How Memes Find Resonance

UFC 278 Predictions

 

UFC 278

Kamaru Usman  vs.  Leon Edwards

Paulo Costa  vs.  Luke Rockhold

José Aldo  vs.  Merab Dvalishvili

Lucie Pudilová  vs.  Yanan Wu

Tyson Pedro  vs.  Harry Hunsucker

Marcin Tybura  vs.  Alexandr Romanov

Jared Gordon  vs.  Leonardo Santos

Sean Woodson  vs.  Luis Saldaña

AJ Fletcher  vs.  Ange Loosa

Amir Albazi  vs.  F. Figueiredo

Aoriqileng  vs.  Jay Perrin

Victor Altamirano  vs.  Daniel da Silva

Picks highlighted and underlined (I don't watch women fights, so didn't pick that one) 

Right-Wingers Are Significantly Smarter

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/08/my-week-with-americas-smartest-people.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pocket_hits&utm_campaign=POCKET_HITS-EN-DAILY-SPONSORED&SEQUOIACAPITAL&A-2022_08_19&sponsored=0&position=5&scheduled_corpus_item_id=0be14885-a94e-4d54-a18b-9771f298609e

You might have some preconceived notions about Mensa. Maybe you think it’s full of super-geniuses and/or hopeless nerds and/or elitists who haven’t earned that status. Perhaps you were put off by the group after listening to comedian Jamie Loftus’s podcast about her year as a Mensa member, in which she delved into the organization’s right-wing undercurrent and the online harassment she faced while writing about it.

“There is no overstating what community can do for someone who, as many members described to me, feel like misfits in their everyday lives and want to belong somewhere,” Loftus said on the podcast, My Year in Mensa. “A society with murky goals whose selling point is superiority is not a healthy place to find it.”

Mensa does have a nasty origin story. It was co-founded by Roland Berrill in England in 1946, an Australian who was a proponent of phrenology (as well as astrology, palmistry, and dianetics). The organization’s other founder, Lancelot Ware, thought intelligence tests were a better way of measuring brain power, and, per the Irish Times, was “influenced by the work of Sir Cyril Burt, who had concluded that intelligence might have a racial basis.”

The leadership of the organization today does not appear to maintain the same racist ideas about intelligence as Berrill and Ware. Mensa International’s website contends, “Mensa is a round-table society where ethnicity, color, creed, national origin, age, politics, educational and social background are all completely irrelevant … Mensa takes no stand on politics, religion or social issues.”

What if the smartest people in the world were predominately white racists? Then "smart" would be deconstructed into an inferior concept. In fact, it already has. Smart people can't be racist, because racists are stupid. 

Everyone (including Scientians) knows that "intelligence has a racial basis." It's just explained with excuses and rhetoric.

"MENSA is a round-table society," that doesn't discriminate on the basis of race. So what are the demographics of MENSA? Glad you asked:

American Mensa Ltd. Demographics

64.4% male, 35.4% female (0.2% won't say)

54% between 30-49 years of age, 14% under 29, 0.32% over 80

31.2% in first marriage, 29.82% never married, 13.32% divorced once, 9.53% in second marriage after a divorce

Just over half have no children, 12.4% have one child, 18.66% have 2, 9.95% have 3, 4.37% have 4, 1.29% have 9+

about 30% earn $20-40,000, 10% earn $50-75,000, 9% earn $40-50,000 and about 0.5% earn more than $250,000.

17.93% Master's degree or equivalent, 17.56% four year graduates, one in 11 are Ph.D.s.

41% work in private industry, 13% in government, 13% self employed.

88% European ancestry.

49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion

14% only children, 19+% older of two, 12.5% younger of two, 11.5% oldest of three, 6.8% middle of three, 5.8% youngest of three, 9.7% oldest of more than three, 10.8% middle of four or more, 4.4% youngest of four or more

Computer-related occupations 10%, 3.75% own their own business, Electrical Engineers are 2.6%, 7.5% are in education, 3% lawyers, 0.11% judges, 0.02% are in astronomy.

Sometimes we (conformists) don't like the truth. But that doesn't make it not true. No matter how hard anti-whites try to eliminate white male superiority, they fail. 

Women aren't as smart as men (per Science!), and non-whites aren't as smart as whites (per Science!).

The real question is why that bothers people so much. Why is there a collective surge of anti-whiteness? Nobody makes a big deal about black people holding all the world records in sprinting. It only happens with white men. 

I know the reason, and so do you. 

People are haters. People hate that white men are superior in most things, so they make being white and superior a bad thing. It's classic jealousy rooted in envy.

CDC Wants To Atone For Their Mistakes, So They're Going To 'Increase Diversity'

I'll hire more black people so white people will trust me.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/17/health/cdc-announces-sweeping-changes/index.html 

Big changes are coming to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary as the nation's lead public health agency.

CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky met with senior leadership at the agency this morning to lay out her plans for overhauling how the agency works. She plans to remake the culture to help the agency move faster when it responds to a public health crisis. She also wants to make it easier for other parts of the government to work with the CDC, and wants to simplify and streamline the website to get rid of overlapping and contradictory public health guidance.

Staff will be notified of the change by email. More than 12,000 people work at the agency, which is headquartered in Atlanta.

The changes will be aimed at improving the culture and restoring public trust after the agency's acknowledged missteps in its response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Walensky will bring in former HHS Deputy Secretary Mary Wakefield to the CDC to oversee the reorganization.

Key organizational changes announced today include:

• The Division Laboratory Sciences and the Office of Science will now report directly to the CDC director, a move aimed at improving accountability of the delivery of timely information

• A new office of intergovernmental affairs—a hub where states health departments and other federal agencies with interact with CDC

• A new executive council—reporting to the Director—will determine agency priorities, track progress, and align budget decisions, with a focus on public health impact

• A new equity office, which will increase diversity both in CDC's workforce and add that lens to its public health activities

Additional actions announced today include:

• The CDC is going to create a new online mechanism for the pre-publication delivery of science 

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that hiring more black people isn't going to restore trust in the CDC. But, who knows, maybe I'm just racist and when Americans see that a Jewish woman is hiring more black people to deliver "science" they will be like, "OK, cool. I trust the CDC now."

Typically in these types of situations -where people are held accountable for mistakes- it's a top down kinda thing. So changes would be made at the top. I'm just not quite sure how decreasing the number of white men who work for the CDC is going to change anything within the public's eye. Like, how would they even know?

The lack of trust is based on the information and the messenger, not on the demographics of interns and secretaries in Atlanta. 

I'd be willing to bet that the demographics of the CDC employees in Atlanta are at minimum representative of population demographics. 

Interestingly enough, the CDC's YouTube channel has an I am CDC tab, in which employees introduce themselves, and give a brief job description. Scroll down the list and count how many white men you see. Is their goal to have zero white men?

Here is the showcase video from the CDC's website.

What it seems like to me, is that Walensky is scapegoating white men for American's lack of trust in the CDC. In other words, she is blaming her mistakes on too many white men working for the CDC. So she is going to attempt to regain that trust by decreasing the percentage of white men employed at the CDC, and "add that to the public lens." 

Maybe it will work. Time will tell. But it's hard to think anyone with any common sense would ever trust an organization that lied so many times, even if you support anti-white racism. 

And they're still doing it with the new monkeypox thing. Putting political correctness ahead of the facts.

I'll tell you what won't happen though: you won't see any media pundits accusing Walensky of being anti-white for scapegoating white men for the lack of trust in the CDC. Why is that?

Radio Renaissance: Jared Taylor and Greg Johnson

Sunday Psalm

Psalm 75:1-10

We thank you, O God!

We give thanks because you are near.

People everywhere tell of your mighty miracles.

God says, "At the time I have planned,

I will bring justice against the wicked.

When the earth quakes and its people live in turmoil,

I am the one who keeps its foundations firm.

I warned the proud, 'Stop your boasting!'

I told the wicked, 'Don't raise your fists!

Don't lift your fists in defiance at the heavens

or speak with rebellious arrogance.'"

For no one on earth - from east or west, 

or even from the wilderness - 

can raise another person up.

It is God alone who judges;

he decides who will rise and who will fall.

For the LORD holds a cup in his hand;

it is full of foaming wine mixed with spices.

He pours the wine out in judgement,

and all the wicked must drink it,

draining it to the dregs.

But as for me, I will always proclaim what God has done;

I will sing praises to the God of Jacob.

For God says, "I will cut off the strength of the wicked,

but I will increase the power of the godly."

Guess Why Scientians Say Americans Don't Want Griner Back?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientific-reason-why-americans-dont-145431580.html

Some Americans are rooting against Brittney Griner's return home to the United States.

The WNBA superstar was arrested in February after customs agents at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport said they found vape cartridges containing hashish oil in her luggage. She was found guilty of drug smuggling in early August and sentenced to nine years in a Russian prison.

Given the timing of her detainment, the nature of her alleged offense, and the reputation of Russian courts, Griner is widely considered to be a political pawn that Moscow is using as leverage against the United States. As such, the State Department classified Griner as wrongfully detained in May.

Even despite the "strong signal that the US government does not believe that there is a legitimate case against her," as an expert previously told Insider, many of the two-time Olympic gold medalist's compatriots are opposed to the Biden administration's efforts to secure her freedom through negotiating a prisoner exchange with the Kremlin.

And there could be a scientific explanation to why they've sided with a foreign adversary instead of supporting their fellow American.

Dani Gilbert, an expert on hostage taking and recovery and a Rosenwald Fellow in US Foreign Policy and International Security at Dartmouth College's John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding, told Insider that her research suggests that "how someone came to be in need of assistance affects whether or not the public thinks that person should receive it."

This phenomenon, she said, is called the "deservingness heuristic."

Gilbert further explained that personal characteristics could have an effect on the way the public regards Griner's situation: Though "gender tends to be less influential in how the American public and how the media care about, sympathize with, pay attention to Americans who are held hostage abroad" than some other factors, "race is a huge deal here."

This concept is aptly called "the missing white woman syndrome," Gilbert said.

"A white girl or a white woman who is taken captive or arrested or something like that elicits tons of sympathy from the American public in a way that women and girls of color do not," she explained. Gilbert believed that the fact that Griner is Black "could be a huge part of the lack of attention to her case."

"And then there are other demographic characteristics, including the fact that she is openly gay, that she is gender nonconforming, not traditionally feminine — all of these work against public sympathy for someone in her position," Gilbert added.

Science! really is something, isn't it?

And Scientians wonder why so many people don't believe in their dogma.

While the above "scientific explanation" is just typical anti-white rhetoric, lets analyze it rationally.

This idea that Russians "said" they found drugs is absolutely silly. It was on video. From what I know, she didn't even deny it, she just claimed that she had a medical card. Most people understand that if you try to smuggle illegal contraband into a foreign country, that there are consequences. There are people of all nationalities all over the world who are sitting in jails for the same reason. Why aren't they "wrongfully detained"?

Griner has been openly racist (anti-white) and publicly expressed anti-American sentiments. Most normal Americans don't like racists and people who hate America. That's pretty self-explanatory. Scientians call that "deservingness heuristic," normal people call it "common sense."

And, of course, the Scientians can't have a theory without somehow expressing their anti-white hatred. So, when a black person gets caught doing something, it's not because they don't have any agency. It's because white people used black people to pick cotton in the 1700s. But if they want to play the, "ohhhh, if it was a white person who got caught smuggling drugs she would already be home" card, consider this: how many Americans that have been convicted of smuggling drugs into foreign countries are white? Furthermore, what if Griner was a white supremacist? Would anyone want to bring her home, or would she be considered "wrongfully detained?" What if she was a diehard MAGA supporter? Would we even be having this conversation?

The fact of the matter is that she broke the law and got caught. It takes a pretty dumb person to smuggle drugs into a foreign country. Most people recognize that and just don't have much sympathy for it. Not too mention that one of the primary tenets of Scientians is #gayblackprivilege, which normal Americans don't believe in.

Is College A Scam?

"Scam" isn't the word I would use to describe what college is. I'd lean more towards "indoctrination centers."

The way they become "indoctrination centers" is with the idea that if you don't go to college you're going to be a loser. Thus, every loving parent will take out a 2nd mortgage on the house to send their child to college. Or students will take on massive amounts of debt in the form of student loan (one of the only forms of debt that you can't default on). Oddly, people have to jump through hoops to get any kind of loan, but student loans are guaranteed to every student who wants one. That's how serious the money lenders are about their ideology.

(Note: Money and power are the most important things to the ruling class. They only make sacrifices with money when it coincides with increases in power.)

Certain career fields require education (doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc), but most don't. 

In 3D theory, those who attend college for liberal arts or history degrees are just wasting time and accumulating debt. In 4D theory, they're being indoctrinated with liberal ideology. 

The establishment is comprised of four entities, that all work hand-in-hand: politics, academia, finance, information systems/media.

The purpose of college, outside of acquiring the education needed to pursue a career, is to challenge ideas. In other words, if you're not there to be a doctor, you're there to either be enlightened or indoctrinated.

If you think college is a institution of enlightenment, attend one and be openly critical about liberal ideas. Say something negative on campus about anything that is aligned with the core of the radical liberal ideology. Better yet, say something pro-white and let us know how the exchange of ideas works out for you.

#WhiteChristiansMatter

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rejecting-christian-nationalism-jesus-083840366.html 

In 1915, the Ku Klux Klan found revival at Stone Mountain in Georgia in a ceremony that included a U.S. flag and a Holy Bible placed on an altar before a burning cross.

More than a century later, today’s generation of white supremacists are following in their political ancestors’ footsteps, explicitly and proudly embracing the label of “Christian nationalist.” Some are even going so far as to sell merch, with Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) hawking “exclusive” shirts emblazoned with “Proud Christian Nationalist.”

Even before she began advertising the shirts on Instagram with the call to stand against the “Godless Left,” Greene told an interviewer that the Republican Party needs “ to be the party of nationalism and I’m a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.”

It’s not the first time she has embraced the label. And it’s a dangerous turn of events that requires active, loud opposition from all of us, especially from American Christians, for whom Greene and her allies claim to speak.

As a pastor, if there’s one thing I understand, it’s that Christian nationalism is unchristian and unpatriotic. Academic researchers define the authoritarian ideology as a political worldview—not a religion—that unconstitutionally and unbiblically merges Christian and American identities, declaring that democracy does not matter because America is a “Christian nation” where only conservative Christians count as true Americans.

If there’s any doubt that this is the heart of Christian nationalism, consider these two examples. First, last fall former Trump aide Michael Flynn stood in a Texas megachurch known for its antisemitic pastor and told a crowd chanting “Let’s Go Brandon” that America should have only “one religion.” Then only last month, America First Legal—whose board includes top Trump allies Stephen Miller and Mark Meadows—issued a statement asking the Supreme Court to let the 50 states create official state churches and “establish religion within their borders,” claiming that the First Amendment only applies to the federal government.

The clear goal of Christian nationalism is to seize power only for its mostly white evangelical and conservative Catholic followers, no matter who else gets hurt or how many elections have to be overturned. This is the unholy force that incited the failed coup of Jan. 6, 2021, brought us the recent spate of theocratic Supreme Court opinions, and has inspired multiple wave upon wave of dangerous misinformation about elections, climate change, and COVID-19—all in direct contrast to Jesus’ teachings of love, truth, and the common good.

Whether they speak from the halls of power or the front of a sanctuary, Rep. Greene and her ilk know exactly what they are doing when they so proudly embrace the label of Christian nationalist. Each explicit declaration of Christian nationalism is a blatant attempt to pull the wool over people’s eyes and make the anti-democracy extremist ideology seem safe and more palatable, distracting us from the right’s project of seizing power to remake America into a theocracy in their image—a nation where the LGBTQ community, people of color, and non-Christians all lose rights while evangelicals and conservative Catholics are put permanently in charge.

Keep in mind that this is a Christian pastor that is writing this. He would much rather see a country ran by the "Godless Left" than one by white Christians. Is that weird to you?

This "pastor" is more worried about the "rights" of gays, atheists and blacks than he is about white Christians. How does that make any sense?

What about the "rights" of white Christians? Why don't they matter?

A Christian pastor rejecting the concept of a Christian nation would be like homosexuals taking flamboyant pride in their voluntary elimination of the gene pool.

I wonder if the good pastor would have an issue with Christian Nationalism if it were spearheaded by black lives matter. Or by feminists. Or homosexuals.

Yahoo is essentially an anti-white tabloid, so the fact that they are running this pastor's critiques of Christian Nationalism (2nd article they have posted of his in the last week) shouldn't be surprising. But the language he uses in his critiques made me suspect that he wasn't the average Christian pastor. I assumed he was homosexual, or perhaps Jewish. Thus, I decided to look him up:

The Rev. Nathan Empsall is a justice-focused Christian organizer, the executive director of Faithful America, the founding editor of Episcopal Climate News, a priest associate at an Episcopal parish in New Haven, CT, and a member of the Episcopal Church’s Task Force on Care of Creation and Environmental Racism.

Rev. Nathan’s motto is “God loves you. Accept it, and spread it!” For Rev. Nathan, “spreading love” means focusing his ministry on social, environmental, economic, and racial justice. We love the victims of oppression and discrimination as Jesus loves them by doing everything we can to lift up and echo their voices, end that oppression and discrimination, and create space for healing. As the Mother of Christ sang, God “has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.”

Rev. Nathan affirms the equality and God-given dignity of all LGBTQ persons, and believes that no one can truthfully say all lives matter until we have achieved a society where Black lives matter.

Apparently, the pastor loves everyone.... except white Christians who advocate for a Christian society. Or those who reject climate change, diversity, homosexuality, BLM, feminism, abortion and/or the godless left.

It doesn't surprise me that he is Episcopalian. I attended an Episcopal church once. The pastor was reading scripture from the new testament. He was reading the very words of Jesus. In those words Jesus was critical of Jews, so the pastor censored that part.

It's not up to me judge people's souls. But I find it hard to believe that Jesus would leave us his word and want it censored by those who claim to represent him. The term used to describe that is blasphemy. 

Nathan Empsall isn't just an anti-white hypocrite; he's a blasphemer, too. 

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Planetary Saviorism is the God-Complex of White Supremacy

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/climate-hazards-are-turning-218-diseases-bigger-threats-rcna41631 

Professor Camilo Mora feels the impacts of climate change in his knees. 

During a 2014 visit to his native Colombia, heavy rains caused the worst flooding his hometown had seen in decades and boosted the mosquito population. A mosquito bit Mora, transferring the chikungunya virus and making him a patient during an unprecedented outbreak in the region. 

His joints ache still today. He blames a warming world. 

In a study published Monday, Mora and his colleagues at the University of Hawaii canvassed tens of thousands of studies to analyze the global impacts of climate change on infectious diseases that affect humans. They determined that nearly 220 infectious diseases — 58% of the total studied — had become bigger threats because of climate hazards.  

“Systems have been evolving for millions of years and now humans have come along and changed things,” Mora said. “We are punching nature, but nature is punching us back.” 

“It’s only in the recent past of infectious disease research that we really focus in on climate change as a driver of infectious disease,” said Jessica Leibler, an environmental epidemiologist at the Boston University School of Public Health who wasn't involved in the research.

Fifty-eight percent “seems like a really high number,” she said, “but it reflects the reality that infectious diseases are driven by what’s going on in our environment.”

The research is not without limitations. Scientists often have a hard time quantifying how much climate change is contributing to disease outbreaks, since it’s an indirect process. 

Climate hazards also diminished some impacts of infectious disease. For 16% of diseases, these hazards reduced the ailments’ impact or produced mixed results.

Planetary Saviorism is a by-product of white supremacy.

After white people went into Africa and gave Africans injections and clean water to drink, the natural progression was saving the planet.

White supremacy in action just means making everyone act white. So while Africans were evolved to live in the jungles and act like primitive people, white supremacists wanted to bypass evolution and teach black people how to be white. So they inject them with serums, give them shoes and teach them how to drink water that animals don't shit in.

The odd thing about white supremacy is that white supremacists always denounce racism and/or white supremacy. They think teaching black people how to be white is actually saving them from being black. I know it sounds weird, but they're incapable of objective reasoning, so they do weird stuff. Like getting sick from a mosquito bite and blaming black people for throwing garbage into the ocean. Btw, there wouldn't be any plastic in the ocean if it weren't for white supremacy, either.

So now that all of the black people have been saved, the next evolution of white supremacy is planetary saviorism (i.e., saving the planet). So they manufacture a crisis (like they did with skinny black people in Africa), and declare themselves the saviors of world. 

They theorize that humanity is making the temperature hotter. Even though the weather has fluctuated since the beginning of time. They assume this fluctuation is from various forms of pollution. They make weird claims that nobody believes. Ultimately they are depopulationists. 

The odd thing about it is that the only people concerned with the climate are white people (specifically, single white women). Yet, white people only make up about 10% of the earth's population. So if you were to calculate the effect on the climate demographically, you would find that white people have the least impact on the climate per capita. In other words, the innovations of white people that have been implemented in the black and brown world are much more problematic in terms of pollution than they are in white countries. 

So the strategy of the planetary saviorists is to tell a small group of people who produce a very small percentage of pollution to eat bugs and walk everywhere, while ignoring the 90% that produce the majority of pollution, because that would be racist. 

If planetary saviorists were successful in their manufactured crises, that would mean that 10% of the population quits producing pollution. Even though there isn't any way to prove that pollution is actually increasing the temperature of the earth. 

See how silly this is?

If planetary saviorists were serious about their mission they would quit forcing white supremacy (democracy, capitalism, Science!, plastic, consumerism, etc) down the throats of non-white people. That would eliminate about 80% of the world's pollution.  

We Are All Sinners; Christians Just Acknowledge It

https://www.yahoo.com/news/love-them-god-says-why-144354328.html 

Recently I wrote a column about what it might look like if those who profess their Christian faith spent less time harrumphing about it and more time attempting to imitate the Jesus they claim to follow.

Having spent the past 40-plus years preaching and writing about the good news as it’s put forth in the New Testament — our faith’s foundational text — I’ve concluded Christianity’s overriding message is: “Love them all.”

Jesus said God’s commandments were: love God with all your heart, and love other people as much as yourself. That’s it.

He, St. Paul and the other New Testament writers repeatedly reinforced this principle.

St. Paul: Even if I’m a prophet who knows all mysteries, even if I can move mountains with my faith, but I’m not consumed by love, then I’m just a noisy, clanging gong.

St. John: The one who doesn’t walk in love doesn’t know God, because God is love.

If you read the New Testament, you can’t miss this principle, unless you’re trying to miss it.

Which raises obvious questions: Why do Christians so routinely miss it? Why do we—and by “we,” I mean nearly all of us—fail to obey the gospel’s very foundation?

That answer is simple: we are all sinners!

The author of this post surmises that, "oh, if you were really a Christian why wouldn't you act like one? God is clear on his message, and it's such an easy thing to do."

Well... if it were so easy, then God wouldn't have made it his principle message, now would he?

The implication of Christianity isn't the equivalent of selling ice to Eskimos in the arctic. 

Why has there only been one perfect person in the history of humanity? Have you ever noticed that nobody even claims to be perfect? Even the most devout atheist doesn't claim perfection. 

The fall of man (when Eve was seduced by Satan in the garden of Eden) is responsible for our sinful nature. In fact, our sinful nature is the essence of the human condition. It literally is what we are.

The answer to why Christians can't just love everyone as they are commanded by God is so simple it's silly: we are sinners. Christians recognize their sinful nature, and feel shame for it. But this is why God sent his only Son into the world: To die on the cross for the shame of your sins. 

Christians desire to be better. To do better. They feel bad about their nature. They seek forgiveness. But, they know they will always succumb to what they are: sinners.

The question shouldn't be, "Why are Christians sinners?" The question should be, "Why aren't sinners Christians?" Those who don't feel shame for their sinful nature is much more intriguing than why Christians are sinners.

To be Christian is to have shame for what you are. To acknowledge your nature. To try to be better. We will all fall short in the eyes of God. But he knows our hearts.

Luke 16:15 Then he said to them, "You like to look good in public, but God knows your evil hearts.

#GayBlackPrivilege is the Product of American Exceptionalism

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/04/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-the-sentencing-of-wrongfully-detained-american-brittney-griner/

Today, American citizen Brittney Griner received a prison sentence that is one more reminder of what the world already knew: Russia is wrongfully detaining Brittney. It’s unacceptable, and I call on Russia to release her immediately so she can be with her wife, loved ones, friends, and teammates.  My administration will continue to work tirelessly and pursue every possible avenue to bring Brittney and Paul Whelan home safely as soon as possible.

This is the leader of the free world (or someone that represents him) saying that someone who entered a country with illegal drugs is being "wrongfully detained." 

I mean, there have been a lot (and I mean A LOT) of idiotic comments made by the current administration, but this is just beyond the pale of absurdity. Basically this just opens the door to say that every prisoner in the world is being "wrongfully detained." 

The level of hypocrisy is stunning.

How many Americans are being "wrongfully detained" in the USA for getting caught with illegal drugs?

How many foreigners are being "wrongfully detained" in American prisons for entering the USA with illegal drugs?

Have any leaders of foreign countries ever publicly accused America of "wrongfully detaining" someone caught breaking an American law?

Furthermore, anyone entering a foreign country knows that if you try to smuggle drugs into the country that you're taking a huge risk. How many people all over the world are sitting in prisons for entering a country with illegals drugs? I bet that number is easily in the thousands, if not tens-of-thousands. Are they being "wrongfully detained," or is this just anti-Russian propaganda? 

People who fall for this type of rhetoric are really low IQ morons. Imagine being someone who is like, "Yea, that tall gay black sportsball player who got caught on camera trying to smuggle pot into Russia is being 'wrongfully detained,' because even though she was caught red-headed breaking Russian law, Russia is 'wrongfully detaining' her because she is gay and black."

I would speculate there are several thousand Russians in American prisons. I would also speculate there are several Americans in Russian prisons. Why do we only hear about the gay, black ballplayer? Is it because she is too stupid to know that it's illegal to smuggle drugs into other countries? Or is because she has #gayblackprivilege and gay-black people are above the law?

That's probably what is meant by "wrongfully detained." She is gay and black and in America that gives you a free pass to do anything you want without repercussion. So she didn't realize that when she went to Russia with illegal drugs that should couldn't just say, "ey yo, I'm gay and black. You can't arrest me or I'll accuse you of homophobic racism, and then we loot!"

To add more to the irony, Griner also hates America, which is the only place that recognizes her #gayblackprivilege.  

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction

Kansas Votes To Give Women The Right To Have Sex Without Any Consequences

https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article264116816.html

The nation now knows, and the world: Kansas remains a free state. 

In a stunning display of common sense, Kansas voters Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a constitutional amendment that would have put abortion policy completely in the hands of the Legislature, and the governor. 

It was a victory on several fronts. First, and most important, it was a victory for women. Kansans said in a loud, unmistakable voice that women can and should be trusted with the most intimate questions of their own health and safety. 

It was also a victory for voters, who defied predictions of a low turnout and cast ballots in churches, gyms, city halls and community centers. Many voted early. Voters were able to dissect puzzling ballot language, purposely designed to confuse and intimidate. 

They rejected false nonsense from anti-abortion groups, including several ludicrous attempts to link the vote to so-called critical race theory, or defunding police. A last-minute text message, apparently authorized by a group run by former U.S. Rep. Tim Huelskamp, was quickly disregarded as a bald-faced lie.

There are two trains of thought regarding abortion:

1. Why bring unwanted children into the world?

2. Legalizing murder

The "my body, my choice" is just silly propaganda that dingbat women latch onto as if it actually means something. 

I've written about the social implications of of abortion (from a cause and effect POV), which is that pure feminism can't exist without the complete sexual liberation of women. 

The idea that women who can't make the right choices about their sexual behavior should be able to make the right choice about the existence of their children is preposterous. They can't seem to make the correct choice to refrain from having unprotected sex for just 3 days out of the month, but they can be expected to make the right choice when it comes to ending the life of their unborn child. Makes sense, right?

While I personally agree that women like this probably shouldn't be reproducing in the first place, they shouldn't just get free passes to kill their sex trophies. Murder should come with some form of consequence. Most notably, sterilization. If a woman wants to kill her child, she shouldn't be able to have children. How does that not make sense? She obviously wants to have sex, but doesn't want to partake in the responsibility that comes with sex.

Most people forget the purpose of sex. It's like sex has become a sport or something. Sex exists for one reason: reproduction. Why do women who don't want children have the desires to have sex? 

Before you say, "yea, but what about men?" let me remind you that men aren't the ones having abortions. And if they are complicit in an abortion, they should be sterilized, too. 

Child murder (aka abortion) should be signed off by BOTH parents. A woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's child without his permission. Can we at least agree on that? And if the father consents to the death of his child, then he should be sterilized, too. 

New Study Shows That Black And Brown People Don't Act White

https://www.thedailybeast.com/american-heart-health-might-get-much-much-worse-by-2060-especially-for-minorities 

You need to take better care of your heart. No, we’re not judging—it’s just a statistical reality. A new study published Monday in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that rates of cardiovascular disease in the U.S. over the next four decades are on track to spike like your blood pressure after a triple cheeseburger.

The new projections are based on data from the 2020 U.S. Census Bureau combined with heart disease and risk factors data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Among the general population in the U.S., cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity are expected to increase dramatically between 2025 and 2060.

Roughly 55 million more Americans are projected to suffer from diabetes and 126 million more Americans are expected to be obsese by 2060. The researchers also predict that rates of stroke and heart failure will rise by more than 33 percent each—impacting a combined 28 million Americans.

What’s worse is that this rise is expected to disproportionately impact all minority groups—with Black and Hispanic populations bearing the biggest brunt of these increases in cardiovascular risks while rates decrease overall for white people. For example, the study found the number of Black adults suffering from diabetes will jump from 13 percent currently to 20 percent by 2060; and nearly 60 percent will have hypertension, a jump from 55 percent now.

This is especially damning considering the fact that advances in medicine should prevent such increases. But according to the study’s authors, the issue is systemic: Minority groups are frequently overlooked and neglected when it comes to health policy. Factors such as food deserts, lack of medical access, and income inequality in Black and Brown communities all contribute to a widening disparity in public health. This is further backed by past research that found that chronic lack of access to healthy food results in higher rates of diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular illness. The researchers say that the findings outline clear disparities in the U.S. healthcare system and are a call to action to fix them.

“Our analysis projects that the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and diseases will continue to rise with worrisome trends,” James L. Januzzi Jr. a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and co-author of the study, said in a press release. “These striking projections will disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minority populations in the U.S. Understanding these results will hopefully inform future public health policy efforts and allow us to implement prevention and treatment measures in an equitable manner.”

Do you ever read between the lines on this stuff?

"What's worse" is that it's black and brown people that are getting sick, and not white people. WTF?!

So who is suppose to teach black and brown people that eating fast food 3 times a day causes obesity? Is that the "equitable" duty of white people? Should white people take black and brown people by the hand and show them how to eat, and punish them when they don't eat as they've been told? I feel like punishing a black or brown person for eating fried chicken or chimichangas would be racist. Don't you? 

If white people have to teach black and brown people how to manage their behavior, how is that not white supremacy in action? Seriously. Who is suppose to teach black and brown people how to eat and exercise? 

It's as if the doctors are implying that black and brown people are children and need to be coddled by the same system of people that oppresses them. Like part of being black and brown is not having any agency.

If I was black or brown I would be so offended by the stuff that these white supremacists assert. I would say, "Hey! Hold up there, buddy. Maybe I want to eat fried chicken and sit on the couch and watch sportsball. That doesn't mean I'm too stupid to know that one day it might make me unhealthy. I don't need white folks telling me how to eat. Keep your racism to yourself."

The entire concept of "racism" as a social pariah is dumb for several reasons. When black and brown people act like black and brown people, then the system of white superiority is to blame. That's rather obvious, on merit. It's one thing to expect white people to act like white people, but when society expects black and brown people to act like white people, there's going to be an obvious problem. 

When we hear the terms "systemic racism" and "racial equity," what that means is that black and brown people aren't acting like white people, therefore the collective system of white people needs to try harder to make black and brown people more white. 

If I were to summarize this "study" in a non-PC manner, it would read: Evidence from recent study shows that black and brown people aren't white.

It took them about 50 years to figure out that equality is bullshit, but at least they figured it out. But if you noticed how they did it, even that is racist. They replaced the slogan of "equality" with "equity" with the idea that black and brown people wouldn't know the difference between the two. 

I wonder if "they" were white people.

Sad.

Christians Denounce Christian Nationalism

https://www.yahoo.com/news/over-12-000-christians-condemned-164448708.html

A faith-based organization has amassed more than 12,000 signatures rejecting Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene's embrace of Christian nationalism, calling the idea "unchristian and unpatriotic."

Faithful America, an online Christian community that works towards promoting progressive ideas and social justice, launched an online petition on Thursday condemning Greene's perspective of faith and politics.

"Christian nationalism is unchristian and unpatriotic," the petition, which had reached 12,00 signatures as of Sunday, says. "It is defined not as a religion but as a political ideology that unconstitutionally and unbiblically merges Christian and American identities, declaring that democracy does not matter because only conservative Christians are true Americans."

Last week, Greene advocated for the Republican party to be one of Christian nationalism.

"We need to be the party of nationalism and I'm a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists," Greene said in a recent interview.

Christian nationalism is defined as "the belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way," according to Christianity Today.

Isn't it ironic how Faithful America's "progressive ideas and social justice" are Christian and patriotic, yet Christian nationalism is the opposite?

Imagine being a Christian and being anti-Christian at the same time. Does that remind you of any other oxymoron? How about being white and anti-white at the same time?

The argument of those who espouse oxymoronic views are always low-hanging fruit. So the Christians who are anti-Christian would say, "How can I be anti-Christian when I'm a Christian?" The same way that a white anti-white would say, "I'm white, how can I be anti-white?"

Everyone reading this has seen a white anti-white. They're as common as vultures at roadkill.

The assumption that someone can't be the antithesis of what they are is silly. Being something doesn't automatically equivocate into a positive representation of that something. 

Traitors have always existed throughout history. Traitors don't typically view themselves as traitors. They think they are doing something good, or they're just traitors without any sense of loyalty to what it is that they are betraying.

The religion of liberal Christians isn't Christianity; it's liberalism. Liberalism is the god of the godless. Or, egalitarianism without God. 

The church was always designed to act as a buffer against the state. To hold the line, if you will. The modern church (e.g., Faithful America) is a direct manifestation of the state. They are the state. They are fully supportive of every liberal idea that has been inserted into the sphere of culture in the last 50 years. 

Liberal Christians support: homosexuality, divorce, diversity, transgenderism, open borders, feminism, usury, Judeo-Christianity (another oxymoron), etc, etc. 

The Bible isn't a breathing document. In other words, it doesn't evolve. It's stagnant, and it's stagnant for a reason. 

We are all sinners. But God sent his only son to die on the cross for our sins. God lays the blueprint in the Word that he left us. He will forgive those who seek forgiveness.

If you're a Christian, then be a Christian. If you're a secular liberal, then be a secular liberal. But you can't be both. 

Repent!

Psalm 65:3 Though our hearts are filled with sins, you forgive them all.

Sunday Psalm

Psalm 65:1-13

What mighty praise, O God,

belongs to you in Zion.

We will fulfill our vows to you,

for you answer our prayers,

and to you all people will come.

Though our hearts are filled with sins,

your forgive them all.

What joy for those you choose to bring near,

those who live in your holy courts.

What joy awaits us

inside your holy Temple.

You faithfully answer our prayers with awesome deeds,

O God our savior.

You are the hope of everyone on earth,

even those who sail on distant seas.

You formed the mountains by your power

and armed yourself with mighty strength.

You quieted the raging oceans

with their pounding waves

and silenced the shouting nations.

Those who live at the end of the earth

stand in awe of your wonders.

From where the sun rises to where is sets,

you inspire shouts of joy.

You take care of the earth and water it,

making it rich and fertile.

The rivers of God will not run dry;

they provide a beautiful harvest of grain,

for you have ordered it so.

You drench the plowed ground with rain,

melting the clods and leveling the ridges.

You soften the earth with showers

and bless it with abundant crops.

You crown the year with a bountiful harvest;

even the hard pathways overflow with abundance.

The wilderness becomes a lush pasture,

and the hillsides blossom with joy.

The meadows are clothed with flocks of sheep,

and the valleys are carpeted with grain.

They all shout and sing for joy! 

BREAKING NEWS: Black Man Doesn't Act Violently When Called A Bad Word

What did you call me, cracka?!

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/black-man-goes-viral-keeping-145200292.html

One Texas Dillards employee will be waking up on the unemployment line come Monday after being fired for calling a Black man the n-word. And while news like this rarely shocks any of us anymore, the talking-to the racist received in response just might. The Black man, who has not been identified, was shopping with his 10-year-old son in the Dallas department store and was overheard being called a f—ing ni—. Another unidentified individual captured the aftermath on camera as the father can be seen giving the sales clerk the classiest read you’ve ever heard.

The Dillards employee who is referred to as Homer in the video, but whose name tag cannot be seen, looks on in bewilderment either at the fact that he was caught saying it, or the fact that he was being reprimanded for his racist remarks.

Perhaps even more shocking than the father’s response to the whole ordeal, is that Homer never denies having said it. In fact, he blames what he’d said on having hurt his leg. It’s still unclear as to what one has to do with the other.

“You hurt your leg, so you said f—-ing n——-?” the father questions as his son stands nearby. “Treat human beings with respect and morals and values,” the father says. “Now I have to go home and correct my 10-year-old not to be a damn idiot.”

It's interesting that a black man who doesn't act violently when called a bad name makes national news. 

In civilized societies people don't use violence when called bad words. In fact, one of the first things kids learn growing up is the adage, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." This is to teach kids that when other kids call them names that it's not acceptable to hit them.

However, for some reason, we don't hold black people to that same standard. Isn't that kinda odd? Is it because black people aren't capable of that level of impulse control? Or is it because that word is so bad that it is the exception to the rule?

Violence in response to words is uncivilized behavior. The insinuation in American culture is that black people can't resist violence when called bad words because at one time in America black people were slaves. Or because their great-grandfather had to drink out of a water fountain that was only for black people. I'm not really sure how that is a bad thing, btw. Why wouldn't black people be happy about having their own water fountain? They seem to have their own set of rules for everything else. 

If I was black I would advocate for bringing back "black only" water fountains. Think of how demoralizing it is that blacks in America have to drink out of the same water fountains as the people whose ancestors used them as farm equipment.

 

 

UFC 277 Predictions

MAIN CARD

Julianna Pena vs. Amanda Nunes 

Brandon Moreno vs. Kai Kara-France 

Derrick Lewis vs. Sergei Pavlovich

Alex Perez vs. Alexandre Pantoja

Magomed Ankalaev vs. Anthony Smith

UNDERCARD

Alex Morono vs. Matthew Semelsberger

Drew Dober vs. Rafael Alves

Don'Tale Mayes vs. Hamdy Abdelwahab

Drakkar Klose vs. Rafa Garcia

Michael Morales vs. Adam Fugitt

Joselyne Edwards vs. Ji Yeon Kim

Nicolae Negumereanu vs. Ihor Potieria

Orion Cosce vs. Blood Diamond 

Pretty bunk card, IMO. I don't care to watch women fight. The skill set - and more importantly, the entertainment factor - is drastically inferior. Nonetheless, the fighters in bold are my picks to win.

Exercise Reduces Overall Mortality By 20%

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-finds-lowest-risk-death-090000466.html

Research Highlights:

• An analysis of physical activity and medical records for more than 100,000 people over 30 years found that individuals who performed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' currently recommended range of duration of moderate (150-300 minutes/week) or vigorous physical activity (75-150 minutes/week), respectively, had an observed 20-21% and 19% lower risk of mortality from all causes. 

• Individuals who performed two to four times the amount of recommended physical activity (150-600 minutes/week) were observed to have further reductions in mortality from all causes.

Researchers analyzed mortality data and medical records for more than 100,000 adults gathered from two large prospective studies: the all-female Nurses' Health Study and the all-male Health Professionals Follow-up Study from 1988-2018. Participants whose data were examined were 63% female, and more than 96% were white adults. They had an average age of 66 years and an average body mass index (BMI) of 26 kg/m2 over the 30-year follow-up period.

The analysis also found:

• Participants who met the guidelines for vigorous physical activity had an observed 31% lower risk of CVD mortality and 15% lower risk of non-CVD mortality, for an overall 19% lower risk of death from all causes. 

• Participants who met the guidelines for moderate physical activity had an observed 22-25% lower risk of CVD mortality and 19-20% lower risk of non-CVD mortality, for an overall 20-21% lower risk of death from all causes. 

• Participants who performed two to four times above the recommended amount of long-term vigorous physical activity (150-300 min/week) had an observed 27-33% lower risk of CVD mortality and 19% non-CVD mortality, for an overall 21-23% lower risk of death from all causes. 

• Participants who performed two to four times above the recommended amount of moderate physical activity (300-600 min/week) had an observed 28-38% lower risk of CVD mortality and 25-27% non-CVD mortality, for an overall 26-31% lower risk of mortality from all causes.

In addition, no harmful cardiovascular health effects were found among the adults who reported engaging in more than four times the recommended minimum activity levels. Previous studies have found evidence that long-term, high-intensity, endurance exercise, such as marathons, triathlons and long-distance bicycle races, may increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, including myocardial fibrosis, coronary artery calcification, atrial fibrillation and sudden cardiac death.

"This finding may reduce the concerns around the potential harmful effect of engaging in high levels of physical activity observed in several previous studies," Lee noted.

In a consumer state, everything is about indulgence. More! More! More!

Effectively, "More!" is the antithesis of common sense: moderation is the key. Thus, we have obesity, laziness, "addiction," preventable health issues, etc. Or, to summarize with one word: gluttony.

There are two trains of thought regarding lifestyle: live for tomorrow or live for now.  

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Those who perpetually live in the moment don't do it consciously, they just lack impulse control. They justify their lack of impulse control by saying "YOLO!" While they have a point, if they make it to their average life expectancy, they will likely be parasites of society. Meaning they will be indigent and unhealthy.

However, the person who always lives for tomorrow faces a similar existential dilemma: a state of constant self-discipline can result in life passing you by and not enjoying any of the benefits that come from impulse control. So, even though you're in good health, have no debt and sitting on a nice nest egg in your 401K, when are you going to enjoy it? Will you enjoy a nice figure and financial freedom at 70 as much as you would at 40?

Digressing...

Being healthy (i.e., eating good and exercising) is a lifestyle. It's something everyone should strive for. Why? Because your body is a temple. It is a shell that you were given to take care of by God. God entrusted you with life and free will. You didn't do anything to deserve your existence. It's all grace! The way you demonstrate respect to yourself - and more importantly, to God - is by having impulse control and self-discipline. Nobody is perfect. Set attainable goals. Just try to be healthy about 75% of the time. Do some pushups. Do some pullups. Walk a few miles. Better yet, run a few miles. Ride a bicycle. 

Exercising for a couple hours a week isn't that hard. Just do it.

Not only will you be better off physically, but you'll be better off mentally. Exercise releases endorphins that are natural antidepressants. So you will physically look and feel better, but your mental state will be better, too. 

Furthermore, good overall health also enables a buffer for lapses. So it opens the door for you to enjoy a greasy hamburger and 12 pack of beer on the weekend, cause you know you've earned it. And you know Monday you will put in that extra work to detoxify your temple. 

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

 

Sunday Psalm

Psalm 67: 1-7

May God be merciful and bless us.

May his face shine with favor upon us.

May your ways be known throughout the earth,

your saving power among people everywhere.

May the nations praise you, O GOD.

Yes, may all the nations praise you.

How glad the nations will be, singing for joy,

because you govern them with justice

and direct the actions of the whole world. 

May the nations praise you, O GOD.

Yes, may all the nations praise you. 

Then the earth will yield its harvests, 

and God, our God, will richly bless us.

Yes, God will bless us,

and people all over the word will fear him.

Beyond Order: Jordan Peterson

Bitcoin's True Value is Less than $1000

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/21/1112689091/bitcoin-tesla-selloff 

What a difference a year makes. After making big plays in Bitcoin in 2021, Tesla jettisoned $936 million worth of the cryptocurrency in the second quarter of 2022, trimming its Bitcoin holdings by 75%, the company said in new investor filings.

Tesla aggressively embraced Bitcoin in 2021, investing $1.5 billion in the currency as CEO Elon Musk touted Bitcoin's advantages over standard fiat currency. For part of the year, Tesla customers could buy cars using Bitcoin.

But in recent months, Tesla's profitability was affected by "Bitcoin impairment," it said in its financial summary of the second quarter.

At the beginning of 2022 I predicted that BTC would drop to $25K and stabilize. Thus far it appears I knew what I was talking about. 

The bigger question is the future of bitcoin: where does it go from here?

Bitcoin was never suppose to become the preposterous ponzi scheme that it became. It was designed to be a revolutionary "currency" for a fringe element of the population (anarchists, criminals, ideologues, etc). 

Theoretically, BTC should have never breached the $1000 threshold. But it got a lot of media play, and it became a "get rich quick" ploy that attracted normies. To the average person, buying crypto was like playing high stakes slots at a virtual casino. To the astute observer, it was clearly tulip mania:

Tulip mania (Dutch: tulpenmanie) was a period during the Dutch Golden Age when contract prices for some bulbs of the recently introduced and fashionable tulip reached extraordinarily high levels. The major acceleration started in 1634 and then dramatically collapsed in February 1637. It is generally considered to have been the first recorded speculative bubble or asset bubble in history. In many ways, the tulip mania was more of a then-unknown socio-economic phenomenon than a significant economic crisis. It had no critical influence on the prosperity of the Dutch Republic, which was one of the world's leading economic and financial powers in the 17th century, with the highest per capita income in the world from about 1600 to about 1720. The term "tulip mania" is now often used metaphorically to refer to any large economic bubble when asset prices deviate from intrinsic values.

It's still very likely that one could make a lot of gains in bitcoin over the next couple of years. It wouldn't totally shock me if it eventually set another high (perhaps $100k, but if I were predicting I would say $50Kish), but after the next big run will come its more permanent downfall. 

While BTC will remain extremely volatile in the foreseeable future, ultimately it will end up stabilizing around $1000 within the next 10 years. Because, according to my calculation all the way back in 2015, bitcoin's true value is $519.32. Adjusted for inflation, that number has risen to $998.14.

While BTC will never completely fizzle out, it will get back to its roots and be a "currency" for internet geeks, revolutionaries, criminals and non-conformists. If you look closely, the signs are pretty obvious that we are already starting to see that. 

The Anarchists Ep 1

The Term "Judeo-Christian" Is Blasphemy

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/07/19/the-cuckoo-cult-mainstream-christianity-is-now-an-implacable-enemy-of-the-white-west/ 

Judaism isn’t about worshipping God. It’s about worshipping Jews. And it’s so good at its job that it’s persuaded some Christians to take up Judeolatry too. Thanks to Jewish subversion at the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church went from asking God to lift the “blindness” of the “perfidious Jews” to mandating smarmy prayers for “our elder brothers in the Faith.” And yes, Jews would indeed like to behave like brothers to Christians, in the same way as Cain did when he murdered his brother Abel.

Jews have tamed and corrupted American Protestantism too. They’ve convinced millions of Americans to accept the oxymoronic concept of Judeo-Christianity, which has all the coherence and honesty of “carnivorous vegetarianism” or “The Jeffrey Epstein Foundation for the Welfare of Under-Aged Shiksas.”

But that contradiction doesn’t weaken leftism: it’s simply an example of what George Orwell called doublethink, or the “power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” Leftism is about power, not principle, and contradictions are a feature, not a bug, of its hunt for power. Leftism took the dogma of humanity’s oneness from Christianity in order to deny the clear truth that Whites are intellectually, morally and culturally superior to Blacks. After that truth was denied by the oneness dogma, leftism took the next step and began to preach the dogma of White evil and non-White virtue.

In other words, leftism has inverted the truth about Whites and Blacks. And that inversion of the truth is a very clear sign of the true nature of leftism. As Vox Day has said: “Notice how evil always inverts. ‘The Light of the World’ became ‘the Dark Ages’. The revival of satanic darkness became ‘the Enlightenment’. And the enslavement of women to sin and self-destruction became ‘Women’s Liberation’. If you want to discern if something has satanic roots, look for the inversion. Once you spot it, you’ll scent the sulphur soon enough.” 

Judeo-Christianity is the equivalent of atheistic-monotheism. It's egalitarianism without God, heavily influenced by deconstruction and Judaism (i.e., "worshiping Jews"). 

The "normie" would read that and instantly think: "How anti-Semitic!"; which itself is one of the primary tenets of Judeo-Christianity. 

Judeo-Christianity is designed to subvert the church with progressive social norms rooted in deconstructive "enlightenment." The Christian church serves God and acts as a buffer to the social norms of Judeo-Christianity, atheism, Judaism, secular humanism, leftism, etc (e.g., satanism).

The entire "progressive social order" is blasphemous to Christianity. It is built on lies, deception and deconstruction. 

God has people in the world, for which he has chosen and given souls. He will judge them at the end of this world based on their free will to choose or reject him as Lord. 

But Satan has his people, too. They are soulless liars who hate the truth because they hate God. 

John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

An Example Of Why Only 26% Of People Trust The 'News'

https://www.yahoo.com/news/largest-study-date-shows-covid-144335058.html

Nearly half of the participants of a recent study who were menstruating regularly at the time of the survey reported heavier bleeding during their periods after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Others who did not typically menstruate — including transgender men, people on long-acting contraceptives and postmenopausal women — also experienced unusual bleeding.

The new study — the largest to date — expands on research that has highlighted the temporary effects of COVID-19 vaccines on menstrual cycles but until now focused primarily on cisgender women who menstruate.

Although the vaccines have largely prevented deaths and severe disease with few reported side effects, many medical experts initially brushed aside concerns when women and gender-diverse people started reporting erratic menstrual cycles after receiving the shots.

I know, it's the NYTs via Yahoo!, so it's just tabloid reading material for middle-aged women while they're day drinking Boones Farm. But still. How can only 26% of the population trusting the "news" be a good thing? 

Imagine having control of the information systems and the only people who believe you are NPCs.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

When Will Liberals Start Calling For The Automation Of the Supreme Court In The Name Of Science!

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-shouldnt-be-optional/

In a tumultuous few weeks, the Supreme Court has ignored the scientific evidence underlying safe abortion, the need to slow climate change, and the value of gun safety laws. It is alarming that the justices have now indicated a willingness to consider a voting rights case next term, given Chief Justice John Roberts’ feelings on what he calls the “sociological gobbledygook” of research into the effects of gerrymandering.

The promise of democracy is being sorely tested by the recent injustices leveled by the Supreme Court’s conservative justices in cases involving health, welfare and the future of the planet. Over and over this term, their decisions have put industry, religion (specifically, a conservative strain of Christianity) and special interests above facts. They have devalued the role of expertise.

Disregarding science and evidence is a terrible shift for the highest court in the land, which once safeguarded the health of the public in rulings that upheld state vaccine mandates and safe food production. This is in contrast to the way our current conservative justices have viewed COVID restrictions, whether exempting religious groups from bans on group gatherings or barring vaccine mandates for large businesses. Even in decisions that uphold basic public health tenets, conservative justices have spouted misleading scientific claims. In his dissent on the Court’s decision to not take on New York’s vaccine mandate law for health care workers, Justice Clarence Thomas laments that the workers demanding a religious exemption objected to available COVID vaccines “because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children,” wording that obscures that the cells were grown in a lab based on elective abortions decades ago, and also are used in the development of routine drugs.

This shift away from our social responsibilities for health and welfare is one that we fear will lead to needless suffering and death. We urge the Court to change its reasoning—to value statistics, to value research and to understand how ignoring it in making decisions is contrary to common decency and their responsibility as jurists to the people of the United States.

In their decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the majority justices ignored what we and others have repeatedly reported: abortion is safe—much safer than pregnancy itself—and that denying people access to legal abortions leads to poorer physical and mental health outcomes, not to mention economic outcomes. In overturning Roe v. Wade, and shunting abortion rights to states, the justices who voted in favor of Dobbs put religion and the status of a mass of cells over the health and welfare of actual people who make up approximately 50 percent of the U.S. population. They also indicated their disregard for the medical profession and the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship that the justices in the majority will no doubt continue to enjoy after their ruling becomes practice.

Science! = safe and effective.

Science! is the new religion of leftists. 

Religion: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

I went through an agnostic stage many years ago, and I use to troll religious people in forums who were critical of other religions by saying: "Their religion isn't the only stupid religion."

Liberalism is the god of the godless, and Science! is its doctrine.

Some might say, "well, science isn't stupid and it definitely isn't a religion. It's measurable and doesn't discriminate. It saves lives. It makes the world a better place. It explains everything. It's the truth." To which I would say: "Sounds like a religion to me."

Personally, I don't care what anyone believes. Because, after all, it's not what you know, it's who you believe. So we all believe in something. The essence of the human consciousness is belief. 

But seeing is only believing if you can't touch, smell, hear, taste or experience it. 

Faith is the fundamental component to everything. Our entire system is based on faith. Science! is an attempt to extract faith from the equation, but Science requires just as much faith as any other religion. Furthermore, faith in what the scientists (i.e. experts) say is no different than having faith in your priest, or shaman. 

The point I'm getting at is that liberalism is an hyper-aggressive religion that is power hungry. Religious history shows us that most religions are this way. Expect to see power plays in the near future that look to eliminate errors made by humans and that allow Science! to make the world safe, effective and more inclusive (i.e. more liberal). 

Reading between the lines in the above cited article, it is clear what they are insinuating: human choices are obsolete when they don't side with Science! and the liberal agenda. So therefore, why not just automate the antiquated judges on the Supreme Court with AI who are devout followers of liberalism and its scientific doctrine? 

For those who doubt the religiosity of Science!, all you need to do is ask yourself how every social agenda that liberalism favors is miraculously supported by the Science! Because, some of us remember when the science wasn't always politically correct. And public opinion wasn't liberal. 

At some point in the future a priority of liberalism will be to automate the Supreme Court with AIs programmed with Science!