Tis the Reason

Hello me, it's me again.

I like to talk to myself, then blog the conversation in real time. I find it therapeutic. It really provides insight when you go back and read the conversation you had with yourself. It's basically like walking around a crowded room talking to yourself and everyone is looking at you funny. Fortunately for me, nobody reads my blog, so the room is empty and I don't look like a schizophrenic. 

Speaking of reading thoughts, I've read that schizophrenics can be great writers, because they can intimately relate to the protagonist and antagonist, as well as supporting characters, all simultaneously. Cool, huh? 

One day schizophrenia will be called something else. Something that basically means genius, not crazy. Kinda like what they've done with autism. Everyone always says, "30 years ago nobody had autism." Well, that's because someone with autism in the 20th century was labeled "retarded," not "autistic." (Btw, this isn't making fun of anyone, cause I'm autistic. I'm actually an autistic philanthropist, in case you were wondering.)

Also, speaking of unread writers, think about how many brilliant books have been written that nobody read. Or even just brilliant poems, papers and sentences. Of course you might say, "there's no such thing as original thought, at some point in time, that masterpiece will be re-written by someone else who will take all the fame." Isn't that what Shakespeare did? Idk, I read somewhere that Shakespeare didn't actually write anything good. You know, kinda like the Tesla/Edison thing.

Anyway, I don't even know why I'm talking to myself about this. I don't care if Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet, and I'm not aware of any unread masterpieces. Btw, what makes a masterpiece? Is it how many people consider it a masterpiece? Is it a matter of perception? Because I'll be honest, I can't tell you how many times I heard someone say, "Read this book, it'll change your life. It's a masterpiece!," and I read it, and I'm like, "Hmmm. I guess it was a good book, idk. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to comprehend a masterpiece when I read one." Although The Brothers Karamazov was pretty good. So was the Grapes of Wrath.

What am I even talking about?

I really wanted to get on here and talk about Jesus. The Christ. Our Savior. The resolution of our existential crisis. The truth. The light. The way.

Some genius once said, "Life sucks, then you die." Life can be tough. Life is tough. Even if just for the sole purpose that we are living to die. But The Christ offers eternal life, through salvation. It's the most incredible story ever told. It's the greatest gift ever given. And on this Christmas day, while we eat, drink and be merry, remember the gift that God gave you. Not just life, but salvation. You didn't choose God, God chose you.

And for those non-believers reading this, it's cool that you think everything is just random. If that's what you want to believe, that's fine. But, remember, that requires faith, too. 

I'm a dumb guy. I blog conversations I have with myself, sober. I'm an autistic philanthropist, which is just a nice way of saying I'm weird and poor. But even I'm not dumb enough to believe that everything in the universe works perfectly out of pure luck. No way, Jose!

So, on this Christmas Day, give all glory to God, because without God, you wouldn't be reading this!

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

God Bless! 

What is White Supremacy?

"I hate white supremacy!"

I rarely get on social media. Occasionally I'll doom-scroll reels on fb, and even less frequently I'll check out X. 

Every time I get on X, it seems I run into people complaining about "white supremacy." I often wonder how they would even define the term "white supremacy," considering it's more of an inflammatory buzz term used in an epithetical way to impose guilt upon white people rather than a literal, definitive term. I assume the majority who use the pejorative would say something brilliantly insightful like: "White supremacy is oppressive because of colonialism!"

I suppose in theory white supremacy is ideological. It's a belief system that whites are superior to other races. But it's very abstract and vague when used slanderously. Almost 100% of the time it's just another way anti-whites call white people "racist." Nobody uses the term "white supremacy" in a positive way to acknowledge white achievement.

There is no doubt that white supremacy is an observable phenomenon. As is black supremacy, Asian supremacy, mestizo supremacy, etc. While theoretical, these things are also observable. It just comes down to the question: Superior in what? 

White supremacy carries a negative connotation because white supremacy is much more observable and relevant. It's one thing to be racially superior in sprinting or free diving or seal hunting, it's another to be superior in all things relevant.

But how did that become a bad thing? 

I think the rebuttal to "yea, but you're a bad person cause you're a white supremacist," should be something in the line of:

Look, I have no problem with you calling me names. I'm cool with that, as I'm not emotionally fragile. But, you're not a good faith actor to call me a "white supremacist" while simultaneously using the innovations brought forth by white supremacy to voice your complaints. 

I wonder if those who hate white supremacy the most would be willing to boycott white supremacy to show how much they really hate it? Even just for 24 hours. That means, no speaking English. No using indoor plumbing. No electricity. No cars. No freedom of speech. No internet. No cellphones. No airplanes. No modern medicine. No bicycles. No shoes. No refrigeration. No preservatives. No running water. Basically, they need to just go to the woods and stand there naked and send their complaints via smoke signals (and they can't use a lighter to start their fire, either). If they do that, I'd be convinced they really hate white people, I mean "white supremacy." 

Don't talk about it, be about it.

Remember When Harvard Said Reparations for Slavery Would've Cured Covid?

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/16/us/reparations-covid-black-americans-disparity-trnd

Covid-19 is disproportionately sickening and killing Black Americans, the result of centuries of structural racism, a group of Harvard researchers says.

If the US had paid reparations the descendants of Black Americans who were enslaved, though, the risk of severe illness and death from the virus would be far lower, according to a new, peer-reviewed study by the researchers.

The group of researchers, from Harvard Medical School and the Lancet Commission on Reparations and Redistributive Justice, examined how reparation payments made before the pandemic would have affected Louisiana, a state that remains segregated in parts, and found that the payments could have reduced coronavirus transmission in the state anywhere between 31% to 68%.

Boy, were those some interesting times. 

Covid will go down in history as the straw that broke the camel's trust. The amount of lies and garbage the PTB put out during those couple of years via their controlled information systems was absolutely dumbfounding. It was like they wanted to devolve the populace into a low-trust society ASAP. 

I don't want to rehash it, as during 2021 and 2022 I wrote extensively about the topic in real time, and highly encourage you to at least skim through those two years of writings. In fact, up until the time of this writing, it has been the most written about subject on this blog by far.  

Considering my writings are mostly for personal legacy, as well as a source of researchable information for future historians, opposed to the establishment of a daily readership base, most of my readers won't be able to comprehend the magnitude of gaslighting going on during the Covid years. Those years were like living in the Twilight Zone:

The future needs to understand the past. Not in the sense of "his story," but from an objective perspective. After all, isn't that the essence of history, to know the past? 

At least some element of the Western 21st century thinktank were socially engineering the idea that giving blacks (who haven't been slaves in over 300 years, and are contrarily the most primitive and privileged race in the US, regardless of what you think you might know based on other contemporary sources) money which would have kept them from catching severe Covid. Who would actually take that seriously?

It will be interesting what the future's perspective will be on the thought of "racism," but how can anything be more "racist" in theory than saying blacks wouldn't get sick if you gave them more money? And who gives them this money? Is it affluent blacks, or is it insinuating that taxpaying whites who have never owned any slaves should give blacks money? 

Again, I don't want to go back and put a bunch of Covid statistics up here, but did more blacks die from Covid than whites? I am confident that you, dear reader, are intellectually competent enough to come up with questions like, "Wasn't age by far the most significant factor in severe illness and death, followed next by comorbidities?" 

Additionally, the FDA just announced that it plans to add a "black box" warning to Covid shots, that btw, the PTB insisted that everyone take. People who refused to take the Covid vaccinations dealt with a ton of criticism and adversity, some even losing their jobs and such, and now the FDA is finally acknowledging how dangerous those vaccinations actually are.

The FDA is preparing to add what’s known as a “black box” warning to Covid vaccines by the end of the year, CNN first reported on Friday. 

That plan, which is not finalized, is being driven by Dr. Vinay Prasad, the FDA’s chief medical and scientific officer and director of the agency’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, CNN reported. 

That type of label isn’t used lightly. It appears at the top of a medicine’s prescribing information and is designed to warn about risks such as death or serious injuries that should be weighed against a product’s benefits.

Again, I wrote extensively about all things Covid in 2021 and 2022, and I strongly encourage you to check it out.

God bless!

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!