Edenism, Racialism, and The Power Structure

Edenism is moderately useful for race realists. The fact that blacks have the Homo Erectus gene while non blacks have the neanderthal gene disproves the "Out of Africa" theory. The reason it's only moderately useful is because you can agree with the "Out of Africa" and still be a race-realist; The argument that humans have undergone micro-evolution since the days of Africa is still affective (albeit questionable). For a serious racialist such as myself, Edenism is a useful tool in understanding harder racial narratives. The fact that Aryans started out as hybrids of Cro-Magnon and neanderthal is a pretty useful concept. It explains why whites are so intellectually diverse as a group. It can also explain how a Thal from a Vaisya/Antyaja community can grow up to become a confused Brahmin that hates religion/conservatism for all the wrong reasons.

What it can also explain are some of the faults regarding the black question/The Jewish question. White Jews that make up the elite tend to be Melons, whilst the socially awkward Jewish-kid in your local whole foods couldn't subvert an Ant. Why is this the case? Why is it that we're forced to look up to charismatic plagiarist blacks from the 50's and 60's, yet on the radio all we here is "muh dik"? Racialism is important, yet it has less anthropological dating than some of these archetypes. Politics is a Melon thing. It's a means for the charismatic to rule the docile. This means that removing kebab, bagel, or fried chicken is as easy as neutralizing their Melons. It also means we need to institute some Melon's of our own. Enough with the half-conceived, autistic strategies.

Status quo's are just as easy to remove as they are to maintain. The "Old-White" Anglo-American power structure that gave way to The Judaic power structure; now that political economy is losing relevance something else can replace them.

The Randy Orton Question

Wrestlemania is undoubtably the greatest stage of them all. The only thing left that comes close is January 4 in The Tokyo Dome. Randy Orton hasn't delivered a real match in Mania since the start of his decade. His matches Legacy, Punk, Kane, and the Shield were all "revenge" matches given to him merely so he could do something at Mania. It seems that Orton is finally treading the main event spot in Wrestlemania 30 after half a decade of bad booking. The question is, will Randy Orton deliver?

It wasn't always this way. In Wrestlemania 21 Randy Orton just got off from a successful 2004. His match against The Undertaker popularized ending "The Streak", and overshadowed both main events at that ppv. The bout outshined both Cena and Batista's debut world title reigns. Tangent: To be fair, every match on the card aside from Big Show's outshined both main event matches.

Two things crippled Orton's main event status. His illogical face turn based merely on fan reactions, and the fact that his main event match against HHH at Mania 25 was a cricket fest. Don't worry, I'll make a HHH question blog next week as a response. The good news is that Orton's a heel again, despite not being the same sociopathic heel the WWE needs right now. The bad news is that the WWE is getting worse at booking matches. Orton could end up in another cricket fest if things play out incorrectly.

I don't doubt Orton's abilities in the ring. While he hasn't had an interesting match since his feud with Christian he's still in his physical prime. It's unclear who the WWE wants to see main even mania, but if it's Orton they better book it correctly. 

Evola's Aryanism and Feminism

Evola viewed the Aryan and the Jew as being anti-thetical. The Aryan spiritually stands for nobility; The Jew deconstructs these noble virtues as base level desires. The Jew is thereby reducing the Aryan into a negroid level. This gives me better grounding on how to criticize Feminism. Feminists are "Honorary Jews" in that they deconstruct all patriarchal virtues as lowly base desires. Men no longer build civilizations to honor the long dead or to support their distant offspring; They just want to get laid!  If you fail to showcase any Alpha-male characteristics, any interaction you have with a female will be seen like that as well.

The Aryans and the Negroids are described by Evola as Northerners and Southerners. It's interesting how most postmodern/cultural marxist thinkers will try to make the Aryan sound like the epitome of "muh dik".  Evola sees both the Jew and the Judaicized as forces that must be combated. It's a redundant imperative, but one that must be reflected upon. Both Feminists and MRA's are lost souls existing only to deconstruct.

Could the same be said of other Social Justice movements? Gay Rights movements function strictly as a  Brahmin movement, but they make similar deconstructions to Vaisya whites; Minority rights activists Judaicize multiple races and help them deconstruct Whites as unpunished "muh diks" to their ancestors. It's time to rev up those fryers: We're already starting to become our enemy. If Chav and Zef culture isn't a dead giveaway, then I don't know what is.

World of Aryanism

Pan-Seccessionism sounds like a step in the right direction, however it doesn't always correspond with reality. A region with a 100% black demographic isn't necessarily going to worship gods modeled after black people; The same goes for Oriental mongoloids. There is some degree of Aryanism outside of the west, and it's much stronger than you might think.

When I think about Hinduism, I usually think of guys that look like Apu from The Simpsons. That's just what comes to mind. The Hindu caste system actually leans in favor of Aryanism. When I think of the religion of Islam I think about guys that look like French Montana, yet the upper sects of Islam are really White. Mohammed himself was a ginger. Come to think of it, most prophets in non-western religions had Aryan features too.

The idea I'm going for isn't "White Man's Burden" liberal imperialism. Rather I'm showcasing that there are objective aesthetics that pan-seccessionism doesn't take into account. There's a reason that most Black Nationalists like to claim that white civilizations like Egypt are actually their own. There's a reason that black Jesus (even though Jesus wasn't necessarily Aryan) became a relevant meme decades ago.

The concept of an Aryan race has been corrupted by Liberalism to mean Dravidian blacks. It also a received a necessary exaggeration by Hitler at the time as a reaction to the demographic/socio-economic corruption Germany had to endure at the time. Under Hitler's standards, Slavs weren't considered white. Aryanism itself isn't as mythologized in The West, but it's proven to be relevant wherever mankind exists.

Written in Blood

Civilization is rooted in savagery. Savagery alone doesn't make for a civilized man, but it forms an integral role in shaping him. Take Lions for example: The "King of The Jungle" is almost always overthrown. One of the greatest republics was formed from the overthrow of the monarch; The same republic became one of the greatest empires via the overthrow of the dictator. Hierarchy at it's most raw is Mufasa, Simba, and Scar all playing their part in the Circle of Life.

The modern system uses Democracy as a means of preventing this process. President's are assassinated, but presidents merely serve as puppets. Things like the French Revolution, or the American revolution could never happen now: Who would we target? The White House? Wall Street? Hollywood? Golden Dawn was praised by the Reactosphere for killing an anti-fascist rapper; That's cool, but the corrupt haven't been punished yet. Many of the Brahmin activists have no Savagery in them; They're responsible for a lot of bad things, but they're effeminate pushovers.

No monarchs, no aristocrats: For anyone interested in a coup d'etat this is a predicament. Even Anarchists are confused right now; The Marxists have no direction, all they have are their universities and Tumblr. Neoliberalism and Neoconservatives both run the game. It's television that feeds on the status quo. If history is still written in blood, it's hard to decide who's blood it will be.

Fascism looks like it will need revitalization. If not Fascism, then something similar. We need something that can strike multiple targets, multiple groups of corruption. I'm not sure if it's an ideology or a movement, but we need it.

The Totality of The American Left

Democracy is one thing; At it's best it was American's Aristocratic Republic. Capitalism is one thing; at it's best it was the British Empire. Around this sphere of the right wing, both these things can be questioned, but together they're undoubtably malignant. Democratic-Capitalism is destroying The United States, yet it's also introducing a new element to liberalism: Totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism is generally applicable to centrist/left-wing reaction. Liberalism isn't usually met with the concept of Totality. Totalitarianism can either mean instituting equality, or turning every institution into one body. All institutions are gradually becoming more politicized; Every creative medium and artistic form of expression is following suit.

In what other era would we care about a Chicken Sandwich joint's opinion of Gay Marriage? The secondary goal of every business nowadays is to represent its thede. Starbucks depends upon it's Brahmin consumers in order to thrive as a business, so they sell Beatles albums and hire dykes.

Academia is less concerned with giving students skills and more concerned with propaganda. The student is propagated to be the revolutionary consumer. The very concept of the citizen has been replaced with the consumer; no longer is the civilian given true duties and responsibilities, for he is merely a bookmark for the producer. Purchasing a product is commonly drawn as voting with your currency. Voting is no longer a civic duty in Trans-democracy, but a mere assertion.

Healthcare is being pushed as our Nation's biggest economic issue. What was once a matter of Fraternal Societies is now a pressing economic matter; As consumers it's easy for us to take something as simple as housing, higher education, and currency investments and turn it into a political dilemma.

The main issue with this strand of Totality vs other strands is simple: Nationalism is now considered largely evil, therefore the body formulated exists to protect an isolated peoples; not a nation, rather a country. While The West is largely suffering a demographic problem in it's major cities, the interests of the people are to mask the problem with democratic-capitalist reform.

The Unexamined World

Socrates said that the unexamined life isn't worth living; I want to take that one step ahead: The unexamined world isn't worth living. My biggest fear is becoming like Jacque Fresco or Nelson Mandela: They're still alive with 90+years to boot, but their worldview sucks. They had all this time to become Emperors of Right Wing darkness, yet they chose a different route. Baby Boomers are nearing the end (finally), yet they still have time to make amends.

One of the biggest critiques of Neon Genesis Evangelion is that Shinji is undergoing so much internal struggle, yet it has little to do with Mankind's Demise. He literally learns nothing about his father's Instrumentality plot, Seele, or the corruption of Nerv. This would be okay if he was a side character, but he's the main character. At one point his role becomes that of a GOD and he doesn't even know it.

Most Liberals would agree with everything that I said in the first paragraph, while being the biggest perpetrators of this delusion. The life of a liberal is the life of a perpetual dream in the low church, and perpetual decadence in the high church. They want Michael Jackson betas and John Lennon Alphas; They want the ambiguously weak and the meaninglessly strong.

Contemplate on your life choices, but also look into the external world. The answers that you're looking for may be on the outside. This advice isn't just something I found on a fortune cookie.

My Top 5 Favorite Wrestlers.

5.  The Undertaker: Both me and my Best Friend had an infatuation with The Undertaker as kids. His character was appealing to both kids and adults. Kids were terrified and enchanted by his character, while adults saw a long-haired badass. Not only did his character become more layered with each era, but he lasted numerous decades with the same name. He's had a 5-star match, numerous championships, and numerous main events in Wrestlemania. I doubt there will be anyone else like him in the industry.

4. Booker T: Booker was my first favorite wrestler: I saw him as a kid back when he had dreads and thought he was badass. He always had a crazy look in his eyes, along with a ridiculous breakdance maneuver: Whether he was in the midcard or in the main event I thought he was awesome. No one else can look like lil wayne on bath salts and make it as masculine as he can. I mostly knew him in his WWF days after the invasion angle; Seeing his WCW work proves that there's more to love (he dropped the n-bomb in the early 90's like a boss).

3. Cody Rhodes: At first it seemed like he was a slave to his past: He's the generic son of Dusty Rhodes; He was the younger brother of Goldust; He was a generic "create your own wrestler" in his rookie years. It's safe to say he would be thrown under the David Flair and David Sammartino rejection pile. That was until someone thought it was a good idea to turn him into Dashing Cody Rhodes, then turn him into undashing Cody Rhodes, then change his character 20 other ways. Around this time I finally got back to watching wrestling, so seeing the way his character evolved caught my interest. I do hope that he wins the WWE championship sometime next year; I was hoping he would win it since 2011.

*Naysayers: The common critique with Rhodes is that his in ring work + lispy,droning mic skills suck. Rhodes has an interesting way to present an in-ring story plus an energetic moveset that both kids and grownups can enjoy. He really gets into his character and is believable despite not having the most elegant voice or movement.

2. Edge: Adam Copeland spent the bulk of his career as a midcarder, yet that all changed when he cashed in his MiTB on John Cena. From then on he stayed firmly on The Midcard scene unlike other perma-midcarders. It's too bad that his neck injuries forced him to retire in 2011. His dynamic in-ring moveset, storytelling ability, and blonde-Tarzan appearance made him cool as both face and heel.

*Naysayers: Edge is mostly a bad boy: Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, he does have a few layers to his character from time to time, yet his character will always say midcard more than main event. Despite this criticism he can play against the big stars more believably than some of our current main eventers. The characters that can become national icons like Hogan, Austin and The Rock are hard to come by. Edge is an awesome main eventer regardless of who's the pinnacle.

1. Chris Jericho: It's obvious that Jericho is my favorite wrestler. He's a badass both in and out of the industry. Yes, he selflessly puts over lost causes like Heath Slater; Yes, sometimes he's demoted to the midcard. But for Christ's sake, the guy is a rockstar. His character always becomes layered; His in-ring ability is still physically intense; He's still creating awesome in-ring promos; and the crowd is still popping. He's a beacon of accolades despite never being a top draw.

Institutional Suicide

Excessively educating the masses is a surefire way to bring about political instability and social degeneracy. Literacy isn't necessarily a good thing, after all eating the fruit of wisdom marked the original sin. Wisdom is power and power should be centralized in order to maintain authority. People will always stumble onto written works that go against their masters. Things like the rise in Protestantism, The French Revolution, the disgraces of Communism, the rise in secular-liberalism, and our inability to mature can all be attributed to a rise in literacy rates

Education is a good thing; it's a blessing that Mankind can exercise his agency in a such a manner, however it should be reserved for nobility. Teaching stupid people to read will only give them the "revelation" that they can and should break free from their chains. This overloads the formal institutions that seek to serve and/or regulate the masses, oftentimes to the point that the institutions bring themselves to destruction. This can be seen with industry, government, and marriage itself. It has already lead to the end of the institution of slavery for most of The Western World.

Denying the next generation of mass literacy is typically seen as a "Human Rights" violation. Educational institutions are used to indoctrinate the masses to oppose their masters, while they unknowingly bow down to the orders of the lesser elite. In Kindergarden we learn to associate in the most egalitarian fashion, with no semblance of privilege; by high school  we've rejected the lesser divine (patriarchy and our national identity), but once we head into the university we learn to reject the higher divine. We become the most individualistic of thinkers.

Degeneracy is used to describe those whom fail to showcase proper agency, whilst malice is used to describe those who showcase agency in order to fall short from the grace of the divine. We commit the original sin at an exponential rate, thus plunging all of mankind in a state of doom if leftism persists for too long. Thankfully some do possess the intelligence to find education outside of their indoctrinating institutions (Institutions that intend to destroy themselves with the knowledge that they present), these are the people that possess the knowledge to understand that having a master and a slave is a good thing; they are also the kind of people that could potentially be the catalyst for a new narrative, or the revitalization of the old one.

Tradition and Progress aren't antithetical. Think of them as forces like the Ying and Yang, one balances out the other. There are various directions that can and do work for a better political narrative, one must simply erase the false belief that they're better off dead than enslaved; Such a notion is only fitting for a civilization under a suicidal narrative. Institutional suicide will only mean systematic atomization in the long run, and extinction/absorption in another.

edit 9/29/13: I corrected a few grammatical kinks.

Journey into WWE's Mediocrity Part 2: Democratizing The Program

Since October 1999 the The WWE is now a globally traded stock available in The NYSE. In 2008 ever since Linda Mcmahon's senate run the WWE has gone pg striking a contrast in the show's previous content thus forming the "PG" era by the fans, or how I'd like to call it the "PC" era. While the attitude era during the Russo days stepped into Edgytarian territory with constant gimmicks based on pornographic occurrences, the program was still watchable and had a substance to it, nowadays the program sounds like a complete political ad campaign. Smarter fans have called those five years the "Universe" era, where the wwe performers would call the fans in the audience a universe.

Heels would claim not to care, nor represent the people and exaggeratively blame "Each and every on of you" for the shortcomings of other heels. The faces were politicians that represented or upheld the masses. Cena sounds like a house negro like Obama, whilst Brahmin superstar CM Punk would sound like the voice of the 99%. The midcard dreads would act like non-profit workers selling having fun and doing something for the people. The bottom line is this is where Democracy meets Capitalism: A point that's usually as disastrous as it is difficult to watch.

The WWE opened up a pseudo social network on it's site from 2008-2011 up until they wised up and decided to all rely on Twitter. They would do everything to encourage the people to have a voice in the product, which usually leads to IWC members complaining that their voice isn't heard. Storylines usually feature pencil neck general managers in charge of a business and engaging in corruption on the side whilst ridiculing the public. It's sad when the whole politics is evil/democracy mantra that Moldbug keeps referring to actually makes sense here, it's sad that you can some up everything that's wrong with WWE storylines using Moldbug.

Let's not forget the constant campaigns against bullying, breast cancer, and other trendy social issues. The WWE is becoming so Brahmin friendly I'm not surprised that the same fanbase that would ridicule autistic basement-dwelling IWC geeks now joins them and occupies them. Even wrestling is getting a "women" problem like anything people with Aspergers find cool. Maybe it's because Aspies are naturally matriarchal. I shouldn't talk about my own kind that way.

We even have Stone Cold preaching Democratic values whilst promoting television events like power to the people. Now thanks to cellphone apps we could vote for a matchup on Twitter every now and then. Or we could see what trends we've started of pertinence to the WWE, and who's the most liked/followed superstar along with other platforms the WWE likes to promote. I don't think Tout is going anywhere.

The Return of The Rock and his eventual title gain and makeover has ushered in another pretentious era titled "The People's Era". We get the The Rock is The People's Champion, but even that moniker was far too pretentious to work. It seems any character from the past that returns to Raw gets a new pretentious gimmick and personality that represents the masses. Characters that were entertaining are now supposed to be mystically charismatic; Oh really, we loved Cena for his charisma and not for his alpha personality and homophobia?

With the New Mcmahon administration angle their playing to their anti-fashist cards a little better than usual, but at what point do we break the Democracy Now narrative? I for one am willing to wait, I sit through the product on a weekly basis. I voice my opinions through Youtube, this blog, and Tumblr every so often. The WWE has shown that it can finally deliver an entertaining product which is what I've been asking for a very long time, so when will the narrative finally be somewhat functional again? Not everything his to be reactionary, or traditionalistic (I certainly don't expliciate that identification since the words don't fully compliment my views), but things can at least fit their role. You watch wrestling for fun and entertainment, not because you want to see your voice be heard. You wouldn't use a knife as a spoon, that's not what it's for.

Oh, and nice try with giving Darren Young a mini push when he came out the closet, along with starting that grassroots "Ryder Revolution". You're really showing us how democratic of a company you are: Keep pushing for Sopa.

Society in a Vacuum

Civilization requires an explicit hierarchy, lest it fester into vacuous society. Liberalism has roots in Masonry, meaning that it was always a ploy for a bunch of Aristocrats to come into power. Aristocracy requires the removal of Monarchy in order to form. Classical liberalism (which is Libertarianism) formed as a way to get the masses against their monarchical chains, which was highly successful thanks to the rise in literacy. Liberals, like the masons have always held on to baggage that contradicted or opposed the divine.

Anarchism itself is an Aristocracy stripped away from the masses in order to form a society within a vacuum. Anarchism can only work once heavily institutionalized with a consensus of literates, it's only become somewhat democratic since the twentieth century. Actually, the turn of the twentieth century has introduced the democratized version of Classical Liberalism known as Neo-Liberalism, thus forming Libertarianism as a natural reaction to the rise of the New Left. Libertarians starting forming "Right-Wing" counterparts, whom would fall into reactionary viewpoints along with the conservatives. Conservatives themselves were always the group that would slow down the cataclysmic advances of standard leftism.

In between the transition of Aristocratic and Democratic liberalism was fascism, communism, nationalism, and a fondness for dictatorships. Marx advocated a dictatorship of the working class, which may sound quite reactionary now, but it was and still is of negative consequence. Giving the masses free reign for an autocratic ruler that represents them isn't a good thing. Marx himself was a manipulative Brahmin, quite similar to the cultural Marxist professors of today. As for the more nationalistically driven aspects of dictatorship fetishes, they're a consequence of the left intellectually deconstructing anything of divine semblance leaving only profanity and meager attempts at restoring cultural providence.

Going back to the subject of anarchy. Anarchism has also become democratized, with the vacuous and institutionalized role of Anarchy reverting back to the masses separated form their master or elites. The result is that modern strains of Anarchy seek to use everything to give the slaves power and separation from any authority. This is mocked by classical Anarchists as being a contradiction to the older, more sophisticated strain of Anarchism; It's very similar to how the libertarians/classical liberals mock the modern, neo-liberals (Likewise the conservatives).

Capitalism is seeing the worse of this, with the rising decline and/or absorption of the Optimates and the rise of Brahmin rule, Capitalism is the cornerstone for globalistic democracy. No longer will private property be the antithetical force against democracy, but now they will join together. As a result Anarcho-Capitalism has claimed so many of my fellow Aspies on the internet, and for that it will pay. Yet the gradual discontentment with Democracy and it's usage of private property has turned many An-Caps into more reactionary positions. This can be expressed in the rise of Anarcho-Monarchism, Anti-Statism, or Moldbuggean viewpoints that become starter points for more sophisticated reactionary-positions, however in order to compete against the monolithic bastardization of all that is holy, we need something with more substance.

Journey into WWE's Mediocrity Part 1: Death of Territories = Brahmin Dominance

I'd like to start off by saying that the past few months have been excellent for Monday Night Raw. I never saw such a streak of interesting programming since the summer of 2011 which was mostly thanks to Punk and Rhodes for me. The revitalization of The Mcmahon family as a heel staple, Randy Orton as a heel champion, D-Bryan is the top babyface, the incorporation of The Rhodes family into things have all worked together seamlessly. Even Cena was interesting prior to his injuries, and Punk was damn well exhilarating.

Let's move on the the real topic: Wrestling has been in a decline for at least half a decade. Sports entertainment no matter how drenched in kayfabe, and soap opera nonsense is an important aspect of our television culture. Since the 1950's professional wrestling has thrived on the television and vice-versa. Look at the statistics for wrestling programming at it's highest and it's impact on our hyper-capitalistic culture and you'll find that it's a little more than Homoerotic Twister.

Jim Cornette besides being the most liberalistic southerner I've ever heard of can vouch for me on this one. The end of the wrestling territories meant the end for the initial soul of the industry and its talent. Wrestling Started out in little territories all sanctioned out and divided by the NWA; Not the rap group, but rather the National Wrestling Alliance; They insured that not one promotion wouldn't try and dominate the other.

In the Vaisya territory of the south you had legends like Dusty Rhodes, Ric Flair, Magnum TA, and Jerry The King Lawler; In the Brahmin territory of the Northeast coast you had guys like Bruno Sammartino, Buddy Rogers, Billy Graham, Pedro Morales, Bob Backlund and Andre The Giant. For the most part even though The East coast had Madison Square Garden, the star quality of the south always kept them in equilibrium.

Vince Sr. made sure that his business wouldn't bankrupt the other territories, where this son whom bought the company from his dying pops had "better" plans: In the middle of the 1980's Vince was going to take over the nation, which lead the other territories to unify under reaction. Thus WCW was made in order to compete with the WWF. The WWF acquired the one and only Hulk Hogan whom was fired by Vince's dad for playing a major role in Rocky III: He was over in the AWA yet mistreated by the higher ups for his "lack" of technical ability.

The key was to form the Wrestling equivalent of The Superbowl, complete with heavy patriotism to appease to the youth suffering from the nihilism of the Cold War, amongst other wars or future wars of that period. As with anything in the 1980's loving your country was as deep as waving a flag around and chanting "muh freedomz" with colorful protagonists. WCW in it's early NWA/Jim Crocket-esque days got the jump with Starrcade, yet WCW still killed that event with the inclusion of Mr. T and Cindi Lauper.

Future stars taken from the NWA would be repackaged to destroy the territories. Enter The Ultimate Warrior, and The Undertaker. Once the 1980's were over and steroid allegations became rampant WCW had the oppurtunity to rise as a promotion. Eventually they got Hogan and their billionaire in Southerner Ted Turner. It wasn't long until they formed a counter-culture storyline in the NWO from elements of Japanese Wrestling storylines.

WCW was now a southern empire of professional wrestling with it's own program of "Monday Nitro" to compete with WWF's "Monday Night Raw". Before they can be wiped out, The WWF made their own counter culture face in Stone Cold Steve Austin. This time it's a Southerner dishing out payback to his Yankee boss and his spoiled family. This lead the Rock in his peripheral souther glory to shine. Eventually WCW had to fall, their Writing team and booking declined, and Turner (like a liberals) made a bad investment causing Time Warner to crash.

WCW died in a shocking fashion, with the WWF buying them out, then humiliating them in buy broadcasting their show live simultaneously with Raw to reveal the truth to the public. Ultimately this leads to the ridiculously bad Invasion storyline, along with a brand split to keep up with the new talent from WCW and ECW.

As a result we now have TNA that's mostly set in arenas from the south to compete with the WWE. Granted, even with Hogan as head commissioner they still can't compete with the now global corporation that is The WWE. To prove that they cater to a perverted Vaisya audience they broadcast their show on Spike Tv: Home to MMA which is too scary for the Brahmins (aside from the frat boys). Various TNA wrestling gimmicks and characters are too southern for the WWE (Freakin' Cena is from a suburb in Massachusetts).

To compensate for the ultra brahmins in the east coast too radical for Vince we now have ROH to compensate for ECW. Instead of hardcore "wrestling" matches we now have wrestling with a technical pedigree to keep the autistic fans interested. Even though some events are set in the hipsterific parts of the midwest, it's a clear show for the more degenerate flocks of Brahmins.

It's clear that modern wrestling is treading dangerously close waters to Starbucks territory, especially with entertaining yet militantly brahmin superstars like Cm Punk and Daniel Bryan finally getting a rise from the indies to the top spots in the WWE. Other wrestlers that are encircling the midcard and main event seem more like college fratboys in their 30's still in developmental territories learning the basics of working a match.

Patriotic Masochism

Nationalism is regarded to everyone else in the academic system as an ideal that has died along with WWII, however there are ideals within each cast that seek to replace it. Patriotism, although oftentimes used interchangeably with Nationalism holds on to national identity without holding on to any of the substance. Patriots are supportive of the United States without understanding the true essence of any western nation; They support it for it's willingness to accept racial diversity, it's democratic form of government, and it's reverence for Free-Market economics. This means that unlike The Nationalist, The Patriot doesn't truly make the connection that his religion, race, and patriarchy are essential aspects for the nation.

A major consequence of this is that Brahmins can take their egalitarian, bastardized version of Imperialism (Globalism), whilst Vaisyas are given their consumeristic, suicidal version of Nationalism (Patriotism). When the American flag becomes a commercial symbol for individualism, without an honest account to it's history, a problem does start to form. The flag becomes swagger, not to the point that it degenerates into a purely tribalistic thede, but still relatively close.

Just like people that hold on to Irish pride, or british pride even when they're third world blacks or hispanic; Just like when socially reclusive westerners hold on to the more fashionable aspects of Japanese culture, the progression to identity is becoming more simplified. What keeps us together? A narrative based on the divine? our genetic history and soul? At best it's our love for our variety in clothing brands, at worst it's our individual preferences and expressions with these clothing brands.

Anyone that's ever been in a high school-esque environment knows that clothing brands are a very big deal. Such Tribalism is the result of the failures of Patriotic identity. Skaters love Vans; Preps/bros love Ambercrombie or American Eagle, Urban kids love Nike and Adidas, but race and religion are ideas that lead to suspension once they're made explicit. This in turn affects almost every caste. Brahmins, Dalits, and Vaisyas are all being affected by democratic-capitalism and how it institutes Tribalism.

Volatility becomes our very identity. The idea that one day we could become something completely different is held as a modern ideal; In a sense we are becoming "blank slates" with little hiccups of our ancestors greatness, however we've become allergic to the postmodernist emptiness. Our Tribalism is either receding into total meaninglessness, or it's turning into political reaction. A resurgence of Nationalism may eventually form, with our without this nation fully being intact, after all we may need to remove the malignant from our culture.

Political Overreaction

Political reactionaries tend to have a set time preference for a culture they'd prefer. The common joke is that someone is stuck in the 1950's, which is a statement that Barack Obama made to Mitt Romney during one of their debates. Tons of reactionaries would rather move back socially even further than that period of time. A problem does form when political and cultural reaction goes too far, ultimately acting against the traditionalism that most good reactionaries prefer; I'll call this political overreaction.

A common result of political overreaction is the rejection of Christianity. At one point Christianity didn't exist, which may please those who haven't reacted well to the "Slave Morality" present within it. The religion itself acted as a glue which united all of Europe, and helped the White Race dominate half of the globe. These are the kind of people that like to hold on to the soul of the west, without holding on to any of its traditions.

Some Reactionaries also don't take well to the Roman sympathies within our culture to this day. The "dead" language of Latin still prevails to this day within our legal system, scientific analysis, mathematics, and theological discussions. The gradual removal of Latin within our educational is a telling sign of our dying aristocracy.

Political reaction without grounds in Traditionalism gives way to further deconstructionism and image vanity: We all know of that one person that saw "Mad Men" and wished to go back to the 1960's. In fact Hollywood is starting to romanticize any time period before the 21st century simply because the characters held on to more "outdated" principles. I highly doubt the movie Dark Shadows would have been as interesting if not for Barnabas Collin's sexism.

Even the manosphere can channel some reactionary principles, until it becomes too traditionalistic and starts taking out the chains again. Enjoying the decline isn't a traditionalistic sentiment, nor is it a call for any true political reaction. Whilst men of the past had the drive to engage in hedonistic pursuits, they still stuck on to their explicit hierarchies.

Ragnar Redbeard was the pseudonym to a satirical writer who's still being taken seriously to this day. His principle that "Might Makes Right" still holds true in regards to any political principle and the game of life, yet is constantly applied to the most individualistic, deconstructed, and atomized systems. Even the most slavish systems of the day, the morrow, and the over-morrow can still overpower any aristocratic or individualistic system in history. In a world without an explicit hierarchy If I want something from you, and you can't do anything to stop me from taking it, then it's mine; That world isn't this one, by our traditions and our structure there's always going to be a force strong enough to stop you from doing as you please. Such a worldview is an overreaction to civilization itself.

The postmodern system we have today is merely a headless version of the traditional system we've had as a civilization for thousands of years. Political reaction is a very good thing, however it's only good as a means of reconstructing civilizational traditionalism, not as a means of deconstructing these traditions and to return to an even lesser state. Everyone wants principle, regardless of their mental state; A return to these principles is the most appealing thing on everyone's mind consciously or unconsciously, all we have to do is react with the intent to bring about the most essential traditions, rather than the most shallow principles.

The Nature of Social Justice

This is becoming a fallback topic for me: Social Justice movements change with each passing generation, and develop into different waves. This stuff is canonical to anything you might read about in the manosphere, but it gets a little deeper. For now, I want you to notice a pattern.

It starts out first-wave feminism's goal of giving Women property rights and suffrage, then it proceeds to Second wave feminism's goal of throwing a massive number of females into the workforce and enforcing sexual harassment lawsuits while bringing reproductive rights into modern discussion, lastly it's third-wave feminism's goal of gender fluidity and broadening the definition of rape, and the introduction of women into the military. 

For Gay rights activism it's a little more simple. There's the decriminalization of Sodomy, followed by the urge to serve in various institutions while being openly revealing their sexuality, and now Gay marriage which is America's favorite public concern and media distraction. 

What we can see is that it becomes more and more democratized as more generations pass. What liberalism passes as freeing the chains, is nothing more than totality. Postmodernism and liberalism doesn't move past the slave-Master relationship, the game is still being played, rather it's being played on a dysgenic scale. 

Females having an institutional edge over males means an end to monogamy, along with the future of the institution of marriage if same sex marriage spreads throughout Western Civilization. The same could have been said about Romantic Love's affects on marriage, yet that's another story. The point being that we're going to be seeing a collapse of everything on an institutional level, and on a voluntary level. Henceforth why there's a rise in Single Parenting, extended adolescents, a decline in the birthrate, and foster children. Social atomism is on a rise, and everyone is suffering from it.

For those of you that are curious, there's a reason that I left out the race issue. It's a bunch of movements from different minorities working together like cartilage. Ain't nobody got time for dat. We already know the dysgenic effects of Race mixing recklessly; I'm not even speaking in terms of reproduction, I'm also talking about the mixing of cultures and mere association without the proper slave-Master relationship being taken into account. Morever the rise in Dalits, Helots and other foreign casts becomes more than just a cultural issue.

Granted, there's always political reaction against any social justice movement. The issue is whether or not the reaction is traditional, or eugenic. The former being essential to fully repair the faults of the modern social justice movement, while the other is more immediate, yet can ultimately lead to the same results taken out of moderation.

Ultimately the rise in democracy, secularism, and polyamory can only manifest itself negatively. I don't think "IT'S HAPPENING", but it could be that bad.

Smashing

Don't get me wrong, I detest nanny-statism with every fiber of my being. The modern statist is the consequence of post enlightenment ideals, after all government (not the same thing as The State) that serves the people can only corrode the people. With that being said Anti-Statists are in the wrong about a very useful institution. 

If governments are institutions that possess the chains for the masses, The State possesses the whips for the masses. Violence isn't a necessary evil, nor is it a malleable accident, but rather it's a neutral force that only has moral substance in what it's being used for; The same function goes for The State. Statism is an exemplary device not only for defensive purposes, but also for ambitious ones. It's about time we start seeing The West return to its imperial passions instead of this globalistic, egalitarian knock-off.

That passion still remains, as we use the iron hands of The State to destroy our own wealth. Unfortunately, this only compels those that remain faithful to the spirit of The West to fantasize of The Happening. NWO Martial Law, Armageddon, A race war, A failed economic state, even a zombie apocalypse: That's the new Western fantasy. When the iron hands of violence (The State) aren't appropriated for good, the good will want it gone.

In my blog "Nerdism and Property" I revealed my thoughts on NAP,Primary-Directive, Formalistic jargon; At the same time, I neglected to tackle the White Nationalist motto of "Whites for white nations, Blacks for Black Nations, and Asians for Asian Nations", Whilst I still have my nationalistic sympathies all these principles unrealistically neglect that might makes right. No, the U.S making Somalia its colony isn't advantageous or intellingent, but there are places that I can think of that are.

Jizztastic

Let's make it clear that might doesn't make right. After all, blunt force is no match for puritanical morality, or if the 50-shades-of-grey realm of Robert Greene is more to your liking then shallow displays of status trump all. Instead of investing all that energy into fulfillment and becoming the strongest, most complete version of yourself you should mutate into something that deviates far from your original role and spend that excess amount of energy in meaningless leisure.

Who needs to conquer the unconquerable when you can try every drug in the world? Who needs to try every drug in the world when you can try becoming every gender in the world (there's much more than just two, you know)? Who needs to do any of that when you can try all the flavors of Ben and Jerry's ice cream?

What better way is there to bring about this renaissance of orgies and high fructose corn syrup, than for us to bring in a working class of foreigners whom are not yet ready to let go of their past cultures and accept their new culture? We'll give them an early taste of our 21st century enlightenment. Of course, it's a little more complicated than that.

Don't Look Within

There's a visible pattern in bad philosophy: It requires us to undergo an internal struggle as a means of dealing with our internal misery, with the expectation of causing external good. The problem with this mentality is that the mind of the subject is not a good foundation for meeting existential needs. The essence of the individual is what gives him the strength to carry on. Without the essence there is no peace, one's own body carrying out its basic functions for survival can cause the subject harm if he lacks the essence to protect himself, therefore it is imperative that any philosophical viewpoint that lacks a healthy foundation for one's essence be replaced with one that does.

An early example of this is Gnostic Christianity that requires understanding the knowledge of Jesus Christ's teachings as a means of going to heaven instead of the typical process. Interestingly enough the Gnostic gospel's Jesus has a Nietzschian vibe that's antithetical to the Jesus we typically know of. The knowledge of this Jesus's teachings is more important in this case than our faith in him, however even in the possession of this knowledge new holes form. Those who are spiritual, yet lack religion are merely using their religions as a means to create their own world narrative, enter protestantism.

Now Protestantism has a different history, and it's certainly become something different from what it originally was. However the variety of different denominations with different principles shows that it certainly goes through the motions a lot more than usual: Pentecostals that value undergoing religious experiences, 7th day adventists with their strange diet plan, and Calvinists with their predestination beliefs. Once you step into these churches, you typically learn that God has a plan for each and every one of you, how do you know of this plan? Just look into your heart, maybe he wants you to sing right now, or maybe he wants you to open a charity, but he has a plan for you. Of course Satan is also speaking inside your head, so you have to make the distinction from the voices of the flesh and god's plan.

Going back to AP English/your freshman year in philosophy class there's also nihilism, which embodies the words of Nietzsche. Nihilism is interesting because almost every political ideology is based on this viewpoint. Everyone uses Nietzsche for their thesis, even though everyone's debating each other. It's not hard to tell why: God has "died", yet everyone's an ideologue nowadays. The problem with nihilism is that on one hand it believes that man can transcend without god, and on the other it believes that some men can fall into the abyss and take off with anything of value. Sadly many people have tried to fall into the abyss because of this, and instead of leaving as transcendent beings, or monsters, they leave as Rainbow Anthropomorphic Ponies.

V for Voluntary!

The Recipe for Disaster/The Formula for Success

Leftist politics/philosophy is becoming more and more radical, yet it's also taking on several (almost unrelated) issues at once. In fact, I wouldn't even call this a liberal only thing, after all conspiracy theorists love to throw random tidbits into their documentaries, thus making reactionaries tackle numerous issues at once. This is only one half of an unchecked for part of human nature and intelligence. Another issue is the fact that each ideology continues to radicalize as their narrative continues. After all, Marx would have never suspected the radicalism his views would bear.

It seems that we are gradually crystallizing and radicalizing/polarizing our viewpoints each time we reflect upon them. This is why simply taking the principles of an idea can oftentimes gradually lead to taking on an entirely different worldview. The oppression narrative originally started on the basis of workers rights, yet as the narrative progresses it moves on to race, gender, and sexual orientation. This is why it's not weird for someone to be called "Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, and bigoted" for being pro-life.

It's for this reason that those in the Right Wing act differently as well. Right Wingers instinctively target multiple agendas in their critiques and must find ways to connect them. The difference is that to anyone else who isn't consciously connecting these issues, they must fall into the grace of those that can explain and connect the narrative to them. This typically means that they'll fall into various leftist perspectives, either that or they'll be conservatives, AKA liberals minus 20 years. This presents a problem for us, as we'll have to reprogram everyone in terms of their outlook on the world. It's not going to be nearly as bad as how the White Nationalists/Libertarians/Manosphere will want us to believe. Their difficulties stem from the fact that they still have issues of their own that they must deal with. Which is why their debates tend to be squash matches. Sadly, we will have to stomach through Lefty land, in order to take over the narrative.

Edit: 7/20/13: I know the term tumblr users like to use is intersectionality, yet I wrongfully neglected to take that term into account.

The Illusion of Tyranny/Waiting for Death

The typical critique of slavery is that it renders man into machine, that the enslaved subject becomes an object; The typical problem with critiques of "objectification", is that the solution typically creates a worse objectification. Such is the case with the slave/Master relationship, a relationship where both parties have an objective goal. By taking away the chains of the slave, you are robbing him of that clarity, of that cosmic resonance, thus rendering him in an animalistic environment.

The modern economy is seen as a series of distractions where the typical person is searching for some illusion of tyranny. Schools initially act strict and unforgiving, up until the students start waking up to their own freedom, then classes start to become more lazy, more unproductive, and more meaningless. Adolescents is growing longer and longer with the rise in high school, college, and even graduate school, as it's becoming more and more obvious that people are just occupying their time with busywork. It's becoming clear that their life is simply a long/short wait until their inevitable demise.

There's no surprise that those affected most will either support the most semi-oppresive regimes out there (The democrats), or they'll willfully envision an illusion of a tyrannical movement such as the NWO. Corruption lies everywhere in this world, perhaps more than ever, but because we've been freed from our bondage we've grown indifferent/supportive of it. The Masters have it pretty bad too, they're the ones trying to cater to us for their support; institutions that we used to serve, now exist to serve us. This is typically called "The Enlightenment" however as an idea, it's far from being enlightening. You might think that our freedom causes us to shun their seductions into oblivion, however institutions such as marriage, and religion, government, and even The State continue to exist perhaps stronger than ever, despite being half of their former glory.

Jumping into The Jewish Question

Judaic mythology is arguably one of the first stories told from an oppression narrative. Various Jewish characters are enslaved, or sold into slavery despite being God's chosen people. This is an important distinction, they're not just enslaved, but there's this divine favoritism that keeps them from looking like mere animals. As though they deserve a higher rank, than that which keeps them oppressed.

This mythos has become fully compatible with the oppression narrative of Cultural Marxism. By giving every specific group (typically outsiders that contradict the foundation of that civilization) an oppression narrative, they can fight to make that civilization more accustomed to their lifestyle. This eventually destroys the foundation of that civilization leaving it as a degenerate cesspool.

A basic example of this is the Marxist narrative for black people. Through various ambitious studies of anthropology and history the narrative has been manufactured to make Blacks as the biological foundation of all mankind, not to mention the historical founders of some of the most complex and innovative civilizations of ancient times (ie Egypt). However they have been wrongfully oppressed by slavery, colonialism, jim crow, Apartheid, and the Ku Klux Klan. Some would even go to the extremes of saying that Christianity is oppressive to Blacks. In other words because the Marxist reach on all of academia has established that black people were doing all this awesome shit back in the day, whilst whites were twiddling their thumbs, therefore it's because of white privilege that you're seeing a completely different story today.

Of course for a feminist narrative this story needs a better modification. Civilization has always been patriarchal (unless you count the neanderthals). Therefore the best way to change create an oppression narrative is to assume that behind every dominant reign of power in history a dumb male masquerading as a leader, was being led by an intelligent, seductive, female. No one is safe from this: Napolean, Caesar, Nietzsche, even your dad. While this narrative is disturbing on a freudian level, it's probably the narrative your professor would approve of.

Going into the question of Jews themselves. Yes, you'll find them everywhere that corruption lies; Yes, they managed to amass a large amount of wealth from other civilizations. They are a civilization within a civilization wherever they are, so any nationalistic policy must have a policy for them. It can't be appeasement, yet it can't be something Nazi/WN-esque. Either way the answer to The Jewish Question is yes.

White Nationalism - Weaboos for Western Remnants

It's pretty obvious that I'm a supporter for a strong White Majority for Western Civilization; It's pretty obvious that I'm a strong advocate for Nationalism. Surprisingly, I'm not an advocate for White Nationalism. The ideology does hold true in the sense that Whites are being selectively shamed for their pride, and selectively brought into extinction, however those who advocate for White Nationalism spot the correct enemies, yet fail to advance from that analysis.

If reverse "racism" (a nonsense word) is inherently anti-white, then a reverse victim ideology is inherently anti-white as well. It's the nature of all Hierarchy that the victims don't get a voice. If rape is purely a women's issue, then that means that women don't get the voice, therefore their protectors are certainly male. The same could be said for White Nationalists, after all many of their solutions for building the White Race involve selectively breeding for attractive White children under the promise of financial stability, or some form of Welfare. Financial support isn't necessarily a bad thing, however when it becomes an incentive for genetically superior whites to become fap objects, then a problem starts to form.

I notice that White Nationalist youtube channels/Facebook pages tend to feature really photogenic females that are supposed to represent the pride of the White Race. There's a substantial difference between Pride and image worshipping. What White Nationalists tend to do is worship the really photogenic images of degenerate celebrities, whilst not even realizing whom they're drooling at. I saw a photo of a photoshopped/airbrushed Paris Hilton/Nicole Richie (I can't tell), that's supposed to celebrate the females of the White Race.

There's also a rise in Neo-Paganism, which is chock full of weirdos and furries all joining forces with Christianity to fight the common enemy. While Paganism was a valuable Religion in the past, Christianity is the priority. Christianity is the blueprint for Western Civilization, it doesn't matter if Whites used to be Pagan or not. The enemy of my enemy doesn't automatically become my friend. Call that absolutist, but decisions need to be made. White Nationalism doesn't have the standards necessary to call itself a legitimate movement/ideology.

Nerdism and Property

The Non-Aggression Principle is one of those codes of honor that gets carried out by the most naive of ideologues. The An-Caps, Voluntarists, Libertarians, and Anti-Statists are great examples. Now don't get me wrong these guys are perfect for identifying the reasonable corruption of various institutions, however the code of honor that they live by is remarkably unrealistic, and it's also remarkably irresponsible. An act of aggression for the greater good such as forcing someone into a straightjacket so they won't be able to shoot up heroine anymore would be principally immoral under these premises. This simplistic individualism they hold on to has been critiqued by various left-wing, liberal, progressive douchebags, but it has also been critiqued by those of the radical-right wing such as Bulbasaur. 

The thing with the NAP that shouldn't be neglected is that it's reliant on the Self-Ownership Principle. The idea that because individuals own themselves and act of aggression upon another individual is principally a crime. This is usually applied to protect the individual from the state, but can also be applied to various other institutions, collectives, or even other individuals. With that being said the NAP is pretty brilliant as an idea, as it can be applied to various subjects and issues, and still be a relevant principle. Those that support the NAP however, tend to be a little lazy on how they apply it. It's still a worthless principle.

With that being said The NAP reminds me of another principle that's held and discussed amongst a similarly nerdy group known as The Prime Directive. In the show Star Trek, the most important rule of Star Fleet is that one must never get involved in the affairs of other Alien races. It's a principle that has been copied from again and again. From my childhood perspective I can remember it being in Kingdom Hearts, which also involves space travel. With that being said it's no wonder that Libertarian conventions, and Star Trek conventions hold similar groups of people lost in a fantasy world, because one's a derivative of the other.

Getting into the meat of this subject. There's one manifesto that's a derivative of the Libertarian An-Fap manifesto (amongst many others). That my friends is Formalism, An ideology founded by internet personality Mencius Moldbug, an ideology that's "designed by geeks for other geeks".  Formalism holds on to the idea that ownership must be defined and supplied clearly in order to avoid the initiation of violence. Therefore the formalist manifesto is that of the corporation, yet it has also become that of the monarchy, and even monarchy-inverted (cis-democracy). Seeing that Mencius has already engaged in live presentations of his views to his fans it's becoming increasingly clear that Moldbug is setting the stage for the next nerd gathering.

The problem with setting a new principle for a better civilization is that you're starting from the bottom, which is a losing battle. While the luxuries of post mortum west will fade, our prime concern will be in whomever takes control of this civilization whether it be Islam, Latin America, or the East Asians. The external threats need to become a priority. Instead of forming principles on how to avoid invading other people's boundaries, we formulate a way of protecting our own. That doesn't take principles, that takes real responsibility.

Undertaker's Return

Whilst Cena is on the injured list yet again, Rock is still resting from surgery, and Punk takes a respectable hiatus in order to nurse his injuries, Undertaker will be breaking his one-match-per-year sentiments in order to feud with The Shield. Taker has appeared in both Raw and Smackdown for this, making The Hounds of Justice a force to be reckoned with.

I dislike seeing older wrestlers cripple themselves, however The Undertaker is no joke; While his appearance may or may not be giving ratings a rise, his appearance may cause an increase in ticket sales and attendance. Seeing Taker make his entrance is no joke, especially now that it's such a rare occurrence. Not buying a ticket to mania, despite my location being advantageous is a choice based on my overall apathy of the program. Had the overall card been much better, my sunday, April 7th would have been a different story.

Dean Ambrose and his posse will once again catch the intrigue of smarks, and old school fans everywhere. For now, asking for anything more from this company will simply be looking into the wrong direction.

Oh yeah, Happy Birthday to me. I turn 18 the day this blog is scheduled to hit the interwebz.

Two Breeds of Leftists

Radical leftism doesn't deviate too far from Mainstream leftism. Mainstream leftism merely mentions ideals without revealing the logical conclusion. Values such as "Racial Equality" and "Gender Equality" aren't revealed to the universalists as attempts at destroying the foundation of civilization, rather they're described as a progression of society.

There are two ways of moving the leftist progression:

Social Justice: Atheism+, Feminism +, Anarchism+, are popular reiterations of this disease. The additives of social justice lead to one ideology becoming the next consecutive ideology. The social justice rhetoric leads to reverse shaming, that is shaming not out of love and the desire to preserve the civilization, but rather hatred and the desire to actively degrade it. For example if you call out a girl for indulging in sweets at diabetic proportions, she might call that fat shaming, then tell you to check your patriarchal privilege. At this point she just engaged in reverse-shaming, which would be justifiable for the sake of continuing the leftist narrative.

Vulgarity: Vulgar Libertarianism, Vulgar Atheism, and Vulgar Feminism stand out. By taking the said ideology to it's natural conclusion, the vulgar reiterations of these views manage to accept the negative consequences of these beliefs. One example would be a Libertarian saying that if someone wants to overdose on drugs, or eat himself into a high-fructose-corn syrup induced coma, then so be it. The complete indifference to the individual's well-being and ignorance to how it affects the collective is merely taking the idea to its vulgar conclusion.

Both methods are inter-changable due to the internally inconsistent nature of leftism. Going back to Feminism, one could shame those that shame female obesity, while understanding and accepting that their mode of thought justifies and exemplifies such a lifestyle. Politics is becoming more and more of a package deal. There are certainly leftists out there that don't hold on to such suicidal views. Marx would have opposed half of the shit we believe in nowadays, yet one must realize that words have consequences. The irresponsible crusaderism of Marx has inspired many other irresponsible thinkers to walk his path. 

Ziggler as World Heavyweight Champion

I wasn't too surprised with the results of Wrestlemania 29; I wasn't surprised with how impressive the Raw after 'Mania was. What I do need to speak about is Dolph Ziggler winning the big one again. Despite the fact that he won the big won two years ago, most people act like this is his first world title win. It is however, his longest yet spanning a total of 10 days. In that span of time Ziggler was able to win the adoration of internet fanboys, whom typically fantasize indy talents most of the time. Ziggler and his typical opponent Kofi Kingston oftentimes get smart-mark love for their in-ring ability in a promotion that leaves little avenue to truly show your full potential.

Make no mistake, there are times where I love Ziggler. The fact that he's out of Mid-card purgatory is good news for me. The problem is that Ziggler still isn't being booked like a beast. The WWE is no longer in a talent deficit. Their main event pool is looking livelier than ever, they just have to flesh out a plan. Something they haven't been able to do with finesse for a very long time. People are getting injured, plans keep changing, things keep coming up. Someone needs to make up their mind on how these stories play out.

The daily schedule of wrestling with all its house shows, Raw, Smackdown, Main Event, Superstars, and monthly ppv's can be taxing. The WWE truly does operate on a soap opera schedule. Thankfully I'm a fan of wrestling and Soap Operas, so I understand that's no excuse for not thinking ahead of time. All I see are excuses. If there's a problem, fix it. Find better writers somewhere in your field. For the record, I don't recommend the guys in WWE magazine. They suck.

In Regards To God

In terms of writing anything philosophical, avoiding wordplay and semantics plays a huge role. Writing outside the standard cultural/political narrative will always be defeated. There's some advantage to that expendability, for starters it means all the mistakes and sins of the past will be cleansed. The cleaning process, however can be awkward.

An occult writer who's name I forgot said that defining God is meaningless and that we should focus more on understanding ourselves. Despite the dishonesty in tackling the thesis of a man whom I can never confront, I'll still take on an antagonizing position. It is important to define God, because it helps give meaning to man. This is a layered truth, but it opens up questions that Western Civilization no longer ponders.

1. God is divine: All hierarchies must put god on top, at the very least the person who's position is closest to that divinity. The less divine, the more profane. Just like less cold something becomes, the hotter it becomes. Most people that hold on to this position fail to articulate past this point, so I'll further explain.

Profanity is best identified by people that mostly act upon impulse for short term benefit, rather than thinking about right and wrong, furthermore their collective. It's clear that profanity isn't an absolute evil, but rather something to be habitually avoided. It is id dominated thought manifesting itself socio-politically. Divinity is all about caring for more than just your individual desires. It's not an act of submissive altruism, but rather noble kindness.

In a civilization with profane religions such as Marxism, Liberalism, and Objectivism it's clear that  virtue is profane, and consumeristic. All their attempts to liberate man turn him into an object at their logical conclusions.

2. God is a cosmic force: This one is more of an abstract statement, but God is a cosmic force. Just like the notion of fate vs free will the concept of God ventures into the unknown. One cannot hate the unknown without hating God, similarly one cannot embrace the unknown without embracing God. This is why the typical atheist is a tragic character. Whenever unfortunate circumstances reach him, he wonders how fate has brought him into this predicament, he questions how things could lead up to this, or in resenting how his choices brought him into this predicament; He condemns these cosmic forces beyond his power.

Life is misery. You didn't consent to birth, yet death will always be past your control. there's no avoiding or denying these truths. The first statement was part of the four noble truths for Pete's sake. Wasn't it Oswald Spengler who said that "Optimism is cowardice"? The good news is that it doesn't always have to be about you, or your misery. For me I just accept this and look for other people that can relate. Thankfully, you'll find them everywhere.

While I'm still an Atheist, I understand the importance of Christianity to Western Civilization. While I'm Hispanic, I still understand the importance of a strong, homogeneous, White population for Western Civilization. If I can, why can't you?

Thoughts on Wrestlemania 29 Match Card

I did something like this for the previous Wrestlemania on Tumblr, yet it was far less organized. Things are different now: People actually care about what I have to say, therefore recording my thoughts for this blog is the most ethical choice. Here are my thoughts on each Wrestlemania Match scheduled for April the Seventh.

Chris Jericho vs Fandango: Make no mistake that Chris Jericho is my favorite wrestler in the business; Nobody can tell an in ring story, make a promo, or work a superstar the way he can. I'm always the first to moan when Jericho has to job to somebody, but this is too much. Having Jericho booked to face NXT season 4's winner Johnny Curtis on his new "Dancing With The Stars" gimmick is too ridiculous.  Randy Savage, Undertaker, and Now Jericho can go on a list of most undeservingly-badly booked matches. What pisses me off the most is seeing Fandango get on the top rope, engage in the most disturbing of theatrics right before performing a leg drop on Y2J. If you're going high-risk on Jericho hit him with an impressive move for crying out loud!

Tons of Funk and the Funkadactyls vs Team Rhodes Scholars and The Bella Twins: Cody Rhodes shouldn't be booked here: This is a clusterfuck, comic relief match that serves as the de-facto bathroom break. Cody Rhodes has been booked much better in the last three wrestlemania matches. There's not a single tag team here that isn't a joke. Don't get me wrong, Damien Sandow is a great talent, but he's a traditional cartoony heel. In working with Sandow, Rhodes has become a cartoony heel as well, dropping his Sociopathic character, for a Mustachio douche personality that'll guarantee Cody won't be seeing a title in his future.

Team Hell No vs Dolph Ziggler and Big E Langston: I actually like Team Hell No; They're a team of underrated, talented wrestlers that aren't being used properly. They even work well together, that steel chair segment on Smackdown was my favorite part of Smackdown for 2012 hands down. Big E and Ziggy are going to be invisible though, for whenever AJ is involved on a match it's all about her. I don't really want to see this match, but I at least like all the people involved, even Langston.

Alberto Del Rio vs Jack Swagger: Swagger has been given a new manager, and a new edgier gimmick. I don't see the connection to Illegal immigration and Alberto Del Rio. Story doesn't really make sense when you think about it, and I don't know how they're going to continue it once their feud is over. Yet I do like seeing an aggressive Swagger with a traditional heel persona. Del Rio is doing a better job as a babyface than I thought. While he certainly isn't a convincing World Champion, and I'm not even sure if he draws money, I really like his change in character and his versatility. Both these guys are great in the ring, and can hopefully put in the best psychology with all that's happened in their feud.

Sheamus, Orton, and Big Show vs The Shield: The Shield is my favorite stable of the decade. The Nexus, Aces and Eights, and Corre are all quantity over quality teams with no internal logic. The Shield has an interesting comic-book vibe, and balanced cast of wrestlers. Ambrose is the best on the mic and in telling an in ring story, Rollins has potential baby-face charisma and a beast move set, while Reigns is big, badass and handsome. As for the babyfaces, I hope they get their asses handed to them.

Ryback vs Mark Henry: Both men can't wrestle. This is undeniable, yet despite this I'm excited for this match. Mark Henry changes my mind about him all the time. The Hall of Pain character, his entrance, and his aggression makes up for everything that he doesn't have and much more. Ryback has spent a long time in developmental territory, yet he still sucks ass. Ryback needs the win in this, however I hope he receives a beatdown curtesy of sexual chocolate.

Brock Lesnar vs Triple H: I love HHH, and I love Lesnar. While both are hated for being overrated by the knowing, and loved for being good by the unknowing, they both have what it takes to make a wrestlemania card shine. I don't give a fuck about the shitty storyline this rematch is based on, all that matters is that with the added stipulation it could be more aggressive than ever. Let's be honest Hunter depends on chair shots for these mania matches, without carnage they would simply be repeated sections of his finisher again and again. Lesnar can be a suplex machine, and or a ground and pound guy on top of the hardcore stipulations and still kick ass.

Wade Barret vs The Miz: I used to hate The Miz, I still do. I used to hate Wade Barret, ever since Survivor series 2011 that has changed. Wade better retain the title, because The Miz is annoying whether he's face or heel.

Undertaker vs CM Punk: Punk deserves this. Even without the title reign eclipsing a year, Punk has been in the main event scene this year more than last year. Looking at the death of Paul Bearer, one could see the streak might survive, yet looking at Chicago's Bulls recently end the streak for Miami heat once could assume this is the end. Other than that both wrestlers have intense versatility in taking on whoever they meet in the ring. This will definitely have a better in ring story than the last two streak matches at mania, and with less time too.

Rock vs Cena: I don't care. Suck my dick, Nigga.

All They Ask For is Equality

Coming back from a long awaited hiatus, I finally have something to rant about. You see this week started with the rise of a new meme: A red, Flintstones vitamin palette equal sign started spreading everywhere on Facebook. It's the new image for the gay marriage movement. It's already being parodied everywhere with crude pictures mimicking it. Despite being made fun of, many young fools aspiring to look socially-conscious are using this image as their profile icon. That reminds of the time around October 2010 where people changed their profile icons to pictures of cartoon characters in order to stand up for child abuse: It was noble, until it was discovered that this was a hoax used by actual child molesters and that authority's were checking to see who has an animated profile picture.

Did you hear that? I'm saying that an internet mass-movement is being conducted through ignorance and general stupidity! That's nothing new. From prior knowledge the people who do change their profile icons are generally hard leftists, who hold their political inconsistencies personally. My prior knowledge comes from actually knowing who these people are on a social/personal level. These people  like me had to suffer through a broken family, yet instead of identifying the problems in Cultural-Marxism, they embraced these doctrines and condemned everything else. They sealed their own fates, which means I have little empathy.

As for gay marriage in-and-of-itself, It's obvious that I dislike it. Marriage is defined most profanely (yet truthfully) as monogamous prostitution; It's an exchange of male protection for female fertility: It's also the reason why K-type environments are so useful for mankind. With the K-type environment mankind can put it's intelligence to use by creating civilization and using artifice for its own personal good. Gay marriage is more about Marxism's goal of destroying society from within and inciting insurrection amongst the broken masses. Feminism, the ease of divorce, and laws that hurt the father have created atomized, disenfranchised children, Imagine what the next phase will be.

Moreover Cultural-Marxism is most successful in the bringing in of foreigners to internally dissolve and replace the host-civilization. White female-feminists have recently been taking heat for using Feminism to exercise White-privilege. The story for White LGBT-gays will be no different. The genepool and the culture are both key components in the Cultural Marxists goals of destroying civilization. Surely gay-marriage isn't worth the death of Faustian Civilization (Western Civilization).

On A Positive Note for Punk vs Rock

I feel like my first two wrestling posts gave me a false impression of being too pessimistic. While the match itself was a disappointment and this feud is a mean for a terrible end in terms of transitioning to Cena vs Rock II, there are some good things to say about it. The serious promos the wrestlers delivered to each other were pretty good and CM Punk is being treated as more of a main event player now than ever in 2012. His match against The Rock main evented The Royal Rumble, which is by the way the second main event in the entire history of the ppv that wasn't actual rumble (the first was Kurt Angle vs Mark Henry in 2006). Punk was in the main event instead of John Cena, and Cena actually did compete in the ppv. I'm sure Punk will main event The Elimination Chamber as well, after all the only chamber match will be for the World Heavyweight Championship currently held by Alberto Del Rio.

Best of all Technically Punk did defeat The Rock in the main event of a big four ppv, something Cena can't currently admit to doing. Granted this is before they restarted the match, but the history books cannot lie. If anything the rumors of a Punk vs Taker match sound more promising than ever now that Punk has solidified himself as main event material. By the way, fuck all these dirt sheets. Either most of them are bullshit, and/or their premature discovery cancels the original plan thus ruining it for everybody. The fact is that the internet is full of annoying snarky assholes that will stop at nothing to get niggas hype for nothing.

Who knows what's in store for the future of this product? The right word is product and not promotion because The WWE is just another corporate-liberal piece of crap that I'm sucked into, and there's nothing wrong with that. Just like the majority of people won't like the products that Disney puts out anymore, people won't like the majority of products The WWE puts out anymore too. That doesn't mean that when the next pixar film comes out that I'm going to save my money, that also doesn't mean that when Jericho decides to do something interesting that I'm going to save my money.

Cena vs Rock II

Everyone and their grandma predicted this, but not everyone has shown proper anger in regards to it. The Rock's victory over Cena at Wrestlemania 28 could not be their conclusive fight. The WWE will surely like to milk their successes last Wrestlemania and try to even Cena's record over The Rock, because god forbid you make Cena look inferior to The Rock in the pecking order. With Cena's victory at The Royal Rumble and The Rock picking up a victory over Punk at The Royal Rumble, their conflict is written in the stars. After all Cena already made up his mind on Raw who he's going to face and Punk clearly isn't going to win his rematch against Rocky.

Many Punk apologists say that Punk deserves better than to lose to a transitional champ like Dwayne. I'm pretty sure when Cena was making these grievances they weren't on his side, but now that Punk is the one that's losing his spotlight these Smart Marks are jumping to the other spectrum of the knee-jerk reaction. Hypocrisy is inevitable in a corrupted fanbase of fake-ass indie fanboys. Rock Fanboys are also on their bullshit talk, claiming that Rock being a bigger draw is better than having the 434 midcarder holding the title. While last raw did draw a 3.7 which didn't happen since perhaps Raw 1000, that's not an impressive draw, considering they were getting that in the late 2000's too and the company was on its Pg bullshit then too. Furthermore The Rock is another transitional champion anyway, he has to drop the title to Cena at the biggest show of them all because he needs to go back to his main gig.

I don't want to see this match again, granted I won't see this match again, because I'm not going to buy the ppv. I might get tickets to the show just for the experience of being in my second WWE show. Wrestlemania is not going to succeed from the main event, rather something needs to steal the show. Cue another Undertaker and Shawn Michaels, Rock vs Hogan, or any other non main-event match of that caliber. What I mean is that there needs to be a match on that card that's going to need to steal the show before the main event in order for this to work.

Cena and The Rock can't deliver. The Rock is much rustier than anyone involved in the product is willing to admit. These botches he makes keep fucking up the show, let's not forget these matches don't really deliver. John Cena's greatest match was against Lesnar at Extreme Rules for crying out loud. That's not in insult to Lesnar, but they didn't face off at a big four ppv; They faced off at a filler ppv for a filler matchup that was building up to nowhere for Cena. Rock fans are going to be pissed when they realize that Cena's walking out of this the winner, and if not: The third time is always the charm.

How fucked up can things get before the WWE decides to take some pride and control over their product? Nothing really has direction anymore, I can see what directions things are heading, but I can't see a properly woven plot anymore. Point A no longer connects to Point B, rather it crashes into it. Granted my pessimism should be considered a good thing. If I'm not pissed about what's happening it means that this company has fucked up to the point of disenfranchising me from it. This isn't the case at the moment, rather I'm getting dangerously close, moving to the point of having to rant my ass off about how badly they're building this road to Wrestlemania so far. I truly hope that the next eight weeks are moving to a prettier direction. It's come to me hoping again.

Politics is Pornographic

There's something I find disturbing in people using politics to satisfy their ego and id urges. The idea of a charismatic puppet like Barack Obama's words being sweet like nectar to a large demographic gives me the creeps. Back when I was a church goer many biblical verses and preachings described the word of god as being sweet like honey, or something delectable in some way, shape, or form. People really resonated and felt a comforting familiarity with the verses, but especially with the testimonies: Testimonies were described as being a shocker to other people in how they would understand what the speaker was going through.

Do people really look at Barack Obama's constant references to other people's life stories and feel like they're story is being told? I honestly can't wait for Obama to leave just because I'm tired of hearing these stories of a little transexual teen in Syracuse trying to pay for his estrogen dose; I honestly couldn't care less. Turns out everybody else is getting off to his words, while I'm growing more and more disgusted.

Perhaps they look at Obama like a father figure, a savior, maybe even a patriarch. I'll repeat, maybe even a patriarch. If you think about it that way, why wouldn't they look at him that way? He's promising "Affordable Healthcare" and pushing for more social programs that put food on their plate. The females will naturally love that; They'll also love his aloof personality. The kids will treat him like a father figure, especially if their father is a beta male, dead, imprisoned, divorced, or a no show. After all he does look like a man that has it all figured out, granted he has it all figured out with a full career in the public sector, but now I'm just hating.

In many ways Barack Obama is just like what John Cena has become! All that energy being delivered to appeasing maternalism, and none of it for the men in need of putting their testosterone to good use. It's kinda sad really, but Left and Right are really similar to Face and Heel. Forget slave morality, we're dealing with the ethics and the moral values of an audience watching a circus show! The only difference here is that we're not seeing a decline in a company with Barack Obama, we're seeing a decline with an entire nation.

I'm not concerned for the people that support Barack Obama, I'm concerned for people that have a crush on him. These are the mislead fools that need to be guided and saved. They could be admiring something so beautiful, yet their heart is set on something that doesn't love them back and probably never will. What they need is the presence of the divine, now if only Western Civilization was constructed out of a religion that worshiped something divine...

CM Punk vs The Rock

It's not uncommon for most people to be more invested in Punk vs Rock than they were for Punk vs Cena. With half the build up they managed to get twice the hype based just on their promo on January 7, 2013. There's no doubt in most people's minds that this will lead into Rock winning, and all of this culminating into another Cena vs Rock match at Wrestlemania. I'm not most people, however. I'm much more pessimistic and my optimism always heads to fringier directions.

 Punk has become iconic within the WWE for dropping real talk, yet his new heel angle is nowhere near as layered as his 2009-2011 heel run. His promo on the go home show for Monday Night Raw has him critique the masses and The Rock for representing them. If you know me, there's no room within me for sympathy for the masses, despite this turning Punk into a cowardly heel that cheats his way for the top is too cheap for him.

As for The Rock. This Rock is nowhere near the same character as The Rock from The Attitude Era: Part of what I hate about the pg era is that the wwe fans and audience are now being called a universe, no longer having their own distinct character like ECW, The Attitude Era, or WCW. Instead the WWE has remodeled their audience from being distinctly snarky and energetic to being the idiot masses everyone hates. Every face is now a politician, they certainly speak like one. How different is John Cena and his transformation from The Rock and his transformation as a character. While The Rock certainly was "The People's Champion" that term has taken a new cryptic life of its own.

These are both Talented wrestlers and entertainers who have been given the wrong character roles to play. They need to have a beast match for this Royal Rumble. There's no question about it. The best thing going for this match and feud is that it isn't John Cena vs The Rock. That match was manufactured by Stephanie Mcmahon to be a Team Edward vs Team Jacob wank fantasy. Here there is the vital order of wrestling. You have a face and you have a heel. Someone is trying to get heat in order to get the other guy over. While you could have an excellent feud without an objective good guy or bad guy like the streak matches that Undertaker has it's better for people that are on equal terms. Rock and John Cena were never on equal terms. Similarly to Triple H the WWE has wrongfully given us the facade that Cena is a Hogan/Austin/Rock figure, when in reality he's not.

There's not doubt that the fate of this company lies in the hands of a good road to Wrestlemania, for the WWE is treading dark waters with it's low television ratings and PPV buyrates. The good thing is that the WWE is abandoning Linda's senate campain, however they need to drop their corporate system as it's hurting the company to have to pay their shareholders. This in itself is a tangent, yet it all contributes to the pressures of having this road to Wrestlemania outshine the last one. In the year 2012 the WWE only had one good month, which was the month of April. Here at the very least they need a good season to propel them back to sunshine.

Change and Forward?

In the video "Flyswatting: President Obama" Youtube user Studentofobjectivism has described Barack Obama as a thinker who holds views opposite to the truth. In other words, if your position is the opposite of Barack Obama's position that's an indicator that your position is the correct one. While I'm not an Objectivist by any means I agree with that analysis to a large extent. The problem lies in the fact that in the leftist world truth is layered in entropy. While Barack Obama's Ivy League Marxism and progressivism are inferior to Ayn Rand's Objectivist mode of thought, they both hold narratives that contradict the complex and ordered narrative that has existed in the right wing.

Let me explain what I mean by complex: To be complex is to possess the artifice vital to prevent ourselves from rapidly changing and being melded by the natural world. It's becoming more and more clear that our monogamous breeding patterns, use of marriage and preferences for people that look more like use has slowed our evolution pattern more than other animals, however that loss in entropy has given us a more complex and stable conception of ourselves.

Contrast this with leftist policies that hold on to a narrative that wants us to speed up our evolution to the point of losing this stable and fixed conception of ourselves. Racial integration, Feminism/Marxism, LGBT equality, Ableism and other ideologies mentioned are just a means to an end. At one hand we can assume that the ultimate goal is Anti-Natalism/Efilism which seeks to end all life as a mark to end all suffering, or we can look towards something similar to instrumentality from Neon-Evangelion Genesis where the final stage of evolution is turning all life into a homogeneous ocean of orange semen.

Moving onto the original subject which is Barack Obama, what exactly is the deal with hope, change and forward? Barack Obama has created propaganda via an internet meme, and through Facebook nonetheless (Zuckerberg being another Harvard Ivy League fisher for the degenerates and puppet for Big Brother). All these words are just ways to arouse the masses that rely upon slave morality. Masses have always ultimately depended upon the idea that the future is a higher place, because the tribes and smaller civilizations didn't have this concept died from the depression and loss of hope.

It's come to this: Civilization is so atomized and depressed that people need to rely on an internet meme that the future might be a better place to function as better slaves to an elite that is no longer noble and sovereign, but has now fallen to degeneracy. The geniuses can tell that homogeneity is the long term goal at least in terms of intuition. However the narrative has become so manipulated by the left that our societies very best isn't moving against this movement, but rather actively working for it, or staying in the sideline.

The first thing you should take from all of this is that hope is a good thing. No hope equates to instant death and despair, you could literally fall over dead from a lack of hope, however moving forward and starting a change are completely different concepts. It seems that we should be moving backwards, rather than moving forward, and  instead of changing we should be reverting back to what we once were. Instead of becoming a more intricate and distinct group/nation/etc we are becoming more and more homogeneous and suffering a giant identity crisis because of it. 

So what should you hope for then? That's not a question I have a complete answer for, but you should be able to understand what has a complex, substantial value in your life. Protect it at all costs before it's too late, if it is too late on the other hand, it's best to abandon ship. Not everyone gets things right the first time, but so long as you're still alive you can make things right again. Just try to avoid institutionalized dick cheeses like Barack Obama who don't hold people like you to their best interest. By people like you I mean people that aren't his daughters, nor his wife. Try and think about that for a second.