often leads to a lack of spiritual depth in a person's life. I find that sad and I also find arrogant. I used to be subbed to this Facebook page called 'Skeptics Guide to the Universe' and at one point, they stopped calling out pseudoscience and got on the politics train and to their great demise. They hated Trump and vouched for Clinton. This was not only because Trump is a 'climate change denier', but simply because emotions and the belief in mainstream media. It's pretty interesting to see that many people who claim to be skeptics are not skeptical at all finally, but gobble up information as readily as a person who doesn't have the skeptic label.

A few days ago, they posted the conspiracy of #pizzagate. I remain skeptical that it might be true, and personally lean more on the 60% than the 40% true, but many were looking at this one horribly biased article and saying: yeah, the facts ain't right, it's bullshit. I told them there was much more evidence and this was just one slice of it and they were like: well, pull it up for us then, but I was like it's not my job to inform you, I'm just calling you all out as sheep, and they took it personally.

Are you a skeptic or are you not a skeptic? To me, skepticism can either be your blessing or an utter curse. Skepticism can be open-minded or close-minded. Skepticism can be prideful or humble. A prideful skeptic will reject all that is 'faithy' or 'wonky' or conspiratorial because there just isn't enough empirical evidence for them. But they don't understand that the world that we sense can extend past our senses. As well, liberals, which most close-minded skeptics are, tend to be rebellious in the face of pure truth. They don't care about God, or about a perfect divine state or being something close to that. They care mostly for hard facts and they think everyone's born good and society is the more corrupting thing, not evil! People are irrational but not evil, kind of mentality. I think it is a strength to be able to entertain thoughts and ideologies but to be able to return to a solid ground. Right now, I'm interested in reaction and neoreaction, but I'm fundamentally a Christian. I do think there was a man who came to this existence who was just perfect. He was wholly good, and he loved unconditionally and lived his life in a way that was inhumanly divine. Was he God? Was he the Son of God? I remain skeptical, but I have the utmost adoration for his words because his phenomenon in this world was just amazing. People flocked to him in huge numbers and I do think he was real. Why not? Well, because he walked on water, and because he did miracles, then negative-skeptics will say 'no, he's not real' 'he's a myth to control people' etc.

Skeptics can be one of the most arrogant people out there, negative-skeptics that is. Positive skeptics who entertain ideas but come back to a core (if you think you're a god, then you're a Chaos Magician, if you believe in God your identity is in Christ and you are His follower) are more open-minded about the intricacies of power and good and evil. Pizzagate is not crazy, it sounds like it's pretty damn legit, but the arrogant skeptics will wave it off as 'fake news' and be done with it. They are turning their eyes to something that might not be true right away--which is prideful, not skeptical.

Power corrupts, very very easily, and you can't expect people with money and power not to do whatever they wish to. My esoteric Christian friend believes that child sacrifice among other gruesome practices is like doing a line of coke for the 0.0001%. It's that rush you need in order to feel powerful, like you're a GOD yourself (hence why I dislike the arrogance of Chaos Magicians). I think keeping an open-mind but a firm ground is more important that having no firm ground and half-open mind.

Mentally Disturbed 'Transwoman Child' Man Plans for Gay High School

Some of you might remember this man (renamed Stefonknee Wolscht) from a viral YouTube video about how he was special snowflake and needed to be listened to. He is a 53/54 year-old man who identifies as a child, basically, like a little girl. He has been adopted by the two people you see in the picture and he has let his now grown-up children in the process.

You'd think, that was the end of that, but no, he returned for an awful video about transgender-inclusive bathrooms where he ended up feeling excluded from the men and the women's (even though he's both, I guess?) and other 6-year-old shenanigans.

And now, he's in the laylight again. All you need these days to be platformed is queer behaviour and an unsteady mind! So, he is now proposing that Toronto create a high school for LGBTQ+ students only. Wow, so, when the Muslims will come, they'll know exactly where to bomb and they'll be dancing in the streets with glory for Allah!

Kids can experiment, they can try to make-out with the same sex and have fun, I think, but then they need to grow up and no longer be children. We tell queer kids to grow up, to stop fetishizing sex and just move on with their lives in order to make them understand that heterosexuality is normal and that being gay, is not.

This is just absolutely ridiculous, and I needed to report on it because I can barely comprehend the level of retarded this is. I have no more words. I'm done.

The Maple League for Advocacy, Globalist Conferences at Canadian Universities

So this be happening soon:

Members of the Maple League – Acadia, Bishop’s, Mount Allison, and St. Francis Xavier – believe that higher education should provide a balanced and comprehensive experience that challenges our young people and prepares them for responsible, ethical, and sustainable leadership.
We also believe that institutions of higher learning have a responsibility to support students as they become global citizens. The Maple League schools are united in a shared vision that promotes social justice and human rights for all members of the community. We will spend the weekend exploring ways we can enhance these opportunities at our own universities and share these experiences with members of the Maple League.
The weekend promises to be stimulating, thought provoking, and delightful. In addition to plenary speakers, a student debate tournament, a Business School CASE Competition, and a series of receptions, we are hosting TEDxBishopsU, a multidisciplinary event that will feature speakers drawn from the talented pool of students, faculty, alumni, community members, and staff from the four universities. Each talk will focus on ADVOCACY in higher education – either inside or outside the classroom. What constitutes an advocate? How do we create support for members of our community to become effective advocates? How can we create conditions to foster social justice, advocate for human rights, or facilitate a sense of global citizenship?
Advocacy can take many forms. You can be an advocate for a principle or set of beliefs, for a cause or group, for an ideal or philosophy. It can also include being an ally or a champion. Advocacy can include (but is not limited to) championing human rights, the pursuit of social justice, providing support or resources for the voiceless or marginalized, etc. We will spend the weekend exploring:
1.     What are the qualities/characteristics that make someone an advocate?
2.     What role do universities play in helping install advocacy in its students and faculty and staff?
3.     How can we enhance advocacy in our communities?

CNN Reporter Sally Kohn's Lesbianic Pedophilia

In this absolutely vile and disgusting article, Sally Kohn projects her sexual feelings toward another woman onto her daughter (not sure if adopted or biological). She lives in an uppity neighbourhood surrounded by rich white people and probably suffers 0% intolerance from her neighbours because what's lesbianism when you're rolling in a pool of greed and sin already?

She desires her daughter to be a lesbian. This is the most disgusting thing I've ever read, and yet, it echoes feelings I used to have when I was an insane SJW who fetishized homosexuality. It's clear that she does--she's an SJW (and Jewish). A few years ago, I wished to have children in the future and I wished them to be gay, simply because I thought it was 'cooler' and more 'rebellious' to be gay, also easier since no pregnancies would arise.

But apart from the dewy-eyed otaku-like feelings one has for gays in their teenhood and early adulthood, when a mature adult wishes their own child to be sexually attracted to not only the same-sex but in the same sexual structure as they are, that's projection and it has sinister pedophilic undertones. Why does Kohn even obsess over her 6-YEAR-OLD's sexuality like this? I'm thinking she's probably fantasized about her sexually. Homosexuals these days accept all of their sexual feelings for whatever, they embrace them and they even humanize and valorize pedophiles, so it's clear that for her to be able to be a lesbian and have this identitarian ideology of acceptance, she has to accept that she wants her daughter to be a lesbian BECAUSE she has sexual feelings for her. It's this weird double-think where she cannot deny and suppress her sexual lesbian feelings for her young daughter because it would be 'bad' emotionally, and therefore 'accepts' it, but refuses to lose face and admit that she's a pedophile, so twists it around and makes it all about the 6-year old. Ugh.

Lesbians have projected onto me in the past. I've spoken about them in numerous other posts, but they attempted to make me into a sexual degenerate by claiming that because I had enjoyed making out with a girl in college that I was bisexual and that I should be allowed to have a polyamourous relationship with a woman in my already-built family life. I never wanted to be a lesbian, even when I fetishized the concept--being with a woman was always 'weird' in the end to me, and I never cared about social pressure, so I know it came all of from me. Well, I cared about social pressure when I became a conservative, because I understood its use.

People born in wealth are born in vice. Many SJW's are high middle class people who value personal, individual growth but not in a healthy way, in a hedonistic, debauched kind of way that is far from God, or a secular version of potential actualization. Sally Kohn is born in the nepotistic-dynasty of 'God's chosen people' and has Original Sin flowing in her veins. She proudly asserts her degeneracy, refuses to humble herself in front of the Lord and nature itself and posts this God-awful article in the Washington Post.

This is a really 'homophobic' post compared to this last one I wrote, which was much more moderate and 'rational', but there is just something tragic about the children of lesbians or gays. It's not family, it's not right, it's not sacred, it's a perversion and an abomination and it breaks my heart.

They Would Enslave Us

I have a theory. It's  theory that if American whites would cave in to BLM and black people's demands for reparations for slavery, they would take what would be given to them and one of these two things would happen.

1. They would get enough power to further enslave whites to do their bidding.

or

2. They wouldn't know what to do with their gifts and would squander them.

I say this and I know the rate of black people in America is going down. Blacks abort far more than whites proportionally speaking, and they murder each other at a ridiculous rate.

The point that I'm making is simple: if blacks would have power, they would turn to the might of the in-group and do everything to oppress whites. As a majority in the US (for hopefully sometime, go Mormons! Breed!!) white people are very kind to POC and their minorities. If the majority were black, I doubt they would be kind like they say they would. This reminds me of the typical socialist dude who says 'If I would have money, I would give it all away'. Yeah, sure you would. Blacks don't seem to know what do to with power. I'm not saying they're never able to rule, heck Ethiopia runs pretty well, but the victimhood complex of Black Americans is ingrained into them that the next generations will have contempt for white people and still consider them oppressors. But there is so much of Africa that is war-torn, rape-filled, slavery-abundant, dictatorship and cartel-run, that if America would be majority black, it would likely dissolve into a similar state. White men built civilization and only those who build something knows how best to run it, generally speaking. Of course there are blacks who surpass their in-group's physical and mental enslavement and become great people. I am a fan of Neil deGrasse Tyson--he's an astounding scientist and a revolutionary speaker on the behalf of science. I admire him and he gives me hope, but he is an extreme minority, and he does not talk about race because he knows how touchy a subject it is.

They have always told whites that they are not allowed to have white pride, that they are not allowed to agglomerate into groups of our own race, because we are a majority, because we already have everything we could hope for. But what if, what IF we would become a minority? We would have no structure or organization to come under than those who are deemed 'hateful' in nature. If whites become a minority in America, and that they are outbred by others, they will not have coalitions of peace, protests in the streets, riots, small organizations--if whites come together, they will come together under the organizations that are already there. Neo-Confederates, Neo-Nazis, and the KKK will quadruple in numbers. We will become nepotistic; we will keep things for ourselves and emulate those who have preserved themselves the best despite persecution. We will have our own nepotistic dynasties, we will show the world the hardiness of Nordic milk-drinkers; we will show them that we do not need to weep for our status as a minority, and our power in coming together as one people.

They wouldn't enslave us for long, but they would try and they might be able to suppress us for a little while, until we rise up white men and women together, one moving block that will steamroll this uncontrollably chaos into an ordered supremacy once more.

Black Man is Friends with the KKK

Great video!

This Black Musician Explains Why He is Friends With White Supremacists

Feminists: Red Pill or Sterilize

As much as I wish feminists would realize that the way they see the world is not so far off to how we see the world and then break free from their anger, I would also like to see them not have any children. There is some similarities between sex-negative feminism and the Alt-Right. The only difference is patriarchy. Anyone on the right is willing to accept the patriarchy, and has made peace with it. Western Women, however strong the patriarchy, have the freedom to have a job, to choose her mate, to go on birth control, and to have a general safe environment to live in. For feminists, this isn't enough. Let's not get into sex-positive feminism because it's just degenerate and rather distasteful to speak about at this point. Sex-negative feminists are angry at a system they believe in white male-run, when we are both targeting the same Jewish system. It's not white males that own most corporations, that desire to cause degeneracy in the world, that teach women it's all right to be a sex object, that it's powerful to be sexually promiscuous, to be a prostitute, etc It's the Jews. I do think that intersectionality was funded and executed by Jews, in order to target white men, the founders of the West, in order to seed this social anarchy that we see so prominently today.

But I digress.

Feminists, and I used to be one, so I know this quite well, think that men are all raised to hate women, to think women are inferior, and grow up watching porn, their parents apathetic to this, and then are taught that all women want to be fucked by men really badly so much that they don't need consent and can all just rape women and it's all right.
Well, there's a bit right there. Pornography, which is total and utter degeneracy, ruins young growing men's minds, destroys their chances at a healthy sexuality, and poisons their view of women. We agree here. We also agree that rape is degenerate, savage and scavenger behaviour, and we need to abolish it. So we agree.

But feminists want to reform men. They want men to stop objectifying women, which we know is impossible. They don't want to be in a patriarchy because they have a deep distrust of the patriarchy simply because they believe it values men and not women, or men more and women less. This is where we differ. Women on the right are highly valued, and have high expectations, expectations that now are lower because of the amount of fell women in our midst. To me, a woman who is family-oriented, who does not perform social activism, who does not have a degree in Gender Studies, who does not victimize herself and seeks a strong, dominant and ambitious man as her mate meets the expectations (later will become a mother of children and be a housewife is preferable). Is this so difficult to be in this day and age? It seems to easy to become pregnant these days. It seems like people are constantly attempting to love women and love femininity and yet, no one cares about being a good wife, a supporting female partner to a career-oriented man, a mother, an educator, a resources manager, a cook and all the wonderful 50's things that women were cherished for being.

Liberalism is Masochism

Masochism seems to be very popular amongst the liberal youth of today. There is a strange paradox between what they do, what they believe and what they say. Liberals say what they feel, demand unique treatment to fit their emotional differences, and often act out in righteous indignation when they think 'society' has gone too far. Activism is now a must for the liberal who feels like everything they live in unfair. Feminists think it is unfair that they live in a patriarchy. Blacks think it is unfair that they live in a majority white country (and call is supremacy, which is sort of is as well and they obviously see that as wrong). Activist behaviour, however, in of itself is masochistic since you're wasting your life thinking you're changing things 

Liberals are ethnomasochists
There isn't anything better than some white guilt in the morning! This is a given but ethnomasochism has its own issues, including cultural masochism, national hate, disdain for the Right, and unnatural trained attraction toward other races. Anti-white sentiment is prominent in liberals to do indigenous studies, African studies, women's studies, gender studies and even politics.

Liberals are mental/moral masochists 
You hear liberals talk about mental health a lot. I've known people who made up mental health problems so much that in order to keep any form of identity and integrity they had to continue lying about it or lose face completely. SJW's are continuously being triggered and feeling depressed and sad. I used to be this and I know why. They're continuously projecting their indulgences and degeneracy into other degenerate people in order to receive validation. Much like how atheists will circlejerk with other atheists etc (everyone circlejerks a bit) liberals will usually only attempt to find other pure liberals who accept all the things they need to accept. The fringe liberals are the 'real' liberals, the radicals basically, since being a liberal but not accepting the radical view makes you this un-liberal person. To me, there isn't any use attempting to be liberal unless you're fully into it, and then that just makes you completely insane and secluded from the rest of the world. People are generally conservative with liberal undertones here and there--for example, even Christians can be nice and tolerant of gays. Liberalism demands people to accept and tolerate anything that comes out of it, anything that the human is capable of doing not only need acceptance and tolerance but understanding and validation.
They do it to themselves in the end. Liberals are highly hypocritical--they think that they can preach one thing and then turn around to do the opposite without consequences. They don't really understand what having an identity is, what it is to set yourself up for a long-term ride. They're short-term pleasure-seekers in the first place, they're artists on welfare, bisexual polyamourous feminists, cucks thinking masculinity is dead, and older men who want younger women to suck their cock after they've screamed their lungs out against the non-existent rape culture. They're moral relativists, they don't care what people do as long as it doesn't hurt in the short term.
Sooner or later, they crack. They have depression due to getting into vicious cycles of sadness and anger, of anxiety and lack of continuity. They have no moral compass, no God, no integrity and they wonder why they're not functional and demand the government to give them disability checks, or they want dogs to follow them everywhere because they've forced themselves into agoraphobia.

Masochistic Feminist Anecdote (because it's almost tragic how hypocritical this is)

This young woman once told me she was raped after meeting a guy online and then going to his house. Yes, clearly it was the most stupid idea in the world, but she said it was his fault, which it was. She blamed it on her lack of intelligence (also true) but then after becoming a feminist and an extreme liberal, realized that nothing was her fault and it was all his fault. She told me this in order to shock me and she did, I turned into a feminist for a few weeks. This was what jumpstarted me into the Alt-Right, funny enough. We spoke here and then about feminist issues and then she told me she used Tinder in order to find fuck dates and then would go to their place or invite them over and have sex with them. I was confused. I told her 'aren't you afraid of them after what happened?' She said: 'No, I trust men despite everything.' Fair enough. She trusts random strangers from Tinder to come over to her place and have sex with her as good men who see her as a human being and not an easy free prostitute. But then she said something like this: 'I mean, when I'm horny, I want to fuck. I'm not going to go through the whole 'date' process. I just want them to come over and fuck me.' This made me sick to my stomach, as she had often done to me with her rape story and her projections and conspiracies about rape culture. It took a while for me to realize that her mentality was a female version of the mentality her rapists had about himself and about her. She kept on telling me 'rapists are usually very charming'. No, rapists are usually very liberal, very fake, very desperate. Charming Reactionaries be like: let's read Mein Kampf and make Biblical connections! XD But I was shocked. She didn't even learn anything from being raped. She didn't learn humility. She only learned that she was a victim and will always be a potential victim of men. Her existence was the perfect cess pool  to breed a feminist worldview, because she chose to be a liberal. A symptom of being raped is prostitution; for her, it was a valid lifestyle, and she to this day, continues to meet and fuck dozens of people (I mean, probably women too) in order to feel alive, in order to connect with her rapists so that she can empathize with him and continue to degrade her spirit by reliving her experience and fetishizing it over and over again under the guise of tolerance, accepting and validation. Now that's masochism.

LGBT Marriage

 I've updated this post recently. My views have changed and I no longer agree with much of what I've said here but I will not delete it because I think this is good rationalization. Still, for society as a whole and my own integrity, I cannot allow homosexuality to be validated and even less homosexual marriage. You can see the update here.

I'm not sure what to think about gay marriage. I'm not sure what to think of homosexual relationships in general. Like I'm said numerous times before, I think being sexually deviant is a form of lust. I don't think we should see people as 'gay' or 'straight', I think there is reproductive sexuality (man and woman) and then there are masturbatory practices that can happen between two people. I think gays and lesbians who want to marry are sexually active with each other and believe themselves spiritually bonded and therefore desire 'marriage'. What homosexuals don't seem to understand about marriage is that it's a religious act, it's an the bonding between two people to share the entirety of life together, and ultimately, to start a family. Is having a family necessary? Not really. You could focus on having a career, I guess. Gay men have a leg up in being non-family-oriented and career-focused, but still, what would you do with all the money you would accumulate? Move up the tiers of society? Buy a house for yourself? I guess you could adopt children and have a dog and live the life of a nuclear family. Same with lesbians. I just don't see how fulfilling it is to be with someone of your own sex.

You do your school, you have lots of lesbian/gay sex, sexual activity until your libido goes away, and then you move in together, get married, and then just live a career life and use your money for your own life. You travel, you set up a business selling something stupid, maybe if you're financially smart, you'll invest some money, but... where will that money go? I guess it could go to your adopted children, who'll have the privilege of having two moms or two dads, as if that's normal. Let's spread out the options for a married gay couple:

1. You live a 'normal' life, but you're gay. You adopt kids. You work your jobs. You live in a suburban neighbourhood.

2. You live a 'lonely' life, with no children, and a self-centered mutual partnership where your souls are bonded into the everlasting individual chaos that you believe in. If you are knowledge-oriented, you could take the time to be workaholic scientists or something useful.

3. You open up your marriage, you explore lust on a continuum, you focus all of your energy on your sexuality, on social justice activism, on forcing Christians to make cakes for you and attempt to open up Christianity to homosexuality.

Voluntourism

 My University hosts a project that trains perfectly healthy and prosperous students to go to Africa and other third-world countries in order to 'help' and experience the way of life over there. This is one of those issues intersectionalists like to talk about concerning white privilege. Yes, you are privileged to be white and to live in your white-built society. And even when ethnomasochists attempt to tell people that they're white privilege is even more than they thought it was, such as in this HuffPo article, they seem to still think they can go to these places and spend their money in draining programs in order to 'help' the third world:

"$3000 bought us a week at an orphanage, a half built library, and a few pickup soccer games, followed by a week long safari." This line comes from an article titled: The Problem with Little White Girls and Boys 

There is no problem with being better than others, with having more than others, because unlike more savage populations, white people fought and died in order to ensure a good way of life for the now ungrateful children they birthed. I blame feminism for teaching women that men hold them down, by liberating women from motherhood and telling them they will have better lives if they abort their fetuses and have a career. We've been raising prideful, entitled sons and daughters who don't know what it's like to be a man or woman, who squander the civilization that was built for them by thinking it is virtuous to experience the horror we wanted to keep them away from.

Sociopathic Tendencies

Recently I've been dealing with paranoia concerning the way I analyze people and gauge a response. I'm not a sociopath but my moral compass has been poisoned by the influence of evil when I was an SJW, so I know what what it's like to be morally lost and lost in the certainty of an ideology. As a cute, female child I was a pathological liar and got away with absolutely everything. I stopped being like this because of the countless amount of times it came back to me sooner or later in some way. Still, my novels are full of romanticized sociopaths and psychopaths, because I feel attuned to a chaotic neutral alignment. Now I know that it really does describe madmen, and I find that it's part of being an artist, but it's no way to function in society.

My sociopath tendencies are my obsession why the 'why' people are a certain way. I tend to desire to analyze how people think and to plan responses in advance in order to please them in a controlled, tested kind of way. I do this sometimes without thinking, sometimes in a very calculated way. As a woman, this is my 'forté' but in a horrid way, clearly. While the dark power of men resides in their bodies, the dark power of women emerges from the pool of chaotic energy that has a talent at recognizing people's face, the emotional aura of situations and to act accordingly. A woman can make you feel horrible about yourself, your life, and your relationship with her in seconds. Her use of black magic is a powerful weapon and a protective mechanism against the bodies of men. So, if I feel unsafe, I will tend to make myself look small, unimportant, but also overly nice and busy. It will come naturally, especially if I'm with my son. If I feel offended, or provoked by a conversation I am having with a friend, I will attempt to understand their mentality and either mirror it or perhaps slightly calculate how I can slip into her psyche and reorganize her brain. This is a very cool one.

Emotionally manipulating women can be either really tough or really easy. Women tend to be overly emotional, so it's important to have just the most neutrality possible and insert so much nuance that she's really confused about her views of morality. This mainly applies to morally relative people. You kind of nonchalantly slip in a view, suppose you're against abortion.

"It's not that I'm against women having abortions, I just find that it's really unfair to end the life of a person before it's really started. If I would be that fetus and I could be conscious, I wouldn't want to die. I would be abhorred to know that my mother didn't love me and had someone murder me in the womb, a place of safety and security. How... how is that not infanticide?"

Don't Berate Us: On Sex Segregation

Recently, I've been patronized by men for having an opinion. It seems I 'never have it right' or 'don't represent something very well' and am put down enormously. I get it, you're Alt-Right, I get it you're all about asserting yourself, but I've been finding that there are a lot of men who uplift themselves solely on the basis that they are calling women inferior. Much of the MGTOW movement is become a dangerous cult of misogyny, a 'masculinism' movement much like feminism. While I had apologized for the 'misogyny' of the Alt-Right earlier in my blog, claiming that thinking the sexes were different was not misogyny, I realized that where we differ with SJW's is also where we are similar. The sexes are equal, and we live in a patriarchy. We both agree that the world is male dominated, but while SJW's desire a matriarchy or a completely egalitarian society (will never happen, matriarchy either, clearly) the Alt-Right desires the patriarchy and sees its benefits and strength. It is the only system, and an anarchic patriarchy like Christianity seems solid and fertile for development. But much like in the Bible, it claims a man should love his wife more than himself, men should love women, because women are the fairer and weaker sex. Loving means treating her well.

Do not patronize a woman who is attempting to learn something in your political movement. Do not claim that she cannot learn, that she is incapable of being what you are. You're not helping and it means that you are unable to sustain your own masculinity without putting down the humanity of someone else.

Virtue-Signalling at its Finest: The Firebombing

"A thirst for civility and democracy!" says (((Weinberger))) as he raises 13k to fix the firebombed GOP office in a great effort to damage-control and virtue signal.

http://qz.com/810771/a-democrat-led-crowdfunding-campaign-raised-13000-to-rebuild-the-bombed-gop-office-in-north-carolina/

Thanks, democrats, but none of this would have happened if you wouldn't have made Republicans seem like demons and rapists and white supremacists (although for that last one...) This is virtue-signalling at its most finest, the apex of SJWism, the mind cult and psy-op of the mid-2010's.

If you ask me, everything was a set up. They had people go in and burn it and then they tested the virtue-signalling system to see who was going to give them the money and feel good inside their little hearts for doing so. Or hey, maybe I'm a sociopath and I can't see the 'good' part to this. Thanks democrats for cleaning up your own mess? Disgusting.

Also, look at how popular Trump's response is. People know what's up.

The Riverfront Times Smears Alt-Right Journalist

http://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2016/10/14/st-louis-native-trashes-city-as-uninhabitable-hellhole-reveals-self-as-racist-moron#Disqus

Daniel Hill, writer in the Riverfront Times in St. Louis has written a smear piece on a lovely and brilliant YouTuber known as Blonde in the Belly of the Beast. She was called a racist moron among other meaningless things and then this Daniel Hill went off and doxxed her brother and father. The SJW's are fighting back, clearly they will, because they simply refuse to see the truth. Since then, Daniel Hill has taken down his Twitter and other means of social communication for fear that he has dealt with the wrong people.

Being doxxed is a criminal offense and Daniel Hill is now a criminal. He is like all SJW, a degenerate narcissist who brings others down in order to virtue-signal. But all this has done is make him into a target for his entire life. People can say what they wish about Blonde, if they watch her videos they will see that she is not racist, but reporting on race, being truthful about situations that are ugly, such as gang violence in the black community. St. Louis is one of the worst for black crime and she has firsthand knowledge of it.

I don't need to defend her. She can stand up for herself, but she's suffered a hit that should not have been and Daniel Hill will not be taken to justice for his cruelty.

Teaser Clip by 'On the Offensive' about Devisive Left

I cannot wait for more of this. I've been really thinking about Hillary's campaign and how it might be (((influenced))) but I know it's just me who hasn't been studying as hard as I should. This clip, however, actually made me feel utterly terrified and animated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09f7bqbUmr0

White people need to stay together, help each other, and love each other. It is now more than ever that white men need to pull together and receive the help white women want to give. It's now more than ever that white women need to step away from the (((program))) and start loving her whiteness, start embracing the milk-drinker culture she was born in and she is destined to fulfill.

I'm staying optimistic. We will prevail, as we always have.

On the Spiritually-Minded Left

The left is often devoid of spirituality. They have the Wiccans and the Neopaganists and the pseudoscientific and the hypocritical protestants and Catholics, but their spirit comes through in the way they view people.

Neoreactionaries often use archetypes and stereotypes in order to talk about race and sex. It's a flaw we're all aware of, but it is also the acknowledgement that those archetypes and stereotypes are real. It is true that black children without a steady family life and a father to discipline them, may become violence and out-of-control more so than a white child of that same circumstance. Black neighbourhoods are not devoid of anything safe and nice because of 'institutionalized racism' or 'systems of oppression' they are as such because blacks men have been proven to have more testosterone and "war is to man what motherhood is to women" seems to be deeply rooted in the minds of the black male.

But I digress. There are other numerous instances where the left uses spirituality in order to make their arguments. The one, about men and women. Feminists and SJW's believe that men and women are the same. They have the same brain, the same wants and desires, the same emotional responses, responsibilities and truths, life goals, etc etc etc. The reality is that men and women are vastly different. What all human should acknowledge, however, is that despite the differences between men and women, they should both be treated with respect and dignity. They should not suffer from any form of poor treatment because of their sex. (I have apologized for misogyny and have heard numerous examples that defend misogyny has a a natural occurent in society today due to the high level of violence boys and girls face from frustrated mothers in a society that hates motherhood and mothers, but also because of women being straight-up insane. Feminists may have misandric feelings, the important thing here is to be self-aware). But in trying to make men and women equal in every respect, we are saying that women and men SHOULD react the same way for every situation. But they won't. A woman who will be cheated on will be infuriated at the cheater and the one he cheated on her with. A man who will be cheated on will often be far more self-critical and think it was his fault. This can be really damaging for any relationships he will have in the future and of his view of women. Women in a bad relationship or many with men, can become a lesbian, easily. A man will not become gay if he has bad relationships with women.The point is that men and woman are extremely different from each other, our responses are different, our strengths are in different places and to expect a young man not to get an erection when a beautiful girl is teasing the hell out of him is nonsensical. The spirit of the human is stronger than the sex of that person, to the left. It is, they're right, but it takes a large amount of control and it is a life-long process. We still, however, remain our XX and XY's until the end of our days. Sex IS gender.

Beta Male Brainwashes Children into SJWism

I was quite horrified recently when I found that in my province there was an event being planned called 'Philosophy for Children'. The man who organizes it, if I am able to call him a man without giggling, has a bit more meat on his body than a skeleton and seems to be into circus and artsy things. I will not name the group that he is organizing this event with, but here is the text.

Witch: The Bacchic Power of Woman

I realize recently that I've been almost more misogynistic than... everyone recently especially coming from a woman. But I digress. I am as flawed and imperfect as all other women and as much as men are flawed and imperfect. As much as I believe that I've always had a masculinized view of my life as a woman and a criticism of 'femininity' as set by certain societal standards, I do wish to speak about female power.

Women have the power of insanity. Insanity, as I've written in my Magnum Opus (The Alpha Female of Wicker) is protection. In my novel, which is a personal cathartic creation, I follow a seemingly functional schizophrenic shapeshifter female who is highly misogynistic. She transfigures herself into her dead fraternal twin sister in order to revel in past incestuous behaviours they had shared, and ultimately becomes jealous when as her sister she flirts with the man she is in love with. He, along with another man, both desire to contain and tame this uncontrollable power that she holds. The protagonist has a son with her male-transfigured late sister that she ends up devouring at the end of the novel in order to end her incestuous bloodline and start to live her life as a contained pregnant and barefoot housewife that nonetheless requires two men to be able to control her. It explores the fetish of polyamory but also the requirement of force and domination to be able to contain the excessive and chaotic power that wells out of femininity.

Inbred Muslims

Reading up on cousin marriage I came upon the muslim tradition of cousin marriages. Cousins should not marry and breed. Why? Scientifically, inbreeding is terrible for genetic diversity. It blooms recessive alleles that, if paired with another who has been fecunded through incest, might carry. Together they can transmit to their child an autosomal recessive disease, which are numerous. I've found a list, and I chuckle that it comes from a Texan website.

Knowing that Muslims are traditional, they're will continue these gross illogical traditions no matter where they are in the world. It's abuse to your own soul to marry into your family. I used to be an SJW and I used to think even if a brother and sister were in love, it didn't matter as long as they don't have kids, but are you really going to let your brother fuck you without protection? How is that not total fetish? Now I know it's morally wrong to waste yourself to lust and to spoil your soul as such. Nonetheless, I know white people have their own history of incest, and I'm not proud of it, but at least we don't have a tradition in Christianity that promotes it. The cousin tradition in Islam is a majority 'elite' thing, which echoes our Royalty (although we didn't know about how bad inbreeding would make our child) Now we know and I think we tend to avoid marrying first-cousins in Royalty. I mean, recently the Dukes and Princes have been marrying lay-women!

Then there are articles that minimize inbreeding. Not as bad as you think??? Disgusting!
I mean, I'm not Aryan or anything, but at least my parents aren't at all related and I think if we want to have a society that makes any sort of sense we should NOT be breeding with (anyone outside our race, really) but especially not anyone that comes from a tradition of inbreeding!

I'm pretty disgusted concerning this map, even! It's legal to marry your first cousin almost everywhere in the world. Puke. I don't know, if I had to choose in between marrying a man in my country who wasn't my race or moving away to another nation, Jesus I would marry any normal-looking, healthy white man. You're normal, you're kind, you're hard-working and healthy? Now. Babies. Go. Never a cousin. Never a relative. Never a... non-milk-drinker.

We cannot let America or Canada accept anymore Muslims. We cannot let our beautiful Western Civ. fall to the mercy of Islamic domination. We cannot cease to marginalize with the best of our efforts those who stand in our way, despite the consequences it might have. This is not about us, it is about our children and their future for a safer world. 

Sigh... to end off, I'd like to present to you Charles II of Spain, massively inbred, physically and mentally disabled. This painting of him is probably what he wishes he looks like in his wildest dreams.

Passing the Baton to the "Oppressed"

I know this is over-dealt with but I can never keep in the thought: what have men not done that women could do? Why do we need to 'let women try to rule the world'? Saying that means that people believe women to be superior to men that men have not done what needs to be done, that men have been lacking, that they've missed something. This is very difficult to believe. I doubt women will bring anything new to the table--if things go well for women in power, the best thing that could happen would be that women will keep the status quo that men have fought and died to obtain and conserve.

What about black women? I watched this video and it made me think about what it would be like to pass the baton not only to women but to black women. I've read a lot on how black women act and why they act in a clownish fashion, videos by black men who claim that black women compensate for their lack of beauty and popularity with acting in order to get people's attention. Black women will do anything to stand out, be seen as different and unique hence the attitude and bizarre over-the-top emotions and reactions. Leslie Jones was the epitome of this stereotype in the movie Ghostbusters. Nero called the act racist to the level of minstrels (black face) and I have to agree. Black women appropriate this because it is a very real stereotype, archetype even at this point. What I find ridiculous is what white male announcer (virtue-signalling cuck) says to her:

 "A lot of people starting attacking you on Twitter using some pretty awful terminology and I was very proud of you, knowing you, you'd stand up for yourself when that happened, and then you used Twitter as a form (forum?) to draw attention to it and uhh um... maybe this is going to be the beginning of some progress towards what happens on Twitter." 

First of all... he's barely literate. Is he trying to lower himself to her level? At one point refers to her indirectly by saying "people like you". Way to other blacks in the left by cloaking yourself in virtue. The beginning of progress? No, it's the continuation of the coddling. It's the rise of censorship, of a big government and a police state. But we know all this. This is clearly a bad interview and the whole Leslie Jones issue is stupid. It's just interesting to see what kinds of things would likely happen if black women were in power. White men would cuck themselves into attempting to to just to minorities who, if ever they grab a hold of the train that runs society, would crash it on purpose and then claim justice, freedom and hope.  

Jill Stein and Liberal Media Hypocrisy

Liberal media loves to hate Donald Trump. But why not love Jill Stein instead? Why did it take me up until now to even know that she existed? Yeah, it's my bad, I get it, and yeah she's a Jew and clearly desiring of government control, but hell, she's a better candidate than Hillary Clinton! She's a woman, she's an eco-feminist, and despite all the virtue-signalling from the left, not one mention, not one word about Jill Stein. Look how cute she is! I've researched that she's basically a female Bernie who wants to reduce the military budget by 50% and make the US fully green-sufficient by 2030.

I'm not saying we should put her in office, no, she'll ruin America, but why aren't all the feminists over her? I mean, she is being systemically oppressed by the media and by liberal outlets who waste their time bitching about Trump rumours. I understand that the Green party is almost useless and almost just a diversion from important things but... I'm disappointed by all the liberal outlets who didn't mainstream even her existence.

Goyim Goddess Taken Down

I had subbed to a pretty good Alt-Right channel (Goyim Goddess) that Red Ice had on their channel as a channel to check out. She was clever and opinionated, always learning more and churning out quite a bit of material and then, I check her channel and it was taken down.

Multiple or severe violations of hate speech. Why? Because she mentioned 'The Jews' in a conspiratorial way. Seriously, it wasn't even that bad, it was normal grunty Alt-Right shit like 'they're after us' the usual run-down. To 99% of people, this would pass over their heads as crazy holocaust deniers and paranoiacs, but then why did YouTube take it down? Because it was mean? Boo fucking hoo. Censorship will definitely take down the ones who rebel against it the most. I just hope she can recover her material and open up another channel.

Total Marxist Course List for Intro to Political Theory

So I love politics, and I wished to take a political theory course so I signed up for one. I checked out my course list excitedly to see the required materials to read. I was shocked.

These are the required readings:

John Stuart Mill, Burke, Rousseau, and Marx himself. I dropped it faster than lightning. I thought I was going into a class that had a reduction of bias, not a clear delineated leftist Marxist bias! Subjection of women? Please! Women have done what women needed to do as much as men have done what men needed to do for centuries. Yes there was a time where men thought women could not and were not able to be as great as a man, that time has passed, but does that mean we should 'let women have a turn as everything men have been'? No. Why? Because men are not the primary child-carers in this world, it is women, and that is something sacred, as much as it is sacred for many men to provide monetarily for their family and be dominant in strength and influence onto his household. A fair, patriarchal father will raise stoic, clever and destructively pristine daughters and emotionally control his wife so she does not embarrass herself during PMS rampages, and/or kill their newborn because she's frustrated over the top.

Inequality has a bad rep on the left like feminism does on the right. Why? Because inequality is good and natural. People just don't like the sound of it. But everything is inequal and the most powerful thing we can do about it is treat others with respect and integrity. I'm a Christian (although my faith in punishment and God is dwindling recently due to logic prominence) but I am a follower of Jesus, who claimed that all persons were equal in the eyes of God, and if you're secular or an atheist, God can mean the Universe. And it's true. Women are better at certain things than men are. My husband is an egalitarian and when my son was born, he had a difficult time to find him cute and to handle him and feel secure in the way that he would take care of him. He did his best but it did not come naturally, unlike me. My son was born and he was very cute for a newborn, but I found him gorgeous despite his newbornness and I slaved away happily to him, because that's what women have always done. I also don't like physical games as much as my husband, and this, once more, is natural and evolutionary. I comfort better. My husband rough and toughs better.

Do I believe that women CAN do everything a man can? Yes. Do I believe that women should not be oppressed in any circumstance by men? Yes. Do I believe that we should break traditional gender roles and family models in order to liberate the woman sexually and socially from the role of mother and child-carer, home-maker (proved to be the most fulfilling job for women), and role model? NO! That's what make me anti-feminist, but I still hold the majority of the feminist ideologies, not because of feminism, but because of Jesus. Early Christianity had powerful women who ran churches and they spread a message of gender EQUITY, which is what it should be.

Anyway, fuck my University. I'm still going to write that bitching Honours on SJW's though and I'm going to blow my professor out of the park. I won't convert (((him))) to the Alt-Right, but I might temporarily embarrass him for being so biased.

Karma: YouTube Demonitization Hurts SJW's

SJW's are degenerates, we've known that for a while now and degeneracy gets its just desserts and comeuppance. I remember when the classical liberals and conservatives warned the extreme-left which had come mainstream (all of this is planned by upper management and Soros, I believe) that if they would continue to demand censorship, that they would ALL lose. Indeed, they have. As I have said in an earlier post, in a politically correct culture, women lose.

YouTube has a new terms of service concerning the content that will be monetized. Here is the list.

"Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown."

YouTubers have been complaining that they are being 'shut down' or 'censored'. In reality, they are not. Their videos can still exist and be put online, but the advertisers are now unwilling to pay anyone who has an opinion that does not share theirs, or that talk about distressing issues. Now YouTube is being feminized, great. Thanks, Anita.

The greatest part of all this is that SJW's, who talk about rape and sexual abuse, patriarchy, dominance, power dynamics, gender roles, transsexuality, homosexuality, pornography sex, and other disturbing and gross things relative to the female body and orgasms, are now demonitized due to talking about disturbing content. Karma. They wanted to be word terrorists, they wanted censorship, well, here it is! I hope you like it. Served on a silver platter for the misses. 

Karma.
Suck it up. Man up. Wake up

Social Monopolies

Feminism does not have a monopoly on equality. Equality is often defined as 'the equal opportunity for a woman to make the same choices and decisions as a man'. Often Marxists will attempt to easily convert people to feminism by using the phrase 'who believes that a woman should have the equal opportunities?' Clearly if you don't raise your hand under that sort of pressure, (even if you could explain your reasoning) you will be socially ostracized.

Social ostracism is not a big deal for men, but for women, it is. I hate confrontation, I think it's a man's thing, but I will take my place if it is needed. I say it's not a big deal for men because men thrive in the public sphere, often do not bend to emotional mindgames as easily, remain stable while defending their arguments and gain friends and babes from being outgoing and sometimes fringey. Women don't do as well. A right-wing woman in a Marxist college will be looked at contemptuously by leftist men and women, and since the right-wing men are in a minority, she's left on her own, which is a difficult weight to bear.

With PC culture, women lose. 

Trudeau and Iceland

http://conservativefans.com/2016/07/26/trudeau-says-hes-moving-to-iceland-if-trump-wins/

"Iceland is the most peaceful country in the world" says Trudeau who then added that it was an ideal place for one to raise his children.

So, it's satire, but a lot of people took it very seriously. Was it created in order to stir discussion about white identity and white supremacy? If it did, well, let's stir the stew and throw some posts why don't we?

96% of the population of Iceland is pure, milk-drinker white. You wonder why there is so much peace? Is it the secular government? The egalitarian society (with authoritarian males, of course)? The hygge? The Norse blood? The fair and just legal system?

Iceland isn't perfect, what with allowing a lesbian to be their Prime Minister and gay marriage, but let's be honestly, it is a paradise compared to Canada and the US. And you might think gay marriage is fine, Iceland is after all, founded on a Christian basis that has been secularized. It is probably better to let homosexuals be happy than have them constantly in rebellion, pushing back against normalcy. I do think that when homosexuality is more tolerated it has less a chance to be fetishized, but I remain against gay marriage. I mean, why? These days, although it still bothers me, I've come to accept romantic relationships between same-sex partners, intimate relationships. Daniel Tammet has a male partner that he has claimed is more like a soft lover (although they are married) than someone to satisfy his lust on. We can argue about Greek ideals of beauty and male love another day, but I think that homosexuality should be about soft love if ever homosociality is just not enough.

Racial Preference

Today, as I started writing my Honours thesis on SJWism, I came upon the words 'racial preference'. It puzzled me. After all, people have sexual preferences, and if I accept that one can be gay or bisexual or pansexual or a unicorn, then I can speak of this freely.

Take Norman. He has sexual feelings for men. His society tells him it is all right for him to prefer men sexually and so has a romantic relationship with another man. He chooses this, and he can also not control his sexual impulse he has for other men. He will say, despite his obvious choice of being with a man romantically, that he cannot control it, and that he did not choose it.

He has a lack of agency, which he gives up to lust as a sacrificial offering. He cannot control it and therefore, people must accept the way he is or else they are 'scared' of him. Hmm...

Why should people, then, not be proud of their racial preferences? Why is it that if a white person desires to be surrounded by other white people because 1. they cannot control their kinship for other whites and 2. they simply prefer it then they must reform the way that they are against their will for the sake of multiculturalism and the removal of all racial bias?

Why must those who have a positive racial bias toward their own race be forced to reject their nature? It's simple: because it is not 'natural' to have racial preferences to 'society', but a prejudice. Would a gay man, however, be called prejudice against a woman because he does not force himself to have sexual feelings for her? No. He would be respected for loving other men and encouraged by liberals to feed his fetish (all right, I'll be inclusive) to satisfy his sexual hunger the way he sees fit. Having a positive racial bias does not hurt anyone. The exclusion of women in that man's life is not seen as misogynistic or unfair to women, but simply a preference. If women were oppressed by men in American society (like, actually oppressed) would they then think that male homosexuality would be a sexual prejudice toward women? I have heard people say that if they find black women ugly they are racist. I know that in the middle east, men have very strong fraternal bonds between themselves, but if they let that bond turn to lust, then they are in sin and must be killed.

I do think that if one gender has more power, they have more kinship.

Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech Transcript

Thank you, Reno! It’s great to be back in Nevada…
My original plan for this visit was to focus on our agenda to help small businesses and entrepreneurs.
This week we proposed new steps to cut red tape and taxes, and make it easier for small businesses to get the credit they need to grow and hire.
Because I believe that in America, if you can dream it, you should be able to build it.
We’ll be talking a lot more about our economic plans in the days and weeks ahead.
But today, I want to address something I hear from Americans all over our country.
Everywhere I go, people tell me how concerned they are by the divisive rhetoric coming from my opponent in this election.
It’s like nothing we’ve heard before from a nominee for President of the United States.
From the start, Donald Trump has built his campaign on prejudice and paranoia.
He’s taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over one of America’s two major political parties.

Fetishization

The two worst things you can subject an idea to is to romanticize it or to fetishize it. Fetish in this definition is "something irrationally revered" (OED), which I will explain furthermore by saying that is it often put into action in order to gain more from it than what it has to offer. It is a projection of the flesh onto the spirit, it is a delusion, a perversion, and it usually leads to obsession. The most common association to fetish that humans face is the fetishism of food and sexuality.

Romanticization is "To make romantic or idealized in character; to make (something) seem better or more appealing than it really is; to describe, portray, or view in a romantic manner." (OED) Things that are romanticized are usually horrible and disturbing evils (and sometimes fetishes) in order to sidle through the human's natural gut-reactions to evil, tweak their moral compass and invade their mind. Common romanticizations that I've witnessed that are the most disturbing are Japanese anime collections called Loli, of small female children willingly open to be sexual with adult men. The romanticization of female children as whimsical, innocent and pure beings makes it all the more easy to create a pedophilic narrative in one's mind that seems harmless and caring instead of perverted and predatorial. Thug life is often romanticized as well, making it seem noble and honourable when it is clearly more like a forced engagement of evil, violence and ultimately rape and murder. 

Father's Milk

So apparently men can lactate. I've heard feminists use this to claim that one day men will help women childrear so they can both have a career and tend to their children (instead of you know... educating their children and caring about them). So, the woman will give up her precious breastfeeding time to her father so that their babe can do the more abhorrent thing of all:

"drink milk from their father's teet"

I said this out loud just now to my husband and felt sickened. There are so many levels of wrong to this, and I'm sure I don't have to state why. There are perhaps men who have an anomaly, perhaps a lot of estrogen, perhaps a breast that can excrete 'milk', but let's be clear, this small amount of lactation is not a sustainable childfeed that can nourish any living thing. Also, men who stimulate their nipples when their child is born in hopes to give it its milk is... must I go on?

Just to state how it'll never be sustainable, I will say this: Women need to be constantly breastfeeding during the first weeks, if they stop, their baby will need formula. Each ounce of anything your newborn ingests in that time reduces the woman's milk production, which can be the detriment of the entire production and will slowly recover, but not without formula or getting in cereals far too early for the baby to properly digest them. The mother needs to breastfeed. The mother also needs to breastfeed in order to bond with her child. Mothers have been known to be the number one childkiller, especially when it comes to babyshaking or babysmothering (I'm convinced than mothers kill their children in their cribs and blame is on SIDS). As a mother, I realize that I tend to go insane with my child around acting like a rascal and I need control. I cannot imagine a feminist-type woman and her temperament with a child. Oh, never mind, her children are all ashes in the bottom of the biohazardous garbage disposal at the hospital. But if she would decide not to be a deadbeat murderous woman-child, than she would likely kill her son out of him just... being a boy! My boy is truly a boy. He hits and he pinches and bites and tests me and plays me with coy glances, but he's evident about his intentions and outspoken. He's also sweet and tender and kind, and that's the most of him. But his worse brings the worst out of me. I still breastfeed him, (he's 19 months) and it is a time we both enjoy. The love between a woman and her child is Eros, hence Aphrodite and Cupid (Eros), the baby god. It is a moment I share with my son, that bonds us, that cleans our slate of anger and frustration, and brings us back to our sweet familial love. Women should not be ashamed of feeling erotically connected with their babies, for this love is not lust. It is not fetish, and it is not fueled by sin or negativity. It is serenity and calm. God blessed the female with a release of prolactin during breastfeeding which helps her bond to her child so that she can be eased of her frustrations and be happy.

Why renounce it?

Because you want to spend time with human transactions, with selfish, greed-based competition? Because you want to be men? You force the woman in a place where she does not belong generally, and as a trade-off, you attempt to force men to do the unthinkable, breastfeed their children. I read this in this article and I was sickened.

"Diamond points out, however, that with the societal norm of fathers helping to rear their young, male milk production could actually be to our advantage, especially with all the career women trying to balance the demands of job and family. Why else would men still have nipples?"

You can make your own comments. I don't have to add anything else but my subjective emotions and thoughts which all relate to a sense of deep unease and disgust. Men can lactate, all right, it's weird and I admit that it's probably true, but to make any talking point concerning the socialization of breastfeeding men is ridiculous and absolutely out of the left-field. It's this obsessions with trying to prove that men can be women and women can be men, which is untrue. So untrue. It has taken me 8 years of being with my spouse in order to understand a shred of what men are, and I'm still working out what it's like to be a woman--that was greatly aided by the arrival of my beloved son.

But please, already that I don't want to live on this planet anymore, I want any woman who brings this up to be the most ridiculed, the most shame-ridden being on the face of the earth. Any comment that would land you in jail in the Middle East deserves at least humiliation here in the West.

Bringing Back: Etiquette Schools

In attempt to rebuild a healthy, homosocial gathering for young women and girls, I believe it would be a wise thing to bring back etiquette schools. They are now few and often tailored to modern society. I, as a hardcore traditionalist, believe that we can do-away with much of social media and technology and their failings. I do believe young women (17+) may wish to have a Facebook or a cell phone, but I would recommend that they do not use them for anything else than communication with the world. There is no need for them to be toxified by Buzzfeed, Twitter, Tumblr, Yahoo, MSN, etc. If any website would be acceptable for young women these days, it would be YouTube (although it's being censored) Reddit (in moderation) or Pinterest. Still, I do believe parents should be involved in their children's feast of ideas, asking them if they have seen something disturbing or that they are questioning. But I digress.

Society today is secular, highly immoral, unconcerned with spirituality, uncouth and ultra-liberal. In order to counteract this 'Slut Culture' of fallen women, we must salvage the younger generation and make them once more into women with class and dignity. Christian, moral, elite, conservative girls might be able to be the future that will help this world return to Truth, morality, and peace. Instead of falling into despair in an eschatological depression, let us look into ways to row to shore the girls who will inevitably drive down the waterfall of sin.

Etiquette schools should focus mainly on:

(Indoor Activities)

Conversation, Socialization, Games, DIY, paperwork (taxes, etc), table manners, hosting, music, painting, sewing, cooking, canning, exercize and literature (as well as Bible Study).

These activities will create wonderful, sturdy, joyful girls who will see the value of being a housekeeper. This does not force them into being a wife and housekeeper, however, she should be free to go on to do some higher education if she so chooses (perhaps in medicine or education), but she will be suited well to her femininity and should not wish to be a man, or masculine more than her disposition might incline her to be.

(Outdoor Activities) might include:

Horseback riding, gardening, gathering, non-violent sports, swimming, and free play. 

I do believe girls should be left along in order to breed 'romantic' relationships with each other. Women can be very homosocial and intimate with each other, I believe this is why many of them fall into desiring to be sexual with each other, but I do find that falling into lust is immoral and breaks the potential for a perfect intimate friendship. Older girls and younger girls should be imaginative and play wonder games, make plays, read or invent stories with each other.

I believe etiquette schools could be made into summer camps. I would host one if I had the budget and location and well... girls who would like to to this, but the only problem is that the discipline that is needed is no longer tolerated in our society. We cannot shame and humiliate anymore, and by that, I don't mean it in a 'hazing' type of way. I mean it like, make them stand in a corner wearing a dunce hat, or such a thing. Humiliation can be done right, shaming is highly needed in order to correct false ways and return to a healthy social stigma. Will we ever see this? Likely not. But it's nice to imagine. I will keep dreaming in a positive light.

"To despair is to turn your back on God." Marilla Cuthbert

Religious Extremism is not Religious Terrorism

I've been hearing this apologetic phrase recently, mainly coming from the regressive left and atheists, "religious extremism" or "religious extremist". They're often used to describe the motivation of a terrorist attack without implying that the person is a terrorist. For the normies out there, this does not equate to the dangerous ideology of Islam, but says that all religions can be extreme and can be murderous and can lead to terrorism. Clearly this is an understatement. Moderate Christians in this world are those who accept gay marriage and abortions. Fundamentalist Christians, or as they would say 'religious extremist Christians' will go to Pro-Life rallies, not accept homosexuality as a valid form of sexuality, and might even not use contraception. That's religious extremism.

What about Islam? Just the moderate Muslims agree with what ISIS is doing. They don't like homosexuals, at all, they want segregation, they don't think any other religion is legitimate and believe that many other races than their own are lesser. That's not even the extremists. In the extreme you have female genital mutilation, the murder of homosexuals, the rape of infidels, the murder of infidels, death for apostasy, child marriages and the list goes on.

Clearly this 'religious extremism' narrative the left is pushing is a form of Cultural Marxism, destroying the fabric of our society one uttered word of black magic at a time. It is an apology of the real terrorism that is threatening Europe, that is violently raping our beautiful Swedish and German women, that is reducing our populations through abortion, that is blinded by pride and the vehement hate of continuity, goodness, and the achievement of greatness. 

My posts will be short like this for a while, I'm on vacation! Have a beautiful deep summer, my Lords.

Morality: Restriction or Indulgence?

A critique of conservative stances on morality, or religious stances are that they are restrictions forced onto people by those who refuse to accept their differences. A preacher with homosexual feelings will adamantly obsess over the passages in the Bible that claim homosexuality to be wrong because it valorizes his work of suppressing and sublimating his feelings into God. But this is a subjective view. Sublimating lust into God is difficult and is part of an ascetic life. In our corrupt society, it's difficult for those who struggle with lust because they are bombarded with porn, softcore porn, child pornification, basically there is sex and lust everywhere one looks. In the end, it doesn't really matter how people see this 'theory of moral restrictions' because their view is subjective. A subjective view of a subjective view is pretty weak and useless when we are on a quest toward finding an objective morality.

The Paradoxes of the Christian NRx

As a Christian in the Alt-Right, I've been facing a few personal moral issues. The first is my wrath. I refuse to be saddened about the issues that have happened, sadness brings me nowhere right now. I've wallowed in depression long enough, but I find myself replacing this sadness with anger. This anger breeds resentment, self-hatred, contempt and pride. I find myself having to realign myself, often with the psalm (36:10): "Be still, and know that I am the Lord." I find myself rebelling against God's authority, questioning its legitimacy and finding myself ill and disgusted, which makes me think I've gone too far in my ideologies.

Mothers are Women, Girls are Girls

When I was pregnant, two years ago, I told a woman in my class that I really felt like I was becoming a woman. She looked at me funny and said: "Surely you don't mean that women need to have children to be women...?"
I felt undermined and insulted, because she was a feminist and I knew what she stood for but not completely at the time. I had to be subdued. It bothered me.

What is Race Superiority?

We won't all agree on the definition, but this is what I find important when a race claims to be better than another. Race, for this definition, will encompass culture as well.

1. A race cannot bring another race down to support its claim of superiority
 To use another race to boost your race is to prove weakness. A race that need the support of other races is not superior, but exploiting the strengths of one race in order to appear better. American whites have the same burden to blacks as German whites have to Jews. I know there probably aren't that many Jews living in Germany anymore, but the idea of reparations is cute and beautiful but it's not going to happen. We're not the society we were then. We're not the people that our ancestors were. But years have passed since the American chattel slavery, and society has shifted quite a bit since then. Black people now have complete equality, it's up to them to choose to live as a victim of the past or as an individual who has perfect agency and who will prove to the 'white man' that she can be as culturally savvy, controlled, intellectual and in love with the freedom she has in the West.

NRx Misogyny Apology

I did some reconnaissance recently, and delved into some pretty good arguments against the Alt-Right. Apart from the anti-large-CEO image the technocrats give off, there was the obvious reoccuring theme of 'racism' but also 'sexism'. I was a bit puzzled, but then it became clear to me. Yes, the author of this article was a feminist (I'm reviewing the article now, it'll be up soon) a male feminist, to be precise, or perhaps he was just fond of loose girls he can easily have sex with. The guy seemed like he had done a bit of research, but focused far too much on the biography of certain big names, and it ended up being more tedious than interesting. Not much is interesting these days apart from the reactosphere, honestly. But back to the point... sexism.

The Importance of Social Stigma

We have numerous very healthy social stigmas that need to be upheld if we're to get any work done. We have to do them in a well-aware type of way in order to avoid normies to notice them. In doing them, however, we will help perpetuate a healthy social cohesion. This is my first WS post, so bear with me, I'm still working shitposting out. Let's dive and I'll try to be gender neutral.

Cross-Factoring Common Political Enemies

So recently I've been increasingly involved politically. I used to be a liberal, centrist, basically I had few opinions on things and I thought morality was relative. Then, I became an SJW and explored the extreme-left. I then re-centered, went to the right and then went to the extreme right. It is in my temperament to like extremes, that's a fact I cannot ignore or repress, but I am not ashamed. I just want the truth and the truth that lies in those extremes are interesting. On my way across the political spectrum, I realized that there are many groups who have common enemies. I will list my discoveries:

Common enemy: Jews
Groups: Neo-Nazis and Truthers
Truthers are hardcore conspiracy theories. I personally think they're right about a lot of it. Jews do own the main top banks and it seems like the Bible was right about the Jews being the people of the Lord, however, there is a conpiracy concerning this elite group that involves Satanic rituals. I honestly do not understand the logistics of of this, so I'll be humble and just leave it at that. Neo-Nazis, well, they dislike Jews... well... for being Jews, apart from there many criteria I shan't get into. The Jews, man, they've always been hated. Check out the pic of them being burned in 1348. Hitler's not even original. (By Luzerner Schilling)

Horrible Advice for Men from Childish Women

I saw this terrible article today, I am so ashamed. It's from a random website but its regressiveness is astounding. It's regressive for society, for women, it's just gross. It's a list of 16 Phrases Women say Men Misunderstand. It should read: Vague Things Women say that they Expect men to Understand. I hear myself saying these things sometimes and I find it really detrimental to the communication I have with my husband. It's bad programming and it has to stop. Here's the list:

http://www.dailyforest.com/entertainment/11-things-women-say-that-men-misunderstand/6

The link follows to page 6 because it is the worst of them all.
'“Do you need to do that now?” then your response should be simple: “No, you’re right, I don’t”'

Greenpeace Associates with BLM

I admit it, I donated to Greenpeace. I am very ecological, and I care about our home planet and do think we have to take care of it. We are in God's Kingdom, and we can make Eden return (not perfectly, but very nicely). But then I saw this:

SJWism is a Cult: In-Detail Study

So this is something that's been brewing for a while. It's difficult to pin-point a cult, but I've studied religion and I think I've come to understand its workings. Cults have certain key elements to them that I've observed also lie in the SJW/Feminism cult. 

Cult factor one: Social exclusion for the inclusion of the cult.
Many cults, the unfortunately 'Christian' cult of the Jehovah's Witnesses for example, encourage family members to separate if they are no longer religious in the JW way.
SJW's use the famous 'white guilt' argument in order to rally white people in their cause. They also use 'gender traitor' associations, and control people's thought with memes and poorly-constructed sociological ideologies. They're ideologues, and ideologues in practice are cultists. When you agree, however, with the SJW narrative, you disagree with the reactionary sphere which includes more rational but more uncomfortable truths and reasons. I've spoken about emotional manipulation, but it is their number one tactic to gain followers, and in the new member it can cause severe depression, loss of one's moral compass, agoraphobia, and social despair. They will only seek comfort in other SJW's, who, are all alike, all troubled and cannot actually help each other. They are trapped in a victimhood complex together, useless and downtrodden.

Cult factor two: "Sin" and "Self-Awareness"
In Christianity, which I consider a legit religion because it strives for greatness, beauty, Truth and goodness, there is a concept of 'sin' and of 'redemption'. Self-awareness is also very importance when you're a Christian because you must be meek, or humble. Humility, in the SJW cult, comes in the form of 'checking your privilege' which does not make you self-aware of true personal issues of pride, greed, lust, sloth, and other vices, but of internalized misogyny, privilege, oppression, or being an oppressor to another. This scheme is built in power; everything about SJW's is a power-play. They call men out for being intrinsically sexist and overly masculine as a 'critique of power' when really they claim a moral high-ground in their oppressiveness. When a fellow SJW cultist asks another to 'Check your Privilege' it is very similar to telling a child to be self-aware of their sinful ways. SJW end up doing it to themselves, but sadly for them, this is all in vain, for they are mentally masturbating in pure human construction, one very unpolished and new and I could add, false. It would be like stopping yourself from walking because you think you might be walking in a wrong way. I always said faith leads to or is equivalent to self-awareness, but there is no such thing as internalized misogyny or ingrained racism. It's cult-language.

SJW Emotional Manipulative Nonsense and Memes

So yesterday I had a quarrel with a Greek female SJW and a black woman, both I believe are Canadian. It was very intense and without the help of an open-minded conservative (female) by my side, I would have probably collapsed. They cornered me, blasted me and made me feel 'the white guilt' feeling, which they attempt to justify as me feeling empathy. Empathy doesn't feel like rotten disgusting waste, that's called gaslighting. When someone maximizes a situation in order for you to feel vulnerable, they break you and then they take you into their cult. It is emotionally-driven bullshit that makes the SJW. They have no sense of reason, they circlejerk on the same memes and I have decided to root out the conversation and expose them:

Mandatory Diversity Class is Reeducation

So you might have heard of this. "Diversity classes" yes. It's pretty clear to those on the Alt-Right that this is a form of reeducation. People can't have had a good education from just living because they are one race and need to experience the turmoil that other races face in the same society. So, they need to have a mandatory class on diversity so that they can know exactly how they are oppressing minorities. Well, this will definitely end badly. 

1. Clearly this is targetting whites. This is claiming that the white identity is intrinsically lacking because of the lack of 'racial tensions' that we avoid for being white. It's saying that white people are privileged and therefore, they need oppression points that they will get by becoming activists, in set movements such as BLM. They're creating puzzle pieces for their global agenda and slotting them in right where they want them. The racism in this is astounding, but they've built a frame narrative of the prejudice+power = sexism/racism in order to fit that narrative. We are going toward a communist state and it's funny that it's the left that's scared of Trump's authoritarianism.

2. It's reeducation that's been going on for a decade. When I was in high school, our classes (in Canada) were minority-focused. We had sec. 1 to focus on Jews and the holocaust, we had sec. 3 to focus on blacks and the chattel slavery in America. Honestly, it was really boring and really gross. I kept on being grossed out and terrified by what happened that now when I read about it I just end up being grossed out and terrified. But mainly, I remember 14-year-old me thinking 'Why aren't we reading Shakespeare? Why do we have to talk about street gangs? A couple of whites in my classes even glorified gang culture and wasn't even called out for it. It was normal for him to say positive things about gang culture, despite the initiation stories, the rape and violence, the mentality, etc of said gangs. No, they were black--it was almost like we had to appreciate their culture despite its clear degeneration. "But that's not REAL black culture." Ok. Sure. I'll give you that, so then why were we (an all-white class) forced to eat up American slavery and black gang culture? (albeit in there was The Outsiders, which was a white thing, but still shitty, despite perhaps a bit tragic as well) It's because it's programming. It's this unnatural insertion into a perfectly good culture of guilt and racism and things that don't belong because we have mixed races and a broken social cohesion. Canada's great, but people ignore that Canada's great because people don't care about anything. We're also very few compared to the US. 35 million, which is almost the pop. size of California. There are 300 million in the US and growing exponentially due to illegals from Mexico. So, a small country with lots of land, and few pockets of Muslims, Blacks and others won't be very violent. It's not an excuse to continue to break its social cohesion by adding in multicultural studies that don't really help students grow--it just helps them feel sorry for black people, victimize them.

3. America is a melting pot anyway, or a mosaic at some places. Who cares about diversity when there is diversity around you? Clearly in the ultra-left, individualism and agency goes down the pipe. Women and minorities are victims and need coddling and need the majority and whites and men to bow down to them and let them take the lead for a while. Right. Well, ask any woman over 60 if they liked working alongside women, and they'll have the guts to tell you, no, women are catty and they emotionally manipulate you to feel horrible about yourself. 50 and under, they had second-wave feminism up in their ears. Women studies are useless. No one cares about what people with vaginas could do, it's about what PEOPLE can do. People who vote for a woman because she's a woman... please... baby Jesus... why?? Gender studies? Male and female. Be one or hate one, next. Multicultural/diversity... why? Some people are racist, others aren't. Sorry that you fuck up our social cohesion. (God, imagine that, if whites oppressed blacks with the argument of social cohesion how messed up that would be? It's totally the same thing right now, but we're white and we scoff it off because we're Vikings. I just imagined a huge manly Viking man picking up a cow with one arm and drinking from its teat as a little minority came running at him with a sign saying 'Diversity Now' and he just slaps him away laughing, his voice basically thunder.) Indigenous? But... didn't the animals who live there live on the land and then you took it from them? Regressive argument. Nothing there. Why are we forced into empathy classes when we should be building new culture, progressing technologically, and becoming greater people? If whites are to be prolific, be happy for them, they're paving the way for future generations. Most white people are not racist toward non-whites, it's just... the other. Sorry. Bias is normal. Prejudice can be adjusted, but we can't stop progress for adjustment. It needs to go on.

I want to start the hashtags. #oopsedinagulag for the conservatives out there, because it's cute and you can say it after you say something 'offensive'. And #gulaglife2017 because it's fun and true. Hope to see you all in the neo-gulags!