One of the few forms of contemporary entertainment even worth my time these days is anime. As Vee has been documenting, the Left are now trying to topple it, as it's one of the very few remaining dominoes.

I remember when they came for the NFL, and it was all about: "The athletes, they are getting hurt! We need to put our trust and safety HR people in place to save them!" Two minutes later there was "Stop Racism" text on the field, every team had rainbows on their websites, the players had "social justice" cleats, the league was donating money to the domestic terrorist organization "BLM", meanwhile the whole concussions "current thing" disappeared instantly because it had served its purpose.

With corporations, they said: "We need to make sure all of our employees feel included!" Two minutes later they fired anyone who disagreed with their politics, and put in hiring plus promotion policies which openly started replacing all of the men and white people with "oppressed minorities".

Now with anime, they are saying: "We care about the children! Anyone who likes beautiful anime characters is a pedophile!" This is the same Left which encourages children to attend so-called "pride" parades with dildo sippy cups, where men dressed only in thongs bend over and whip each other; which encourages children to go to gay strip clubs and tip the "performers"; which encourages children to go to libraries so "drag queens" can expose their junk to the kids.

The Left doesn't care about NFL players getting hurt, it doesn't care about people "feeling included", and it sure as heck doesn't care about pedophiles or kids getting sexualized: it cares about taking control. And it will use whatever concern trolling rhetoric it needs to, depending on the situation and the nature of the institution, to trick gullible normies into handing over the keys.


Sharia Law

I thought this clip was interesting. Indeed, the goal of Sharia Law as I understand it is for it to be spread and applied everywhere. It's a form of Fascism, where I define Fascism as "the values of the nation should be enshrined as laws, and enforced by the State". In the Muslim's case, things such as apostasy and blasphemy are punishable by death.

The Christian convert is correct: Jesus showed up and replaced the Old Covenant, whereas Islam never had that moment. Of course, they both agree and are correct in concluding that the Western secular liberal Democratic order is not friendly to Islam; how many bombs have been dropped on the Middle East, plus the fact that Israel runs the entire Western global order.

I think both sides can agree that pluralism is not the correct choice for producing coherent, happy, productive societies: Christians should have their countries, and Muslims should as well. Segregation is a good idea, I think, not a negative one. The only conflict which ever gets introduced regarding it is when someone at the top forces two groups together-- then the people saying "we are incompatible, let's split" get demonized by the Jews in charge.


Categorizing the Jews

Speaking of them, I've noticed that they seem to have three main sub-groups:

1. The Orthodox: These are the dudes with the long beards, who preach Talmudic concepts like goyim, and how there are two separate sets of moral rules for how you can treat a Jew versus a goy non-Jew.


2. The Bolshevists: These are the atheist academic types, like those who created the Frankfurt School, the ones who run the Fed, the ones in parliaments, or the ones who wind up running the newspapers and media companies.


3. The Normies: Your run-of-the-mill people who just happen to be a Jews. They may visit the synagogue once in a while, but aren't particularly religious and don't think too deeply about things.

The second group is the meddling one constantly trying to take over the world, then subsequently getting their entire Jewish racial group kicked out of country after country. They are hardcore atheists, but use the Talmud and teachings of the first group as a means of convincing the third group, plus the goy, that there is a fulfillment of divine prophecy justifying the Bolshevist's actions.

They don't actually believe the concept of "prophecy" and sure as heck don't think God exists, but use theology as a useful tool to manipulate the masses.

It could be more complex than this, but I think the above model is a useful starting point for understanding their actions. As with any group, it's the bad apples that make the whole group look bad. But the bad apples are so much more aggressive than the ordinary person, that they wind up being able to impose their will on the more passive average people.


IQ and Persuasion

This is a fun model. It purports that the reason "average" ideas dominate society is because the average IQ for whites is 100, and they can't really follow the arguments of someone with an IQ of, let's say, 140 or 160. Therefore, politicians with IQs of maybe 120 wind up running things because 100 IQ people can comprehend them. The trouble is, 120 IQ isn't enough for the formulation of truly good ideas.

The 120 IQ politicians can follow the arguments of someone with an IQ of 140 perhaps-- but even if they try then to translate that concept to the IQ 100 people, the notion loses its essence in the "Chinese whispers", as the English would say.

I don't think the model is particularly useful however: it's too simply deterministic. Most of the worst ideas I've ever heard originated from extremely high IQ people. It's like my mother-in-law used to say: "When people go get their master's degree, the first thing the school does is suck their brains out." I'll take the traditional, "common sense" ideas from salt-of-the-Earth people any day.

All the same, this idea was a novel concept for me I hadn't thought of before. Maybe there is some truthiness to it, in certain select settings or instances.


Politicians and Philosophy

It was refreshing to hear a contemporary politician who actually has some kind of philosophical underpinning to his platform. It seems like this was more common in the past, when politicians were more intelligent and thoughtful. Then again, those politicians often went on to murder tens of millions of people... maybe I should be careful what I ask for.

I'm only joking: this guy is a hardcore Ron Paulian Libertarian NAP dude, I doubt he'd hurt a fly. Of course, I doubt he'd be able to retain power-- Libertarianism seems self-defeating: "I'll cede control over all of the power levers", which just creates a power vacuum, which people who hate and will destroy you immediately fill. I do also notice that he wants to become a Jew: I'm not sure how you run an actual Libertarian system with the crooked central bankers and financiers still in play.


More Black Bill Nye

Here he is again! Apparently my news feeds are like a light for a moth, because this guy just keeps showing up. I don't understand why exactly he's seemingly on the podcast tour, because every time he does such an appearance he just gets angry at anyone who disagrees with him-- hands shaking, brow profusely sweating-- and also gets increasingly mocked by everyone watching for making stupid arguments.

I actually don't mind his "weight class" analog in this instance: maybe every sport could just become co-ed, then you'd have some set of criteria to place athletes, men and women, into different "slices" as he suggests? Of course, nature has already pretty much done this: it's called "men and women".

Of course, the root cause of all of this is the two-fold combination of: plastics and chemicals plummeting T levels to the point where men get confused and think they are girls; and, Bolshevist atheistic Jews, like the kind I mentioned earlier in this post, created radical nonsense ideas out of thin air to undermine capitalism, then got the gullible idiots like this Neil Tyson guy to perpetuate those ideas.

In the case of the entire body of "gender studies", John Money wrote the whole book. All of these terms like "gender fluid" were coined by him. He knew it was all baloney! But he was a serial child molester, and came up with the "ideas" as a perverse form of cover, so he could fulfill his own sexual fantasies with his child "patients", some of which he drove to suicide, as is well documented.

Clearly, if a man walks into a doctor's office and thinks he's a girl, he either needs major psychiatric help, hormone therapy, or both. I mean this in a sympathetic way: he should get help. The idea of letting him into women's sports or dressing rooms is nuts. It'd be like my uncle declaring that he's a potted plant, and needs to be moved into the sunlit corner of the room and watered twice per day. If I went to enter him into a horticulture competition at the State Fair as a plant, should they let him? It's the same level of goofiness, pretending a man is a woman or vice-versa.

But back to the Neil Tyson link: he claims in the interview to enjoy looking for "root causes"-- but I think he'd have a brain hemorrhage if I pointed the above two elements out to him.