Archive for the ‘Comment Winners’ Category

It’s too late for this now, but VIP commenter chris made an outstanding bio-logician’s case against gay marriage.


A rational, non-bigoted argument against gay marriage.

Part I
The thing which worries me about gay marriage is that the norms surrounding gay long-term relationships will be imported into the concept of marriage.


(The above is a media write-up of a study that found that in a study of 566 gay couples, only 45 percent had made the promise to be sexually monogamous. This is an example of a different moral norm surrounding gay long-term relationships.)


(In the above link is a NYTimes piece arguing that homosexual marriage could modernise (that is import different norms into) marriage as an institution.), specifically; “The traditional American marriage is in crisis, and we need insight,” he said, citing the fresh perspective gay couples bring to matrimony. “If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”

The importation of a moral norm like the one above surrounding gay long-term relationships would destroy the institution of marriage for heterosexuals who wish to pursue a long-term mating strategy.

[ed: aka beta males R FUKKED]

I don’t know many men who would sign up to an institution where the partners are expected/morally obliged to be emotionally faithful but not sexually faithful. It is much easier for women to get casual sex than men, so any man signing himself up to that deal would be signing himself up for cuckoldry and cuckoldry is the absolute worst thing that can happen to a man pursuing a long-term mating strategy, (and it is the evolved moral norms surrounding the long-term mating strategy which marriage as a cultural institution is/was developed around/for.)

Of course, if people became more knowledgeable about evo-bio/evo-psych and instead started calling marriage essentially what it is, the social-codification of the long-term mating strategy in humans, then this concern wouldn’t really matter. (No worrying about importing norms anti-thetical to the reproductive interests of one party in the relationship and subsequently which disincentivises the pursuit of the strategy from that party as its definition is strictly evo-bio/evo-psych.)

(On a side note, the reason I’ve given above is also why I think a lot of religious people are against gay marriage, they fear that it will change the institution and expose them to cuckoldry. This wouldn’t be the first time that religious norms have been developed to prevent cuckoldry/ensure paternal certainty;

See http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-06/uom-hrp060412.php

Of course, I doubt these fears will be allayed as doing so would go against the feminist establishment’s desire to create a matriarchial/matrilineal cad society where all men are cuckolds (if they aren’t cads that is), but that’s a whole different issue.)

[ed: CH maxim: The feminist goal is removing all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.]

More evidence of different moral norms surrounding homosexual relationships:
see “In his book, The Soul Beneath the Skin, David Nimmons cites numerous studies which show that 75% of gay male couples are in successful open relationships.”



This is the link to the actual study from the newspaper reports.

This one provides a good review of the literature. But it is pay-gated.

Part II
But how on earth could gay marriage equality import different moral norms into the concept of marriage for heterosexuals you might say? Well, it’s very simple. Through the Courts. Remember, in our society, marriage is a legal construct.

I’m going to quote from H. L. A. Hart’s ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’ Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, No. 4 (Feb., 1958), pp. 593-629.

Which can be accessed here;


How do judges decide (reason out) cases?

“A legal rule forbids you to take a vehicle into the public park. Plainly this forbids an automobile, but what about bicycles, roller skates, toy automobiles? What about airplanes? Are these, as we say, to be called “vehicles” for the purpose of the rule or not? If we are to communicate with each other at all, and if, as in the most elementary form of law, we are to express our intentions that a certain type of behavior be regulated by rules, then the general words we use – like “vehicle” in the case I consider – must have some standard instance in which no doubts are felt about its application. There must be a core of settled meaning, but there will be, as well, a penumbra of debatable cases in which words are neither obviously applicable nor obviously ruled out. These cases will each have some features in common with the standard case; they will lack others or be accompanied by features not present in the standard case. Human invention and natural processes continually throw up such variants on the familiar, and if we are to say that these ranges of facts do or do not fall under existing rules, then the classifier must make a decision which is not dictated to him, for the facts and phenomena to which we fit our words and apply our rules are as it were dumb. The toy automobile cannot speak up and say, “I am a vehicle for the purpose of this legal rule,” nor can the roller skates chorus, “We are not a vehicle.” Fact situations do not await us neatly labeled, creased, and folded, nor is their legal classification written on them to be simply read off by the judge. Instead, in applying legal rules, someone must take the responsibility of deciding that words do or do not cover some case in hand with all the practical consequences involved in this decision.

We may call the problems which arise outside the hard core of standard instances or settled meaning “problems of the penumbra”; they are always with us whether in relation to such trivial things as the regulation of the use of the public park or in relation to the multidimensional generalities of a constitution.”

I’m going to propose several assumptions that will be used in a hypothetical. We need not debate these assumptions as I am just using them to illuminate a particular form of logic that would occur when deciding a legal case. These assumptions and the hypothetical will also be used to illuminate the existence of a moral system behind laws which the law attempts to divine (or which Judges at least attempt to) but which doesn’t always map directly onto that moral system.

Assumption 1) Marriage exists as the social codification of the long-term mating strategy in humans.

Assumption 2) The long-term mating strategy in humans consists of men exchanging their own exclusive physical investment for a woman’s exclusive sexual investment. If the man diverts his physical investment to another woman, this is at a cost to the original woman he promised it too. Likewise if a woman directs her sexual investment to another man this is at a cost to the original man that she promised it to.

Assumption 3) Cuckoldry, that is the diversion of a woman’s sexual investment to one man while she is in a long-term relationship with another man is the worst thing that can possibly happen to that man who is in a long-term relationship with her. In a system where cuckoldry is rampant, male monogamy is not expected to evolve or exist, ergo the male long-term mating strategy is not expected to evolve or exist.

Here is a hypothetical for you dealing with the penumbra.
Let’s say we live in a legal system that protects the long-term mating interests of both a man and woman in a long-term mating relationship. Let’s say this society calls this long-term mating relationship, marriage. Let’s say that the underlying justification for this ‘marriage law’ is the evolutionary principles surrounding mating.

Let’s then also say that a group to which this ‘marriage law’ does not apply, suddenly want to be included within the same legal construct.

A married couple in this society want to get divorced. The woman has been adulterous, so the man wants to retract his physical investment in her, which means no providing resources or protection to her. Given that this legal system protects his long-term mating interests, and given that the underlying justification for this protection is the evolutionary principles surrounding mating, the judge allows him to retract his physical investment to the woman.

Now let’s say that the group to which this ‘marriage law’ does not apply is Gay Men. And let’s say that Gay marriage is passed and they are suddenly allowed to marry.

[ed: woops]

And let’s say that the justification for this allowance into the institution is ‘equality’.

Now let’s also say that because these are gay men we are dealing with, that they do not have the same mating psychologies as heterosexual men and so are perfectly okay with sexual non-monogamy. There is no rule proscribing sex with others outside the marriage within gay long-term relationships.

Now here is an instance in the penumbra. A gay couple has married, but they want to get divorced. One of them has been adulterous. However, it is argued in court that the norms surrounding gay long-term relationships do not proscribe adultery. Should this adultery factor into the division of assets, the supply of alimony? The exchange of physical investment from one of the men to the other? Is there even an exchange of physical investment? If the underlying basis of ‘marriage law’ are the evolutionary principles surrounding mating, how do you integrate a group of people whose mating behaviours violate those very principles into a system that has been designed to protect the interests conceived of via those principles? It doesn’t make sense to say that in a gay couple one partner can cuckold the other partner. So how can you apply a rule that retracts the physical investment from one party to another, when the basis for the existence of that rule, cuckoldry, doesn’t occur?

It’s plausible that an exception could be made. Kind of like the whole, we have freedom of speech except you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre type kind of exception. The law does this all the time. For instance a statue against cruelty to animals might exclude mice, rats, and pigeons from the definition of animal for the purposes of the statute, as a way to allow lab experimentation or pest removal, even though we all know that they are still animals in reality.

But it’s also plausible that because the basis for the anti-cuckoldry rule does not occur in gay couples, that the rule won’t be applied, and it will be left at that.

What then happens if another married couple come along, a heterosexual couple, and they want to divorce? The woman has been adulterous and so the man argues that he should be allowed retract his physical investment to the woman, i.e. no giving her assets he paid for, no giving her alimony due to there being anti-cuckoldry laws. But the woman is clever. She knows that gay married couples don’t have the anti-cuckoldry law applied to them, and she knows that gay marriage is to be treated as equal to heterosexual marriage, and so she argues that since anti-cuckoldry laws aren’t applied in gay marriage, then they shouldn’t be applied in heterosexual marriage as the two forms of marriage are equal. They are the same. Indeed, it is a conceptual error to even consider them two separate forms of marriage. There is only one form of marriage and thus by establishing that a gay couple divorcing don’t have anti-cuckoldry laws applied in their divorce, a heterosexual couple divorcing shouldn’t have anti-cuckoldry laws applied in a divorce either.

Now all of a sudden, this institution, which has protected the long-term mating interests of men and women for centuries, has suddenly undermined a vital protection to the long-term mating interests of one of the parties by treating two separate categories, which have separate moral rules surrounding them, as if they were the same category. If you equalise the categories, then you need to equalise the rules surrounding the categories to make them equal.

Now it is possible that the categories could be equalised, and they decide to just throw an exception in in those instances where it would be unjust to allow equal treatment, as a way to resolve the issue and allow gays and heterosexuals to marry while retaining the different moral rules for each category.

But it’s also possible they won’t. And heterosexual men’s mating interests will be crushed within the crucible of rigorous logic.

Part III
Now you will probably say, “this is a superfluous example, our marriage laws don’t recognise an anti-cuckoldry law, they don’t exist to protect the long-term mating interests of each party, adultery doesn’t affect the division of property or the award of alimony.” And you’d be right. In your jurisdiction they don’t, and in my jurisdiction they don’t. But I would contend that they should. I would contend that for the greater part of both our jurisdiction’s legal history, indeed of Western legal history, that marriage laws did protect such interests and that the ultimate underlying justification for that protection (although not always realised) was evolutionary principles. I would contend that morality is based upon evolutionary principles and that the legal system should attempt to map as directly as possible to that underlying moral schema as much as possible. I would contend that our current marriage laws are an aberration in their rejection of evolutionary principles as their justification and are responsible for disincentivising marriage amongst heterosexuals rendering the institution redundant with each and every passing day. I would contend that this disincentivisation and such disregard of the mating interests of men is an unjust and immoral act and constitutes a moral deficit in our society. And finally, I would contend that the legalisation of gay marriage is a step in a direction away from rectifying that. It is a nail in the coffin of a marriage system being justified by an evolutionary schema.

If you do away with anti-cuckoldry laws, you end the long-term mating strategy for men. You end monogamy. You end the nuclear family as a form of social organisation. You end Patriarchy.

[ed: and you birth hell.]

Now ask yourself, the people on the left pushing gay marriage. Do they have a history of trying to erode and dismantle the nuclear family, do they have a history of trying to erode and dismantle anti-cuckoldry laws and norms, do they have a history of trying to erode and dismantle Patriarchy? To answer the question is to illuminate their agenda with respect to gay marriage and the plausible direction that such equality will take. (Or at least the plausible direction they will attempt to take.)


Well stated. This is what happens when a culture lives by lies and flees from truth. Penumbras (externalities) carve away at the social bond until all is left in tatters.

Penumbras and emanations of moral universalism. This is the evil of our age.

NW European moral universalism can work in homogeneous, partly genetically-related, societies with widely shared norms. Outside of that crucial context, moral universalism is self-corrupting and defenseless against predation by foreign elements who abide different moral codes. This is why one should never take seriously an argument in favor of NW European moral universalism by an alien outsider who benefits from its largesse.


COTW runner-up is homosexmaniac.

As a homo with masochistic/passive desires I like guys who are hotter and dominant but not very smart. I like straight guys (and pay them). I don’t think intelligence is a turn-on for men or for women. When you say that women won’t “settle” for a dumber guy is this about the marriage market or sex? I think that a smarter woman might especially enjoy fucking a hot, dominant, but simple-minded man. Of course they won’t admit it but so what.

This comment made me chuckle, for reasons I can’t explain. Maybe it’s the unbridled psychological projection of it. Is there really an untapped (heh) market of straight men willing to go gay for the right price? I find that hard to believe. How much money would it take to overcome the disgust reflex? One biiiiillllion dollars. Even then…

PS A favorite pro-gay marriage argument that doesn’t hold up under the least scrutiny is the “we allow infertile hetero couples (or old couples) to marry, so why not gays?” Infertile hetero couples are implicitly acknowledged as tragically deficient representatives of their class, (or as aged vessels of a formerly fertile couple); the intrinsic state of healthy, NORMAL heterosexual couples is fertility, and therefore the recognition of the deviance from the normal heterosexual state is implied in the magnanimous legality and morality of marrying infertile couples.

In contrast, there is no normal homosexual state of fertility, tacitly acknowledged or plainly seen. When two homos are married, we know that under no normally functioning condition are they able to naturally conceive children.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that all this “mass equalization” that is currently running riot over the West will eventually, (and as the evidence begins to demonstrate much sooner rather than later), corrode and ultimately destroy the very values, moral codes, and even behaviors that were responsible for the West’s rise as a civilization and shining city on the hill.

Get ready for a tumble back into the gutter from whence we once ascended.

Read Full Post »

COTW winner is The Other Anonymous, accurately diagnosing a major blood disease coursing through the veins of the Western media.

The language of today’s media is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, repeated until they cauterize memory. These have become the start and finish of any ideological analysis. There is no narrative – only spin … and now a word from our sponsors.

There is a time for pithy sloganeering to rally troops, but that time is not all the time as a substitute for vigorous thought. Unfortunately, the Hivemind has found it beneficial to their warped antiracism cause to drown the body politic in their vicious hate whitey banalities, until free thought is strangled and the masses robotically intone the war chants of their own displacement.


COTW second place finisher is Bill Price,

We need more than a new political party; we need a new religious awakening to free us from the false doctrine of Enlightenment orthodoxy.

But we do not need a return to the past — we need something new and better, and in our own language. I suspect that the need for religious reform is often spurred more by changes in language than changes in human nature, which are much slower.

I’ve been working on this idea for half a year now. We need a new concept of kin-based faith that integrates the wisdom of the old worldview into the modern reality. All faith is kin-based (our earliest concepts of divine authority are based on the human family, e.g. father, son and holy spirit), but we’ve veered away from this truth in recent years. Christianity was a stroke of genius in that it allowed for a higher universal morality while simultaneously promoting the values that made families and communities strong. But it’s been hopelessly corrupted by an imperial form of the religion and a radical equalism that was never intended from the beginning, nor was it foreseen by early Christians, who viewed themselves as small communities of like-minded families resisting the depredations of a wicked and corrupt empire.

Today, once again, we’ll have to rely on faith to pull us out of a horrible mess of our own creation. I’m sure a lot of people will disagree, but I challenge them to come up with a better solution. Last time people tried an alternative the Bolsheviks ended up in power for 70 years, and that was a horror show I’d rather not live through myself, not to mention my kids.

Everything old is new again, dressed up in fashion-forward garb. Interesting point about language changes mattering more, in the short to medium term, than genetic capital changes. My suggestion for a pro-white majority national ethos banner: Family, Neighborhood, Nation: Renewing Trust. It hits those subconscious anxieties that are currently percolating through Americans.


COTW consolation prize winner is PA, reminding us of the hierarchy of female desire.

Related, I saw a guy on the subway yesterday tenderly put his arm around his girlfriend while she was babbling cocksurely about something indubitably important. Today, saw a couple walking and the young man kissed the top of her head. In neither case did the girl’s body language show any reciprocation or gratitude.

What’s significant is that both men struck me as alpha at first glance.

The girl wants to feel your power and charm first, affection distant third.

Power and charm first, affection third. That’s a pithy aphorism describing the contours of female attraction for the competing character traits of sexy men. Establish your dominance (which can be done by showing you won’t cave like a supplicating beta to her feminine wiles), engage her with your charm (an attitudinal cue that you live with an abundance of women mentality), bestow her with your affection (but only after she’s bestowed you with her sex and love).

The problem with the more romantically earnest sort of beta males is that they start with the affection, and then clumsily try to segue to the power and charm when they see that their affection is driving the girl away. It never ends well.

Read Full Post »

shartiste wins this week’s COTW. This might be his second trophy. Hey man, save some for the betas.

high maintenance has become a beta rationalization term. most often it means “I’m not high enough SMV to maintain her”.

What’s high maintenance to you is decidedly low maintenance to Leonardo DeCaprio.

There are objectively high maintenance girls who would give any man fits, but it’s true that most of them labeled as such are only high maintenance to betaboys who don’t have what it takes to tame the whirlwind of their women. Have you ever seen a girl with a reputation for high maintenance turn into a purring, easy-going kitten under the tutelage of the right kind of man? Yes, you have.


COTW runner-up is NuancedBrooklynArtist, in fine wowjustwowness satirical form.

Wow, just wow. I just finished reading your post and I am shaking with rage. This is not okay, and someone could have been triggered by your hostility. This post is literally, vile dudebro neckbeard microaggression. It is threatening and harassment that violates my safe space. Let me tell you a thing: You are an awful, shitty person. Let me explain why your post is problematic, it’s 2015 not the 1950s. You are on the wrong side of history. Your post lacks nuance and complexity. You don’t know this, because white privilege. You ignore the enriching diverse enrichment around you that will enrich your experience. I’m not here to educate you more. There is consensus on this issue already. This is not a place for learns. Like seriously. I literally can’t even now. Read a book on Nelson Mandela (yay Mandela!), and educate yourself. Shut up, listen, and believe. Just sayin’.

:lol: This is getting to be a crowded field. If you want to parody the SJW, you had better bring your A(sshole) game.


COTW consolation prize goes to whorefinder, for finding the reason leftoids eschew logic in favor of self-serving rationaliztion and emotionalism.

Left wing “thought” is merely a series of rationalizations to gain power, with no consistency necessary.

So this blip won’t make a dent in them, whichever way they come out. And civilization will slide further into chaos.

It’s like watching a little girl make up the rules to their games of pretend—altogether, the rules make zero sense and contradict one another, but individually, the rules exist to maximize that particular little girl’s power in her pretend world. Her tea parties are dungeons with pretty doily chains around each of her guests legs and arms.

But hey, at least we elected Obama.

whorefinder concludes with,


Leftoids live and breathe on your prostration and apologia. Why not try something different for a change?

Read Full Post »

COTW winner Cesare explains,

I have long considered a Comedic Theory of History. The animating concept is the most outrageous comedy of a few years’ past becomes the serious current events of our times. Think of Groucho singing in Duck Soup, “no one’s allowed to smoke or tell a dirty joke…’ certainly matches up with modern PC. Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles taking himself hostage, which not only came true but actually shut down one of the largest cities on Earth with the entire OJ Simpson circus. Now you can look back to Life of Brian and the Jewish wannabe terrorist demanding to be called Loretta, and God help you if you don’t take it seriously!

This is mental illness. Commander Strangeways is not a woman, he is some fucking oddball who had his dick cut off. No physician I, but no mental illness is improved with indulgence and encouragement. Now this poor wretched de-nutted creature is being lauded for his/it’s ‘bravery’, if that doesn’t make you vaguely nauseous what will? Once men like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain or John Basilone or Nick Rowe were thought to be brave by this country.

Good satire pushes the envelope and flirts with absurdity. What happens when all the envelopes have been pushed over a cliff and the absurd becomes the new normal, enforced just like healthy social norms of yore? We’re about to find out! Satirists are standing by… wondering if their craft has been rendered superfluous.

Read Full Post »

Reader tsparks156 refutes the “men love smart women as much as or more than they love hot women” pretty lie by use of a simple observational technique,

Look at who are the most popular/highly rated women among men of all ages. Then check what percentage are hot and what percentage are successful in business and academia and compare. The results are predictably obvious. Rachel Riley is a popular academic woman because she is hot and the only interest men have in her brains is fucking them out of her.

No smart woman in the history of the world has given a man a boner by waving her grad school degree over his crotch or breathily whispering in his ear about the space-time continuum.


Sentient adds his two cents for runner-up COTW,

Ask any woman what she would rather have… a perfect SAT score or a perfect body? Do you think the millions of pages of Self, Glamour, Cosmo et al shed any light on the answer?

A poll of this nature would suffer from the problem that it would never be answered truthfully by women. Social expectation bias would be much too strong. Perhaps an airtight anonymous poll might get us closer to women’s real feelings about the matter, but in the end what counts is revealed preference, and for that we see women spending years of their lives in energetic pursuit of improving their bodies and appearances…. not their SAT acumen. Super heh.

To answer this post title’s question — women’s brains, what are they good for? — I believe female smarts are a vestigial trait resulting from women choosing smarter men as mates over the millennia, sort of similar to the idea of the clitoris as a vestigial organ of the dominant male penis.

I’m only half-kidding. Another reason for the existence of female smarts is that men with options, when choosing a long-term partner to raise their future kids, will choose less dumb women only after all the other more important mate criteria are met (specifically, youth and beauty and feminine disposition).

Men without options will take what they can get.

To put it another way, men have a lot more tolerance for underpowered IQ in romantic partners than they have for underpowered beauty.

Read Full Post »

COTW winner is “anonymous”, reminding the studio audience ’tis nobler to suffer the fists and kicks of outraged white knights, than to sit trapped in a sea of man-hating humiliation sessions:

Sexual Harassment Prevention used to consist of the girls brother kicking your ass. Between that or a 45 minute PowerPoint presentation – Ill take the ass kicking

I dream one day the world’s HR broads have to sit through a 45 minute powerpoint presentation on false rape accusations. Their squirming would be, in a word, delicious!


shartiste is our COTW runner-up,

Its nice how “don’t marry the bad boys” is framed as the girl’s choice. They’re “bad boys” because they won’t marry you.

Right-o. Sheryl Sandberg is blowing smoke up everyone’s skirt. Women pursuing the “apha fux beta bux” strategy don’t refuse to marry the badboys; the badboys refuse to marry the women. Even arid studies confirm this observed reality.


Arbiter wins the CH consolation COTW (keep trying, commentbrah!):

This is what the puritan tradcons don’t understand, with their constant “Game is putting women on a pedestal”, “Game is meaningless sex and adultery”, “Game is faking and lying”. No. Game is about making it possible for a man to choose, instead of waiting to be chosen.

Pithy. Even if a man isn’t choosing his dating market options 100% of the time, a small improvement in the amount of control he has over who he dates can mean the difference between settling in legally-bound misery with a fat cow or cohabitating with a cutie outside the reach of the law. In the sexual market, the slimmest margins matter.

Read Full Post »

Disingenuous nation-wrecker Alex “Cheaper Chalupas” Tabarrok linked to a horribly flawed study which concluded that mass immigration doesn’t reduce the host nation’s economic freedom.

The Anti-Gnostic, as per usual, SPANKED him hard in the comments,

These people have no idea; they string together some macro statistics to get the conclusion they want. The net-immigrant countries are Anglo-European with a classical liberal tradition and strong, centralized states. The city-state of Singapore is actually quite authoritarian. Incidentally, Renaissance/Enlightenment city-states used to ban individuals.

Immigration is political and cultural suicide for libertarians. Alex is speaking from an affluent academic bubble, itself enabled by a huge government footprint in financial and education markets. For the schleps, immigration means lower wages, lower property values, and corroded social trust. The academics are just banking on being on the right side of the fence from the favelas.

Mass non-white immigration to white countries erodes social trust, which decreases the support for wealth redistribution to groups of swarthies who act and look very differently than your friends and family, hence increased “economic freedom”. I’m not sure what this Tabarrok-rimjobbing study is saying except that “economic freedom” means whatever an open borders nation-wrecker wants it to mean.

Related: A reader forwards this ROK piece by Roosh,

The Western elite, especially in Europe, got into power by pushing peace, harmony, equal opportunity, and multiculturalism, but beneath these feel-good concepts includes the blueprint for destruction of the very force that threatens their power: nationalism. Introducing massive numbers of Muslims, Mexicans, or destitute Somalian refugees into your nation reduces the likelihood that you will look to your neighbor and see someone like you, a brother-in-arms who can help you rise up against the cyclical inevitability of a corrupt government ruling over you.

Now that you see a dozen different colors surrounding you on the subway and in the Starbucks, some of whom are looking at you suspiciously, you feel distrustful of these outsiders because they have a different background and belief system than you do. You find yourself in a diluted world culture with standardized gadgets, entertainment, and government-friendly talking points conveniently disseminated by all media outlets. Now instead of looking to your neighbor to help fight against governmental oppression, you will seek comfort in your own amusements, Facebook feeds, internet memes, and legalized marijuana. You turn inwards to satisfy your hedonistic needs while allowing the government to run over your rights and push policies that you feel increasingly helpless to fight in your social isolation.

This is all done by design. The liberal governments of the West will allow the collateral damage of terrorist acts because they need those immigrants to defeat the greater threat to their power: national identity. Destroy the culture and you remove a citizen’s motivation to fight for a nation he would have given his life for not three generation ago. Immigration must not stop because the liberal elite must maintain their power, and the useful idiots in the media and academia will continue spinning the narrative required to ensure that happens. The death of twelve lives or 1,200 is inconsequential.

Leftoid elites think they have outwitted history. For a while, maybe. But their short-term gain will seem a gossamer dream once the long-term punishments come home to roost.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,258 other followers

%d bloggers like this: