Thursday, March 8, 2018

Jewish Influence in 2018 Midterms

I've often said the JQ is like a bad car wreck: once you see it, you can't unsee it. Therefore, when I read USA Today's article, 10 Super-Rich People Dominate giving to Super PACs active in Midterm Elections for Congress, I couldn't help but wonder how many of the ten were Jewish. A quick search produced the following results:

  • Richard Uihlein: non-Jew
  • Thomas Steyer: Jew
  • Fred Eychaner: non-Jew (gay-rights activist, Democrat's “Mystery Man,” possible Jew)
  • S. Donald Sussman: Jew
  • George Marcus: non-Jew (Greek Orthodox)
  • Charles Koch: non-Jew
  • Steven Cohen: Jew
  • Bernard Marcus: Jew
  • Geoffrey Palmer: Jew
  • Deborah Simon: Jew

According to USA Today's analysis, these “10 super-rich individuals” account for more than 20% of the money that is funding federal super PACs:

Donations from 10 super-rich individuals account for more than 20% of the money filling the bank accounts of federal super PACs, a USA TODAY analysis shows, highlighting how a small group of wealthy patrons is racing to influence which party will control Congress for the remainder of President Trump’s first term.

In the United States, 1.7% of the population is Jewish. Yet, six of the ten “super-rich” people who are using their wealth to influence American politics are Jewish. It's also important to note that half of those on the list support Republicans, and the other half Democrats. So, although Jews collectively vote 70% Democrat, three of the five Republican lobbyists mentioned are Jewish. As are three of the five Democrat donors. Therefore, not only are Jews disproportionately represented on the list in general, but they are also significantly disproportionate on each side of the political aisle.

On one side of the political spectrum you have Left-wing liberalism, which is widely endorsed (and often led) by Jews. In the status quo, the terms “liberal” and “Democrat” have essentially become synonymous. And considering 32% of Jewish Millennials aren't religious, the argument has been put forth that liberalism has become a replacement for Judaism:

Beginning in the 1930s, but accelerating from the 1950s, there came a new manifestation of "Americanized" non-Orthodox Judaism. Not only would Jews be transformed into a denationalized segment of the general national ethnic majority, practicing a sanitized and palatable "in" version of Judaism. But Judaism itself would be recast as part and parcel of the new political thinking gaining popularity in the West, the wave of liberalism. American Jews - the main Diaspora community surviving World War II - would advance themselves in Western society and promote their acceptance to an ever greater extent by allying themselves with liberal political causes, indeed would largely take over the leadership of American (and to a lesser extent non-American) political liberalism.

There emerged a new form of Jewish assimilationism, the "Liberalism-as-Judaism" form of pseudo-Judaism. Especially in the United States, this "school of thought" held that Judaism was nothing more nor less than the American liberal political agenda, including the advocacy - in the name of Judaism and "Prophetic Ethics" - of liberal fashionable political ideas. The beginnings of this were in the New Deal era, when American Jewish support for Franklin D. Roosevelt was nearly unanimous. It continued after World War II.

The "Liberalism as Judaism" School argued that all of Judaism and Jewish tradition could be boiled down into a search for civil "justice" and secular "freedom". Since it was axiomatic, in the eyes of Jewish liberals, that the liberal political agenda was synonymous with justice, freedom, and righteousness and that the opponents of liberalism were evil and unjust, "Judaism" itself could be conscripted in the cause of promoting liberal partisanship.

On the other side of the political paradigm we have “Right-wing” neoconservatism. A movement founded in the mid-20th century by Jewish intellectuals who had become increasing dissatisfied with Stalin's Communism. Ideologically, they were on the political Left. But they didn't like the direction the “New Left” was headed, due mostly to Black anti-Semitism and the lack of regard for Israel. The former “Trotskyites” rebranded themselves as conservatives, and by the late 90's had become a strong force within the Republican party:

The neoconservatives are often depicted as former Trotskyites who have morphed into a new, closely related life form. It is pointed out that many early neocons—including The Public Interest founder Irving Kristol and coeditor Nathan Glazer, Sidney Hook, and Albert Wohlstetter—belonged to the anti-Stalinist far left in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and that their successors, including Joshua Muravchik and Carl Gershman, came to neoconservatism through the Socialist Party at a time when it was Trotskyite in outlook and politics. As early as 1963 Richard Hofstadter commented on the progression of many ex-Communists from the paranoid left to the paranoid right, clinging all the while to the fundamentally Manichean psychology that underlies both. [Half a century] later the dominant strain of neoconservatism is declared to be a mixture of geopolitical militarism and “inverted socialist internationalism.”

As the neoconservative movement evolved, their primary focus became the welfare of Israel. It is a widely accepted theory that NeoCons served as the fundamental driving force behind Bush's war in Iraq in 2003, which many considered a war for Israel:

Previously terming themselves “leftists,” and now calling themselves “conservatives,” in actuality neo-cons seem to be neither. Rather, their ideology largely revolves around passionate devotion to Israeli interests.

The point I'm trying to establish is that regardless of one's affiliations with either Republican or Democrat, the policies in both parties are greatly influenced by Jews. Honestly, I don't think the majority of Americans care if it's a Jew or Gentile that is influencing political policy as long as that person's loyalty is to America. And with regard to Jews, that often seems to be a conflict of interest.

Just me pointing out the discrepancy between Jew and non-Jew is considered a form of anti-Semitism (calling a Jew a “Jew” because they're Jewish). Because if one recognizes an obvious demographic disparity within the sphere of political influence, their observation has to be fueled by hatred and not inquisition.

Those ignorant to the Jewish Question don't differentiate the correlation between Jewish elites and Gentile elites. All they see is rich people doing what rich people do (more specifically, they see rich “White” people). Which is exactly how Jews are able to discreetly infiltrate institutions of power and insert their dominance on Gentile society.

But what gullible Gentiles don't seem to grasp is that Jews are an ethnically cohesive tribe who operate on an in-group/out-group dynamic as part of an inherent evolutionary survival strategy. This strategy is often deceptive (name change, masquerading as “fellow White people,” etc), in the sense that it's rooted in paranoia and victimhood. And rightfully so. Jews have been expelled from 109 countries in the last 2,000 years (it's almost impossible to logically conceptualize that every single one of those 109 countries were just anti-Semitic, and that Jews were always the innocent victims of circumstance):

American Jews overwhelmingly say they are proud to be Jewish and have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people, according to a major new survey by the Pew Research Center.

The JQ is often perceived as intellectually complicated. And it certainly can be. Particularly to altruistic, egalitarian, individualistic Whites who don't possess the innate trait of group loyalty. But the JQ can be analogously simplified. For example, the primary distinction between Jews and Blacks (with regard to their social hierarchy) is IQ. Both groups are tribal, to the degree that their loyalty lies with the in-group. Blacks might even be more racially loyal than Jews (98% of Black women voted for Doug Jones in the recent Alabama Senate election). However, high Jewish IQs help enable them to generate wealth and status, which places them in positions of prominence and power. Positions that allow Jews to pursue Jewish interests that often don't align with American interests.
Jews have the only ethnostate on the planet. Yet, there are almost as many Jews in the United States as there are in Israel (6.5 million vs 5.3 million). The USA and Israel are home to 90% of the world's Jews. Does the amount of foreign aid ($3.8 billion per year) we send to Israel coincide with American interests, or Jewish interests?

The United States has finalized a $38 billion package of military aid for Israel over the next 10 years, the largest of its kind ever, and the two allies plan to sign the agreement on Wednesday, American and Israeli officials said.

The package will provide an average of $3.8 billion a year over the next decade to Israel, already the largest recipient of American aid, including financing for missile defense systems that defend against rockets fired by groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Under a previous 10-year agreement that expires in 2018, the United States provides about $3 billion a year, but lately Congress has added up to $500 million a year for missile defense.

Looking ahead to the next decade, Mr. Netanyahu initially sought as much as $45 billion, but Mr. Obama refused to go that high. Money for missile defense is included in the package, and the two sides agreed not to seek additional funds from Congress over the next decade unless both agree, such as in case of a war.

Certainly nobody is naive enough to think that Israel is the “largest recipient of America aid” based exclusively on need, and without any persuasion by the Jewish lobby. To emphasize my point, lets hypothetically replace the Jewish elite in America with Japanese elites who possess the same attributes as Jews. Which country do you think would receive more American aid? Japan or Israel?

All to often we perpetually rant about problems without mention of a solution. It's one thing to cognitively identify an issue, but it's another to hopelessly obsess. With that being said, as powerful as the Jews are, they're not omnipotent. They're a small minority with a seat at the table. It's important that we don't negatively stray down the path of “anti-Semitism,” but rather positively fixate on being pro-American.

Perhaps some may deem my next sentence as contradictory to the premise of this thesis, but “It's the Jews!” is slave morality with an end game of demoralization. We can't claim ourselves the genius behind world history in one narrative. Then write another version that describes us as an easily manipulated mass of morons.

Instead of cucking to the Jew's cries of “Nazi” and “anti-Semite,” the narrative needs to be reframed and deflected: “There's a homeland for Americans, and there's a homeland for Jews. Which are you?”

Hyphenated-Americans are un-American. Therefore, Whites are the only true “Americans” (White men created America for White people). As America becomes more-and-more racially diverse, and Whites become a dispossessed majority, we will be forced to become more ethnocentric. Which is a good thing. Because before we can build walls, we have to build loyalty.

Fauxcahontas Strikes Back

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a potential 2020 presidential candidate, addressed her claims of “Native American heritage” in a surprise speech to the National Congress of American Indians on Valentine's Day:

But now we have a president who can’t make it through a ceremony honoring Native American war heroes without reducing Native history, Native culture, Native people to the butt of a joke.

The joke, I guess, is supposed to be on me.

I get why some people think there’s hay to be made here. You won’t find my family members on any rolls, and I’m not enrolled in a tribe.

And I want to make something clear. I respect that distinction. I understand that tribal membership is determined by tribes — and only by tribes. I never used my family tree to get a break or get ahead. I never used it to advance my career.

But my mother’s family was part Native American.

Senator Warren's “Native American ancestry” has been a topic of much debate. The clear consensus is that she's misrepresenting herself. One can only speculate as to the motivation behind her claim. Perhaps she truly believes she's an American Indian and doesn't care that most people know what an American Indian looks like. Typically, they don't have pale skin, blond hair and blue eyes. As a general rule of thumb, people with those characteristics are considered “White.”

Aside from being delusional, the major controversy regarding Warren's revelation is whether or not she deceptively made the claim to achieve minority status in order to advance her career (what about that White privilege, though?).

That narrative made headlines in 2012, when Warren acknowledged that she listed herself as “Native American” on her Harvard and Penn applications. Both she, and officials at both universities, denied that Warren's minority designation played a role in her hiring. However, Harvard Law School paraded Warren as a “Native American employee” in the 90s when the school was under fire for a lack of diversity.

A spokeswoman for Warren said that she classified herself as “Native American” because she's proud of her heritage, and not for career advancement. And that's fine. Be proud of who you are. But if you're at least 97% European (she says that she's 3% American Indian), how do you rationally identify as Native American? Remember, before she was a politician, Warren was a professor of law at Harvard. It's not like she's some low IQ hillbilly who just doesn't know the difference.

Interestingly, when she was asked to select the racial identity she most closely identified with while employed at the University of Texas from 1981-1991, she only chose “White.” Even though multiple boxes could be checked, and “American Indian” was one of the options (for what it's worth, she was a Republican back then).

Warren's knowledge of her Native American ancestry doesn't come from DNA testing, or any documented tribal affiliation, but rather “family lore.” I'm sure she's been asked countless times why she doesn't just take a DNA test. She's obviously fascinated with her heritage, so why not have a scientific understanding of it? If not to satisfy her own curiosity, just to shut her naysayers up. Personally, I suspect that she has taken one and the results didn't support her claim. Therefore, as opposed to admitting that she was wrong, she just sticks with “that's what momma told us.”

For a brief time, it appeared that Warren's claim had an alibi when an amateur genealogist reportedly found evidence that Warren was 1/32 Cherokee (great-great-great grandmother). But that was later determined to be a fabrication:

Lynda Smith, the amateur genealogist who unknowingly found herself at the root of the false “Elizabeth Warren is 1/32 Cherokee” meme introduced to the media by “noted” genealogist Chris Child of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, acknowledged in an email...that her statement in a March 2006 family newsletter upon which Mr. Child based his claim of Ms. Warren’s Cherokee ancestry was made with no supporting documentation. It was, in fact, an honest mistake that Ms. Smith now acknowledges is entirely without foundation.

Many on both sides of the political aisle have been highly critical of Warren's claim. Perhaps most notably, President Trump. Trump recently referred to Warren as “Pocahontas” at an event honoring Native American code-talkers:

"You were here long before any of us were here. Although we have a representative in Congress who they say was here a long time ago. They call her Pocahontas."

Warren's response was exactly what we've come to expect from liberals. She accused Trump of, what else, “racism”:

"It is deeply unfortunate that the president of the United States cannot even make it through a ceremony honoring these heroes without having to throw out a racial slur"

Warren primarily used her platform at the National Congress of American Indians to address Trump's nickname for her. She did so by lecturing real American Indians on the difference between the fictional character of Pocahontas and the one that really lived (whose name wasn't even Pocahontas):

Not Pocahontas, the fictional character most Americans know from the movies, but Pocahontas, the Native woman who really lived, and whose real story has been passed down to so many of you through the generations.

Pocahontas — whose original name wasn’t even Pocahontas.

In the fairy tale, Pocahontas and John Smith meet and fall in love.

Except Smith was nearly 30, and Pocahontas was about 10 years old. Whatever happened between them, it was no love story.

In the fairy tale, Pocahontas saves John Smith from execution at the hands of her father.

Except that was probably made up too.

In reality, the fable is used to bleach away the stain of genocide.

As you know, Pocahontas’s real journey was far more remarkable — and far darker — than the myth admits.

As a child, she played a significant role in mediating relations between the tribes ruled by her father and the early settlers at Jamestown. Those efforts helped establish early trade relations between the two peoples. Without her help, the English settlers might well have perished.

Notice how Mrs Warren is the arbitrator of reality and fantasy? It's as if she was there. Which is likely what Trump was insinuating with his comment (“Although we have a representative in Congress who they say was here a long time ago.”). Warren's speech provides us another prime example of how the Left rewrites history by turning fable into fact.

Warren even credited the real Pocahontas with the literal survival of the English settlers (ironically, at the expense of her people's “genocide”). Because those stupid Englishmen would have never been able to figure out how to grow corn if the American Indians hadn't taught them. Thanks, Pocahontas!

How disheartening it must be for American Indians to have a fraud like Elizabeth Warren representing their interests. Not only is a fake Indian representing them, but she is educating them on their own history. As if they're not only blind, but dumb also. Too bad Obama didn't pardon Leonard Peltier. He and AIM would have organized a pow-wow in protest of Fauxcahontas.

Warren's behavior personifies the essence of liberalism. If there's common ground I can find with Black Lives Matter, it's that “liberalism is White supremacy” (although BLM is just parroting propaganda, fundamentally it's true).

Warren not only humiliates the common sense of the American Indian, by assuming they aren't smart enough to know their own mythology, or even what an American Indian actually looks like. But she nominates herself to speak on their behalf, because she's a smarter Indian than they are. And if she didn't speak for them, they would just sit around and drink themselves to death. Or they'd do rain dances instead of watering their gardens. All because the White man stole their land and killed all the buffalo. So it's up to the Elizabeth Warren's of the world to right the wrongs of Whitey and save the American Indians from their own devices. Hallelujah!

Keep in mind, there's a possibility that Senator Warren will be the Democratic nominee in 2020. Which would certainly be entertaining, if nothing else. I can see it now: Trump vs Fauxcahontas. How fun would that be?

Friday, February 9, 2018

How the Left Rewrites History

For those unaware, February is “Black History Month.” A month dedicated to the achievements of black people. Ironically, it's only observed in four predominately white countries: USA, Canada, UK, Netherlands. Why a country that's 2% black (Canada) observes “Black History Month” is somewhat bewildering (like the 95% white school in Vermont that flies the “Black Lives Matter” flag). But, whatever. I assume the purpose is to inform racist white people that black people accomplished a few things, too. How demoralizing that must be for a black person. Basically, “Black History Month” is like a participation trophy for the guy on the championship team who never played.

I believe “Black History Month” was actually conceived with good intentions. It's an evolution of “Negro History Week,” which was created by a black American named Carter Woodson in 1926. He chose the second week of February in honor of the birthday's of Abraham Lincoln (12th) and Frederick Douglass (14th). Woodson's intent was to devote a week out of the year to teach the history of American blacks in public schools with the purpose of establishing a black racial identity. He contended that black history was paramount in the physical survival of the black race:

"If a race has no history, it has no worthwhile tradition, it becomes a negligible factor in the thought of the world, and it stands in danger of being exterminated. The American Indian left no continuous record. He did not appreciate the value of tradition; and where is he today? The Hebrew keenly appreciated the value of tradition, as is attested by the Bible itself. In spite of worldwide persecution, therefore, he is a great factor in our civilization.”

While Woodson's desire of historical relevance for his people's existence is admirable, his vision has snowballed into a politicized abomination. It's no longer about acknowledging black history for the sake of racial preservation, it's about rewriting history for political correctness.

This recent tweet by black inferiorist Tariq Nasheed (who was humiliated in a recent debate with Jared Taylor) exemplifies my point:

Those familiar with Mr Nasheed know that he's an anti-white activist, and king of the term “suspected white supremacist” (a label he uses for white people). He posts rhetorical nonsense on social media constantly. And it's almost always exaggerated or fabricated in a way that fits his anti-white narrative. But that's just what he does and who he is. So when someone with an obvious agenda like Tariq makes a provocative statement, you take it with a grain of salt and move on.

However, today I just so happened to be reading the Dallas Morning News online and ran across an article titled, “A Slave Taught Jack Daniel How to Make Whiskey...” Unlike Tariq, the Dallas Morning News is a reputable news source; the largest circulated newspaper in Texas. Therefore, if they publish a piece that claims a slave taught Jack Daniel how to make whiskey, that undoubtedly adds an element of credibility to the story.

Curious, I read the article. I was hoping to capture that warm fuzzy feeling that white people get when they can feel a little less guilty about slavery. Plus, I wanted to find out how this 150-year-old secret suddenly came to light. Was Tariq actually telling the truth for once?

The article in summary:

Daniel learned how to make the spirit from a slave named Nathan "Nearest" Green, who worked on a farm near where Daniel grew up in Lynchburg, Tenn., according to author Fawn Weaver, who uncovered the story. Green is the country's first documented African-American master distiller, Weaver's research found, and he was first at the helm when Daniel opened his distillery.

Weaver spent more than a year collecting documents and artifacts and speaking to Green's descendants. One, she remembers, was 106 years old.

Both the aged whiskey and upcoming silver version of Uncle Nearest 1856 are created using the Lincoln County Process, a charcoal mellowing filtration method that distinguishes Tennessee whiskey from other bourbons. Charcoal mellowing was Green's specialty, according to Weaver, who traced the process back to its origins in West Africa.

"Whiskey in general, we can track every bit every of it back to the Scottish or the Irish, every aspect of it, except charcoal mellowing," Weaver says. "Why? Because we were property, not people. ... It just came out of thin air, as far as what we've always said."

"People don't mind rewriting history with a story that's positive. They don't want to rewrite history if it's going to put people at odds," Weaver says. "In this case, we're not putting people at odds, we're bringing people together."

Wait. That's it? An author decided to rewrite history because people don't care as long as it's “positive?” That's not journalism, that's fake news! I didn't read one shred of evidence that supports this theory. Not to mention, the entire premise is based on the “research” of a black entrepreneur who has a financial interest in “her” claim:

Weaver's original plan was to write a book about Uncle Nearest, tell his story through a movie and "cement" his place in history with a network of whiskey bars across America, she says. The mission statement for the Nearest Green Foundation that she incorporated promises to "shine a light on those who have been forgotten." The book and movie are still forthcoming; Weaver nixed the idea to open bars in his honor after speaking with relatives.

Uncle Nearest 1856 is produced by a third-party distillery in Nashville, at least until Weaver can open a proprietary operation. She recently purchased a 270-acre farm in Shelbyville, Tenn., about 20 miles from Lynchburg, that will be the site of a new Nearest Green Distillery, complete with a tasting room, bottling plant and barn-turned-rickhouse where the whiskey will be stored. Plans include planting a 100-acre corn "field of dreams," and revitalizing an onsite arena as a country concert venue.

Another barn will be converted into a museum called the Nearest Green History Walk, which will spotlight African Americans' contributions to whiskey making, including the charcoal mellowing process.

The only thing I read in the article that could possibly support the author's theory was that Nearest Green was the first documented African-American master distiller (“according to Weaver”). But does that mean that Mr Green “taught” Jack Daniel how to make whiskey? Who's to say Daniel didn't teach Green how to make whiskey and then hired him as his master distiller?

The article does cite a New York Time's piece from 2016 titled, “Jack Daniels Embraces a Hidden Ingredient: Help From a Slave.” Unlike the Dallas Morning New's article, the New York Time's piece doesn't insinuate that a slave “taught” Jack Daniel how to make whiskey, but rather helped in the form of a “hidden ingredient.”

Fair enough. Maybe this piece will provide some empirical insight into the secret recipe:

This year is the 150th anniversary of Jack Daniel’s, and the distillery, home to one of the world’s best-selling whiskeys, is using the occasion to tell a different, more complicated tale. Daniel, the company now says, didn’t learn distilling from Dan Call, but from a man named Nearis Green — one of Call’s slaves.

Frontier history is a gauzy and unreliable pursuit, and Nearis Green’s story — built on oral history and the thinnest of archival trails — may never be definitively proved. Still, the decision to tell it resonates far beyond this small city.

The quote in bold confirms what I had suspected when I initially read Tariq's tweet. It also verifies that this theory is all based on conjecture (ie fake news).

But more importantly, the narrative progression enables us to see how the Left uses its institutions of power (in this case the mainstream media) to shape the perception of their audience. First, the idea was possible. Then that idea was plausible. Finally, the idea was presented as factual. Nothing changed except the headline. These institutions are deceptively willing to use their sphere of influence to pass folklore off as fact.

Nonetheless, the article continues:

In deciding to talk about Green, Jack Daniel’s may be hoping to get ahead of a collision between the growing popularity of American whiskey among younger drinkers and a heightened awareness of the hidden racial politics behind America’s culinary heritage.

Some also see the move as a savvy marketing tactic. “When you look at the history of Jack Daniel’s, it’s gotten glossier over the years,” said Peter Krass, the author of “Blood and Whiskey: The Life and Times of Jack Daniel.” “In the 1980s, they aimed at yuppies. I could see them taking it to the next level, to millennials, who dig social justice issues.”

That's interesting. So Jack Daniel's could possibly profit if it were suddenly revealed on the 150th anniversary that a slave taught Jack Daniel how to make whiskey? Certainly sounds like a strategic marketing tactic. And the revelation would definitely increase publicity. As P.T. Barnum once said, “There is no such thing as bad publicity.”

I wondered who else had picked up on this story. I searched and discovered that NPR also did a piece in 2016 titled, “Jack Daniel's Heralds a Slave's Role In Its Origins.”

The NPR article is the most unbiased and insightful of the three articles in reference:

It's not clear exactly what parts of the process Daniel picked up from Green. "There's a lot of mystery there," says Jack Daniel's company historian Nelson Eddy. One book says Green was pastor Call's master distiller.

"We don't know exactly what he taught Jack," Eddy says. "But we do know that Jack had a great deal of respect for that family. Because I think the best part of this story is the photograph."

The photograph he refers to is one that shows Jack Daniel, with a gray goatee, around 1895, surrounded by his crew, including two African-American men believed to be the sons of Nearis Green.

Much of the hoopla about this theory is surrounded by the photograph you can see in Tariq's tweet. It's assumed that the two black men in the photo are the sons of Mr Green. But nobody knows for sure.

I want to reiterate what “Jack Daniel's company historian” stated. There's a photo with about 15 men gathered around Mr Jack Daniel. It's “believed” that the two black men in the photo are Mr Green's sons. And that's “the best part of the story.”

We've already established that Jack Daniel's is embracing this theory. Yet their “company historian” is saying the “best part” of this story is a photograph that may, or may not include two of Mr Green's sons.

The NPR article appropriately ends as follows:

The most prominent keepers of the Jack Daniel's story are the tour guides. They have no script to follow — just a batch of tales to pick from. And not all are convinced that Nearis Green's role is worth mentioning. On the tour I attended, guide Ron Craig didn't bring it up until I asked. He says he only talks about Green if visitors inquire.

"There is no hard truth," Craig says. "I can't tell you exactly for sure what everything was back in the day, and no one else can, either."

To be honest, I don't think it really matters if a slave taught Jack Daniel how to make whiskey. Maybe he did. Who knows? But that's my point. Nobody knows for sure. It's one thing to have people like Tariq tweeting propaganda to support their agenda. But it's a completely different thing when a reputable news source allows its “journalists” to cite hearsay as fact in an attempt to rewrite history. No matter how you package it, fake news is still fake news.

Friday, February 2, 2018

Trump is a "Racist." Good!

The New York Times recently published an “op-ed” piece titled, “Trump is a Racist. Period.” by Charles Blow.

Charles Blow is an angry middle-aged Black man who writes a column on Monday and Thursday for the New York Times. He's divorced with three kids, and openly bisexual. Mr Blow graduated Magna Cum Laude from Grambling.

Professionally, Mr Blow is definitely infatuated with “racism.” Which is pretty much the prerequisite for Black “op-ed” writers in major newspapers (scream racism and scream it loudly). Come to think of it, I can't recall the last time I read an “op-ed” piece by a Black columnist that wasn't in some way correlated with racism. As a matter of fact, the last one I read was in the Dallas Morning News, in which the author theorized that high Black mortality rates were due to a combination of “cruel treatment by White doctors,” and an overall lack of Black doctors. She even went so far as to cast blame on the City of Dallas for not aiding in the quest to produce more Black doctors. All encompassed in systemic racism, of course. And nothing to do with competency. Such as the fact that a minimum of 120 IQ is needed to meet the intellectual requirements to procure an MD (85 is avg Black IQ).

If you review Mr Blow's articles, the title's subject matter may change to some degree, but the premise is usually the same: “Racism” this. “White supremacy” that. Trump called Haiti a “shithole” and played golf on MLK day, so that proves once and for all that he's a racist. Blah, blah, blah. Nothing of substance, only stale garrulity.

Even when Mr Blow opined about Russia, he couldn't help himself. He just had to fantasize about radical racism:

If this were Barack Obama, Tiki-torch-toting Nazis would have descended on the White House and burned it to the ground. Not only that, America’s racist folks masquerading as religious folks would have used Obama’s moral failing as proof of a black pathology.

However, my purpose isn't to critique Mr Blow's efforts of perfecting a Nietzschean slave morality writing style, but rather his opinions. After all, freedom of speech is one of the pillars of “White supremacy.” Which, ironically enough, enables people like Mr Blow to publicly call the most powerful man in the world racial epithets on a daily basis. In the same way it affords me the right to define racism as the essence of blackness. To the extent that if Mr Blow couldn't write about “racism,” he wouldn't have anything to write about.

Technically, racism is just a word that represents an abstract concept (as with all isms). But in reality, it's a word that has been hijacked and weaponized for political gain by those with an anti-White agenda. A word that has transcended its literal definition and evolved into a slur used relentlessly against non-conforming Whites as a modus operandi for character assassination.

Similarly, the word “faggot” was used on the playgrounds in the 80s and 90s. The term was used to insult a boy's masculinity by implying that he was weak. Although the implications weren't based on sexuality (nobody thought the accused was actually gay), it was elementary psychological warfare. Once a boy was labeled a “faggot,” he might as well have been one in the eyes of his peers. The term “racist” works in the same way.

The reason that racism is such a powerful concept is because it provides legitimacy to the inadequacies within the Black community. In other words, racism is an excuse for Black failure. So if Black people couldn't blame White people for their failures, it would force accountability for their own actions. Actions that have determined them a significant liability to the prosperity of American society.

Mr Blow knows this, which is why he hyper-focuses on racism. Because if the racists he redundantly chastises were actually the racists of his lore, he would likely be experiencing “White supremacy” in Liberia. And contrary to what the cuck Lindsey Graham said, America is more than just an idea. “White supremacy” just isn't the same without White people at the reins.

But Mr Blow doesn't want to debate the existence of racism. That's useless to a man whose sustenance is dependent upon such bigoted idealism. He prefers to use his paid platform as a bully pulpit to cast judgment in the name of tolerance.

I find nothing more useless than debating the existence of racism, particularly when you are surrounded by evidence of its existence. It feels to me like a way to keep you fighting against the water until you drown.

The debates themselves, I believe, render a simple concept impossibly complex, making the very meaning of “racism” frustratingly murky.

So, let’s strip that away here. Let’s be honest and forthright.

Racism is simply the belief that race is an inherent and determining factor in a person’s or a people’s character and capabilities, rendering some inferior and others superior. These beliefs are racial prejudices.

Racism can only exist if race exists. That's what race is; a degree of variance within the species.

I may not be a Magna Cum Laude from Grambling, but even I understand that race just means differences. And, as with anything, differences shape perception. We don't need scientific theory to justify observable reality. It is what it is.

Mr Blow's definition of racism is somewhat acceptable. Race does render “some inferior and others superior.” That's kinda the whole idea. It's a two-sided coin. Either we're all the same (one race, the human race), or we're all different (race is real).

One of the typical questions racial realists get asked when dealing with anti-racists is: “Do you think Whites are racially superior?” To which the reply should always be: “Superior in what?”

Specificity and statistics can generate data, such as with IQ or genetic predispositions for disease. But there is no algorithm that formulates racial inferiority/superiority on a universal scale. And there will always be outliers that contradict the stereotype.

Furthermore, racial differences have the tendency to be moralized. But they shouldn't be. It's not always a case of right or wrong, and good or bad. Even if White people were scientifically determined to be an inferior race, that shouldn't eliminate Whites from collectively pursuing self-determination as a people (nor any other race for that matter). Whites are roughly 7% of the world's population, and according to current fertility rates, that number is dropping by the day.

The history of America is one in which white people used racism and white supremacy to develop a racial caste system that advantaged them and disadvantaged others.

The history of America is one in which European settlers braved the unknown and carved out the greatest nation on the planet with their bare hands and innovative minds. It was a nation created by White men for White people. To this very day, non-Whites from all over the world are literally dying to leave their “shithole” countries and come reap the benefits of “White supremacy.” And make no mistake about it, “White supremacy” is why non-Whites come to White countries.

It is not a stretch to say that Trump is racist. It’s not a stretch to say that he is a white supremacist. It’s not a stretch to say that Trump is a bigot.
Those are just facts, supported by the proof of the words that keep coming directly from him. And, when he is called out for his racism, his response is never to ameliorate his rhetoric, but to double down on it.

I know of no point during his entire life where he has apologized for, repented of, or sought absolution for any of his racist actions or comments.

Instead, he either denies, deflects or amps up the attack.

Trump is a racist. We can put that baby to bed.

Racism” and “racist” are simply words that have definitions, and Trump comfortably and unambiguously meets those definitions.

We have unfortunately moved away from the simple definition of racism, to the point where the only people to whom the appellation can be safely applied are the vocal, violent racial archetypes.

The problem with rhetoric is that it's just an empty hole. It doesn't mean anything; it's just name-calling. Mr Blow has to know this. He's a really smart man (did I mention he was Magna Cum Laude of Grambling?), which is why he attempted to define his rhetoric before he fired it repeatedly. He wanted to make it seem like what he was saying actually meant something. He even tried to explain his progression from logical “racism” to rhetorical “racism” (“We have unfortunately moved away from the simple definition of racism...”).

The truth is that “racist” is just an anti-White epithet. There's no difference in calling a White person a “racist,” and calling a Black person a “nigger.” It's the exact same thing. If you don't believe me, conduct an experiment. Call a non-White person a “racist” and watch them carelessly shrug it off. It doesn't mean anything to them. They're not White. But call a White person a “racist” and observe their reaction. They'll immediately get tense and defensive. Then do the same thing with “nigger.” I don't recommend saying it to a Black person, because you might get assualted. But try it on a White or Asian. They'll probably giggle. Or just look at you funny.

The simple acknowledgment that Trump is a racist is the easy part. The harder, more substantive part is this: What are we going to do about it?

First and foremost, although Trump is not the first president to be a racist, we must make him the last. If by some miracle he should serve out his first term, he mustn’t be allowed a second. Voters of good conscience must swarm the polls in 2020.

Of course it's easy to call someone names. It's also ignorant.

We know exactly what “they” are going to do about it: Call Trump names. Pretend like the economy isn't booming. Call Trump names. Ignore the fact that the Black unemployment rate isn't at its lowest in decades. Call Trump names.

What do you think Mr Blow will say when that “miracle” happens? You know, the miracle of democracy. Where an elected official (in this case the POTUS) gets to perform the duties the American people elected him to do. Do you think when that “miracle” happens, and Trump serves out his first term, Mr Blow will use his privileged platform to unite the country, as Blacks so often claim they want to do? Or do you think he'll divisively peck away at his six favorite keys (r-a-c-i-s-t)?

See, people like Mr Blow only respect democracy when democracy produces the results they want. So when they can't get the votes organically, they import them inorganically. Everybody knows that illegal immigration is about two things: capitalism and demographic change. Simply put, money and votes.

As a person of “good conscience,” I'll be at the polls in 2020 (God willing). I'll be voting for the candidate who doesn't apologize to liberal rag race-hustlers. But most importantly, I'll be voting for the candidate who doesn't have desires to turn America into Amexico.

And finally, we have to stop giving a pass to the people — whether elected official or average voter — who support and defend his racism. If you defend racism you are part of the racism. It doesn’t matter how much you say that you’re an egalitarian, how much you say that you are race blind, how much you say that you are only interested in people’s policies and not their racist polemics.

As the brilliant James Baldwin once put it: “I can’t believe what you say, because I see what you do.” When I see that in poll after poll a portion of Trump’s base continues to support his behavior, including on race, I can only conclude that there is no real daylight between Trump and his base. They are part of his racism.

When I see the extraordinary hypocrisy of elected officials who either remain silent in the wake of Trump’s continued racist outbursts or who obliquely condemn him, only to in short order return to defending and praising him and supporting his agenda, I see that there is no real daylight between Trump and them either. They too are part of his racism.

When you see it this way, you understand the enormity and the profundity of what we are facing. There were enough Americans who were willing to accept Trump’s racism to elect him. There are enough people in Washington willing to accept Trump’s racism to defend him. Not only is Trump racist, the entire architecture of his support is suffused with that racism. Racism is a fundamental component of the Trump presidency.

It's impossible to eliminate “racism” from democracy in a multiracial society. What really scares people like Mr Blow is the possibility that Whites will awaken from their egalitarian stupor and enter the game of identity politics. Because if that happens, Whites will have realized that it would be democratic suicide to become a demographic minority in their own countries. Particularly when all other groups (Jews, Asians, Hispanics, Blacks) correlate their political affiliation with their racial identity, to the rate of at least 80%.

I suspect that Mr Blow and his cohorts know that it's not if, but when the sleeping White giant awakens. My guess is that he'll be hungry. And history has shown us that the White giant has a voracious appetite for power. As Eduardo Galeano once put it: “History never really says goodbye. History says, 'see you later.'”

Monday, July 17, 2017

We Gotta have Faith in the Alt-Right

Now that the Alt-Right has become the beacon of unity for the WhRight, one of the more promising trends I've noticed is the reversion to faith. I say “promising” not as a giddy Bible thumper, but as one who understands the importance of faith in a society. The revolutionaries who created America understood the importance of faith, too. George Washington said as much in his farewell speech to the nation:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness-these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

The founding fathers were brilliant and brave men. They were also European men of Christian faith. Not one of those four characteristics are irrelevant or interchangeable. You can't exchange any combination of those four traits and expect the same result (eg - brilliant for average; brave for cowardly; European for African; Christian for atheist = America). Anyone who thinks such, probably also believes that you can pluck negroes out of the Congo, give them a pair of shoes and teach them how to read and BAM! Suddenly they're Europeans with black skin.

For those who cite some quote by Jefferson, or Franklin, or God forbid, Thomas Paine (the Godfather of shitlibs whose anti-Christian rhetoric made him so popular that a whopping six people attended his funeral) to insinuate the lack of unified faith amongst the founders are completely missing the point. Unlike White Nationalists, the think tank consensus within the Alt-Right seems to understand that nationalism isn't about me, it's about We; that nationalism is a collective concept, not a LARPing precept. That traditional American values are explicitly and culturally Christian.

The significance is not so much that so-and-so (insert influential Alt-Right name) wholeheartedly believes that Jesus was the son of God and rose from dead, or walked on water, or turned water into wine. It's that so-and-so understands the role that faith plays in a prosperous, homogeneously White society. And not just faith, but what faith represents.

Faith represents tomorrow. Faith represents hope. Faith represents camaraderie. Faith represents unity. Faith represents humility. Faith represents love. And probably most importantly, faith represents forgiveness. We are all wrecked by shame to some degree (if you're not shameful of anything you've done, you're most likely a sociopath).

Personally speaking, it's not about whether the resurrection really happened, it's about the unburdening of sin and shame that Jesus' crucifixion represents for the hearts and souls of humanity. This enables us as individuals in a society to accept our flaws and move on and be productive members of the community. To avoid divulging in degeneracy in order to escape our past transgressions. In my humble opinion, this is the miracle of Christianity.

Hebrews 11:1 in the Bible defines faith as, “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” I like to differentiate between hope and faith. Both are very powerful concepts, but hope tends to be anticipatory, fear-based thought (I hope I don't get cancer; I hope blacks don't move in next door; etc), whereas faith is trust-based action in the Now (forgiveness, prayer, loyalty, etc).

Theologians have long argued whether the gift of God referenced in Ephesians 2:9 (For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God) is salvation or faith. As one who has struggled with faith, I personally think that faith is the gift of salvation.

I'm 100% positive that there are those logically minded anti-Christians reading this and thinking to themselves (or aloud) that I'm full of shit. I'm just another holy-roller who wants to push his ideas onto others.

Far from the truth.

The primary point of this piece is to establish the vital role that faith plays in a healthy White society. Again, it's about We, not about me. To illustrate my point, I'll provide some insight into my personal philosophy.

First of all, I don't believe man can conceptualize God (have you ever asked someone to define God?). I believe a man's philosophy should transcend his theology. Mortal man is incapable of knowing absolute truth, only relative truth (truth is perception). St. Augustine surmised that absolute truth certainly had to exist independent of the observer. I suppose that if we could escape the limitations of our consciousness that we could know the definitive yes or no answers to all the big questions (Is there a God? Or, man's ultimate question, according to Hawking, which is to know the mind of God.).

Then I realized that we wouldn't just have to escape our individual consciousness, but would have to get outside the limitations of the human consciousness all together (exist as nothing observing everything). That path led me to biocentrism, where I concluded that what we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. That our consciousness creates the universe and not the other way around. That the universe exists because of creation, and not from a random collision.

So, do I believe in God? Absolutely! Is it the God of the Christian Bible? I'm not sure, but everyday I'm thankful that somebody was willing to give his life for my sins.

Hopefully, by sharing my views I was able to illustrate that my motive isn't to shove Jesus down your throat. But enough about me, the relative question is what do you believe?

For decades, religion has been one of (if not THE) the biggest ideological dividers concerning White Nationalists. This is obviously understandable for two primary reasons:

  1. The importance that WNs place on the JQ, and the Jewish genesis of Christianity.
  2. White nationalism is intellectualism.

Let me clarify a few things first. When we say “White Nationalist” we're speaking euphemistically, not realistically (as I said in this paper a few years ago: Is White Nationalism Real?). And that's totally fine. We need to be the authors of our terminology (gays do it, blacks do it, illegals do it; narrative control is crucial to acceptance). But let's be honest, intellectualism is about how far you can piss and who you can piss on, as opposed to what you have to say and what difference it's going to make in the grand scheme of things.

White nationalists tend to put their faith in logic. The problem with being logical regarding faith is that logic is the enemy of faith. It's an apples/aliens argument. As much as I appreciated Ken Ham's attempt to debate Bill Nye, it was futile and counterproductive. Trying to “prove” the Bible is truth kinda defeats the whole purpose of faith, doesn't it? Jesus addressed this in the Bible with the story of doubting Thomas (Jesus said to him,“Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”)

The logically minded, anti-Christian WN would say something like, “Christianity is a Jewish religion that centers around the worship of a dead jew on a stick.” Or, “Christianity is a passive religion that is largely responsible for White people turning the other cheek while our countries are flooded with non-whites.” I know this, because I've read and said these same things myself countless times. But it's a dead end street. Nobody understands the Bible, they just pretend to (they might be able to regurgitate scripture, but they really don't understand most of it). That's one of the great things about Christianity. It's open for translation, which is why there are so many denominations with different interpretations of scripture. However, I don't believe the tenets of Christianity are universal. What I mean by that is religion is cultural, like language. The people and the religion have to be compatible. For example, Islam isn't a good fit for Europeans. So if Europeans had adopted Islam during the Crusades, European Islam would culturally and spiritually be a lot like today's Christianity. Scorsese does a good job illustrating this concept in his film Silence. The movie's plot centers around Portugese priests who want to spread Christianity into Japan in the 1600s. Liam Neeson discovered that the Japanese people weren't congruent with Christianity. That they weren't capable of the same level of abstract thought as Europeans, which is an essential component for Christian faith. Neeson gives the example that the Japanese think in terms of nature. So when he mentioned the son of God, they would process that abstraction as the sun.

Pre-1960's, Christianity was very racial (pro-White), patriotic and nationalistic before the fangs of cultural Marxism injected their venom into the church. The founding fathers understood that as America socially “progressed,” the church would be susceptible. After all, the church is just an extension of society. People assume that the separation of church and state was meant to protect the state from the church, and it was to some extent. But it was also meant to protect the church from the state. The church's evolution over the last 50 years is exactly what Jefferson hoped to prevent when he addressed the subject in the constitution,

Don't get me wrong. Organized religion isn't flawless. Christianity isn't flawless, either. It definitely has a Jewish element. So, I'm not saying go to church this Sunday and sing “Jesus loves me” and all our/your problems will be gone. But consider this: the primary targets of political correctness are the institutions of Western morality. What institution represents the constitution of Western morality more than any other? The Christian church; which along with academia has been under perpetual attack by the radical Left for the last 50 years. Just the simple fact that Jews hate Christ so much should at least steer WNs in that general direction. Just look at the persecution Mel Gibson went through for making The Passion of the Christ, which accurately implicated the Jew's complicity in the crucifixion of Christ.

Nonetheless, the church is only as strong as its preacher. Preachers are men, and men are conformists. When the ethnostate is formed, faith will be paramount. I'm confident the future founding fathers (as did America's founding fathers) will agree.

In my most recent book, an army of White men procured part of Idaho as a White homeland. Their constitution gave them the right to freedom of religion, but atheism was prohibited. A belief system in nothing is just stupid. Anyone dumb enough to have a belief system in nothing is also dumb enough to think they are a man trapped in a woman's body. Or dumb enough to adopt a horde of Haitians. Or dumb enough to think borders are racist (actually they are, but for good reason).

Faith isn't just about thought control. There are countless examples of the benefits that faith has on a society. There is data that supports the correlation of faith and religious practice with social stability and individual well-being. Specifically:

Greater educational aspirations and attainment, especially among the poor

Higher levels of marital happiness and stability

Higher levels of good work habits

Greater longevity and physical health

Higher levels of well-being and happiness

Higher recovery rates from addictions to alcohol or drugs

Higher levels of self-control, self-esteem, and coping skills

Higher rates of charitable donations and volunteering

Higher levels of community cohesion and social support for those in need

Lower divorce rates

Lower cohabitation rates

Lower rates of out-of-wedlock births

Lower levels of teen sexual activity

Less abuse of alcohol and drugs

Lower rates of suicide, depression, and suicide ideation

Lower levels of many infectious diseases

Less juvenile crime

Less violent crime

Less domestic violence

According to Patrick Fagan of the Heritage Foundation:
No other dimension of life in America -with the exception of stable marriages and families, which in turn are strongly tied to religious practice- does more to promote the well-being and soundness of the nation's civil society than citizens' religious observance. As George Washington asserted, the success of the Republic depends on the practice of Religion by its citizens. These findings from 21st century social science support his observation.”
And I haven't event mentioned the benefits of birth rates, which might just be the most important factor of all. Fundamentalist Christians (like the Amish and Mennonites; even Baptists and Pentecostals to an extent) reproduce like rabbits. And guess what? Their offspring are White! Healthy White societies produce healthy birth rates.

The Alt-Right mantra is: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.

Remember, it's not about me, it's about We. And....

We gotta have faith!

Monday, July 3, 2017

The Trans/Sociopath Overlap

About a year ago I became interested in the study of sociopaths and the effects they have on society. I read several books on the subject, but one of particular interest to me was titled, Confessions of a Sociopath: A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight. Unlike the books, The Sociopath Next Door and The Psychopath Test, Confessions of a Sociopath was written by a sociopath, therefore the narrative was focused on insight as opposed to observation.

For those uneducated on the topic, sociopaths lack empathy (for all intents and purposes, sociopaths and psychopaths are the same thing, but for the sake of confusion I'll use the term sociopath). Jay Harris defines sociopathy as such:

Sociopathy is a syndrome in which either one or both of the orbital frontal association cortices cannot assess socially unconditioned somatic signals. Sociopaths cannot emotionally condition social experience. Because they have no capacity for emotional organization, sociopath’s source memory has no relevance to behavior.”

One of the most common tests to diagnose sociopaths is the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (a score of 30 or more confirms diagnosis as a sociopath/psychopath; most people have at least a few of the traits). There aren't any conclusive theories as to the cause of sociopathy, and there is no treatment or therapy. Some think sociopaths are born that way, others (myself included) believe sociopaths have the genetic predisposition to sociopathy that is environmentally triggered very early in life (toddler years or before). Estimates vary (sociopaths know they're different and avoid psychiatrists like the plague, so conclusive data is difficult to attain), but anywhere from 1% - 5% of people in the U.S. are thought to be sociopaths (more extensive research is done on prisoners and roughly 15% - 25% of the U.S. prison population is made up of sociopaths, which is also about the same percentage of inmates who engage in homosexual activity while incarcerated). Individualized societies, like the U.S., are more conducive to producing a higher percentage of sociopaths than collective cultures, like in East Asian countries, where that type of behavior is intolerable and virtually non-existent (.003% according to a study in Taiwan). In a trust-based society populated by people who operate on shared morals, sociopaths (particularly those of high IQ; sociopath intelligence is represented along the same bell curve as non-sociopaths) game the system without emotional hangups such as remorse or guilt. The higher sociopathic prevalence in individualistic cultures like the U.S. is likely the result of natural selection (there are evolutionary advantages to being a sociopath, as well as having sociopaths in a society). To the sociopath, life is viewed through the tunnel-visioned lens of wins and losses. The high IQ sociopath has the tendency to become a CEO, lawyer or politician (10 most common professions that attract sociopaths). The average IQ sociopath plays sexual partners for personal gain, becomes a soldier or games the welfare system. The low IQ sociopath commits petty crimes to see if he can get away with it. Life literally is viewed as a game.

In her book Confessions of a Sociopath, the author M.E. Thomas (who writes pseudonymously) is a diagnosed sociopath who founded and moderates a website for sociopaths. She writes that she has dealt with thousands of sociopaths (and non-sociopaths - “empaths,” as she calls them - who think they might be sociopathic) on her forum, and she claims that of the many questions she is asked on a daily basis, the main one is, “Do you think I'm a sociopath?” It's common for many people to have several sociopathic traits, but, aside from lacking empathy, which only that person knows for sure, she ultimately bases her determination on taking jabs at their sexuality (eg “What, are you gay or something?”). Sociopaths don't have an identity, they play roles (remember, life is a game to them). Thomas states she has encountered thousands of sociopaths and she has never met one who wasn't at least bisexual (herself included). If the person takes offense to her sexual ribs, she eliminates them as a sociopath. When you consider that homosexuals and sociopaths represent roughly the same percentage of the population (about 2% of the U.S. population is homosexual), and exhibit many of the same personality traits and characteristics (narcissism, high suicide rates, Machiavellian, disregard for personal safety, etc) it's almost analytically impossible to ignore the possibility that there may be a huge overlap between the two groups. In fact, the majority may be one in the same. This observation led me to pose the following hypothesis: All sociopaths are LGBTQ, and most LGBTQ are sociopaths (if I'm basing my hypothesis primarily off of Thomas' theory, technically it would be just B, but B is G, and G is Q, and Q is L, and T is just confusing, so, I decided to include all the letters as not to discriminate; tomayto, tomahto). Undoubtedly, detractors will pass this hypothesis off as homophobic conjecture, but due to lack of empirical evidence (according to Thomas, sociopaths know they're “different” and refuse to go to psychiatrists. There's nothing advantageous that accompanies a sociopathic diagnosis.), the doubter's rebuttal would be conjecture as well.

The significance of this, aside from homosexuality being accurately identified as a mental disease, as it was until 1990 (personally I view homosexuality as a genetic defect that acts as an evolutionary firewall for the gene pool), is on exhibit in the status quo. The “trans” agenda is currently at the forefront of the Marxist movement. Ten years ago nobody had even heard of the term “transgender,” and now 1.4 million Americans identify as such, doubled in just the last five years:

About 1.4 million adults in the United States identify as transgender, double a widely used previous estimate, based on new federal and state data.

As the national debate escalates over accommodations for transgender people, the new figure, though still just 0.6 percent of the adult population, is likely to raise questions about the sufficiency of services to support a population that may be larger than many policy makers assumed.

From prior research, we know that trans people are more likely to be from racial and ethnic minorities, particularly from Latino backgrounds,” Jody L. Herman, a scholar of public policy at the institute, said. “And they are also younger.”

The following prediction almost seems to easy: Five years from now, at least 2.8 million people will identify as “transgender.” But will there really be that many more people held hostage in the opposite sex's body? Or will the vast majority be sociopaths disguised as “transtrenders” doing their part to unweave the moral fabric of society for their “misery seeks company” pleasures? Doesn't it seem as if homosexuals and sociopaths are the happiest when they make others unhappy? All in the name of love and rainbows, of course.

If the trans/sociopath overlap were established at a disproportionately high rate, almost certainly that would discredit the trans movement. Sociopaths at their worst are serial killers, and at their best are emotionless predators gaming something or someone. SJWs will have a hard time finding advocates of potential serial killers (although I'm sure there will be a few disturbed souls on board, like the feminist who proudly held her “Will trade racists for rapists” sign). Even if researchers found my hypothesis inaccurate, I'm confident that the findings would show a statistically superfluous amount of trans-sociopaths, as well as trans-psychotics.

Transgender isn't an identity, it's a role. It's not a physiological reality manifested independently, it's a psychological delusion based on conformity and collusion. A person is born either male of female, any gender identity differing from one's biological anatomy is an influenced, assumed role. Nobody would check the “trans” box if that box didn't exist. As Steve Jobs used to say, “people don't know what they want until you show it to them” (for the record, I believe Jobs was a sociopath). As I've already stated, and which can't be overemphasized, sociopaths don't have an identity, they play roles. But nonetheless, as a rational empathetic person, I'm all for compromise. I wouldn't have a problem with Washington D.C. granting gender neutral driver's licenses as long as the licensees agreed to submit to a psychiatric evaluation to prove that they aren't delusional or sociopathic. As healthcare officials will attest, the biggest problem with mental illness, is the mentally ill don't think they're mentally ill and refuse treatment. As long as they can pass an examination that states they aren't a threat to themselves or society, and aren't sociopaths gaming the system, then give them their desired “X” for gender on their driver's license (and if Target wants to spend $20 million to build gender neutral bathrooms in all their stores, that's their decision, but considering their stock has dropped 25% since the announcement, and during a record high bull market at that, their PR stunt speaks for itself).
The Army has a slogan that says, “be all you can be.” I agree 100%; as individuals we should be all we can be. Not just for ourselves, but for our family, our nation and our God. But in the same breath we shouldn't be disillusioned by ourselves, or anyone else, into believing we're something we are not (it took awhile, but about age 17 I realized I wasn't Larry Bird). The transgender movement of today, will be the trans God-knows-what of tomorrow (radical liberalism can't stay stagnant, it always has to double down). In my mind, the only difference in a woman who claims she's really man and a wacko like Jim Jones who claimed to be the messiah is that it's still politically correct to call Jim Jones a wacko (I was actually banned from Facebook recently for saying, “Trannies are mentally ill”).
The modus operandi of the trans movement is transparent: transplant the morals of traditional Western culture with the depressive emptiness of degenerative Marxism. The modus operandi of the sociopath is also transparent: assume whatever role necessary to achieve the end goal, leaving a path of destruction along the way. When the two are merged you have another cog in the wheel for a future cultural Marxist dystopia.