Monthly Archives: April 2017

There Is No Such Thing as a Gun Free Society

We live in a world that is obsessed with civil disarmament.  Among nations which permit civilian ownership of firearms, the United States stands almost alone.  To many, both within the United States and without, this is a point of great consternation.  Thus, I think it would be beneficial to briefly examine just why Americans are so attached to their guns.



Addressing Evil

It is not controversial to say that we live in a world that is filled with evil.  Whether it is the Islamic State finding new and interesting forms of execution, nationalist socialists exterminating Jews and political undesirables by the millions, or simple violent crime, it is an undeniable fact that evil, especially violent evil, exists in every corner of the world.  Thus, as a society, we must make a choice.  Shall we address evil, or let it overcome us?

Those who choose not to address evil are called non-violent pacifists.  They believe that engaging in violence, even in their own defense, sullies themselves.  Thus they eschew violence in all of its forms.  But is this a valid option?  Can we have a society that denies all violence, and yet remains free?

Whether we are talking about neighboring states or criminal gangs, there is no shortage of organized violence that is more than willing to exploit a helpless populace.  If you choose to deny violence, those with fewer moral convictions will, in short order, invade your land and oppress your people.  Of course, those with material wealth will go first, as they are the most valuable targets.  However, even a destitute population has considerable value in the form of their labor.  Thus, choosing non-violence brings with it the near certainty of slavery.  Of course, if we value a free society (and if peace is precious to us, chances are we do) we will certainly lose that free society if we are occupied and enslaved.  Moreover, we cannot have a gun free society if our masters are controlling us with guns.  We can see this taking place right now in Europe, with the so called “migrant crisis,” or the dominance of large American cities by criminal gangs.  Whether or not slavery in the name of non-violence is acceptable is up to each of us.  As for myself, I say no.

That leaves the second option.  To address evil, we must be armed.  There is simply no other choice.  We cannot talk evil people out of their violence, as they are inherently immoral to begin with.  We cannot hide from them, as this world is too small and transportation too readily available to stay hidden for long, and many of our own people who would not choose crime in an armed society would make a different choice in a vulnerable one.  Thus, someone in our society must be ready to carry out violence against aggressors.  This puts us in the territory of non-aggressive pacifism.  Once we make this choice, one more choice is presented to us:  Who is to be armed?


Paramilitaries vs Militia

Most societies choose to employ a paramilitary elite to protect the citizenry and fight their enemies.  This paramilitary elite is made up of both the police and the various branches of the armed forces.  That society must, of course, levy taxes against the people, as the paramilitaries must be paid, trained, and equipped.  Most who choose this strategy also forbid civilians from owning weapons.  Now, there are a number of advantages and disadvantages that come with reliance on paramilitaries.  On one hand, it frees the majority of the population from spending the time and money necessary to arm and train themselves.  Professionals also have more time to train than civilians would, so they tend to have more refined and effective tactics.  However, it does not take long before either the state or wealthy private interests realize that they can make the paramilitaries do just about anything they want by either threatening or outbidding their wages.  Sooner or later these paramilitaries are used against the people, and those who the citizenry trusted with their defense become their oppressors.  Moreover, when widespread civil unrest, or worse, an invasion occurs, the citizenry is incapable of meeting the threat.

Militias are far less common, and far more beneficial.  Among a people who rely upon militias, every able bodied man is trained in the use of weapons.  Neither the state, nor the wealthy can possibly subjugate the people, as th
e militias are the people.  Crime likewise drops, as criminals are far more likely to be met with the business end of a firearm than they are a terrified and cowering citizen.  The probability of invasions likewise drops, as overpowering an armed population and then occupying their land is nearly impossible when a rifle hides behind every blade of grass.

Also worth noting is the fact that it is difficult to invade your neighbors when you don’t have a standing army.  Wars of aggression are rarely carried out on behalf of the citizenry;  Rather, these wars serve the ambitions of the rich and powerful.  Even in a society in which the character of the people is virtuous, the elite may still carry out foreign wars of aggression if they have control of the army.  As the saying goes, all wars are banker wars.  In a society without a standing army, no agency exists by which these interests may kick in the neighbor’s front door, so to speak.  Moreover, armies have the bad habit of overthrowing the civil government and installing a military dictator.  Julius Caesar, anyone?

But this is not merely theory.  Switzerland, for example, operates a militia in the place of a military.  Switzerland has neither been invaded nor carried out a foreign war since the time of Napoleon.  Not even Hitler himself invaded Switzerland, though that may have something to do with the fact that they did an awful lot of his banking.  In the Swiss militia, all active duty personnel are required to keep their firearms at home.  For officers, this means a semi-automatic 9mm handgun.  For enlisted personnel, this means a select fire assault rifle.  That’s right, they get machine guns.  They are allowed carry them around in public, too.

When militia personnel are discharged, they are not required to turn in their guns.  The only requirement is that enlisted personnel have their assault rifles modified to only fire semi-automatic.  With so many weapons, especially automatic weapons, floating around Switzerland, one would think that it is a land rife with gun violence.  Nope.  In fact, until the migrant crisis, Switzerland was one of the safest countries in the world.  The Swiss had so little gun violence that they didn’t even bother keeping official statistics of it.  Thus, the thesis that the presence of firearms causes crime is completely bogus, but that’s another article.

So why do so many people insist on civil disarmament?  Look to their incentives.  Those receiving welfare benefits (single mothers, criminals, minorities) want the  productive classes to be incapable of defending themselves against the government despoiling them and using the fruits of their labor to buy votes.  The government itself wants to disarm you because then you cannot resist the slow goosestepping march to tyranny.  Many corporations push for gun control because they are engaged in lucrative nation building overseas, and that requires a standing army and a compliant citizenry.  Consider, would you choose to buy nearly $100 million in tomahawk cruise missiles just to strike a Syrian airbase on the other side of the world?  Would you willingly fund the construction of a dam in Iraq?  Would you pay to settle Turkish migrants, people who have a dubious track record of freedom in their own land, within your borders, or would you rather spend that money on having another child?  But try saying no to these things.  See what happens.

On a more practical note, consider how a gun free society might be brought about.  The socialists want gun owners to give up their weapons, but it goes without saying that those gun owners do not want to give them up, otherwise they wouldn’t own them in the first place.  Simply asking nicely obviously won’t do it, so there must be some kind of civil or criminal penalty, but penalties cannot be enforced without guns.  Thus, police must go door to door, taking away guns from citizens who have committed no violent crimes, at gunpoint.  The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Do not think that those who advocate for seizing your firearms are simply ignorant.  Their political convictions originate within their characters, and those characters are those of liars, thieves, and murderers.  Make no mistake, people who support gun control do not have your best interests at heart.  They mean to oppress you, exploit your labor, and plunder your property.  They may claim virtue today, but it is a lie.  You cannot afford to take them at their word and hope that they mean you well.  If you wish to determine your own course through life, to live without interference from a violent master, to defend your life or the lives of your friends and family, there is no other choice than to be armed.  Anything else is suicide.

A Right to Free Health Care

One of the most common arguments I hear in support of socialized health care (especially among millennials), is that we each have a right to free health care.  But is this truly the case?  Where does this right come from, and what are the penalties for violating it?  Let’s break it down.

The claim that we have a right to free health care has two components.  First, it asserts that health care is a basic human right, which itself necessitates that human rights exist.  Second, it claims the very existence of free health care.  We will address both of these points separately.

What Are Human Rights?

Is health care a basic human right?  To answer that, we must first determine what human rights are.  According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, human rights are norms or principles that exist to “protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses.”  Human rights are claimed to be universal, transcending all secular and religious law.  The concept of human rights is a relatively recent one.  In ancient times, proper social behavior was governed quite differently.  The classical Greeks and Romans, for example, categorized behavior into vices and virtues.  Those individuals who embodied virtues were praised while those who embodied vices were subjected to social disapproval.

Human rights have only become popular in philosophical and political thought in the last four or five centuries.  They were originally meant to protect individuals against improper behavior, usually from their own government.  For example, the right to religious freedom protects the individual against persecution for practicing a form of religion other than the state religion.  The right to free speech protects against civil or criminal penalties for speaking against the political establishment.  The right to free association protects against the government forcing people to become involved with those who they find objectionable for some reason, such as a Christian bakery being forced to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding.

The concept of human rights has changed significantly in more recent history, however.  Rights as envisioned by such thinkers as John Locke and Immanuel Kant have been changed from a protection to an imperative.  Whereas in times past rights forbade behavior, today they demand it.  This means that the very concept of rights has been reversed.  If a moral or ethical concept can be completely inverted like this, then it was never valid in the first place.

So where do rights come from?  There are two camps.  The first are the secular atheist philosophers.  They claim that human rights are innate to the individual, and the same for all people.  The other camp are a group within Christianity who claim that God has given us our rights.  The problem is that neither group can provide any evidence to back up their claims.

There is nothing in the objective material world that can be called a right.  You cannot point to an object and say “that, there, is a human right,” nor can you point to a natural phenomena and claim that it is the effect, for which a human right is the cause.  Thus, necessarily, human rights are a social construct.  If they are a social construct, then they cannot be objective; rather, they are subjective.  In short, we have imagined them.  While it is the philosophers who claim the existence of human rights, it is governments who codify them into law and enforce them.  Therefore, if rights can be said to exist at all, then they must be a creation of the state.  If they are a creation of the state, then they cannot be innate to the human being, as the state is a creation of man.  How can we claim the imaginations of men to be a universal moral code?  Moreover, if rights are subjective and derived from the state, they can be taken away by the state when it is deemed expedient.  How can we then call them rights?  It would be better to call them privileges.

As mentioned before, many Christians claim that God has given us our rights.  I have heard this argument time and time again.  I challenge anyone to find any kind of scriptural support for that what-so-ever.  If God has given us a right to live, for example, does he then violate our rights when he judges an individual or a nation to destruction?  Certainly not, because rights do not exist.

Free Healthcare

The second component necessary to the claim to the right to free health care is that free health care exists.  Of course, when people make this claim they mean that they should receive medical care without having to pay for it.  But this does not make it free.  Indeed, the health care industry is one of the largest industries in the west, with enormous costs involved.  One must pay for the training and salary of personnel, the construction of facilities, research, development, and production of treatments and technology, emergency transportation, and insurance.  If the consumer refuses to pay for it, where do these costs go?

Predictably, leftists claim that the government will pay for it, as if they are in possession of a magic wand that makes things free.  Where does the state get the money to pay for it?  The government, after all, has no money.  The funds that the government spends each day come either from tax revenue, or debt that they have borrowed from central banks (which are borrowed from an empty account), using your tax dollars as collateral.  When they borrow these funds, of course, it has the effect of increasing the money supply, which, in turn, devalues the currency used by the general population.  Either way, it’s your money they’re spending.

So how are we supposed to respect this alleged right to free health care?  The only option is to demand that construction workers build hospitals and clinics for free, that doctors, nurses, orderlies, and maintenance personnel work for free, and that treatments be researched, developed, and distributed at no charge.  But this is still not free!  The materials cost money, research and development requires time, labor, and material, and the workers experience unacceptable opportunity costs.  No amount of delusional wishful thinking can possibly make health care free.

And what about the rights of the medical personnel?  If you have a right to free health care, then the doctor must treat you.  But what about the doctor’s right to free association?  What about the right of the tax payer to be secure in their property and assets?  The right to free health care necessarily violates the rights of others.  If it is not clear enough already, this final nail in the coffin invalidates the concept entirely.

Why, then, do people claim a right to free health care if it exists only in the minds of the delusional and the corrupt?  Governments spread the myth because it places the population in a dependent position in relation to themselves.  At this point, politicians need only bribe the unthinking voters with seemingly free health care in order to get elected.  What’s worse, they can coerce the citizenry into agreeing to sacrifice money or freedoms simply by threatening to take away their medical coverage.  The citizenry likes the idea for a more obvious reason:  Everyone likes free stuff.

But if everyone likes free stuff, why doesn’t everyone support the right to free health care?  Even if it is a myth, it stands to reason that the less honorable among us (hint: that’s most people) would hold their nose and demand it anyway.

There are some among us who cannot abide such theft.  We cry foul when we see crime, not only those crimes that are committed against ourselves, but also those which are to our seeming benefit.  Whereas some men and women can lie, steal, and murder, and then somehow sleep at night, we cannot.  The belief in the right to free health care is a litmus test, not only for the intelligence of the individual but also for their character.  Anyone who believes that the government is justified in extracting funds from the citizenry through the use of force and then using those funds to subjugate those they have just stolen from is morally bankrupt.  If they will support this, what will they not do?  What do they consider to be crossing the line?  Who will they not steal from?  Are they willing to commit crimes more sinister than theft?  How will they react when their stolen money is taken away?  Beware such people.

Poking the Bear

The world has turned a corner.  For the last two years freedom-loving people throughout the west have rallied to wrestle control of their governments away from the warmongering sociopaths who have been in power for generations.  Most prominent in this effort was the recent presidential campaign in the United States.  In what was arguably the most intense presidential campaign America had ever seen, Donald Trump defeated mass murdering lunatic Hillary Clinton and ascended to the office of leader of the free world.  His supporters breathed a collective sigh of relief, believing that the horrors of a third world war had been narrowly avoided.  And yet, in the months following, the escalations continued.  First the mainstream media tried to paint Trump as some kind of Russian plant.  Then Trump ordered additional combat personnel to Syria.  The world, it seemed, still rested on a knife’s edge.

Until the western military intelligence complex came along and pushed it over.

Last Monday an alleged chemical weapons attacked occurred in the north of Syria.  It was immediately blamed on Bashar Al-Assad (of course), and the world began to discuss what to do about him crossing Obama’s infamous “red line.”

Yesterday the decision was made.  Trump ordered a strike of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles ($1.6 million each) at the Ash Sha’irat airbase in Homs, destroying the control tower, runway, hangers, fuel tankers, and ammunition dumps.  According to Al-Masdar News, 15 fighter aircraft were damaged or destroyed, one pilot was killed and several wounded, and Russian personnel were present at the airbase when it was hit.



But why would Bashar Al-Assad carry out a chemical weapons attack against a civilian target that would almost certainly bring down the wrath of the entire world?  It would endanger his alliance with Russia, which is the only reason his government has survived.  It would provoke NATO, and quite possibly cause a western military intervention.  And it seems to have only killed civilians.  Hardly a tempting strategic target.  Bashar Al-Assad is the last person in the world who would have any motive to do this.

Oh, think of the children!  Feelz!  Believe us!

More than that, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has been winning its war against ISIS, Al-Nusra, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), YPG, and the dozens of other militant groups throughout the country.  The war has been going so well for Bashar Al-Assad that there has been talk for weeks about how the final invasion of Raqqa, the capital of ISIS, would be organized.  Moreover, Bashar Al-Assad’s enemies have seen it coming, and, as a consequence, have come to the negotiation table to hammer out a deal.  A chemical weapons attack would only endanger this.

We must then ask ourselves, who benefits from this incident?  Certainly the neocon warhawks in the west who are committed to a destabilized middle east and adversarial relations with Russia.  Terrorist groups within Syria itself would likewise profit from blaming this on Bashar Al-Assad, but if they already had chemical weapons, they certainly would have used them before.

These guys know that sarin is absorbed through the skin, right?

More to the point, how do we even know that it was a chemical weapons attack at all?  Shortly before first Gulf War we were told stories of Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait removing babies from life-saving incubators.  During the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, we were told of WMD “mobile production centers.”  Years later, when we were told that another “chemical weapons attack” had occured it was found to be a complete fabrication.  Rather than a chemical weapons attack, a napalm attack had been repurposed by the BBC in order to provoke a western military intervention.  Each of these frauds were debunked, but the first two only after devastating wars which lead to a collective body count of about 1.5 million people.





So how do we know that Al-Assad just gassed his own people?  Well, the White Helmets told us so.  Who are they?  The White Helmets are a NGO Syrian civil defense organization that operates in rebel held territory.  They receive funding from George Soros, the CIA, and the UK Foreign Office.  With backers like that, they must be trustworthy.

The day before the attack, reporter Feras Karam (Orient News) tweeted  “Tomorrow, a media campaign will be launched to cover the intensity of the air raids on the villages of Hama and the use of chlorine against civilians.”   Now that’s some pretty good reporting.  Imagine what kind of money news agencies could make if they always reported the news before it happened.  But wait, wasn’t this supposed to be a sarin gas attack?  Well, I guess you can’t always get predicting the future 100% right.


Must be a coincidence.


It gets worse.  The White Helmets posted both video and pictures of the dead and dying, including between 25 and 30 children.  White Helmet personnel are shown with exposed skin (sarin is absorbed through the skin, not inhaled).  In one video, White Helmet doctors are shown supposedly attempting to save the life of a small child.  However, the organization Swedish Doctors for Human Rights released a statement explaining that the child showed symptoms of opiate overdose rather than sarin gas poisoning, that the White Helmet doctors did not give medical treatment consistent with sarin gas poisoning, and that the White Helmet doctors almost certainly murdered the child on camera as part of the hoax.


Nothing says credibility like murdering children on camera.


A reaction from the international community was inevitable, but what came next was more than a little over the top.  Trump ordered the destruction of an entire military airbase, which I might add, without authorization from the UN Security Counsel, is a war crime.  Just because Bush and Obama did it doesn’t mean that just anyone can or should do it.  What’s worse is that Russian military personnel were at the base, possibly provoking a hot war with Russia.  This is reminiscent of when Israeli fighters destroyed two Syrian P-800 Onyx anti-shipping missile batteries that were still being operated by Russian crews back in September 2013.

So why did Trump do it?  Trump has been talking about how the Syrian people should decide who runs the Syrian government, and he has criticized Obama’s policies in Syria as a waste of money for years.  Moreover, if we can figure out that this attack is a fraud, Trump, with 17 different intelligence agencies at his disposal certainly knows.

So why did he do it?  I see three possibilities:

  1. Trump is weak, and he attacked Syria to appease the globalists.  Hillary Clinton, for instance, suggested that Trump should destroy Syrian airbases in order to ground the Syrian air force.  She said: “I really believe that should’ve and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from…bombing innocent people.”  What a coincidence.
  1. The Pentagon carried out the strike without Trump’s authorization, and Trump simply told the world that he had ordered the attack.  It is preferable to appear evil rather than incompetent.  A similar scenario is portrayed in Tom Clancey’s novel The Sum of All Fears, when a top Russian general carries out a gas attack on Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, killing most of the population.  The events that follow include a nuclear attack in Baltimore, and the United States and Russia coming within a hair’s breadth of a nuclear exchange.  Definitely a scenario to keep in mind.
  1. Trump ordered the attack because he is, and has always been a warmongering neocon, and his presidential election was all a fraud.


In my opinion, the second and third options are the most likely.  Will we ever know which?  Probably not, but only time will tell.  In the mean time, consider the body language in his press conference:


See Trump lie,

Lie, Trump, lie,

See McCain lie.


Another question to consider is why wasn’t the airbase evacuated?  After all, the United States did inform the Russians before the strike, and the Russians would certainly have told the Syrians, given that they are allies.  The aircraft and personnel, at least, could have been removed to another airbase.  More than that, why didn’t the Russians attempt to shoot the missiles down, especially if they had personnel on base?  The Tomahawk is an old, subsonic missile, and modern Russian S-300 and S-400 air defense batteries are more than up to the task of intercepting them.  Syria, being Russia’s military ally, is certainly worthy of such protection, and those air defense assets are plentiful and have been in place for some time.  Inquiring minds want to know.

Russian S-400 air defense missile battery.

One final question to ponder:  Immediately after the Israelis took out the Russian operated P-800 missile batteries in September 2013, Putin ordered the largest military drill in Russia’s history, the following day.  160,000 men, 5,000 tanks, and numerous ships and aircraft assembled at a moment’s notice to carrying out drills in Siberia.  If that was Putin’s response to the loss of two missile batteries, what will he do now?




Understanding MGTOW

Spend enough time cruising around alternative media and it is inevitable that one will eventually run across material coming from the MGTOW (Men Go Their Own Way) community.  When first encountered, the MGTOW movement will likely appear strange and perhaps even extreme.  However, whether we agree with their arguments or not, it is important to understand their position, and what has led them to it.


What MGTOWs Believe:

–  Society, whether operating under traditional or modern feminist principles, is biased against men and in favor of women.

–  False rape accusations are common.  Protections against false rape accusations are practically non-existent.

–  The family court system is heavily biased in favor of women.

–  Modern women are manipulative and hypergamous.

–  Men should concentrate on satisfying and improving themselves rather than serving the needs of a family.


Why Do MGTOWs Believe These Things?

At first glance, these ideas seem to be a tremendous overreaction.  It is tempting, even, to believe that they are the male equivalent to third wave feminism.  However, I think a brief thought exercise will serve to understand, though perhaps not justify, the MGTOW position.

Imagine that you are a young small business owner.  Suppose that, though your business is neither wealthy nor influential, you are experiencing impressive growth, and that it is reasonable to conclude that within a few years you will be quite successful.  One day you are approached by another young small business owner who proposes a merger between your two business.  This person promises you that they will always work toward your mutual benefit, and that your two companies will always remain together, even during periods of economic decline.  Furthermore, this business owner tells you that the merging of your two companies will spawn additional small businesses, and that in two or three decades your overall business empire will be wildly successful.  The other business owner even produces a seemingly binding legal contract that precludes the possibility of dissolving your union under the threat of severe consequences.

Now suppose that you tell this other business owner that you will consider their offer.  You spend the following days doing your due diligence on the outcomes of other small businesses that have made similar agreements.  You discover that there is between a 41-60% chance that your agreement will be dissolved, and that there is a 65-90% chance (depending on a number of variables) that it will be the other small business owner that will initiate the dissolution.  Furthermore, you find that the most likely reason for this dissolution is not fraud, criminality, or a violation of contract, but rather dissatisfaction.  You also discover that while the wording of the contract which the other business owner provided is strongly worded, the courts rarely uphold such contracts when they are violated.

Your research further uncovers that in cases of dissolution, courts are overwhelmingly likely to award ownership of assets and jointly owned subsidiaries to the other business.  Moreover, the courts will almost certainly demand that you pay the other business a significant sum of money each month.  If you find any part of this process to be unjust and simply refuse to participate, men with guns will show up at your doorstep and drag you off to prison.

Now, if you were this small business owner, would you agree to the proposed merger?  Would you not at least attempt to discern a difference between those mergers that failed and those that succeeded?  Would the probability of failure and the costs thereof not scare you half to death?  What kind of assurance would you need in order to make such an agreement, given the risks involved?  Does the MGTOW position still seem quite as absurd?


The Validity of MGTOW

As I see it, MGTOW philosophy settles out into two broad categories:  Cost-benefit analysis and an indulgence in vanity.  The cost-benefit analysis I tend to agree with.  Given the current legal and socio-political environment, marriage or even close association with women is a profoundly risky business.  Divorce rates are high, most divorces in the west are initiated by women for vain and petty reasons, and false rape accusations are far more common than most suppose.  Indeed, a false rape accusation, though disproved in court, is almost certain to ruin one’s life forever, and the less virtuous among women know it.

However, I find the MGTOW philosophy that comes out of this cost-benefit analysis to be deeply flawed.  First of all, let’s correctly lay blame.  It is the current legal, social, and political bias toward women that is the problem, not some fundamental aspect of female nature.  Yes, women do seem to have a particular weakness for the vanity offered by the state, but then again, so do men.  Anyone who doubts this should take a good hard look at Islam.  Why does the state here in the west favor women over men?  For the simple reason that women vote more often than do men, and politicians who do not favor women do not get elected.  Thus, the solution is social, political, and legal in nature, not a complete and unilateral and permanent denial of all female association for all time.

Another problem I have with MGTOW is the insistence on the satisfaction of self.  Many MGTOWs assert that the greatest good they can do in the world is to satisfy their ambitions and appetites.  This is simply replacing female vanity with male vanity, and I do not think it requires much explanation on my part to point out how that is a problem.

The final problem I have with MGTOW is the simple fact that families are necessary for the survival of the species.  The west has already dropped well below population replacement levels.  This is viewed by many historians as the death knell of a society.  What MGTOW is saying when they demand that we avoid women and families is that the west is unworthy of survival.  It’s not as if there will simply be a population reduction in North American and Europe that will gradually be repopulated over the next century, either.  Millions of Muslims have already immigrated to Europe, and any reduction in the native population will certainly be made up for by Muslims already living in Europe.  So let us not think that this will simply be a period of European population reduction.  Europeans, the people who gave us representative government, philosophy, the scientific method, the free market, and Protestantism, will cease to exist.  For more on that, research the demographic winter.


Fertility Rate By Country, Per Woman


Of course, none of this addresses the immediate problem.  While I think the problems of divorce are understood by many a conservative, it is unreasonable to think that they will be solved any time soon, and perhaps not even before western society itself completely disintegrates.  Even if we are to assume that this will be solved, it does not address the difficulty of young men try to form stable families now.  So what are they to do?  Avoid promiscuity, restrict your association to young women who hail from stable homes with strong father figures and who likewise avoid promiscuity, and determine before marriage your prospective bride’s attitude toward divorce.  Do not get a prenuptial agreement!  Such agreements are simply paving the way for divorce before the marriage even begins and practically guarantee that your marriage will end in dissolution.  I would also recommend finding a woman who has made sacrifices in her life in the name of her principles.  If you can find such a woman, you are practically guaranteed that she will not sacrifice you and your children upon the altar of the family court system.




  1. Brinig, Margaret F. and Allen, Douglas W., ‘These Boots are Made for Walking’: Why Most Divorce Filers are Women ( 2000). American Law and Economics Review, Vol. 2, pp. 126-169, 2000. 
  5. Rumney, Philip N.S., “False Allegations of Rape” (2006). Cambridge Law Journal, 65(1), pp. 128-158.

Another Clinton Associate Bites the Dust

To the surprise of just about no one, yet another Clinton associate has turned up dead under extremely suspicious circumstances.

This time it was John Wilson McGill, 34, a top Clinton campaign aide.  McGill was only days away from testifying before Congress regarding Hillary’s email server.  This is, of course, a complete coincidence and not at all suspicious, and if you have any further questions you are a dirty tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist who needs to be shunned by all society before your crazy infects us all.

McGill reportedly died of a heart attack, despite his youth.  Who discovered the body?  None other than Huma Abedin, Hillary’s deputy campaign coordinator and speculated Saudi agent.  Huma insists that she discovered McGill’s corpse after she arrived at his apartment for coffee.  So what did Huma do next?  Instead of calling an ambulance for her friend and colleague, she called a private doctor, allegedly in an attempt to save him.

Huma claims that McGill suffered from an abnormal heart arrhythmia, and that a life ending heart attack was always a possibility.  How convenient.  Of course, if this is true, one must wonder how Huma was privy to that information in the first place.  There was no autopsy, no investigation, and his body was cremated within 24 hours of its discovery.  Both of McGill’s parents are dead, and he left behind no family of his own.

To those who have been following King Ahab and Queen Jezebel for years, none of this comes as any kind of surprise.  The Clintons have been leaving bodies in their wake since the 1970s at least, and doing, might I add, rather a poor job of covering them up.  Indeed, depending on who you ask, the Clinton dead pool list numbers anywhere from 46 to 186 (+1).  They include such people as Bill’s former lovers, Vince Foster (deputy white house counsel to Bill Clinton), and John Ashe (former president of the United Nations General Assembly).  It’s worth noting that Ashe died mere days before he was set to appear in court in a bribery case that had connections to the Democratic National Convention.  How did Ashe die?  The police claimed that he dropped a barbell on his neck.  Something about this sounds strangely familiar….

The purpose of the article is not, however, an indictment of the Clintons.  That dead horse has been beaten ad nauseam over the course of the last two years, and anyone who has managed to remain ignorant of the Clinton’s extraordinary criminal behavior is well beyond my help.  No, the purpose of this article is to ask one very simple question:

If it is so easy for us to discern the rampage of mayhem and murder that the Clintons have been on for the last 40 years, why is no one in the government or law enforcement doing anything about it?  Why is, say, one Donald Trump, who got into power promising to “lock her up” and “drain the swamp” not ordering surveillance of her movements, investigating her alleged crimes, and exposing her cover-ups?  How did an extremely suspicious death that occured within her inner circle go entirely uninvestigated?  Why have we not seen one of Trump’s famous tweets decrying how “bad” and “terrible” she is?  It’s not as if Trump couldn’t use such an incident, especially considering the colossal amount of manufactured scandal that is being thrown at him at the moment.  And let’s not pretend that he doesn’t know.  So why does he remain silent over this murder?  

Inquiring minds want to know.


 For more on the Clintons’ proclivity toward murder, I recommend viewing these episodes of The Corbett Report:





A Statement of Intent

The 21st Century can be aptly described as the century of confusion.  On the one hand, humanity seems safer and more prosperous than ever before.  Food is easily procurable, the last world war ended more than 70 years ago, education is widespread, global transportation and communication is available to all, and the most difficult decision most people make every day is where to go for dinner.

On the other hand, the population is drowning in debt, terrorist attacks are commonplace, the health of the people is the punchline of a tasteless joke, endless foreign wars are waged in third world countries, censorship grows like a cancer within society’s most important public forums, and communist revolutionaries agitate in the streets.

Until recently, those who warned us about losing this seeming paradise were laughed out of the room as alarmists, accused of being “conspiracy theorists” who were just trying to attract attention.  However, recent events have forced even the most dense to admit that there is something terribly wrong with our world.  Whether it is the bombing of middle eastern countries, the hysterical and often violent behavior of socialists, ailing health in the United States, the flagging economy, or everyone and everything being compared to Hitler, it is no long possible to pretend that all is well and that if we just wait and see it will all work out in the end.

Of course, everyone has an opinion on how to save the world.  Some say we need to receive into our own countries the very people we have been carpet bombing for the last generation.  Some say that we need to destroy Russia, to teach not only them, but the rest of the world a lesson.  Some claim that we need the government to take over all areas of the economy and public discourse.  Some think that the world cannot possibly be peaceful again until all the white people are dead.  Others believe that the only way to win is not to play.  Everyone has an opinion, and that is precisely the problem.

For any issue in the public debate there are those who say yay, and others who say nay.  Each side brings forth their “experts,” and the majority of the populace chooses between them based solely on their own preferences and prejudices.  Logical reasoning and critical thinking have given way to hysterical tantrums, sensationalism, and threats.  The search for truth has become such a sensitive matter than one can easily find one’s self imprisoned for simply disagreeing with the political establishment and their lap dogs.  Thus, a famine for truth has sprung upon the west, and most of the populace is so deceived that they do not even realize that they are hungry.

That is where this blog enters.  Thought Criminal Extraordinaire (TCE) is a project launched not only to furnish the reader with politically incorrect concepts and objective facts, but also to teach the reader how to use those facts and concepts to discern truth without the permission of “experts” or authorities.  It aims to improve the world through giving each individual the knowledge and tools necessary to better themselves, rather than attempting to force the matter with legislation.  Readers of this blog will foresee disasters before they strike, possess a working knowledge of forbidden and forgotten history, and understand problems that others do not even know exist.  TCE is written from a Christian world-view, considering all knowledge within the paradigm of scripture and prophecy.