Trump as Caesar

The comparisons are not out of line, and that’s a good thing for our side.

The libtards are currently shit hot on portraying Trump as Julius Caesar, and take great delight in watching his mock execution at recent Shakespeare in the Park productions. Their comparison is actually quite apt, though they do not know why. One thing I have found consistently about liberals is that they have only a rudimentary grasp of history, and never question the gaps in the narrative invariably left by substandard history teachers. If they understood history, they would know that Roman history did not turn out well for those who opposed Caesar.

How did Gaius Julius Caesar come to power? Not through the traditional methods, to be sure. Caesar was working in the last days of the Republic. One can reasonably argue that it was a dead letter before he was named dictator for life. He was an outsider who despite having wealth and a good family name was not part of the in-crowd among Rome’s elite. He sought as his base not the merchant and banker middle class or their hangers-on, but the poor of Rome, citizens who had seen their birthright diluted by foreigners and financial elites. Caesar was the first major politicians since the Gracchi brothers to actively court voters in the slums. Sound familiar?

After essentially purchasing a consulship (there were two consuls, who were like co-presidents), the Roman Senate, a bunch of self-interested elitist pricks, tried to fuck over old Gaius by exiling him to a governorship in Gaul, just over the Alps in what is now southeastern France. He could have served out his time and retired, but that was not in his nature. Caesar, like Trump, was driven by two factors: an overwhelming desire to make it to the top of the heap, and a love for Rome. Many try to deny the latter just as they deny Trump loves America, but these people tend to be binary thinkers who don’t understand history, human nature, or jack shit.

So what did the notorious GJC do? Took over all of Gaul. Fucking all of it. He spent eight years kicking the shit out of proto-Frenchmen and looting their shit. He kept some of that booty for himself, but he sent a lot of it back to Rome. There, it paid for food and entertainment for the poor as well as cleverly-placed political bribes. He wrote his own memoirs of his Gallic conquests and sent them back to Rome. His military glory and support of the Roman poor made him immensely popular. More so than any of the condescending pricks who fancied themselves Rome’s masters or their low-class figurehead Gnaeus Pompey Magnus, certainly. They did not like it, not one bit. Caesar was an outsider who did not like their program of self-aggrandizement at the expense of Roman society, and he had the means to topple that program. They declared him a criminal for his unauthorized conquest of Gaul and ordered him to return to the city to answer charges of bribery and treason, both of which carried a death sentence.

Caesar understood the score. He knew that after the dictatorships of Marius and Sulla and the murder of the Gracchi Brothers, the Roman Senate and the ruling class of patricians were completeley full of shit. The law was what they said it was and what it was depended on what made them richer and more powerful. In their incestuous pissing contests, the patricians had flooded Rome with slaves that put common Romans (plebeians) out of work, and used this inflicted poverty to buy up all the land and hence means of production. Regular Roman farmers could not compete with the huge, slave-operated plantations of the patricians. Sound familiar? Caesar grasped all this, did not like it, and realized that when a legal system is not used fairly, evenly, and for the benefit of all, it can be violated by any man who has the means to escape punishment. Laws are for everyone or for no one, and Caesar wasn’t going to be tried in a kangaroo court by a bunch of soft-handed catamites.

What happened next was one of the greatest stories in Western history. Caesar, with one legion, marched into Italy and crushed his old friend and fellow triumvir Pompey, kicking his wrinkled old ass up and down the Mediterranean. After banging the queen of Egypt like a screen door in a hurricane, Caesar came back to Rome where he was honored with the title of dictator for life. By law, dictators could only serve for six months, but that law had already been ignored so often and so flagrantly that no one could really say it was wrong for Caesar to do so and keep a straight face. The common people loved Caesar in power because even if he did things that screwed them over, he screwed over the patricians even harder. They were content to take three inches of dick up the ass in exchange for their enemies taking nine. Sound familiar?

That is not to say that Caesar screwed over the plebs. He by and large kept his promises. He created large infrastructure projects that were only open to Romans. He limited the number of slaves that could be imported to create employment for the common people. He appointed plebeians and patrician outsiders to positions of power. Any of this sound familiar? Along the way, he pissed off a lot of people, mainly wealthy patricians and the rich among the plebeians who saw his actions as a threat to their power. They took action.

By their reasoning, a man who relied on the plebs had no real allies worth mentioning. The patricians who sided with Caesar were traitors who could be expunged with no consequence. A plot to assassinate Caesar was launched, led by Brutus and Cassius. They stabbed the old boy to death, under the premise that they were saving the republic. Of course, by that time, the republic was the governmental equivalent of a porn star in her sixties, and in no way resembled how it had originally been designed. Made to protect the Roman people and bind them together, buttressed by traditional Roman values, the republic had descended into a place of sharp class divisions with no sort of restraint, where the law applied only to people who could not pay their way out of its consequences and where slaves and foreigners displaced the Roman people. Sound familiar?

The elitist nancy boys and their more militant accomplices (substitute John McCain and his boyfriend Lindsey Graham for Cato and Cicero and you have a good idea of who was in on this) thought that they would be greeted with parades and rose petals. In their minds, those dumb fuck plebeians should accept what a wonderful thing the elitist douchebags had done for them by murdering the one man in Rome who stood up for them. The plebeians, who were not stupid and understood their own interests, knew better. The patricians believed that they could con the plebs into thinking this was a favor because Caesar was disrupting the norms of Rome. He had been supported by the plebs for exactly this reason. The plebs were more concerned with their survival as Romans than the form of government under which they lived. The result was rioting and blood in the streets.

Caesar had named his successor, his low-born nephew and adopted son Octavian. He had chosen wisely. Octavian skillfully maneuvered his way into power and partnered with Caesar’s right hand man Marc Antony to round up and execute Caesar’s killers. One by one, those weak-wristed nancy boys were either brutally executed or forced to commit suicide. For writing nasty essays about him, Marc Antony had Cicero’s hands chopped off and his tongue cut out, which he then displayed downtown. Eventually, Antony and Octavian turned on each other, with Octavian ultimately winning. When he did, he ruled with total authority, skillfully ratfucking his political opponents and instituting some of the strictest pro-traditional laws in history.

So by all means, libtards, keep talking shit about killing Julius Trump. I know how this story ends, and it doesn’t end well for you. I for one am eager to see it played out with assault rifles and live-streamed on YouTube.

Some Thoughts on Freedom

It’s what separates us from the rest of the world.

Is freedom too much of a burden for people to bear? This is an argument underlying the division between the Left and the Right. I would submit that people should have all the freedom they can manage, which is largely an act of will. People who cannot make decisions for themselves and who would prefer ease or comfort to autonomy can have that. In fact, it’s unavoidable. Those who want freedom should be allowed to have it, and can have to a large degree even if nefarious forces try to deny it. Freedom is essential and as John Locke pointed out, cannot be taken, even by force, by those who ever truly possess it.

The Left is completely incoherent on the subject of freedom, owing largely to the fact that the Left is largely comprised of people who want the most benefit for the least input and who have no qualms about violating the concepts of fairness and reciprocity to achieve it. By this, I mean that liberals want results without work and are content to infringe upon the lives, liberties, and properties of others to get it. They do not mind taking more than their fair share to have life as they want it, and attempt to justify their theft through status whoring and virtue signaling. Freedom, to them, is whatever empowers their agenda and forces others to stay beneath them in social hierarchy. In general the Left believes that people are not really cut out for freedom of conscience, association, faith, and self defense. In other words, all the main areas in which adult humans need to make up their own mind.

Where to begin with their inconsistencies? A teenage girl needs a note from her parents if she misses a day at her mandatory public school, but should not need her parents’ permission to have an abortion. We should not have the right to self-defense, but if we are murdered, the murderer should not be executed because it is inhumane. Teenagers can decide that they are actually the opposite sex from what their chromosomes scientifically make them, but parents do not have the right to tell their kids they do not approve of interracial dating. Gay couples can force a Christian baker to make for a wedding he sees as not only invalid but a repudiation of everything he believes, but college students should be able to use the threat of violence to stop speakers with whom they disagree and might be offended. The Left is completely full of shit.

The examples show a pattern of disregard for others’ freedom. The lives of others do not matter compared to liberals’ need to virtue signal regarding capital punishment. Freedom of religion an association do not apply when liberals disapprove of those beliefs, and liberals will always disagree with religion because they take a Hobbesian view of government. Religion is a competing source of authority with government, and to liberals, this is a serious problem. Gender identity and teenage autonomy weakens family bonds and normal standards of behavior. Families and traditions, again, are a threat to the omnipotence of government. Liberals insist on the primacy of government in all matters as well as their control of said government. This is not simply about power. It’s about extracting resources with minimal effort, even when that extraction violates every possible system of moral exchange. It is inherently immoral because no one would voluntarily agree to such a system of exchange.

Liberals have little need for personal autonomy in many cases as long as their material needs are met. The push for single-payer health is not about “fairness.” It’s about free healthcare so that they can put forth as little effort as possible to receive services. Welfare isn’t about “the children” or “fairness” either. It’s about extracting resources for their reliable voters. The push for “free” college and the “fight for fifteen” is not about fairness, either. Libtards started realizing that a degree in Peruvian Women’s Slant Rhyme Poetry does not qualify one for any job that does not pay more than minimum wage, so the solution is to require a higher wage and not require students to pay for their degrees. In other words, the left requires taxpayers to subsidize universities through theft of their resources, and after giving out a useless product, requires business owners to subsidize the poor decisions of college graduates. Notice that liberals never talk about tougher admissions standards and funding only for certain majors, which though ridiculous and totalitarian would at least take the needs of others into account. Ridiculous social justice majors are needed to justify university indoctrination and make-work for other libtards, and therefore, college students are granted the freedom to choose majors. Certainly though they not granted the freedom to study only what they want. Colleges impose all manner of “liberal arts” requirements and diversity workshops for undergrads, even though it substantially increases the cost in funds and time required to finish a degree. Freedom, in the liberal mindset, is about what benefits them and strokes their egos, not about actual freedom.

The left is vampiric. But how do they justify their draining of resources? By virtue signaling and status whoring. University professors justify their salaries, benefits, and ability to say shockingly stupid things by insisting that they are our intellectual betters (spoiler alert: they aren’t). Activists justify their extraction by insisting that they are “speaking truth to power” Even baristas at Starbucks justify their desire to help themselves to your money by having the “correct” social and political views that allow them to glom onto the party doing the thieving. They aren’t just virtue signaling to try to make themselves look good in publc. They are signaling to the people doing the heavy lifting that they are part of the tribe and therefore entitled to some of the spoils.

Some people are perfectly content to give up substantial freedoms in exchange for material gain, even when that gain is shortsighted. This would happen even in the absence of heavy-handed government. Imagine there was no government compulsion in much of anything. Even then, some people would rely on the nice rep from the insurance company to pick their coverage levels, the nice bot from Amazon to recommend their purchases, their parents to do all of the difficult paperwork or bill paying while they freeload in the basement. Some people are content to live in such a way, but as long as the rest of us are not forced to subsidize it and are allowed to shame such people, society can survive. The second all of these things became “rights” which we had to both pay for and celebrate, they stopped being the freedom of some and started being the enslavement of all.

For those who desire freedom, it is not a burden. Freedom is simply the ability to make one’s own decisions and accept the consequences of those decisions. Free people are happier people because they know their own role in their situations and have the satisfaction of having created their situation through their own choosing. Freedom is not just a blessing, it is necessary to live a full life. The finest explanation of this comes from Rudyard Kipling:

“If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!”

That is the essence of freedom. He who can do these things is beholden to none in his heart, and is therefore free. Notice that much of this is about mental and spiritual well-being, not material well-being. It is true that much of morality depends upon a full stomach. Is not freedom the benefit of success, and is it not likewise what fuel’s success? Make no mistake about what is on the table here: If the Left is allowed to keep doing what it has been doing for the last century, your descendants will be slaves at best and absorbed into someone else’s culture at worst. You and your heirs will have taken the last step into a thousand years of darkness. Act accordingly.

Abortion and Gun Rights: A Comparison

Similar concerns and tactics from opposing sides.

If you want to understand how the left feels about abortion, look at the way we feel about gun control. This is a good analogy because a lot of the tactics on both sides regarding these issues are similar. So are the suspicions we have about the opposition, and so are the end goals of the opposition. When it comes to guns, we start with the premise that the left is ultimately trying to eliminate all firearms so as to better subdue us. This is undeniably true as many proponents of so-called “common sense” gun laws let the mask slip occasionally and make it clear that they want to take them all. Even if this is not the case, and you run across some Lefty-lite who legitimately only wants to put a few restrictions on gun purchasing or ownership, the fact remains that the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed and that there is no reason to prohibit law abiding citizens from obtaining firearms when criminals are able to achieve them readily. We therefore reject any attempt to limit our access to firearms because we know that the standard goal of these people is the complete elimination thereof.

The pro-abortion camp comes from a similar premise with similar standards of behavior. They know good and well that the ultimate goal for the vast majority of conservatives is to completely outlaw abortion. We are willing to take an incremental approach the same way they do in regarding gun rights. We are perfectly willing to restrict access to abortion to the point where it is extremely difficult, nigh impossible to obtain. Our strict regulations for abortion facilities, waiting periods, and time limits are mean to significantly reduce the number of abortions performed each year. Of course, the government does not fund gun stores like it does Planned Parenthood, but one could make the argument that the government funds arms manufacturers through military purchases, which enables them to sell similar products to the public. The design of those produces was funded through taxes. I don’t want to get off topic, but this is an apples-and-oranges argument because arming troops is a necessity, abortions are not.

Abortion enthusiasts are willing to do the same with guns. Waiting periods, attempts to limit arsenals or monthly purchases, attempts to severely tax ammunition, you name it, they’ll try it. The goal is to greatly reduce gun ownership. They argue that outlawing abortions will send women to back alleys. This could very likely be true, but I for one don’t give a shit. Murdering babies is the kind of wicked shit that should be done in the same venue where drug dealers and prostitutes ply their trades. In a similar fashion, we argue that if guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns. This, too is demonstrably true. Even countries with virtually no legal gun ownership suffer terrorist attacks from people with automatic weapons. We see self-defense as an inherent right, and they see personal protection as something that for the good of all must be outsourced to the government (they see pretty much everything as something to be outsourced to the government, except abortion). We see abortion as murder of innocents, they see it as a woman’s right to control reproduction (the rights of the father and child being subordinate, because, grrl power!). The baby-killing lobby resists our efforts tooth and nail because they know what our ultimate goal is just as we know what their ultimate goal is. This is why both sides are so uncompromising on these issues.

There is another similarity, one which is rarely spoken of, but let me go ahead and break ranks to discuss it. The fact of the matter is, neither side really wants to be a one hundred percent successful. Look around at the Left. They are all talking about getting guns to resist the Trump administration. They have John Brown gun clubs. They have been fully willing to resort to other deadly weapons outside of guns, not due to lack of access, but rather because they are harder to trace. So the left is obviously not against all violence and not against the use of firearms to achieve their goals. They just suck at using them as the Alexandria shooting last week demonstrated. Likewise, are we really that strongly against abortion? I know the idea horrifies me. I know I would be deeply ashamed of any women in my family having one, and I know I would never support aborting any of my unborn children. That being said, do I really get broken up about the idea of inner city minorities and womynists whacking their babies in the womb? Does it really keep me up at night to know there will not be a future generation of welfare recipients, rapists, murderers, and lame-ass campus revolutionaries? No, not really. And if we’re being honest, the vast majority of people, including liberals, aren’t that broken up by it either. When most of us think of a on getting an abortion, we think of fellow white suburbanites. We think of people of similar background with similar values and who are part of our tribe. The idea of killing the unborn children of our tribe rightly sickens and disgusts us. We feel natural, healthy feelings of protection for children. If we thought about who is actually getting abortions, meaning minorities and liberal women, and we consider the fact that we are enemies at war with these people, it is really them eliminating their next generation of their constituents. If they want to do it for us, even if it is in a ghastly manner because killing children is inherently disgusting, maybe we should not stand in their way. Our people by and large do not have abortions because there is something about the Right that is inherently supportive and loving when it comes to having children. There are exceptions, but we by and large embrace a culture of life, or at least one of survival.

Since most of us do not consider these people to be our countrymen, it should not necessarily be our concern what they do with their own children, even if we find the practice disgusting and look down on them for it. The Romans’ archrivals, the Carthaginians, routinely practiced child sacrifice. The Romans despised them for it, and judged the Carthaginians (rightly) to be a degenerate, inherently fucked-up people. Yet, they did not try to stop them from practicing child sacrifice. Unless you consider obliterating their culture a means of stopping it. I do not as stopping child sacrifice was not the reason for Carthage’s destruction. My point is that as abhorrent as abortion is, it is one thing for us to prohibit it among our people and another to prohibit it among an alien people. Our problem is that we are share a land and a government with alien tribes, and until further action is taken we have to argue with them over such policies.

Sidenote: If there is a Left winger you feel the need to argue with, you can always use the standard line of out guns they use about abortions which is if you don’t like them don’t have them.

Get Your Ossoff that Handel, Pajama Boy

Thoughts on yesterday’s special election.

Chalk one up for The Donald. Despite outspending Republicans 7 to fucking 1, the Dems got beaten, and pretty badly at that, in yesterday’s special election in Georgia. They also lost the undercard matchup in South Carolina. That makes four special elections the media billed as “referendums on Trump’s agenda” that Our President has won, leaving him undefeated. I don’t have to point out that the Dems have gone eerily silent following their good ol’ fashioned Southern asskicking, and will no doubt refer to this as being “no big deal.” It sure would have been the end of the world for Trump if they had won, though.

Don’t read too much into this, though. This was a relatively safe Republican district, though demographics will probably hand it to the Dems in a few more years. The Dems ran a terrible candidate on top of that. We can take this as an indication that people are not dissatisfied with Trump’s presidency, but not of a Trumpslide. Handel won without addressing immigration and without the help of Trump or his administration, so we can’t point to great coordination or real unity within the Republican Party.

The end result is that we got another moderate squish into Congress who won’t do anything meaningful for the Right, just maintain the status quo. Democrats will resort to the courts to get their evil agenda passed since voters have obviously rejected it. Nothing changed. But do not despair. There is always joy in knowing that libtards got their hopes up and had them dashed on Southern rocks. The fact that it cost them somewhere in the neighborhood of $25 million or more to lose by a substantial margin makes it even better.

Should you run across and libtards today, ask them how many midnight basketball programs, youth centers, or gun buy-backs inner city Atlanta could have funded with the money they spent on Pajama Boy’s failed campaign. Ask them why they don’t fund their dead-on-launch programs themselves if they can blow this kind of money on a dead-on-launch election. Use a mug to catch their tears, then use their rage to heat it. Voila! Libard tear coffee.

Women Don’t Know Shit About Men, Part II

Part of an ongoing series to expand women’s knowledge of men.

Feminists have mainstreamed the notion that men have no understanding of women whatsoever. For a lot of men, that is true. Ironically, it’s not conservative men who usually have that problem. The corollary to this notion is that men are simple creatures that women understand completely. Like the first part of the concept, this is also completely incorrect.

Historically, philosophy, even across cultures, has been the realm of men. If you read the depth of thought and emotion expressed in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, the Bible, the Vedas, or the works of Church fathers like St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas, the idea that men are simple creatures with simple emotions is immediately shot to ribbons. I won’t spend too much time on this because it is so blatantly obvious that even a womyn’s studies major can understand it. Not only are men capable of deep thought and emotion, but we are primarily responsible for most of the deep thinking throughout history, everywhere. We are also in better control of our emotions than women. This is obvious to most honest women and to any man who has met women.

Traditional masculinity does not prevent us from feeling emotions, contrary to the nonsense that feminists have peddled (successfully) for years. In simply demands that we control them or translate them into action. This latter point relates to the bogus concept of mansplaining, which I’ll get to later. For most of human history, men did not have the option of sitting down and “having a good cry.” If shit went wrong, we had to fix it, or disaster ensued. Men get angry and depressed, but we are taught from an early age to manage those emotions. We are told not to cry because crying is not a solution to much of anything. It’s a waste of energy better sublimated into effective remedies. That is not to say that we do not sometimes take an ineffective way out of bad situations. We often drink too much, turn to drugs, or lay on the couch when we should be dealing with problems. Conversely, there are times when doing seemingly useless activities helps us relieve stress and figure things out by moving them to the background. Shooting hoops, lifting weights, playing pool, running, fishing, or doing yard work are all effective ways of figuring out solutions by putting them on the back burner. Again, a huge part of masculinity is solving problems that benefit a man and his people.

Besides not understanding this aspect of masculinity, feminists don’t understand male physiognomy. If they did, they wouldn’t have dumbfuck terms like “manspreading.” This refers to men’s tendency to spread out our legs when we sit down. Feminazis say we are trying to take over territory. I would say that’s all well and good if we did, but that’s not it. We have balls, and balls are very sensitive. They also stick to our legs. Squishing them by sitting the way feminazis would like us to, or having them pasted to our thighs as a result, is not comfortable. So, we spread out, peeling them off our inner thighs and preventing them from getting squished. It also allows them to hang more freely, which is better for their primary task of making sperm. There, I “mansplained” manspreading.

Which brings me to my next point, mansplaining. According to these beastly misandrists, it is sexist for men to explain things. This idea is so fucking stupid that it requires me to mansplain how fucking stupid it is. First off, sometimes things have to be explained. The notion that mansplaining is wrong and sexist disqualifies the dissemination of knowledge from half the population to the other half. Feminists genuinely believe that men have little of value to say, and they proudly proclaim this via text, email, web pages, television programs, and other man-generated platforms. The obvious stupidity of this is self-evident to anyone with a brain (so, not feminists). Secondly, men are inherently designed and socially reinforced to be problem solvers. Ironically, feminists reinforce this by having no concern and outright hatred for men. The more society is designed to work against us, the more we have to be problem solvers. As a result of being problem solvers, we don’t want to “listen” to your problem, unless that is the first step in solving it. Women often complain about this aspect of masculinity without understanding that solving problems is an integral part of survival and men have primarily been responsible for the protection/solution aspect of survival. Women handle the baby-brewing part, and hats off to you ladies for doing so. So if you do not like mansplaining, feminists, here are a few things you can do:

Don’t ask for help from men
Don’t come across any problems that cannot be solved without men’s input
Don’t be so fucking stupid that men have to swoop in to save you

Please see my previous post on this: https://paleriderblog.wordpress.com/page/10/

Sorry, Not Sorry. And Not Terrorism

What happened in London was not terrorism, it was national defense.

Apparently, not every Englishmen got the memo about becoming a dhimmi. By now, everyone knows about the “terrorist” attack in London in which at least one Muslims has been killed and ten more wounded by an Englishman driving a large truck. Despite the media jerking off all over themselves with delight over the fact that they finally got their “anti-Muslim backlash,” this is by definition not terrorism. Terrorists are trying to change a people’s government or their way of life through the threat of violence. This was a patriot defending his homeland against invasion. Given the demographics of London and the fact that its mayor is a Muslim, he was actually in occupied territory.

Pay attention to the people allegedly on the Right who decry this violence and say that there is no excuse for it. Remember that these are the same toolboxes who will tell us to get all choked up on Memorial Day and Veterans Day. Apparently, according to their logic, it used to be okay for us to use violence to defend ourselves, but not any more. Or maybe, only against people of their choosing, like the Russians. Is it me, or do the powers that be in the entire Anglosphere insist that violence only be used against other white people? The people who pretend to be of our side but who decry the this brave Limey’s actions are at best cowards and at worst fifth columnists who will betray us for table scraps from the Left. Ignore their whining, mark them for later retribution.

While it is important not to read too much into this, several things are clear. Firsty, not everyone in England is a coward or willing to surrender. Secondly, when governments fail to accomplish their sole purpose, to protect its people, then those people will bypass the government and find ways to accomplish those goals themselves. We are seeing that here and in England. I would bet that we will see the same thing in Italy next, though the Italian government is actually a lot better about looking out for Italians over foreigners than pretty much any other Western government. Plan to see more of this.

Regarding the media, I have not watched a single libtard news program nor read any of their third-grade level screeds, but I guarantee we will hear a lot of the following:

– These attacks will not divide us
– Lots of apologies on behalf of all white people by people who have no right to speak for us
– Condemnation of “these people”
– Lots of talk about how right-wing rhetoric made this possible (a week after libtards assured us that their rhetoric had nothing to do with the shooting of Congressman Scalise
– A call for security around mosques 24/7 (churches never get this, not even the holiest sites in Christendom)
– Handwringing over how this was done during Ramadan. Those waxing sorrowful over it will not notice that Muslims kick the terrorism up a notch during Ramadan, or that they intentionally attacked Christians during the Christmas season, at a Christmas market.
– Muslims will pretend to be shocked and cry for mercy and inclusion. Remember that they are practicing taqiyya, a form of deception to gain advantage over infidels endorsed by the Qur’an (16:106 and 3:28). In fact, this is a fine time to remind you to never, ever believe a Muslim, and never think he is your friend. Allah will always come before you. We may live in a Godless, secular nightmare culture, but they do not.

The media will go on this kick for a bit, and that is just dandy. The more they do, the more normies will notice the complete hypocrisy and realize that they are in the group the media does not care about. The media will knock it off when they realize they sound like a bunch of pussies and that they are actually encouraging us. For some reason, they will figure this out when we mock them and attack one of their sacred cows, but cannot figure it out when Muslims do the same thing.

Three cheers for this ballsy cake eater. Feel no shame in the Left’s calls for apologies, and offer none. Laugh at them instead, for they are our enemies, and we are at war. The time for dialogue is well past, so do not waste your breath. If you must speak to them, like with impunity to gain advantage, and never imagine that they will do anything differently.

Many people do not realize it, but the war for the West has begun.

On Violence

It ain’t love that keeps us together.

Yesterday’s botched assassination attempt of Republican Congressman by a limp-dick Bernie Bro made me consider a topic I have thought about routinely over the years, specifically, violence. Not violence itself, as in watching a boxing match, but its uses, purpose, who can use
it, when, why, and its role in society. I realized some time ago that liberals are wrong about pretty much everything, so I thought it was time to question some assumptions we make about violence. My thoughts are below.

Violence is defined as behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something, or strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force.Let us include in this verbal assault with the underlying threat of physical violence, as words are often used to preface, precipitate, enhance, and justify violence. Think for a moment about the presence of violence in your own life.

If you’re like me, you got spanked, slapped, and harshly verbally reprimanded as a kid. My parents used violence, albeit highly controlled and minimal, as a form of coercion. We call it discipline because it’s a healthy form of coercion, but it is coercion. Libtards love to say you should never spank kids, but are happy to send in police with guns and clubs when someone does something of which they don’t approve. Liberal double standards will abound throughout this essay, so I won’t bother to point them out. Remember Vox’s words of wisdom, SJW’s always lie, and SJW’s always double down. Back to the matter at hand, violence is often a method of coercion. From our parents threatening to spank us to government law enforcement, violence is usually the underlying threat that keeps people following rules they might not
otherwise abide. It is also the underlying threat for other penalties. Fines? Try not paying them. The court will issue warrants so that men with guns and clubs and come to your house and compel you to pay. Prison is a form of violence, directly and indirectly.

Violence underpins the whole of society. People might argue this point, and certainly Lockean libertarians would say that the social contract, not violence, is the basis for a political society. They are incorrect. A social contract may create a political society, but violence is what sustains the social contract. Locke himself obviously understood this, so arguing that he did not is just stupid. Locke posited that by entering into a social contract, a man gave up his total freedom to
be judge, jury, and executioner. He did have the right to use violence to defend is natural rights if society failed to protect them for him. Hobbes was of course less forgiving of the common man and thought that the government should have a total monopoly on the use of violence. Modern liberals almost certainly agree, except for when they seek to use violence against us. Which brings me to another point.

Liberals, for as much as they try to pretend they are oppressed and are “resisting” the government, understand that in reality they control the culture, which is far morepowerful and important than the government. Their cultural domination not only neuters opposing forces in government, but justifies, in their minds, the use of violence against us. They see themselves as having the only legitimate goals for society and hence the lock on violence that Hobbes felt should be reserved to those in positions of authority. They oppose any form of violence or anycultural sanction of violence on our side because they see us as non-people without the right to
oppose their cultural and political domination. They laugh about the attempted murder of Congressman Scalise. Have you heard them say a single word about gun control? Of course not. They don’t want gun control for their side. They want it for us. They want us disarmed, us cucked, us like beaten dogs who don’t bark or bite. But they have no problem with violence as long as its not directed against their side. In fact, they LOVE violence directed at us.

I believe one of the things that has kept them safe for so long is that we still hold to traditional American/Western values of nonaggression and politics being separated from violence. What their side forgets is that the entire concept of separating violence from politics and keeping violence out of normal social interaction was the result of centuries of enduring, vicious violence
that was often counterproductive. It is a lesson long forgotten by the Left, since to them there is no history before the Civil Rights movement, and history can only be viewed as white male oppression of everyone else. They are going to get a history lesson soon enough. Ironically, it is the absence of violence that has made the special snowflake SJW’s possible in the first place. Even in the recent past, parents spanked kids, teachers beat unruly students, and there existed such a thing as “fighting words,” whereby any asskicking dispensed upon the speaker was considered fair play. Kids picked on other kids who were too far outside the norms
of acceptable behavior, and for better or worse, domestic violence (by both men and women) was not out of bounds in all cases. Certainly, there were abuses. Horrible abuses. Kids bullied other kids without mercy for minor infractions; men beat their wives as a form of anger management; women inflicted horrible injuries on their husbands and children, and as we see among, eh hem…certain populations, murder and assault abound.

We have been taught that all of this is horrible and still is, but all of that violence served an important purpose. Would you steal from someone who might potentially shoot you? No. Statistics show that states with concealed carry have lower assault and mugging rates. Would you say horrible, deeply personal things to someone who could then beat the everloving shit out of you with society’s blessing? Probably not. Would a woman cheat if her husband could show her the pimp hand? Less likely. Would a husband abuse his wife if she were allowed to defend herself with impunity? Less likely. Do we respect people who can challenge us? Yes, we do.
Universally. Did kids have all these horrible emotional problems back when their peers could bring them back in line with verbal taunts? I doubt it. We sure didn’t have this shit back when I was a kid. There were two genders and you learned what was socially acceptable and what was weird by your buddies telling you flat out that what you were doing was fucking stupid.

Liberal social teachings, even the non-SJW old school liberal stuff, has insisted that we stop these things. After all, they could damage someone’s self-esteem. Can’t have that, can we? The eradication of violence or the threat of violence has made society less pleasant, because now people are able to behave in ways that would have been given the extreme sanction in the past. If a boy wants to dye his hair blue and wear a leotard, no one is supposed to tell him he looks like a dork-ass pansy. As a result, he never learns that this will dry up a woman’s snatch like a Shop Vac. Not allowed to hit a guy for saying horrible things about your wife or children? Then people will say all sorts of things that never would have been uttered in the past, with a more divided, less civil society the result. Women now routinely employ violence, infidelity, and personal insults because domestic violence has become a cardinal sin, up there with racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and being white in the liberal pantheon of dirty deeds.

I could go on, but you get the point. Violence, properly employed, is the linchpin of society. It keeps people civil when used as a means of self-defense or societal defense. When seen as only negative and largely scrubbed from society, breakdown ensues. We are seeing a generation raised without violence and the belief in their own invincibility and entitlement as a result. I don’t blame the kids. I blame the idiots who pushed this nonsense, and the cowards who let it stick. I’m sure we’ll be fine.