Utopianism

The idea of liberalism is to create a utopia. It's obviously a flawed idea, in the sense that not everyone agrees on what a utopia would be like. It's like trying to eliminate all of the foods you dislike in the hopes of making everything people eat absolutely the best eating experience possible based on what you like to eat. 

Another obvious problem with utopianism is the fact that even if liberalism created a utopia, there would still be people who wanted to continue to make things better. In other words, liberalism is a perpetual mindset. The creation of a utopia wouldn't eliminate the quest for utopia. 

The liberal social causes that are being forced on society currently will ultimately destroy the society. America is undoubtedly a dying empire. And, that's what liberalism wants. Because America is oppressive and discriminatory and whatever else they say it is that makes it such a bad place... that everyone in the world wants to move to.

The ironic thing is that liberalism wouldn't even be plausible in a country unlike America. The founding fathers had a beautiful idea, but they were unable to see the ways that their idea could be exploited by usurpers (or maybe they did). 

Liberals hate America, but what they fail to realize is that what they hate about America is what enables them the right to hate it. 

It's the same energy used in the hatred of white supremacy. Those who hate white supremacy use white supremacy everyday. So they really don't hate it, they just hate that white people created it. Basically it's just radical envy. They love white supremacy, they just hate white people.

For example, people who are serious about their hatred of white supremacy wouldn't use electricity, "human rights," the English language or any other product of white supremacy to voice their disdain for white supremacy. They would go to the Congo and send smoke signals from their dunghut while barefoot. 

The same can be said about those who hate America. Like women who think they have the "right" to kill their child because white men came up with the idea of "rights." You can't say, "Hey, I hate America and the rights that come with being American, but I demand to have my American rights to kill my kid." That just makes you look stupid. 

Instead of liberalism being parasitic based on usurpery, it should try to be innovative and create concepts and societies that can be critiqued as an independent ideal as opposed to a reactionary pariah. 

The people who should love America the most are the ones who use the system to create the change they want. America makes that system possible. America is what makes individual liberty relevant. No other place before it cared about a person's feelings. 

Ultimately, the downfall of America will be the genius of  its creators (founding fathers). They were the first people to ever create a true utopia, but what we've realized is that utopias always become dystopias.

Liberalism is a reactionary critique of the American utopia.

Cardiovascular Crisis: Only 20% of Americans Are In Good Heart Health

https://www.studyfinds.org/1-in-5-americans-heart-health/

A staggering 80 percent of the U.S. population has either low or moderate cardiovascular health — meaning just one in five people have a heart that’s in excellent shape, according to a new study.

Using the American Heart Association’s new Life’s Essential 8 checklist, researchers discovered that just 19.6 percent of the country has a cardiovascular health score which the checklist considers “high.”

Meanwhile, the study of more than 23,400 U.S. adults and children found 62.5 percent only have “moderate” cardiovascular health and 17.9 percent have “low” cardiovascular health.

The Life’s Essential 8 looks at eight essential components that combine to give someone ideal heart and brain health. The measures include diet, physical activity, nicotine exposure, sleep duration, body mass index, blood lipids, blood glucose, and blood pressure. The new scale is an upgrade from the American Heart Association’s Life’s Simple 7, which did not measure sleep health.

When looking at the differences between the country’s racial and ethnic groups, the study finds Asian Americans have the best average cardiovascular health scores. Non-Hispanic White individuals had the second-highest health scores, with Hispanics (not including Mexicans), Mexicans, and Non-Hispanic Black individuals following in that order.

Concerningly, children’s diet scores had an average of just 40.6 and a miniscule 0.45 percent of the entire study group achieved a perfect score of 100.

This is shocking! Everyone knows Americans are the epitome of exceptionalism. I mean, look at how well the children are doing on their diet scores. The future looks bright.... and obese.

Luckily, Science! will find a way to give everyone pig hearts so Americans can continue their gluttonous ways. That's how Science! works: it doesn't correct the problem, it fixes it. Plus, there won't be enough healthy hearts from donors to keep up with the demand. 

And, we can't forget that if it gets too bad, the establishment will step in because they care about our health so much. So if pig hearts don't work, they'll come up with pills or vaccines. Or maybe even put something in the water like they do with fluoride that will fix our hearts, or ramp up our metabolism. Nah, that's too 20th century. They will just give everyone a mRNA vaccine that alters the obesity gene.

Diet and exercise would obviously drastically change the cardiovascular health of Americans, but there are taboo social ramifications that come with that. For example, telling black people to quit eating fried chicken is racist. Or telling a fat woman who eats too much fast food that she is "fat" is fat shaming. And hurting people's feelings is way worse than being fat with a bad heart.

It is interesting that the study was broken down by ethnic and racial groups. It's 2022, and I just figured we were beyond that. But blacks came in last place, which is certainly because of slavery or systemic racism or whatever. 

Diversity is our strength, so highlighting that blacks and Mexicans have scored the lowest on heart health makes you wonder what the numbers would look like if we excluded their data. It's kinda similar for a lot of things, tbh. Diversity is our strength, but every time it's calculated into the equation it appears to be a weakness. 

It would have been interesting to see the racial/ethnic breakdown of the 20% that have excellent heart health. I suspect the results would illustrate white supremacy or white privilege or whatever term they're using nowadays to make white people feel bad about themselves, and the Asian element would just kinda be ignored. 

But You've Already Proved You Can't Make Good Choices

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/supreme-court-goes-against-public-opinion-rulings-abortion-guns/

The U.S. Supreme Court’s new majority boldly signaled with twin rulings this week that public opinion would not interfere with conservative plans to shift the nation’s legal landscape.

The court rejected Roe v. Wade, a 49-year-old legal precedent that guaranteed the right to an abortion, after a string of national polls showed a clear majority of Americans wanted the opposite result. A similar court majority invalidated a 108-year-old New York state law restricting who can carry concealed guns that is supported by nearly 8 in 10 New Yorkers, according to a recent poll by Siena College.

Rather than ignore the dissonance, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority in the abortion decision, attacked the notion that the court should consider the public will. He quoted late chief justice William H. Rehnquist from a previous ruling: “The Judicial Branch derives its legitimacy, not from following public opinion, but from deciding by its best lights.”

The language of leftism is lying.

Although leftists control the information systems in the United States, they have had a terrible time with getting people to trust what they say. One could make the argument that it's actually worse to have control of the information systems in a society that the majority of people don't believe your information than it is to be the censored and oppressed side.

The point I'm trying to make here, is that there have been a lot of issues in society that were passed through that weren't supported by public opinion: gay marriage, school de-segregation in the south, abortion, etc. But now that it has happened with abortion and guns, it's all of a sudden a terrible thing. So everyone who has critical thinking skills reads this information and says, "hmm, it seems like they're mad or something." 

Journalism was always suppose to be ethical with the point of just telling people what happened. Saying that something is bad because a random poll says "8 in 10 New Yorkers" don't support it is just tabloid junk gossip. It means absolutely nothing.

Furthermore, the narrative is always spun to make the liberal agendas the "good side." For example, the abortion debate. Single white women have been told that it's their body, so it should be their choice. On merit, that's just propaganda that doesn't really make any sense. But if you wanted to critique that concept from a logical perspective, that result would be: "Yea, OK. But you already made the wrong choice by not being able to refrain from your sexual desires for 3 days out of the month. So why should society think you are capable of making the right choice when it comes to killing your child?"

In a society with an honest media, that would be the narrative. There would be a critique of silly propaganda, not the promotion of it.

It really isn't any different than a mentally delusional person demanding the "choice" to jump off a bridge because he has the "right" to fly.  

I've already written a pretty good piece on the abortion issue, so I won't go into it much. But it's important to understand that feminism isn't possible without abortion, which is why it's such a big deal:

Feminism can't exist without the option for abortion. Because women can't be completely sexually liberated without it. If women are held responsible for their promiscuity, then they can't be feminists, because they'll be home feeding their sex trophies. More so, they know that raising a kid on their own isn't easy, so they will look to bring in a man to help. That dynamic is known as a family. And families are what feminism is designed to destroy.

Women seem to think that men are taking their "right" to kill their child. But women never seem to grasp the concept of "rights." Where do they think "rights" came from? Do they grow on trees in the backyard? Do they become a piece of the human genome at conception? Or did white men come up with the concept when they were creating western civilization using white supremacy? In other words, the only reason women have any "rights" to begin with is because white men decided to give them "rights." The concept was based on "God given rights." Yet, these women are atheists. So, again the premise of rights was based on God and implemented by Man, but atheistic, misandrist women somehow think they should have a say in the matter.

Job 1:21 Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.

The liberal media also does this kind of gaslighting with gun control. They never, ever address the disproportionate amount of black gun violence. Or what gun violence data would look like if you excluded black gun violence. They just seed dumb propaganda that insinuates guns are the problem, and not the people shooting them. Speaking of which, the vast majority of black gun violence is committed with illegal guns. Again, it's just a really silly argument to be like, "Yea, if we made it harder for white people to buy guns legally, black people wouldn't kill so many people with illegal guns."

When you talk to people like they're stupid, only stupid people are going to listen.

 

Racism Is A Fallacy

Look, Ma! Racism is real!!!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/maine-insurance-stores-racist-juneteenth-sign-draws-backlash/ar-AAYKqKq

An insurance business in Maine is facing online backlash over a racist sign taped up in the building's window over the Juneteenth holiday weekend. "Juneteenth ~it's whatever... We're closed. Enjoy your fried chicken & collard greens," read the sign, which was seen in the Harry E. Reed Insurance Agency in Millinocket.

Imagine being so desperate to push your anti-white narrative that a sign in an unknown insurance company in rural Maine makes national news.

I ran across this on social media, and most of the comments were, "and people say racism isn't real."

If a "we're closed" sign in rural Maine (99.9% white) telling people "it's whatever..." is proof of racism, then racism is a fallacy. 

Anyone with an IQ of 80 has worked it out in their mind that only white people are called "racist." Therefore, the concept of racism itself is racist, to the degree that it's a label that is only used against white people. 

When was the last time you saw the media label a non-white person "racist"? Have you ever seen that?

When was the last time you witnessed collective anti-white behavior labeled "racist"? Has that ever happened?

It's quite a conundrum to gaslight society with a narrative that is obviously hypocritical. You can't make "racism" (e.g. notes that you don't like) this gigantic social problem, and then address the problem by being overtly racist (anti-white).

Racism begets racism.

All anti-racists are de facto anti-whites, thus making it an obvious fallacy.

Anti-racist just means anti-white.

The mantra of those who cry "racism" is: "we hate those who hate!"

Hypocrisy always has an agenda; it's either ignorance or hatred.

Btw, how is calling a white person the "R word" any different than calling a black person the "N word"? 

The Next Level: Flat Earth Documentary

Revisiting My 2022 Bitcoin Prediction

https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2022/01/2022-predictions-omnibus.html

Bitcoin will fall below $25K in 2022: Bitcoin was on a roller coaster ride in 2021, ranging from $27K to $69K during the year. The "new car smell" of BTC has wore off and all of the armchair investors who thought they were going to make millions have lost money and moved on, leaving just the HODLers. That will drop the value of the "coin" down into the $25K range, but will also stabilize it to the point that there will be less volatility in 2022. I'd also like to throw 2 pennies on the ground: I don't see BTC ever becoming the systemically revolutionary decentralized currency that the true believers foresee, but I do see it having value as a form of digital gold.

 

That prediction was made back in December of 2021, when bitcoin was around $50K.

Halfway through the year it looks like I knew what I was talking about.

Of course there is still half the year to go, so we will see how it holds up at the end of December. 

If I could go back in time and rewrite that knowing what we know now, I don't think I would change anything. If I could I would probably add that there is the possibility that it really drops. Like, down below $10K. I'm not saying that's going to happen, but it wouldn't shock me, either.

It also appears that BTC is tracking the market as opposed to acting as a hedge like gold. If that's the case, it essentially eliminates the value as "digital gold."

Time will tell.

Plastic Is A Huge Problem

Cow Farts are the Problem, Silly

https://www.popsci.com/environment/microplastics-water-filter-pollution/

Out of all the plastic that has even been produced globally, less than 10 percent has been recycled. One of the biggest environmental dilemmas with this is that plastic does not decompose, it only breaks down into smaller pieces that can contaminate soil and water. Small plastic particles between one micrometer and five millimeters in length are called microplastics; those smaller than one micrometer are called nanoplastics.

So far, microplastics have been found in water sources like lake water, groundwater, and tap water, and they likely contain the even tinier nanoplastics too. In fact, studies have identified nanoplastics in tap water in China, lake water in Switzerland, and even ice samples in the Northern and Southern polar regions. However, the full extent of tiny plastic contamination of drinking water sources has yet to be known because it is challenging to detect them, which can make it more difficult to address the problem.

Microplastics were recently found in human blood and living lung tissues for the first time, but their effects on human health are not yet fully understood. Ingested microplastic particles may cause an imbalance in the human gut microbiome, which can play a role in the development of gastrointestinal disorders like irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease. However, a direct link has yet to be established.

Regardless of any risk considerations, releasing enormous amounts of non-biodegradable, synthetic material into the environment—which results in micro- and nano-plastic particles—is not wise, says Ralf Kägi, head of the Particle Laboratory at the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology.

“Nano-plastic particles may have unwanted effects on ecosystems and human health,” he adds. “The smaller the particles, the higher the likelihood that they can be taken up by any organism and distributed, for example, in the gastrointestinal tract.”

The number of nanoplastics in water sources is expected to increase in the future as plastics continue to degrade, therefore drinking water treatment processes must be equipped to remove them.

Some studies show that drinking water treatment plants can filter nanoplastics well enough. According to a study published in Science of The Total Environment, a conventional drinking water treatment plant that uses sand and granular activated carbon (GAC) filters—the kind of filter that many water pitcher filters use—can remove nanoplastics by about 88.1 percent. The removal efficiency can increase to 99.4 percent if a coagulation process is also used.

Meanwhile, a different study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials found that a treatment process called slow sand filtration is just as effective at retaining nanoplastic particles from water sources, if not more. In this method, water is treated using a thick, biologically active layer called schmutzdecke that lies on top of quartz sand. The untreated water passes through the biological layer first, and then the layers of sand below it.

The effects of ingesting plastics isn't fully understood, but we know it isn't good, right? Can we at least agree on that, Mr Science?

We certainly can agree that ingesting plastics has an effect on the endocrine system.

We also know that there are an immense of amount of emasculated men in the world, that apparently just popped up out of nowhere. Like, where did all of these emasculated men come from? Are they just a product of social engineering? Or is it something in the drinking water?

It's ironic that the big issue for environmentalists (aka utopianists) is "global warming/climate change" - something that is arbitrary. Global warming is a cause that motivates the white saviorists. It gives them the chance to save the world. But plastic is a far bigger problem, and one that requires a lot of work and doesn't have a lot of virtue signalling potential, so you rarely see the Greta's of the world address it.

If you ever want to know the difference between a real environmentalist and a fake one you'll know by which one you hear about. The real ones that are cleaning up plastic in the ocean, or trying to regulate the plastic industry you never hear about. The fake ones are corporate shills that everyone has heard of. The ones that tell you to eat bugs and drink your poop if you want to be a good person.

America Has Devolved Into A Low-Trust Society

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/03/1102689126/uvalde-shooting-police-response

The official narrative of the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, has changed drastically since news of an active shooter at the school emerged on May 24. Authorities have repeatedly corrected official statements, after they were contradicted by new information.

"There's been a lot of things that have been said — some are correct, some are incorrect," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said at a news conference one day after the shooting. Just days later, Abbott said he himself had been "misled" about the police response to the shooting.

He wasn't alone. The shifting details deepen the pain and outrage inflicted by the tragedy in Uvalde, which left 19 children and two teachers dead, and 17 wounded. When they shared news about the investigation, Abbott and others did say their information was preliminary. But the inconsistencies rocked public faith in the police and other institutions, when people were looking to them for reliable information and accountability.

Why do tragedies come with an "official narrative"? 

Shouldn't tragedies just be tragic? 

Narrative implies spinning a story, or attempting to get the masses to react to a tragedy in a unified way in order to push an agenda. So when "Here Are The Biggest Shifts In The Official Account of the Uvalde School Shooting" is one of the top headline news stories of the day, you know the social engineers are doing some kind of damage control in which their narrative isn't the "official narrative."

America has devolved into a low-trust society, which effectively makes it the type of place that "migrants" flee from when they seek to illegally enter the U.S. for a better life. 

The establishment is in a bad spot. That's what happens when you repeatedly tell lies while calling everyone who disagrees with your lies a "liar." 

We learned about this type of behavior as children, with fables like Pinocchio and the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Trust is earned, and nobody trusts a liar.

In fact, there is so little trust in the mainstream information systems that Google has a "fact check" side bar to their headline news, which always supports the "official narrative." Isn't that rather odd, that the "fact checkers" never contradict the "official" narrators? 

Look at the top headlines for today's "fact check" section:

Those "fact checks" epitomize America in many ways. 

The average American has come to the realization that every "tragedy" comes with an "official narrative" that is usually not only contradictory to the truth, but supports an agenda.

So when tragedies become the garden of political power, it's only natural for people to question the origin of the tragedy. Particularly when the system and its "fact checkers" are known liars with an agenda.

At this point, those who still have trust in the "official narrative" are those who fully support the "official narrative" (i.e. conformists without any critical thinking skills). Like people who wear masks while driving down the highway by themselves in their car. Or those who parrot propaganda like "diversity is our strength." 

Furthermore, everybody loses in a low-trust society. It's just as bad for the liars as it is for those being lied to. Imagine having complete control of the information systems in a society and nobody believes your information. So they try to combat that distrust with heavy state-sponsored censorship, which effectively makes the problem exponentially worse. 

Trust is earned by telling the truth, not doubling-down on lies. Apparently the shape-shifters haven't figured that out yet, which means they aren't very smart. 

Flat Earth Documentary