ARE WE BEING SET UP FOR ANOTHER 'SUMMER OF RAGE?'

      So---appropriately on All Fools Day---Left-Wing cranks and crackpots across the country are planning a Trans Day of Vengeance. Right on the very grounds of the US Supreme Court too, although the Media is encouraging it to spread elsewhere. Leading up to the event, we had a mass-murder in Tennessee on Monday, followed by a violent riot in the same state today, as well as in neighboring Kentucky. The media swine have already turned the Nashville shooter into a martyr; greatly reminiscent of Fentanyl Floyd a few years ago. This time, don't forget your masks.

    As if this weren't throwing enough gasoline on the fire; the Junta took the unprecedented step of ordering its henchmen having a Grand Jury indict the President-in-Exile---for basically acting like a typical rich heterosexual. Now, of course, indicting someone whom many of us still consider the legitimate President with an obviously sham case in a politically-motivated trial: that couldn't possibly lead to violence, could it? 

    If the Trump Indictment does lead to violence---and the Regime is certainly not above creating an 'incident' if a real one fails to materialize---I think that we can all guess what direction the reaction is going to take. We saw a warm-up to this in 2020. Armed Leftist thugs taking over entire city blocks were said to be engaging in a Summer of Love while a rather milquetoast protest over a blatantly stolen national election was spun as a sinister plot to take over the country. If things go the way that they appear to be planned, we'll see homo/Antifa/BLM engage in the most egregious acts of anarchistic thuggery and get a free pass. Meanwhile, old women who show up at the Court to support Trump will get gassed and beaten with police nightsticks. 

    The bottom line here is to remember that what the Elites want is partisan violence. Our side is in a double-bind. If we react, they'll label us 'extremists' and crack down. If we don't react, they'll perceive us as weak and crack down anyway. All of those decades of Conservative apathy and looking out for #1 didn't really help us much in the (then) future, did it? 

   Why is this scenario possible? Why would the Elites open a second round of domestic terror? Because they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing so. They're now in the third year of consolidating absolute power. Indicting the symbolic head of the Opposition while turning their stormtroopers loose on the public is hardly unheard of during the early stages of a dictatorship. In fact, it's the very same pattern that same Elites ran in Ukraine in 2014 and elsewhere. 

   All of those on the Right who still want to pretend that we too haven't undergone a Color Revolution are running out of room for Denial. Likewise---to put it bluntly---if we want to see our Republic restored we're rapidly running out of time to do it. What Conservative leadership we actually have left needs to pull together and take a stand; and the American people need to have their backs for once if they do. Given the recent history of both, that scenario is hard to imagine, but it really would work if they tried. 

THE NASHVILLE SHOOTING AND BEYOND

    In 1999, two homosexual lovers named Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris---part of a high-school clique called the Gay Trenchcoat Mafia---executed an elaborate massacre scheme ending in a suicide pact against Columbine High School in Colorado. The vermin in the Corporate Media dropped the word 'gay' when describing the group of young thugs and downplayed any reference to the duo's orientation. Klebold and Harris had---like many of their demographic---a hatred for religion and targeted Christians specifically---especially Christian girls. This fact was also downplayed while the Official Narrative spun the story by deflecting attention to peripheral issues like school bullying, school security, and gun control.

   Their tactics haven't changed since 1999; except that in 2023, the Media has taken to a deliberate policy of actively encouraging such violence. After a week of Internet outrage over Christian hockey players' refusal to participate in a Humiliation Ritual; and celebrities calling for the murder of Christians; and 'activists' calling for violence against the State of Tennessee; a member of the mentally-unbalanced community at whom these messages were directed flipped out and committed a massacre at a Christian school. Six people (including three small children) were killed before the assailant was sent to Tartarus under a barrage of police gunfire. 

   And Americans are scratching their heads wondering how it could happen. It's not difficult to figure that out and not even the first time it's happened recently. As pointed out in the previous article, the sexual deviancy manifested by the so-called 'LGBTQ Community' is typically symptomatic of deeper problems. They have long been known as a demographic prone to violence. So when you bombard such a demographic with encouragement to violence and it happens, why are we surprised? 

   Are we saying here that the xhe in question was deliberately egged on and incited to do what they did? Yes: we are. To assume that yesterday's tragedy wasn't deliberately planned, we have to believe that:

  1. None of the Media figures calling for violence against Christians actually hoped it would happen:

  2. Despite these Media figures employing the same talking-points and the fact that they typically work for the same organizations, that they weren't working in concert;

  3. It never occurred to any of them that nutjobs were in their audience who might be influenced by their words. 

  Of course they wanted this to happen; and they were acting on orders of the Corporate Oligarchs who desire to foment division and chaos, as well as driving other sociopolitical agendas. Following the same propaganda pattern that they successfully employed in 1999, their media stooges are dutifully spinning the 'narrative' to school bullying and blaming the 'gun culture.' Not a peep out of any of these Compassionate Liberals though about dealing with our out-of-control national problems of untreated mental illness or Media complicity in sending out dog-whistles to the emotionally unstable. 

   Contrary to media propaganda, America does not have the highest rates of gun violence in the world. However, we do have the highest rates of suicide by firearm and mass-murders. This ought to tell us that our problems stem from much deeper issues than access to guns. Our problems with mass-violence are emanating from two causes: a corrupted social structure that places little value on humanity and places maximum value on force and fraud as means to an end. 

   The mid-1990s were when we first saw the phenomenon of mass-shootings on a regular basis. What changed about that time? Well, for starts we saw a New World Order, a Kinder, Gentler America, and a Pax Americana opened up. Schools started throwing out Merit and imposing fake inclusiveness (i.e reverse discrimination). Our 'compassionate' politicians decided that it was cruel to interfere with the chosen lifestyles of the mentally ill when Big Pharma could sell them psych-dope. Our cultural values shifted to what is essentially a Might Makes Right philosophy. 

   Since the 1990s, there hasn't been a social issue that Force or Fraud didn't emerge as the answer to---as long as one was big enough and powerful enough to do it. Our Government reserved the 'right' to intervene militarily anytime, anywhere, they pleased: with remote-controlled bombs loaded with depleted uranium. Or, we could embargo essential goods and services from any 'regime' who wouldn't bow to our exceptionalism. Failing that, we could stage Color Revolutions. Domestically, it wasn't much better. Schools and most large workplaces turned into virtual prisons: full of arbitrary rules and conditions. Today, students, workers, and renters have no rights that administrators, employers, or landlords need respect. Police and courts became militarized and a two-tiered 'Justice System' established where money and politics determine guilt or innocence. As we saw during the Scamdemic, the State has no issue with domestic embargoes against people and businesses they consider non-essential.

   The 1990s and since have seen entire thriving cities turned into ghost-towns and ghettoes because outsourcing their main industries was cheaper. Media conglomerates freely shut down views that deviate from the official narrative while promoting blatant Government/Corporate propaganda. Across the board we see this. So it's no wonder in this sort of environment that a percentage of the population either lashes out inwardly (suicide) or outwardly (mass-shootings). 

   Dead White Male and Founding Father Thomas Paine said this about the mass-violence in Jacobin France, and it applies today: "Let us therefore examine how men came by the idea of punishing others in this manner. They learn it from the governments that they live under; and retaliate with the punishments that they have been accustomed to behold. The heads stuck upon pikes which remained for years on the Temple-Bar differ nothing in the horror of the scenes of the heads being carried about on pikes in the Paris streets: yet this was done by the English government. It may be said that it signifies nothing to a man what is done to him after he is dead; but it signifies much to the living. It either tortures their feelings or it hardens their hearts; in either case, it instructs them how to punish when power falls into their hands. Lay then the axe to the root, and teach governments humanity. It is their sanguinary punishments which corrupt mankind."

    Yes: we are seeing increases in mass-shootings and gratuitous violence in America because the perpetrators of these deeds have learned callousness and inhumanity from those in authority. The Media encouragement only makes it worse; but can anyone explain how the brutality of American contractors murdering Arab civilians in cold blood or a lone nut shooting down a classroom of Kindergarteners is materially different? Or US leaders deciding to settle personal grudges by killing foreign leaders is different than a disgruntled employee taking a gun and settling scores with his 'untouchable' managers? After seeing decades of corrupt Administrative judges and social workers destroy families and consign innocent children and minors to abusive environments---we act shocked when we hear that some psycho kidnaps and tortures people in his basement. 

    Problems like we witnessed at Nashville are problems entirely of our own making. If we want to stop these problems, then we need to get out of our collective stupor---stop blaming gun owners and school bullies, or the politicians---and take back control of our communities. It's doubtful that will happen, though. It's easier for the Left to virtue-signal and the Right to demand more draconian force than it is to face problems and look for solutions. Meanwhile, the violence will go on and the Elites will go on laughing all the way to the bank.

   

   

   

SCIENTISM AND GENDER NULLIFICATION, PART IV

    In the ongoing Media blitz to normalize the transgender/transhumanist agenda, predictably we've seen the Whacko Left Wing alternating between effusive praise for the deviants while pouring out their collective outrage upon alleged 'bigots' who oppose the New Order. The New Right has been silent too; it's a bit difficult to complain when Nick Fuentes and Bruce Jenner are lauded as heroes in your own movement. Oh well, we can always blame China, seize Tik-Tok and sell it to Jeff Bezos: then everything will be fine. Meanwhile, we'll all hold our breath waiting for any 'Conservative' leaders to, say, defend the NHL players who've refused to wear the Shirt of Shame.  

    The half-dozen or so professional hockey players who refused the Humiliation Ritual of last week's so-called 'Pride Night' stood for their Christian beliefs. Reaction from the Whacko Left pounced on that aspect of the debate.

     Another headline, referring to dissident player Eric Staal screamed: "Eric Staal Called Out for Denying Reality with Hypocritical Pride Night Protest!"

    While we applaud these men for standing up for their beliefs; I would like to draw readers' attention to the fact that none of our last three posts have made any religious or faith-based argument against the homo agenda in any way. There's no need to. The very sciences and philosophies that these Gender Ideologues profess belief in refute their own positions. Also, let us not overlook the outright admissions of agenda-promotion and pay-to-play corruption in Academia which gives their cause an intellectual veneer. 

    The only 'reality' that is being denied is coming from these Media punks, who won't admit that the Dead White Males to whom we alluded in our last article were right all along. The Media has to cover up the reality that in spite of their slobbering acceptance of the so-called 'Third Sex' that rates of depression, addiction, suicide, and violence are just as high among that demographic today as they were 50 years ago. Most of them still average around 45 in terms of life expectancy. As those now-cancelled Depth Psychologists taught, these sexual deviations are symptomatic of deeper psychological problems. By extension, actually celebrating this neurotic behavior in front of impressionable young children is 'grooming' by anyone's definition of that term. 

   Let's take two examples of recent Media superstars whose glamourous 'trans lifestyle' didn't work out so well. A troon under the name of Kayleigh Scott who was featured in United Airlines' 2020 Trans Visibility campaign was found dead this week of a suicide, at age 25. Scott left behind a statement which read, “As I take my final breaths and exit this living earth, I would like to apologize to everyone I let down. I am so sorry I could not be better...To those that I love, I am sorry I could not be stronger. To those that gave me their everything, I am sorry my effort was not reciprocated. Please understand that me leaving is not a reflection on you, but the result of my own inability to turn myself for the better.” Note this statement well in light of what follows:

   "The young man’s mother said she was 'unbelievably proud to have you as my daughter, proud and amazed by everything that you have done in your life...your smile was absolutely beautiful, your laughter was unbelievably contagious, your heart was bigger than any of us could have ever understood.” 

    "Scott’s sister, Ashley, responded to Scott’s post to confirm to concerned commenters that her brother had passed. 'Thank you for your concern and outpouring of love for her. We are going to miss her so much.'"

    And this: "According to another Facebook post, Scott’s father passed away last summer. The two had had a difficult relationship, according to Scott."

    Back in the era when psychology was dominated by judgemental bigots, one finding was that over half of gender-dysphoric patients came from families not unlike this one. The father was demanding, but distant (as we can infer from the text of Scott's final statement) while the mother disliked males and favored girls (which the mother's and sister's statements seem to imply). Scott could have been cured if he'd realized that his problem wasn't one of sexual identity, but an unconscious compulsion that drove him to seek status as a woman because of his instilled belief that he'd failed as a man. Our degenerate society---with its pervasive Misandry and celebration of so-called 'Female Empowerment' only reinforces the Complex in cases like Scott's. 

    Many cases like Scott end in suicide, which is understandable. Subjects like these are trapped between a subconscious drive to live up to impossibly high standards of Masculinity while seeking to escape by magically becoming Feminine. This sets in motion a vicious circle where they assume a feminine persona to relieve themselves of the stress of their perceived failure as men; but when the tension subsides, their actions by playing en femme only reinforce their internal accusations of failure. 

    Another interesting aspect to Scott's case was that he “came to realize I work a meaningless job for a company that doesn’t value me as an employee.” Sadly, Scott somewhere came to understand that he'd been used as a prop for Corporate virtue-signalling and woke advertising. Though no doubt United Airlines made a bundle off of their 'Trans Visibility' Ad Campaign in 2020, less than two years later Scott was just another flight attendant who "lost my nice little home and had to downsize significantly and start over." He'd served his purpose as far as Wall Street was concerned, and so became expendable.

     A second case that emerged this past week of former trans child star, Jazz Jennings. Jennings was 'transitioned' in early childhood and made the subject of a Reality TV show broadcast on TLC. (note: TLC is a subsidiary of Media Conglomerate Warner Bros Discovery, which is about 20% owned by financial octopuses Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street. The above-mentioned United Airlines has a similar percentage of stock under the same institutions' thumbs.)

     

    

      It appears that Jazz Jennings' career trajectory to Hollywood fame and fortune didn't work out as well as her mercenary family and the Media Moguls had hoped. At age 22, Jennings 'came out' again this week: morbidly obese, chronically depressed: a physical and emotional wreck. The tragedy of Jennings' Case is that this a person who never had a chance. Jennings' mind was warped from the time he was a toddler to legal adulthood. 

    This is probably a hopeless case at this point, though Jennings' parents, the TLC Channel, and the Activist Foundation that both co-founded made a fortune. One thing that we can predict, though, is that Jazz is going under the bus---no longer an industry cash cow---just like Kayleigh Scott. 

    Meanwhile, the media parasites are going to ignore these personal tragedies and go telling the rest of us that we're denying reality that the settled science is that a Third Gender really exists and that the LGBTQ Lifestyle is safe, legal, and even desirable. These are the same people who've told us that Abortion, the Loyalty Vaxx, Depleted Uranium, and the recent chemical spill in Ohio pose no health risks. 

   While we're on the subject of medicine, has anyone wondered what ever happened to the previous 'pandemic': the AIDS Epidemic? For those who've forgotten (or are too young to remember) AIDS was an inexplicable auto-immune disorder that appeared in the US during the 1970s and was very pronounced among the homosexual population. For the next three decades, there was nothing but howling from the Media and Whacko Left to deal with AIDS, and that 'homophobic' Americans didn't care because it mostly effected homosexuals. Even that great unquestionable medical genius, Dr. Fauci---America's Doctor---referred to it as 'the Gay Disease." 

   Yet, at exactly at the same time that the Obama Administration began its push for homo 'equality,' stories about AIDS miraculously vanished from the Corporate Media. Yes: AIDS still exists; it's still predominantly spread among homosexuals; there's still no effective cure---but for some reason we just never hear about it anymore. Rather like COVID-19 (which had the peculiar property of being contagious everywhere except race-riots and box-stores); AIDS stopped being a public health threat as soon as the Rainbow Flags and Pride Parades became the New Normal. 

    But try explaining any of this to the average Ameroboob and you'll either be accused of being a religious bigot (whether your argument comes from religion or not); or else figuratively burned at the stake on social media, or censored (which the practitioners of Scientism claim that only religious bigots do). But if we don't stop closing our eyes to fake science, more people will get hurt. 

SCIENTISM AND GENDER NULLIFICATION, PART III

     The vermin in the Corporate Media---funded by the same interests as the Academic Mafia---have been ramping up the homo agenda since our last post. That was predictable, really. My suspicion was that all of the hoopla surrounding the trans debutante on Drew Barrymore's show last week was the beginning of an intensive media campaign. Once people get through their heads that the self-appointed 'Cultural Elites' are following a deliberate plan, guessing their next moves isn't difficult sometimes.

    US Today for example, nominated troon State Legislator Leigh Finke as Minnesota's Woman of the Year. Citing the xhe's “tenacity, bravery and leadership” (despite having only served since mid-January), the Media is once again demonstrating how all of their decades of supporting Feminism was nothing but a sham. Yesterday, the settled science was that women were the equal of---if not actually superior to---men; now it tells us that men magically can change their orientation and be superior to women again. Americans on the Left should be careful note here that the NWO crowd has fairly established history of throwing groups and peoples under the bus once they've served their purpose. They should, but they probably won't.

  Meanwhile, the National Hockey League got in the news again. The San Jose Sharks submitted both its players and fans to the humiliation ritual of a 'Pride Night' where the players donned 'rainbow' jerseys. It's probably not surprising that a sports league half-controlled by Tiananmen Trudeau and half-controlled by Wall Street would be a leader in Political Correctness. The Sharks, however, sent out some Twitter-feeds illustrating again the connection between modern Scientism and prehistoric beliefs in magic.

   “The muxe gender is a respected third gender in Zapotec cultures in Oaxaca, Mexico that has existed for centuries. Gunaa are those who were born as men but who identify as women & are attracted to men. The Nguii are those who were born as men and are attracted to other men.” Another read: “The Ninauposkitzipxpe were honored as a third gender in the North Peigan tribe of the Blackfoot Confederacy in northern Montana and Southern Alberta, Canada.”

     So what further proof do we need? If uncivilized and uneducated savages living out in the isolated parts of the world believe in a 'third gender' then obviously it must be so. 

   The whole idea of a 'third gender' is nothing new either. It was actually proposed and debated about a century ago by some radical academics mostly from the Weimar Republic. Mainstream psychology of the period so thoroughly discredited the theory that it had no currency until only recently when Scientific Consensus became available for purchase. Some of what Psychology had to offer as proof against the Third Gender Theory were:

   1. That the need to bond sexually with the opposite sex is an irreducible human instinct like the need to eat or breathe;

   2. Thousands of case studies demonstrating that same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria could be cured; and that the patients went on to lead normal lives;

  3. That even while engaged in the homosexual or dysphoric perversion, traditional gender roles were still being played out. Homosexual partners played the role of either a man or a woman in the relationship while dysphorics mimicked femininity.

  4. That as civilizations progress, gender differentiation becomes more; not less, pronounced. 

   In Postmodern Academia, mainstream Psychology has simply been cancelled, its proponents relegated to Dead White Male status. Academia Incorporated uses the utterly laughable excuse that Depth Psychology is unfalsifiable---in spite of the fact most of modern science is based upon theory. Granted, one can do experiments and even invent technologies based on these theories that mostly work; proving that established theories are---generally speaking---part accurate and part falsifiable. For example, we build aircraft based on the laws of Gravity, but we can't explain how a bumblebee flies with its insufficient mass-to-wing ratio. Psychoanalysis had a high cure rate: not 100%, but neither have organ transplants or other complicated medical procedures. To discredit a theory because there are occasional exceptions to it is another trait characteristic of the witch-doctors and less scientifically advanced ages.

   Most schools of psychology in the postmodern era have revived another theory that appeared about a century ago: Behaviorism. Behaviorism holds that there is no such thing as 'mind' as we understand it; but merely the mechanical functioning of body and brain. What we call behavior is merely conditioned reflexes which serve to enhance pleasure and pain. Of course, by this definition, 'pleasure and pain' are likewise relative terms, a product of the environment. 

  Behaviorism largely fell out of favor during the mid-20th Century. One would think that numerous cases of the effects of hallucinogenic drugs alone would show that mind and body are separate entities. That aside, Behaviorism could never explain two other things: abstract reasoning and the origins of supposed 'social conditioning.'

  To explain this point further, if gender attraction is nothing other than an artificial social construct, why does heterosexual attraction exist in the first place? It would seem that---according to this theory---that down throughout the course of human evolution, homosexuality should be mathematically at least as prevalent as heterosexuality. Likewise: in the case of transgenderism, how does it happen that something like 99% of cases involve males? Again, mathematically we should see about an even number of women transitioning to men. 

  Further, how does social conditioning account for standards of attractiveness? Freud demonstrated that in childhood, one's first standards of gender ideation comes from attraction to the parent of the opposite sex. Behaviorists seem to believe that development stops there. But as Piaget, Montessori and others proved that around the ages of 11-13 years, these children begin to develop the adult processes of abstract reasoning. In other words, they begin to apply independent thought to their choices among the opposite sex. Some, in fact, often choose partners from types from the exact opposite of their parents. 

 The practitioners of Scientism seem oblivious a common experience from everyday life: heterosexuals themselves often fall in love with others who do not conform to socially mainstream standards. 

    We all know of cases like this: attractive men and women who choose unattractive mates; people who choose lovers with significant age differences; respectable people choosing partners of very dubious reputations, and so on. The practitioners of Scientism might shudder at these and call them "inappropriate" but, of course, have no problem telling the rest of us that we need to be socially re-programmed to accept homosexuality and transgenderism as normative. This is where they fall into another contradiction between settled sciences: how can we say what is 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' sexual behavior if social norms are merely a product of our reflexes? One cannot say that a given culture's norms are relative and products of the environment while trying to justify imposing or discouraging other social norms as right or wrong. In the case of the San Jose Sharks, they---if Scientism were consistent---would have just as much as case for declaring 'Sharia Night', making their players wear headscarves, and tweeting about the sexual norms of Saudi Arabia or tribes in Pakistan. 

   Another factor that the Behaviorists all seem to forget is that their own theory of reflexes are based physically on the actions of the central nervous system. Nerves in humans are a form of electrical energy; and everyone knows that electricity is based in the laws of polarity. Hence, in the Stimulus-Response paradigm, the stimulus is a need and the response an action to fulfill it and this is always based in a polarity. When we feel hunger, the sight of a McDonald's billboard stimulates us to eat; a newspaper story about a cannibal would disgust us and cause us to lose our appetite. Likewise when we feel a need for sex, an attractive person of the opposite sex is inviting; someone of the same sex is revolting. Homosexuality and cannibalism are about on the same plane of social development; which, incidentally both tribes mentioned in the NHL tweets were cannibalistic too. So much for their cultural equality. 

   A real question that should arise out of all of this is how we in America can fall for these kinds of delusions? It ought to be obvious to everyone that this push for homo acceptance is agenda-driven, destructive to civilization, and based on nothing but junk science and enforced at the point of a bayonet, but we tend to nod our heads, take more dope, and go with the flow. 

   

SCIENTISM AND GENDER NULLIFICATION, PART II

     Academia Incorporated today has several litmus tests that one must meet to qualify as an 'intellectual.' Acceptance of the settled science that gender can be anything anyone wants it be is one of these tests---despite there being zero scientific evidence for it. As we pointed out in the last article, however, the so-called scientific consensus these days is liberally supported with interest-group dollars, media promotion, and political pressure.

     Science, though, is a difficult thing to sweep under the rug. That's why, whenever one debates this issue, the proponents of Gender Nullification always try to turn the discourse into one of Religion vs. Science. This part of the Delphi Technique, which many of their trolls and propagandists have been taught. It's an especially common practice on talk shows like Drew Barrymore's. Their entire theory is built on legal intimidation, propaganda, and suppression of dissenting science. 

    Biology is a science that the Gender Nullifiers have a difficult time dealing with. There are no examples anywhere in nature of homosexuality or gender dysphoria among any species that contributes in any way to a species' survival. Likewise, there are many instances of highly differentiated behaviors between males and females. In all higher species, reproduction is carried out exactly the same way; and even among birds and reptiles males and females can often be distinguished by different colors and very specific mating rituals. 

    According to Evolutionists, the sexual drive is instinctual---this presents a great difficulty for the Gender Nullifiers. They can't explain how males and females have an instinctual sexual drive for one another; yet at the same time be independent of biology. To escape this difficulty, they have to devise a pseudoscientific explanation. The one most commonly encountered is that since man is the highest animal, we can transcend our biological instincts by our free will. 

   If these people actually thought about any of this before running wild and screaming their collective outrage, they'd see two fundamental contradictions with Evolutionary Theory itself. The first is that it is a thinly-veiled postmodern throwback to Social Darwinism. In its earlier incarnations, Social Darwinism basically taught the idea that human races compete against each other for scarce resources and that only the 'fittest' (by their definition of course) were entitled to survive. (Sound familiar?) 

   The older forms of Social Darwinism focused on race and nation; the newer variant on technology and supranational corporatism. Lee Silver, a member of the revolving-door academic elite, informed us in 1998 in his book Remaking Eden: 

    “The GenRich—who account for ten percent of the American population—[will] all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class… Naturals [unaltered humans] work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.

   “Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American society adheres to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able to do. Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting the use of reprogrammed genetics. I will argue [that] the use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable. Whether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”

    Transgenderism and transhumanism are naturally linked in this drive to stamp out gender differences. Sexuality is such a deeply-rooted element of human nature that it cannot be erased without destroying the concept of humanity itself. This is obviously contrary to the Theory of Evolution which posits that the goal of biological organisms is to reproduce itself and perpetuate the species. 

   Which brings us to the second point: according to the Evolutionists, sexual selection is based---at least on the instinctual level---on fitness for potential reproduction and perpetuation of the species. Now, in a higher organism like Mankind, where the mind also plays a role, the definition of 'fitness' is going to be variable. However, there is no possibility of 'fitness' in same-sex relationships. Whatever attraction exists can only be resultant of the primal release of sexual tension and form no basis of a productive relationship of any kind. 

   All of this leads to a conundrum: how do the practitioners of Scientism support the settled science of Evolution with the settled science of Gender Nullification. The fact is that they cannot. They can't simply 'cancel' the Theory of Evolution because they've invested too much of their reputations supporting it. The best they can do is go for a 'soft cancel' and essentially argue that Evolution, as taught for decades, is no longer true: the technocrats are taking over from here.

   Many of the Evolutionists of the past argued that Nature (or God) set the process in motion and argued against attempts of Mankind to alter the course of Nature. What would they say about modern Scientism attempting to do this? Successful science has always learned the Laws of Nature and worked with it to solve problems. Superstition and barbarous modern ideologies have been characterized by their attempts to reverse or control the Course of Nature. The entire notion of homo 'equality' and the attempts to eliminate sexuality are, according to Evolutionary Theory itself, atavistic and not 'progressive.' It's supporters have no 'science' to appeal to; hence they respond as their ancestors-in-spirit did, by resorting to the modern equivalents of the Stake and the Gulag. 

    As further proof that Gender Nullification is against nature: consider that so-called 'Trans Positive' attitudes are highly reductionist. It is entirely based on the superficial appearance of what is 'masculine' or 'feminine' without actually being of a particular gender with that gender's unique purpose. Consider that little detail that only biological females can bear children. Are we going to implant artificial wombs and use artificial intelligence to create a Maternal Instinct? One can see at a glance how absurd these theories are; and that they are based in nothing but Scientistic fantasy. 

   We acknowledge that there are issues with Evolutionary Theory too; but the point is that postmodern Academia can't hold both positions simultaneously. Either they deny Evolution or they deny their Ideology, but they can't do both. It's ironically like the (Six-Day) Creationist vs. Evolutionist debates of a few years ago. The difference here is that there is no debate. The Evolutionists have lost this round simply by being outbid. Corporate and NGO cash settles science faster than anything else these days---especially when upheld by force. 

    

    

   

   

SCIENTISM AND GENDER NULLIFICATION

     "There are more things in Heaven and Earth than ever dreamed of by your philosophies."      

     It isn't often that one hears a phrase from a film that stays with one forever; but the above quote from John Barrymore's 1931 classic Svengali always has for me. In fact---for those who've never seen it, the whole film runs a whole lot deeper than it appears on the surface (which becomes apparent as the story progresses); and I don't think that many critics or reviewers have ever fully understood it. Though not technically a 'horror film' as it's often been labelled, it did manage to scare the daylights of that generation's young women. It's rare that a film marketed to a general audience had that degree of a gender-specific reaction; though viewed through the lens of the-now officially-discredited subject of Feminine Psychology, we can easily see how the film reached some deep-seated fears of women in general. John Barrymore has long since been relegated to Dead White Male status, along with most psychologists capable of understanding his work.

   I was thinking of Barrymore the other day, and how his quote was relative to Scientism after his grand-daughter's antics once again made pop-culture headlines. Drew Barrymore has never been an acting talent anywhere near her grandparents, though her ability to best both of them in terms of alcoholism was quite an accomplishment. The elder Barrymores weren't bad people; theatrical families always tend to be a bit eccentric; but Drew had the misfortune of being born rich with no talent, little intelligence, and not even looks that could match her grandmother in her prime.

   Fortunately for her though, Drew Barrymore also came along in an era where actual merit doesn't count for anything but having the right connections matters considerably. Her sheer stupidity, the low quality of postmodern American Media, and the ability to follow all of the politically-correct talking-points makes her what passes for a celebrity or 'influencer' today. A specimen of her brilliant insights into human sexuality maybe assessed from a 2003 interview:  “Do I like women sexually? Yeah, I do. Totally. I have always considered myself bisexual. I love a woman's body. I think a woman and a woman together are beautiful, just as a man and a woman together are beautiful. Being with a woman is like exploring your own body, but through someone else" 

    So it shouldn't be surprising that her latest escapade involved dropping to her knees on stage and slavishly bowing to a drag queen. The psychological image of a besotted, washed-up specimen of American Feminism submitting to the New Order of the liberated, dominant trans-man predictably sent the Whacko Left Wing into paroxysms of delight. 

    Oh, it's 'energy' alright: but not the positive kind. A look at a recent clip from Tricia's blog shows about what real women feel. Contrary to what Manosphere Red Pills and practitioners of Scientism want to believe, women have a stronger social survival instinct than men. A recent example is how Syrian women held the social fabric of their country together when Obama and his allies in ISIS were on the verge of planting the Rainbow Flag over Damascus. This instinct is heavily tied to the maternal instinct, whereas men are more inclined to fight for leaders or ideologies since the paternal instinct is more focused on community, tribe, nation, etc. If Western women stopped to realize that the Great Reset freaks plan their obsolescence, the backlash is going to be ferocious (and frankly I hope that there is one). 

   We've documented here before how and why the Great Reset Oligarchy is pushing the Rainbow Agenda and shifting their focus from deconstructing masculinity to deconstructing femininity. In the New World Order's Inverted Totalitarianism, sociopolitical policies are measured in terms of cost-effectiveness to the Elites. Radical Feminism was useful to them in the past for breaking down a workforce heavily dependent on a man providing for a family. It served its purpose, but women encountered many of the same issues for the Elites in the workforce: though women worked for less money and were less likely to unionize or demand better working conditions, they also needed a wide support network. Thus, it became more profitable to create a sterile workforce of emasculated men. To the Elites, that's the best of both worlds they take advantage of male loyalty to leadership and female passivity. 

   Like everything else that these criminal scum do; the LGBTQ Agenda and corresponding depopulation schemes don't include themselves. They'll still be reproducing offspring and having families---after all, they have to keep their dynasties intact. These policies and ideologies are for us; their inferiors, serfs, and slaves. To them, we're simply human capital: much like livestock where the herd has to be managed. 

   The perverts on Wall Street and in Hollywood were also behind the celebrity status of Dylan James Mulvaney, the troon to whom Drew Barrymore was offered up as a foil. Mulvaney---who didn't even bother assuming a female name---gained around 10 million followers on social media. He runs an internet series titled Days of Girlhood which chronicles his 'progress' on his way to becoming the alternative female of the future. This is all portrayed as a fascinating story of an individual's struggle to self-realization. Our friends at Kiwi Farms, though, have a whole discussion thread on this weirdo. A contributor there under the name of Swerf'n'Terf has posted some deep-dives into the commercial and corporate-media interests who've marketed and promoted Mulvaney since Day One, with a comprehensive update to Day 365, which anniversary Drew and Dilly were celebrating. 

   Common Sense alone should tell anyone that some obscure 20-something 'influencer' with Hollywood press agents, marketing contracts with major corporations, and regular meetings with high-profile people is not simply a product of changing social attitudes. Mulvaney is a product of deliberate social manipulation. There is no shortage of activist NGOs or government PSYOPs willing and able to fund and promote such ventures. 

   But exercising Common Sense in Postmodern America has become something of an officially socially-discouraged activity. In the next article, we'll discuss some of the settled science driving this narrative. 

THE NEOCON PIVOT TO MEXICO

     So, despite our own State Department issuing detailed warnings and advisories about travelling to unsafe parts of Mexico, a few entitled ignoramuses from the US always seem to have try and go anyway. Not infrequently, some end up in Mexican jails; others kidnapped and held for ransom, and a few others dead. Recently, this happened again; and to distract public attention from the fact that most American cities have out-of-control crime, the Corporate Media, paid pundits, and political grandstanders are howling with outrage over the fact that people who can't safely walk the streets of Chicago can't be safe in gang-ridden parts of Mexico. 

    RINO Senators Lindsey Graham, whose last call for military action was against American citizens, and John Kennedy, whose constituency would love to get their hands on Mexico's massive oil reserves, are denouncing the Junta to anyone who'll listen for not being 'Alphas' and unleashing our laughably toothless military against Mexico in retaliation. 

   The Controlled Opposition press is singing the same chorus. They have a large audience of uneducated xenophobes who've been primed for several years to imagine Mexico as a hostile foreign power and migrant farm-workers as an invading army. Josh Hammer---a 'Conservative' editorialist at the Moonie Cult-operated outlet Newsweek---unleashed a torrent of hysterics this weekend which has gone viral. 

   The would-be Alphas on the 'New Right' are obsessed with finding foreign scapegoats for problems which are largely problems of the US Deep State's own making. Hammer---echoing the Bush years--- hypocritically compares Mexican drug cartels to Islamic terror cults.

   "Consider the fact that, as recently as 2021, 625 U.S. citizens were abducted in Mexico. Far too many did not come home, as their families failed to pay ransom, and the abductees were thus killed. If an Islamic jihadist outfit were responsible for such atrocities on this scale, on an annual basis, Congress would pass a bipartisan authorization to use military force, and the United States would not hesitate to declare all-out war. After 9/11, the United States waged war on al-Qaeda; but for some reason, with hundreds of citizen kidnappings, far too many murders, and an unfathomable number of Americans now dropping dead from cartel-supplied fentanyl poison, bipartisan elites cite concerns about diplomatic niceties and say our hands are tied."

   Oh sure, Hammer. Mexico is forcing Americans to be drug addicts. Not Big Pharma---which over-prescribes dope and turns people into addicts. Not the Wall Street Robber Barons who've given us a controlled economy that makes drug trafficking more profitable than honest work. Not our crooked politicians and Big Ag that are flooding the country with gateway drugs like high-potency marijuana and over-the-counter psych-dope. Not our Deep State that engages in dope traffick to line its own pockets and advance its agenda. No: what we need is another war to prove to Americans that we're tough guys and not weenies and to increase those 'stakeholders' bottom lines.

    

    These same warhawks have apparently also forgotten the last 'Red Wave' and its promises to get to the bottom of things like Operation Fast and Furious. Of course, there has never been much investigation into the massive arms trafficking operations originating in US Black-Ops sites like those operated in Iraq and parts of Syria still illegally occupied by US troops.  For some reason it seems that our frontline heroes guarding the Southern Border are quite adept at catching migrant workers but somehow narcotics and weapons get through with little difficulty. One might be suspicious that American officials and Mexican criminal cartels might be working in concert. But certainly, the fact-checkers in our media would assure us that just because Mexican authorities in the past have captured American agents selling weapons and at least two plane-loads of American government aircraft loaded with drugs, that doesn't mean it's happening now. 

    Invading Mexico really wouldn't solve any problems---except maybe to eliminate foreign competition for America's thriving dope market. That's really---at the Oligarchy's levels---the reason for promoting all of this anti-Mexico hype. Mexico's current president is actually trying to do something. Like Trump, he's up against entrenched vested interests who aren't happy that part of his swamp-draining has included ejecting American spooks and provocateurs from positions of influence. Ideologically, Mexico's President is three things that the Great Reset crowd hate:

   1.) Nationalism: he believes that Mexicans should run their own country and not be another American suzerainty;

   2.) Economic Protectionism: he believes that Mexico should control its own economy instead of Wall Street and supranational Corporate Cartels;

   3.) Social Conservatism: he actually believes in things like strengthening families and rejecting woke Corporatism and American Cultural Imperialism. 

   So naturally, the Neocons and the Junta are going to join hands and create a new enemy image which is cast against any other government with the spine to assert its rights against the New World Order. All of this talk about Mexico 'invading' us or otherwise waging some vague 'war' on America is just rhetoric for the consumption of latent Alt-Right white nationalists who see Chinese devils or Mexican banditos everywhere and are looking for some scapegoat to release their pent-up libido upon. 

   This should be obvious, but somehow Americans manage to fall for it every single time. Invading Iraq didn't stop Islamic extremism. Military 'containment' policies strengthened---not weakened---Russia and China. The same with intervening in Syria: Iran---where the policy was actually aimed at---came out the major power in the Middle East. Bombing Mexico isn't going to solve our drug or crime problem either. Our policy of "projecting power" has never worked. Even during the Cold War of the mid-20th Century all of the proxy wars and the arms race led to the Soviet Union gaining allies until the 1980s when Reagan changed course and concentrated on American defense and diverting resources into American infrastructure. Unfortunately, Reagan was succeeded by administrations bent on American supremacy and we've been in decline ever since. 

   America's drug and crime problem is one of our own making, as are about 90% of our other problems. Electing Woke Leftist idiots or Red-Pilled bully-boys is no solution. We're like 1930s Europe with Blue Shirts and Red Shirts running around projecting all of their own neuroses on imaginary domestic and foreign bogeymen while the Oligarchs orchestrating both sides laugh in their sleeves and roll in the money.

*********************

  Update: a few hours after this article was published came the news  that thousands of people of border at El Paso have rushed the border bridge and stormed across. Well, wow---is anybody surprised that threatening to hit a community with an airstrike didn't cause a mass-panic? What did fools like Graham and Josh Hammer expect? That the people were going to stand outside with slingshots waiting to defend their refugee-camps? Everytime these RINOs and Red Pills open their mouths, they insert their foot.

   It never dawns on any of these knee-jerk 'red wave' NPCs that just maybe some of the people trying to come here from Northern Mexico might be trying to escape the cartels. As mentioned above, they seem to be having drug-fueled nightmares of banditos hovering over their homes in Chinese-made weather balloons or something. At least that's how they both talk and behave. I just hope that these refugees aren't rushing from the frying-pan to the fire.

   

   

FAILURE BEGINS AT HOME

    Among yesterday's usual flood of bowtie-clutching from the 'Conservative' Punditocracy, we were all exposed to the shocking news (once again) that American public schools are hotbeds of radicalism and have been engaging in forcing gender-bending pseudoscience upon impressionable young minds. On top of that, school administrators have been doing these things without bothering to inform parents, and generally behaving in an arrogant, unaccountable manner. 

   "A watchdog group has reported that nearly 6,000 public schools across the United States have implemented some sort of policy that prohibits the schools from informing parents when their children decide to “change” their gender or gender identity...The policies know no boundaries when it comes to geography, demographics, or financial status, with such policies in place in rural and urban areas alike, as well as rich and poor neighborhoods."

   Considering that this has been going on for the last decade or so; and that schools aggressively have been pursuing a policy of stamping out gender distinctions at least since the mid-1990s, it's a wonder that nobody on the Right realized any of it until just now. Granted, the average Ameroboob today is so sated with high-potency marijuana, SSRIs, and prescription tranquilizers that they probably don't even remember where they went to high school---let alone what was taught or happened there. Even the author of this article is a Millennial who graduated from one of the most perverse Left-Wing ratholes in the US---a university openly connected with the Great Reset. He did end the article praising Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin---former CEO of WEF Strategic Partner The Carlyle Group---for his "crack down on such pro-transgender policies." 

     How can we put this as diplomatically as possible? The sad fact is that---if one is a parent of a child or teenager suffering from gender dysphoria, and you need the local school district to inform you of this---you have bigger problems in your home than some slimy superintendent somewhere cozying up to the Gay Mafia. If your 14 year-old son is walking around the house in nylons and high-heels or your Kindergartener thinks that he might be 'gay', and you're not noticing any of this: then the problem isn't with the school: the problem is with you. 

   The problems with our schools start at home. “This investigation shows that parental exclusion policies are a problem from coast-to-coast, and that living in a red state doesn’t mean that families are automatically shielded from this issue.” No kidding. 

   The only 'parental exclusion' going on is that of American parents excluding themselves from the responsibility of raising children. Let's face the reality here: we're not having escalating rates of childhood suicides and depression, soaring levels of drug use among kids and minors; gender dysphoria running off the charts, or high-school graduates who don't know what Independence Day celebrates because we have so many parents deeply involved with parenting. We don't have out-of-control School Boards and schools run like the county jail because American parents are exercising so much oversight on these institutions. And no, it's not because the Chinese own Tik-Tok, or because the Junta is granting too many immigrant visas.

   For all intents and purposes, the majority of American parents might as well turn their offspring over to the State to raise them, because that's exactly what they're doing anyway. We're not talking here only about the Whacko Left Wing: they can't do anything right, including parenting. We're talking here about those good Red State American parents who look the other way, go-along-to-get-along, and pretend that voting for anybody with an 'R' after his name who promises to do all of their work for them and wash their hands of the matter.

   In the United States, parents have more legal authority over their children's education than most every other country. We elect State Superintendents of Public Education. We elect local school boards. We have the legal right to homeschool or seek alternative schools. Parents can attend school board meetings. There are still PTAs around; and parents have the right in most school districts to schedule one-on-one conferences with teachers and administrators. I'd wager that 4 in 5 parents never bother with any of this or even know who their offsprings' teachers, principals, or elected educational officials are.

  Our public school system stinks; but it's a problem entirely of the American people's own making. We've got a real crisis brewing here: two---almost three--- generations have been brought up in a dark hell of absentee parents while getting their education and world-views from ignoramuses, crooks, and perverts. These people are going to be our age some day, and they're going to be running things. We've set our young people up to fail, and we've got characters like Klaus Schwab and his merry-men of 'woke' billionaires ready to step into the void and bring order out of chaos. Is that a future worth looking forward to?

   

    

    

THE NEW RIGHT AND THE NEW NORMAL

       Going through the usual articles by the Postmodern Right, I've become convinced that the Conservative Movement needs a new slogan. Forget these quaint and outmoded phrases like "Make America Great Again." We're dealing with a new generation that doesn't remember when America was great, and isn't taught about it either at home or in schools. Or, calling ourselves "The Party of Principle." Sure faith, family, and freedom are nice things to have: but who actually believes in them anymore? As Based and Red Pilled writers of the Vox Day sort have been telling us: winning isn't everything; it's the only thing, and the ends justify the means. 

     We need a new slogan, because---as these same writers assure us---winning is only about controlling the narrative. By extension, whatever solutions our side comes up with are leaving intact everything the Liberals do, only more Alpha. Our new slogan should be a variation of the Left's highly-successful Orange Man Bad meme. Thus, we suggest: "It's only bad when the Democrats do it." 

     Take, for example, the New Right's hero of social media: Elon Musk. Sure, he's a total weirdo who hangs around with Tiananmen Trudeau's favorite cult leader, Aga Khan and his Corporate Boards are teeming with WEF shills. And maybe he did give fat donations to Leftist politicians like Steve Sisolak (who thanked Musk with a new Tesla plant near Las Vegas); or Gavin Newsom and Jay Inslee (who signed legislation phasing out gas engines in favor of electric vehicles); or Rahm Emmanuel (who promptly hired Musk to construct a new all-electric train tunnel). No: Musk is based because he fought woke social media by buying Twitter and letting a few Conservatives back on. Of course, none of this solves the problem of too much Media concentration in too few hands: but who cares as long as one of ours is running the show? It's all about owning the Libtards; and the way that one owns Libtards is by giving them a dose of their own medicine. 

    

     

   We might recall that before last year's Red Tsunami ended up a Red Backflow, there was endless howling on the Right about Big Tech censorship. So now that McCarthy and his confederates have control of the House: what's the first piece of legislation they've proposed to address the problem? 

   They want to ban Tik-Tok. 

   For those who don't know, Tik-Tok is a platform mostly of very short videos and mostly used by younger Americans. An average perusal of Tik-Tok has things like clips from people who think they live in a haunted house, girls doing make-up tutorials, and short clips of people doing ordinary things. But Tik-Tok is an American subsidiary of a Chinese-owned company, and the Junta doesn't like that. And it's up to House Republicans to prove that they are Alphas and not weenies like the Democrats who only want Tik-Tok banned in government offices. They want to go all the way and ban it nationwide. 

   Of course, they have no issue with Davos/WEF-affiliated Media conglomerates (which actually control the vast majority of American social and commercial media). As usual, the Free Market has to step aside in the interests of national security (because obviously the Communist Party of China shouldn't have access to 20-second videos of American girls showing off their latest dance moves); and of protecting our children (because a few Darwin Award candidates have done things like eating laundry detergent when dared on Tik-Tok). 

   The more cynical among us might note that Oracle, WalMart, and Microsoft have all made clear their hopes to buy Tik-Tok's operations---however, we're certain that the desire to ban the app has absolutely nothing to do with the $12 million that Oracle spent on Beltway lobbying last year alone.  Oracle's 87 lobbyists include former GOP Congressman Bobby Livingston and former GOP Senator Don Nickles---certainly that has no influence on an upstanding and disinterested patriot like Kevin McCarthy. Nor would it have anything to do with GOP Senator David Perdue holding by far the most Oracle Stock in Congress. Crony-Capitalism is only bad when the Democrats do it. 

   Not to be outdone, some based and Red-Pilled figure in the Florida State Senate has proposed a Bill which would require bloggers to register with the State if we write about Florida politicians.

     Yes, you read that correctly. Florida Senate Bill 1316 "would require any blogger writing about government officials to register with the Florida Office of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics...those who write an article, a story, or a series of stories, about the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature, and receives or will receive payment for doing so, must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official.If another blog post is added to a blog, the blogger would then be required to submit monthly reports on the 10th of each month with the appropriate state office. They would not have to submit a report on months when no content is published."

    On a personal note, this would be kind of an interesting challenge. To enforce this law, they'd have to doxx us first---and so far we've withstood Owen Benjamin's Bear Cult, Vox Day's Legal Legion of Evil, the trolls at Websleuths and the Red Pill Subreddit, among many others. It would be fun to watch the stormtroopers in the Florida so-called Commission on Ethics have a go at it. 

   But on a wider and more important issue: can anybody explain how forcing writers to register with the government is a Conservative policy? Especially ironic because, as mentioned above, the Republicans in the Federal Legislature are complaining about China---which actually does require writers to register with the State. In China, one can't write a blog unless he's a member of the Communist Party; how is this Bill any different from that? 

   It doesn't matter: it's only bad when the Left (including China) does it. Like Vox Day once said: "We are not Conservatives. We are not Constitutionalists. We are the Alt-Right." Apparently, this is the New Normal among Republicans too.