by: Jayson Veley
by: Jayson Veley
January 12, 2018
It is certainly fair to ask why it is that you would want immigration from shithole countries. Presumably, this is a question a lot of people have.
President Trump grew frustrated with lawmakers Thursday in the Oval Office when they discussed protecting immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal, according to several people briefed on the meeting.
“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump said, according to these people, referring to countries mentioned by the lawmakers.
Trump then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries such as Norway, whose prime minister he met with Wednesday. The president, according to a White House official, also suggested he would be open to more immigrants from Asian countries because he felt they help the United States economically.
In addition, the president singled out Haiti, telling lawmakers that immigrants from that country must be left out of any deal, these people said.
“Why do we need more Haitians?” Trump said, according to people familiar with the meeting. “Take them out.”
Lawmakers were taken aback by the comments, according to people familiar with their reactions. Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) had proposed cutting the visa lottery program by 50 percent and then prioritizing countries already in the system, a White House official said.
A White House spokesman defended Trump’s position on immigration without directly addressing his remarks. White House officials did not dispute the account.
“Certain Washington politicians choose to fight for foreign countries, but President Trump will always fight for the American people,” spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement issued after The Washington Post first reported Trump’s remarks. “. . . Like other nations that have merit-based immigration, President Trump is fighting for permanent solutions that make our country stronger by welcoming those who can contribute to our society, grow our economy and assimilate into our great nation.”
The fact that they issued a response without denying the comments themselves indicates these were the actual words that Trump used.
This is encouraging and refreshing, as it indicates Trump is more or less on the same page as us with regards to race and immigration. Yes, he said the thing about Asian countries, which shows that he is not actually a racist and is instead concerned about merit, but that is a huge leap from where the rest of the entirety of the political system in this country is at.
The problem with Asian immigration, aside from the fact that they are not us and thus create social problems (not on the scale of other nonwhites, because they don’t commit the crimes and are not leeches, but it is certainly alienating to be surrounded by Asians), is that they actually take jobs and of course places in universities away from our people.
Of course, he may have just made the comment about Asians so as to not seem racist. I think it is clear that Trump’s ideal America the one he grew up with in the 1950s. And the closer we get to that, the closer we are to our own goals of a white race-state.
The other thing about Asians is that if people who think like us take power, they aren’t going to throw a fit about being forced to leave. We can give them a year to make arrangements, and they will just go, for the most part without even complaining. A certain small percentage of them may be allowed to stay, though of course not with citizenship or citizen’s rights. Anyway, it’s a non-issue right now.
The real issue is all of these shitty brown people who come to the country exclusively to parasite off of us.
December 16, 2017
At last, the moment we’ve all been waiting for is quickly approaching: the death of John McCain.
We celebrated when he was diagnosed with the inoperable tumor, but we had hoped he would die quickly. Instead, he has lived on to harm America further.
President Trump on Friday called the wife of Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who was hospitalized this week as he battles brain cancer, the White House said.
An official said Trump spoke by phone with Cindy McCain on Friday afternoon to “check in on Sen. McCain’s condition.”
“Is the evil America-hating sonovabitch dead yet?”
McCain, 81, was diagnosed with brain cancer in July. On Wednesday, his office said he had been admitted to the hospital.
“Senator McCain is currently receiving treatment at Walter Reed Medical Center for normal side effects of his ongoing cancer therapy,” his office said. “As ever, he remains grateful to his physicians for their excellent care, and his friends and supporters for their encouragement and good wishes. Senator McCain looks forward to returning to work as soon as possible.”
Despite his hospitalization, McCain’s Republican colleagues expressed optimism he will be able to make the expected votes on the tax overhaul next week. Senators must be physically present on the Senate floor to cast votes.
“Of course we all wish for Sen. McCain to have a great health for as long as possible,” Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said Friday on Fox News. “My sense is that everybody’s made a commitment to be there next week. And we will certainly be able to have the vote. Our prayers go to him and his family.”
John McCain is an inoperable tumor on this country.
We’ll be having a celebratory podcast marathon when he finally dies once and for all.
Democracy instructs us that we have “freedom,” “liberty,” and “equality,” but all of these seem to be modified definitions. Freedom is subject to forced association, liberty to serving in the jobs of the workers’ state, and equality means that the higher subsidize the lower so that the illusion of cooperation is achieved.
This leads us to wonder what other terms have mutated definitions. In particular, we start to suspect that we are living in a neo-Communist or totalitarian society. A handy resource can be found in one definition of totalitarianism which reveals the structure of the state based on control:
1. An official ideology, consisting of an official body of doctrine covering all vital aspects of man’s existence, to which everyone living in that society is supposed to adhere at least passively; this ideology is characteristically focused in terms of chiliastic claims as to the “perfect” final society of mankind.
2. A single mass party consisting of a relatively small percentage of the total population (up to 10 per cent) of men and women passionately and unquestioningly dedicated to the ideology and prepared to assist in every way in promoting its general acceptance, such party being organized in strictly hierarchical, oligarchical manner, usually under a single leader….
3. A technologically conditioned near-complete monopoly of control (in the hands of the party and its subservient cadres, such as the bureaucracy and the armed forces) of all means of effective armed combat.
4. A similarly technologically conditioned near-complete monopoly of control (in the same hands) of all means of effective mass communication, such as the press, radio, motion pictures, and so on.
5. A system of terroristic police control. depending for its effectiveness upon points 3 and 4 and characteristically directed not only against demonstrable “enemies” of the regime, but also against arbitrarily selected classes of the population, such arbitrary selection turning upon exigencies of the regime’s survival, as well as ideological “implications” and systematically exploiting scientific psychology.
Carl J Friedrich (1954) ‘The unique character of totalitarian society’ in: Totalitarianism. New York: Grossett & Dunlap.
To understand how this applies to our present society, we must understand the nature of decentralized, indirect, and informal control. In these systems, there is no single leader, only a singular idea. There is not even a party. Instead, people collaborate informally to enforce an idea on others, and that idea — more than a manifestation of it — constitutes the core of the totalitarian society.
In this type of system, the “terroristic police control” consists of fear of social consequences which can cause an individual to lose jobs, friends, family, housing, and even services as banks, doctors, attorneys, accountants, and even grocery stores pull away from the controversy.
The control that this system exerts can be seen in enforcement of an idea from people who perceive they are receiving personal benefit from doing so, therefore are fanatical in their search for an excuse to enforce this on others. Each person they destroy gains them greater social status.
At that level, the system has a monopoly through indirect means. Since it is driven by individualistic behavior, people form herds which are dedicated to running away from threats, which means that all it must do is indicate that certain ideas, individuals, or behaviors are threats, and the crowd will destroy them.
This is a form of individualistic herd behavior, sometimes called the “selfish herd theory”:
He suggested that groups of animals as diverse as insects, fish and cattle all react to danger by moving towards the middle of their swarm, school or herd, known as the selfish herd theory. Individuals in a herd benefit from being able to control where they are relative to their group-mates and any potential predator. It also reduces the chances of being the one the predator goes for when it attacks.
Such behavior may be a sub-form of the tragedy of the commons: if safety, or areas where one is safe, are a resource, each individual exploits those to the maximum and social order is sacrificed by the collective selfishness of individuals, as happens in most human organizational failures.
Decentralized totalitarianism exploits the fear-driven nature of human behavior. When humans organize into groups, they rely on external cues — the behavior of others — to identify threats to the herd. If the herd can be induced into constant panic, that panic can be used to target any threat by making that threat into the scapegoat, or by assigning agency for actual threats to the imaginary enemy. Satan is deceptive: we blame him for evils, when really he is merely the symbol of those evils.
Control systems of this nature depend on a dysfunctional codependency between individuals and their manipulators, who have as much in common with salesmen as dictators. The herd depends on the leaders to signal threats and potential rewards, and out of fear and fear of missing out, then depends on those leaders, who also require the power of the masses which are used as a political weapon, or a means to the end of destroying political enemies and thus asserting the power of the controller.
Aldous Huxley predicted that the mob rule brought on by the French Revolution would ultimately end in the rise of cynical controllers who hid their methods through indirect and decentralized means, letting people lead themselves into servitude with their fears and desires. Humans would be defeated by individualism, not outright control.
A system of this nature rules through duality. Individuals are induced into acts which neutralize them, while the same authority that they trust for those inspirations also teaches them to fear anything but the condition under which they find themselves. As Huxley wrote, perfect tyranny appears to be freedom:
The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him, the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people. His servitude is strictly objective.
The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles and mysteries. Nor did they possess a really effective system of mind-manipulation. In the past, free-thinkers and revolutionaries were often the products of the most piously orthodox education. This is not surprising. The methods employed by orthodox educators were and still are extremely inefficient. Under a scientific dictator education will really work — with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.
This inverts the unduly famous statement from 1984, “Freedom is Slavery.” In the Brave New World of Huxley, he shows how what people think of as freedom becomes a form of slavery. This damages not so much the individual as a civilization because control methods lead to oblivious and inept societies because they create an internal backlash and encourage people to ignore important details that could indicate systemic problems. We saw that in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
Control causes a loss of civilization. The inner-directed populace that works together toward the goal of having an excellent existence is replaced by a bickering crowd of monkeys who take civilization for granted, lower their standards, and are interested, carnie-style, in what immediate benefits they can receive right now. They would not pass the marshmallow test:
In the 1960s, Stanford University Professor ((((((Walter Mischel)))))) gave young children a simple proposition. They sat with a marshmallow in front of them for fifteen minutes – and if they could hold off from eating it, they would be given two treats at the end of the time period. Some of them ate the treat straight away – but others succeeded in overcoming temptation.
Subsequent research found that the children from the original experiment who could delay gratification had scored better academic results, earned higher salaries, and been less prone to obesity.
In this way, totalitarianism — like democracy — makes people less capable because they become accustomed to being outer-directed, and lose the ability to conceive and formulate their own direction. This appears similar to the case of children who watch too much television and then, are unable to figure out what to do with themselves when the television is off.
Decentralized control triumphs by creating this codependent relationship. It enforces its will upon the citizens, who then come to lean on it for guidance because it regulates what is rewarded, and end up becoming entirely defined by it. People lose the ability to understand their world and respond to it in a way that maximizes their position, and see the world entirely through the filter of government and social pressure. This way, reality is forgotten and abilities are lost.
Its decentralized nature allows control — which, as you recall, arises from individualistic fear — to remain invisible. It camouflages itself in social chaos and by maintaining internal debate and competition, both of which take the place of normal healthy functions and distract from the decay. As Mario Vargas Llosa opined:
It may not seem to be a dictatorship, but it has all of the characteristics of a dictatorship; the perpetuation, not of one person, but of an irremovable party, a party that allows sufficient space for criticism, provided such criticism serves to maintain the appearance of a democratic party, but which suppresses by all means, including the worst, whatever criticism may threaten its perpetuation in power.
In theory, the group we cannot criticize is the group that rules us, but what about a group that we cannot identify? If the group is fully decentralized, it has no membership list, official rules, hierarchy, or even headquarters. Its members may not even be aware that they are members, and will be spread among every industry, institution, and social role. They are united only by one thing: that they are infected by the same idea, and so are pathologically driven toward it, despite its eventual destructiveness.
Huxley again, this time from the 1947 introduction to Brave New World:
The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence is not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the other symptoms of social friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda must be made as effective as the negative. The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be vast government-sponsored enquiries into what the politicians and the participating scientists will call “the problem of happiness” — in other words, the problem of making people love their servitude.
An empire based on distraction proves more powerful than one based on commands. When truth is obscured by a simpler but less realistic symbolic view of the world, then people will ignore the important issues and pursue the scapegoats and their positive counterpart, trends which lead to rewards through socializing, because those who ride the trends are the ones who become popular and get rich, which enables them to escape the disaster created by lack of social order.
With this in mind, let us revisit those five traits of totalitarianism:
- An official ideology, consisting of an official body of doctrine covering all vital aspects of man’s existence. This doctrine must cover all aspects of human existence and have Utopian overtones. In our distributed totalitarian society, egalitarianism — the idea that all people are equal, or should be, in varying economic, social, legal, and political ways — serves this role. It explains our purpose, lack of social order, morality, and method of control all in one.
- A single mass party consisting of a relatively small percentage of the total population (up to 10 per cent). Since it is decentralized, this group does not form a party, but a mob. They join together in ad hoc, informal, and tacit demonstrations of their belief and destruction of those who do not agree, like a lynch mob or witch hunt.
- A…near-complete monopoly of control…of all means of effective armed combat. This one proves more complex: self-defense is justified only when defending an individual and its right to pursue its desires, but it is viewed as illegitimate in defense of anything at a level broader than the individual, such as civilization, culture, heritage, values, or faith. This gives the power for violence exclusively to egalitarians.
- A…near-complete monopoly of control…of all means of effective mass communication. When everyone who becomes popular agrees on the same ideas, and only those who exhibit these ideas become popular, then a de facto monopoly exists not just among media, but entertainment and academia as well.
- A system of…control…against arbitrarily selected classes of the population…systematically exploiting scientific psychology. I have removed the term “police” because any form of control will do, and this describes the “struggle sessions” that happen whenever someone accidentally says something that is not politically correct, and must have their career and interpersonal relationships destroyed by the threat of ostracism.
Viewed from this angle, totalitarianism ably adapts to a decentralized format. What is more, it represents the crossover between totalitarianism and a cult, combining the socializing-based nature of a cult with the control-based agenda of tyranny:
Some aspects of the mind control methods of cults are inherent to Leftism when it occurs in a social setting (excerpted partially):
- Isolation of the person and manipulation of his or her environment.
- Control of information going in and out of the group environment.
- Separation and/or alienation from family and friends.
- Induced dissociation and other altered states by putting person in mild form of trance (through speaking in tongues, chanting, repeating affirmations, extended periods of meditation or prayer, lengthy denunciation sessions, long hours of lectures or study, public trials or group humiliation, about seat criticisms focusing on one individual, sexual abuse, torture, etc.)
- Degradation of the person’s sense of self, through confession, self-reporting, rebuking, criticism and self-criticism, humiliation, and so on, in individual or group sessions.
- Peer and leadership pressure, especially using powerful guilt mechanisms.
- Induced anxiety, fear, and confusion, with joy and certainty being offered through surrender to the group; instilling the belief that the person’s survival physical, emotional, spiritual depends on remaining with the group; also induced crises, so that the person must submit to symbolic (or real) acts of submission to the group via betrayal and renunciation of self, family, and previously held values.
- Extensive indoctrination sessions (through Bible lessons, political training, sales training, self-awareness lessons, lectures by leaders).
- Alternation of harshness and leniency in a context of necessary discipline.
These describe complete methods of control, but distill to a few central methods of cults:
Psychiatrist ((((((Robert Jay Lifton)))))), who once taught at Harvard Medical School, wrote a paper titled Cult Formation in the early 1980s. He delineated three primary characteristics, which are the most common features shared by destructive cults.
- A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power. That is a living leader, who has no meaningful accountability and becomes the single most defining element of the group and its source of power and authority.
- A process [of indoctrination or education is in use that can be seen as] coercive persuasion or thought reform [commonly called “brainwashing”].
- Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.
In the decentralized totalitarian state, the charismatic leader is replaced by a series of behaviors which signal charisma and social success, such as wearing black sweaters and jeans to flaunt the rules or inserting obscenity into mundane conversation, which enables members of the crowd to become leaders in turn for their fifteen minutes of fame.
The crowd then enforces its process of indoctrination through trends and norms, encouraging conformity to the same values by using the same terms, whose meanings have been edited to make them suggest an obvious conclusion. Those who step out of line are excluded, and since connections and friend nepotism are how most people get ahead, to fail to conform is to fail.
Finally, the herd exploits itself. In the view of someone infected with ideology, all people and things are means to an end, which is achieving that ideological Utopia. This conflicts with the natural human impulse toward ends-over-means thinking, such as that which insists that there be good results in reality by any means necessary.
A feedback loop between the individualists and the tyrant thus arises. They depend on strong leadership to reduce life to a narrow set of options so that the individual need focus only on the social, therefore using ideology as a means of gaining acceptance and then achieving wealth and power within the system.
In this way, we see that individualism and tyranny are one and the same, much like individualism and collectivism/egalitarianism are one and the same, because they are designed by individuals to enable them to succeed. This occurs at the expense of social order, and creates a death spiral where society must become more totalitarian as it becomes more chaotic.
December 8, 2017
The worst nightmare of the kikes has finally come true: Christopher Cantwell has been released from the Charlottesville jail.
I just talked to him on the phone.
He’s in an undisclosed location on house arrest, and he was like “I’m not even allowed to take the goddamn garbage out” and I was like “but are you allowed on the porch?” and he was like “yeah bro, I’m on the fuckin porch right now.”
It’s inspired me to look-up how ankle bracelets actually work. Because I think it’s different than a shock collar. Even though I tend to think of them as the same thing.
He said the time he did was no big deal and nothing to bitch about.
He expects to get the whole shit in Virginia wrapped up and get home early next year.
And he’s getting back to his regular podcast ASAP.
For anyone who doesn’t know this: Cantwell has the most entertaining podcast in the entire right-wing podcastosphere.
You’re going to get the most hard-packed information on Fash the Nation and the most alt-philosophical insight from The Daily Shoah, but Cantwell is hands down the most fun to listen to.
The jail podcasts were my favorite podcasts of 2017 (at least tied with the Marantz Tapes).
His content also goes over surprisingly well with new people. Or it would maybe surprise you.
I’ve invited myself on Radical Agenda as soon as possible.
After a long period in society of women having unlimited personal freedom to pursue life as they wish, they have shown to consistently fail in making the right decisions that prevent their own harm and the harm of others. Systems must now be put in place where a woman’s behavior is monitored and her decisions subject to approval of a male relative or guardian who understands what’s in her best interests better than she does herself.
Women have had personal freedoms for less than a century. For the bulk of human history, their behavior was significantly controlled or subject to approval through mechanisms of tribe, family, church, law, or stiff cultural precepts. It was correctly assumed that a woman was unable to make moral, ethical, and wise decisions concerning her life and those around her. She was not allowed to study any trivial topic she wanted, sleep with any man who caught her fancy, or uproot herself and travel the world because she wanted to “find herself.”
You can see this level of control today in many Muslim countries, where expectations are placed on women from a young age to submit to men, reproduce (if biologically able), follow God’s word, and serve the good of society by employing her feminine nature instead of competing directly against men on the labor market due to penis envy or feelings of personal inferiority.
The reason that women had their behavior limited was for the simple reason that they are significantly less rational than men, in a way that impaired their ability to make good decisions concerning the future. This was eloquently described by German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in his important essay On Women. He described them as overgrown children, a comparison that any man who has dated more than a dozen of them can quickly agree to after having consistently witnessed their impulsive and illogical behavior firsthand.
Women are directly fitted for acting as the nurses and teachers of our early childhood by the fact that they are themselves childish, frivolous and short-sighted; in a word, they are big children all their life long—a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the full-grown man, who is man in the strict sense of the word. See how a girl will fondle a child for days together, dance with it and sing to it; and then think what a man, with the best will in the world, could do if he were put in her place.
…women remain children their whole life long; never seeing anything but what is quite close to them, cleaving to the present moment, taking appearance for reality, and preferring trifles to matters of the first importance.
That woman is by nature meant to obey may be seen by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of complete independence, immediately attaches herself to some man, by whom she allows herself to be guided and ruled. It is because she needs a lord and master.
When you give a female unlimited choice on which man to have sex with, what type of man does she choose? An exciting man who treats her poorly and does not care for her well-being.
When you give a female choice on what to study in university, what does she choose? An easy liberal arts major that costs over $50,000 and dooms her to a life of debt and sporadic employment.
When a female lacks any urgent demands upon her survival, what behavior does she pursue? Obsessively displaying her half-naked body on the internet, flirting with men solely for attention, becoming addicted to corporate-produced entertainment, and over-indulging in food until her body shape is barely human.
When you give a female choice on when to have kids, what does she do? After her fertility is well past its peak, and in a rushed panic that resembles the ten seconds before the ringing of the first school bell, she aims for limited reproductive success at an age that increases the likelihood she’ll pass on genetic defects to her child.
When you give a female choice of which political leader to vote into office, who do they vote for? The one who is more handsome and promises unsustainable freebies that accelerate the decline of her country.
When you give a female unwavering societal trust with the full backing of the state, what does she do? Falsely accuse a man of rape and violence out of revenge or just to have an excuse for the boyfriend who caught her cheating.
When you give a female choice on who to marry, what is the result? A 50% divorce rate, with the far majority of them (80%) initiated by women themselves.
While a woman is in no doubt possession of crafty intelligence that allows her to survive just as well as a man, mostly through the use of her sexuality and wiles, she is a slave to the present moment and therefore unable to make decisions that benefit her future and those of the society she’s a part of. Once you give a woman personal freedom, like we have in the Western world, she enslaves herself to one of numerous vices and undertakes a rampage of destruction to her body and those who want to be a meaningful part of her life.
A man does not need to look further than the women he knows, including those in his family, to see that the more freedom a woman was given, the worse off she is, while the woman who was under the heavy hand of the church or male relative comes out far better on the other side, in spite of her rumblings that she wants to be as free as her liberated friends, who eagerly and regularly post soft porn photos of themselves on social networking and dating sites while selecting random anonymous men for fornication every other weekend.
Men, on average, make better decisions than women. If you take this to be true, which should be no harder to accept than the claim that lemons are sour, why is a woman allowed to make decisions at all without first getting approval from a man who is more rational and levelheaded than she is? It not only hurts the woman making decisions concerning her life, but it also hurts any man who will associate with her in the future. You only need to ask the many suffering husbands today on how they are dealing with a wife who entered the marriage with a student loan debt in the high five figures from studying sociology and how her wildly promiscuous sexual history impairs her ability to remain a dedicated mother, with one foot already out the door after he makes a reasonable demand that is essential for a stable home and strong family.
I propose two different options for protecting women from their obviously deficient decision making. The first is to have a designated male guardian give approval on all decisions that affect her well-being. Such a guardian should be her father by default, but in the case a father is absent, another male relative can be appointed or she can be assigned one by charity organizations who groom men for this purpose, in a sort of Boy’s Club for women.
She must seek approval by her guardian concerning diet, education, boyfriends, travel, friends, entertainment, exercise regime, marriage, and appearance, including choice of clothing. A woman must get a green light from her guardian before having sex with any man, before wearing a certain outfit, before coloring her hair green, and before going to a Spanish island for the summer with her female friends.
If she disobeys her guardian, an escalating series of punishments would be served to her, culminating in full-time supervision by him. Once the woman is married, her husband will gradually take over guardian duties, and strictly monitor his wife’s behavior and use all reasonable means to keep it in control so that family needs are met first and foremost, as you already see today in most Islamic societies. Any possible monetary proceeds she would get from divorce would be limited so that she has more incentive to keep her husband happy and pleased than to throw him under the bus for the most trivial of reasons that stem from her persistent and innate need to make bad decisions.
A second option for monitoring women is a combination of rigid cultural rules and sex-specific laws. Women would not be able to attend university unless the societal need is urgent where an able-minded man could not be found to fill the specific position. Women would not be able to visit establishments that serve alcohol without a man present to supervise her consumption. Parental control software on electronic devices would be modified for women to control and monitor the information they consume. Credit card and banking accounts must have a male co-signer who can monitor her spending. Curfews for female drivers must be enacted so that women are home by a reasonable hour. Abortion for women of all ages must be signed off by her guardian, in addition to prescriptions for birth control.
While my proposals are undoubtedly extreme on the surface and hard to imagine implementing, the alternative of a rapidly progressing cultural decline that we are currently experiencing will end up entailing an even more extreme outcome. Women are scratching their most hedonistic and animalistic urges to mindlessly pursue entertainment, money, socialist education, and promiscuous behavior that only satisfies their present need to debase themselves and feel fleeting pleasure, at a heavy cost for society.
Allowing women unlimited personal freedom has so affected birth rates in the West that the elite insists on now allowing importation of millions of third world immigrants from democratically-challenged nations that threaten the survival of the West. In other words, giving women unbridled choice to pursue their momentary whims instead of investing in traditional family ideals and reproduction is a contributing factor to what may end up being the complete collapse of those nations that have allowed women to do as they please.
I make these sincere recommendations not out of anger, but under the firm belief that the lives of my female relatives would certainly be better tomorrow if they were required to get my approval before making any decisions. They would not like it, surely, but due to the fact that I’m male and they’re not, my analytical decision-making faculty is superior to theirs to absolutely no fault of their own, meaning that their most sincere attempts to make good decisions will have a failure rate larger than if I was able to make those decisions for them, especially with intentions that are fully backed with compassion and love for them to have more satisfying lives than they do now.
As long as we continue to treat women as equals to men, a biological absurdity that will one day be the butt of many jokes for comedians of the future, women will continue to make horrible decisions that hurt themselves, their families, and their reproductive potential. Unless we take action soon to reconsider the freedoms that women now have, the very survival of Western civilization is at stake.
Since I was a little boy, I was taught that freedom was a quality that made America great, allowing us to say what we want and live life how we want. The merits of freedom were never up for debate, especially since the dark days of American slavery made it clear that any kind of bondage, actual or figurative, is the incarnation of evil itself. Now that I’m older and have been able to witness human beings living with their freedom, I’ve come to the conclusion that complete freedom is not a natural human state, and giving it to individuals is more harmful than not.
I examined this problem by asking myself the following: what do human beings typically do once given absolute personal freedom? I first looked at the behavior of people in America, since culturally they have the most freedoms out of any other world citizen to pursue whatever lifestyle they want.
Most Americans, if you give them freedom and a life without restrictions, will almost certainly dive head-first into a life of absolute degeneracy and vice. They will pursue fleeting pleasures of the body, including alcohol use, drug abuse, and casual sex. They will make colossal mistakes with their education that put them into debt for life. They will seek out fame, attention, and validation instead of developing genuine skill or competency. They will permanently disfigure their bodies with tattoos and ear gauges. They will experiment with homosexuality or an artificially invented gender identity. They will overindulge in food and mindless entertainment. They will not educate themselves unless there is a bag of money at the end of their efforts. They will lie, cheat, and rationalize the hurting of others. The more freedom you give to the average person, the more they will harm not only themselves but others whom they come across.
I don’t have to look farther than myself to see how damaging freedom can be. Left to my own devices without expert guidance, I picked the incorrect major in college, leading to ten years of wasted time in the field of microbiology. I pursued sexual vice for over a decade that was fun and exciting only for the moment, and which has left me with no more than a handful of meaningful human connections and memories that produce just as much lamentation as happiness. And I strained existing relations with my family and friends to nearly lose myself in third-world countries when I thought that I would “find myself” instead.
It’s worth stating that I do have at least an average amount of self control when compared to my American peers. I don’t abuse alcohol and drugs. I exercise regularly. I don’t overeat or indulge in much entertainment. I am strict when it comes to working and reading daily. Yet in spite of that, too much freedom has hurt me greatly.
Giving a human being freedom simply gives them the ability to choose one of many available and willing slave masters, but even worse than an actual slave who has chains clamped on his wrists, the modern human seeks out chains for both his mind and body. What happens if you give a woman freedom? She enslaves herself to her feelings. She enslaves herself to entertainment, attention from men, alcohol, food, crushing student loans that she can’t possibly pay back, material possessions, and money. What happens when you give a man freedom? He enslaves himself to sex, corporate products, video games, to his own mirror image.
The actions of an American today seem free on the surface, in the sense that a person is allowed to leave their apartment at any time to do whatever legal act they wish, but those actions are pre-destined to cater to the unquenchable desires of their preferred form of slavery. They are driven every day by what they have voluntarily enslaved themselves to.
Not everyone responds to having freedom in the same way. One man will use his freedom to help his family, his tribe, and even society. He will use his time wisely to develop his mind, to study, and even to improve the world by chipping at his corrupt state. Another man, however, if you give him freedom, will not act in the same way if he possesses no innate defense to resist bodily pleasures, marketing messages, and cheap foodstuffs. He ends up serving others and harming himself or those close to him.
Some of you reading right now would be better off being required to follow established rules, traditional or heuristic, when it comes to how you live so that you reach your potential and keep yourself out from harms way, at least until you are able to build the high wall defenses in your mind to being enslaved. I would have personally benefited from such rules, or at least a hands-on mentorship, as recently as my late twenties. While humans must make mistakes to learn, build confidence, and find their own path, it is needless to let people travel so far in the wrong direction that they either don’t have the ability to return or are irreparably damaged by their grotesque experimentation.
I’m currently living in a country that has changed greatly over the past twenty years from the days of communist repression when freedoms were limited to now nearly unlimited personal freedom for people to look, act, live, and behave in any way they want. I can see firsthand how this freedom has merely transformed citizens from being enslaved to the government to being enslaved to alcohol, vulgar sexual vices, Hollywood-style entertainment, and corporations selling them shiny products, all while enabling them to adopt lifestyles that will cause long-term harm to themselves and to their society.
Most humans are not capable of wisely using their freedom, and so they must be restrained and managed by rules or by those who know what’s best for that individual more than the individual himself. In the past this restraint took place with those who had a sincere investment in the person’s well-belling, such as the family, the tribe, the village, and the local church, but these restraints are long gone, released in the cultural chaos of the post-Enlightenment world. With a general trend of increasing personal freedom around the planet, the only logical result is a steadfast mental and behavioral decline of humanity. Unless people are limited in the personal decisions they’re able to make, they will continue to hurt themselves and others.