new

In the Western world, today’s “conservatives” are increasingly libertarian when it comes to matters of sexual morality. Whatever good might come out of a Trump Presidency (full disclosure: I voted for the man), it seems unlikely that the nation’s appreciation for the importance of sexual morality will deepen.

Increasingly in our society, the expectation for any romantic relationship is that it must be sexual or get sexual without much delay – married or not. Going hand in hand with this, political progressives and libertarians both seem basically united on the idea that the choice of each individual is the controlling principle. As some on the Supreme Court told us in 1992, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

This kind of thinking really does not seem all that alien from what the Trump-supporting “free speech fundamentalist” Milo Yiannopoulos has said:

Read what you want.
Watch what you want.
Play what you want.
Think what you want.
Say what you want.

That might not work in a marriage, but otherwise why the hell not? (marriage couldn’t be that important anyways, could it?) Political correctness can die the death it so richly deserves! The sky is the limit!

Yiannopoulos may say that some – by virtue of biological and psychological limitations – can’t be whatever they want to be, but with his emphasis on the individual’s rights, one is hard-pressed to argue why some, at least, shouldn’t give it a shot (please note I say all of this wanting to defend free speech to, while being concerned that not all of our speech is helpful).

And, tying this back to matters of sexual morality, why suppress human nature? Yiannopoulos regularly encourages college students to not hold back in exploring their sexuality with others. And, when asked here about Harvard’s men’s soccer team this past week – namely, about their recently revealed shared Google form treating their female counterparts as sexual objects – Yiannopoulos defended them to the hilt. One might think he could have said, at the very least, that the men’s behavior was to be strongly discouraged – even if the Harvard President had overreacted (read this and this for a balanced perspective). He didn’t say this though – he simply talked about our inability to overcome human nature: basically “men will be men”.

After all, as popular You Tuber Gavin McInnes says (language alert) all men act like this. And likewise, all men must surely know that they are incapable of waiting for sex – and they must be lying if they say they do! Guys like Tim Tebow (what has he accomplished lately?) are surely hypocrites, and evidently, most of the time, just aren’t manly enough to obtain the good things that come their way, grabbing them by the—.

But even if we perhaps should respect the real power of human nature here, we also cannot overcome the consequences of human nature. Even if you, by virtue of your social capital and financial resources, appear able to rise above some of the most socially deleterious effects of sexual licentiousness, many – particularly the most vulnerable – can’t. And all of this contributes to the fracturing and weakening of the family, which one would hope any conservative would understand. This glorification of our choices when it comes to matters sexual, of course, makes the goal of marriage – and the commitment involved therein – less and less of a possibility for many (listen to Jennifer Roback Morse here).

Yiannopoulos may have once written about the dangers of pornography in the past (see here and here), but these days, he seems to have left that concern behind (a necessary casualty of his message and newfound fame?). Now, ironically, it is some on the left (some!) who are bringing up the critical importance of this issue (see here and here for example). Speaking merely from a tactical standpoint, perhaps persons like Yiannopoulos should find a creative way to address this, before being outflanked by progressives concerned about the truth of these matters?

So, what does any of this have to do with the theory of evolution – and sophisty?! Hang on— we getting there right now—.

First of all, a popular meaning of the word sophistry is “the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving”. It is a simply a matter of fact that men are capable of controlling themselves (though, if I may say, we seem to live in an age that likes to play with the fire of temptation).

Second, in the theory of evolution, all is about sex (and death): everything comes down to being able to pass on one’s genes to the next generation. Supposedly, evolution “designed” us for this.

Third, and here is the meat of my point, in a recent edition of the Atlantic, an article called “The Case Against Reality” lays out the implications of the theory of evolution (spurred on by what I call the MSTM, the modern scientific and technological mindset) in a very helpful manner. An interview with cognitive science Donald D. Hoffman is featured, where he argues that “the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses— the world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality” (as the Atlantic sums him up).

In short, Hoffman believes that “evolution itself [is] to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction” (italics mine). It is not accurate perceptions which helps us to effectively pass on our genes but “fitness functions,” i.e. “mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction.” “Suppose,” he says, “there’s a blue rectangular icon on the lower right corner of your computer’s desktop — does that mean that the file itself is blue and rectangular and lives in the lower right corner of your computer? Of course not— And yet the desktop is useful.”[ii] Hoffman says that this is “conscious realism,” meaning that “Objective reality is just conscious agents, just points of view.”

And hence, evolution’s connection with classical understandings of sophistry is complete. Perhaps Christians taken with evolution should take evolutionists like Daniel Dennet more seriously when they assert that it is a “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways” (see here).

The Sophists of the ancient world said that our base assumption should be that certain truth and goodness is unattainable. With change being the only constant and knowledge an illusion, everything is about building consensus through persuasion. The ethical sophist – assuming positing such a person is reasonable! – would persuade on the basis of arguing for things that are not true, but possible and perhaps probable—

How does this not sync perfectly with what Hoffman is saying, a “match made in heaven,” or hell, as the case may be? Can’t he – or anyone else – see the implications of this thinking for human reason itself?

Let’s break it down:

In brief, Hoffman, assuming temporal survival is what life is all about, says that it is our “fitness functions,” and not accurate perceptions, which help us to pass on our genes.
Therefore, it follows that being able to create grand, plausible sounding theories – whether they are true or not – also can be reduced to being about the survival value they have (in that they attract partners who know brains are valuable – and who can pass on genes).
Therefore, as long as one can avoid the impression one is totally disconnected from matters of concrete fact, disqualifying one’s self in other’s eyes, the sky is the limit!
As Hoffman says, our perceptions are “tuned to fitness, but not to truth”. Why would our capacity to construct narratives, our story-telling imaginations, not be as well? Why would this also not figure into the all controlling “fitness function”?
So, if this is the case, why believe the theory of evolution is true at all? It might be useful for passing on genes, but true?

And yet, of course, what Hoffman is doing in his interview – what he cannot avoid doing even if he might protest he is doing it – is putting forth a truth claim. Truth, in one sense, is “driven to extinction,” where, in another, it rises from the ashes reborn. “Believe me,” he is saying— “I am speaking with some real authority on these matters.” The ancient sophists played the same game— the truth is that we cannot not really know truth— what is important is that you listen to me, noticing how smart I am—

And so, as evolution and truth evolves, so does “our” (Not mine! Not yours I hope!) understanding of individuality, sex, and gender.

To state the obvious, given his assumptions, is that not just his “fitness function” speaking? And if he opposes me socially and politically and I fight back, evidently with my own fitness function that still falsely believes there is truth, just what hope for common ground do we now have?

I’m calling B.S. I’m calling out these new sophists for the danger to society and culture that they are. Absolute. Total. Nonsense.

Trump: Right and Wrong

This morning in my car, I heard on the radio that Donald Trump won yesterday’s (s)election for the next president of the United States of America.

Back in the primary season, I said that Trump was another “designated loser” whose job was to make the half-awake Whites think they had a viable representative in the electoral process. Thus, the built-up steam of rightful anger among the half-awake would be vented off, and the jews could go on about their normal anti-White business.

So, I was wrong about Trump being a “designated loser.”

When Trump won the Republican nomination for president, my thinking was forced to change. I retreated to the foundation of solid rock.

Since I don’t have a short memory, since I have researched and analyzed a lot of history, it was easy to note that the jews don’t let a two-term president be followed by another president of the same party. They keep flipping back and forth. There’s a great little one-panel cartoon showing an American in a car and alternately shifting from forward to reverse, either way crashing into a wall in front of and behind the car. One wall is Demo, the other Repub. So, knowing that Trump was likely to get the paper crown, I fell back to saying what was certain: Trump is another lying crypto-jew.

Adolf Hitler correctly noted that Communism and Democracy were, and are, two sides of the same jew-owned coin.

Likewise, Republican and Democrat are two sides of the same jew-owned coin.

I am right about these things.

Foundations

Our original WHITE Founding Fathers had no parties. They were all Whites for a White USA. They established a Republic of semi-sovereign States, NOT a Democracy. They were for fair and free Commerce, NOT Capitalism which was later invented by the jews for the jews. And then only 12 years into U.S. history, the jews succeeded in their monumental CON in overthrowing the original USA of the Articles of Confederation and foisting their CONstitution upon our White country. Read all about that here in my historic one-of-a kind article.

How did the jews — James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, et al. — get away with it? Our Founding Fathers didn’t know about crypto-jews. They only knew about the jews who openly identified themselves as jews, and they thought being a jew meant a religious affiliation rather than being a member of the parasitic, devious, heinous anti-human race. Also, the Founders were surely war-weary. And as Whites, yes we must admit it so that we can overcome it, they were gullible to jew lies.

And immediately after establishing the CONstitution, the jews caused divisions giving rise to parties.

Adolf Hitler said he used the party structure in order to win power but that he planned for a future of no parties, just Germans. Sounds great.

That’s what I want. That’s what I see for our future: No parties in the USA, just Whites. A government by Whites, of Whites, for Whites, in the White States Of America.

Conclusion

So, Trump. I began my big wake-up when Obama was (s)elected and then immediately appointed known criminals from the Clinton administration. Maybe some more of our fellow Whites will begin their big wake-up when they see Trump appointing known criminals from previous administrations. Also, because of the Internet’s ubiquity now, our fellow Whites will have an increased possibility of becoming awakened to the fact that Trump is already surrounded by jews that he chose to be surrounded by, and that Trump’s new appointments will be all or nearly all jews. (Note: I use the nonpersonal “that” rather than the personal “who/whom” whenever I want to in referring to the anti-humans, who do not deserve human status.)

The only slightly interesting aspect for us is whether Trump will mostly appoint jews that are hard to identify as jews or whether he will appoint a slew of the already known and obvious jews.

Did I say it yet in this article? Trump is a crypto-jew. Has to be. A White man is not given the opportunities by jews that Trump has been given. The jews do not give tv fame and wealth to White men. The jews do not give massive banking help to White men to survive and make comebacks from massive bankruptcies. Doesn’t happen, folks. The jews push us down. They bankrupt us. They do not prop us up. Therefore, Trump is not a White man. Period.

But now the half-awake have had all their steam vented off. Trump will be shown to have lied about nearly everything that matters. When he doesn’t do what he promised he would do, he will use the age-old excuses of “a contrary Congress,” and information he “wasn’t privy to” before he became president, and Climate Change, ha ha, and on and on.

It was so-called conservative Republican Ronald Reagan who did the first big amnesty for invaders. Yes, I say “invaders,” while the jews used to say “illegal immigrants” and now say “undocumented immigrants” and simply “immigrants” and “migrants.” They are all vile invaders and more of us should simply be killing them. (I plan an article on this subject.) You see, a Republican could get away with doing what Reagan did at a time when a Democrat would have been lambasted for “overdoing” his liberalness.

That’s how it works. No matter which jew party’s animal mascot is on the balloon at the White House festivities, the jew agenda advances. The elephant pushes it forward or the donkey pulls it forward, each to whatever extent the gullible, dumbed-down, medicated, intoxicated, self-poisoned populace will tolerate.

How about a prediction? Democrat jews couldn’t get gun control to go forward. But Republican jews will be able to, to some extent. I predict they will. The NRA (National Rifle Association), led by crypto-jews, went all-in for Trump because Trump made the appropriate noises in favor of the “Second Amendment.” Hillary Killary Clinton promised to be a gun-grabber — not a grabber of her fellow jews’ guns nor her jew bodyguards’ guns, of course. Not Negroes’ guns. Not Mexiturds’ guns. Whites’ guns. Our guns.

So, Trump will advance the jew agenda against us. He will help the jew bankers continue their massive crimes. He will sign some kind of limits on guns or ammo, or on private sales, or he will advance the recording of gun-owner registrations. He will not deport enough of the shitskins illegally and wrongly alive inside our country. He will not even try to force the jew-owned corporations to pay us a living wage instead of the current poverty wages. He will, certainly, continue the massive funding of jews-only Israel. He will not stop the U.S. Military Murder Machine from killing anybody but jews around the world for the sole benefit of jewry.

A problem now is that the masses who wanted Trump to win will wait and do NOTHING while waiting to see what will happen, bit by bit, month after month, year after year. And as Trump’s deeds display step-by-step his true DNA, the jewsmedia will trump-up other secret jews pretending to be better-than-Trumps for the still-ignorant masses to pin their hopes on and say their stupid prayers for.

Those of us with both Knowledge and Wisdom have seen it all before. We know that waiting is continued slow suicide. We know that the solution is to kill the invaders — including all jews and the shitskins that the jews invited in, no matter how many generations they’ve already been here.

White heroes are wise, careful, courageous, effective killers of the enemy. One by one. Two by two. Occasionally, groups of jews, when such great opportunities arise. White heroes, for now, tell no one. White heroes choose the best advice from the articles listed at the bottom of this website, and adapt that advice for their skill sets and situations.

We are falsely asked if we “want a race war?” There already is a race war, a long-running race war. It’s all anti-White. We need that race war to flare up so that it is in our fellow White MEN’s faces, and then they will rise to join us, and finally we will win the race war once and for all.

Trump, surrounded by jews, says he will “make America great again.” Only our America WHITE again will be great again. Only Whites ever made a country great for Whites. Only Whites will do it again.