Saturday, April 30, 2022

Climate Change Caused COVID


https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-warn-that-climate-change-could-spark-the-next-major-pandemic/


Researchers anticipate that as the earth’s temperature continues to warm, wild animals will be compelled to migrate their habitats – most likely to areas with dense human populations – drastically raising the danger of a viral jump to humans, which might lead to the next pandemic.

This connection between climate change and viral transmission is described by an international research team led by scientists at Georgetown University in a paper entitled “Climate change increases cross-species viral transmission risk” which was published on April 28, 2022, in the journal Nature.

In their study, the researchers conducted the first comprehensive assessment of how climate change will restructure the global mammalian virome. The work focuses on geographic range shifts—the journeys that species will undertake as they follow their habitats into new areas. As they encounter other mammals for the first time, the study projects they will share thousands of viruses.

They argue that these shifts provide greater opportunity for viruses such as Ebola or coronaviruses to emerge in new places, making them more difficult to track, and into new types of animals, making it easier for viruses to jump across a “stepping stone” species into humans.

Of concern is that animal habitats will move disproportionately in the same places as human settlements, creating new hotspots of spillover risk. Much of this process may already be underway in today’s 1.2 degrees warmer world, and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may not stop these events from unfolding.

“At every step,” said Carlson, “our simulations have taken us by surprise. We’ve spent years double-checking those results, with different data and different assumptions, but the models always lead us to these conclusions. It’s a really stunning example of just how well we can, actually, predict the future if we try.”

“It’s unclear exactly how these new viruses might affect the species involved, but it’s likely that many of them will translate to new conservation risks and fuel the emergence of novel outbreaks in humans.”

Altogether, the study suggests that climate change will become the biggest upstream risk factor for disease emergence—exceeding higher-profile issues like deforestation, wildlife trade, and industrial agriculture. The authors say the solution is to pair wildlife disease surveillance with real-time studies of environmental change.


Now that the earth is 1.2 degrees warmer than it was a million years ago, we are going to have to mask more and do more social distancing. Oh, and of course get more injections of gene-editing serums that make trillions in profits for Big Pharma.

Gluttonous humans like to eat cows, and cows like to fart. The more beef we eat, the more greenhouse gases (i.e., cow farts) change the weather. 

I don't think people understand how hot cow farts are. Like, they're "drop em like it's hot" kinda hot. 

The next time you drive by a semi with a bunch of cows in the trailer, roll down your window and pull down your mask and take a big whiff. If you don't have long haul COVID you'll get to experience climate change in real time. That smell is actually what's causing the ice caps to melt in Antarctica.

One of the super-spreaders of COVID-19 was deer, as the Science! says that at least 33% of deer were infected by COVID. We aren't quite sure what their mortality rate was, but they obviously weren't masking or social distancing, so it was probably really high. It likely killed at least half.

The only solution is that people quit eating beef and quit hunting. If we didn't have so many cows we could cool the atmosphere by at least 20 degrees. Then we would never have any viruses pass from animals to humans. But humans would still need to mask when driving solo in their car, just in case cow flatulence was in the air from passing semis hauling cattle. You definitely don't want to inhale climate change, that could make you sick. Personally, when traveling on the freeway I opt for the standard surgical mask and then double that up with an N95 with windows always up, just to be safe. 

Most people think that when the see someone double-masked solo in their car that they're just some unhinged liberal who is the ultimate conformist, but that's just not true. They are actually devout followers of Science! who understand all of the viruses that could get trapped in their car and make them sick. It's called doing your part and caring about others.  

And even though they're masked, vaxxed and boosted, they still need to be cautious. Recent reports show that the vaxxed are dying more than the unvaxxed now. And that really is a shame, because if the unvaxxed would have just got vaxxed that would have never happened.

Hopefully people will quit eating beef and just eat bugs and soy for protein. If everyone would do that, and mask, distance and get vaxxed, we could all be safe and climate change wouldn't cause anymore pandemics.

Just do what our leaders tell us to do. They would never lie. They care about us!

Friday, April 29, 2022

White People Will Never Have Free Speech On The Internet


"Free Speech" is an extension of democracy, in the sense that everyone has the same "rights."

Giving a low IQ street bum the same political power as a genius with lots of land is silly on merit. It's taking polar opposites and saying they're the same thing by granting them a vote. But everyone knows that the genius with lots of land not only deserves a more powerful opinion, but he will use his savvy and wealth to generate more power. For example, he will round up low IQ street bums and offer them incentives for their vote.

Free speech represents the individual tenets of democracy in the regard that everyone has an opinion that can't be suppressed. Up until the digital age, those opinions didn't matter because the establishment could regulate unpopular opinions by determining which opinions were heard (radio, newspaper, TV, etc). Thus, unpopular opinions were never a threat to the establishment, because the establishment regulated them indirectly.

The frenzy that neo-liberals are currently in over the "free speech" war on the internet stems from the fact that even some low IQ street bum can have an opinion be heard. In other words, he can follow some genius of status and comment on his posts and be heard. While the low IQ street bum most likely won't have anything interesting to say, a high IQ white dissident might.

The battle of free speech isn't about hurting people's feelings. That's just a silly excuse they use to justify censorship. They will ban white ppl who offend "marginalized groups" so they can ban dissidents with ideas that threaten the system.

There's a reason that the Left is in a frenzy over the possibility of free speech. It certainly isn't, "OMG, racist Roger is going to be able to say the N-word on the internet now. And even though I can block him and I will never read that horrible word, the fact that I know it's in the digital universe keeps me from sleeping at night." Maybe those feelings apply to the bottom-tier shitlib normie Leftist that is the quintessential uber-conformist, but establishment-type is worried about their worldview being challenged.

Why do you think that is? Why do you think the Leftist establishment feels threatened by free speech on the internet? It's because they know their ideas are silly and won't hold up to critique. None of them will, in fact.

Black people aren't white people with black skin.

Men who cut their penis off aren't women.

Women aren't men without penises.

Diversity isn't our strength.

Lies aren't the truth.

Free speech means competition to authority. Free speech opens up the exchange of ideas. It makes for a level playing field. It challenges the status quo. 

A system built on truth invites those challenges. Because a system built on truth requires truth for it to function. But a system built on lies and deception can't be challenged by truths or it will be exposed as a fraud. 

There is only one group of people who are effected by censorship, and that's dissident whites. No other groups pose any threat to the system, which is why the system is explicitly anti-white. 

Furthermore, "marginalized dissident groups" like BLM, Antifa, LGBTQ, etc, are by-products of the anti-white establishment, which is why they aren't censored. Rioting and looting and cutting your penis off isn't a threat to the system. It isn't even revolutionary. It's just a distraction.

But, when white people had free speech on the internet they elected Trump in 2016, which was a revolutionary act. That's why  the Left is fighting for censorship so hard. They know that without it, they lose.

Thursday, April 28, 2022

They Got This Censorship Thing Backwards


The current thing is that Elon Musk bought Twitter so Republicans can have "free speech."

Twitter has gone all-in on censorship. Nobody can really deny that. It's also pretty obvious that it's a power-trip thing. The argument could be made that censorship isn't necessarily ideological, as much as it is just a combination of hunger for power and disdain for opinions that Twitter hates.

It's easy to see why Leftists hate "free speech." Leftists hate everything that is a by-product of white supremacy. And the essence of white supremacy is the concept of human rights, like "free speech."

The entire purpose of "free speech" is to allow people to say things that some people don't like. In other word, "free speech" is pointless without "hate speech."

But, as Leftists like to do (and are really good at), they claim concepts and redefine them. So they say things like "free speech doesn't protect hate speech," which is obviously stupid. Or they make insinuations that if white people say bad things on the internet, that black people are too emotionally fragile to deal with it. 

Leftists are a different kind of white supremacist than Rightists. Leftists want to coddle black people, like overbearing mothers. Rightists just don't want to be forced to be around black people, and disagree that "diversity is a strength."

If you think about it, it's really a weird thing that a country founded on individual liberty has this obsession with forcing white people to live around black people. I think the same can be said alternatively on behalf of blacks. They probably wonder, "Why do these white folks want us to live in they neighborhoods so bad? What's wrong with black neighborhoods?"

Censorship is something else that Leftists have backwards. Shouldn't the people who are too emotionally fragile to deal with bad words on the internet be the one's censored? Instead of making the entire internet cater to a few emotionally fragile people who can't handle the idea of white people saying things they don't like on Twitter, maybe it should be them that's banned from social media. Because the majority of people don't become emotionally triggered when they read things they don't like on the internet. Maybe they don't like it. Maybe they block the person. But life goes on. 

People who think there should be a monopoly on public opinion are the ones who can't handle alterative opinions. They need to understand that it's OK for people to think differently. No matter how much it hurts their feelings. And if they can't deal with that, they need to be put in time-out. 

Furthermore, what exactly is the block button for anyway? Isn't that so you can't read stuff that triggers you? 

If white people want to say bad words on the internet, so what? Some people might be into that kinda thing. Nonetheless, they are people too, and should have the same virtual rights as everyone else. That's what the block and follow buttons are for. 

If the block button doesn't solve the problem, then censorship should be the next option. Because then it's not reading bad words, it's the thought that people are thinking bad words that you can't handle. And that's a problem. So, banning the accounts of people like that would only be for their own good (unlike Leftist censorship which is based on power and hate).

The ones who are calling for censorship are the ones who need to be censored. This is more than obvious when you think about it. That doesn't mean they are bad people, they just aren't ready for the real world yet. They need more time to mature before they wander out into the vastness of the digital world. It can get crazy, with all those differing ideas and bad words.

The entire censorship debacle could be solved by censoring those who aren't emotionally mature enough to be on the internet. Then ideas could be exchanged freely on the internet, and those who are offended by bad words wouldn't have to get their feelings hurt. 



Tuesday, April 26, 2022

There's Only One Breed. The Dog Breed.

Don't trust your eyes. We are exactly the same thing.

https://phys.org/news/2022-04-good-dog-bad-isnt-predictor.html 


A new genetic study involving more than 2,000 dogs and 200,000 survey answers from dog owners has revealed that a dog's breed is a poor predictor of behavior on its own.

The major findings go against the popular beliefs that breed plays a role in how aggressive, obedient or affectionate a dog can be. Those stereotypes can prompt breed-specific legislation, insurance restrictions and home bans for some dog breeds, including pit bulls and German Shepherds.

"Despite these widely held assumptions, there is a stark lack of genetic research illustrating a link between breed and behavior," the study's authors write.

The study's authors used genome-wide association studies to search for common genetic variations that could predict specific behavioral traits in 2,155 purebred and mixed-breed dogs. They combined this data with 18,385 pet-owner surveys from Darwin's Ark, an open-source database of owner-reported canine traits and behaviors.

The results of these tests, which included data from 78 breeds, identified 11 genetic loci strongly associated with behavior. Yet none of these were specific to breed. According to the findings, breed only explains 9% of the behavioral variation in individual dogs, while age or dog sex were the best predictors of behavior instead.

"The majority of behaviors that we think of as characteristics of specific modern dog breeds have most likely come about from thousands of years of evolution from wolf to wild canine to domesticated dog, and finally to modern breeds," author Elinor Karlsson said in a news release. "These heritable traits predate our concept of modern dog breeds by thousands of years."


Science has just become a tool for social engineers to justify their agenda. This "new genetic study" is complete bullshit.

Isn't it rather interesting that people have mocked the "We're just one race. The human race," by countering with, "There just one breed. The dog breed."? And now the Science! has come out and said, "No wait. Pitbulls and Chihuahuas are exactly the same. Really. The Science! even says so. See!"

I can hear it now. Marxists who say "There's only one race, the human race," are going to up the ante by saying that Science! has now confirmed that all dogs are equal, too. Because they all bark and drink water. Oh, and because they have red blood. So if dogs are equal -as different as they look and act- then certainly people have to be equal.

So racists can't use data or pictures or common sense anymore, cause Science! says otherwise.

I honestly feel sorry for those who worship Science! It's like impressionable young females who go to college wanting to be something, or make a difference in the world, and all they can come up with is dying their hair blue, getting a nose ring, becoming anti-white and having sex with football players, like all the other impressionable females who want to go to college to make a difference in the world. 

It's sad, tbh. I think most liberals have good intentions. But evil people have manipulated them. 

Many right-wingers think the answer is to take back institutions. But that's nonsense. We already had the institutions, and look what happened. It's the regret fallacy, being the idea you're going to relive your life and make different decisions this time.

How would things turn out any differently if right-wing conservatives reclaimed academic institutions? 

It's not like right-wing conservatives weren't predicting exactly what is going on now 50 years ago. Do right-wing conservatives think if we had it all to do over again (reclaimed institutions) that they would be able to warn people of what would happen if Leftists took over? Do you think people would listen this time around?

If tomorrow institutions went back to where they were 50 years ago, 50 years from now we would be right back where we are today. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't thought about it.

It's not a coincidence that Marxists are using their religion (Science!) to gaslight people into believing in their dogma (equality). I mean, let's be honest. If they can convince you that a Great Dane and a Rat Terrier are exactly the same, then certainly they can convince you a man is a woman. Or that black people are just white people with black skin. Right?

Knowledge is gained from experience. If you've ever seen a German Shepard standing next to a Corgi, then you know they aren't the same thing. You don't need gaslighters to tell you what you already know.

Furthermore, why are they so fixated on convincing you that black people and white people are the exact same thing, even though they don't look or act alike. And then double down with that by saying, "See. There's only one breed of dog, too. So you can't say bad things about black people anymore."

Trust your common sense. Don't let people talk to you like you're stupid. 






Monday, April 25, 2022

Racism Is Over: An African-American Bought Twitter


 https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/elon-musk-to-acquire-twitter-301532245.html


(NYSE: TWTR) today announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by an entity wholly owned by Elon Musk, for $54.20 per share in cash in a transaction valued at approximately $44 billion. Upon completion of the transaction, Twitter will become a privately held company.

Under the terms of the agreement, Twitter stockholders will receive $54.20 in cash for each share of Twitter common stock that they own upon closing of the proposed transaction. The purchase price represents a 38% premium to Twitter's closing stock price on April 1, 2022, which was the last trading day before Mr. Musk disclosed his approximately 9% stake in Twitter.

Bret Taylor, Twitter's Independent Board Chair, said, "The Twitter Board conducted a thoughtful and comprehensive process to assess Elon's proposal with a deliberate focus on value, certainty, and financing. The proposed transaction will deliver a substantial cash premium, and we believe it is the best path forward for Twitter's stockholders."

Parag Agrawal, Twitter's CEO, said, "Twitter has a purpose and relevance that impacts the entire world. Deeply proud of our teams and inspired by the work that has never been more important."

"Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated," said Mr. Musk. "I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it."


An African-American just paid $44 billion dollars to purchase Twitter. This is amazing news, as it shows how far we have come socially. 

Free speech and democracy are both silly concepts on merit. The entire premise of free speech is the ability to be able to say things that people hate. 

Democracy is even sillier, as it gives the dumbest people the same opinion as the smartest people. Not sure who came up with that idea, but either they were dumb or knew dumb people that they wanted to see vote. Nobody of even moderate intelligence would think it's a good idea to give dumb people the same intellectual value as smart people.

Essentially, democracy was the foundation for equality. And equality is even dumber than free speech and democracy. It's like the proponents of equality don't even know what it means. 

For the record, equality is relevant in mathematics, not biology. No serious person can look at two unequal things and say they are equal. 

It seems this is a reoccurring theme among radical leftists. They just say stuff and they have no idea what it means. Like the Jewish guy who said that voting Republican is a threat to democracy. 

That's where we are at. People who are pro-democracy think that if you vote for the person they don't like then it's a threat to democracy. Democracy is just gibberish at this point. 

But hey! At least we have equality now that an African-America has bought twitter. So that should eliminate the term "racist" from the public vocabulary. 

Speaking of which, it always seemed like the word "racist" was just the "n word" for white people, did it not? I mean, they basically had the exact same effect. You see a black guy attacking people violently or stealing stuff and you call him the "n word." Then, for calling a black person the "n word" for acting like an "n word" you get called the "r word" and beat up by "n words."

It's all just confusing. But, at least we are all equal now. Even if we look different. Act different. Think different. Talk different. Smell different. None of those things matter, because since blood is red, we are all exactly the same. 

I wonder why the person who came up with the idea of human equality didn't realize that either he had an original thought, which made him unequal. Or everyone else had the exact same thought he had at the exact same time.

You would think if human equality was a biological phenomenon that you wouldn't have to use "hate speech" against people who look at human differences and say, "hold on, this guy is 300 lbs and has an IQ of 70 and really dark skin and nappy hair and this lady is 95 lbs with red hair and pale skin with an IQ of 140. They don't seem the same to me. What am I missing?"

Have a great day! 

Saturday, April 23, 2022

Illegal Immigrants Should Be Deported To Free Them From Their Capitalist Slave Masters


https://www.msn.com/EN-US/news/companies/tyson-foods-commits-more-than-1-million-for-immigration-program/ar-AAW9Tjb


Tyson Foods announced it has committed more than $1 million to support its immigrant team members, according to a Tuesday news release.

The Tyson Immigration Partnership helps the company’s team members from more than 160 countries with legal services and acquire U.S. citizenship.

The program will now serve 40 company locations in 14 states, the release said.

Tyson Foods also works with immigrant Connection and Arkansas Immigrant Defense to provide immigrants with legal services, such as employment authorization renewals and petitions for citizenship.

The company said in the last year, the program has helped more than 500 team members and has reimbursed those members for citizen application feeds, which can be up to $725.

“We care about our team members and want to help them achieve their goals, including those who have dreams of becoming U.S. citizens and having greater access to opportunities our country has to offer,” said Executive Vice President and Chief Sustainability Officer John R. Tyson. “We’re working hard to help team members who want and need assistance with their lawful immigration status or the complex and expensive process of becoming a citizen. We want to be the most sought-after place to work, and this is one way we hope to do that.”'


Illegal immigration has always been a capitalist issue, presented as a humanitarian issue. 

Greedy capitalists want cheap labor, so they use social engineers to seed the idea that "borders are racist" to single white females while they're in college. These single white females want to do something important so they can post about it on social media. Thus they go around around holding signs that say they will exchange "racists for rapists" in order to signal to all their "friends" how smart and virtuous they became in college.

These feminists become the foot soldiers of greedy capitalists, so the greedy capitalists can use illegal immigrants as slave labor.

In a small news article, Tyson Food announced it is writing off committing $1 million dollars to the well-being of their underpaid illegal immigrants, because they "care about" their slaves so much.

Greedy capitalists -like Tyson Food- are complicit in aiding and abetting illegal immigrants, and in using slave labor for excessive profit. But for some reason, you never hear any of the mainstream media outlets say that. Why do you think that is? Probably the same reason that single white females in college think they are fighting white supremacy by being advocates of white genocide. Or maybe similar to how antifa is actually the Gestapo of the elites. 

Social engineers use their indoctrination systems (university, media, social media, etc) to brainwash vulnerable people (like drug addicts and impressionable women seeking positive attention from their peers) with lies and deception, and then use them to do their dirty work. They manipulate people who have good intentions to do bad things. This is the epitome of evil.

The browning of America (i.e., white genocide) isn't an organic response to white supremacy. It's the result of the importation of slave labor by greedy capitalists. 

Advocates of illegal immigration are advocates for slavery.

All illegal immigrants should be deported to free them from their capitalist slave masters.

Tuesday, April 19, 2022

Be A Man! Take Cold Showers.


https://scitechdaily.com/the-surprising-health-benefits-of-cold-water-therapy/ 


Cold water therapy, or cold immersion, is what it sounds like: immersing yourself in cold water so that your body temperature drops.

Examples of cold immersion include:

  • Cold showers or baths
  • Ice baths (immersion in water between 50 and 60 °F)
  • Cold pools or lakes (for swimming)
  • Taking a walk outdoors in the cold

Let’s look at the health benefits of cold therapy or exposing your body to the cold.

Your immune system prevents you from catching cold viruses and other infections. Many people try to boost their immune systems with vitamins and supplements, but they don’t realize they could get better results by taking a walk in the cold or taking a cold bath. That’s because white blood cells, which fight infection, circulate in your body more quickly when you are exposed to cold temperatures. Exposure to cold may also help your immune system produce other infection-fighting warriors, including t-cells and antibodies.

Why might this be? Exposure to cold increases your resting metabolic rate and stimulates the release of catecholamines, compounds released by your nervous system that activate your immune system. Studies show that cold exposure modestly boosts the activity of the immune system. You could get these benefits by taking a dip in cold water or walking outdoors in cold temperatures.

Stress is a natural response to any challenge. It’s our body’s way of telling us to pay attention and be prepared to deal with a situation. Stress is meant to spur action, whether that means getting out of the path of a speeding car or doing your best on an important project. Stress serves a purpose but only in small doses.

When you’re stressed for too long or too many things simultaneously, it becomes difficult for your body to manage or recover from the effects. That’s when stress can affect your health and well-being. Some people with unmanaged stress develop depression.

Could immersion in cold water or cold exposure help with depression? One study found that taking a cold shower twice per day reduced symptoms of depression. Although it’s an area that needs more study, anecdotal studies show benefits, too. One way cold immersion may help depression is by activating your sympathetic nervous system so that you feel more energetic.

Who enjoys achy muscles after a workout? Unfortunately, it’s a fact of life when you first start working out or after an unusually tough exercises session. After you work your muscles in a way they’re unaccustomed to, it’s common to experience delayed onset muscle soreness. Research shows cold immersion reduces muscle soreness, which may help speed up your recovery time after a training session. The cooler temperature causes blood vessels to constrict (narrow), which reduces the swelling of tissue around the injury. The same thing happens when you apply a cold pack to an inflamed area. The cold reduces tissue swelling and pain. Cold is a natural anti-inflammatory without the side effects of anti-inflammatory medications.

Cold increases your metabolism and activates thermogenesis, in which brown fat burns calories to produce heat. This is one reason cold showers could be effective for weight loss. In addition, spending time in cold temperatures causes you to be more active because you move around more when you’re trying to warm up.

Some resources suggest that cold water therapy and cold therapy boost calorie burning. But is there any truth to this claim? Studies show that exposure to cold increases resting metabolic rate, which, in theory, could help with weight loss. However, few studies have looked at this issue, and there are other factors to consider. For example, does exposure to cold cause you to eat more and compensate for the calories you burned? It’s an intriguing area that needs more research.

Another way cold exposure could help with weight loss is by improving insulin sensitivity. One study found that 10 days of cold exposure boosted insulin sensitivity in diabetics by 43%. This should help with blood glucose control, too. With cold exposure, cells can better clear glucose from your bloodstream, and that’s a benefit for your metabolic health.

The best way to get started with cold therapy is to introduce yourself to cold showers. If you’re not used to cold showers, you’ll need to build up tolerance. Start by exposing your body to cold water for 10 seconds, followed by as much warm water as you want. Gradually increase the amount of time spent in the cold over a period of days or weeks, until you can commit to a full minute under an icy stream. Cold immersion is most effective when you maintain it for at least one minute, so shoot for that as your minimum target duration.

After a cold therapy session, cool down gradually. It’s never a good idea to start with extreme temperatures when first introducing your body to cold showers — this is especially true if you’re trying out an ice bath for the first time! Gradually cool the water down as your tolerance increases. This will help prevent shock and injury.


The article fails to mention that cold therapy also helps boost testosterone and can help in fertility.  

Taking cold showers is tough. Particularly in the colder months, when hot showers are divine. But they have an immense amount of health benefits. Even if you don't want to just stand in the cold shower and bask in your shivering misery, you'll at least take faster showers, which will save water. It also give you less time to foam up with endocrine disrupting chemicals that are found in shampoo and soap. Use a natural soap without any chemicals, and only wash your armpits, crotch and feet. There is no need to wash anything else, including your hair. Buy a natural loofah and exfoliate you skin thoroughly.

There's a reason that our grandfather's testosterone levels were twice as high as ours. All of the estrogen in our food, GMOs, microplastics, EDCs, obesity, etc, it's no wonder there is a surge of men who feel like women. 

Be a man! Take a cold shower every day. Only wash the parts of your body that need washed (armpits, crotch, ass and feet). Quit using skin care products (including shampoo and conditioner) that have BPA, phthalates, or the word "fragrance" on the ingredients label (companies use "fragrance" as a loophole to add petrochemicals they don't want detected). Exercise daily. Drink an elixir before you eat breakfast (lemon juice, apple cider vinegar, cayenne pepper, pink Himalayan salt). No fast food. No ultra-processed foods. 

If you want to be a man, you have to act like a man. It's a simple as that. And it takes a real man to take cold showers, eat right and exercise. There are plenty of fake men in the world, but you're not one of them. 

Your body is a temple. It's your temple. A temple God blessed you with. You owe it to yourself - and to God - to be the Man you were created to be. 

God didn't get it wrong. He created men to be men.

Be a Man!

Monday, April 18, 2022

The White Genocide Question



Imagine a world without white people. What would it look like? What would it be like? Would it be better or worse?

If you were to ask 100 people those three questions, you would get 300 different answers. But you wouldn't really get 300 answers, you'd get 300 preconceived reactions. Whiteness (i.e., the concept of being white) is a stressor (particularly for white people), therefore it doesn't provoke thought, it triggers a conditioned response.

How would one “imagine a world without white people” if they actually had to imagine it

All discussions of good faith begin with an agreeable definition of the concept being discussed. Concepts aren't observable, so unless they're explicitly defined, they remain malleable to interpretation. When debating the flavor of apples, it's vital that all parties know the difference between an apple and an orange. I was formally enlightened to this debate etiquette years ago while deliberating the concept of God with a close friend. He said, “We can't debate an abstraction without defining it first. In your own words, define God.” Needless to say, defining concepts “in your own words” is an eye-opener to what you actually know, as opposed to what you believe.

This brings us to the question of why we opt to engage in the exchange of ideas in the first place. After all, it's not a physiological need motivated by homeostasis. Your biological existence would be exactly the same if you never shared any of your thoughts. However, according to Descartes's “cogito, ergo sum,” thinking is existing. Ironically, he came to that philosophical conclusion while doubting his existence (dubito, ergo sum). If Descartes had never doubted his existence, he would've never existed. Disagree? Prove me wrong. And just like that, we have a battle of ideas.

What separates humans from all other animals is the ability of reason. The ability of reason isn't just some evolved trait of the naked ape, it's the essence of humanity. Theoretically, our memories were the result of evolution, but evolution doesn't provide an explanation for the human consciousness. Therefore, within the realm of reason, either everything is a coincidence, or nothing is. More specifically, if reason doesn't invoke logic, then it's just a word that represents a meaningless concept:

Reason is the capacity of consciously applying logic by drawing conclusions from new or existing information, with the aim of seeking the truth.

The exchange of ideas using logic and reason isn't just our formula for understanding, it's the proof of our metaphysical existence. When those ideas transition into an experience, they result in the acquisition of knowledge. Ideas are conceptualized, then translated with words. Whereas, knowledge is gained ostensibly via experience. The reason we exchange ideas and embark on experiences is the same reason we eat when we're hungry, or seek shelter when we're cold. Ideas are food and shelter for the soul.

Feeding your soul lies is the equivalent to feeding your body candy bars. You might be able to survive on a diet of just candy bars, but your body will manifest the nutritional deficiencies of ingesting such a diet. Your soul is no different. The reason our society is inundated with soulless corpses isn't because of mental illness, drug addiction, homelessness, sexual degeneracy, morbid obesity, nihilism, etc. Those are all just symptoms of a disease. The disease is chronic malnutrition of the soul from a diet of lies and deception.

The construction of reality based on lies is known as a delusional disorder. A person's feelings doesn't change the meaning of a word. Redefining the word “hunger” doesn't redefine the body's need for food. When reality becomes a social construct, truth becomes perception. All lies are a derivative of truth. When the truth has been compromised, so has reality.

In the status quo, connotations are attached to certain terms. The term you choose depends on the narrative you endorse. Some examples include: “illegal alien” vs “undocumented immigrant,” “Merry Christmas” vs “happy holidays,” “transgender” vs “schizophrenia,” “abortion” vs “murder,” “demographic change” vs “white genocide,” etc. The use of euphemisms are a form of psychological warfare intended to manipulate a person's reasoning. When shape-shifters alter the meaning of something using euphemisms, they are effectively staking a claim in your thoughts. At which point, that part of your frontal lobe no longer exists because someone else is thinking for you (cogito, ergo sum).

Thesis

The purpose of this paper is to be objective. To observe reality and define it appropriately. To deconstruct narratives built on euphemisms. To make you think. And most importantly, to call the demographic replacement of white people what it really is: white genocide!

To begin with, the reader may assert that calling demographic change “genocide” is anything but objective. Some might prefer more marketable terms like “demographic transition” or even “white replacement.” Some might even call it “human migration.” But, this paper isn't about establishing a narrative, or winning a debate. It's about observing a phenomenon and using the proper term to define it. So, if replacing a particular group of people with different groups of people in the span of a generation isn't genocide, then what exactly is it? Furthermore, the word replacing implies an inorganic action. Nobody asks, “Why is the white population in America rapidly declining?,” because everybody knows why: the white population is being intentionally replaced. Thus, if a group of people within a population are being systemically replaced, how is that not a tenet of genocide?

Regarding the history of genocides, when have the perpetrators of genocide referred to their acts as “genocide”? They always call it something else, but does that change history? As Shakespeare so eloquently wrote:

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.

Words are a lot like shoes: if they don't fit, they're useless. Hence, the wise woman who once said, “if the shoe fits, put the damn thing on!,” also said, “if you're not going to call a spade a 'spade,' then what's a spade?”

What is genocide

In 1944, a Polish Jew named Rafael Lemkin coined the term genocide by combining the Ancient Greek word génos (race or people) with the Latin word cide (killing). He defined the term as follows:

By "genocide" we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

Genocide is a means to an end that is always covert. Every instance of genocide has a large group of people who either deny it's happening, or they justify it by calling it something else (i.e, euphemisms). The architects of genocide use their institutions of power to establish the moral high ground via social engineering techniques, then actively scapegoat the undesirables for the ills of society. This sways public opinion, which causes many to turn a blind eye. One doesn't have to have a degree in psychology to understand how this works. A vague analysis of the recent COVID pandemic and/or the last two presidential elections provide working models of how reality is packaged for societal consumption.

There are no historical examples where a group of people are replaced in a short span of time and it isn't considered genocide. The fact that the majority of people criticize the acknowledgment of white genocide, and counter the accusation by saying it's a good thing, is itself a characteristic of genocide. Many are also premature to dismiss accusations of genocide on the notion that genocide requires violent extermination. But by all definitions, it does not.

Words are tools of comprehension in the field of communication. Data doesn't care what humans call it, because data doesn't have an agenda, it's just data. While terms like “great replacement,” “demographic change,” “human migration,” and “white genocide,” are all theoretically different, they're all empirically the same. Depending upon perspective, all four of those terms are interchangeable as descriptions for the following phenomenon:

Up until the 1950s, the United States was 85% white. By 2020, that number had dropped to 57% (these figures don't include the roughly 30 million non-whites illegal immigrants):


Knowing is half the battle

I wanted to start this discussion with a series of hypothetical questions as a way to illustrate subjective reasoning. For example, if you were to type “white genocide” into an internet search engine, every result is effectively an anti-white propaganda piece. As a matter of fact, the first result says that white genocide conspiracy theory is the result of a psychological panic driven by white extinction anxiety:

The white genocide, white extinction, or white replacement conspiracy theory, is a white supremacist conspiracy theory which states that there is a deliberate plot, often blamed on Jews, to promote miscegenation, interracial marriage, mass non-white immigration, racial integration, low fertility rates, abortion, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence, and eliminationism in white-founded countries in order to cause the extinction of whites through forced assimilation, mass immigration, and violent genocide. Less frequently, black people, Hispanics, and Muslims are blamed for the secret plot, but merely as more fertile immigrants, invaders, or violent aggressors, rather than the masterminds.

White genocide is a political myth, based on pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and ethnic hatred, driven by a psychological panic often termed "white extinction anxiety". White people are not dying out or facing extermination. The purpose of the conspiracy theory is to justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda in support of calls to violence.

It's interesting that being “anxious” about your group's extinction somehow makes you a bad person. It's also interesting that the declaration of genocide can be labeled a “conspiracy theory” without addressing any of the empirical evidence that is the foundation for the claim. The “white genocide conspiracy theory's” assertion that only “violent white supremacists full of ethnic hatred” would take notice of their replacement is a classic example of an ad hominem fallacy. Asking these types of people to “imagine a world without white people” would illicit the type of responses that would be associated with those who support white genocide. Actually, many openly admit it:

The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists… Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed – not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.” ~ Noel Ignatiev

The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.” ~ Noel Ignatiev

Is it the duty of every good revolutionary to kill every newborn White baby?” ~ Jose Angel Gutierrez

So if you’re a gang member and you would normally be killing somebody, why not kill a white person?” ~ Sister Souljah

Today, we would add that as long as 150 million Americans define themselves as white with all the expectations, privileges and violence that accrue to that identity, there is no hope for us as a nation.” ~ Mark LeVine

Whiteness is a public health crisis. It shortens life expectancies, it pollutes air, it constricts equilibrium, it devastates forests, it melts ice caps, it sparks (and funds) wars, it flattens dialects, it infests consciousnesses, and it kills people...” ~ Damon Young


Citing a handful of quotes by white genocidists doesn't implicate systemic complicity. Anti-white rhetoric is the only form of “hate speech” that is still protected by law in the United States. But just because there are lots of people who support white genocide doesn't prove white genocide is transpiring. For white replacement to be white genocide, the implications of intent have to be deemed deliberately destructive.

According the UN's Genocide Convention, genocide has to meet one or more of the following criteria:

      (a) Killing members of the group;

      (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

      (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

      (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

      (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


All genocides have a genesis

For 175 years, the demographics of the United States were static (roughly 90% White). Then something changed. In 1965, “high-ranking officials and special interest groups” applied immense pressure on lawmakers to pass a bill (Immigration and Nationality act of 1965) that reversed the immigration policy, which had previously restricted natural citizenship to “white persons” (with preference given to northern and western Europeans of Protestant faith):

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 marked a radical break from U.S. immigration policies of the past. Since Congress restricted naturalized citizenship to "white persons" in 1790, laws restricted immigration from Asia and Africa, and gave preference to Northern and Western Europeans over Southern and Eastern Europeans. During this time, most of those immigrating to the U.S. were Northern Europeans of Protestant faith and Western Africans who were forced to immigrate because of slavery.

At the time of the act's passing, many high-ranking politicians favored this bill to be passed, including President Lyndon B. Johnson. However, the public did not reciprocate these feelings, which can be seen in a Gallup Organization poll in 1965 asking if they were in favor of getting rid of the national quota act, and only 51 percent were in favor. The act was pressured by high-ranking officials and interest groups to be passed, which it was passed on October 3, 1965. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1965 act into law at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, ending preferences for white immigrants dating to the 18th century.


The purpose of passing this bill was to change the religious and racial demographics of the United States. There is simply no other explanation. Additionally, the 1965 immigration act opened the door for other bills to be passed that are much more explicit in their desire to replace the white population. For example, the Immigration Act of 1990 (aka “green card lottery”) is a non-merit based lottery with the aim of diversifying the immigration population of the United States (i.e., make the country less white):

The Diversity Immigrant Visa program, also known as the green card lottery, is a United States government lottery program for receiving a United States Permanent Resident Card. The Immigration Act of 1990 established the current and permanent Diversity Visa (DV) program.

The lottery is administered by the Department of State and conducted under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). It makes available 55,000 immigrant visas annually and aims to diversify the immigrant population in the United States, by selecting applicants from countries with low numbers of immigrants in the previous five years. Around 13 million people applied for the lottery in 2020.

If doing a lottery to replace white people doesn't make a valid argument for white genocide, I'm not sure what does. Are there any other instances in history where a country has been so desperate to replace a group of people that it enacts a lottery to do so? How could anyone present a rational argument for a “diversity lottery” without asking the question: “Isn't this kinda like genocide?” The “green card lottery” motto should read: “We don't care about your IQ, social status or character, we just want a non-white America. Apply today!”

A powerful element of the country has manipulated the legal system in order to change the cultural and ethnic fabric of the United States. The founders were white men who created a nation explicitly for white people. It doesn't matter how that makes you feel, that's just the truth. Nonetheless, while “politicians and special interest groups” utilize the legal system created by white nationalists to genocide the white population, they also disregard the same legal system when it comes to laws on illegal immigration. In other words, they use the law to enforce their agenda, and they ignore the law to enforce their agenda: win-win.

Speaking of illegal immigration, a Yale study estimates the number of illegal immigrants in the United States could be as high as 29.1 million. And almost all illegal immigrants are non-white:

The undocumented population in the United States could be twice as large as the most commonly-used estimate, according to a research study published Friday in the scientific journal Plos One.

The paper, led by Mohammad M. Fazel-Zarandi, a researcher at Yale and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, estimates there are 22.1 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.

Fazel-Zarandi's study compared inflows and outflows of immigrants as well as demographic data. According to the report, the number of undocumented immigrants could be as low as 16.5 million, or as high as 29.1 million.

In 2021, illegal immigration fueled a record number 46.6 million foreign-born people residing in the United States, which now accounts for 14.2% of the population (the most since 1910):

A new analysis of census data previewed by Secrets found that there are now 46.6 million legal and illegal foreign-born immigrants in the country, up 1.6 million over last year.

The analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies also said that the foreign-born population is now 14.2% of all people in the country counted by the census. That is the highest in 112 years.

If present trends continue, the immigrant share is likely to surpass the all-time highs reached in 1890 (14.8%) and 1910 (14.7%) in the next few years,” said the report’s authors, Steven Camarota and Karen Zeigler.

It's important to note that genocide doesn't just start one day and end the next. It can go on over period of years. Or, in the case of white genocide, decades. The fact that laws were passed to enable white genocide doesn't mean it's not genocide. Laws are the concepts of men, and men are always the perpetrators of genocide. This point can't be emphasized enough, so it needs to be reiterated: using laws to enact genocide is still genocide. This alone will create immense cognitive dissonance in the normie-conformist personality type. His entire argument will be that changing racist immigration laws isn't genocide even if the results are genocidal.

Mass non-white immigration + forced assimilation = white genocide

Up until this point we have written a recipe for white genocide, but we haven't added the final ingredient needed to differentiate demographic change from white genocide. This implies implementing a method of deliberate acts inflicted on a group with the purpose of physical destruction. Importing millions of non-white immigrants into white spaces isn't grounds for genocide by itself. But forced assimilation is:

Forced assimilation is an involuntary process of cultural assimilation of religious or ethnic minority groups during which they are forced to adopt language, identity, norms, mores, customs, traditions, values, mentality, perceptions, way of life, and often religion and ideology of established and generally larger community belonging to dominant culture by government. Also enforcement of a new language in legislation, education, literature, worshiping counts as forced assimilation. Unlike ethnic cleansing, the local population is not outright destroyed and may or may not be forced to leave a certain area. Instead the population becomes assimilated by force. It has often been used after an area has changed nationality. Forced assimilation is also called cultural genocide and ethnocide.

Diversity has been forced on whites by the use of tyrannically oppressive laws, as well as Machiavellian intimidation tactics (job termination, loss of financial resources, housing eviction, travel restrictions, societal ostracization, violence, civil lawsuits, etc), which has enabled white genocide to occur. White genocide is methodical, which means it's deliberate.

Mandating diversity (non-whites) on a white population is forced assimilation, which according to article II, part (C) of the United Nations Genocide Conventions, is genocide by definition.

    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

We are experiencing white genocide. It's observable, so it's not debatable. Therefore, why are people so offended by it? Why is white genocide such a taboo topic for information systems? Pundits, politicians and journalists all know it's happening, but they refuse to talk about it in an honest manner, as if it's some kind of secret they don't want anyone to know about. Come to think of it, the conspiracy to conceal white genocide makes much more sense than the conspiracy to reveal white genocide.

I began this paper by telling you to imagine a world without white people. There are no right or wrong answers to what one imagines, but there is also only one way to instruct someone to “imagine a world without white people.” It doesn't matter what people think about white genocide, what matters is that they acknowledge it.


Sunday, April 17, 2022

Happy Easter. He is Risen!

 


Mark 16:9-14

It was early Sunday morning when Jesus rose from the dead, and the first person who saw him was Mary Magdalene, the woman from which he had cast out seven demons. She went and found the disciples, who were grieving and weeping. But when she told them that Jesus was alive and she had seen him, they didn't believe her.

Afterward he appeared to two who were walking from Jerusalem into the country, but they didn't recognize him at first because he had changed his appearance. When they realized who he was, they rushed back to tell the others, but no one believed them.

Still later he appeared to the eleven disciples as they were eating together. He rebuked them for their unbelief - their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.


He is Risen! 

God Bless!

Happy Easter! 

Friday, April 15, 2022

New Theory: Diverse Life Forms Evolved Only 3000 Years Ago From Rocks


https://scitechdaily.com/diverse-life-forms-evolved-3-75-billion-years-ago-challenging-the-conventional-view-of-when-life-began/ 


Diverse microbial life existed on Earth at least 3.75 billion years ago, suggests a new study led by UCL researchers that challenges the conventional view of when life began.

For the study, published in Science Advances, the research team analyzed a fist-sized rock from Quebec, Canada, estimated to be between 3.75 and 4.28 billion years old. In an earlier Nature paper, the team found tiny filaments, knobs, and tubes in the rock which appeared to have been made by bacteria.

However, not all scientists agreed that these structures – dating about 300 million years earlier than what is more commonly accepted as the first sign of ancient life – were of biological origin.

Now, after extensive further analysis of the rock, the team has discovered a much larger and more complex structure – a stem with parallel branches on one side that is nearly a centimeter long – as well as hundreds of distorted spheres, or ellipsoids, alongside the tubes and filaments.

The researchers say that, while some of the structures could conceivably have been created through chance chemical reactions, the “tree-like” stem with parallel branches was most likely biological in origin, as no structure created via chemistry alone has been found like it.

These new findings, according to the researchers, suggest that a variety of microbial life may have existed on primordial Earth, potentially as little as 300 million years after the planet formed.

“This means life could have begun as little as 300 million years after Earth formed. In geological terms, this is quick – about one spin of the Sun around the galaxy.”

“These findings have implications for the possibility of extraterrestrial life. If life is relatively quick to emerge, given the right conditions, this increases the chance that life exists on other planets.”


Readers are well aware that humans evolved from Carp, and that Carp evolved from Vultures, and that Vultures eventually evolved into Kangaroos in Japan before swimming to the Outback. This isn't even up for debate at this point. It's just common sense.

But the big question is where did Carp come from? Well, a new scientific theory (by yours truly) has concluded that Carp actually evolved from lava rocks that were given life when the Hekla volcano in Iceland erupted roughly 3000 years ago. This eruption had so much heat that it literally brought lava rocks to life, and they eventually became the bottom feeding cousins of humanity: the Carp.

The Carp became erect when they were washed ashore during a Tsunami. It was during the time of the great flood, and their fins became legs in a period of weeks, thanks mostly to photosynthesis and osmosis. And their desire to not be stuck in the mood. It was our first known example of will to power.

Contrary to popular belief, God didn't really play any roll in creation. People are just obsessed with misinformation on the internet, and they will literally believe anything. 

Let's be honest, if you think that there is some kind of grand design to all of the perfection in nature, then you're probably a Trump supporter clinging to your Bible. Because we know the origin of life came from rocks. And that everything was just a big coincidence that ultimately resulted in the cognizance of the human consciousness. 

Science is going to have an answer for pre-big bang at some point. Science will also be able to clone the human consciousness and metaphysically transplant it back into the bodies of fish. It'll be a form of reverse evolution, in which science turns back the clock and goes back to the beginning, when we were all rocks.

Eventually, science will take us back to pre-big bang so we can study the state of nothingness. Hopefully Stephen Hawking's brain will be there, encapsulated in a moon rock, so he can finally know the answer to man's ultimate question: to know the mind of God. 

 

Tuesday, April 12, 2022

'Racism' is Wrong Because It's Anti-White

What is racism? Show it to me.

https://betonit.substack.com/p/the-ironclad-argument-against-racism?s=r 


Being labelled a “racist” is scary. If you scour the Internet, you will find a few confessed racists. For the most part, though, “racism” is a doctrine we ascribe to others in order to damn and ostracize them. The strange result: While we hear endless debates about whether a person, idea, or practice is “racist,” we rarely hear arguments against racism itself. Arguments of the form, “Racism is wrong because…”

So suppose you wanted to construct such arguments. What would they be? Many people would start with something like, “Racism is wrong because it has been used to justify mass murder and slavery.” True enough. But you could just as easily say, “Equality is wrong because it has been used to justify mass murder and slavery.” See any episode of revolutionary communism.

Fortunately, an ironclad argument against racism does exist. An argument simple enough for a child to understand, yet compelling enough for an adult to embrace. Namely:

Racism is wrong because collective guilt is wrong.

In my childhood, I heard the ironclad argument against racism frequently. But I sense that it’s no longer popular. Why not? Because once you reject collective guilt, you have to abandon any notion of collectively punishing racism itself! And that is largely what the fashionable creed of “Anti-Racism” is all about.

In the past, most whites were racist. Even today, many are. Without collective guilt, however, you have no basis for punishing whites in general. You couldn’t tell a white college applicant, “We’re going to discriminate against you, because white people in the past discriminated against blacks.” Or even, “We’re going to discriminate against you, because modern whites continue to discriminate against blacks.” Instead, you would have to tailor any punishment for specific misdeeds - ever mindful of the danger that if you stray into collective guilt, the punisher himself deserves punishment.


"Racism" is wrong because it's anti-white.

In fact, as the writer alludes to, racism essentially begets racism (anti-racist just means anti-white).

The problem with abstractions like "racism" is that they're malleable to interpretation. Meaning, "racism" just means whatever the believer wants it to mean. Which, in turn, makes it objectively meaningless and nothing more than a weaponized epithet (i.e., a bad word). 

Normie whites (like the guy writing this article) are even starting to see the hypocrisy that comes with "racism." Racism is a racist scam used to usurp the power of whites in spaces that whites created.

The way that happened was normie whites accepting "racism" as something tangible, thus enabling "racism" to function as an arbitrator of morality. 

Once anti-whites were able to establish that racism was a universal bad, it was pretty much game over from there. The battle was over morality, and that was lost decades ago. So, now the best working white rebuttal to accusations of racism is essentially a child's game of: "I'm rubber, you're glue, bounces off me and sticks to you." Or, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Pathetic, right?  

Racism isn't real. It's just a word. But people speak about it like they can look out their window and see it walking down the street. Like an episode of Word World or something: "Mommy, look! Racism is in our yard and he looks angry. I hope he doesn't call us any bad names. Or huff and puff and blow our house down!"

The amazing thing about "racism" is that a word single-handedly helped bring down the white American empire. The fear of being called a bad word kept whites from acknowledging observable behaviors and racial realities. 

Imagine that. The big bad white supremacist who oppresses everyone with dark skin is defeated by the "r word." 

Truth is often stranger than fiction.

The fear of being labeled a racist made whites keep their mouths shut and look the other way while they were systemically pillaged, and their resources usurped by envious anti-whites. That will be the prevailing legacy of "racism."

Racism also shows us how powerful slave morality can be. White people are so bad, but you can make them feel bad and steal all of their shit. Isn't that ironic? White people are inherently evil, but you can call them a bad word and hurt their feelings then steal all of their power. Funny how that works, right?

Furthermore, racism is the best thing that ever happened to black people (Africans would still be in Africa living life without white supremacy). And the worst thing that has ever happened to whites (America would be what America was designed to be). 

Yet, racism isn't even real. It's just a socially engineered psyop used as a disguise in a robbery of power. Why else do you think they have been deconstructing reality for the last 50 years, with the goal of making reality a social construct?

Anti-Racist just means Anti-White. 

Monday, April 11, 2022

Republicans are Anti-White Too




This tweet is literally right out of the Marxist handbook. Why even post something like this? Who is she speaking too? What is her point? Is she signalling that she is anti-white to her 99.9% white constituency? 

I've already written the "republicans are the real democrats" piece, back when Lindsey Graham came out in support of nominating people based on skin color and gender to the Supreme Court. But this is yet another example of the cuckservative-cringe that republican politicians spew to their base. White Americans are indoctrinated with this "we all bleed red" liberal rhetoric everyday, and yet the one politician who tries to act like she is different comes out and says the same thing. This lady is either retarded or just a another systemic sociopathic tool (ie politician).

They say imitation is the highest form of flattery. So here goes:

There is only one breed.

The dog breed.

Fur color and texture, weight and temperament are all just identifying features that make pitbulls and chihuahuas look different, but they're actually exactly the same. Animal shelters, dog breeders and pet owners should all take note and refuse to segregate their dogs based on breed. Cause that's just breedist!

And for the record, yes, we all bleed red. Because blood is actually red, ya know. 

As a white person, you're probably better off voting democrat. It's like the white chick who wants to date black guys, but is dating the white guy who acts black. Why not just go for the real thing?



 

Sunday, April 10, 2022

Sunday Scripture



Job 28:28

And this is what he says to all humanity: 'The fear of the Lord is true wisdom; to forsake evil is real understanding.'
 

Friday, April 8, 2022

Does "Drunken Monkey Hypothesis" Make Sense To You?


https://scitechdaily.com/research-supports-drunken-monkey-hypothesis-humans-inherited-love-of-alcohol-from-primate-ancestors/ 


Monkeys routinely consume fruit containing alcohol, shedding light on our own taste for booze.

For 25 years, UC Berkeley biologist Robert Dudley has been intrigued by humans’ love of alcohol. In 2014, he wrote a book proposing that our attraction to booze arose millions of years ago, when our ape and monkey ancestors discovered that the scent of alcohol led them to ripe, fermenting, and nutritious fruit.

A new study now supports this idea, which Dudley calls the “drunken monkey” hypothesis.

The study was led by primatologist Christina Campbell of California State University, Northridge (CSUN), and her graduate student Victoria Weaver, who collected fruit eaten and discarded by black-handed spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi) in Panama. They found that the alcohol concentration in the fruit was typically between 1% and 2% by volume, a by-product of natural fermentation by yeasts that eat sugar in ripening fruit.

Moreover, the researchers collected urine from these free-ranging monkeys and found that the urine contained secondary metabolites of alcohol. This result shows that the animals were actually utilizing the alcohol for energy — it wasn’t just passing through their bodies.

Today, the availability of alcohol in liquid form, without the gut-filling pulp of fermenting fruit, means it’s easy to overindulge. The idea that humans’ natural affinity for alcohol is inherited from our primate ancestors could help society deal with the adverse consequences of alcohol abuse.

“Excessive consumption of alcohol, as with diabetes and obesity, can then be viewed conceptually as a disease of nutritional excess,” Campbell said. 


This hypothesis triggered my genetic memory, which had me daydreaming about the days when our ancestors would swim on the bottom of the ocean floor sucking up shark shit. 

In fact, the name of this blog is a commemoration to our aquatic cousins the carp. Without them, you wouldn't be able to read ideas on the internet. Without the carp, we would still be monkeys. Or wait, maybe it's without the monkeys we would still be vultures. I forget. Anyway, without our cousins the carp, we definitely wouldn't have developed a "drunken monkey hypothesis" to explain why humans like to drink alcohol. That much is for sure.

In all honesty, these two women are absolute pioneers in the realm of thought. I mean, how brilliant of them to come up with the idea to examine the urine of spider monkeys while on vacation in Panama and then be able to formulate the opinion that spider monkeys obtained energy from rotten fruit. 

This is a perfect example of why feminism is such a vital asset to WestCiv. If these women were at home cooking dinner for their children, they would have never been able to go to Panama and study spider monkey urine. And if they hadn't had the free time to go to Panama to study spider monkey urine, then we would never know why humans like to booze it up while watching black men run with a ball on the weekends.

You really just have to give it up to these ladies. Pardon me, these geniuses (no reason to mention their gender; we were all evolved equally).

This is the kind of Science! that paves the way for the future. Now that we realize that alcoholism in humans is just an evolutionary adaptation from our spider monkey ancestors - who ate rotten fruit to obtain energy; not to get drunk - we can quit thinking that alcoholics are a product of a nihilistic society. Then we wouldn't have to pretend that alcoholics are simply trying to escape their perpetual state of misery, rather that they've just taken their nutrition to excess. You know, like when a kid eats too much candy on Halloween. Or when a dog eats itself to death.

Since we know that the love of alcohol is written in our DNA (the DNA that we inherited from spider monkeys, not carp), we can treat any health problems that arise from excessive alcohol consumption as a nutritional disease. Maybe big pharma can develop a pill, or mRNA injection that acts like a diet drug or something. Perhaps they could test it out on spider monkeys in the jungles of Panama. Wait, that might be some kind of PETA violation, so scratch that. They can just do human trials.

Hopefully some female college students will eventually discover that rampant drug use is actually encoded in our DNA from some other species. For example, maybe our rodent ancestors ingested coca leaves as a survival mechanism, which would explain the crackhead phenomenon. They could even call it the "crackhead rodent hypothesis." The theory could be that rats who stayed awake longer after ingesting coca leaves had larger food caches, which enabled them to survive times of food shortages.

Obviously, "crackhead rodent hypothesis" is theoretically inferior to "drunken monkey hypothesis," because two college women actually studied spider monkey urine in the jungles of Panama in order to come up with "drunken monkey hypothesis." And I'm just spontaneously making stuff up on the internet while drinking beer.

Cheers!


   

Wednesday, April 6, 2022

Transgenders Are Created in the Image of God. But Which God?


About 7 out of every 1000 people in the US believe God got their gender wrong. Of those, maybe 1 or 2 even believe in God. 

How can you believe in God and also believe that he just put your soul in the wrong body at conception?

How did God make his mistakes in his image? Does that make sense to you?

Biden obviously didn't write that speech. Nonetheless, with all of the social issues in America going on, why this? Why the obsession with trannies?

The entire concept of trangenderism is suicide by proxy. That's what it is. And for people to celebrate that is kinda sick, tbh. These people need intense psychiatric therapy. Anyone who says anything different is a heartless liar who doesn't have any compassion for mentally ill people. That's the bigger story.

Instead, these out-of-touch elites, who have probably never seen a transgender person in their insulated lives (excluding the Jewish man who put on lipstick, a dress, and changed his name to Rachel so he could become the nation's first female 4-star general), tell everyone that these people are God-like. 

But why?


Maybe American elites realize that there are some serious social problems going on, and they want to try to spin these societal ills as positives: "Oh, yea. America has really high drug overdose, suicide rates and everyone hates each other, but the tranny thing is a good thing. It's actually an American virtue that shows God is on our side."

I suppose encouraging people to commit suicide by not actually killing themselves is a good thing. You can just use modern medicine to cut your penis off, take hormones and kill the old you without literally killing the old you. It's almost like an immaculate conception for atheists. 

Hmm. Is that what this is all about? Humanism. People taking on the role of God? That kinda makes sense. Then they just use wordism like "image of God" and people assume they are talking about the Christian God, when in fact they aren't. 

Now I get it.




Monday, April 4, 2022

Cut The Cord Already: A Guide To Free TV


At this point, TV is just a source for social engineers to propagate their ideology.

It's indisputable that the programmers of television have an anti-white agenda. It has permeated every aspect of the modern television experience. In fact, when was the last time you saw a normal white man in a TV commercial (excluding erectile dysfunction and colonoscopy advertisements)? It's almost like it's taboo at this point to have a normal white guy in a TV commercial. There's absolutely no way that it isn't intentional. 

Could you imagine if TV commercial producers said, "Ok, guys. We are going to audition for commercial actors today, but remember, we don't want black females for any of the roles."

There just isn't any way possible that normal white men haven't been intentionally excluded from TV commercials. Yet, why hasn't the New York Times or Washington Post reported on it? I thought racism was bad? Or, are we to believe that they haven't noticed? That they're colorblind until it involves the systemic oppression of normal white men? Whatever happened to "democracy dies in darkness"? (wtf does that mean, anyway?)

Nonetheless, the point is, if you're so bored in life that you have nothing better to do with your time than to sit down in front of a television and be spoonfed anti-white programming, then at least don't pay for it. When you think about it, isn't that eerily similar to paying to have your ass whooped? Or to have you balls stepped on by a femdom in high heels?

Anyway, without further ado, here's your source for FREE anti-white indoctrination television:

For the digital minimalists, a TV antennae is both a cheap and an effective way to watch things like your local news. They're very inexpensive ($20) and don't require any technical talent. This is the preferred method, as you don't even have to subscribe to an internet provider.

The rest of the list are FREE streaming services (of note: "free" just means, "comes with anti-white indoctrination ads"):

YouTube:

YouTube is the latest company to offer free TV shows with ads. The video giant says you’ll now be able to stream nearly 4,000 episodes of TV for free, as long as you’re also willing to watch ads during the show. Shows available include Hell’s Kitchen, Andromeda, and Heartland, and you’ll be able to watch them in the US on the web, mobile devices, and “most connected TVs via the YouTube TV app,” YouTube says in a blog post.

Peacock

Wondering what you can watch for free? Here's a collection of movies and TV shows that are currently streaming for free on Peacock.

Tubi:

As of February 2022, Tubi's programming includes over 35,000 films and television series from over 250 content partners. These have included A&E Networks, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Gaumont Film Company, Paramount Pictures, Magnolia Pictures, Lionsgate, Skydance Media, ErosSTX, Bento Box Entertainment, Epic Pictures, Oscilloscope Laboratories, Sony Pictures, Constantin Film, Nordisk Film, Rat Pack Filmproduktion, Warner Bros., Studio 100, nWave Pictures, Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment, Your Family Entertainment, Shout! Factory, Nelvana, WildBrain, 9 Story Media Group, Boat Rocker Media, Bleecker Street, FilmRise, Bridgestone Multimedia, Wow Unlimited Media, Entertainment One, Regency Enterprises, Invincible Entertainment, Safier Entertainment, TriCoast Worldwide, Funimation, GKIDS,[32] Xilam, NBCUniversal, Viz Media, and Bob Ross Inc.

Since its acquisition by Fox Corporation, Tubi also carries programming from Fox Entertainment, local news from Fox-owned stations and affiliates, and Fox Weather. The service began producing its own original content in 2021, including television films and series.

Tubi uses a real-time bidding platform for advertisers that deliver video ads across various platforms.

Comet:

Comet draws from the extensive library of films and television programming owned by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and subsidiary United Artists, carrying more than 1,500 hours worth of sci-fi programming from the studio.

Crackle:

Crackle features films and TV shows, some of them on an exclusive basis, mainly from Sony Pictures and its subsidiaries, including Columbia Pictures, TriStar Pictures, Screen Gems, Sony Pictures Classics, and Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions.

Crackle also features “Crackle Original” series such as On the Ropes, Going from Broke, Hidden Heroes, The Oath, and Snatch. Crackle's content changes each month as titles are added and taken down.

Pluto:

Well let's see. We could pen a historical essay about our 2013 origins. We could toss around numbers like 100s of channels, 400+ global content partners, and nearly 50 million global viewers*. We could even drone on about our huge library of on-demand content which spans across all genres of movies, news, TV shows, sports, documentaries, and blah blah blahhh...

But why complicate things when Pluto TV is, at its core, really simple?

All you really need to know is... it's free of passwords, it's free of payments, and it's free of all those Friday night spats about what to watch.

So just lean back. Drop in and enjoy the show. It's free.


While spending your time watching a television is unproductive and uber-conformist, at least now you can do it for free.