CNN showed a video of Donald Trump advocating for the impeachment of George W. Bush, who started an illegal forever war that has cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars and stole a tremendous chunk of our freedom. Because "orange man bad", the Left has forgotten just how bad Bush was, and that Donald Trump is a moderate Democrat. There are videos floating around comparing speeches given by President Trump and Bill Clinton that are remarkably similar with the one difference that Clinton received a standing ovation from both parties and Trump is considered a Nazi for advocating the exact same policies. Trump is in no way far right, he's not even conservative, he is center left before the left went so far to the left that now Bernie Sanders - who vacationed in the Soviet Union and was kicked out of an honest to Lenin communist village for being too lazy - isn't far enough left for AOC and the Gang of Four.
Sunday, December 29, 2019
Thursday, December 26, 2019
America 2024 (Preview)
In 2016 I worked on my magnum opus "What is at Stake in the Next Election", outlining why Donald Trump was the only sane candidate to vote for in the 2016 election. It is a 23 page long treatise with 31 citations that I wrote during a 60-hour marathon of campaigning. I am fairly confident that Donald Trump will be re-elected in 2020, mainly because all of the Democrat candidates are absolute shit who are much weaker than Clinton and belong to a party that Clinton left flat broke. Trump has the incumbent advantage and is sitting on the best economy of the past 30 years, all of which adds up to a near guaranteed re-election.
The main question is, what happens after the Trump era ends? The last time a party won three elections in a row was George H. W. Bush in 1989 (and he would have won again in 1992 had it not been for that guy with the ears who siphoned votes away and allowed Clinton to squeak ahead). How do we guarantee a future Trumpian victory in 2024 and ensure the survival of America as a free nation, with intact first and second amendment rights that are not protected anywhere else in the world? I don't have all the answers, but I can lay out a very simple sketch for now. During Trump's second term I will lay out more details as they are filled in with more data.
In order to reach a solution we must first understand the problem. Here is that problem.
If Trump wins 2020 the Democrats split into two parties: the corporate neo-libs like Pelosi and Clinton, and the socialists like the Gang of Four. Even if "demographics is destiny", if the Dems split into two parties it doesn't matter if they have 60% of the electorate covered, they'll still not be able to come together and agree on who to elect, and future Trumpian and even post-Trumpian America Firsters (which we will need) will be able to win electoral victories even while losing the popular vote.
Trump filling so many judicial seats is one of the key steps, as judges have been writing laws by hallucinating rights into the Constitution for two generations now. Trump is setting a bulwark against leftism that should last a good 30 years. The other key steps are to build the wall and enact voter ID laws, which Trump should be able to do if the GOP wins 2020 as well and then they can just use the nuclear option to ram everything through.
If demographics is destiny then the good news is that conservative whites have twice as many children as any other group except people from shithole countries Dems flood America with to gain voters. If the wall is built, illegals are deported, and voter ID laws are passed then that drys up the pool of leftist voters. Socialists already in America have fewer kids, or abort all their kids (abortion's silver lining is that leftists are the ones getting by far the most abortions, so they're removing themselves from the voter base), so they are voluntarily decreasing their own population. This will take a while, which is why stacking the courts is crucial, as it buys time for conservative kids to grow up.
If Trump can win in 2020, and he can complete his agenda, and the GOP can find another Trumpian (or better) candidate who can win in 2024 then that gives us the chance to wait for our natural army to grow. Then we will reverse Khrushchev's threat against the left when he banged his shoe at the UN building and shouted "We will bury you!" It is humanity that will bury the left, and this religion of Satan that began with the Russian Revolution will finally die.
The main question is, what happens after the Trump era ends? The last time a party won three elections in a row was George H. W. Bush in 1989 (and he would have won again in 1992 had it not been for that guy with the ears who siphoned votes away and allowed Clinton to squeak ahead). How do we guarantee a future Trumpian victory in 2024 and ensure the survival of America as a free nation, with intact first and second amendment rights that are not protected anywhere else in the world? I don't have all the answers, but I can lay out a very simple sketch for now. During Trump's second term I will lay out more details as they are filled in with more data.
In order to reach a solution we must first understand the problem. Here is that problem.
If Trump wins 2020 the Democrats split into two parties: the corporate neo-libs like Pelosi and Clinton, and the socialists like the Gang of Four. Even if "demographics is destiny", if the Dems split into two parties it doesn't matter if they have 60% of the electorate covered, they'll still not be able to come together and agree on who to elect, and future Trumpian and even post-Trumpian America Firsters (which we will need) will be able to win electoral victories even while losing the popular vote.
Trump filling so many judicial seats is one of the key steps, as judges have been writing laws by hallucinating rights into the Constitution for two generations now. Trump is setting a bulwark against leftism that should last a good 30 years. The other key steps are to build the wall and enact voter ID laws, which Trump should be able to do if the GOP wins 2020 as well and then they can just use the nuclear option to ram everything through.
If demographics is destiny then the good news is that conservative whites have twice as many children as any other group except people from shithole countries Dems flood America with to gain voters. If the wall is built, illegals are deported, and voter ID laws are passed then that drys up the pool of leftist voters. Socialists already in America have fewer kids, or abort all their kids (abortion's silver lining is that leftists are the ones getting by far the most abortions, so they're removing themselves from the voter base), so they are voluntarily decreasing their own population. This will take a while, which is why stacking the courts is crucial, as it buys time for conservative kids to grow up.
If Trump can win in 2020, and he can complete his agenda, and the GOP can find another Trumpian (or better) candidate who can win in 2024 then that gives us the chance to wait for our natural army to grow. Then we will reverse Khrushchev's threat against the left when he banged his shoe at the UN building and shouted "We will bury you!" It is humanity that will bury the left, and this religion of Satan that began with the Russian Revolution will finally die.
Saturday, December 21, 2019
Progressivism is Regression and Social Justice is Injustice
We had already achieved full equality and unity in the late 1990s so people got bored and started inventing new problems and began dividing people up into smaller and more exclusive groups and bitching about stupid fucking shit.
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Diversity is Worthless
Diversity is weakness, it's self-defeating and self-contradictory, and outside of a few extremely white leftist pockets in the West, nobody gives a fucking shit about diversity. Most countries around the world are ethnically, culturally, and linguistically homogeneous, including nearly all the great powers that have ever existed.
Saturday, December 7, 2019
Pants Are Defective
Pants today are defective. I just tried on a new pair of pants I bought, same length same waist as I've worn for the past 20 years, and they were impossible to put on. Now, I have gained 15 pounds since then, it's true, but my old pants from just a few years ago still fit, so I haven't gotten so fat that I need to get a bigger size. Instead manufacturer's are designing pants differently so that they don't fit normally, as they were intended to.
Maybe you have noticed this disturbing trend too. Here's how pants are supposed to work. The waist is the thinnest part of the torso. It's where you can tie a belt or sash or even have clothes that just can't fall off because the body gets wider below the waist so the clothes can't fall through the rest of the body.
But manufacturers have decided that clothes that actually fit properly are passé, gauche even. Not only have they replaced all the metal parts with plastic, but they've changed the shape so that it's impossible to wear them without looking stupid.
Pants today are designed for kids who expose their asses. If you've been to public school in the past 20 years or if you live in one of the more blighted areas you know what I'm talking about. As such pants don't fit properly.
If you want to wear pants as they are designed, if you're male, then they ride on your hips (which don't lie). As such you have to cram your entire package into a space that's two sizes too small.
If you try to wear your pants a little higher so the seam doesn't try to split your balls apart you have to strap your dick to one of your legs or there's nowhere else to put it.
Here's another problem with pants. This is more on the side of the user, not the designer. It has to do with how people wear pants defectively, in particular, fat people.
Fat people wear pants way far down below their guts, so low that even without bending over you can see six inches of ass crack. They wear pants below their assholes and their guts hang down over the front. This allows them to buy pants that are 11 sizes too small, because the area right below the ass is much thinner than around the gut. There have been fat people who have 60+ inch waists buying pants with 30 inch waists because they wear them so low. Normally they would need to wear suspenders, because even belts can't fit on someone that fat, but today fat people are in denial about being fat, so they wear ridiculously small clothing all the while thinking "Who am I going to believe, my tiny pants or the lying scale?"
Don't even get me started on what women are wearing today. I remember the 80s and 90s, even the early 2000s (oughties?). Women were able to wear normal-looking pants (and, for a time, even baggy pants were in fashion for women too) and still look attractive. But today they wear these sheer, painted-on stocking looking things that's all ass crack and camel toe 24/7. You can't look away, even if you're full monk mode. They draw your eyes like a magnet. It's degeneracy, plain and simple. You can be sexy without looking even more indecent than a streetwalker.
You know my ancestors never wore pants. They were smart, and they ruled the world for 1000 years. This problem wouldn't exist if we didn't adopt the fashion of a northern barbarian tribe of horse riders. That's why pants were invented, to allow for better horse riding. I think it's stupid. We have cars today, we don't need to spread our legs that far when we travel. I think it's high time we brought togas back, and I'm not talking sheets like in Animal House, I'm talking the real thing. Our eyes, balls, and our children will thank us if we return to the fashion of ancient Rome.
Maybe you have noticed this disturbing trend too. Here's how pants are supposed to work. The waist is the thinnest part of the torso. It's where you can tie a belt or sash or even have clothes that just can't fall off because the body gets wider below the waist so the clothes can't fall through the rest of the body.
But manufacturers have decided that clothes that actually fit properly are passé, gauche even. Not only have they replaced all the metal parts with plastic, but they've changed the shape so that it's impossible to wear them without looking stupid.
Pants today are designed for kids who expose their asses. If you've been to public school in the past 20 years or if you live in one of the more blighted areas you know what I'm talking about. As such pants don't fit properly.
If you want to wear pants as they are designed, if you're male, then they ride on your hips (which don't lie). As such you have to cram your entire package into a space that's two sizes too small.
If you try to wear your pants a little higher so the seam doesn't try to split your balls apart you have to strap your dick to one of your legs or there's nowhere else to put it.
Here's another problem with pants. This is more on the side of the user, not the designer. It has to do with how people wear pants defectively, in particular, fat people.
Fat people wear pants way far down below their guts, so low that even without bending over you can see six inches of ass crack. They wear pants below their assholes and their guts hang down over the front. This allows them to buy pants that are 11 sizes too small, because the area right below the ass is much thinner than around the gut. There have been fat people who have 60+ inch waists buying pants with 30 inch waists because they wear them so low. Normally they would need to wear suspenders, because even belts can't fit on someone that fat, but today fat people are in denial about being fat, so they wear ridiculously small clothing all the while thinking "Who am I going to believe, my tiny pants or the lying scale?"
Don't even get me started on what women are wearing today. I remember the 80s and 90s, even the early 2000s (oughties?). Women were able to wear normal-looking pants (and, for a time, even baggy pants were in fashion for women too) and still look attractive. But today they wear these sheer, painted-on stocking looking things that's all ass crack and camel toe 24/7. You can't look away, even if you're full monk mode. They draw your eyes like a magnet. It's degeneracy, plain and simple. You can be sexy without looking even more indecent than a streetwalker.
You know my ancestors never wore pants. They were smart, and they ruled the world for 1000 years. This problem wouldn't exist if we didn't adopt the fashion of a northern barbarian tribe of horse riders. That's why pants were invented, to allow for better horse riding. I think it's stupid. We have cars today, we don't need to spread our legs that far when we travel. I think it's high time we brought togas back, and I'm not talking sheets like in Animal House, I'm talking the real thing. Our eyes, balls, and our children will thank us if we return to the fashion of ancient Rome.
Wednesday, December 4, 2019
Circumcision Is Barbarism
This ties in somewhat with the anti-porn people from last month. Circumcision is barbarism that was invented by sick assholes who thought it would eliminate masturbation. This is because half of the skin of the penis is removed that conveniently contains most of the nerve endings. The most sensitive part of a circumcised penis is the scar tissue. There were never any health benefits, real or imagined, the entire purpose from the very beginning was to eliminate sexual pleasure.
"I'm glad I was circumcised."
Bullshit. You were minutes old when you were circumcised, you never experienced being uncircumcised, therefore you cannot possibly say you prefer one state over the other because you've never experienced the other state.
This isn't like saying "I'm glad I wasn't shot." You don't need to be shot to know that not being shot is preferable to being shot. You don't need to have plague to know that not having plague is better than having plague.
That's a huge problem I have with spiritualists, who think we come to Earth to experience suffering, because you don't know anything until you experience it. Bullshit. I don't need to experience getting shot to know I don't want to get shot. I can see from the experiences of others that I don't want to get shot, I don't need to personally experience it. The spiritualist world view turns the universe into a cosmic form of Jackass, where we incarnate to do dumb shit and get killed because omnipotent spirits are bored masochists. Apparently, according to the spiritualists, the most enjoyable thing anyone can possibly do is get sick and die before the age of five, because that's the life of half of all the humans have ever lived. HALF OF EVERYONE WHO EVER LIVED, 50 BILLION PEOPLE, DIED BEFORE AGE FIVE. I refuse to believe in a world view where omnipotent spirits find that to be the most useful way to spend their time.
Circumcision is just the opposite of this. We can learn from the experiences of others, from the men with sexual dysfunction as a result of circumcision, and from the experiences of intact men, that not being circumcised is not equivalent to getting shot or getting the plague, that there is the possibility (and I believe definite reality) that not being circumcised is preferable to being circumcised. And it pisses me off that I'll never get to experience that. It pisses me off, supremely, that I had an important organ removed without my consent shortly after birth. That strikes me as an unforgivable form of child abuse.
C. S. Lewis said something like this in his book on the non-problem of evil. Some people say "It would be better for me if I had never existed." To which he replied, "In what sense 'for me'? How would I, if I did not exist, profit from not existing?" The statement is meaningless, since if you don't exist then there's no you to benefit from not existing. The statement is nothing but a string of words put together that does not refer to a real subject, like a square circle or a rock so heavy God cannot lift it. These strings of words do not constitute valid statements since the words nullify each other.
"I'm glad I was circumcised."
Bullshit. You were minutes old when you were circumcised, you never experienced being uncircumcised, therefore you cannot possibly say you prefer one state over the other because you've never experienced the other state.
This isn't like saying "I'm glad I wasn't shot." You don't need to be shot to know that not being shot is preferable to being shot. You don't need to have plague to know that not having plague is better than having plague.
That's a huge problem I have with spiritualists, who think we come to Earth to experience suffering, because you don't know anything until you experience it. Bullshit. I don't need to experience getting shot to know I don't want to get shot. I can see from the experiences of others that I don't want to get shot, I don't need to personally experience it. The spiritualist world view turns the universe into a cosmic form of Jackass, where we incarnate to do dumb shit and get killed because omnipotent spirits are bored masochists. Apparently, according to the spiritualists, the most enjoyable thing anyone can possibly do is get sick and die before the age of five, because that's the life of half of all the humans have ever lived. HALF OF EVERYONE WHO EVER LIVED, 50 BILLION PEOPLE, DIED BEFORE AGE FIVE. I refuse to believe in a world view where omnipotent spirits find that to be the most useful way to spend their time.
Circumcision is just the opposite of this. We can learn from the experiences of others, from the men with sexual dysfunction as a result of circumcision, and from the experiences of intact men, that not being circumcised is not equivalent to getting shot or getting the plague, that there is the possibility (and I believe definite reality) that not being circumcised is preferable to being circumcised. And it pisses me off that I'll never get to experience that. It pisses me off, supremely, that I had an important organ removed without my consent shortly after birth. That strikes me as an unforgivable form of child abuse.
C. S. Lewis said something like this in his book on the non-problem of evil. Some people say "It would be better for me if I had never existed." To which he replied, "In what sense 'for me'? How would I, if I did not exist, profit from not existing?" The statement is meaningless, since if you don't exist then there's no you to benefit from not existing. The statement is nothing but a string of words put together that does not refer to a real subject, like a square circle or a rock so heavy God cannot lift it. These strings of words do not constitute valid statements since the words nullify each other.
The Protestants Invented Witch Trials
The Catholic church a thousand years ago said that witches do not exist, that people who believe that they are witches are delusional, and that since witches and witchcraft does not exist, you cannot prosecute someone as a witch, hold witch trials, burn people at the stake as witches, because it is impossible to commit a crime that does not exist.
Then, Martin Luther nailed his feces to the door of a church and decided to create a perversion of Christianity based on ignorance and the inversion of Christ's actual teachings, and in so doing brought belief in witches into the world. Protestants burned witches out of the same love of ignorance that fuels ISIS (and to steal the land and other property from unpopular people through trumped up charges).
Then, Martin Luther nailed his feces to the door of a church and decided to create a perversion of Christianity based on ignorance and the inversion of Christ's actual teachings, and in so doing brought belief in witches into the world. Protestants burned witches out of the same love of ignorance that fuels ISIS (and to steal the land and other property from unpopular people through trumped up charges).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
