Fueled by Liberal Tears – The Rise of Radical Leftism

liberal tears lol

Here are a list of some of my favourite racists, rapists, bigots, islamophobes, transphobes, homophobes, alt-right/far-right, fascists, Nazis, and white privileged patriarchs.
(IE: Rational, logical, reasonable, observationalist, objectivist empiricists and free speech/human rights advocates.)

#Based #IntellectualDarkWeb #FactsDontCareAboutYourFeelings #TriggerWarning

Jordan Peterson
Ben Shapiro
Lauren Southern
Tim Pool
Carl Benjamin
Steven Crowder
Eric Weinstein
Bret Weinstein
Tommy Robinson
Milo Yiannopoulos
Thomas Sowell
Douglas Murray
Ayaan Hirsi Magan
Christina Sommers
Owen Benjamin
Dave Rubin
Joe Rogan
Claire Lehmann

Honourable mentions: Lindsay Shepherd, Stephen Fry, The MAGA hat kid, Steven Pinker, Dan Dicks, Heather Heying, Bill Maher, Dave Chapelle.

I’m very non-committal when it comes to these kind of topics, i don’t have much of an interest in social sciences or the humanities, much less politics. I am for freedom and equality, and i think natural law covers all that. As long as people leave me alone and don’t infringe upon my rights, or the inalienable rights of another, then i don’t care what they do. If they want to be slaves to a corporate master (nanny state) then they can do that, just leave me out of it. I want no part in a corporate society, all that concerns me is the law of the land and that it is being upheld. I consider myself an inhabitant of the community, not a member of the society.

None the less, people still ask me what my political views are. Well i don’t really like labels, so i’ll just be true to myself and let everybody else slap a label on me, since that is what they seem to like to do anyway and regardless of my input. So here is a summary of my feelings on some issues. I am ok with terms like classical liberal, libertarian, conservative, centrist, center-left-, center-right, anarchist, and anarcho-capitalist. I’m a bit of them all, and don’t appreciate being put into a box. But if i was hard-pressed to provide an answer, i’d most likely just say centrist to emphasize my typical position of neutrality.

What i don’t like is extremism on either side of the spectrum. What i have a problem with is far-right neo-nazi white nationalist skinheads pushing for ethno-states, and/or authoritarian socialist/communist/marxist ideals and the rise of radical leftism and the SJW culture. They’re both extremes, and i’m a man who appreciates balance.

See: Balance Is The Key! – The Mental Schism

So please don’t ask me for my political affiliation, instead ask me for my opinions about a specific political topic. (Eg, gun control, abortion, monetary system, etc.) I generally take things on a case by case basis and i do not ascribe to any predetermined set of political ideals outlined by a label.

I don’t vote because i don’t have a government, and i don’t believe i have the privilege of deciding how a corporation is run when i’m not an employee of that corporation or member of that society. I have as much right to have a say in who is the President of America or Prime Minister of Britain as i do for who is the President of Microsoft.

The only type of government that can lawfully exist is a representative one, and i personally do not need any representatives, i can be present and speak for myself. I don’t need limited liability, i am wholly responsible for all my words and actions.

I can’t have white male privilege because i don’t have any privileges, i have rights. They are the same rights that everybody else has, so don’t get upset because i exercise them when i have the opportunity. Newsflash, people, EVERYONE is oppressed, and last time i checked, oppression was not a competition. Rights can not be given nor taken away, they are inherent. A right is a right by virtue of it not being a wrong. It’s really that’s straight forward. Of course, your rights can be infringed upon and many people around the world are victims of that, everybody is a victim of something.

If you’re confused by any of this, i suggest reading my other articles regarding law to gather some context.

See: You Are Dead & Lost At Sea

Before you start branding me as a racist bigot or accusing this list of people of being all-right gurus, please note that a vast number of these individuals are actually one of more of the following; Liberal, Left-wing, Jewish, Female, Black, Feminist, Homosexual etc. (and identify as such). The difference being, they aren’t raging emotional wrecks, devoid of facts, evidence and the ability to productively debate free from logical fallacies. They aren’t illogical PC snowflake radicals who can’t handle reality and who are pushing for censorship and unlawful legislation against free speech and other human rights, and generally hampering the ability of anybody having a productive dialogue about controversial issues, on the grounds that somebody may be “offended”.

Kudos to these brave souls who speak their mind and stand up for the objective truth despite the backlash, and for being beacons of logic and reason in a world of ever growing insanity where immature, emotionally imbalanced individuals think they have the moral high ground when they do not, and tragically and ironically end up becoming exactly what it is they claim to be fighting against; absolute fascists.

If this post offends you, good, it ought to offend you. Reality offends, that’s typically a symptom of living in the real world, the truth is not always what we want to hear, hence the expression “Truth hurts”. If you can handle that offense like a rational adult and want to have a civil discussion and reasonable dialogue about these topics, then i more than welcome that. By all means, seek clarification and context and ask me a good question.

If you can’t handle the offense and feel yourself becoming irate and think i am the scum of the earth and all you want to do is belittle, harass and berate me for being a [insert unfair accusatory cliché term here] and virtue signal like a deranged self-righteous SJW, then please don’t bother saying anything at all and just block me and get on with your day. Why waste your breath? That’s the cool thing about freedom of choice, if you don’t like what you hear you can change the channel. But you will not censor my opinion merely because it’s not the same as your own. Grow up, and start ACTUALLY respecting the rights, freedoms and responsibilities you “claim” to be activists for.

sjw anatomy

One of the common arguments i hear is “Derp, how can you have a problem with SJWs? Tell me what is wrong with social justice?”

Nothing is wrong with social justice, justice is justice, social or otherwise, and it’s a core moral tenet that everybody in the world should always strive for. The problem is the far left and SJWs are not actually fighting for justice in any sense, they are fighting for surrealist delusions, safe spaces, censorship, and the eradication of fundamental human rights, all in the name of “equality”, but when it’s actually an extreme bias at the expense of many rights and freedoms. It actually creates more victims, and it’s an incredibly counter-productive movement rooted in very dangerous and harmful ideologues.

Everybody is born free and equal under the common law of the land anyway, we all have the same inalienable human rights, but what they fail to realize is equal rights means equal responsibilities. To live in the real world requires thick skin, and if you can’t accept the facts of the reality in which you live and you chose to isolate yourself into a safe, comfort zone bubble of delusion where you identify as an Apache attack helicopter or what have you, then you go right ahead and do that, but then DON’T seek impose that delusion upon everybody else or penalize those who don’t conform to it, because that is called FASCISM.

Simple shit. It really is. Study the law, the actual law which is natural law and common law. Know what a right actually is, know your rights and exercise them, and teach what you consider to be oppressed minorities to do the same. Everybody wins, as long as you respect that the groups you consider not to be oppressed also have those same rights and you need to respect those too. We already have equality as far as i’m concerned, and if people started actually behaving like it instead of trying to tip the scales into their favour all the time, things might not be so constantly out of whack.

By all means, seek out injustice in the world and defend those people who are actually oppressed and having their human rights infringed upon, but trying to regulate and control what people say or think is not the answer to that, you can’t fight for the rights of one group of people by sacrificing the rights of another group, or you’re not for human rights at all. You can’t have it both ways.

I’m too disinterested in politics to care that much about a person’s political affiliation, what i’m more concerned at looking at is their level of intellectualism and if they can adequately defend their positions with maturity, humility, compassion and reason.

The vast majority of the people in my list stand against extremist leftism and argue against the insane PC totalitarianism which is born from it, specifically the highly leftist bias of the leftist hijacked mainstream media and universities that pander to and perpetuate it. The fact that many of those people themselves identify as left leaning on the political spectrum speak volumes to that, in my opinion.

sjw what they do

I Love classical liberals, they are just becoming a dying breed these days. I feel sorry for them because just like how a rational and compassionate person who happens to hold conservative values is being wrongly labeled (by the left) as alt-right or far-right, the same can be said for classical liberals who are just as rational and compassionate but are also being labeled as fascists or bigots (by their own leftists and liberals) simply because they do not conform to the extremist values of the far left.

Essentially it’s the fact that radical leftism is on the rise and being left unchallenged, that pretty much anybody who is not far-left is being labeled as alt-right. They are basically so far left on the spectrum that everybody else compared to them ‘would’ be to the right, because there’s no place else for them to be!

Honestly, i am so disinterested in the polarized political paradigm and consider it mostly a false dichotomy, but if i have to be dragged into this debate and forced to take a position, then i take a position of equality and am merely defending the underdog whom i see as being wrongfully accused and the victim of a very cunning system of oppression, quite ironically. The oppression of speech, which is secretly the oppression of thought.

Leftists today are the biggest hypocrites, and i think the reason for that is because despite meaning well (and i truly believe they do) they have become overwhelmed by their anger and emotions and have abandoned their ability to think logically and therefore act reasonably and with respect to others, and as a result of that we have only worsened the problem of oppression and waning freedom.

They don’t want to be equal, they want to get even, and there is a big difference. I’m sorry lefties, but two wrongs do not make a right.

Here are the results of a generation of leftist indoctrination, supported by (mostly indirectly) and left unchallenged by government, media, and the education system. Enter, ANTIFA:

So go ahead, call me a racist, nazi, mysogynist, Xphobe etc. You’d only be proving my point further, empowering my points of view. I am fueled by liberal tears. Every time you lefties disrespectfully throw around these baseless accusations to insult everyone who doesn’t conform to your extremist counter-productive “social justice” principles, you are actually just creating more opposition and feeding the trolls. Every time you virtue signal, intelligent people see right through it, and we cringe, and get a good laugh at your expense.

Grow up and stop taking the bait. Your propositions are preposterous, so tone down the trigger rage and try having a civil and rational discussion with those who have political views contrary to your own, and let’s work together to actually find viable solutions, not final solutions.

Yours sincerely, a straight white male Christian centrist.

P.S – Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke. #FreeKekistan

kekistan flag

P.S.S – Regarding feminism: Classical feminism is freaking awesome, neo-feminism is a scourge upon the earth.

George Orwell VS Aldous Huxley

orwell v huxley

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism.

Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumble puppy.

As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists, who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny, “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.”

In 1984, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.

This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.” ― Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

It’s an issue of overt vs covert tyranny.

Essentially, the idea is there will be no revolution because the people will have been conditioned to actively Love their captivity, to the point where they no longer consider it captivity, but a blessing. It’s like a whole other level of Stockholm syndrome. We will happily enslave ourselves.

Balance Is The Key! – The Mental Schism

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together… . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.

We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.

Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view. Natural science wants man to learn, religion wants him to act.

Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against skepticism and against dogmatism, against disbelief and against superstition, and the rallying cry in this crusade has always been, and always will be: “On to God!”

Thanks to Mark Passio for these images.

What is the Zetetic Ethic? – The Right to Inquiry


“What is this madness…

This surge of furious and indignant investigation,

Why are so many increasingly daring to question that which is supposed to be unquestionable…

To challenge the core consensus of that which our modern, advanced society claims to know.

Are they simply going slowly insane?

Or maybe just fools?

Are they the tragic victims of a sadly innadequate education?

Or, is it maybe, something else…

Have they instead perhaps stumbled upon a most unexpected, yet liberating, realization, the realization that our most fundamental of human faculties, have in fact not been rendered obsolete, by this cumulation of so-called “higher knowledge”,

and the staggeringly simple conclusion, that our own senses and observations, can indeed be trusted.

For it is truly this question of trust itself which propels so much of this controversy, so much of this zetetic madness,

because we live in a day and age whereby we are taught from birth to put our blind faith in the sum total of humanity’s accomplishments, and to trust whole-heartedly in the assumption, that collectively mankind’s inevitable progression is always in the direction of truth and understanding…

Yet in this period of history, exists a growing minority of those of us who have been forced to concede that this is certainly not always the case,

to wake up and recognize that this idolatry of our own selves is in fact very fertile soil, for mixing science with fallacy, and confusing knowledge with presumption…

And so, this rediscovered Zetetic ethic, this ethos, is simply about refusing to live life whereby certain things are deemed exempt from continued examination, from questioning. It is the rejection of this unspoken cultural code which implies that the pursuits of scientific observation and experimentation are no longer the purview of the ordinary individual, and that all relevant scientific inquiry has now been relegated to the realms of government institutions , peer-reviewed academia and corporate interests.

We must insist on never overlooking the inherent danger of making the misguided assumption, that none of these public or private establishments could ever be abused, whether by simple error, or malicious intention, and so we seize back for ourselves, this simple right to question, to test, to inquire, to verify.

What’s more, we insist on never again surrendering the value and validity of our own personal obversations, direct experiences, and our inherent cognitive abilities, and degrading them once more to being sources of insight that are considered inferior to the theoretical speculations and mathematical abstractions being pushed from every angle by this monolithic system.

We believe that the simple freedom to question and test everything is the most effective antidote against the ceaseless agenda of indoctrination.

And this, I believe, is what lies at the heart of this Zetetic philosophy. It is something which touches so much more than just the matter of the shape of the Earth, the nature of the Cosmos, or all questions of a scientific nature. It encompasses, practically, everything, which holds meaning and importance in the course of human experience.

We are by nature, questioners. And when this freedom to question is removed, whether by overt action, or more often by sway of social conformity, this is what paves the way for true science to degrade into Scientism, for authentic democracy to erode into mob rule.

We question, because we recognize that at the end of the day, we really have nothing of consequence to lose by doing so, but on the other hand, we have potentially an unimaginable amount to lose, if we do not…”


The Scientific Method vs The Zetetic Method

Often an accusation is made against Flat Earthers regarding the methodology they use for determining their views of reality. It is important thus to understand that we do not use the Scientific Method as our primary method. It is instead our secondary method. We rely instead on the Zetetic Method as our primary method.

That’s right! There are other methodologies outside of the Scientific Method! But why haven’t your schools ever taught you this?

Zetetics has been around far longer than Science and it is through Zetetics that the Ancient civilizations were able to create calendar systems that rival if not surpass our own modern calendar systems!

So what is the difference between the Scientific Method and the Zetetic Method?

“”The zetetic method differs from the scientific method in that in using it, one bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A Zeteticist following the zetetic method formulates the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, where as the scientist would rather speculate on what the answer might be before testing it out.””

Empiricists feel this is a more reasonable method than the scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the early formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.


1.) Come up with a question about the world.

All Zetetic work begins with having a question to ask. Sometimes just coming up with the right question is the hardest part for an inquirer. The question should be answerable by means of an experiment.

2.) Design an experiment.

An experiment should be able to allow the zeteticist to draw a possible answer to the question, called a hypothesis; it may not tell him or her if the hypothesis is right.

3.) Experiment and collect the data.

Here the zeteticist tries to run the experiment he/she has designed. Sometimes the zeteticist gets new ideas as the experiment is going on. Sometimes it is difficult to know when an experiment is finally over. Sometimes experimenting will be very difficult. Some zeteticists spend most of their lives learning how to do good experiments.

4.) Draw conclusions from the experiment.

Sometimes results are not easy to understand. Sometimes the experiments themselves open up new questions. Sometimes results from an experiment can mean many different things. All of these need to be thought about carefully.

5.) Formulate a hypothesis — at least one possible answer to the question.

A hypothesis both in Zetetics and Science is a word meaning “An educated guess about how something works”. It should be possible to prove it right or wrong. For example, a statement like “Blue is a better color than green” is not a zetetic (or scientific) hypothesis. It cannot be proven right or wrong. However, the statement “More people like the color blue than green” could be a zetetic (or scientific) hypothesis, because one could ask many people whether they like blue or green more and come up with an answer one way or the other.

6.) Communicate them to others.

A key element of both zetetics and science is sharing the results of experiments, so that other inquirers can then use the knowledge themselves and all who seek can benefit. Usually inquirers do not trust a new claim unless other inquirers have looked it over first to make sure it sounds like real inquiry. This is called peer review (“peer” here means “other inquirers”). Other zeteticists should follow the Zetetic Method for their own experiments first, but rely on the scientific method secondly to verify any Zetetic hypothesis that was previously reached. In this manner bias is negated as Zetetics insures that all scientific theory is forced to be honest and empirical rather than deceptive and intangible.