Archive for September 2023

Yes, they DO change your DNA

And it’s not like we didn’t know this YEARS before covid. In fact, I recall an online conversation with a guy that explained way back in 2018 I think, that the way to really get rid of all the Europeans was precisely to use the kind of genetic modification serum that was passed off as a “vaccine” for COVID. This was not a virologist or doctor. Just a guy with above average IQ who took an interest and read various medical papers for fun and shared his thoughts with a group of online friends I belonged to. So, contrary to the Scott Adams of this world, it was absolutely clear and possible to know what the vaxx would do to you long before anyone took it.

Aside from all that, there is also the graphite and other bugs, of course.

McKernan, who has 25 years’ experience in his field, ran the experiment again, confirming that the vials contained up to, in his opinion, 18-70 times more DNA contamination than the legal limits allowed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).In particular, McKernan was alarmed to find the presence of an SV40 promoter in the Pfizer vaccine vials. This is a sequence that is, ‘…used to drive DNA into the nucleus, especially in gene therapies,’ McKernan explains. This is something that regulatory agencies around the world have specifically said is not possible with the mRNA vaccines.Knowing that the contamination had not been disclosed by the manufacturers during the regulatory process, McKernan raised the alarm, posting his findings to Twitter (now X) and Substack with a call-out to other scientists to see if they could replicate his findings.Other scientists soon confirmed McKernan’s findings, though the amount of DNA contamination was variable, suggesting inconsistency of vial contents depending on batch lots. One of these scientists was cancer genomics expert Dr Phillip Buckhaults, who is a proponent of the mRNA platform and has received the Pfizer Covid vaccine himself.In September of this year, Dr Buckhaults shared his findings in South Carolina Senate hearing. ‘I’m kind of alarmed about this DNA being in the vaccine – it’s different from RNA, because it can be permanent,’ he told those present.‘There is a very real hazard,’ he said, that the contaminant DNA fragments will integrate with a person’s genome and become a ‘permanent fixture of the cell’ leading to autoimmune problems and cancers in some people who have had the vaccinations. He also noted that these genome changes can ‘last for generations’.

Read the whole thing.

A few of the previously fooled or sleeping doctors are awakening with a rude shock.

Takayuki Miyazawa is a professor and virologist at Kyoto University.
He is a pro-vaccine advocate, and has been pushing operations to reduce the transmission of coronavirus.
But he finally realized that the coronavirus was artificially created and that the governments had been taken over by evil people.

And let’s not talk of the turbo-cancers…

The Disordered Woman

Over the last few days (and years and years) I have posted various things highlighting several of the very disordered aspects of modern society. I have specifically focussed in various ways on relationships between men and women, and how these are affected by so much of the surrounding nonsense.

I have often pointed out the Satanic nature of feminism (literally, it has purely Satanic roots at all levels, no matter how seductive the initial presentation is), which, of course, upsets feminists, and may rub many women the wrong way even if they are not avowed feminists.

The measure of discomfort a woman feels on reading that feminism is a net evil in the world is directly proportional to her lack of understanding of what it means to be a woman in reality, nature and as God intended.

And if that last sentence makes you even more upset, well, it’s unlikely you will have the mental fortitude to read the rest of this post, or ever learn anything useful about correcting the ills of the world, starting with yourself, as we all must.

In fairness to women, and as I have pretty much always stated, the fault of their disordered attitudes to life, lies in great part with men. That said, however, unless women want to be thought of, treated as, and in fact be, the human equivalent of cattle without any agency whatsoever, they need to take at least some responsibility. Incidentally, I advise they do. A vast majority of men would be perfectly happy to assume women have no more agency than ruminants, but I don’t think that’s the way forward.

So, then, according to me, and a lot of thoughtful men, what is it that women are getting so wrong and should make an effort to improve?

Settle down and let me mansplain it to you. Feel free to imagine me manspreading with a cowboy hat on and a redneck accent if it helps. Hell, if it helps go ahead and really fire up your imaginations and try and imagine me with a mullet and a cigarette. Whatever works ladies, whatever works!

The pivotal error most women have been trained to do, is to stop being women. To stop being feminine, and girly, and pretty, and pleasant, and polite, and dignified, and well-dressed. Yes, in effect I am saying that the pivotal error is that they are failing to act, be and enjoy being, like a prim and proper lady straight out of a 1950’s fiction about what the future would have been like.

Allow me to present to you some imagery that may help inspire you a little to at least understand what I mean. Try and grasp the sense of what the woman in these images feels like and how she feels about herself and her place in the world. Imagine it as something eminently positive even if you have been hypnotised to believe the opposite. Imagine their smiles, whether in drawings or photographs are genuine and happy, not posed or faked. Genuinely try to grasp the sense of this, and, if you like, imagine too, what the men in their lives are and should be like for them to genuinely be that happy and content and internally free.

And in case you think those images are too “dated” for your sense of modern style, then allow me to further help you “update” them in modernistic fashion as envisioned back then too.

You see, you can transpose the imagery, you can change the setting, you can manipulate the exterior and the style, but it is the inner sense of things which is the key.

What no man wants is this:

Or God-forbid, this:

In fact, almost all men, certainly all sane, well-balanced, normal ones, being confronted with this in their home,

Will gladly and regularly put up with this:

which, by the way, is pretty normal and natural for a woman to have and be like. And occasionally, when we deserve it, and as we are humans, we all do at times, even this:

ESPECIALLY, if it is presented in this very feminine fashion, which is indirectly and sweetly, VERY direct.

Now, to the squeals of the beached whales complaining, my ears are deaf, but to those perspicacious females that noted the question above as to what the man in their life should look like and act like for them to be happy to be as mentioned above, again, perhaps some inspirational imagery is in order.

And again, the images above reflecting men, are not supposed to “inspire” a bunch of metrosexuals to take on the airs of such imagery as boxers, mountaineers, soldiers, and random adventurers so as to impress women. The whole point of such men is that they do what they do because they want to. The impressing or not of others is inconsequential to them.

And while the entrenched feminist will continue to squeal like a poked pig that such patriarchal oppression is endemic of rape-culture and toxic masculinity and blah, blah, blah, who cares… it will be essentially because deep down in their core, like the hole at the centre of the Gamma male’s soul, entrenched feminists have a similar eternal void of self, and deep, deep down know they will never be able to snag, keep and be loved truly by such a man. So, just like the gamma male, they rage. And their rage tries to burn down all men, all pretty, feminine women and all nuclear families.

But every woman who has not yet succumbed to totalitarian feminism, deep down, knows she would love to be with such a stereotypical manly man. Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. And truly, actual manly men, are happy to treat their wives as their princesses as long as they in turn treat them as their kings. It is a mutual admiration society founded in genuine care for the other above our own concerns.

That is not to say the manly man will not screw up from time to time. Or that the feminine woman will not. Humans ALL screw up. But that is not reason enough to give up on them. God didn’t. Jesus let himself be scoured, spat upon and nailed to a cross while wholly innocent in order not to give up on us. So… be kind to each other.

And as we are only human, and not like Jesus, it is perfectly acceptable to completely avoid feminists, not engage with them, not have sex with them, and most certainly not marry or have children with them. And it is equally perfectly acceptable for women to similarly avoid “male” metrosexual “feminist-allies”, and their spineless, manipulative, weak, PUA ways.

What no woman wants, in keeping with the imagery above for what men do not want, is the gamma male:

Ultimately, cliched as it is, the natural order of things is probably most expressed by Tarzan and Jane.

And the 1981 version of the film with Bo Derek as Jane remains one of the better versions. If memory serves, the point where Tarzan meets Jane and sniffs her is very well done. I think it was the 1981 film version, but it’s possible it may have been the 1999 version with Christopher Lambert as Tarzan.

The man being a quasi savage is fine. Dealing with the world, especially if one understands the reality of things, often resembles something not unlike a fight with wild animals (with apologies to all wild animals who do not deserve to be compared to the parasitic classes of human bureaucrats that infest our lives today), but it is the very femininity of his woman that softens his ways with her, and it is his caring and protective masculine efforts that give her that peaceful sense of security that no matter how crazy the world gets, he will take care of her.

Today’s world has made the acting as a man almost illegal. And the acting as a woman something to be disparaged and ridiculed. The effect is most noticeable on women, as they are far more social animals than men are. But the results are destructive and create profound unhappiness in women above all. Quoting various scientific studies is near useless given that overall so-called peer reviewed studies are fake and irreproducible by over 50% of cases, however, you can find some with actual methodology that is explained (if not verified).

Here is an interesting graph that measures overall self-reported happiness (of both men and women) against perceived freedom. From this site.

The interesting thing to note, if you search a bit and try to get a general sense of all these studies, is that general happiness took a dive for everybody starting around 1990, although the trend had been downward already. What happened in 1990? Well, political correctness really started up quite prominently and feminism began its ascendance on steroids.

The world has made it quite difficult for a man to single handedly go and work and provide for a numerous family of a wife and several children.

And equally difficult for a woman to be a home-maker and housewife without being criticised by her (less happy) “peers” for being a spineless doormat, subjugated to the always evil and perverted desires of her male oppressor (aka husband).

The answer needs to be in a certain evolutionary step women need to take and it needs to be a step they understand and choose for themselves.

Just like men had to learn to somewhat curb their temperament. Because challenging a rude waiter, or a slow one, to a death duel with your sixgun or samurai sword apparently is “rude”. And then they went completely overboard correcting in the other direction and outright banning the challenge to a duel as being all “illegal” and “murder-y”, go figure.

Well, anyway, women need to now make the evolutionary step that realises that the opinions of other women, especially, but other people, in general, are pointless to worry about or lose sleep over. My post on who your critics most often are, is as valid for women as it is for men. Perhaps even more so (with respect to the who).

If it is rare for an efficient and capable man to be your avowed critic (unless you in fact are, mostly an oxygen thief) when it comes to women, even if they are efficient and capable, they are generally worse than men at gaslighting each other as well as critiquing you unfairly or wholly based on their own failings (usually not to your face though). So in that respect at least, the advice given in that post, is valid for women too.

Biologically, it is objectively harder for a woman to be objective than a man. That is just a fact of nature, and trying to deny it is pointless and counter-productive. Because hormones are real and a thing. Nevertheless, assuming that because of it rationality and good logic are therefore impossible, is a lie. Just as men had to evolve to not let their own hormonally driven instincts direct their actions, so now women need to learn the same lesson.

And remember, always, always, always:

Women are not the enemy. Men are not the enemy. The lies and the liars who speak them are the enemy. And you should give them no quarter and no mercy. Expose them, reject them, and have nothing to do with them.

Safeguard the roles nature intended for us and learn them anew if you must (as most of us have to), supporting each other as you do so and learn together. There is no human unit, group, or community, more important, more necessary, more valid, than the nuclear family composed of one man, one woman and their children. All the rest is shadows and lies and meaningless details in the face of that truth.

So come together and know: You have been lied to. Rediscover. Rebuild. Learn. Marry, for life, make children, and reject the world’s lies and fake “rewards”.

Is it easy? No. Of course not. Your own family, especially if you had boomer parents, is probably riddled with divorce, lack of funds, and dysfunctionality at a core level. That’s the reality. So YOU be the start.

You’re like a rootless couple of shipwrecks on a hostile alien planet. You need to first of all get together, realise you need to make your partnership, your marriage, be the core of everything. Without that, you will not survive. Then do all the things that need doing so your children will be able to start off their lives in a tradition that is worthwhile, healthy and gives them the chance to create a solid footing for their own children.

Make that future bright and real, no matter what difficulties you need to face.

Vintage illustration of a futuristic American family on vacation, with the father driving his wife and two kids in a flying saucer instead of a car, 1950s. (Illustration by GraphicaArtis/Getty Images)

And ignore the human wreckage and misshapen mutants that try and tell you you’re wrong, a racist, some kind of supremacist this or that, a hater, an evil, evil, EEEEBIL (yes with a B) toxic male or spineless female.

They, after all, are evolutionary dead ends. The blind frogs that can’t swim that nature experiments with by the thousands just to have them die off in a genetic cul-de-sac.

Forge ahead and take a picture of the freaks, so you can leave a warning in your photo-album for your grandkids.

The Gamma Paradox

Vox Day’s Socio-Sexual Hierarchy nomenclature receives plenty of criticism from some people, and much praise from others. The split itself is telling. Those men who have observable patterns of behaviour most associated with being Gammas reject or try to redefine the entire hierarchy to somehow position themselves as the real “tops”, which is why Vox refers to them also as Secret Kings.

A recent comment on my own post about rapey idiots in glass houses expresses what many normal (Delta) Type men believe:

These famous rich guys who drug women like Bill Cosby and this Danny Masterson must be particularly depraved because being rich and famous they could surely get women without doing so.

This idea shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the inner world of the Gamma and what drives them, in the context of being rapists or at a minimum creeps. I have observed their behaviour for years, with the same kind of disgusted fascination one might observe some parasite burrowing under an innocent’s skin.

The behaviour first became more prevalent and obvious on the internet in the mid 1990s, where frustrated men in alt-dot forums expressed a vitriolic hatred bordering on the psychotic towards any form of female rejection they experienced. Then I saw it in the flesh too and mostly it got told to me by pretty much almost all the women I was with in my life.

At first I though the behaviour of rage, when rejected, must apply to only a small percentage of unbalanced losers, but as I was told the same type of stories, by woman after woman after woman, and indeed saw it with my own eyes at times when a girl I was seeing was being hit on by some guy who usually was unaware she was with me in the specific context. As soon as she made it clear she was with me and therefore not available for his advances, some of these guys went into an obvious instant red-hot hatred. Because I look like I do, they usually just left, very occasionally making some sarcastic jab before slinking quickly away. On some occasions I even got an after-event report. One girl I was seeing for a time was a student at university and we had very much an on-off relationship. She was very pretty and was always surrounded by hangers on that thought they might eventually get with her if they just kept being in her orbit. One guy in particular went overboard with the “friends” cover. Whenever this girl and I were not seeing each other for a couple of days he would go over and try and “keep her company”. All of it was non-sexual “let’s watch a film together” or whatever, but his intent was obvious to me and I think to her too, though we didn’t really discuss it, because frankly, he was a non-entity and there was no chance she would do anything with him. It had not anything to do with looks or money either. He was just that sort of milque-toasty guy that really no woman wants to be with by choice.

Anyway, during one of these “pauses” in our relationship she later told me the guy was at her place for two days straight, during which she bitched to him about me and my uncompromising ways. She was marinated in British Feminist theory, and I simply have never had anything to do with it, nor ever accepted any of their absurd ideology. Her feminist theory invariably failed when confronted with her natural instincts concerning me and she would inevitably return to me with some very intimate ways to “make up”. Over time she would try to get me to bend to some insane feminist idea and I would once more simply reject it. Anyway, after her bitching about this for two days to this guy and his enthusiastically agreeing with her, and finally beginning to think this was his way to finally get with her, I believe, from memory that she recounted to me how her conversation went in the final stages. She had just said that I was impossible and drove her crazy with how I just made arguments she couldn’t really counter and it pissed her off and she “hated” me for it. He nodded and said something along the lines of “yeah, he sounds terrible, you should forget about him.”

To which she replied: “Yes, he’s terrible, makes me so mad… And yet… I can’t do without him. I’m going to go over to him now and be completely on his cock.”

And she did. Now, in that case, I can see the guy being frustrated, in his mind he had been sidling up to her like a proper gentleman of the woke variety, and was agreeing with her all the time and was obviously the “better” man, what with being all woke and pro-whatever feminist crap she spouted, and he affirmed and supported all her patriarchal suffering, or whatever, and then, she promptly announces that she’s off to do the very things he desperately was hoping to get from her with me.

You can see how he’d be upset. But the reality is he was more than just dejected. He was furious. Luckily he did not react physically against her, but the next time I saw him several days later, you could tell he had a murderous rage all about him towards me and her too. He never spoke to her again, as far as I know, which was just as well.

Now, in the above case you can sort of sympathise with the guy a little (not about the rage) at least everyone has felt a little sad or frustrated at being rejected by someone they really liked. But in my case, really that is as far as it has ever gone. Ultimately, if a person genuinely has no attraction for you, how can you get angry at them for that? The idea is just absurd to me. It has never computed and never will.

The reason I recounted that chapter of my life was to try and give you some insight into the fundamental difference of internal mechanism that a Gamma has from other archetypes.

The difference is in the internal world of the Gamma from that of a Delta or an Alpha or a Sigma.

The Alpha may actually get quite stung at rejection, especially if it is public and from a high status woman. His ego and need to be seen as the Alpha may in fact also cause him to be quite caustic or dismissive, but if so it will be generally only in the moment and temporarily. After all, no real Alpha wants to be seen as a pitiful shadow of a man that is pining after some woman. Besides, there are usually several waiting in the wings for him, happy to heal his broken heart. In the Alpha mind, getting angry at rejection from a woman is essentially below his dignity and status to do. He may privately be quite hurt, but rage, even to himself, goes against his nature, which is essentially generous and expectant of plentifulness (be it women, business, fame, and so on). The Alpha is a reacher for things, including women, but usually not a desperate grabber in the normal course of affairs.

The Delta is more of a balanced individual and generally will take rejection on the chin, be hurt, then move on with his life and try and find peace where he can. These are the majority of well balanced men.

The Sigma is a special case and may not care at all about the rejection, or be a freak on which the rejection is really the least of his concerns. Keep in mind that both James Bond as well a the character in the series Hannibal are Sigmas. These are not people who follow normal social conventions, but precisely because of that, their internal world, strange as it may be, is founded on a solid bedrock of self-reliance and hence self-knowledge. While they might be professional killers for hire, they are probably unlikely to get angry at a woman for rejecting them. A case in point from fiction may be Dexter. He killed bad guys with abandon, but was always a loyal boyfriend to the women he was with, and took their rejections or bad behaviours with calm resignation.

The Gamma however has wholly different internal mechanisms and they end up being the really creepy and dangerous ones, even if they present as easy-going, liberal, modern metrosexual men in touch with their feminine side. In almost diametric opposition to Sigmas, the Gamma has a profound (and un-admitted) lack of self-confidence. This is a root cause in their very core and they try to cover up that existential hole in their soul with all manner of fakery. Be it money, status, recognition by the masses for their achievements (real or most often imagined or “manufactured”), it is never enough to really fill that essential lack of self-truth.

A Gamma can be a billionaire (see Bezos) and still behave in a completely creepy/loser/gamma way with women. It is true that an Alpha or a Sigma or even a Delta, that is really a millionaire or billionaire can have his pick of women willing to be his sexual partners, and many of those women, initially attracted by the power, wealth and status, may even end up having genuine feelings for the man in question, but there is a core difference in the dynamics with a Gamma.

The billionaire alpha, sigma or even delta, may be perfectly aware of the sexual liaison with women being purely transactional. Their temporary thrill at being on a private jet, or even just seen with the billionaire in question, is enough for them to permit sex between them. The Delta will eventually be a bit sad at such an arrangement and over time get disillusioned with this woman or perhaps even women in general if the pattern repeats. An Alpha may even prefer the situation to be transactional and be fine with it and get a new “performer” once he bores with the first one, or have multiple ones in play or make a proper business contract out of a “marriage”. A Sigma may do the same or become a pimp, or a celibate monk by choice. But a Gamma will simply think that his material wealth gives him the right and the authority to do what he imagines Alphas do or get away with doing. And this is the tragic error.

An Alpha, whether a billionaire or homeless, will have a woman act towards him intimately because she wants to. Because the man’s internal sense of self is strong and she responds to that, ultimately, aside from his exterior, worldly, if you like, trappings. I have personally known (in my hedonistic days) beautiful women, married to extremely wealthy men, who, nevertheless would get naked and have sex with a man that had no money to speak of, but a sense of self that was of a different order from their husbands. This type of effect cannot be bought. The effect it has on women cannot be replicated nor faked very effectively even by the women themselves. So, what happens when a Gamma has reached some perceived pinnacle of power, wealth, fame or combination thereof, in his abysmal understanding of the female mind and heart, he thinks he is now “entitled” to the female attention that he imagines Alphas and Sigmas get (and in fact do get). When, to his utter shock and horror women continue to dodge him like radioactive plague, his natural emotion is rage. In his broken understanding of “life” he is rich, he is successful, he is famous, EVERY woman OWES him sex at will. HIS will. And if they don’t give it of their own volition, why, they must be defective, and/or it doesn’t matter, because in the Gamma’s mind Alphas just take what they want anyway and the women always go along with it.

And this is how you get the Danny Masterson of the world, the Bill Cosbys and all the other wealthy and powerful executives that end up getting caught groping angrily at unwilling secretaries and colleagues. So, no, the money is not enough. The fame is not enough. The status is not enough. And gammas simply will never get that.

Because all it takes is what in Italian is commonly referred to as “balls”.

And like real courage, real, intimate self-knowledge can’t be faked. And women can sense it.

A Net Good

One of the principal reasons I have been a misanthrope from an early age is because of the hypocrisy and stupidity of the average human.

As I have recently posted concerning your potential critics being usually drug-addled alcoholics with dysfunctional children trying to tell you how to parent or live your life, and how supposed gurus of sexuality and relationships tend to be involuntary celibate, socially inept desperates, I wanted, as is normally the case, to also try and give some hope and inspiration.

I don’t know who needs to know this or indeed if anyone will actually investigate this deeply enough that it becomes a factor in their life, but I know many people have done so, as a direct result of things I have written, and they inform me periodically about how much healthier and happier their life is as a result.

Any regular readers should already be aware of the fact that I have presented in depth how a properly Catholic people not only have created the best civilisation ever recorded in human history, but how I believe they will do so again.

I was baptised on May 25th 2017, so not long ago in the scheme of things, although, in my life, one should probably measure things in dog years, since in the intervening six and a half years I changed job at least 4 times, moved home 3 times, got married in Church, had three children, bought a small farm, moved country, and started the makings of a small Catholic community. The first person to purchase property near me and join those efforts is currently signing on his house purchase contract in the next couple of days.

Despite all that movement and associated turbulence, the reality is that I have been practically helped by other Catholics (all sedevacantists as my family is) to a degree that I have never had before in my life by any group of people or individuals.

The main issue between me and other humans has never been one related to intelligence. Yes, the disparity is a thing, and yes the IQ communication gap is very real and has real effects on your life, mostly negative at an interpersonal level, but IQ per se has never been a factor in my friendships. One of the most loyal and honest people I ever met, a young Motswana I worked with for a few years, was (and remains) incapable of grasping the concept of square metres. Yet I would trust him with a million dollars in cash or taking care of one of my children long before I would do so with almost any of the Europeans I worked with since.

No, the deciding factor has never been IQ, culture (insofar as it does not apply to the real reason), race or much of anything else. The main, pivotal, key factor is the dishonesty.

Hypocrisy is the worst form of dishonesty as far as I am concerned. And the level of it in most humans surpasses my tolerance for it, which is, admittedly, very low. When you add stupidity to hypocrisy, well… let’s just say that my tolerance drops to a frosty 0 degrees Kelvin.

Catholicism, the real one only continued presently by Sedevacantists, is, undoubtedly a net good. It produces strong and helpful communities of people that you can rely on and that rely on you. It produces healthy, balanced, happy children, and couples that correctly understand the nuclear family dynamics for the good of not just themselves or their children, but for the entire family.

But even if you are not Catholic, consider: what is the level of hypocrisy in your own life?

In the life of your supposed friends or relatives?

Who do you most get on with? What is their level of hypocrisy?

If you are like me, the key factor that makes other people creatures you simply do not enjoy the company of, is, and always will be, hypocrisy.

And for those too lazy to google it:

But for me, the absolute definition is a fourth one:

Applying, or trying to apply, or impose, rules, laws, judgements or behaviours on others that you avoid and do not comply with yourself.

You can see why, if that is your key philosophy concerning how you value other humans, entire classes of people are almost instantly excluded from consideration:

Politicians, most so-called law enforcement, all heretical, apostate, fake “clergy”, any kind of “woke” person, since their ideology is inherently hypocritical, and so on and on.

So, while the habitual drunk that smokes dope daily right next to their small child with soiled nappies, obviously become a complete nullity with zero value in your life whatsoever, there are also less obvious results.

For example, people that are stereotypically considered “bad guys” can in fact be more honest and less hypocritical than the stereotypically “good guys”.

Who would you trust more, after all, one of the bought and paid for supposedly professional doctors that pushed hard to inject your child with a genetic serum that in the BEST of cases was demonstrated for the previous 30 years to eventually result in an autoimmune disorder that becomes fatal in all animal testing, and that it is now also demonstrated in various batches contained graphite, HIV virii, and other nefarious substances, OR, a bank robber that for all his criminal activity has a code that he will never hurt women or children?

It is not always immediately obvious where anyone’s lines of behaviour are, but once you are able to figure out their level of hypocrisy, everything suddenly clarifies a great deal.

In my experience for example, I have always found that people that work primarily with their hands, as a general rule, are more honest and less hypocritical than most white collar workers.

Be they farmers, metal workers, soldiers, are they rougher? Sure. Are they less polite? Absolutely. Are there more liable to try and punch you in the face if you piss them off? Yes.

And most people stop there and see no further.

So, try to see the net good from a perspective of the absence of hypocrisy.

But are they also more fundamentally honest than the soft-handed white collar workers you exchange pleasantries on a daily basis at the office? In my experience, also yes.

Definition of Woke

Thanks to Adam who sent it over.

As someone else described this:

“bloodymonarch delivered a verbal double-tap to OP’s head with a logic shotgun.”

All content of this web-site is copyrighted by G. Filotto 2009 to present day.
Website maintained by IT monks