Jan Blachowicz is the 2nd Best UFC Light Heavyweight of All-Time

I wouldn't say I'm the biggest UFC guy out there. I'm sure there are many more knowledgeable than I, but I pretty much watch every card, even the prelims and early prelims. So, well I might not be an expert, I'm definitely not just a "casual" either.

Like most fans, I have my guys that I'm a fan of. Petr Yan being one, so super-stoked to see him work his way back to being the champion. He had a string of unfortunate events (the Aljo knee, and a controversial loss to Suga) that forced him to work his way back to a title shot. While "casuals" might disagree, taking on an unknown, lower ranked fighter like McGee was a really dangerous fight for him, and he made it look relatively easy, although he had nothing to gain and everything to lose against a really good fighter (I think McGee will be a top 5 guy at some point).

Speaking of unfortunate events, nobody that I can recall has had more controversial decisions in the octagon than Jan Blachowicz. I would consider myself a Jan fan, but I wouldn't say he is my favorite fighter or anything, either. Point being that I don't feel like this is a homer/biased post whining about my favorite fighter's misfortunes.

Jan has fought everybody. Everyone he fights is an absolute killer. Just go look at his fight history and check out all the people he has fought. He has fought the who's who at 185 and 205 since 2007. 

I assume most fighters who have accumulated enough fights have a fight(s) they lost that they feel they should've won (perhaps even vice versa if they're being honest). I'm not a fighter, but I assume the mentality is it's just part of the game, and there is the motto that you shouldn't leave it up to the judges.

With that being said, if you look at Jan's last 4 fights, I just can't think of any fighter with a worse string of bad decisions against tougher competition. The title fight against Ankalaev was ruled a draw after Jan destroyed Ankalaev's leg for 3 rounds, and then Ankalaev laid on him for the last 2 rounds. He then lost a split decision to champ-champ and #5 pound-for-pound ranked Alex Pereira, in which many people thought Jan won. He then took a loss to prospect Carlos Ulberg, in a rather uneventful fight. Of the four fights being referenced, this might be the one were Jan didn't necessarily get unlucky, but I don't think anyone would have called it a "robbery" if Jan got a split decision (Ulberg outlanded Jan 75 to 59, but Jan landed a takedown; close and relatively boring fight by both men). Finally, at almost 43 years of age, Jan fought another up-and-coming contender, Bogdan Guskov, that resulted in a draw, in which Jan clearly dominated rounds 1 and 3 in a 3 round fight, but 2 judges scored round 2 10-8 for Guskov, declaring it a majority draw.

It is very easy to make an argument that Jan "won" at least 2 of those 4 fights. In my opinion, he really only lost the Ulberg fight. The Ankalaev fight was probably a legitimate draw, and he beat Pereira and Guskov. If this were the case, what would the MMA world's overall view of Jan's legacy be?

He would have 5 title defenses, including wins over GOAT's Adesanya and Pereira. In terms of title defenses, that would make him 2nd only to the GOAT Jon Jones at light heavyweight. And ironically enough, Jones moved to heavyweight right at the time Jan would've been his next opponent. I think Jones undoubtedly would've beat Jan, but everyone also thought Rousey would undoubtedly beat Holly Holm. And nobody gave Yan a chance against Merab, either. So who knows. Maybe the legendary Polish power would've cemented his legacy against Jones.

So, I'm going to say it, since nobody else will: Jan Blachowicz is the 2nd best light heavyweight in the UFC of all-time.

Tucker Recites Bob Whitaker's Mantra Verbatim

The Mantra

ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Stereotyping

Do you ever stereotype people? Of course you do. A better question is: Does stereotyping people make you a bad person? Because I can guarantee you that there is a relatively high percentage of people who think stereotyping is immoral behavior. Btw, is stereotyping actually a "behavior"?

Anyway, you're probably thinking, "What is this guy getting at? Of course we all stereotype, so what? And why does he think he knows what I'm thinking?" 

Well, obviously I knew what you were thinking, because great minds think alike. Also, thoughts are provoked by other thoughts. 

I was reading this book called The Wager. It's a miraculous story about an 18th century British naval ship that shipwrecked off Patagonia, and a handful of crew members survived and returned to England at different times. Not to go to far into the narrative, but the group ended up splitting up and at least members of 3 different groups made it all the way back across the Atlantic to England. Some took as long as 5 years to return. 

What does this have to do with stereotyping? Well, this narrative non-fiction book was comprised mostly of shipman's journals. The author then weaves the journals together into a book. The author's voice should rarely be heard. And for the most part, it isn't. Except at a few different periods within the book when the journalist's discussed encounters with "savages," at which point the author always resorted to modern SJW terminology, like "racist" and such. He always referred to the natives as "indigenous people" as (as is often with the likes, made it seem like the natives were superior to their "pale" counterparts) people of such a mindset always do. 

Now personally, I don't really care that this author used said language. The book was still a worthy read, even with his obvious biased slant. But during the times I was reading these particular parts during the book, I just knew that the author had to be Jewish.

So, the question becomes, how did I know he was Jewish? Well, because of stereotyping. The only other possible valid stereotype would have been if the author had a female's name, then I would've said, "The author is either Jewish, an overweight single White female, or both." But since the author's name was David, I could rule out the "overweight single White female."

Now, mind you, I haven't said anything negative about the author, or his views. Maybe I share the same views. But, I would speculate that a good percentage of people would immediately refer to me as an "antisemite," or whatever the term is for recognizing Jewish behavior, even though I didn't say anything negative about Jews. Furthermore, where was I wrong? My stereotype was accurate.

Ironically, the same people whom would have a negative opinion about my stereotyping of others would negatively stereotype me. I don't know what the term is for recognizing White Christian male behavior, but I assume it would be "racist" or something like that. 

So, the point is, we all stereotype, because stereotyping is the result of knowledgeable intuition, based primarily on pattern recognition, being inherently computed by the human psyche. There's nothing wrong with it until subjectivity gives it a positive or negative charge, and that charge is primarily stereotypical. 

Have an amazing day!

The Small Things

Today is Sunday, the Lord's day. This particular Sunday is the Sunday after Thanksgiving, the day of the year we give thanks. Everyday should be Sunday, and everyday should be Thanksgiving. 

Everyday should start and end with God, in the form of prayer. This is how we speak to God. And each of those prayers should start and end with gratitude to God. What you are specifically grateful for is specific to you, but what isn't specific to you is the countless blessings that God has bestowed upon you. 

It's easy to go through the monotony of life and take things for granted. Perhaps I'm just projecting here. Obviously, I'm projecting here, as these words are a projection of my thoughts. There is certainly a chance that you don't think anything like me, and have never taken any of God's blessings for granted. If that is the case, God blessed you!

I'd like to think I don't take things for granted, but even being aware that it's easy to take things for granted doesn't prevent you from taking things for granted. 

Although knowing is half the battle, response is the other half. Just because you know that you need to get to bed doesn't always mean you go to bed. 

So how do we not take things for granted? Am I asking you, or am I asking myself? 

Well, since you're not going to answer, I believe it's to start and end everyday with prayer, and express sincere gratitude for God's blessings aloud so he can hear you. Don't make God read your mind, talk to him. He is listening. After all, in the beginning was the Word.

I don't know any historical reasoning behind fasting, but I think fasting acts as a reminder of God's blessings. It's during times of suffering that we should learn to appreciate the things we have. How easy is it in the modern age to take a meal for granted? It's likely that if you are reading this that you haven't missed any meals due to poverty. You are likely well nourished. In fact, you are likely over-nourished to the point of obesity. 

I've heard it said that "to live is to suffer." But is that true? Sure, there will be some suffering in life. But I think suffering just applies perspective to life. We only realize we are suffering because we have experienced blessings and joy. We only know the dark because we have seen the light. And that light is the reflection of the salvation of our savior Jesus the Christ.

In church today, the sermon was about being aware of the small things. 

The largest fire in history began with a little spark. The greatest invention began with a vague idea. Eternal salvation came with the sacrifice of the perfect lamb. But those are big examples, what about the little things that we all take for granted? Telling your child you love them. Helping a neighbor. Doing a good deed. Everyone has the ability to make a positive impact, no matter how wretched of a sinner you are.

There's a book titled Atomic Habits that presents the idea of doing little things everyday until they become habit. Roughly 40% of everything we do is out of habit. We don't even think about it, we just do it as part of a routine. Why not try to do just one good deed everyday until it becomes a habit? I mean, what do you have to lose?  

People think they are irrelevant. That what they do doesn't matter. But they do matter. You matter! Not only can you be better, but you can make the people around you better, or at least make them feel better, even if it's just for a brief moment in time. 

Life is just an accumulation of brief moments in time, consisting of a handful of big things and a lot of little things. Statistically speaking, it's the little things that matter most.

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.

For want of a shoe the horse was lost.

For want of a horse the rider was lost.

For want of a rider the message was lost.

For want of a message the battle was lost.

For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.

And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

I hope you have an amazing day! God bless. 

Artistic Liberty

Thanks, ChatGPT

Is blogging considered an art? It's certainly creative. Or at least, should be. Thus, anything creative should be considered art. I assume the definition will be to something of that degree. Lets see:

According to Wikipedia, this is how they define art:

Art is a diverse range of cultural activity centered around works utilizing creative or imaginative talents, which are expected to evoke a worthwhile experience, generally through an expression of emotional power, conceptual ideas, technical proficiency, or beauty.

The liberating thing about creativity, is there are no rules. It's ultimate freedom. Or, at least it should be. I suppose at some point an ethical argument can be made. And I suppose at some point an ethical argument should be made. Personally, I find it saddening that ethical arguments should have to be inserted into creativity, because unethical creativity shouldn't be misconstrued for art. It should be called what it is (whatever it is that makes it something other than art). 

I don't think it is worthwhile to discuss what is or isn't art. In the modern realm of thinking, we tend to be natural deconstructionists. That is to say that everything is some kind of social construct, even morals and ethics. Those types of people, who intellectually flourish in a deconstructive state, aren't artists at all. There is nothing creative or artistic or even liberating about being a deconstructionist. It's the equivalent of, "What is reality? Show it to me!"

I write because I like to write. Sometimes I have something cool to say, a lot of times I don't. But what's cool is that it doesn't matter what I think, it's what the reader thinks that is relevant. I could write the most amazing sentence ever produced by Man, but how many people would have to agree for that to be true?

People are sheeple. Do you agree? If not, does that make me a liar? A fraud? Manipulative? Or just an artist with a different perspective than you? 

What is reality? Show it to me!

Can you? 

To be able to sit here at my computer and translate random thoughts into written word is truly remarkable. Do you agree? Have you ever done it? 

I can sit here and my fingers rapidly type letters that formulate the thoughts for which I am trying to present to you - the reader - even though I don't know you. Why would I care what you think? More importantly, why would you care what I think?

This brings us back to artistic liberty. Does art need to be appreciated in order to be liberated? What if there is 100% human consensus that my art isn't creative? What would I be labeled then? And what if I disagree with said label? Who is right, and who is wrong?

Now, don't get all philosophical on me and say that observation is dependent upon the observer, cause then that means that truth is perception, does it not?

The world is a wonderful place. But what if you disagree? What if you think the world is a hellhole?

Do your ideas matter more than mine?

Basically what I'm asking you is this: If observation is dependent upon an observer, does reality depend on perception?

I hope you have an amazing day, even though I have no idea who you are. Is that insincere? What if I knew you and didn't like you? Would I really want you to have an amazing day?

Art is liberating.

Happy Thanksgiving 2025

Another year passes, and another year of blessings. Life is a blessing. Regardless of our circumstances, we should count our blessings. This ride will be over one day. 

Who am I writing to? Obviously, to you, the reader. But more specifically, the future. Or, history. 

The Word is immortal, men are not. Well, perhaps the soul is, but the body isn't.

Ideally, some familial lineage will stumble across this in the technologically enhanced future and will know some of the thoughts of their distant relative. Maybe in some kind of simulation theory hypothesis scenario. Maybe we are currently in some kind of simulation theory hypothesis theory scenario. Although "the science" recently used mathematics to debunk simulation theory. 

“It has been suggested that the universe could be simulated. If such a simulation were possible, the simulated universe could itself give rise to life, which in turn might create its own simulation. This recursive possibility makes it seem highly unlikely that our universe is the original one, rather than a simulation nested within another simulation,” says Dr. Faizal. “This idea was once thought to lie beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. However, our recent research has demonstrated that it can, in fact, be scientifically addressed.”

“We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity,” says Dr. Faizal. “Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone. Rather, it requires a non-algorithmic understanding, which is more fundamental than the computational laws of quantum gravity and therefore more fundamental than spacetime itself.”

“Drawing on mathematical theorems related to incompleteness and indefinability, we demonstrate that a fully consistent and complete description of reality cannot be achieved through computation alone,” Dr. Faizal explains. “It requires non-algorithmic understanding, which by definition is beyond algorithmic computation and therefore cannot be simulated. Hence, this universe cannot be a simulation.” 

 “Any simulation is inherently algorithmic—it must follow programmed rules,” he says. “But since the fundamental level of reality is based on non-algorithmic understanding, the universe cannot be, and could never be, a simulation.”

So, there you have it. We are definitely not living in a computer generated simulation, because "the science" says so. 

Nonetheless, yours truly has been reading some books from the 18th century. Back when men were men. Specifically books focused on the trials and tribulations of the British navy. To reflect on history just some 250 years later, and see the evolutionary de-evolution of Mankind is quite intriguing, to say the least. I can't imagine what futuristic historians will think when they read the writings of Hewitt E. Moore and his contemporaries. Will we be viewed as the prototypical Man in the same way men of the 21st century look upon 18th century Europeans?

The men of the 21st century are feminized, dopamine junkies, whom couldn't stand the stench of the dirty undergarments of an 18th century British Naval seaman, let alone walk an hour in his boots.

Supposed that history continues on the currently trajectory, if you, dear reader, can't walk an hour in the comfortable shoes of a man from the 21st century, I go so far as to predict that men have gone extinct all together. 

So on the Thanksgiving 2025 day, a thankful prayer is sent to God. 

Now I leave you with a poem of times gone, when men were men, before they're gone: The Castaway by William Cowper

 

Obscurest night involv'd the sky,

         Th' Atlantic billows roar'd,

When such a destin'd wretch as I,

         Wash'd headlong from on board,

Of friends, of hope, of all bereft,

His floating home for ever left.

No braver chief could Albion boast

         Than he with whom he went,

Nor ever ship left Albion's coast,

         With warmer wishes sent.

He lov'd them both, but both in vain,

Nor him beheld, nor her again.

Not long beneath the whelming brine,

         Expert to swim, he lay;

Nor soon he felt his strength decline,

         Or courage die away;

But wag'd with death a lasting strife,

Supported by despair of life.

He shouted: nor his friends had fail'd

         To check the vessel's course,

But so the furious blast prevail'd,

         That, pitiless perforce,

They left their outcast mate behind,

And scudded still before the wind.

Some succour yet they could afford;

         And, such as storms allow,

The cask, the coop, the floated cord,

         Delay'd not to bestow.

But he (they knew) nor ship, nor shore,

Whate'er they gave, should visit more.

Nor, cruel as it seem'd, could he

         Their haste himself condemn,

Aware that flight, in such a sea,

         Alone could rescue them;

Yet bitter felt it still to die

Deserted, and his friends so nigh.

He long survives, who lives an hour

         In ocean, self-upheld;

And so long he, with unspent pow'r,

         His destiny repell'd;

And ever, as the minutes flew,

Entreated help, or cried—Adieu!

At length, his transient respite past,

         His comrades, who before

Had heard his voice in ev'ry blast,

         Could catch the sound no more.

For then, by toil subdued, he drank

The stifling wave, and then he sank.

No poet wept him: but the page

         Of narrative sincere;

That tells his name, his worth, his age,

         Is wet with Anson's tear.

And tears by bards or heroes shed

Alike immortalize the dead.

I therefore purpose not, or dream,

         Descanting on his fate,

To give the melancholy theme

         A more enduring date:

But misery still delights to trace

   Its semblance in another's case.

No voice divine the storm allay'd,

         No light propitious shone;

When, snatch'd from all effectual aid,

         We perish'd, each alone:

But I beneath a rougher sea,

And whelm'd in deeper gulfs than he. 

God bless! 

Poland for the Poles

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15323739/Polish-MP-declares-Poland-Poles-not-Jews-speech-outside-Auschwitz-sparking-fury.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

A hard-right Polish MP has declared that 'Poland is for Poles, not Jews' in a sickening and inflammatory speech outside Auschwitz. 

Grzegorz Braun, the head of the Confederation of the Polish Crown party, compared promoting Jewish life in Poland to 'inviting Hannibal Lecter to move in next door', 

The 58-year-old, who has long been accused of anti-Semitism, added: 'Jews want to be super-humans in Poland, entitled to a better status, and the Polish police dance to their tune'.

Being neither Polish, nor Jewish, I have no dog in this fight. But just because you don't enslave dogs doesn't mean you are deaf to their barking.

I'd like to think I could unbiasedly report on the comment made by the Polish MP without using words like "sickening" to analyze the subject matter subjectively. After all, nobody cares what Perkin Amalaraj thinks, news-seekers just want to read the news. Folks tune in to blogs like this one to get opinions.

I'd like to pride myself as an objective thinker. I don't want to tell you what to think, you can tell yourself what to think. And if you can't, hopefully Perkin Amalaraj isn't telling you what to think. Cause that would mean you don't really have any thoughts. 

So, objectively speaking, why is it "sickening," or wrong in anyway, that Poland should be a nation for the Polish people? Jews have a nation for Jewish people. Wait, now that I think of it, isn't Israel the only ethnostate on the planet earth? Yea, I believe that is so. 

So, from my unbiased perspective, if Poland being an ethnostate for Polish people is "sickening," then Israel being for Jews should be "sickening" as well, right? If I'm wrong, fell free to correct me in the comments, cause I'm not trying to be "sickening," just logical. Sometimes we just can't see the forest through the trees.

As far as living with Jews being comparable to living with Hannibal Lecter, I'm not sure what that analogy means. Is MP Braun insinuating that Jews are parasitic? Perhaps that they feed off their host? Not sure what he is getting at there, as, again, I'm not Jewish, so I'm not aware of the antisemitic tropes that permeate the psyche of political persuasion, which is what all "sickening" rhetoric is.  

Basically it comes down to a group of people wanting their nation to be an ethnostate, that excludes a group of people who already have an ethnostate. Am I missing something?

God bless!

Whom Did Satan Give Authority of the World to?

Luke 4:5–7 (NKJV): 5 Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.”

Scripture says the devil was a liar from the beginning, and is the father of lies (John 8:44), but how do we know that Satan was lying to Jesus? Scripture also plainly states that man should not love the world or anything in it (John 2:15).

The point isn't to determine if Satan was lying to Jesus about his authority to give the world to whom he pleased, rather to wonder whom he gave the world if he did have such authority.

Thoughts?

Moralizing White Nationalism

I stumbled into White Nationalism circa 2006. There wasn't any particular happenstance that resulted in my interest, I just always seemed to inherently find myself viewing an increasingly diverse society through a racial lens.

Perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions about White Nationalism on an individual level is that it's a reactionary position based on causation, due to either multicultural victimization, or being seduced by some form of antiquated, familial indoctrination. Of course this isn't a coincidence, it's a socially engineered ad hominem fallacy used to deter Whites from being pro-White: “Oh, you're a 'racist,' did you get assaulted by a black guy, or was your grandpa in the KKK?” An unprovoked worldview in support of White homogeneity is implausible reasoning within the conformity guidelines of the status quo.

Due to the perpetual onslaught of anti-White propaganda that has flooded the Western conscious via the subverted information systems over the last 60 years, the concept of White people wanting to be racially exclusive triggers immense cognitive dissonance within the average person's psyche. The argument can be made that “diversity is our strength” and “we all bleed red” have replaced “land of the free” and “home of the brave” as characterized mantras of neo-Americanism.

Personally speaking, my journey into White Nationalism began after an internet search of a local politician accused of doing a racism directed me to the forum Stormfront. Mind you, this was long before search engine censorship attempted to manipulate people's curiosities algorithmically. Therefore, interest on a variety of topics could lead one to such a website and ultimately pique their curiosity into the foundational ideology of the platform (hence the reason for censorship years later). I've personally known people who had very little interest in race who became race realists after their interest in pantheism and Nietzsche resulted in Google sending them to Stormfront as well.

Furthermore, up until that point, I had this media-induced stereotype ingrained in my mind that these “White Nationalists” were just a bunch of dumb skinheads and rednecks with a collective IQ of 78. Instead, what I quickly learned was that White Nationalism was a byproduct of intellectualism, motivated by the quest for unadulterated truth. Of course, like all intellectual movements, many of these people were eccentric, anti-social personality types, but that was the stage of the game at that point in time. It was the exchange of ideas that was needed to pave the way for future generations by seeding propaganda in support of an existential ideology that was forged with group survival in mind.

In those days, White Nationalism was a thinktank, not a movement. In fact, way back in January of 2014 I had my first paper published on Occidental Observer titled Is White Nationalism Real?, based on the premise that White Nationalism was just the exchange of ideas on the internet:

Theoretically, White Nationalism is the political ideology supporting the formation of a homogeneous state or “homeland” for the White race. Although the definition might vary somewhat, the concept is universally consistent. Obviously the philosophy is real, but is the movement endorsing the dogma a reality? Is White Nationalism figurative terminology in efforts to make the ideology more socially acceptable (i.e. “I’m a White Nationalist, not a racist”), or is it an actual movement?

I was somewhat jaded, because it seemed like all anyone wanted to do was argue on the internet about things that had been argued about a thousand times already. You couldn't even convince anyone to meet you for a beer. I couldn't see the forest through the trees. I was naive to the systemic consequences involved with revolutionary ideas, and the fear of social ostracization that made a lot of people really paranoid. And after reading books like Hoffer's The True Believer, I developed a better understanding of the psychology behind the personality types that were attracted to fringe movements. It takes a certain kind of person to be “racist” in an explicitly anti-racist world.

In the conclusion of my paper, I posited that White Nationalism wasn't “real” because it hadn't been experienced:

In conclusion, the term “real” is defined as having actual physical existence. With a very few minor exceptions, the White Nationalist movement would be better defined as a hobby of like-minded idealists. The reality of an all-White homeland in the foreseeable future (in America) is comparable to finding the end of a rainbow….

“Nothing ever becomes real until it is experienced” ~ John Keats

Hindsight is always 20/20. If you had told me back then that the political landscape would be what it is today, I'd probably accuse you of lying. I remember having a conversation with a Bob Whitaker disciple around that time period, and I asked him to give me an optimistic forecast for where he would like to see us in 10 years. He said, “If the mainstream media is using our talking points and terminology, that would be big. If they just referred to us as 'White Nationalists' or 'pro-White' and we can defeat their term 'racist,' that would be a huge victory.” He was one of those guys who would just go around repeating “anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white” to anyone who would listen. The term “racist” has definitely lost its sting, mostly because I think people have slowly realized that the “R word” is just the “N word” for White people.

I seldom write these days. Maybe one piece a year. I'm not very ingenuitive, and when you're an “oldhead” like me, a lot of dissident discourse becomes redundant. But occasionally something will spark the creative juices, and I'll dust off the keyboard and spend a day pecking away. Case in point, Counter Currents recently published an article titled Alt-Right Nostalgia that was an enjoyable and rather reminiscent read. The author touched on some things that I've discussed in this paper, and consequently instigated a personal pause for reflection:

Occasionally, I miss the romance of fighting a battle against seemingly impossible odds. The movement is in a different phase. We’ve won the debate and our ideas have conquered the internet. In a way, the fun part is over. The road ahead to the next level is going to involve some mundane normie politicking that requires engaging with the system and a long march through the GOP.

He references the romantic age of the Alt-Right era of 2016-2019. Those were certainly fun times to be involved in dissident politics. Lots of street activism. Tons of entertaining podcasts and digital media content with very little censorship. And for the first time since my involvement, the adage “getting White Nationalists together is like herding cats,” didn't apply. There was an aroma of optimism in the air.

This Dissident Right, or whatever we shall have to call ourselves now, was founded by political theory nerds who arrived at White Nationalism after a long ideological journey. “I started out as a normie conservative, then read Atlas Shrugged and was a libertarian for a few years. I was into Moldbug for a little while and then got redpilled on race after watching some Molyneux videos. Then I found Jared Taylor and here I am.”

While many probably see that bygone era as the catalyst for the mundane march politicking through the GOP that lies ahead, I personally rewind back further to those early Stormfront days as the formative years that paved that ideological road for future success (I assume those before me are going to rewind it back further, before the internet). You never really know what is going to become relevant, and what's not. So many of those ideas that were so passionately debated at the time ended up being completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. You can draw up the perfect societal system on paper, but until the unpredictable variant (humans) is inserted into that equation, you don't know what the question will be. This has always been the argument for and against communism. When faced with the atrocities of communism, communists always point out that “true” communism has never actually been implemented.

It's so crazy to see some of those talking points that nobody knew anything about 20 years ago be used in the mainstream today. Those big-brain political theory nerds, like Bob Whitaker and Horus, used to preach about the importance of staying on a consistent message, and how propaganda typically took about 15 years to have an impact on public opinion. Our side was playing 4D chess long before that term became popularized in 2016. Nonetheless, intellectual movements just provide the ideological framework necessary to nudge the pendulum of power. At some point, conclusions are reached when the variants of unpredictability become known, and that intellectual candle slowly burns out. As the writer of the Alt-Right Nostalgia piece accurately points out, dumbing down is an unavoidable part of the mainstreaming process:

That said, I also remember the bad times of the Alt Right. The sociopaths and constantly having to run cover for the latest self-inflicted PR disaster. After having been in the game as long as I have, I’ll take the boring but stable normiefied Dissident Right of today over interesting yet volatile counter-culture era Alt Right. Being edgy was fun but I’m ready to be a normie now. The whole mission was to get the ideas to this point.

But to be honest, yes, something has been lost in the mainstreaming process. In many ways, the level of intellectual discourse has dropped since back in the good old days. There have been rumblings about “low-IQ antisemitism.” That might mean different things to different people. Sometimes the term is used disingenuously and sometimes it’s referring to a real phenomenon that might or might not be a serious issue. It’s normal to accuse your factional rivals of being a dumb version of what your faction believes. Still, it is deniable that the level of discourse in the right-wing ecosphere has dropped a grade or two. Going from Kevin McDonald to Lucas Gage is a step down intellectually. Science-heavy Human Biodiversity stuff has become less fashionable, and the leading influencers are less dynamic thinkers than back in the day. I don’t think it is an unreasonable critique to say that the scene has gotten dumber.

Some of the dumbing down may be an unavoidable part of the mainstreaming process. Some of it is not. Some of it we might be able to remedy and some of it we simply cannot.

“The whole mission was to get the ideas to this point,” is the perfect summation of pre-2020 White Nationalism, and dissident politics in general. The exchange of ideas is over. There were certainly lots of pessimistic times during that period. Honestly, you pretty much had to be a pessimist to even get involved in White Nationalist politics pre-2016. But the good thing about pessimism is it reduces expectation. It has been said that happiness is results minus expectation. And demoralization is usually the result of failed expectations.

When I embarked on my intellectual journey I was already college educated, but I never really learned anything meaningful until I dove head first into White Nationalism. And that isn't to say I just learned how to regurgitate White Nationalist ideology, I learned philosophy, psychology, political theory, science, genetics, theology, human biodiversity, the JQ, economics, geography, migration patterns, finance, etc, which all supported the morality of my worldview. I could count the number of books I had read on two fingers, and my writing skills were elementary at best. I became an accomplished writer and have read hundreds of books. I lived in a very diverse metropolis, and relocated to a predominately White rural area. I fathered White children. I adhered to a pro-White code of conduct. It's highly improbable that any of these things would have happened had I not become interested in White Nationalism. To say that White Nationalism hasn't had a profound impact on my life would be a drastic understatement. I was (and still am) a true believer that White people should have the right to self determination.

Wise Old Owl

The Prophet Habakkuk

Habakkuk 2:18 What profit is an idol when its maker has shaped it, a metal image, a teacher of lies? For a maker trusts in his own creation when he makes speechless idols!

God's 1st commandment is Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20:3)

As Christians we should always put God first. 

Many think of statues or other inanimate objects when they consider God's 1st commandment, but anything/anyone can be your God.

What/Who do you worship?

All glory be to God, the one true God. The creator. The one who sent the perfect sacrifice for his imperfect creation so he could remarry his people and keep the covenant with his elected bride.

God's grace is sovereign. We must pray that before we entered the womb he chose to have grace upon our soul.

All glory be to God!

Crypto-Eugenics

All effective socially engineered programs are designed to be multifaceted in order to appeal to a diverse set of perspectives. The goal of social engineering isn't to establish the moral high ground, or to only attract the true believers, but rather to manipulate the attitudes of people on a large scale. There are several examples of social engineering that could be referenced to illustrate the point, but one of the best is illegal immigration.

The catalyst driving illegal immigration is capitalism (max profits via cheap labor). Thus, greedy capitalists fund the social engineers who “muddy the waters” by putting various “baits” in the cultural sphere in order to politically and morally polarize an issue that at the causative core essentially has nothing to do with either politics or morality. But if you were to talk to the average American about the illegal immigration issue, you would get some version of divisive tripe, such as, “Democrats are importing voters. Build the Wall!,” or “Borders are racist! Everyone has a right to be an American.” Meanwhile, there are 30 million illegal immigrants, sanctuary states, $150 billion per year in welfare and social services for illegal immigrants, unprecedented demographic change (88% white in 1970s to 57% white today) and citizens are left scratching their heads trying to figure it all out. They end up hashing it out on social media platforms, arguing about whether or not “White people stole America from the Indians,” or if “Democrats are the real racists,” instead of the fundamental causation. That's social engineering 101.

Another rather obvious example of systemic social engineering is the promotion and endorsement of the transgender/homosexual movement. Back in 2017, at the beginning of the transgender era, I wrote a piece titled The Trans/Sociopath Overlap, in which I presented the hypothesis that there was a large overlap between transgenders and sociopaths:

When you consider that homosexuals and sociopaths represent roughly the same percentage of the population (about 2% of the U.S. population is homosexual), and exhibit many of the same personality traits and characteristics (narcissism, high suicide rates, Machiavellian, disregard for personal safety, etc) it's almost analytically impossible to ignore the possibility that there may be a huge overlap between the two groups. In fact, the majority may be one in the same. This observation led me to pose the following hypothesis: All sociopaths are LGBTQ, and most LGBTQ are sociopaths.

It goes without saying that sociopaths are generally bad for a society (although from an evolutionary standpoint sociopathic traits have a reproductive advantage). Sociopaths transitioning into transgenders eliminates that reproductive advantage, and could drastically decrease the number of sociopaths in future generations. I'm not the only one who knows this, people in positions of power are aware of this too.

Interestingly, Google deleted that piece from its original publication source several years after it had been published, which highlights the depths of the systemic collusion that is mandatory for the regulation of nonsensical ideas (modern day book burning). Dissenters who refuse to conform to the new truth are censored, slandered and accused of “spreading misinformation.” That means they really don't want any negative opinions or views to be accessible to the public, even though it's blatantly obvious to pretty much everyone that individuals with their souls “trapped” in the wrong body are experiencing a permanent out-of-body experience. If you were permanently trapped in your neighbor's house, painting the outside a different color doesn't magically make it your house.

Furthermore, if you were to be examined by a medical professional and you said you were a specific person trapped in the wrong body (e.g. “I'm John Lennon trapped in Jane Doe's body.”), you would be institutionalized immediately (or at the very least, diagnosed with mental illness and heavily medicated). But as long as the person being held hostage in the wrong body is just the wrong gender, then that's perfectly understandable. The hostage negotiators (doctors) get called in, and once the ransom is paid, they cut the penis off to liberate her soul. Never mind the fact that every honest doctor knows that scalpels don't cure psyche issues, instead it actually exasperates psychological distress:

So-called "gender-affirming surgery" could lead to potentially dangerous mental health effects, a new study has found.

Transgender individuals face "heightened psychological distress," including depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation, "partly due to stigma and lack of gender affirmation," as stated in the study, which was published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine.

They determined rates of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation and substance-use disorders were "significantly higher" among those who underwent surgery, assessed two years later.

Males with surgery had depression rates of 25% compared to males without surgery (11.5%). Anxiety rates among that group were 12.8% compared to 2.6%.

Just as with the illegal immigration issue, the “powers that be” aren't ignorant to reality. While collectively many pretend to be, individually they know the same thing that you and I know: transgenders are schizophrenics and homosexuals are sexual deviants. Therefore, the question becomes: Why do they enable and promote LGBTQ if it isn't a positive for society? The answer to that question is that it does do something positive for society. LGBTQ is a state-sponsored eugenics psyop (cryptoeugenics) designed to bring undesirables out of the closet, and consequently, out of the gene pool.

The innovation of modern medicine has allowed seeds the were to have never sprouted to bear fruit (IVF, fertility surgery, artificial insemination, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, etc). And not only due to leaps and bounds in the medical field, but the massive decline of war and famine, along with the luxuries of modern civilization, have eliminated most of the evolutionary pressures associated with natural selection. These by-products of modernity, combined with technological advancements like automation and AI, are doing the same thing to the human workforce that the cotton gin did to slavery. In other words, kings don't need armies, factories don't need workers and the family farm doesn't need twelve kids to operate.

It's important to note that there's a fine line between the correlation of eugenics and depopulation theory. While eugenics (the aim to improve the genetic quality of the human population) and depopulation theory (the aim to reduce the human population) may on the surface seem to be mutually exclusive, they are not. Rather, when merged, they are mutually inclusive. Those in power who are responsible for the social engineering taking place are both eugenicists and depopulationists. To be more precise, cryptoeugenics is the practice to both better the stock and decrease the population simultaneously (quality > quantity).

There are a plethora of reasons behind the motivations for depopulation. Towards the end of the COVID pandemic, I wrote a rather extensive depopulation thesis titled Depopulation for Dummies, that was published on several notable sites, in which I elaborated in great detail on the motivations for depopulation by elites. In the midst of doing so, I developed the following thesis using the Hegelian Dialectic (problem, reaction, solution):

The PTB have scientifically reached the conclusion that human overpopulation has placed the planet in an existential crisis. They’ve determined that if drastic population control measures aren’t enacted soon, irreparable damage to the planet and its ecosystem is inevitable. They intend to address this issue in three phases: 1. Socially-engineered sterilization, 2. Technological escapism, 3. Space Emigration. We are in Phase 1 and on the verge of entering Phase 2.

Before you pass off depopulation as some cooky conspiracy theory, I highly encourage you to read the piece. Not as a solicitation of my work, but because I quoted at least 15 very powerful elites who are on record making statements regarding overpopulation. Including one of the world's richest men, Jeff Bezos, who founded a company called Blue Origin, in which he predicted that earth will soon become a nature reserve.

Amazon Founder and space explorer Blue Origin owner Jeff Bezos, recently forecasted that Earth will soon become a “natural resort.”

According to a WION report Bezos said, this planet will soon turn into a natural resort because only a few “will be allowed to stay here in the future.”

During the annual Ignatius Forum in Washington DC, the billionaire also said, the Earth is special and “we cannot ruin it.”Talking about Blue Origin, his new firm, Bezos explained the experts are aiming to make sure that millions of people get to not only work in space but be born and call space as their first home, as well.Bezos also explained millions of people will move from Earth to space over time. More so, it is the vision of Blue Origin to make millions of people work in space.

For hundreds of years, he added, most, or many of the people “will be born in space.” It will be these humans’ first home. More so, they will be born in these colonies, not to mention, they will live in such colonies.

These people may visit this planet the way one would visit a national park, forecasted Bezos. He believes the space colonies in the future will have forests, wildlife, and rivers of their own, a similar Republicworld.com report said.

Describing his prediction, Bezos said this planet can support, for example, 10 billion people to a certain level. He elaborated they’d have to work quite hard to find out how to do that without degrading the Earth. Ge added the solar system can “support a trillion people.”Even though the billionaire is relatively positive about taking humanity to space and keeping this planet for a selected few, he was uncertain about claiming who is to decide who’s staying on this planet.

The collaboration of eugenics and depopulation is self-evident when viewed through the lens of motivation. All social movements of relevance require motivation. This is why AI will never take over the world: it lacks the innate sense of motivation to do so. Even the most elementary analysis of the establishment's promotion of LGBTQ should reveal that it's something way more sinister than a love for sodomy and schizophrenia. When the emotional charge is extracted from the equation, the only tangible sum of the rainbow pride initiative is negative birth rates.

Certainly there are other arguments to be made regarding the establishment's endorsement of LGBTQ. It's definitely not a accident that the rainbow is their banner, and “pride” their mantra. In the Bible, the rainbow serves as a visible reminder of God's covenant to preserve life on earth (Genesis 9:8-11). And even those who don't know scripture are aware that anti-pride is one of the central themes of the Bible, illustrated explicitly in the proverb, “Pride goeth before destruction...” (Proverbs 16:18). The irony itself is so overwhelming that the cognitive dissonance leaves you analytically cross-eyed. To the objective observer, this alone should clue you in that something is going on behind the scenes that doesn't translate into, “We don't have any ulterior motives, we just love gay people because they're gay.”

Of course, there is a spiritual component to this. It's not a coincidence that there is a mockery of Christianity within a sect of the establishment. The blasphemers have their own agenda (they hate Jesus Christ). There's obviously an element of truth to that. Just as there is an element of truth that some of those who are in favor of illegal immigration support white genocide. As I stated previously, this is an example of sound social engineering. The issue is polarized emotionally and packaged as a badge of honor for the recipient to pin proudly on their chest for all to see. It wouldn't be social engineering if there wasn't a smoke screen. The peasantry would understand that greedy capitalists are responsible for lower wages, higher taxes and white genocide. And LGBTQs would realize that they're being gaslighted into not reproducing, in what is essentially a modern day MK Ultra experiment using homosexuality practices as birth control in place of psychoactive drugs to illicit confessions during interrogations.

The science has concluded that sexuality is fluid. Therefore, contradictory to the accepted idea that sexual orientation is genetic, LGBTQ is a sexual behavior directly attributed to an individual's free will.

Research indicates that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice but rather a combination of genetic and biological factors. For instance, studies have shown that there are genetic markers associated with sexual orientation, such as the Xq28 region on the X chromosome. However, a large-scale genetic study involving nearly half a million people found no single gene or handful of genes that predict same-sex sexual behavior, suggesting that genetics may have a limited contribution to sexual orientation.

To understand how manipulative social engineers are, read the above cited paragraph carefully. While you'll certainly catch the obvious contradictory double-speak, notice the mention of “genetic and biological factors,” but no mention of any environmental factors. Yet we know that social engineering is primarily responsible for converting almost 40% of Gen Z (18-24) to LGBTQ. Historically, the percentage of homosexuals within the population has consistently been around 2%. Even if you take the highest estimates, like those of Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s, who estimated that roughly 10% of the population was homosexual (Kinsey was one of the first people to acknowledge sexual fluidity; his methodology was discredited due to disproportionately polling prisoners and male prostitutes), that's still significantly less that 40%, which is an astonishing figure. What will those numbers be in five years? How about 50 years?

LGBTQ as a cause is social, but as an effect it's undeniably evolutionary. This begs the question(s): if LGBTQ is in fact a state-sponsored cryptoeugenics psyop, does that change the way you feel about the systemic sponsorship of homosexuality? Should right-wingers start zealously waving the rainbow flag as if we've scored an evolutionary touchdown? What if it eliminates 90% of sociopaths from the gene pool, and like abortion did for NYC in the 1990s, drastically reduce murder and overall crime rates? Maybe leftists are right, and the power structure is rooted in white supremacy.

In conclusion, a rational way to objectively analyze the “LGBTQ is a state-sponsored cryptoeugenics” is to ask yourself this: If you wanted to discreetly implement a depopulation by eugenics program that required voluntary participation, and you wanted to attract as many susceptible people as you possibly could, how would you do it?

A wise man once said: you catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar.

Romans 6:12-14

Romans 6:12-14 Do not let sin control the way you live, do not give in to its lustful desires. Do not let any part of your body become a tool of wickedness, to be used for sinning. Instead, give yourselves completely to God since you have been given new life. And use your whole body as a tool to do what is right for the glory of God. Sin is no longer your master, for you are no longer subject to the law, which enslaves you to sin. Instead you are free by God's grace.

What a powerful message in the book of Romans.

"Sin is no longer your master," unless you choose to be a slave to it. 

Are you a master or a slave? 

God gave us the free will to be a master or slave. 

Do not let sin control the way you live. 

Do not allow yourself to become a tool for wickedness.

It is hard, as our nature is sinful.

All of our desires come from our sinful nature. We did not choose to be sinful, that choice was made for us by Eve.

Thankfully, Jesus Christ came to redeem his people from sin by offering himself as the perfect sacrifice for a wretched people. 

Our only hope is in the salvation of Jesus Christ through the faith of God's grace. 

All glory to God!

  

Sunday Sermon: Reformation Thelogy

Romans 6:1

Romans 6:1 Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more kindness and forgiveness?

As sinners, we can all relate to this verse. When we remember that Christ was tortured for ALL of our sins (every single one), and that God's grace is what unburdens us from those sins, we should deeply contemplate this verse as we continue in our sinful ways.

God bless.

*Romans 6 is an amazing chapter in God's word. I am going to publish it in its entirety, verse-by-verse with brief commentary.

Sobriety is Overrated

I've been a lifelong drinker of alcohol. In particular, beer. I like to drink beer; have since I was in my teens.

However, I am also somewhat of a healthnut. I workout daily, run, try to eat relatively good, etc. Excluding my love for beer-drinking, I would say that I am a pretty healthy man.

I know that drinking isn't good for you. Especially getting drunk on beer 4 nights a week. So I try to counter that with a healthy lifestyle, as well as periods of sobriety. 

I don't know if I would classify myself as an alcoholic, as I don't have any physical dependence on alcohol (I don't shake, or whatever if I don't have booze). But I am definitely a habitual drinker.

As I've aged I have come to terms with the realization that drinking could catch up to me. I saw someone say recently that a midlife crisis is choosing weather or not to continue drinking even though you know your health is going to deteriorate from it. I don't know if that's how I would define a midlife crisis, but it definitely is something all drinkers are faced with at some point in their life.

I am currently going through a period of time without any alcohol. I have done this pretty regularly since I turned 40. I will take a month or two off during the year. Usually at trendy times with other people. Like "dry January," or "sober October."

When I first started doing these sober stretches I came to the conclusion rather quickly that sobriety is overrated. Now, I understand that some people's lives literally are on the line if they don't stay sober. I'm not speaking for anyone other than myself. My drinking isn't to the point that if I get drunk I'm going to end up in jail, lose my job or empty the bank account. So I am speaking only from my perspective.

It all comes down to how do you want to live your life. Is trying to make sure you get as many seconds on earth your #1 priority. Or is it just enjoying every second you have to the fullest. 

I think it is a good thing to take time off from drinking, and other vices that you may have, so that they don't consume you in a negative way. But I also think that YOLO and should enjoy your life. No matter how healthy you are, you will die just like everyone else. 

For me, sobriety is overrated. 

What say you?

God bless!

Why We Suffer

Life is full of ups and downs, but everyday is a new life to a wise man. 

We embrace suffering because our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ suffered for us.

This doesn't man suffering is fun, it sucks! But this is how we grow as people. 

As we struggle and suffer we realize our need for God. 

Romans 5:3-4 We rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope.

It's so easy to go through rough times in life and forget that we have a God that loves us. It's so easy to turn our suffering inward and to fester in our misery and forget about the suffering Jesus endured on our behalf.

Matthew 27:46 My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?  

But even in the darkest of hours, the worst of suffering, there was light at the end of the suffering. God didn't forsake Jesus, he resurrected him from the dead so that those he has elected by grace through faith might overcome suffering, too. 

Jesus reveals the Good News for those who endure their suffering:

Matthew 28:18-19 I have been give complete authority in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age. 

All glory to God!

God bless. 

 

Surgery Doesn't Fix Psych Issues!

https://www.foxnews.com/health/trans-surgeries-increase-risk-mental-health-conditions-suicidal-ideations-study

So-called "gender-affirming surgery" could lead to potentially dangerous mental health effects, a new study has found.

Transgender individuals face "heightened psychological distress," including depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation, "partly due to stigma and lack of gender affirmation," as stated in the study, which was published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine.

Researchers from the University of Texas set out to determine the mental health impacts from transgender people who underwent "gender-affirming surgery."

They determined rates of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation and substance-use disorders were "significantly higher" among those who underwent surgery, assessed two years later.

Males with surgery had depression rates of 25% compared to males without surgery (11.5%). Anxiety rates among that group were 12.8% compared to 2.6%.

Jonathan Alpert, a Manhattan-based psychotherapist and author, said the study findings highlight the "often overlooked" psychological risks that accompany gender-affirming surgery.

"While these surgeries can be critical in helping individuals align their physical appearance with their gender identity, they are not a cure-all for the mental health challenges many transgender individuals face," Alpert, who was not involved in the study, told Fox News Digital.

"These findings suggest that surgery alone doesn’t eliminate the complex psychological burdens that stem from societal stigma and personal struggles with identity," he went on.

"In fact, taking a scalpel to treat a psychological disorder can sometimes lead to more issues, as the study results are elucidating."

This is ground-breaking news. I mean, srsly. Who would've thought that a man paying someone to surgically remove his penis would result in depression? Or even thought that he might have a mental illness at all? The system has repeatedly told people that it's perfectly normal for a man to have his penis surgically removed if society has convinced him that he is actually a woman trapped in a man's body. 

Shame on society for manipulating these disturbed people. They are obviously unwell, yet sociopathic doctors, fueled by greed, are cutting men's penises off for money when they know how wrong it is. 

This is why the bible says:

1 Timothy 6:10 - For the love of money is the root of all evil

I've often said that the entire homosexual agenda is a state-sponsored eugenics program. It's really easy to see once you see it. 

I'm also the author of the trans/sociopath overlap theory, in which I present the case that there is overwhelming evidence that supports the correlation between transgenderism and sociopathy. 

Nonetheless, no healthy society would want their citizens to mutilate themselves, or manipulate their mentally ill citizens into self-mutilation. Why would anyone do that? 

Either they're evil, and playing some kind of sick game with the mentally ill, or they've engaged in cryptoeugenics in the hopes of manipulating the gene pool. 

If you haven't read my paper on depopulation, you should. 

God bless.

Why We Feel Guilt

"Guilt" isn't something that we are taught. It is something innate and inherit within the framework of our DNA. More particularly, our genetic memory.

We can't be told to feel guilty, and then suddenly feel guilt. Feelings aren't like that. They are completely internally composed, not externally manipulated. Even if your feelings are manipulated by external influences, it's because your consciousness has experienced whatever it is that invokes emotion.

The reason we experience guilt (and the reason some don't), is because our genetic memory sends signals of guilt when we sin. Those signals are genetic and spiritual reminders of the torture that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ endured on the cross. 

Every time we sin, guilt arises from the fact that God in the form of a man was tortured for those sins. We are wretched sinners who often take our sin for granted, which is where the feelings of guilt come from. It's literally God reminding you what he did for you. The idea is to release you from sin by forgiveness, yet we continually live a life of sin knowing that God shed his blood on the cross for that sin.

Furthermore, the DNA of Christ runs through the veins of his lineage. This is why the Bible so accurately records ancestry. If you're an Israelite, not only the spirit of the Lord is within your soul and consciousness, but his DNA resides in your genetic makeup. Those two things combine for not only your feelings of guilt, but your desire for repentance and forgiveness. Why else would you feel guilty and want to be relieved of that guilt? It's certainly not from drowning while crossing the seas, dying from famine or being killed in battle (although those things can also invoke genetic memory; e.g. the smell of the ocean, love of a certain food, etc).

Genetic memory is as real as cognitive memory. When you sin, if God's blood runs through your veins (or he has chosen to have mercy on you spiritually), you're reminded of his sacrifice. This is why you feel such guilt for your sin. And why you seek forgiveness from those sins. And why God in the form of a man came to bear that burden of sin for you, because he knows this is how he calls his lost sheep.

Matthew 15:24: I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.

Thank you God for sending your only son to be tortured physically for our sins so that we might be free from guilt by repenting and seeking eternal salvation through Jesus Christ. Although it is so terrible that we have to take comfort in our transgression by another's suffering, we know you did that because you loved us before the beginning of time.

All glory to God!

Sunday Sermon: What is Christian Identity?

Who were the 10 lost tribes of Israel? What happened to them?

Christian Identity is often thought of as a "racist" denominational sect of Christianity, but it's actually just a migration theory claiming the Israelites migrated through the Caucasus mountains (Caucasian) and became the nations of Europe, and thus are the inheritors of the covenant. It's not a religion, per se. In fact, one could be atheist and still adhere to the the concept of Christian Identity.

The relevance of this migration theory (with regard to Christianity) is that God made a covenant (Genesis 12 and 15) with a specific group of people, extending through the seedline of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The Bible is written to, for and about this group of people. It seems rather important to know who those people are.

The above video provides some clarity on that subject.

All glory to God.

God bless!

Thoughts on the Black Swan

I'll be the first to admit, I don't watch much TV. And when I do, it's usually some kind of true crime documentary, like 20/20 or something. I've always had a hard time watching fantasy stuff, or action shows where a person can predict the ending by the time they are age 5 (spoiler alert: the main character always wins).

Last night I was bored and thought I'd watch some TV. I opted for the latest episode of 20/20 titled, The Pointe of No Return. This detailed the events surrounding the murder of a man by his wife. Again, I'm not much for keeping up with this kind of stuff, so I wasn't familiar with it, but it appeared that this was somewhat of a national story at the time it happened. 

There were a few points of interest that I thought I'd write about. 

When programs like 20/20 does a show like this, they are obviously in the business of getting people to watch, not passing judgement. But to me, it was rather obvious this woman was a complete psychopath. 

However, this gets back to a concept I have perpetually contemplated, being "truth is perception." I have absolutely no doubt that many people would disagree with my "psychopath" diagnosis of this woman, as there were people marching on her behalf during the trial. 

I also have very little doubt that if the gender roles were reversed in this case, the man would have likely got the death penalty. The level of premeditation by this woman was astounding.

The show ended before sentencing, but I looked it up and she ended up getting 20 years after being convicted of a lesser charge of manslaughter. 

Early on the jury came back and said they couldn't reach a verdict, which tells me that there was a feminist holdout who didn't see how psychopathic this woman was (or they did, and didn't care, because they were convinced the man deserved it). How could someone not see that? If you watch the show, I'd love to hear your thoughts. 

Furthermore, the defense called an "expert" witness who testified that the victim exhibited all the traits of an alpha male. Similarly to how social engineering has used "racism" to vilify whiteness, feminism has done the same to masculinity.

She literally shot her husband 4 times (missed twice) at close range because he allegedly slapped her. And there are lots of people who believe that she was justified. The only people who could actually work through the mental gymnastics of that are just feminist misandrists. They hate men. Period.

Feminism is this idea of equality, yet this psychopathic killer only got 20 years because she is a female. That's inequality. 

I have wrote quite a bit about the woman question, not as a critique of women in general, but with regard to their role in the social hierarchy within the status quo in relation to power (i.e. feminism).

It's really such a sad situation. The "black swan" killed the father of her child, and the father of his child with another woman who had already passed away. It's one of the saddest shows I have seen and I just can't imagine the level of psychopathy that exists within certain individuals in the world.

God bless the children involved in this terrible situation. 

The 'R word' is just the 'N word' for White People

https://www.nbcnews.com/sports/nfl/nfl-will-remove-end-racism-end-zones-ahead-super-bowl-rcna190686 

The NFL will remove the words "End Racism" from the end zones at Caesars Superdome in New Orleans ahead of the Super Bowl on Sunday, the NFL confirmed to NBC News.

Instead, the field will have stencils of the phrase "Choose Love" as the Kansas City Chiefs take on the Philadelphia Eagles, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a statement Tuesday.

Throughout the 2024-25 season, NFL teams have advertised pro-diversity slogans at their stadiums and on their uniforms. The field stencils have been a part of the league since 2020, McCarthy said.

"Teams have used on the field this year 'Vote,' 'End Racism,' 'Stop Hate,' and 'Choose Love.' This is part of the NFL’s Inspire Change," he said.

At their conference championship games on Jan. 26, the Chiefs had "Choose Love" in their end zone and the Eagles had "End Racism."

The NFL said Tuesday that it would have stenciling only of the phrase "Choose Love." Sunday's game will be the first Super Bowl since February 2021 at which "End Racism" will not be in an end zone stencil.

We are witnessing more and more "reversion of change" within the status quo, which I have talked about quite a bit recently. This phenomenon has been accelerated by the Trump nomination. We are slowly getting back to normalcy. 

Being anti-racist is just being anti-white. 

The social engineers who propagate things like "end racism" are explicitly and exclusively targeting white people. The want to install white guilt to change the demographics of America. And they don't just want demographic change, they want white genocide.

It's nice to see society rejecting the anti-white's #1 weapon used to promote white genocide. These people aren't dumb, they know the Overton window has shifted and calling white people "racist" just isn't effective anymore (Btw, the "R word" is just the "N word" for white people.). So they are going back to their roots and switching back to "love" and other propaganda that appeals to emotions. This is exactly what made the civil rights movement of the 60s so successful. They learned these tactics (which activists like MLK and Rosa Parks were students and taught) at the Frankfurt School.

It's time to put an end to white guilt, acknowledge white innovation and stop white genocide!

Put God first, and have white babies!

God bless.

5 BOLD UFC Predictions

I recently wrote about UFC Bryce Mitchell being based due to him stating publicly that he would like to go fishing with Hitler. 

This last weekend I watched Israel Adesanya get KO'd, and that sparked a couple of bold UFC predictions that I thought I'd share:

1. Israel Adesanya will never win another UFC fight.

2. Colby Covington will never win another UFC fight.

3. Conor McGregor will never win another UFC fight. 

4. Kamaru Usman will never win another UFC fight.

5. Robert Whitaker will never win another UFC fight.

Some might look at these predictions and think that are either BS or easy to make, but everyone of these men are former champions and none are older than their mid 30s. 

God bless.

Bryce Mitchell is BASED!

My fellow Arkansan is based!

Bryce, a high level UFC fighter, started his podcast Arkansanity out with a bang when he said he would love to go fishing with Hitler. And that all Hitler wanted to do was kick out the greedy Jews and queers.

Shoutout to Dana for allowing free speech. It's literally the only organization left in the world that isn't feelings-based. 

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Hitler, but anyone who has been demonized as much as him has to be examined more closely. I assume that if Nazis controlled the media, Hitler wouldn't be viewed in the same light.

I believe it was Goering when he was at Nuremburg that said, "Victors write the history books."

My personal opinion about WW2 is that it was the biggest act of human eugenics in modernity (if not ever). Think about it from an evolutionary perspective: all the best Germans were killed, and all the worst Jews were killed. I shouldn't have to point this out, but I will anyway: "best" and "worst" not in a moral or judgmental sense, but in terms of status, traits, intelligence, etc. All the Einstein's were long gone by the time the they started rounding the Jews up in the ghettos.

Nonetheless, the Overton window has shifted. If you haven't been on X lately, go check it out. It reads like Stormfront did 15 years ago.

Kudos to Bryce for not being afraid to speak his mind. It's always been super weird to me that people get so caught up in what someone they don't even know says. Who cares if someone hypothetically would go fishing with a dead person from history? Just stay in your own lane.  

Have a good day.

God bless.