Feminism IS rape culture

Turns out we were wrong.  There actually is a rape culture in the west.  And it's not the result of importing Islam.  It's found in the political enclaves of the Left.  So it may be fair that we didn't see it, and mocked it's existence.  It seemed that all the accusations where an example of them throwing anything at the Right to see if it sticks, but it turns out the third Law of SJWs applied.  It was projection.

So if you want to be a rapist here are the steps.

1. Gain power or notoriety (the easiest way is to become a teacher or a youtube commentator).  
2. Publicly espouse leftist positions, specifically Feminism
3. Rape

Do it in that order, and all leftist institutions will come to your aid, and bully your victims into silence.  It's only in the last few months that this formula has been breaking down.  However, it's worked for decades before now.

1. Ted Kennedy: much like Harvey Weinstein, it's always been known that he would get drunk and assault the women around him.  But because of his following the above formula, all we have to go on is anecdotes, the most significant perhaps being a case in 1985 where he threw himself on top of a waitress and attempted to rape her, being stopped by another waitress entering the room.  Of course we just have a few eye witness accounts, no police reports or any court cases.  And Ted Kennedy was celebrated through out his life, and is still referred to as the lion of the senate by news sources that complain about rape culture.
2. Roman Polaski: in 1976, he drugged a 13 year old girl, and anally raped her while she cried and begged him to stop.  Like most of these guys, everybody knew or had heard that this was the kind of thing he did.  Feminists who complain about rape culture still defend him to this day.  
3. Bill Clinton: he's another guy everybody knew engaged in sexual assault and rape.  After being raping Juanita Broaddrick lay on the bed to afraid to move or respond, with her clothes torn and her lip bleeding.  Bill Clinton told her to put some ice on that before leaving the room.  He is still talked about fondly in the left wing media.
4. Hillary Clinton: by her own words she help a guilty child rapist go free as a lawyer, and she would then go and intimidate Bill Clinton's victims.  Feminists are still angry that they would not able to get this champion of rape culture elected president.  

And it's not just high profile people like that. 

1. Male Feminist professor Hugo Schwyzer was know for his outspoken support of feminism.  Turns out he had a habit of harassing his female students, and leveraging his power over them for sex.  There were many complaints against him, but he was largely celebrated until admitting his crimes in a twitter melt down.  You may have to dig to find past coverage of him, because it's been largely scrubbed.  
2. Feminist youtuber Aleksandr Kolpakov murdered one of his partners.  After this it came out that while he was working as a feminist youtuber, he had been generally abusive towards the women around him.  But the community worked to hide this fact.  
3. Mo Fathelbab is a comedy club owner and outspoken male feminist.  He's also a rapist.  You can still google his name and mostly see either articles written by him, or glowingly about him.  Presumably he's still taking advantage of his position to rape sleeping women.
4. Hart Noecker was a well know local activist.  He'd written articles for local organizations and was mentioned in them as well.  He'd also been raping women for years.  He'd use his social capital to get women in compromising situations and then rape them.  

That's just from a few minuets of googling.  Feminism IS rape culture.

Is Principled Conservatism Wrong?

I used to be into principled conservatism.  But after stumbling my way into the manosphere, I’ve found that it’s a concept I no longer believe in.  The idea is that conservatives should have principles that they follow, and as long as they are followed, they’ll lead to better government.  This is true for both the voters and the politicians.  

Here’s the thing.  Communists have principles too.  And as a good conservative I learned to mock communists, not because their principles are wrong, but because communism doesn’t work.  It’s been tried.  Over and over.  And at the end of the day it’s a failed system.  

But why?  Why does communism fail?  As a former good conservative I know the answer.  It’s because human nature doesn’t work that way.  You can say “from each according their ability and to each according to their need” till you’re blue in the face.  Without extra incentives, you’ll be lucky to get people to do the bare minimum.  And everyone is going to claim to need much more than they do if it’s free.  So sorry communists.  Your system doesn’t work.  

The hard part is that we can turn that same logic on ourselves, and if you are still a principled conservative, it doesn’t turn out too well.  Let’s look at some.  One principle is that if you take the high road and don’t get into the mud with your opponents throwing around petty insults, you’ll win in the long run.  How’s that worked out?  Trump didn’t subscribe to that at all, and he steam rolled 18 “above it” contestants.  

Maybe getting into the mud like Trump did isn’t going to win every time, but it did this time.  And if you principles only apply sometimes, they are not principles at all.  

And that’s not all.  As a good conservative I used to believe that constitutional democracy was the best form of government, and that all people would prefer it if only they could throw off their chains and try it.  The Arab spring sure proved me wrong there.  I used to think that America had a transformational way of life, and that the huddled masses of immigrants coming here would be changed with a taste of freedom.  After looking at voter trends, I’ve been disabused of that one as well.  Of course as a Christian, I shouldn’t have been fooled anyway.  The Church, backed by the transformational power of the Holy Spirit, is nowhere near so powerful in making people change.  It was never so foolish as to claim to.  

So at the end of the day, what is the conclusion?  Principles are not worthless, but we are flawed when we form them.  Results remain important.  If you have principles that are contradicted by how the world actually works, they are wrong.  Even if they came from incredibly smart people like Mises or Hayak.  This is why the Alt-Right is superior to principled conservatism.  Being results based rather than principles based has allowed them to avoid the false principles that has caused conservatism to fail for as long as it’s existed.

Don't be a cuck, stand with Milo

One thing that has become increasingly clear in the past few years is that to be an effective leader in the culture wars, simply having the correct ideas is not enough.  In addition to having the correct ideas, being smart, and being a thought leader, it is necessary to entertain.  And while being entertaining will get you somewhere, even that’s limited.  You also need the type of personality that seeks out conflict.  And you have to be able to out maneuver the media.  

This is why Milo is so brilliant.  There are some people who think that he’s gotten to where he is simply because he’s a gay conservative, but they are wrong.  With his verbal skills, combined with his humor, and his ability to outright troll the media, he would be a star no matter what.  But when you throw on top that the typical leftist dismissal tactic of calling anyone they disagree with a Nazi is simply absurd when applied to a gay jew, and you have a super star.  

So in Milo you have an individual who is conservative, funny, embraces rather than avoids conflict, can troll the media, AND can’t reasonably be called a Nazi because he is a gay jew.  It’s not a shock that he has been effective in changing our culture.  And make no mistake, he has been effective.  His appearances on TV, college tours, and writings on gamergate, have all done tremendous work in getting the word out on how crazy SJWs are.  A lot of other people are currently riding this cultural wave, but Milo is one of the very few people who can claim to have had a hand in creating it.  

Since I’ve been aware of Milo, who came to my attention during gamergate, he’s been taking scalps.  He helped destroy that particular SJW movement, he’s made it ok to show conservatism on college campuses again, and he’s help get Trump elected.  

This is why the left has orchestrated a media hit job on him.  The twisted sub-humans in the media, after finding that Nazi didn’t work switched to pedophile.  These are the same scum that were trying to normalize it just a few months ago.  Lena Dunham, who openly sexually molested her sister while her sister was a toddler, is celebrated.  Salon put up an article about how pedophilia is just another sexual orientation (which is taken down just yesterday).  They don’t care about keeping children safe from sexual predators (quite the opposite), they care about hitting an effective conservative with a smear that will stick in the christian conservative community.  That’s it.  And if you go along with the people who clearly have an agenda of degrading children, all the while thinking you’re fighting against pedophilia, well that would make you a cuck.  Don't be a cuck. Stand with Milo.

Stop calling the left hypocrites

When I was playing basketball in high school, my coaches repeatedly beat into my head that I needed to take a pump fake when getting the ball passed to me in the post.  As is I was just turning and shooting a contested shot that would either miss or get blocked.  But eventually my coach’s instructions started working, and I began to robotically pump fake every time I got the ball.  Most of the time that worked great because my defender was pressed against my shoulder, and as soon as they jumped I could draw an offensive foul and or shoot over them.  But sometimes the defender wasn’t set when I got the ball, and a pump fake just gave them time to recover.  I had to learn that the point of any sort of ball fake, whether it’s a pump fake, pretending to pass to an empty spot on the court behind the defender, or looking at an empty space on the court like there is someone there, the point is to get a defender who is playing good defense be tricked into playing bad defense.  

When liberals cry racism, all they are doing is robotically throwing a pump fake.  Ending racism is not their goal, and never has been.  It’s just empty space they want you to defend.  They’ve learned to do it because it works.  They say that we can’t have voter id laws because they are racist.  Conservatives then respond that black people know how to get photo ids, and thinking they can’t makes Democrats the real racists.  And while the liberal media has everyone pretending that racism an issue massive voter fraud takes place.  

And the truth in this case is that calling democrats the real racists is wrong anyway.  They don’t believe that black people can’t get photo ids either.  They just want unrestricted voter fraud.  

So while there are exceptions where calling democrats out on their bigotry and hatred is good rhetoric, for the most part saying things like “Democrats are the real racists” is just biting on a pump fake.  

Self Defense While White

The man described in this video is Allen Scarsella, who was just convicted in court.  As the hostile witnesses in the video describe it, he was at a BLM protest filming it.  The protesters didn’t like him and demanded he and his friends remove their masks.  When they didn’t the crowd started punching them, and when they ran the crowd that had been violent started chasing them.  At this point, with a violent angry mob chasing them, Allen shot 5 of them and was able to get away.  

The jury’s statements make it obvious that they were not considering whether or not it is ok for a man being chased by a violent mob to fight back or not, but whether or not Allen was a racist.  And he was found guilty of shooting at the violent mob chasing him, not because they were a violent mob chasing him, but because they were black.  

This was just one of many BLM violent riots that happen in Minnesota’s Twin Cities.  And Allen made a mistake.  He bought into the narrative that this riots are happening because left is illogical and their rhetoric was causing the unintended consequence of violent riots.  And so with that being the case, he thought he could go and stand his ground and defend himself as all citizens have the right to do, and because his only enemies are the cowardly protestors that will only be violent when they think there isn’t any possibility of being hit back, he’d be fine.  What he failed to realize is that the Governor, Mayor, police chief, and local judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, are all on the side of the riot.  The powers that be want the rioters to do what they want, and they want innocent people to get out of the way and cower in fear.  Allen messed that up, so he had to pay.  

I’m sure that after the Berkeley riots a lot of people are thinking of doing similar things.  But if you do, know all of what and who you are up against, and recognize the full scale of the sacrifice you’ll likely be making.  If someone at Berkeley had done something similar, it’s pretty clear the outcome would have been the same.  They’d be messing with the mayor, police, judges, attorneys, and would be sent to jail for decades for the crime of not letting a mob beat and possibly kill them.

What will we tell our daughters?

I'm hearing this a lot on social media.  "How will we explain to our daughters about how a misogynist won the presidency?" But just remember what these people wanted to tell their sons.  That they are racist, sexist bigots simply for the conditions of their birth.  That they will not deserve what they have no matter how hard they work, because privilege.  So our sons need to be shamed, shunned, and attacked.

They are driving their sons to commit suicide, or to mutilate their genitals and start calling themselves girls in an act of penance.  What they are saying and doing is evil.  And they deserve no sympathy.

Judgment Cycle

There is a theme in the Bible where God will take certain steps before leveling judgment.  There seem to be two aspects to it.  One is that He is showing mercy to sinners by giving them every possible chance to repent.  The other is that He is stripping away all deceit and plausible deniability, leaving the evil in them bare before destroying them.

You see this with Cain and the people before the flood.  God protected Cain to stop a cycle of murder and feuds from happening.  The whole world became engulfed in murder regardless.  So they were destroyed.

Pharaoh was told to let the Israelites go.  He didn't listen.  He was shown miracle after miracle, and still didn't believe.  Finally he was downed in the Red Sea.

The Israelites were brought into the desert.  They were shown miracle after miracle.  They never stopped being faithless and cowardly.  Finally they were judged to wandering in the desert until they died.

And the process goes on with Israel being prosperous when obeying God and then in their prosperity ditching God for paganism, and suffering drought, famine, locusts, and losing wars.  This cycle is described explicitly in the books of the prophets such as the book of Amos.  I don't want to reprint all of Amos 4, 5 and 6, but the summary is that Israel has been levying unjust taxes, and allowing the powerful to act without regard to justice.  So God has sent prophets, and they did not repent.  And drought, and they did not repent.  And blight, and they did not repent.  And war, and they did not repent.  And so because they would not hear their sins, and they would not respond to the increasing pain God has put them through for continuing to ignore Him, He is now going to destroy them.

I can't help but think of this current election cycle and be concerned.  Haven't we been seeing this?  Haven't we seen a country that celebrates murdering children in the womb?  And for those children that are not murdered, don't we see them being degraded and corrupted by earlier and earlier exposure to sex in the school system?  Haven't we seen our children targeted for corruption by entertainment such as Hannah Montana which morphed into Miley Cyrus, and is merely the latest in a long line of Disney child entertainers turned professional slut.

Killing, degrading, and corrupting children has been a clear part of the liberal agenda since before I was born.  And now leaks have come out that clearly show that Hillary and her inner circle are occult pedophiles.  And yet whats really shocking is that this is shocking.  We knew.  If you ask the question, what would occult pedophiles do if they controlled government, schools, and media, the answer would be what they've been doing for decades.

I've been part of Evangelical Christian institutions all my life.  I went to a Evangelical Christian high school, college, and church.  And not one of them has had the honesty and courage to take a stand and name this evil.  Sure some individuals within have but other individuals who openly aligned with the satanic agenda of the democratic party have also been tolerated.  They've made the absurd case that it's about being nice to people.  Well now we explicitly know.  It's about this.

The rationalizations have been striped away.  The evil is laid bare.  What will you do?  What will your church do?  The opportunities to repent before judgment are running out fast.

The value of a college education

LA Times put out a group of graphs regarding who supports who in the presidential election, that reveals something they probably weren't intending.  If you look at who's in the tank for Hillary by education levels and income levels, two groups stand out.  Those with college and grad degrees, and those making less than 35k per year.  

Debate Notes

I didn't watch the debate, but in going over the coverage of it, I couldn't help but notice these two things.  In her opening statement Hillary said this:

"Donald Trump is different. I said starting back in June that he was not fit to be president and commander-in-chief. And many Republicans and independents have said the same thing. What we all saw and heard on Friday was Donald talking about women, what he thinks about women, what he does to women. And he has said that the video doesn’t represent who he is.

But I think it’s clear to anyone who heard it that it represents exactly who he is. Because we’ve seen this throughout the campaign. We have seen him insult women. We’ve seen him rate women on their appearance, ranking them from one to ten. We’ve seen him embarrass women on TV and on Twitter. We saw him after the first debate spend nearly a week denigrating a former Miss Universe in the harshest, most personal terms.

So, yes, this is who Donald Trump is. But it’s not only women, and it’s not only this video that raises questions about his fitness to be our president, because he has also targeted immigrants, African- Americans, Latinos, people with disabilities, POWs, Muslims, and so many others."

In her very next statement she said this.

"When I hear something like that, I am reminded of what my friend, Michelle Obama, advised us all: When they go low, you go high."

The lizard queens tongue is forked indeed.  

Championing Women

A lot of different sources are reporting the same things about Trump's lewd statements caught on mic.  Some of the more interesting bits are that this seems to be a smear job coming from the GOP, specifically the Bush family rather than from the left.  And that the GOP members who are currently resting on their fainting couches have all dealt with people who they knew in their private lives were much worse, including pedophiles.  So it's all so much virtue signaling.  

One point that I've only seen discussed at Dalrock's is that this has been framed as an attack on women, while completely ignoring the ramifications of marriage.  Which goes to show that the GOP doesn't care about conserving the family, but would rather conserve feminism.  

My own point is that I take issue with Paul Ryans statement, beyond it being a betrayal of his word and position.  

"Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified."  No.  They are not.  Women are not a cause.  They are not some abstract ideal.  They are just people.  In particular they are people who in America are overweight, abrasive, prone to putting the short term goal of being a cubical drone over the long term goal of perpetuating the human race, and murderers to the tune of 600,000 children per year.  I see nothing about this demographic to champion or revere.  As if doing so with any demographic based on traits determined at conception would be anything short of retarded.

Libertarians, the good the bad and the ugly

I used to consider myself a libertarian.  Not in that I'd ever registered with the party or donated to them or anything like that.  But the base beliefs resonated with me, and I got caught up in the Ron Paul campaigns in both 2008 and 2012.  And I still think it's tragic that he was not able to beat the system and get the Republican nomination.

Ron Paul may not be the most gifted politician.  To evaluate a politician's performance in something like a debate, you really have to strip the information content out of things, and instead look at stage presence, state control, and the reactions of others to them.  Do that and he's pretty underwhelming.  But if you look beyond the rhetoric, I don't think that there's another candidate I've ever heard who radiated knowledge and wisdom as he did.  Here was a man who not only subscribed to libertarianism, but had read and understood the founding thinkers such as Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard.  And not only did he have that deep understanding, but he'd applied it to his entire career as a congressman.  He both understood and lived his beliefs.

It would have been interesting to see how things played out, if he'd made it to the White House.

But while I believe that libertarianism is a belief system that has a lot of good things to say, it also is fatally flawed.  This is because it fails to see people as anything but individuals.  While it's true that people are individuals, they are also part of groups, and those groups have a very real and separate existence.  We can see this very clearly if we look at other species.  Take ants for example.  Ants exist as individual creatures.  But it makes a lot of sense to look at an entire ant colony as it's own single organism.  Ant colonies are capable of solving path finding problems that are beyond even human intelligence, yet a single ant does not have an IQ to speak of.  And ant colonies are distinct.  If you take an ant from one colony and place it in another, unless they are very close colonies the local ants will kill it, same as your body would reject an organ from a donor that has a different blood type.

As humans, we are like ants, and nations are like ant colonies.  Ants take group action through use of scents and hormones, we do this with money, social customs, politics... and scents and hormones.  And so a nation really can be thought of as a super organism.  Libertarianism is flawed because it does not account for these super organisms.

Even more importantly, libertarianism is flawed because it doesn't work.  We had two runs with a candidate that was pretty much the Platonic Form of a Libertarian, from his platform, to his record, to the way he ran his campaign.  And he was crushed.  Twice.

What's ugly is what is now left of the Libertarian party and the political ideology.  There has been a pretty large shift of Libertarians moving to the Alt-Right.  Even the proprietor of ronpaul.com came out and endorsed Trump.  And when I go and look at pictures of the Libertarian Party convention, what it looks almost the same as the pedofest known as World Con.  It's filled with ugly, misshapen, self mutilating people.  And that's aside from the disgustingly overweight man who used his time on stage to dance around in a tux speedo.  In other words, these people don't appear to want to be free, but to be free to be degenerate.

And then there's Gary Johnson.  For starters his entire campaign seems to be based on lying about his fiscal track record as governor. For every year he governed, both spending and debt increased.  And then there is his general impression.  Whereas Ron Paul, if you strip the information content, doesn't give much of an impression at all, Gary Johnson gives the impression that he should not be left alone with small children.  And if you do consider the information content, he sounds like a man whose education comes from some libertarian forums, and occasionally says something crazy and has to be corrected by his handlers.  Even if you ignore the fact that he lies about his record, his physical presence is of a man who's very sorry and unsure about what he's saying, and that if you actually listen to what he says he sounds like an idiot, his actual advertised policy positions are awful.  He believes in forced vaccinations, forcing business to serve clients that would violate their conscience, supports black lives matter, and supports TTP.

That is why I find it odd when I see conservatives supporting Gary Johnson.  He is a man who is more awkward and autistic than Jeb Bush.  And if anything he's to the left of Jeb.  Jeb is a candidate that these same conservatives would refuse to vote for.  So why they would vote for someone even worse as a protest vote is something I find very odd.

Conservatives and Imigration

So much has been said about how a failure of conservatism is to not recognize the existence of nations, or how they tend to treat people as economic units instead of members of nations.  So I feel no need to add my voice to that.  But what I do think is interesting is that if you take the process of Californication, which most conservatives do, and then apply that principle to immigration in general, Conservatives have even more reason to be against immigration than the Alt-Right.

The Alt-Right believes that nation and race are tied together, and that people from some races that form very different nations will have difficulty assimilating.  And so they fear that importing large groups of people from nations that don't assimilate well will ultimately destroy the american white nation.  Preservation of this nation, is their goal.  And so when it comes to immigration from somewhere like the U.K., the Alt-Right isn't too worried about it.

Conservatives on the other hand believe that traditions are important, and conserving their way of life is their goal.  So if take the principle of Californication, which is that people take their politics with them when they move, how many immigrants are going to be conservatives?  If a man values his countries traditions and wishes to preserve them, why would he leave?  By the very nature of the fact that they are immigrants, immigrants are not going to be Conservative, regardless of where they come from.

The Problem With Education

To start out, I’m not a teacher.  I don’t have any basis of saying what does work in regards to schooling or what sort of system should replace what we currently have.  I’m merely able to look back on my experiences in high school and college and see things that gall me and things that are completely missing.  

After obtaining a high school degree and then a bachelor's, and then interacting with genuinely educated individuals, I’ve found that outside of the area of my major, I’m almost entirely uneducated.  I’m living in Western Civilization, but for some reason my education didn’t include a single one of the philosophers or historians whose ideas served as pillars of this civilization.  If I’ve ever read Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Machiavelli, Aquinas, or any others, it’s because I’ve done so on my own.  I’m sure that list that I came up with off the top of my head should be longer, but honestly I wouldn’t have even named those that I did without any self education.  

I learned nothing at all of philosophy, only the briefest outline of history, and read something like 3 books of any literary note.  Which I could forgive if it were not for the way time was spent instead of reading great literary works, philosophy, and more history.  Instead of doing those things, we read short story fluff, learned how write research papers (which would be fine if the focus had been research rather than an autistic obsession with proper formatting), and the oh so importing history of African tribes.  Remember, just because their history doesn’t matter doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter.  

After high school I decided I would like to be a man with a well rounded education, so I went to get a 4 year degree in computer science.  Yet still, I finished it without reading a single book by a single foundational philosopher, historian, or even novelist in western thought.  Not one.  I did have a class that taught how good people communicate using I language because that avoids conflict though.  So there’s that.  

I don’t have children.  But if I ever do, they will never set foot in any of the education institutions we have now.  And hopefully by the time I have them, I will be far enough along in my self remedial education to know how and what to teach them.

The Cuck Mindset

All of us use frameworks when dealing with information about the world.  It’s simply not possible to deal with every piece of information we come across in a completely open minded honest way.  We simply don’t have the mental horsepower and time for that.  So we put together a bunch of rules in our mind that allows us to filter information as being worthy of our time or not.  So for example, if you were to tell me that half of married women will at some point have a bone broken by their husbands, I’d assume you are a liar or are quoting a liar, because feminists lie all the time.  My rule of thumb is that studies that support feminist narratives are either made up or manipulated to achieve a specific result.  I didn’t always think that.  But after seeing it so many times, I don’t even bother to research such claims anymore.

A good mental framework is a very useful thing.  It helps you cut through the crap and find the truth much faster.  And as I said before, we all need one to a lesser or greater extent.  But the problem is that all frameworks are flawed.  By their nature, frameworks are abstractions which is a form of a simplification.  So all frameworks are too simple to accurately describe reality.  

To prove the point, consider a framework that is far more accurate than any political framework we will ever develop, the base 10 number system.  For those not familiar with the term, the base 10 number system refers to the fact that we only use 10 digits for our number system.  That is to say that if you have a number greater than 9, instead of making up new digits you simply use combinations of the digits you already have.  It works great because by doing this and memorizing addition and subtraction with the 10 digits you have, you can extrapolate that out to numbers of any size without any more memorization.  The problem is that the base 10 system is full of holes.  Consider the problem if 22 divided by 7.  If you calculate that out you get something close to pi.  And like pi, you’ll never finish calculating the number because the decimal goes on forever.  However, if you express the problem in base 7, it’s no problem.  In base seven 22 comes out to 31, and 7 comes out to 10.  In base 7 the number is 3.1, no infinite decimal.  So you can see that a number system that reuses digits as a means of convenience is flawed.  And given that our brains need to rely on a flawed system for something as simple and objective as division, how much more must all of our frameworks be flawed when dealing with something as complex and subjective as politics.  

This is the problem with cuckservatives.  They have a framework that they have developed in response to political situations of the past, and it’s no longer serving them.  This is the danger with political frameworks.  If you are not sensitive to them, instead of updating and revising your thinking when you get conflicting information, you just stick the new information wherever it fits best in your current framework, regardless of whether it makes any sense.  

This is what most cucks are doing.  They have their framework for evaluating politics, and the alt-right has no place in it.  So for example, in looking for what went wrong with the GWB presidency, one thing that caused it to fail was a lack of principles.  GWB was just governing by the seat of his pants, and largely making it up as he went, doing what was popular more than doing what was right.  So in the cuck mind, not having principles means chasing popularity and power.  So when they correctly see that Trump and the alt right are not principled, they put us in that box.  And because they have been burned in the past, they won’t be swayed.  So it doesn’t matter that Trump already has popularity and power, or that he regularly takes unpopular stances.  They are not going to budge.  

The problems that we face today are not the same as the problems Regan faced.  The Cold War is over, and today we are the nation that is overthrowing governments and forcing our way of life on unwilling subjects.  Our news media is the ministry of truth.  Our currency is the means by which some members of society are more equal than others.  Russia on the other hand is talking about returning to the gold standard, is promoting families and children, keeps homosexual out of jobs where they could easily abuse children, has strong rights for the unborn, and openly supports and promotes the Christian Church.  This does not matter to the cuck though, because the U.S.S.R. is evil.  

And it doesn’t end there.  The conservative framework had flaws all along, that at the start seemed small, but we can now see are fatal.  The biggest thing being that conservatives ignored culture.  The thought was always that if you pursued principled politics and economics that culture would work itself out.  But history has shown that to be wrong.  As Andrew Breitbart said, politics is downstream from culture.  

And so the cuck will continue to let their framework do their thinking for them, being either too afraid or too lazy to abandon it.

And the winner of Hillary's alt-right speech is...

Milo Yiannopoulos!

Alex Jones will get some new followers, Nigel Farage probably won't find his life changed much one way or the other.  Pepe got a shout out.  But Milo actually got Hillary to say "Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer", which was followed by all 30 audience members audibly clutching their pearls.

Men, Honor, and Competition

One of the key differences between men and women seems to be that women do not have an innate sense of honor in the way men do.  This is not to say that men are innately more virtuous, moral, or decent than women.  But simply that honor seems to be a part of them in a way that it is not with women.  To explain what I mean, I should point out that if I were to list the most dishonorable people I’ve ever met, at least the top 5 would be men.  But here is the difference.  The men I know who are such, are in general weak and lacking virtue.  They don’t have a great deal of self control, fortitude, or prudence.  And when they are caught in their dishonor, they show shame.  

Most women I know, on the other hand, have engaged in some act I found shockingly dishonorable, but did so without the slightest bit of shame.  And what’s more, they are otherwise not lacking in self control, fortitude, or prudence.  I’m sure most male readers here can think of at least one such example themselves.

So why is that?  Why is there this difference between men and women?  After thinking about it, I believe that I have at least a partial answer.  And it lies in competition.

One of the reasons men compete is to sort themselves into hierarchies.  That way, even as kids, they all know who’s the fastest, who can lift the most, etc.  Within the context of group action, this knowledge is important.  If you need someone to run fast, it’s best to know who the fastest runner is.  And of course this scales to normal adult activity as well, i.e. it’s important to know who the best guy is on a construction crew at putting up sheet rock, and who is the best database designer at a software development company, etc.  

This relates to the subject of honor because part of honor is finding your place in the hierarchy correctly.  To either cheat or purposely underperform is dishonorable.  And that is because doing so robs the world of accurate information, and thus makes the world a worse place.  So if you win a race by putting glue on the starting blocks of the other racers, you’ll get the accolades of being the best, but if the world actually needs the best runner for something they’ll wrongly think it’s you, when they could do better.  

So dishonor is to make the world a worse place in order to secure a better place in it.  

And this all comes back to women, because they don’t particularly seem to compete and sort themselves into hierarchies the way men do.  They may simulate the way men compete, but you only have to watch any WNBA highlight reel to see that they aren’t REALLY trying.  They simply are not built for fighting and building.  So when it comes to honor, at least the part of it that is tied up in competition, it’s simply not something that applies.

The logical case against equality

In addition to the cult of equality being anti Biblical and anti beauty, it’s also anti reason.  The idea that if we could make it so that there were no disparities between the different people groups we’d have equality is simply wrong.  To prove this, consider an impossible hypothetical.  Let’s say that we structured society so that every single person was a famous doctor.  Nevermind that such a society would shortly die of starvation, or the fact that not everyone can be famous.  At first glance, it may seem that in this hypothetical equality may have been achieved.  But then you have to consider that not everyone equally wants to be a famous doctor.  Some people may find the weight of having a life in their hands to be completely unbearable, whereas others are so fulfilled that they would gladly do the work for free.  Could you call both groups equal?  Hardly.

So you can see that to have true equality, you cannot force people into a particular box.  Each person must be allowed to pursue what is valuable to them personally, in order for equality to be possible.  But the problems don’t end there.  Not every person's personal sense of value is equal.  For example, say you have one man whose life’s work and sense of fulfillment comes from leaving a legacy to his children, and another whose life’s work and sense of fulfillment comes from driving a bus.  The first man must work his whole life in order to realize his life's work.  The other has to wait till he’s 18, and then must take a fairly easy test.  Can these men be said to be equal?  Is there any way to make them equal?  And that’s not even factoring in men with self contradictory desires, such as leading a quiet life and being rich and famous.  

So you can see that equality is simply not possible with a significantly varied population.  And in the first case, where everyone is superficially the same, it’s not even desirable.  It’s a twilight zone kind of hell.

The aesthetic case against equality

I’m sure some people thought my last post went too far in calling equality a doctrine of demons.  For the sake of argument, let’s say I’m wrong.  Then why is it that the art, videos, and events produced by various groups pushing for it constantly portray things that are demeaning, degrading, and corrupting?  And they don’t simply portray things things, but delight in them and celebrate them.  It’s not effective propaganda.  It never has been.  There’s no reason to think it would be.  So why?  If you can think of a better case than it’s Satan signing his work, I’m all ears.  

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, here’s some examples.

By way of contrast, look at the appeals to beauty and virtue that comes out of white nationalist propaganda.

New Paganism

A very large theme throughout the Bible is to avoid doing as the pagans do.

• Do not worship the LORD your God in the way these pagan peoples worship their gods.
• The LORD says, "Do not start following pagan religious practices. Do not be in awe of signs that occur in the sky even though the nations hold them in awe.”

When I think of pagans, I tend to think of images of blue bottomed natives chanting and having seizure while trying to summon some demon, or something like that. But while some of that does exist today, it seems to be a small minority of society that is mostly composed of socio-sexual losers. Yes, some of them are very rich and powerful. But that doesn't change their rank. Just look at Jeb Bush.

But that is the old style of paganism. The western world has matured past that. So while their may be some weird sections of society that go back to it, it simply won't be wide spread, any more than we could go back to using alphabets that have thousands of characters, or forget about how to produce more goods through use of assembly lines.

The new paganism is different. It's not about worshiping some polytheistic pantheon. It's about trying to create new moral orders. What I mean by moral order is the intrinsic sense of right and wrong that all men have, that if followed amazingly results in society doing well, and if not results in society collapsing. I say it's amazing because it causes even simple men to act beneficially, when finding the right thing to do by using game theory, economics and politics would be beyond even the most intelligent of men. For example, consider the 2008 housing crisis. After reading Mises, Heyak, Friedman, and a bunch of Vox Day, I've learn about the business cycle, credit bubbles, and things like that. And after learning that, I understand why the whole thing happened. But what's interesting is that for that whole crisis to have been avoided wouldn't have required that all parties involved know all that economic theory. It also could have been avoided if they had simply acted morally. Greedy home buyers shouldn't have made agreements with the bank that they didn't have the capability to keep, and greedy bankers shouldn't have given out oppressive loans to people they knew couldn't afford it.

So this is what I mean by moral order. A simple understanding of right and wrong that results in societal well being if followed. When I say simply, I mean simple like language is simple. On the one hand, language is intensely complex as anyone who's tried to program a A.I. that takes voice commands will tell you. But on the other hand children can speak and understand speech just fine. Even very low I.Q. children.

As Christians, we understand that the moral order is something that exists outside of ourselves, and was created by God. We can't change it, any more than we can change math. But this is precisely what the new pagans seek to do.

While many different pagan moral orders have become prevalent, none is more so than the Marxist idea that equality is a moral mandate. Especially in the Christian Church. Which is odd given that the Bible teaches the exact opposite. Jesus spoke of the parable talents, in which God gives one man one talent, another five, and another ten. While you may think that is based on faith or merit, the Bible also talks about children being given different lots based on their parents.

• A good person leaves an inheritance for their children's children, but a sinner's wealth is stored up for the righteous.
• No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation.
• Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

• Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory.
  

The only place the Bible teaches equality is in the most broad of terms. All have fallen short of the glory of God. Any man who breaks any part of the law breaks the whole thing. And in Christ Jesus there is neither slave nor free, nor jew, nor gentile, nor man, nor woman. All are equal in being allowed to claim salvation. But, that is like saying, either you tell the truth, or you are a liar. That's not to say that some liars are not worse than others. The Bible reflects this as well when Jesus speaks of greater damnation, and of the hierarchy that will be in place in heaven. Jesus says that the last will be first and the first will be last, which of course would be a lie if everyone in heaven was equal.

The fruits of equality are everywhere. We can see it in the killing fields of Cambodia, and in the Gulags of Russia. We can see it in the BLM protests where police where attacked with IEDs. We can see it in the divorced families and children born out of wedlock from trying to force men and women to be equality promiscuous, and equally able to abuse each other.

As Christians we are to seek truth first, as it is personified in Jesus. And as such we should simply seek to understand men, women, and race for what they are, and not try and shoe horn them into the demonic framework of equality, which is neither possible nor desirable. Unfortunately much of the church has abandoned God's moral order, and instead is spreading paganism. And because of this, God is abandoning the church to a fate of irrelevance.

Israel failed in it's task to prepare the world for Christ. They obeyed God for a time, but after a while they began to behave worse than the pagans. But just because they were the chosen nation didn't mean that God needed them. So because they, with their divine revelation failed, God swept them aside and used the Greeks and Romans, with their common revelation, to prepare the world for Christ. And it seems that pattern is repeating today with the American Christian Church and the alt-right. 

Reviving the blog

A number of writers that I greatly admire say that they write because they have to. They have something inside of them that they simply have to get out, and won't feel right unless they do. Unfortunately I'm not like that. Writing for me is a chore. Like doing dishes or washing clothes. So when I hit a point where everything I had to say was simply a regurgitation of what other bloggers were saying and saying better than I ever could anyway, I stopped feeling the need to write.

I'm reviving the blog for a few reasons. First is that I've passed through a phase of being a student, and have started to have some original thoughts again. Second, is that I've come to the realization that even if I'm doing nothing but regurgitating, different people will respond to different wave lengths, so my regurgitated writing will most likely be useful to someone, even if I wouldn't personally find it that great. And lastly is that I just this morning felt God ask me to start writing again. And when the creator of the universe asks you to do something, it's a good idea to do that thing, even if it feels like a chore.