The Seven Deplorable Sins Of Secularism

Racism
Sexism
Anti-Semitism
Islamophobia
Homophobia
Xenophobia
Judgmentalism

The above is a riff on thecunt’s LGBTQ speech from Friday, in which she labeled Trump’s supporters a “basket of deplorables” (aka normal, sexually dimorphic Americans).

“You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it,” Clinton said.

Hillary recites a moral panic laundry list of -isms and -phobias & ends with “you name it”. That coda is very telling. As an id-blurt it reveals that Hillary and her ilk don’t really feel the moral urgency of their frightwords as much as they use them as weapons to intimidate their cucked-up enemies into a cowardly submission.

Thecunt, whether she understands it or not, enunciated the tenets of the Left’s new Secularism faith. The Seven Deplorable Sins are a guide to how the typical shitlib measures a person’s worth, because everyone needs a religion, even shitlibs who have discarded Christian Puritanism for “enlightened” atheism. The religious compulsion is an evolved trait in humans; all that differs across generations is how it’s expressed.

Compare and cuntrast with the Seven Deadly Sins of traditional Christianity:

Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Pride

The difference? The Seven Deplorable Sins of Secularism are affronts to the high priests. The Seven Deadly Sins of Christianity are affronts to God and self.

As Twatter renegade @Ricky_Vaughn99 notes, our modern priests are like the Pharisees in Jesus’ time. And like the Pharisees, if you cross them they’ll try to cast you out of polite society.

The Seven Deplorable Sins are at their core rationalizations for a pleasure island autistopia where harm is banished, personal liberation is the highest ideal, and equality and fairness overcome human nature. And, coincidentally, where the moral paragons of this nonjudgmental religion are free to judge the rabble as unworthy of redemption. Heaven on earth, plus the inevitable feedback loops, unintended consequences, and community disruption that always follow in the wake of liberal utopias.

As a Pepe foot soldier quipped, the central principle of Secularism is “Don’t judge your neighbor as you don’t judge yourself”. It’s the religion of solipsists, (for if one where to judge another, that would mean one would have reason to judge oneself….and that way leads to bad feels).

As another Twatterer wryly noted, the vacuity of the Seven Deplorable Sins is revealed when we attempt to identify the inverse of them; in other words, their virtuous opposites.

Racism => Race Equalism
Sexism => “Men and women are the same except for genitals, and not even then”
Anti-Semitism => Ignore ethnic traits and tribal power imbalances
Islamophobia => NAMALT
Xenophobia => Xenophilia (but not in my backyard)
Homophobia => Love Wins
Judgmentalism => You are free to be judged, but not to judge (the one sin to rule them all)

The inverse of each of the Seven Deplorable Sins is the same: blindness. Pattern denial. Willful ignorance.

In contrast, the inverse of each of the traditional Seven Deadly Sins is a list of seven virtues.

The modern religion of Secularism doesn’t proselytize for anything Good. All it preaches is the child-like virtue of Not Bad. It aspires to nothing but avoidance of social opprobrium. The problem with that ethos is the ever-shifting definition of what qualifies as socially unacceptable. The Secularist’s Seven Deplorable Sins are outgrowths of temporal sensibilities and the detritus of verbally dexterous status whores jockeying for power, distinct in nature from the Seven Deadly Sins which resonate precisely because they tap into timeless truths about humanity and fallen man.

An Alt-Right Logo

Tier 1 commenter PA proposes an emblem for the nascent alt-right revolutionary movement on his blog.

This is great. It’s an attack formation of bold strokes, evokes the rebellious spirit of the anarchy symbol, and is easy to spray paint all over shitlib cities. I like it better than Richard Spencer’s version…

which, while potent enough as a branding symbol, reminds me too much of a futuristic, emotionless Ayn Rand aesthetic. I like my emblems with more heart (as do most non-autists). Anyhow, the alt-right and Ayn Rand already share initials, so there’s some justification for avoiding an invitation to comparison that risks pigeon-holing the alt-right as a memetically improved reconfiguration of libertardianism.

Hillary Clinton’s Dangling Noose Allusion

An insider source at NBC reported that Hillary Clinton (you may know her as thecunt) had an epic meltdown off-stage of her recent debate with Matt Lauer (who is currently being criticized for asking her normal journalistic questions that enraged Leftoid Hivemind authorities in charge of preapproving fluff talking points for Hillary’s benefit). Here is the transcript:

“will have us swinging from nooses”…wew, that’s an oddly descriptive choice of phrase from America’s Sociopath Schoolmarm. A couple thoughts about her noose reference:

1. In context with her alt-right moral panic speech, this is additional evidence that Hillary herself reads samizdat websites like this one, or has the information contained in dissident websites relayed to her through a lackey. It’s not for nothing that “Day of the Rope” allusions are practically a by-line in the shiv-right universe.
2. Paranoia is indeed the destroya. Hillary would not be having fever dreams about swinging from a noose – a reckoning which no sane person actually believes a President Trump would declare upon taking the oath of office – if she didn’t know, deep inside, that her actions, and the actions of those monied interests whom she serves, are noose-worthy. This is Hillary confessing that her agit-prop and her policies amount to traitorous crimes against the nation.

My best guess is that, due to a degenerative neurological disease, Hillary Clinton, like her misfit SJW supporters, is experiencing increasingly frequent and severe detachments from reality, leading her to imagine scenarios like DOTR that, while eminently justified, are extremely unlikely to occur… unless she keeps pressing her anti-White pro-globalist agenda, at which time the noose may swing for traitors in real world places outside of their martyrdom fantasies.

Saying What The Media Won’t Say Is Now Deemed “Radical” By Shitlib Goons

In case you aren’t on Twatter, this studious evisceration of an article written by Jonathon Morgan purporting to “prove” that the alt-right is filled with “radical extremists” intent on committing the next 9/11 is one of the best counter-salvos against an emergent shitlib hate meme I have come across.

I suggest you take some time to read it through. Conclusion: What Morgan identifies as evidence of “alt-right radicalization” is actually just evidence that the alt-right is saying things that the media ACTIVELY COVERS UP OR REFUSES TO SAY.

Aligning yourself against the anti-Gentile narrative of the leftoid media hivemind can now class you as a “radical extremist” who is part of a “breeding ground for terrorism”. Did you get that? If you mention an unauthorized fact concerning our wonderful Diversitopia you are the equivalent of an ISIS supporter and should be placed on an FBI anti-terrorism watch list.

We are dealing with some truly evil manipulative fucks running the show in America. It almost as if they’re doing everything in their power to bring to life the very angry backlash they claim to want to avoid.

***

PS Shitlibs love quoting this mathematically ignorant “statistic” from Time:

In fact, until the nightclub shootings in Orlando, white extremists had committed more attacks and killed more Americans than jihadist extremists since 9/11.

Do shitlibs even math? The word a shitlib hates to hear more than any other is “disproportionate”. Meaning, as a share of their population (1%), Muslims in America are 5,000% more likely than non-Muslim Americans to commit a terrorist attack.

¡SCIENCE! Sweetly Validates The Fundamental Premise

Recall the Chateau Heartiste Fundamental Premise governing all human social dynamics.

Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Every psychological dynamic you see playing out in mass societies liberated from artificial constraints on the sexual market flows from this premise. This means, as a systemic matter, women are coddled, men are upbraided. Women are victims, men are victimizers. Women need a leg up, men need to man up. Women have advocacy groups, men have equal opportunity violations. A woman subjected to the indignity of eavesdropping on a tame joke about dongles makes national news, while the chilling fact that 95% of all workplace deaths are suffered by men barely pings the media consciousness.

The Fundamental Premise essentially states that women are more reproductively valuable than are men, and that this inherent biological disparity in sex-based worth precipitates all sorts of double standards in social policy and cultural norms.

Aaaaaaand once again ¡SCIENCE!, with love in her heart and fire in her loins, administers a meticulous old-fashioned to my tumescent ego.

Moral decision making study finds men willing to sacrifice 3 hypothetical men for every woman of reproductive value.

***

Killing someone in order to save several lives seems more morally acceptable to men than to women. We suggest that this greater approbation of utilitarian killings may reflect gender differences in the tolerance to inflicting physical harm, which are partly the product of sexual selection. Based on this account, we predicted that men may be less utilitarian than women in other conditions. In four studies, we show that men are more likely than women to make the anti-utilitarian (hypothetical) choice of causing three same sex deaths to save one opposite sex life; and that this choice is more likely when there are fewer potential sexual partners, more likely for heterosexual men and less likely if the female character to be saved no longer has reproductive value.

The id-shiv is contained in that final bolded part. That, more than anything, proves the Fundamental Premise: women are coddled only when they still have REPRODUCTIVE VALUE. As women age into the dead ovary zone, men treat them same as they do other men: with utilitarian indifference.

This, too, explains more than anything the bitter man-hating rage that your typical aging feminist spinster is capable of uncorking on “the patriarchy”. She has lost her female privilege, a privilege that, unlike the mythological male privilege, has real world evidence (and, now, scientific evidence) proving its existence.

White Knighting and Pussy Pedestaling is baked in the braincake, so to speak. As is the disposability of men. Remember all this the next time some whackjob feminist is screeching about the poor poor wymyn suffering under the boot heel of male privilege. She is constructing a semantic fantasy world and deluding herself that she lives in it. Her lying theatrics are a balm for the fear that she’s discovering what it’s really like to live as a man in what is in reality a woman’s world.

Shiv Of The Week: Cuckservatives Left Bleeding Out Of Their Wherever

Pseudonymous author Publius Decius Mus wrote the equivalent of a pig-roast of #NeverTrump cucks. “The Flight 93 Election” is a great piece of punditry, because it doesn’t shy from the existential truths governing all human societies.

The truth is that Trump articulated, if incompletely and inconsistently, the right stances on the right issues—immigration, trade, and war—right from the beginning.

***

[I]f [cuckservatives] are right about the importance of [familiar conservative principles] to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.

But it’s quite obvious that conservatives don’t believe any such thing, that they feel no such sense of urgency, of an immediate necessity to change course and avoid the cliff. A recent article by Matthew Continetti may be taken as representative—indeed, almost written for the purpose of illustrating the point. Continetti inquires into the “condition of America” and finds it wanting. What does Continetti propose to do about it? The usual litany of “conservative” “solutions,” with the obligatory references to decentralization, federalization, “civic renewal,” and—of course!—Burke. Which is to say, conservatism’s typical combination of the useless and inapt with the utopian and unrealizable. Decentralization and federalism are all well and good, and as a conservative, I endorse them both without reservation. But how are they going to save, or even meaningfully improve, the America that Continetti describes? What can they do against a tidal wave of dysfunction, immorality, and corruption? “Civic renewal” would do a lot of course, but that’s like saying health will save a cancer patient.

***

The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us.

***

One of the Journal of American Greatness’s deeper arguments was that only in a corrupt republic, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise. It is therefore puzzling that those most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying. That possibility, apparently, seems to them so preposterous that no refutation is necessary.

***

Your [cuckservative] job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war.

***

First, the opinion-making elements—the universities and the media above all—are wholly corrupt and wholly opposed to everything we want, and increasingly even to our existence. (What else are the wars on “cis-genderism”—formerly known as “nature”—and on the supposed “white privilege” of broke hillbillies really about?) […]

Second, our Washington Generals self-handicap and self-censor to an absurd degree. […]

Third and most important, the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population, which only serves to reinforce the two other causes outlined above. This is the core reason why the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and constitutional niceties. Because they are.

***

The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual classes.

***

This is insane. This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I want to end the insanity.

***

The alleged buffoon [Trump] is thus more prudent—more practically wise—than all of our wise-and-good who so bitterly oppose him. This should embarrass them. That their failures instead embolden them is only further proof of their foolishness and hubris.

I like the stab of this wielder’s shiv.

Go there and read it whole. It’s a nourishing meal.

Open Borders Update

If you thought the flow of nonWhites into America had recently slowed and our ruling class had graciously delayed the demographic swamping of Whites from the nation they created and which guiding principles only they can sustain, well….

New Data: Immigration Surged in 2014 and 2015

More than three million legal and illegal immigrants settled in the United States in the last two years

An analysis of new government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows more than three million new legal and illegal immigrants settled in the United States in 2014 and 2015 — a 39 percent increase over the prior two years. The number of legal and illegal immigrants settling in the country is now higher than before the 2007 recession and may match the level in 2000 and 2001. Immigration from other countries has offset a decline in immigration from Mexico.

Several factors have likely contributed to the rebound, including cutbacks in enforcement, an improved economy, and the expansive nature of our legal immigration system (especially for long-term temporary visas such as guestworkers and foreign students).

We need that goddamned Trump Wall, post-haste.

All of the above numbers are based on publicly available information in Census Bureau data; no adjustments have been made for those missed by the bureau. But even without adjusting for undercount, the scale of new immigration is enormous.

Thank el presidente Gay Mulatto; if he wanted, he could have stopped this.

The big increase in new arrivals in the last two years was driven by a rise in immigration from Latin America, particularly countries other than Mexico; South Asia (e.g. Pakistan and India); and East Asia (e.g. China and Vietnam).

Great. Central American peasant conquest of the US is at an all-time high. We’ve replaced Mexicans with their more backward and violent cousins. At least we’ll get more authentically ethnic restaurants serving salmonella on a platter as part of the deal.

There isn’t enough rope in the world to deal with the traitors who reneged on their duty to insure domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

***

uh adds,

Honduras fertility rate: 3.
Nicaragua: 2.5.
Guatemala: 3.8.

This doesn’t just “stop”.