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.
Monday, 19 December 2016
Monday, 5 December 2016
Mentally Disturbed 'Transwoman Child' Man Plans for Gay High School
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.
Thursday, 24 November 2016
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?
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?
Monday, 21 November 2016
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.
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.
Sunday, 20 November 2016
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.
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.
Wednesday, 16 November 2016
Tuesday, 15 November 2016
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.
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.
Monday, 14 November 2016
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.
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.
Sunday, 13 November 2016
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.
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.
Friday, 11 November 2016
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.
"$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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)