After the Las Vegas shooting, we all knew that federal firearms regulations were coming. It was inevitable. After the NRA caved and supported restrictions on bump-fire stocks, most thought that the NRA had betrayed us all. Others speculated that they were making a strategic move, that they knew something far worse was in the works, and that they were positioning themselves in the strongest possible position to oppose it.
Now we know.
Behold, I give you H.R. 3999, read it and weep. This wonderful bill was brought to you by none other than the Republican party. It states that:
“To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, and for other purposes.”
On the surface, that doesn’t sound catastrophic. After all, bump-fire stocks aren’t as much fun as they look, and certainly aren’t practical (no, bump-fire stocks were not used in the Las Vegas shooting. Do your research), but you will note that this bill doesn’t actually mention bump-fire stocks. Rather, it is anything that increases the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon, but does not turn it into a machinegun.
Binary triggers are definitely out. But what about light match triggers? They increase the rate of fire, that’s the point. What about that lightweight bolt carrier group you’ve got in your AR-15? That increases the rate at which the bolt cycles, so it’s probably illegal, too. Or maybe that skeletonized hammer on your favorite 1911? Those travel faster, slightly increasing rate of fire. What about sticking your finger through the trigger guard and into your belt loop to manually bump-fire the weapon? Are they going to arrest you for possession of a finger, or possession of a belt loop?
Increase it from what? No baseline is mentioned. In fact, this bill is absurdly vague. If we don’t know what an acceptable rate of fire is, how do we know when we are in violation? And what does “and for other purposes” mean? The BATF is going to have a field day.
Do not think that just ambiguity is the result of polticians being stupid. This bill was written by lawyers. Lawyers generally have IQ scores between 115 and 130, and the balance of probability states that the people who wrote this bill are probably smarter than you are. A lot smarter. The vague language is deliberate. Without specific definitions, BATF will interpret this bill to mean whatever they want it to mean. The BATF is a firearms czar as it is, but with this bill in their quiver, they will be unstoppable.
Don’t think that this is for the public good, either. Senator Diane Feinstein, gun grabber extraordinaire, said herself that she knew of no law that would could have stopped the Las Vegas shooting. These people don’t want to stop mass shootings, but they know you do. They want you disarmed and vulnerable, unable to resist the creeping tyranny of their totalitarian regime.
They also know that they can make you think or do anything they want by making you afraid of the tribe. They know that you don’t want to go on a mass shooting, but they also know that the tribe is easily manipulated through fear. If they can make the tribe afraid of terrorist attacks such as the Las Vegas shooting, the tribe will pressure its own members into giving up their second amendment rights. People will be so afraid of being voted off the island and floated out to sea on an iceberg that they will give up their weapons out of that fear alone. They want the tribe to think that gun owners are unsafe, violent, and frightening. They want gun owners to be more afraid of angering the tribe than they are of their own totalitarian government.
Remember spirit cooking? Remember pizzagate? That never went away. Many of these congressmen and congresswomen belong to Luciferian cults. They offer up their own children to satanic ritual abuse. Do you think they won’t kill yours?
What is the penalty for violation? If caught, you will be charged with a felony and face up to five years in prison. The Democrats (I would say liberals, but that doesn’t rule out the Republicans) are working on a bill of their own that would mean 10 years.
You have to decide now what you are willing to tolerate. Will you give up your weapons? If you do, I guarantee that gulag-style concentration camps are in your future. It’s only a matter of time. Will you resist through strength of arms? You certainly won’t be alone, though only time will tell how many people will refuse to cave in. After all, such a thing hasn’t happened here since 1776, and the population has changed a lot since then.
If you keep your weapons and you get caught, you’re going to prison. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to shower with a cork up my ass for the next five or ten years. You will be torn away from your families, your careers will be ruined, and you will be surrounded by the lowest creatures in society. What fun!
Why do you think the Las Vegas shooting was orchestrated, anyway? The lone wolf story doesn’t make any kind of sense. The alleged shooter was too old, too successful, didn’t display the kind of personality characteristics of a mass shooter, he had none of the stressors or trigger events, and he had no motive. Las Vegas was a false flag to kill the silencer legalizing SHARE act, introduce body scanners to hotels and casinos, and introduce further firearms legislation. If you give in now and allow H.R. 3999 to pass, it will only encourage further false flag terror attacks within the United States. If you do not oppose H.R. 3999 the blood of the next Las Vegas will be on your hands.
The second amendment does not exist for hunting. The second amendment protects the first amendment. The first amendment is the foundation upon which all free societies are built. Without it the citizenry has no say in their government and the people will be ruled by decree from their masters. Freedom of speech is already under concerted attack. If that has managed to somehow escape anyone’s notice, try to post a video on YouTube about bump-fire stocks. See what happens.
America is the last bastion of freedom left on Earth. Europe has already surrendered to globalist fascism and multiculturalism. Canada is just as bad, especially after bill C-16. Asia never really had freedom, and Australian firearms legislation is a joke. If we lose freedom here in the United States there will be no other country on earth to take up the standard of liberty. The entire world will fall under the banner of the Jesuit New World Order and their Ashkenazim banking elites, and no one will have the power to resist them. The dream that is freedom will be lost FOREVER.
H.R. 3999 is being sponsored by ten Republicans. Their names and offices are as follows:
- Carlos Curbelo (FL)
- Peter King (NY)
- Leonard Lance (NJ)
- Patrick MeeHan (PA)
- Ed Royce (CA)
- Christ Smith (NJ)
- Erik Paulsen (MN)
- Ryan Costello (PA)
- Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL)
- Charlie Dent (PA)
I would like to point out that Carlos Curbelo is the son of Cuban exiles. He also attended a Jesuit preparatory school. Lleana Ros-Lehtinen was actually born in Cuba. Ryan Costello doesn’t sound like a terribly northern European name, either. This is our punishment for not maintaining our borders.
You must contact your congressmen and/or congresswomen and demand that they oppose the passage of this bill. Make it abundantly clear to them that their constituents will see to the end of their political careers if they do not.
As the video of Senator Diane Feinstein above makes clear, these people know that additional firearms regulation will do nothing stop crime. Besides, last time I checked, mass murder is illegal and has been for some time. Are we supposed to believe that criminals will be afraid of breaking some firearms laws, but perfectly willing to shoot hundreds of people? What do you think the objective is here? Why are they so desperate to take away your ability to defend yourself? Do you really think that you will simply be left in peace if you give up your second amendment rights? No, just the opposite. Allowing this bill and others like it to pass will open the flood gates of hell, and there will no longer exist a mechanism by which we may close them again. There will be no second chances.
262 million people were killed by their own governments in the 20th century. Most of those deaths were not the result of war. Civil disarmament immediately preceded genocide in the vast majority of cases. It doesn’t take a genius to see where this is headed.
Petition against H.R. 3999: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/do-not-pass-hr3999
Over the course of the last two years there there has emerged a certain degree of respect toward Christianity within atheistic circles. Prominent atheist thinkers such as Stefan Molyneux and Jordan Peterson, for example, have identified Christianity as the primary bulwark against the spread of cultural Marxism and its religious fetish, Islam, and have advocated employing Christian principles in the fight against these totalitarian forces.
It was not so long ago that atheists relentlessly trolled Christians, mocking them for believing in their “invisible sky God.” One could neither mention the commandments of God nor faith in Jesus as being necessary or even beneficial for one’s life without withering ridicule. However, this mocking has diminished in proportion to the growing awareness of the the utility of Christian principles in the fight against Marxism, and many atheists are now loudly proclaiming the value of Christian faith and virtue in public spaces without derision.
There’s just one problem: They’re not real Christians. Certainly, they understand that there is profit to be had in embodying Christian virtues, but that doesn’t make an individual Christian. Moreover, Christian virtues are derived from the individual Christian’s experience. You can try to divide them, but you will fail.
You see, these “cultural Christians” do not believe in the existence of God. They believe that the scriptures were written by extraordinarily clever men in order to teach their people how to live good lives. To them, there was no flood of Noah. Jonah was never swallowed by a fish. Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed by fire and brimstone from heaven, and may never have existed in the first place. The exodus never took place. Most importantly, they believe that the Son of God never incarnated himself in human flesh and blood to die for our trespasses and provide a template for a just and charitable life.
In other words, no.
The belief in the literal word of God is indispensable to possessing Christian virtue. Without that belief, there will not be the trust or conviction in either the scriptures or God Himself necessary to subject one’s self to divine law and bring about a reformation of the mind. Without a reformation of the mind there can be no revival of the spirit, and without a revival of the spirit the character cannot change. If the character does not change, Christian virtues and principles cannot truly manifest. Certainly, Christian virtues can be pretended at, but there will be no conviction behind them, and the pretender is doomed to failure and defeat.
Why does the cultural Christian discount the literal word of God? I think it comes down to two factors. On one hand, society demands they reject the scriptures. Government schools mock God’s word, teaching its students that only superstitious fools would take it literally, and tickling their vanity by convincing them that they are intellectual giants by rejecting the Bible. But when have these schools ever taught the truth about anything? These are the same schools that teach that men and women are equal, that all races are exactly the same, and that pointing out any difference is tantamount to irrational bigotry. They teach that fractional reserve banking is the most responsible means of managing the economy, that we should worship the state, and that endless foreign invasions are anything but a war crime. They insist that boys are just broken girls, and drug and emotionally abuse those who dare to show any kind of original thought or initiative. Why would you believe anything these people have to say?
On the other hand, I think, is a lack of paternal role models. If Christianity is anything, it is a religion of fatherhood. God acts as father to the believer, remaking in them a new spirit and adopting them into the Heavenly family. The believer then surrenders their will to their new father, trusting in His benevolence and power. But if that individual grew up in a single mother’s household and never had a father, or if their father was inconsistent, hypocritical, or abusive, how can the believer conceive of a loving, reliable, paternal God? How can they ever trust their Father in Heaven without fear of being taken advantage of?
I offer this challenge to cultural Christians. Set aside everything that the tribe demands you believe about Christianity and the scriptures. Set aside any personal dislike of Christians you may have known, Christians who have betrayed their divine mandate and trespassed against you. Reallocate your free time for a little while to see if the scriptures are truly without historical support.
How should you do this? When performing research, the researcher never tests the hypothesis, as that is impossible. One would have to prove the hypothesis in every possible scenario, and that is beyond human capability. Instead, the researcher must test the opposite of the hypothesis, known as the null hypothesis. If you can prove the null hypothesis, then the hypothesis is proved false, and the researcher has gained knowledge.
What is the hypothesis of the cultural Christian? It is that, though Christianity has some useful ideas about how to live your life, the scriptures are without historical validity and not literally true. Therefore you must test the null hypothesis, and attempt to find evidence in the archaeological record that provides support for the events recorded in the scriptures. Only when you have made your best attempt and failed can you be certain that your original skepticism was proven correct.
For what should you search? I recommend that you look for Noah’s ark, resting in the mountains of Ararat. Search for the blasted ruins of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the other cities of the plain. Examine the granaries of Joseph, buried beneath the sands of Saqqara. Explore Mount Sanai in Midian, the rock of Horeb from which water flowed for Israel, and the chariots of Pharaoh Thutmose III which lie submerged beneath the Gulf of Aqaba. Dig into the documents of ancient Egypt in search of records of Moses. Search for the remains of the giants of Canaan and their megalithic architecture. Attempt to locate the Ark of the Covenant and the first temple furniture. Thoroughly search these things out, and only then come back here and tell me that the God of the Bible is a myth employed by scribes to exert control over society. If you find no such evidence, rest assured that you were right all along, but if you do find evidence, consider that you may have just discovered the secret weapon to defeating cultural Marxism, resisting Islam, and saving yourself in this life and the life to come.
Like many of you, I grew up watching episodes of Star Trek on television. It was one of the few shows that consistently had content suitable for intellectuals, and presented a world in which knowledge and mental acuity were celebrated rather than scorned. Star Trek was an escape from a mundane existence that was slowly deteriorating from economic, social, and cultural corruption. That being said, Star Trek is not above criticism, and I think it would be useful to examine whether it truly reflects the freedom-loving individualism that it claims, or whether it has a more malevolent goal in mind.
I will concentrate primarily on The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine for this article. The Original Series was a very different type of show, combining action, adventure, and exploration into more of a western mold. Voyager was more the story of pioneers, almost an Oregon Trail in space, and the writing was inconsistent enough, especially in earlier seasons, to make it difficult to extract any kind of coherent political philosophy. Enterprise was likewise a pioneer story, and attempted to capture more of the hero’s narrative than the political grandstanding of the 1980s and 1990s.
Secular Atheistic Materialism
Star Trek is founded upon a utopian, materialistic world view. There is no hunger, practically no disease (at least within the Federation), no internal political turmoil or war (Admiral Layton’s attempted coup in Paradise Lost excepted), and life is defined by leisure. This seems plausible on the surface. After all, we are talking about a future that is centuries away. It is entirely possible that technology will have sufficiently progressed by that point to have largely eliminated poverty, hunger, and disease, at least. Material goods are available because magical boxes called replicators can call them into existence through mere verbal commands. Travel is likewise magically trouble free. You can instantly teleport yourself anywhere you wish (at least within moderately short distances), and for greater distances you can travel on starships that are capable of speeds many times the speed of light. Problems are solved through long technobable monologues and flashy gadgets, and humanity is generally saved through the convenient brilliance of its technical experts.
It seems to be expected that with this material plenty comes a subsequent domestication of mankind. The assumption appears to be that if we work for no more than eight hours a day in luxurious surroundings, regularly eat good food, get lots of rest, and can spend our down time pursuing art, music, and literature, that humanity will naturally be good. This isn’t science fiction, it’s Walden Two in space.
Humanity has already seen a meteoric rise in standard of living. Cars, sanitation, and widespread medical care are scientific leaps and bounds ahead of the technology of even the recent past, and it has done absolutely nothing to improve the character of the human race. Indeed, it may be argued that it has had the opposite effect, freeing more time and more resources for wanton destruction. The national pass-time of the United States, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, is slaughtering brown people in countries half a world away. And this does not even begin to address our internal problems, such as racial tensions, violent political ideologies, toxic food, single motherhood, a Lucifer-worshipping music industry, and fractional reserve banking. Material plenty certainly does not lead to an improvement in the character of the people.
This is, of course, a premise of the secular atheist mindset. Because the secular atheist cannot conceive of anything greater than the mundane material world, he or she naturally concludes that there can be no higher good than material plenty. Anything else, the materialist reasons, is the result of the irrational imagination of humanity, and should therefore be rejected. Star Trek is set in a utopian paradise because it has no other means of effecting an improvement in the character of the population than through material wealth and technological innovation. We are regularly subjected to monologues about how humanity no longer seeks the acquisition of material wealth, but rather seeks to “improve itself,” but it is the very wealth and luxury that everyone enjoys that must be their argument for a utopian world. And what does that improvement actually mean? Improve how? Does this mean that people wish to become more virtuous? Better educated? More intelligent? This is never explicitly stated, and that is by design. If Start Trek claimed a specific method of improving the character of humanity through technological advancement, we could test their hypothesis. However, by keeping it ambiguous, their argument cannot be tested, and thus can never be falsified. It’s a trap.
It is a problem for Star Trek to claim that, as a species, we are only about to become virtuous when all of our material needs are satisfied, as that implies that once we find ourselves in a state of poverty we must necessarily lose our virtue. Star Trek also cannot explain in detail how that revolution in virtue might take place, or what might catalyze it, as it would also have to explain why that cannot start now. We are actually supposed to believe that humanity cannot give up malevolence and greed until we have faster-than-light travel and the earth is swarming with autistic, greed-blooded space elves running around? If it is a technological problem, why couldn’t we have become virtuous after the development of the internet, or radio, or aircraft, or automobiles, or winter crops, or iron, or agriculture, or even fire itself? This is an arbitrary technological milestone placed far enough into the future so that we cannot reach it in our lifetime. Were it otherwise, viewers would question why such a utopia would not be naturally manifesting itself before their very eyes, and realize that Star Trek is full of it.
But there is more to the materialism of Star Trek. Notably absent from the show is religion. Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, paganism, Zoroastrianism and the other world religions are almost completely absent from Star Trek. We do not even see the odd believer who goes against the grain of their society. We do see religion in certain alien cultures, such as the Bajorans or Klingons, but never among humans. Likewise absent are holidays, and this would follow, as holidays are, exactly as the name would imply, holy days. Lose religion, and holidays naturally follow. The problem here is that religion dictates the values of the society. Star Trek is not a vision of the future in which humanity has become good enough to stop greed and war, rather, it is a future in which humanity has magically become good and no longer requires virtues for no better reason than technological advancement.
Some might say that Star Trek teaches us to be tolerant, but tolerance is not a virtue, but rather an anti-virtue. Tolerance states that no virtue is more virtuous than any other, and so all virtues are equal. If all virtues are equal, than virtues are entirely meaningless. Moreover, how can one be tolerant of intolerant people and cultures?
The lack of values and virtues in Star Trek becomes especially galling when you consider how much self-praise goes on. Humanity, we are told, is a wonderful species that knows how to come together in blissful socialist unity with others and work toward a common goal. But how can that be a virtue? Working toward a common goal in unity is not inherently virtuous, the goal itself and the means of attaining it are what are virtuous. Star Trek lulls viewers into a socialist, one-world government mindset by coaxing them like a cat with a laser pointer into a padded hug room of self-praise and masturbatory vanity without ever having made an argument for any kind of virtuous behavior what-so-ever.
Praised even higher than humanity is the vaunted Starfleet officer, who is treated as a being morally created above all others. Star Trek pretends that graduating from Starfleet Academy somehow cuts people from a different moral cloth, though we are never explicitly shown what those morals are. Certainly, some episodes claim certain moral virtues, such as the prime directive, but these virtues are then violated repeatedly in later episodes. Voyager is especially guilty of this. In some episodes Captain Janeway is willing to let the ship be destroyed and the crew killed in order to protect aggressive alien species from gaining relatively mundane Federation technology, but in other episodes she is violating her conscience by torturing prisoners and risking everything in personal vendettas. Through considering individual episodes we are supposed to think that she is following her moral compass, but taken across the entire series we are left with nothing but inconsistent hypocrisy and the impression that Janeway is an impulsive dictatorial megalomaniac. I should point out, however, that I d not think that this is deliberate. Rather, I expect it is a result of employing writers of mixed quality and vision.
Conservatives are not absent from Star Trek, though they are generally alien. Consider the case of Worf, for example. Worf is noteworthy in that he is the first and only Russian Viking Klingon officer in the history of Starfleet. Furthermore, he is a bridge officer on the flagship. Worf is portrayed quite simply in the first two or three seaons of The Next Generation. He behaves like a brutish, unintelligent, aggressive creature who is barely more than an animal. If he has a conflict, it ends in a brawl at the least and a fight to the death if he’s really irritated. If he sees a woman he desires, he growls, and claws at her. He enjoys eating worms that are still alive and drinking blood wine. In a universe of directed energy weapons, Worf prefers to enjoy the slow, messy killing of a bladed weapon such as a bat’leth or a mek’leth. Worf is, for all intents and purposes, Star Trek’s cave-dwelling neanderthal.
Worf begins The Next Generation as the security officer, but is quickly promoted to tactical officer following the death of Natasha Yar. As the Enterprise inevitably finds itself in dangerous situations, Worf advises the captain to raise the shields, but is denied again, and again, and again, and again. And again. It’s a wonder he even bothers after the dozenth time. Of course, this usually worsens the trouble, as the strange alien vessel inevitably starts shooting at the Enterprise, putting the crew into situations that we get to watch them brain their way out of through technobable and magical gadgets instead of morals, virtues, or genuine cleverness.
Worf acts as the conservative caricature of The Next Generation. He is violent, whereas the rest of the crew use their words. He is harsh, but everyone else is soft and agreeable. Worf is superstitious, believing in Kahless and Sto-vo-kor, but the rest of the crew is too refined to believe in such silly fairy tales. For most of The Next Generation, the writers of Star Trek use Worf as a means of making fun of conservatives and masculinity. He is a walking, talking straw man argument, and the very fact that the writers and producers thought it necessary to stoop so low displays their complete lack of a valid argument against conservatism.
Another character of interest is that of Counselor Troi. Troi is a half human/half betazed psychotherapist who has the ability to read the emotions of practically everyone around, and the minds of other betazeds. Strangely, she is not only a senior officer, but even a bridge officer, often sitting on the bridge to the captain’s left, suggesting that she is subordinate only to the captain and first officer.
Now consider, if you were operating a starship with a large crew and their families, it would probably be a good idea to have a psychotherapist on board. However, why should that person be one of the highest ranking officers? She is so high ranking, in point of fact, that we even see her taking command of the ship when the need arises. Were I designing a command structure, I would make my psychotherapist a junior officer under the command of the medical department head, not a senior bridge officer with the captain’s ear. She is so far outside the normal command hierarchy that she isn’t even required to wear a standard uniform. The more interesting detail, though, is the fact that she is empathic. She can read the emotions of anyone and everyone in her immediate surroundings (save holograms and Data), so that if anyone engages in wrongthink, she is there to take note. This sheds light on why she is so often seen on the bridge. Of course, we are given the excuse that she is present to read whomever the captain is talking to on the viewscreen, but that does not account for the large amount of time she spends on the bridge. Troi isn’t a psychoptherapist so much as she is the Enterprise’s political commissar, and you had better not take issue with that or she will know. She always knows….
The set design of The Next Generation is dominated by soft, beige colors, carpets, and curves, especially curves. The windows are curved, the corridors are curved, the consoles are curved, the lounges are curved, the hull of the ship is nothing but curves, even the shuttles are curves. This, of course, does not deviate from the time. The 1990s were especially feminine. Think back, for example, to some of the popular vehicle designs of the 1990s.
That being said, the Enterprise looks as much like a luxury cruiser as it does a ship of exploration and, when the need arises, war. The floors are carpeted, the furniture is plush, even the bridge chairs recline nicely.
The uniforms are likewise soft and feminine. The crew walks around wearing thin pajamas uniform bodysuits that have absolutely no shape what-so-ever. Appearing early in the series are skants, very short skirts that are worn by both women and men. The modern gender confusion did not come out of nowhere, as here we see Gene Roddenberry planting the seed as early as the late 1980s.
Not everything is softness, pajamas, and curves, however. Klingon and Cardassian set design is dominated by harsh colors, sharp edges, and dim lighting, another cheap shot Star Trek takes at masculinity and conservatism.
Star Trek is set in the United Federation of Planets, of which Starfleet is the military, scientific, and diplomatic agency. The Federation closely mimics the real United Nations, and, if you were too thick to figure that out, the producers made it as clear as possible through the Federation’s logo. Now, consider the time in which The Next Generation was produced. It started in the late 1980s, during which time the Soviet Union, the only real rival or threat to the west, was in the midst of collapse. UN propaganda was already strong in the media during this time, and only got stronger after the Soviet Union dissolved. Star Trek furthered this propaganda, suggesting that it is best for man to have all nations and states united under a single supranational totalitarian government.
What I found especially interesting is that Star Trek actually tackled the question of what happens to people who wish to live a free, self determined life. The Next Generation began it with the story arc of the Marquis (named after the French resistance group of the second world war who bore the same name), a group of Federation citizens whose worlds were handed over to the Cardassian government in a Neville Chamberlain style attempt at appeasing a foreign aggressor. The Marquis refused to leave their homes for resettlement, and, against Federation policy, waged a war of resistence against the Cardassian invaders.
Most of the Marquis story arc occurred in Deep Space Nine. Deep Space Nine at least acknowledges the moral ambiguity of the situation and even depicts prominent Starfleet officers becoming members of the Marquis. This culminates in the episode For The Uniform, in which protagonist Captain Sisko pursues morally ambiguous Marquis antihero Michael Eddington to the point of obsession. Sisko even goes so far as to use bioweapons to poison an entire world, just to capture Eddington, an act that most people today would consider a war crime that is punishable by execution. Does Sisko receive any kind of disciplinary action? Nope. Do the writers condemn such wholesale political violence? Nope. Over the course of the story arc between these two characters, the political philosophy of both camps is explicitly stated, and through their argument, we are able to discern the political philosophy of the Federation.
The writers take the side of Sisko, arguing that because the Federation gave the Marquis worlds to the Cardassians, and because they offered the Federation colonists resettlement, the action was justified. They make the case that this justification comes from the fact that it was the supranational government of the Federation that made the decision. For this to be true, citizens of the Federation do not have private property and are not allowed political self-determination. The only rational conclusion here is that Federation citizens are the future equivalent of serfs. They may have freedom of movement, but they are not allowed to exercise personal liberty. They do what their liege-lord commands, or they suffer the consequences. In a free society, the government would not have the legal right to give your land, or any of your private property, to another government. This is how we know that Star Trek is full blown state-worshipping communist propaganda, and not merely possessed of socialist leanings mixed with B.F. Skinner’s political brain-farts. It tries to portray communism as a good thing, and of course it would, but their argument is entirely based upon material wealth and technological sophistication, not personal liberty or virtues. Those who think for themselves are monitored by the political officer, and if the supranational government issues a decree, you had better obey or be labeled a “terrorist.”
It doesn’t take much examination to discover the writers’ error. Are we really to believe that just because the state does it, it isn’t a crime? If we kill our neighbor to take his stuff, it’s called murder. If we take our neighbor’s belongings to bribe our other neighbor, that’s called theft. If we commit a crime and moral violation through these actions, then how can the state do them and remain blameless?
Today the western world is run by totalitarian governments of both communist and fascist leanings. Western populations were lulled into this state of affairs slowly, much like a frog sitting in a slowly boiling pot of water, and Star Trek was an important vehicle for this political transition. We should take Star Trek as a warning, and closely examine what other elements of our popular culture are undermining personal liberty in the name of centralized totalitarian government.
In the blasted, post-modern hellscape that is the western world, conservatives have begun to band together and accurately identify those elements within society which have led us to the devastation that we now suffer. Words such as feminism, socialism, communism, Islam, globalism, illuminism, and luciferianism are bandied around, but most who use them have little understanding of where these ideologies originally came from, or what kind of people adhere to them. Today, I want to concentrate more on the latter point. After all, the first rule of warfare is to know thy enemy.
In this life, there are only two kinds of people; the creative, and the destructive. Now, when I say creative, I am not talking about creativity in the way that liberals do, such as useless abstract artists. Instead, I refer to those who create more than they destroy, whether that be generating physical resources, building infrastructure, reducing suffering, raising children, or adding to the body of human knowledge.
Many of you will be quick to say that we all destroy to some degree, and you would be correct. The useful, productive person must necessarily consume resources to support themself. The constructive teacher must necessarily destroy those ideas which are in error. But this is not the kind of destructiveness I am talking about. I refer to those people for whom their very way of life requires the plundering of themselves, their family, their friends, and their very civilization.
What does the life of a creative person look like? The creative person adds to their self, their family, and their society. Maybe they build houses for other people to live in. Maybe they grow food to nourish their customers. Perhaps they become a healer and spend their days reducing suffering within their community. But this is not merely vocational. The creative person leaves their property more valuable than when they bought it. The creative individual has children to repopulate their nation and carry on their line, and they set aside funds for the purpose of educating those children. The creative person rejects destructive practices, such as national debts and fractional reserve lending, which will result in their children inheriting a world that is less prosperous than that enjoyed by their parents. The very idea of worsening another person’s life to feed their own is repulsive to the creative individual, and they will naturally avoid doing so. All of their choices will proceed from this basic principle.
Know Thy Enemy
The life of a destructive person is, of course, the opposite. However, the depths a destructive person will sink to are often more dramatic than the heights a creative person may ascend to. The destructive individual will take their resources from their neighbor by force, either through their own agency or through a paid proxy, such as the state. The destructive person will indulge in degenerate sexual practices rather than getting married and having children. They will consume the world they live in now, and enslave their children (if they bothered to have any) and the children of others in order to fund massive social welfare programs.
Wherein lies the difference between creative and destructive people? The separation is of character. Now, we can explore how character is formed, but let’s save that for another day. Instead, I’d like to explore a certain behavior exhibited by destructive people that I find is very poorly understood among the majority of the population. Let’s call it “making sport of the mind.”
Both creative and destructive people are ruled by the same principles of learning and behavior. Both do that which is reinforcing, and avoid that which is punishing. Both strengthen those dopamine pathways within the brain that are excited through their actions and experiences. It is the nature of living creatures that they will do more of that which reinforced them in the past. Thus, we may expect a creative person who spends their life improving their world to continue to do so in an ever increasing way. These people build their lives upon the foundations of their ethics and morals. But the destructive person as no such guide. The destructive person simply does what feeds their ambitions and their appetites to the detriment of those around them, and their greatest moral principle is “might makes right.”
The depths a destructive person may fall to may seem at first to be limitless, but I think I have found the bottom. You see, a destructive person may begin with petty crimes or venomous behavior, but as they mature their lifestyle will evolve. They may turn to the state, for example, to defraud others on an industrial scale. But those for whom violence is the drug of choice are far more interesting.
What better example of a violent, destructive person do we have but that of a sexual serial killer? Despite the media fascination with serial killers, few among the population know much about them. Within forensic psychology, it is well understood that there is a progression to serial murder. One does not simply wake up one day and decide to slaughter prostitutes. No, such things begin, as they always do, in childhood.
Practically all serial killers are psychopaths, and they are born with dysfunction in their prefrontal cortex and amygdala. For the layman, that means that they have difficulty with empathy, impulse control, and planning. Moreover, because of the amygdaloid dysfunction, their emotions tend to be shallow and short-lived. During childhood, psychopaths tend to exhibit certain behaviors, such as bed wetting, fire starting, and cruelty toward animals. This represents the beginning of the psychopath’s evolution. Those who eventually turn to serial murder begin as voyeurs. Once their minds have been desensitized and that is no longer satisfying, budding serial killers break into the homes of women and steal underwear. It is not long before that, too, is no longer exciting, and so they graduate to rape. While many do not progress beyond this point, some, after a time, no longer find rape to be satisfying enough, and progress to murdering their victims at the conclusion of the act.
There exists one final step to the serial killer progression. After a time, some serial killers become insensate to even rape and murder. Indeed, each act in each step in the progression is slightly less satisfying compared to the one that preceded it. The final step is cannibalism, often of the sexual organs.
Why am I talking about rape, murder, and cannibalism? I want you, the reader, to understand something of the mind of those who choose a destructive lifestyle, and the ultimate expression of that lifestyle in the very worst cases.
Looking at serial killers purely as a matter of biochemistry, we would think that they would gravitate toward narcotic use more than sexual crime. Certainly, psychopaths in general and serial killers in particular have been known to indulge in narcotic use, and looking at matters purely in terms of neuroscience, nothing is more addictive than drugs. However, sexual crime possesses something that is absent from other addictions, such as narcotics: Dominance.
You see, the destructive person will always seek to personally dominate. On a practical level, that dominance serves to ensure their resource provision. But it also serves a deeper psychological appetite. Destructive people wish to prove themselves better, stronger, smarter, and ultimately more worthy than their victims. They dehumanize those they exploit, both to facilitate that exploitation and also to elevate themselves to the self-perceived state of a demigod. One of the most effective means of doing that on a personal level is through sadomasochistic rape and murder. They wish to not only leave their mark on the minds of others, but to control, shape, and destroy their victims from the inside out. The reason rape is such a destructive crime is because it leaves victims psychologically traumatized for the rest of their lives, should they survive. The perpetrator personally owns them forever. But there is one group for whom not even this is enough.
The Ultimate Expression of Evil
If you have ever taken a class in the philosophy of ethics and morals you have probably been challenged by a number of common hypothetical scenarios. One that is especially common goes something like this:
You and your child are being held, along with a number of other people, in a concentration camp. One day you, your child, and a hundred other prisoners are ordered out into the camp compound. To your dismay, one of the prison guards pulls you and your child out of the crowd. The guard forces your child to stand upon a box, and proceeds to put a noose around their neck. The guard then turns to you and orders you to kick the box out from under your child’s feet so that the noose may strangle them. If you refuse, the guard will kill the hundred other people, but if you obey, the guard promises to spare them. What do you do?
This sounds like a simple scenario, but there is, in fact, a very deep game being played here. The intended victim of this game is you. The intended destruction is not of your child or the other prisoners, but rather of your own personality. You may choose to kill your child and spare the prisoners, but that will drive you mad from grief and guilt. You may choose to not cooperate, but then the guard will kill the other prisoners and probably your child, too, also filling you with grief and guilt. Both choices are fatal for the personality of the individual. Indeed, it is likely that anyone forced to make such a choice would loath themselves so much afterward that they would eventually take their own life, and that is precisely the point. To the destructive person, bloodshed is exciting, but the ultimate expression of personal supremacy, dominance, and ownership is to cause another person to voluntarily destroy their own life.
Feminism, Marxism, and Globalism, Oh My!
What does this have to do with the post-modern world? Today we are surrounded by any number of self-destructive ideologies. Feminism pretends to be about improving the lives of women, but it is ultimately self-destructive. It teaches them to have empty, soul-destroying sex, to avoid getting married and bearing children, to hate their fathers, their brothers, and their husbands (if they even have one), and to push a civilization-ending Marxist political ideology. Feminism is the single most destructive thing ever to happen to women in the entire history of the west, but it is only through the voluntary compliance of its adherents that it is able to do so. Those who created and unleashed feminism upon the west are laughing uproariously, congratulating themselves that they have so completely caused women to self-destruct, and relishing the destruction they have heaped upon men and children as a consequence. They believe that there can be no greater proof of their own personal supremacy and worthiness than that they have so completely manipulated such a large group of people into self-destruction.
Feminism is hardly alone. Globalism has been pushed upon the west in much the same manner. Through the power of peer pressure and circle-jerking, self-congratulatory vanity, Europeans, Canadians, and Americans have been seduced into opening up their countries to a foreign ideology that has been dedicated to their complete and utter destruction for 13 centuries. But none of this would have ever happened if native populations had not voluntarily complied. Again, the globalists are laughing.
But wait, there’s more! Idiots across the world have been bullied into vaccinating their children with devastating, body destroying heavy metals and consuming genetically corrupted crops that have been poisoned with pesticides and herbicides. Toxicity-related illnesses such as cancer, autism, and auto-immune disease have skyrocketed, and toxic exposure is now the primary cause of illness in the west (not that mainstream physicians will ever admit it). The American population is in such poor health that most millenials are infertile and sperm counts are down 90% since the 1960s. Of course, few have realized this as of yet because feminism has so thoroughly brainwashed people in their 20s into not having kids at all. The power elite is laughing at you.
Wake up and smell the madness! Murderers rule over you and are doing their very best to kill you and everyone you love for the sheer excitement if it. They are doing it through your food, your water, even the very air your breathe. They foist toxic ideologies upon you that preach self-destruction, and coerce you into bringing criminals who wish your deaths into your communities. But understand that they could have achieved none of this without your consent. You, yourself are the author of your own destruction. There will always be evil people in the world who get thrills from snuffing out life, but we do not need to cooperate with them. Do your research, know your enemy, turn your back on them, cleanse their corruption from society, and go create something useful. Your very life depends on it.
If you want to learn something unique and powerful about humanity, study war. War is unlike anything else within the human experience. Indeed, it is the most basic rule of human behavior that we only do that which reinforces us. We eat that we may have strength, we sleep that our bodies may renew themselves, we drink that we do not become thirsty, and we have children that we may pass ourselves on beyond our years.
But no so with war. War is fundamentally contrary to the natural order of man. War serves no purpose for the combatant, rather it destroys all purposes. War is the most profound form of waste ever conceived of. It destroys the health of men, it degrades the character of nations, it destroys the wealth that we work so hard to accumulate, the assets that keep us and our children alive, and it extinguishes unique sparks of life that will never come again, at least in this age. Some go into war thinking to take the wealth of others, but it never works out that way. To carry out war on one’s neighbors is to consume one’s own self.
So what is this thing we call war? One might say that it is the pitting of one people group against another, one nation against another. But why? Only an idiot would shoulder a rifle and step out onto the front line thinking that he would in some way profit from the experience, especially once he saw his comrades meeting grisly ends. Some might say that we fight wars in order to eliminate those we hate, but does the hate that we feel not come from the hostilities themselves, and not some a priori cause? Is it not the war itself that we hate, rather than the specious caricature of an enemy we conjure up in our minds to make the killing more palatable? If both opposing parties loath war so, why do they carry on the slaughter? Why do they not simply quit the war, and go home?
What is the fundamental, irreducible nature of war? Is it not a group of men fighting another group of men, many behaving as one just as many fish behave as one school? But there is no such thing as a school of fish, just as there is no such thing as a forest, merely a dense group of trees. The school or the forest are abstractions, concepts we wield in order to better understand the world outside of ourselves. Do not make the mistake of thinking that there is any object within the material world that we can call armies, schools of fish, or forests. If we want to understand the forest, we study trees. If we want to understand schools, we study fish. If we want to understand wars, we must study men.
But why do so many men come together to fight as one, especially when they hate war with burning passion? The vast majority could not possibly have fewer incentives to spill the blood of strangers. Certainly there are those within society, those few who either by virtue of some neurological dysfunction or delinquent personality, who enjoy war. The career general who craves dominance, both of his own men and the enemy, or the tortured man who inflicts violence on others because it is the only way he knows to silence the chaos of his own mind. But these men are few and far between. Most men dream of the war’s end, not its continuation, when they can go home and create life instead of snuffing it out.
So why do men fight wars? The easy answer is to say that it is because their neighbors attacked them first, or because they were conscripted. The first answer will not do as it does not explain why the neighbor attacked in the first place. The second is much more revealing. Men fight in wars because they are afraid of what will be done to them if they do not. Armies are more like prisons than anything else. Men are herded together, trained to kill, their heads filled with visions of inhuman beasts, then armed to the teeth and thrown at other men who have also been likewise prepared. In the beginning, most men on either side truly do not wish to risk their own lives merely to enjoy the opportunity of ending the life of another man. But what happens when men refuse to fight? In the best case, what freedom they have left is taken away and they are subjected to social shunning. They are called traitors and cowards, and women of any respectability will have nothing to do with them, precluding the possibility of children and family. But in the case of total wars, wars in which the survival of nations are at stake, these soldiers are executed. Whether they are caught by other soldiers to be killed later, or they are mowed down Soviet-style as they retreat from a losing battle, the consequence for not fighting is death. Their choice is between possible death by the hand of the enemy, and certain death delivered by their own people. Soldiers are slaves.
But who delivers this death? In many cases, other soldiers. But they do not act of their own will. These enlisted men are ordered by their officers, who in turn are ordered by higher ranking officers. Those higher ranking officers are giving their orders according to a doctrine they most likely had nothing to do with writing. The highest ranking flag officers take their orders from the civilian leadership of the government, the politicians who were elected under the assumption that they would serve the interests of those who elected them in the first place. Each man in the chain of command follows his orders under fear of losing his life, his freedom, or his future, but if all of them simply ignored their superiors, no war could possibly occur.
Is it then politicians who are responsible for wars? Do they cast some kind of spell over a nation? What is the nature of their power? Certainly, if we all simply choose to disobey our politicians, nothing would happen to us. We would not drop dead in our tracks, we would not be dragged by some unseen force to prison, and the sun would rise in the east the next morning. Life would go on.
But what about the politicians? What are their interests and incentives? Are their election campaigns not financed by mega-corporations and banks, each institution ruled by the same overlapping corporate directorships? Are they not marionettes, string puppets who do the bidding of the masters who funded their ascension to power in the first place? Politicians live and work under the cloud of potential ruination, as those same wealthy interests who funded their elections may choose to run the next campaign against them, in favor of their opponent. They are nothing more than the middle management employed by mysterious powers such as the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of International Settlements, and the United States Federal Reserve, to name but a few. We did not elect these financial institutions. We do not benefit from their manipulations of our economy, our government, or any other domain of our lives. And yet, somehow, each and every time this unseen force, this shadow government, this deep state decides that there is profit to be had in the devastation of some distant nation, fools line up by the millions to see it done. They line up to see themselves and their own children destroyed.
All wars are banker wars. Banks are the only bodies who profit by them, the only party with any incentive to start them, or to continue them after the once innocent populace realizes their terrible mistake. Do not think that the answer to ending war is to hold rallies or to elect different politicians. These are not the root cause of the nightmare. It is ultimately the banks that profit by the shedding of innocent blood, so it is the banks that we must address. They cannot be reformed to remove this incentive, therefore they must be destroyed. Remember that when you are wondering why we are still in Afghanistan, 16 years later. Remember that when you see a Syrian father carrying the lifeless corpses of his children through the streets. Remember that when a cloud of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons begin to rain down on Seoul, launched by a desperate tyrant whose only means of staying in power is the sword.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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?
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.
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.
- 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.
- Rumney, Philip N.S., “False Allegations of Rape” (2006). Cambridge Law Journal, 65(1), pp. 128-158.
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: