South Africa votes to confiscate land from white farmers.

“But… but… it will be different in South Africa somehow.”

I’ve been paying close attention to the situation unfolding in South Africa, over the past few years, because I believe that South Africa is a preview of the future facing all white majority countries, if we keep going down the current trajectory that we’re on. South Africa is just a few decades ahead of the rest of us.

From RT

The South African parliament voted on Tuesday in favor of a motion seeking to change the constitution to allow white-owned land expropriation without compensation.
Let this be a warning to any free speech advocating, gun owning, private property owning, white Americans out there. Your constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper. It won’t protect your rights, any more than the South African constitution protects the rights of South Africans, once you lose the demographic majority.

The motion, which was brought by Julius Malema – the leader of the radical Marxist opposition party, the Economic Freedom Fighters – passed by a wide margin of 241 votes to 83 against. 


Every time.

South Africa won’t be any different.

Several parties – the Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus, Cope and the African Christian Democratic Party – did not support the motion. The matter has been referred to the parliament’s Constitutional Review Committee, which must report back by August 30.

“The time for reconciliation is over. Now is the time for justice,”Malema told the parliament. “We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land.”

They didn’t steal the land from anybody. Most of the land that makes up South Africa was sparsely populated wilderness, with only a small amount of native tribes living there. Those natives currently only make up about one percent of the South African population. In other words, most of the black population, which claim ownership of the “stolen land” settled there AFTER white Europeans had already settled in the country.

Would you look at that? The white population has stayed quite stable, whereas the black population has exploded, thanks to being able to feed off the productivity of the white farmers.

Whites began colonising the sparsely populated land now known as South Africa, in 1652. They created a functioning country out of nothing, and blacks came down from further north to try and share in the prosperity that these white settlers had created. At first there was a symbiotic relationship between the two groups. The blacks got access to higher standards of living than they had ever managed to create themselves, and the whites got access to a source of cheap labour, which they could use to help in their efforts to make something out of the country.

Over the past 150 years, black people have flooded into the country from other parts of Africa, in order to live off the productivity of these white settlers (very similar to what we’re seeing unfold in Europe now with the migrant crisis).  They’ve even been willing to risk getting killed and eaten by lions, just for the opportunity to live in a country that was built by white people. And now, instead of showing their gratitude to these white people, who gave them a better standard of living than they ever managed to create themselves, they want to steal the land from them. The land their white ancestors settled and made something of, and the land that these white farmers have used to feed them. All because they’ve bought into an idiotic notion, that these white people “stole” the land from them.

This is what they actually believe. They also probably don’t understand that Black Panther’s Wakanda, isn’t real.

South Africa has a population of over 50 million people. According to a 2017 government audit, white people own 72 percent of farmland.

Because the white people are the descendants of the ones who settled the land in the first place. The majority of the non-white population, immigrated to the country later, after the land was already settled.

Last week, South Africa’s new president, Cyril Ramaphosa, pledged to return the lands owned by white farmers since the 1600s to the black citizens of the country. He added that food production and security must be preserved.

How can you “return” something to people who never owned it in the first place?

“I want you to return your car to me.”
“I want you to return the money in the cash register to me.”
“I sure hope there’s a big screen TV in here that I can return to me.”

Also, good luck maintaining food production when you take the farms from the people who know how to work them, and “return” them to a bunch of incompetent morons, who don’t know what they’re doing.

The official opposition Democratic Alliance party (DA) has criticized the motion, saying it will undermine property rights and scare off potential investors.

Yep. Why would you invest in a country which has proven that it has no respect for property rights? Why start a business there, when it could potentially be seized by the government, if it ends up being successful?

The DA’s Thandeka Mbabama told the parliament that expropriation without compensation was a way to divert attention from the failure by successive ANC-led (African National Congress) governments.

Yep. Failures such as:

And these are just a few examples of failures, off the top of my head. I’m sure there are plenty of other problems as well, but this is nothing unusual. Every single sub-Saharan African country is an absolute joke, overrun with corruption and complete and utter idiocy. They are completely incapable of running a functioning country. Rather than creating any prosperity themselves, all they can do is steal from the productive elements of their society (the white minority in this case). But once the white minority isn’t around anymore to steal resources from, what will they do then?

It is shocking that at the current rate it will take 35 years to finalize (land) restitution claims lodged before 1998,” said Mbabama, who is deputy shadow minister for rural development and land reform.

It’s been more than two decades since the end of apartheid in the 1990s, and the ruling ANC party is still trying to tackle racial disparities in land ownership in South Africa.

If you have any sense, you would hope that it will take even longer than that. The sooner you do “tackle those racial disparities”, the sooner your country will end up like every other failed sub-Saharan African country. It’s not in your best interests longterm, to tackle them at all.

The president of farmers’ group the Transvaal Agricultural Union, Louis Meintjes, warned the country risks going down the same route as Zimbabwe, which plunged into famine after a government-sanctioned purge of white farmers in the 2000s.

“Where in the world has expropriation without compensation coupled to the waste of agricultural land, resulted in foreign confidence, economic growth and increased food production?” Meintjes said, as cited by Australia’s

“If Mr Ramaphosa is set on creating an untenable situation, he should actively create circumstances which will promote famine. His promise to expropriate land without compensation sows the seed for revolution. Expropriation without compensation is theft.”

The most sensible thing said yet. Shame that nobody is going to listen to him of course.

Pay close attention to what is going on in South Africa. I can guarantee that once things do go to hell, when civil unrest kicks off, when massacres start happening, when people start starving, etc., that the media narrative is going to place the blame solely on the white people. But we know this isn’t the case. We need to be aware of what has actually happened. Because don’t think that something similar won’t happen in Europe, North America, Australia, etc., someday. The whole “we’re taking back our stolen land” narrative, is just an excuse to justify what is happening, to the international community. It’s not about justice. It’s about stealing resources from a group they despise and envy. But once the demographics shift in all other countries, there won’t be any international community to justify their actions to. They’ll be free to the same to us, without having to hide behind any excuses.


South Africa rapidly heading the direction of Zimbabwe.


There’s not a single successful black run nation on the planet. Don’t take my word for it. Take it from the good people over at

Their words, not mine… though I do agree.

All kinds of excuses are made for this fact. There’s the lingering impact of colonialism for example. However, if that was the case, then why is it that Ireland, which was colonised for far longer than any black run nation, is far more successful than Ethiopia and Liberia, two black run nations which were never colonised?

There’s the excuse that their natural resources were stolen from them. But if that was the case, then why is it that Japan, a country with virtually no natural resources, is so successful?

There’s geographic location and the associated environmental factors. But if that was the case, why is the Dominican Republic doing so much better than Haiti, when they share the same island? And why was Rhodesia under white rule so successful, but Zimbabwe under black rule so unsuccessful, when it’s the same country in the same location?

Haiti, left. Dominican Republic, right. Notice the difference?

Then of course there’s the good old fashioned “racism” excuse, were some kind of invisible, unquantifiable force, is somehow preventing them from succeeding, even in countries were they make up the demographic majority.

Racism hurt their feelings so much, that it caused them to turn their country into a dump. This is the fault of white people who live in different countries.

All these excuses are complete and utter crap. While no single factor can be given sole credit for a country’s success, or lack thereof, there is one factor above all others, which the evidence suggests has the biggest impact of all. That factor, is the racial demographic of the people who inhabit, and are responsible for running that country, and the evidence also suggests that not all demographics are equal. When looking at historical precedent and every example of when it has been tried so far, one thing is abundantly clear. As a whole, black people are seemingly incapable of creating (or even maintaining one that is already created) a functioning, first world society.

I’ve discussed the South African topic on a couple of occasions already. Check out here, here, and here, to read some of my previous posts. However, I had to go back to the topic again, after watching the latest “Black Pigeon Speaks” video on what is going on there.

If I wasn’t already so experienced with dealing with topics like this, I think I would actually be dumbfounded by what is going on. But I’m not inexperienced at all, so none of this surprises me. I’m not surprised that after handing over control of the country to the black majority, that South Africa is rapidly heading in the same direction that Rhodesia did when the same happened there. I’m not surprised that the black majority are persecuting the white minority, without having the longterm foresight to realise that they depend on this white minority to create any prosperity in the country at all . I’m not surprised that there is so much corruption. I’m not surprised that there is so many murders and rapes. I’m not surprised that there is such huge increase in HIV/AIDS. I’m not surprised that pretty soon, the once first world city of Cape Town, won’t even be able to keep the water running. And most importantly of all, I’m not surprised that the virtue signalling governments of the Western world and the tightly controlled mainstream media, aren’t lifting a finger to help the persecuted whites, all while they bend over backwards to advocate for the millions of Arabs and Blacks who are illegally flooding into Europe.

None of this, none of this at all surprises me. And do you know why it doesn’t surprise me? Because this is exactly what was supposed to happen by design. Ending apartheid was never about empowering the black South African majority, in the same way that mass immigration from the third world to Europe, was never about helping people from the third world, or how affirmative action and diversity quotas was never about helping minorities ( in South Africa they give affirmative action to blacks despite blacks being the majority btw). These policies have always had one primary goal in mind. Causing harm to white people.

The situation in South Africa is a warning to us all (a warning that we should have already taken on board from the situation in Zimbabwe). This is the inevitable future in all white majority countries, if we ever become powerless minorities. Don’t think for a second that the laws and values that we create, will protect us in the future. We will be at their mercy.

And I get the distinct impression, that they don’t know the meaning of the word.

The worst form of inequality…

“What do you mean when you say that the work of a cashier and a warehouse worker aren’t equal? They both do the same amount of hours, damn it.”

Guys, you’re not going to believe this. Apparently Tesco think that it’s OK to pay women less than men for doing the same work. I just can’t get over this. I am feeling seriously triggered right now that such blatant sexism has been going on for so long. Thankfully, some brave, heroic women, have taken a stand for their rights and are taking legal action against this sexist behemoth. Lets read on to learn more about what these women have had to deal with.

From RTE

Tesco is facing Britain’s largest ever equal pay claim and a possible compensation bill of up to £4 billion, according to a law firm which has begun legal proceedings. 

Tesco is Britain’s biggest retailer and its largest private sector employer with a staff of over 310,000. 

Wow I can’t believe this. Didn’t Tesco get the memo? It’s illegal to pay women less than men for doing the same work. How is it that they think they can get away with paying women less than men for doing the same work, in *current year*. It’s just disgraceful really that a company as large as Tesco, could possibly think it’s acceptable to pay women less than men, for doing the same work.

Your typical Tesco executive.

Law firm Leigh Day said that thousands of Tesco employees working in its predominantly male-dominated distribution centres are paid considerably more than the largely female-staffed Tesco stores. 




“Distribution centers.

Tesco DC






In distribution centers, workers have to lift very heavy boxes and operate potentially dangerous machinery such as forklift trucks. In stores, people have to put stuff on shelves, and sit at a till scanning stuff. Call me sexist or whatever, but that doesn’t sound like doing the same work, to me.

It said distribution centre staff may earn in excess of £11 an hour whilst the most common grade for store staff sees them receive around £8 an hour. 

Maybe because the work in the distribution centers is more physically demanding and also potentially more dangerous. As a result, distribution center staff are in a position to demand better remuneration than store staff. Also, the store staff does include men, and I’m sure the distribution centers do include women (albeit a much smaller amount), so wouldn’t those men in stores also receive £8 an hour, and the women in distribution centers, also receive £11 an hour? In other words, it has nothing to do with their gender. Rather, it’s purely down to the role which they perform. If the women who work in the stores are so unhappy with the “sexism” of getting paid less than the men who work in the distribution centers, then the solution is obvious. They should apply for jobs in the distribution centers and take part in the heavy lifting and use of dangerous equipment, alongside those privileged men.

Follow this lady’s example.

This disparity could see a full time distribution worker on the same hours earning over £100 a week, or £5,000 a year, more than female based store staff

Oh but the male store staff aren’t also earning £100 less a week than the distribution staff. No, this only effects the female staff apparently.

Leigh Day said it has already started submitting claims on behalf of its clients. 

It said the underpayment could apply to in excess of 200,000 Tesco employees and with estimated pay shortfalls that could reach £20,000 the final bill for Tesco could be as high as £4 billion.

I don’t even like Tesco, but in this case, I sincerely hope they win this one. This is such a stupid claim that I really think its stupidity is completely self evident. These stupid bitches don’t seem to understand that working an equal number of hours, is not the same thing as providing “equal value” in terms of the work that they do. It would be one thing if male cashiers were getting paid more than female cashiers. If that was the case, I could completely understand their argument, because that would be a clear cut case of one group getting paid less for doing the same work. But these are two entirely different jobs, so there’s no justification for demanding the same amount of money. If something like this is actually allowed to go forward, where will it end?

“I should be getting paid the same amount of money as the doctors. We all work in the hospital so it’s not fair that janitors are paid less than them.”

A small sample of what we’re up against: Part 5

Wow, it’s been quite a while since my last time posting anything. As it stands, I’m still feeling a little bit burned out, and with little desire to talk about any topics in particular (though who knows, when the inspiration will hit me again?). However, I still want to get some content out, so I’ll do what I always do, whenever I’m going through one of these phases. I’m going to do another post in my “A small sample of what we’re up against” series, in which I take screenshots of crazy things that have been said, which serve as examples of just how bad things have gotten in the world. To see my most recent post in this series, please click here.

Anyway, enjoy.

A height of 5’0″ and a weight of 250 pounds, works out at a BMI of 48.9. A BMI of 40 or higher is considered “Morbidly obese”. In other words, this person is not just a “little bit chubby”, but because fat acceptance has gone so far, people aren’t allowed to point this out, regardless of how dangerous it is.
I guarantee that this guy is a future recipient of the “Me too” hashtag.
They always redefine words so that they, and their pet projects are never in the wrong in any situation. The sheer idiocy of this statement is so self-evident that it doesn’t even merit a real response.
People who are too lazy/gluttonous to lose weight themselves, don’t want to hear about other people’s success in their efforts, because it serves as a reminder of their own failure.
Yes, because countries like Japan have not been infected with the same brain virus, which causes people to believe the ridiculous idea, that there are more than two genders.
Basically the same kind of idiotic argument as was seen in the other screenshot above about how “trans people don’t have the power to commit rape”. Isn’t it funny, how the dictionary is always wrong when they want to redefine words based on their ideology and no evidence to justify the redefinition, but the dictionary definition of feminism is apparently spot on, even though the observable behaviour of modern feminists is nothing like the dictionary definition?
Repeating something over and over, does not automatically make it true. Also, I’m no expert, but I thought fake tan was generally used on the arms and legs, not the face.
The main argument I would use is that this is not how burden of proof works. As traditionally, the penis has always been considered “male genitals”, the burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise to prove that this is wrong, rather than on us to prove that it’s right.
And yet they still won’t ever explain why people of other races want to live in white countries so badly, if we’re such genocidal, racist, monsters.
Are you going to explain how exactly? No, of course not.
Again, I ask. Why do you want to live in our countries among us, if we’re so terrible? Is it not obvious at this point that they actually want to exterminate us and take our countries from us?
Yes that’s right, because our gender and pronouns are in line with reality, whereas yours are based on your feelings. It’s not that difficult to understand.
Yeah…that sounds plausible. This is an example of a crazy person who confuses things that happen in their head, with things that happen in real life.
“I’m shaking because that white boy said something which is completely true.” Also, isn’t it funny how they have to make everything about race?
The what?
I wish I could see the name to be sure, but I’m guessing that this self-hating white person is actually a Jew.
Actually, being fat is what’s actually deadly. How many people die from obesity related health problems, versus those who die from experiencing “fatphobia”?
Once again, all white people are one homogeneous entity, and the same ones who finance these expeditions, don’t give change to the homeless POC. Btw, the fact that there are homeless white people freezing on the streets too, is neither here nor there.
No, there are only two genders. Even if you believe there are more, there are still only two sexes. If a “bi person” has no interest in either males or females, they aren’t bisexual. They’re either gay or straight depending on their own gender.
Well then you say “our women and men” if you want then. Nobody is stopping you, and nobody sane cares which one you say first.

And that’s it for now. Though of course, there will definitely be more posts in this series in the future. Plenty of more material to come.



France is finished.

There are a lot of countries in the Western world competing in the race to be the first to commit national suicide. There’s the United Kingdom. There’s Belgium. There’s Germany. There’s Canada. Then of course, there’s my own personal pick to win, Sweden. However there are occasionally times when I question if Sweden really is the front-runner in the race. Don’t get me wrong, that doesn’t happen very often. Usually whenever I start to doubt Sweden’s commitment to destroying itself the quickest, they manage to outdo themselves, and remind me as to why they’re my pick. However, after reading this latest story from France, another top contender in this race, I’m really considering the possibility that I may have put my money on them to win (if you can really call it “winning”) instead.

The real Charles Martel must be spinning in his grave, seeing what has become of his descendants, in the land he fought to protect.

From Israel National News

A French professor has suggested creating a Muslim state within France in order to prevent a civil war, reports Westmonster.

This is basically a surrender, exactly what the French are infamous for. He’s outright admitting that the multicultural plan has failed miserably, by making this statement.

Professor Christian de Moliner admits that an independent society has formed within France, which he described as: “A branch that wants to settle their lives on religious values and is fundamentally opposed to the liberal consensus on which our country was founded.

And the obvious answer to this problem would be to discontinue immigration from the kinds of people who make up this “independent society”, and then round up the ones already in the country, and deport them to a country better suited for their ideology. But of course we can’t do that, or people might call us names, and as we all know, being called names is far worse than having our homelands stolen from us.

If you think people like this have no place in France, you’re a “racist”.

“We can never convert the 30% of Muslims who demand the introduction of sharia law to the merits of our democracy and secularism.

“But we also can’t deport them to a country which practices Sharia law, because that would be barbaric.”

It would be wrong to send people who want Sharia law, to a country which has Sharia law, as by an astonishing coincidence, these countries are all shitholes. The only solution would be to create a Sharia state within our own country, so that they could have Sharia law here.

“We are now allowing segregation to take place that does not say its name. Rather than veil the face or adopt unimaginable measures in democracy (remigration, forced evictions of the most radical), why not establish a dual system of law in France?”

He literally said that deporting cultural aliens back to their countries of origin, no matter how radical they are in their beliefs, is “unimaginable”. Can you see why I’m seriously considering that France may be overtaking Sweden in this race to national suicide?

De Moliner writes that Emmanuel Macron’s Presidential election victory will not solve the problems, but will only postpone them.

Should have voted for Le Pen when you had the chance.

LOL, his approval rating is dropping even quicker than Hollande’s did in the same amount of time. You remember Hollande, right? That was the guy who had a 4% approval rating by the end of his term.

“We will never be able to eradicate the radical Islamism,” he says, adding: “While we are not yet at open war, the faithful of the Prophet are already regrouping in areas sometimes governed by special rules.”

They’re waiting for the demographic balance to shift in their favour, before they go to open war. Seeing as their birthrates are higher than that of the native French population, it’s only a matter of time. Once there are enough of them, the open war will begin.

His “solution” is to create a “state inspired by colonial Algeria and Mayotte of the twentieth century: one territory, one government, but two peoples: the French with the usual laws and Muslims with Qur’anic status (but only for those who choose it).

Brilliant idea. Model your modern, democratic, technologically advanced society, on a backward colony from a century ago.

“The latter will have the right to vote unlike the natives of colonial Algeria, but they will apply Sharia in everyday life, to regulate matrimonial laws (which will legalize polygamy) and inheritance.

“They will no longer apply to French judges for disputes between Muslims, but to Qadis. On the other hand, conflicts between Christians and believers will remain the responsibility of ordinary courts.

It’s not just “multiculturalism” now, but “multilegalism” as well. One law for the French. Another law for the Muslim invaders. I wonder will they go ahead and legalise the right for them to throw gay people off of roofs and take sex slaves, seeing as this would be in line with their beliefs?

Picture from the Eiffel tower circa 2020.

“This system would involve schools or hospitals reserved for believers and therefore the creation of local committees that will manage them independently. A council of ulemas will fix the religious law, but the autonomy will stop there,” de Moliner hopes.

“It is obviously out of the question that an embryonic Muslim government is settling in France.

“But instead of doing the sensible thing of nipping it in the bud by removing these people before they have the chance to take over, we’re just going to willingly surrender a large chunk of our territory to them. Anything else would be wrong.”

“This system worked without too many problems from 1890 to 1940 in Algeria.”

Isn’t that great, French people? Instead of living in 21st century France, you get to live in 1890-1940 Algeria instead. Doesn’t that sound exciting?







RIP France.

“It’s racist for white people to mate with each other.”


I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. All this talk about “white privilege”, “white supremacy”, “white racism”, etc., it isn’t motivated by a desire for justice or equality, on the part of those who speak about it. It’s purely based on a vicious and genocidal hatred towards us. They don’t want to be equals with us. They want to exterminate us, and we’ve seen perfect examples of the future in store for us in Zimbabwe since Mugabe came to power, South Africa post-apartheid, and Haiti back in 1804.

This is what they actually want.

And then after they’ve exterminated us and there is none of us left, they’ll be standing on our graves, cursing the fact that we ever existed at all. We only have two possible options. Total victory, or total annihilation. There is no middle ground. There is no compromise. How can we possibly expect to find common ground with an enemy that wants nothing less than our complete destruction?

This is an actual piece of “art” that was celebrated.

For a long time, this enemy was subtle. We’ve spent the last few decades grovelling for forgiveness for imaginary crimes, all while they have taken more and more ground in their war against us. We couldn’t see the truth because we were too busy wallowing in our own guilt and desperately trying to make amends. “Yes take my ancestral homeland. Take my resources. Blow up my countrymen. Rape my daughter. Just please don’t call me racist”, and for a long time this actually worked. However, they gradually pushed too far, too fast, and as the Brexit result, the Trump election victory, and the rising popularity of “far right” political parties all over Europe has shown, a backlash has been happening. Now our enemy is in panic mode, the mask has slipped, and rather than maintaining composure and continuing to play the long-game, they’re lashing out, and exposing themselves as the vicious, genocidal maniacs that they always were.

From New York Post

A City University of New York sociology professor reportedly said in a tweetstorm last week that “the white-nuclear family” promotes racism, prompting a backlash on social media.

There you go. This woman literally made the claim that the “white-nuclear family promotes racism”. In other words, she’s saying it’s wrong for white people to marry other white people and to have white children together, because this is racist. She’s literally saying that our continued existence is racist. Therefore is it not obvious what the solution is? We have to stop existing in order to put an end to racism.

But of course, “white genocide” is just a crazy, far right conspiracy theory, that only far-right, Neo-Nazi, white supremacists, believe in. It doesn’t matter that it’s blatantly out in the open. It’s still just a crazy conspiracy theory.

“Just because this is actually all happening, doesn’t mean that white genocide is real.” ~ The logic we’re expected to believe.

Jessie Daniels, described as an expert on “the Internet manifestations of racism” on her CUNY page, infuriated social media users after reportedly saying that white families promote racism by default.

They misspelled “CUNT page”.

Jessie Daniels. Strange, she looks “white” to me. Why would this “white” woman, have such an attitude towards her “fellow white people”? Hmm, this seems suspicious.

The professor began her argument saying she learned that “the white-nuclear family is one of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy,” adding that that families “reproducing white children” are “part of the problem” as they facilitate white supremacy in the country, Campus Reform reported.

White people having children promotes white supremacy. Therefore white people need to stop having children, or if they must, they should make a point of having mixed race children only. Who cares if the person they fall in love with is another white person? Who cares if they want to have children who look like them? They have to either forego reproduction, or mate with people of other races, or else Jessie Daniels will call them racist. Of course, it’s still perfectly acceptable for black people to have black children, Asian people to have Asian children, Latino people to have Latino children, etc. This rule only applies to white people.

She reportedly tweeted: “I mean, if you’re a white person who says they’re engaged in dismantling white supremacy but … you’re forming a white family (and) reproducing white children that ‘you want the best for’ – how is that helping [and] not part of the problem?”

I would ask how is it causing a problem, but we all know that we won’t actually get an answer to that question, because then she would have to admit the truth, which is that as far as she is concerned, white people existing at all is the problem.

She reportedly ended her arguement suggesting that “white people” should confront their racism and stop perpetuating inequality by leaving their homes for their children.

“Until white people are ready to confront their own family’s racism (and) participation in systemic white supremacy, it’s not getting dismantled,” she wrote. “Beyond just calling out interpersonal racism, white people who want to be engaged in the work need to ask themselves about housing wealth.”

She added: “White people: do you own your home? When you die, where’s wealth in that house going? If it’s to your children, you’re reproducing (inequality).”

Yes you horrible white people. How dare you work hard, make responsible decisions, and end up owning a home of your own? It doesn’t matter how you obtained the wealth to own that home. The fact that you own it at all is an example of “inequality”. You have no right to pass that home that you worked hard to buy, on to your own children. That wealth needs to be shared with minorities who have less, even if they only have less wealth because of their own laziness, stupidity, and general incompetence.

Don’t worry ma’am. We’ll find some guilt ridden white sucker to leave their hard-earned wealth to you, instead of their own children.

The professor locked her account in response to the criticism. Fox News reached out to the professor and the university early Tuesday and did not receive an immediate response.

She obviously wasn’t prepared to defend her statements. People like this aren’t used to talking to people. They’re used to talking at people, and when people start talking back, they can’t handle it.

Anyway, as I was saying before, I just can’t understand this mentality. Why would a “white” woman say such vicious and hateful things towards other white people? It just makes no sense to me that a “white” person could possibly hate their own race so much, to the point that they would like to see them go extinct. What could possibly be the explan…

Oh. Why am I not surprised?








Bread and circuses… and politics.


We live in a decaying society. All over the Western world, economic prospects are bleak. Good jobs, which pay a decent wage, and which are fulfilling to do, are few and far between, with rapidly increasing automation only going to make this even worse as time goes by. Affordable housing is an unobtainable fantasy for most young people these days. In Europe, the Barbarians are at our gates, and are actually being welcomed in with open arms, predictable consequences for doing so be damned. In America, racial tensions are the worst they’ve been in almost half a century. Terrorist attacks are happening so regularly, that they barely get any attention anymore, unless they have an exceptionally high body count. Gender relations are completely out of whack, with divorces on the rise, an inability for people to make relationships work at all, and with many men just giving up on them entirely, turning to pornography, masturbation, and soon, sex robots, as an alternative. We live in an absolute nightmare.

On some level, most people know that things aren’t right, and look for distractions from it all. This is nothing unusual, and has been a pretty common occurrence in societies on the verge of collapse. The Romans had a term for it, “Bread and Circuses”.  Basically, the Romans had figured out that as long as the people weren’t going hungry, and had some form of entertainment to take their minds off of things, that they could be appeased, and the real problems facing the empire would be ignored. Of course ignoring the problems doesn’t make them go away, so Rome eventually collapsed under their weight, circa 476 AD.

The rise of Christianity certainly didn’t help.

Things really aren’t that much different today. Society is going to hell, but people have plenty of “circuses” to keep them pacified. Movies, TV, professional sports, social media, videogames, etc., etc., all fulfill this role in the modern world. However, I’ve noticed a very interesting phenomenon that has been taking place in recent years. The whole point of the circuses is to distract people from the problems that are all around them, a temporary respite from them, if you will.

In other words, they’re supposed to be a safe haven from, not a reminder of these problems, because if they remind people of the problems, they lose all effectiveness as a distraction from them. And that’s exactly what we’re seeing happening these days. The problems people are trying to distract themselves from, are becoming conflated with the distractions themselves.

Lets take sports as our first example, specifically, the NFL in America. As I already mentioned, professional sports are a perfect example of the modern equivalent to the Roman games, and if anything, are probably the closest thing to them. The NFL was a very popular distraction for many Americans from the everyday problems that they face, or at least they were until…


So for those who are unaware, the NFL is currently being plagued by massive and very public controversy. Many black players are choosing to kneel, rather than standing in respect when the national anthem is being played. Their reason for doing this is to protest against alleged racial injustices that black people supposedly face in America. This of course serves as a reminder of the problem that is America’s increasingly poor race relations, a problem that people would rather distract themselves from. So can you imagine how this must look to white NFL fans who see this happening? They’re ordinary, working class people, dealing with problems of their own, that they wish to distract themselves from, and they turn on the TV and see a bunch of millionaires, paid to play a sport they probably enjoy playing anyway, whining about how oppressed they are, and how privileged their audience is. How do you suppose that has gone down with the audience?


So the NFL has actually gone from being America’s most popular sport, to its least popular, directly as a result of these protests. People didn’t watch the NFL to be lectured to, and to be reminded about the problems in their society. They watched it as a distraction, and now that that distraction is gone, they’re tuning out instead.

But hey, it’s not just the NFL that is failing in its duty as a distraction for the masses. There’s plenty of other forms of entertainment doing the same thing. Look at late night, comedian, talk show hosts like Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, John Oliver, etc. Ever since Trump came along, he has pretty much made up the entirety of their acts. Now I’m not saying that it’s anything unusual for comedians to take shots at political figures, and I certainly don’t think that Trump should be exempt from their ridicule. There’s definitely a lot of material to work with there. The problem is, they aren’t simply mocking Trump himself. They’re mocking his base, his supporters, the people who voted for him. That’s 63 MILLION people that they’re attacking. It’s quite possible that many of these 63 million people were at one point, viewers of one or more of these comedians. Do you think they’re still fans now after having been labeled as “racists”, “misogynists”, “dumb rednecks” etc., simply for voting for what they felt was the better choice for themselves and their families? I would be shocked if they are.

Why would any of these people tune in to distract themselves from the problems in their lives, if they know they’re just going to be mocked and insulted by the hosts? What is the benefit to them? There are two other notable examples of entertainment media that I can think of off the top of my head, which are having similar problems. Video games, and comics.

Long considered refuges for geeks and nerds, in the western world at least, video games and comics have both generally been most popular with males, particularly white ones. Most of the most popular super-heroes have historically been white males and this makes sense when you consider the fact that most of them were created in America, back when America was still somewhere between 85 and 90 percent white. That’s not to say that there hasn’t been female and racial minority super-heroes as as well, but the most popular ones of all, such as Batman, Superman, Spider-man, Iron Man, Captain America, etc., have all been white men. Similarly, popular video-games have usually had white male protagonists, because these are more relatable to the biggest target market, but again, plenty of exceptions exist.

In recent years however, there have been attacks on these two industries from outside. People who aren’t even fans of them have whined about how “noninclusive” “racist” and “sexist” they are, and have demanded changes to better suit their own tastes. One of the two big comic publishers, Marvel, has done exactly that. Rather than do the sensible thing of better promoting their existing female and racial minority characters, or creating brand new heroes altogether, they took the approach of taking their most beloved and popular characters, with decades of history and reader attachment, and either replaced them, or made drastic changes to them. Lets take a look at some of these changes that they’ve made the past few years.

They’ve replaced Thor with a woman.
They’ve replaced the white man “Bruce Banner” with an Asian man who becomes the Hulk.
They made C or D List black superhero, Falcon into the new Captain America, while turning the original white Captain America into a Nazi, a complete bastardisation of his character.
They’ve replaced Iron Man with a black teenage girl.
They killed off Wolverine and replaced him with his daughter, X-23.
They revealed that perpetual womaniser, Bobby “Ice-Man” Drake, is  actually gay, in the worst way possible.
They created a half black, half Latino, Spider-Man, Miles Morales. This one wasn’t so obnoxious, because it was done years before the others, and they didn’t have him replace the original Spider-Man in the process. It’s just seems weird having more than one of them at the same time.

That’s just off the top of my head. These changes have not been well received by long time Marvel fans, and Marvel is aware of this. They try to frame it as if the fans are just a bunch of bigots who can’t accept diversity, but is this really the case? Nobody had any problems with racial minority characters such as Black Panther or Blade, nor did they have any problems with the many female super-heroes that have appeared on teams like the X-Men or the Avengers over the years. Over at their rivals, DC, nobody ever had a problem with Wonder Woman, the black Green Lantern, John Stewart, or the gay super-hero, Midnighter. Diversity was never the problem, because diversity has always existed to some extent in comics. The problem is that they’re replacing beloved and popular characters that fans are emotionally invested in, and then making derogatory comments about the fans when they speak out against it. And sure enough, their sales have declined, and they’re blaming the fans, rather than themselves for this.

With regards to videogames, there’s too much for me to even cover. I’d just suggest reading up on the “Gamergate Controversy”  to get a superficial idea of what’s been happening there. Of course, there’s a lot more to the story than what is being reported there. There’s always the Encylopedia Dramatica article on the topic, if you want to get the other side of the story.

Seeing this infestation of politics, social conflicts, and other problems into what are supposed to be distractions from these issues could have an interesting effect on how people react. The whole reason for bread and circuses is to pacify the masses so that they don’t pay attention to actual problems, and demand real solutions to them. But if these distractions stop working, and people no longer feel that they have a safe haven from these problems, then what are they supposed to do? How can they be kept pacified? Could we perhaps be on the verge of seeing a big awakening soon? I sure hope so.

“Preschools are too ‘heteronormative'”

I was always under the impression that the purpose of preschools, was to teach children how to socialise and interact with other children. Turns out I was wrong. The real purpose of them is to be a sort of “reverse conversion therapy”, where heterosexual kids are brainwashed into becoming LGBT.

From Campus Reform

A University of Michigan instructor recently claimed that preschool classrooms are rife with “heteronormativity” that perpetuates “inequalities related to gender.”

Now just watch as she fails to back this up with any actual meaningful points, instead just relying on buzzwords and personal opinions.

Heidi M. Gansen, a Ph.D. student who teaches sociology at UMich, advanced these claims in a July 14 article that examines the prevalence of “heteronormativity” in a set of nine Michigan preschool classrooms she visited.

And this is why the value of a college education keeps on declining. The fact that a deranged Marxist ideologue like this woman is actually paid to teach people, is absolutely hilarious. Or at least, it would be hilarious, if it wasn’t so tragic. To any unfortunate student who was naive enough to sign up for this class, I just want to wish you good luck trying to pay off your tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt, especially while working at the one job you’re likely to get, with a qualification such as this.

“Do you want fries with that?”

Defining “heteronormativity” as a culture in which “heterosexuality is always assumed, expected, ordinary, and privileged,” Gansen then argues that the issue is especially important to her research because preschools contribute to the “reproduction of inequalities pertaining to gender and sexuality,” such as gender roles and gendered feelings.

Does all that sound like a bunch of nonsensical, confusing, gibberish to you? If so, then good, that’s exactly the point. It’s supposed to be confusing for the average person to comprehend what this all even means. Basically, this woman is complaining that heterosexuality is presumed to be the “norm” in society, just because the vast majority of people, happen to be heterosexual. Because most people happen to be heterosexual, most other people will naturally presume that others are heterosexual, because statistically speaking, about 96% of people, will be, unless they’re specifically told otherwise. However, she seems to think that this way of interacting with one another marginalises the remaining 4% who aren’t, and therefore, we need to change our natural behaviour, and act as if there’s a 50/50 split between gay and straight people.

“Preschool is a good place to begin this examination, because practices that facilitate heteronormativity in classrooms become more engrained in later years of schooling,” she explains.

It’s a good place to begin the examination, because the best way to brainwash people into accepting your deranged world view, is to target them when they’re young, and their brains aren’t fully developed yet. That’s what it’s really all about. She wants to perpetuate her Cultural Marxist bollocksology, and who better to promote it to than young kids who haven’t yet developed the ability to think critically?


Accordingly, Gansen spent ten months observing childhood behavior at a set of nine Michigan preschools, finding numerous ways in which heterosexuality is “produced” and “enforced” by students and teachers.

Wait, I’m confused. Heterosexuality is “produced” now? But I was under the impression that one of the leading arguments of the LGBT rights lobby, was that you’re “born with your sexuality”, and that you can’t choose or change it. So I don’t understand how she can then make the claim that these teachers are “producing heterosexuality”.

In all seriousness, I’m of the believe that sexuality is determined by a mixture of nurture and nature, rather than just one or the other. I’ve heard it suggested before that both homosexuality and transgenderism is similar to diabetes, in that there’s a “Type 1” and a “Type 2”.

No don’t worry, I’m not suggesting that we can start injecting gay people with insulin, in order to make them straight.

Much like with diabetes, someone with type 1 homosexuality or transgenderism, will be someone who was just born that way. I do believe that there are people who are just naturally born to be gay or transgender, and nothing in the environment will change that. However, just like how people get type 2 diabetes, due to their life experiences, I believe that life experiences in the time before puberty (and by extension, before sexuality has developed) can impact how a person’s sexuality develops. Just look at this study for example:

“Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. “

Look at the variance there. 46% of gay men interviewed for the study, claimed to experience homosexual molestation as a child, compared to just 7% of straight men, and there’s a similar variance between the experiences of lesbians and straight women. When looking at information like that, is it really hard to consider the possibility that having such experiences before they reached adolescence, and while their brains were still developing, could have warped their perceptions of sexuality somewhat. As I’ve said, I’m by no means suggesting that every single gay person is someone who was “turned gay from molestation” as a child, as I do believe that plenty of gay people are just born that way, but it’s still something that needs to be acknowledged.

And as for transgenderism, well consider this. In the most gender equal country on the planet, Sweden, the number of children looking to undergo sex changes is apparently doubling each year.  Supporters will claim the numbers actually aren’t any higher than they ever were before, but it’s just less taboo now to go public about it, but I’m too cynical to agree. Personally, I believe that there has always existed a very tiny minority of people with gender dysphoria (the type 1s), but what we’re now seeing is a drastic increase in the type 2s, as a result of campaigns to normalise and encourage it. The fact that a country like Sweden of all places, is seeing this increase, only convinces me more that this increase is really a result of environmental stimuli and information that children are being exposed to, while they’re still growing and their brains are still developing.

Anyway, you might be wondering why I went off on that tangent about type 1 and type 2 LGBT people. Well, it connects back to this woman’s comments about schools “producing heterosexuality”. You see, despite the claims they make that all LGBT people are just “born that way”, I believe that they actually know damn well that this isn’t always the case. This woman is angry at schools for “producing heterosexuality”, because she knows that in some cases at least, it is possible to produce homosexuality and transgenderism, and for her own reasons, she wants to encourage that to happen. What her reasons are, I can only speculate. One thing I am certain of however, is that when she complains about “heteronormativity”, it isn’t because she cares about the well-being of any LGBT children.

Playing “house,” for instance, is one area in which Gansen observed “heteronormativity” in the in the preschool setting, noting that only girls would imitate mothers while only boys would play fathers.

Wow. Can you even begin to comprehend? That’s so sick and twisted. Girls role-playing as mothers and boys role-playing as fathers. This is so unfair, because it denies the existence of the millions of girls who become fathers, and the millions of boys who become mothers. Oh wait, I forgot. In real life, “father” is an exclusively male term, and “mother” is an exclusively female term, so that never actually happens.

A little girl pretending to be a mother, and a little boy pretending to be a father. Remember when this would have been considered cute and innocent, rather than something to be attacked?

If a girl asked to be the husband of the household, she would be quickly rebuffed by her peers, Gansen observed, lamenting that “children did not allow cross-gender roles.”

Girls can’t be husbands in real life. Get over it. Besides, while you’re complaining about this, did it ever once occur to you, to consider the feelings of the boy in this scenario? Maybe he doesn’t want to play the wife, and why should he be forced to?

Gansen also cited the reading of “traditional fairy tales,”

Which generations of children grew up hearing, and turned out fine…

engaging in “heteronormative play,”

Which generations of children grew up playing, and turned out fine…

and teachers suggesting that a boy has a “crush” on a girl as other ways in which gender-roles are perpetuated.

Maybe the boy does have a crush on the girl. Seriously, what’s the fucking problem here? These people are obsessed. I can guarantee that if the boy had a crush on another boy, this woman would be celebrating it. It’s just like with their weird desire to completely reverse all  gender norms. If a woman chooses the role of a housewife, she’s attacked for doing so. If a man becomes a househusband, it’s celebrated. If a man is highly ambitious and aggressively competitive, he has “toxic masculinity”. If a woman is highly ambitious and aggressively competitive, she’s a “strong, confident woman”. Essentially, men are pathologised for acting like traditional men, women are pathologised for acting like traditional women, but both men and women are celebrated for acting like the traditional version of the opposite gender.


Meanwhile, teachers apparently make similar mistakes when they refer to “same-gender signs of affection or homosocial behaviors as friendly” as opposed to romantic, with Gansen arguing that  the teacher’s interpretation of the friendship makes no concession for the fact that some students might be gay or queer.

See what I mean? It’s wrong for a teacher to think that a boy has a crush on a girl, but if the teacher fails to assume that a boy has a crush on his male friend, that’s also wrong.

As a solution, Gansen concludes by outlining “disruptive” approaches teachers can take, which include talking about the legality of gay marriage and showing “acceptance” when students participate in “actions that interrupt heteronormativity.”

A “solution” to a problem nobody ever asked to be solved.

Gansen finishes by complaining that even in the preschools with the most progressive teachers of all the ones she observed, “children still engaged in heteronormative practices with peers,” adding that “these findings demonstrate the importance of teachers actively working to disrupt heteronormativity, which is already ingrained in children by ages 3 to 5.”

Wow if that’s really the case, then how are there any gay people in the world at all?

Campus Reform reached out to Gansen for additional comment on her research, but did not receive a response in time for publication.

Of course not. People like this want to “talk at” us, rather than “talk to”. There’s no point even engaging with her. She should just be ridiculed.

A small sample of what we’re up against: Part 4

In case it isn’t obvious, I’m suffering from a very severe case of writer’s block at the moment. I guess I’m just getting fed up constantly writing about the same kinds of insanity happening over and over again. I feel as if I’m just covering the same ground with every post, and that really effects my motivation to write anything.

Nevertheless, I do still want to keep making posts, as I enjoy doing this blog, so today I’m going to do what I always do, whenever I’m going through a drought of content. I’m going to post another batch of content that I’ve taken from the TumblrInAction reddit board, just to give you an insight into the kind of insanity that we’re dealing with in this world. If you want to see my previous posts on this topic, please click here, to see part 3, and from there, you can find the links to parts 1 and 2.

Anyway, enjoy…

Kale is indigenous to Europe by the way, meaning white people were eating it long before blacks. Though really, does that even matter? This idiot is literally dictating to an entire race, what they can eat.
Crazy person trying to encourage a child to become just as crazy as they are.  Remember when this would have been considered child abuse?
The only reason why it would collapse, is because the Jews control most of America, including their media, academia, and financial systems, and would almost certainly sabotage them on purpose, on their way out.
This is an actual presentation that a black student is giving in college. Imagine the outrage, if a white student had a similar presentation about black people. But yeah, white people are the privileged ones.
How are these statements related in any way?
Whites are the most violent, even though blacks, Arabs, and Hispanics all commit more violent crime than whites do, and white majority countries are so well run, that all these other groups flock by the millions to live in them. If white people are so violent, why do non-white people want to live in our countries so badly?
Can anyone explain why exactly it is necessary to change Santa’s race? What is the benefit of doing so? What is the point? How does it even make sense, considering the fact that Santa is based on the real historical figure, St Nicholas, a white man?
Wow, I guess all those doctors and scientists were wrong. Also, I guess it’s just a coincidence that it’s mainly fat people who get type 2 diabetes. Thank you anonymous tumblr user, for telling us the truth.
“Don’t generalise all Muslims, based on the actions of a minority of them.” *proceeds to unfairly generalise all cops, all Americans, and all white people*
According to this person’s logic, roughly half of her fellow citizens are racists and misogynists. How will she ever survive there, if that’s the case? she should probably emigrate to Trudeau’s Canada instead.
This is why China and India are gradually catching up with the West. How can we ever be expected to compete in the world, if THIS is the sort of thing that people are studying at college?This person is probably even less employable than someone with no college education at all, and probably tens of thousands of dollars in debt as well.
Are we going to get an explanation as to why this is so? no, of course not.
Being called by the name on their birth cert, and the name that they are probably registered with the college by, makes them feel unsafe. How can a person this fragile be expected to function in the real world? How will they handle it, when the Muslims are getting ready to throw them off the top of a building, if hearing their own name is enough to make them feel unsafe?
Even if you by into the idea that “gender” and “sex” are two different things, it doesn’t change the fact that “male/female”, “men/women”, “boy/girl” are more often used to refer to a person’s biological sex, rather than their subjective gender identity. It has always been this way. So in other words, if you feel like you’re a woman, despite being born in the body of a biological male, that’s your choice and you can refer to yourself as you wish. However, you don’t get the right to dictate how others (the majority, I might add) perceive reality, so if they choose to use these words in reference to a person’s biological sex, that’s their choice.
Or it’s just common courtesy that when you’re in a different country, that you make an effort to learn the language of the local people, so you can communicate with them. Nobody forced these non-English speakers, to come live in an English speaking country. They made a choice, and there are consequences of making that choice. Also, what a racist statement you’ve just made. It’s not just “people of colour” who have to learn English as a second language in America. White people from non-English speaking countries do too.
The internet is full of this by the way. Pathetic weaklings, self diagnosing themselves with PTSD for example, because a white male held a door open for them, and this “blatant act of sexism” triggered them. Or morbidy obese fatasses diagnosing themselves with an underactive thyroid, when really, they’re just lazy and greedy.
Being fit isn’t a privilege. It takes hard work and discipline to be fit.  This woman could be fit too, if she hit the gym, and ate a bit less. Instead of doing this, she chooses to attack someone else who has, and act as if she is the victim. I don’t know if she actually is a hypocrite, but it sure looks as if she might well be a hippo-crite 😛
“Stuff black people like: Rap music. Fried chicken. Watermel…” “OMG SHUT THE FUCK UP RACIST!!!! HOW DARE YOU GENERALISE A WHOLE RACE LIKE THAT?!?!?!?”
No it’s because when they see them with their significant other, they know that they’re off the market. When they see them by themselves, there is a possibility that they might be single, and seeing as men are the ones expected to make the first move in human courtship, it’s nothing unusual for them to at least try their luck.
Feeling guilty about their “white male privilege”. Lives in New York. I’m betting this guy was a Jew.

Anyway, that’s it for now, but I can assure you, there will be a part 5 at some stage.

It’s offensive now to say breastfeeding is natural.

It’s honestly impossible to tell anymore.

Just when I think there is nothing in this world that is ridiculous enough to leave me feeling dumbfounded anymore, a story like this comes out and manages to prove me wrong.

From Heatstreet

It’s “ethically inappropriate” for government and medical organizations to describe breastfeeding as “natural” because the term enforces rigid notions about gender roles, claims a new study in Pediatrics.

I just… I can’t even… just what the fuck have I just read here?

This poor woman has no idea just how oppressed she is by doing this. Breastfeeding was actually invented by the patriarchy (white men specifically) in order to enforce oppressive gender roles. 

“Coupling nature with motherhood… can inadvertently support biologically deterministic arguments about the roles of men and women in the family (for example, that women should be the primary caretaker,” the study says.

No you fucking moron, people say that “breastfeeding is natural”, because it’s one of the most natural things in the world. All female mammals (humans included) have mammary glands that produce milk which they use to feed their young. Male mammals (again, humans included) don’t have this ability. If it’s natural for every other mammal to do this, then what makes humans the exception? Where did this arrogant view come from, that somehow nature doesn’t apply to humans?

The study notes that in recent years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, and several state departments of health have all promoted breastfeeding over bottle-feeding, using the term “natural.”


“Referencing the ‘natural’ in breastfeeding promotion… may inadvertently endorse a set of values about family life and gender roles, which would be ethically inappropriate,” the study says.

Yeah, could you imagine? It might offend certain people to make statements like this.

You evil hate filled bigots. This woman here doesn’t have the ability to breastfeed, because she was “assigned male” at birth. By saying that breastfeeding is natural, you run the risk of hurting her feelings, and as we all know, the feelings of a tiny insignificant minority, are more important than “facts” or “truth”.

Unless such public-service announcements “make transparent the ‘values and beliefs that underlie them,’” they should quit describing breastfeeding as “natural.”

“You should do this thing because WE say so. If you don’t do as we say, we will call you names like ‘sexist’ or ‘transphobic’, or whatever other word we think of, until we get our way. Then when you prove your weakness and cowardice by giving in to our initial demands, we’ll start making even more outrageous demands, and force you to do as we say again.”

But the study’s authors, Jessica Martucci and Anne Barnhill, clearly have in mind an alternative set of “values and beliefs,” about which which they are not transparent.

The fact that these two fools each have a PhD, is a testament to how much the Academic system in the West has declined.

According to this article, they actually first published this lunacy over a year ago. When called out on it, they just screeched about “misogyny”, claiming people were just attacking them for being outspoken women, rather than the fact that their ideas were being ridiculed for their obvious stupidity.

It’s unclear whether they’re worried about how traditional female gender roles may limit women’s progress in the workforce, or whether this is part of the discussion about whether conventional views about motherhood exclude transgender people.

Who cares what their motivation was? Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that breastfeeding IS natural. There’s no justification for what they are claiming.

Or perhaps this is just another example of how the progressive obsession with gender and sexuality has permeated all fields of academic study.

Yeah that’s probably the most likely explanation.

This is what they actually believe happens in real life.

Regardless, Martucci and Barnhill mask their agenda by also making the unconvincing secondary argument that describing breastfeeding as “natural” fuels the anti-vaccine movement.

When public-service announcements praise breastfeeding as “natural,” Martucci and Barnhill argue, the implication is that manufactured or mass-produced products are questionable or dangerous—so these promotions may unintentionally encourage parents to reject scientific progress elsewhere.

*Claims breastfeeding shouldn’t be described as “natural”*

*Accuses others of rejecting scientific progress*

You know what, that’s good enough to become a “College liberal” meme. So I’m going to go to the generator, and make one right now.


“If doing what is ‘natural’ is ‘best’ in the case of breastfeeding, how can we expect mothers to ignore that powerful and deeply persuasive worldview when making choices about vaccination?” they write.

Because they are two different things and have absolutely no connection, you idiot. Doing one, doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not they’ll do the other.

There’s certainly an assertive worldview woven throughout this paper, though we find it neither powerful nor deeply persuasive.

Yeah, I doubt most sane people would.