Bread and circuses seller

PR was a direct rebrand and Hollywood, to its shame, uses that openly to attract young women and children to the meat grinder.
Also famous is the “engineering of consent” line which probably sparked a genre of dystopia novels. He regarded democracy like a belligerent farmer who detests his sheep.
He considered himself one of the “intelligent few”, who was “charged with the responsibility of contemplating and influencing the tide of history“. Yes it’s very ‘heal the world‘ and smacks of CM. Nowadays we’d call that a high information consumer but… you know what it really means. You don’t even have to look it up, do you? They replaced nationalism and being a good citizen to your in-group beginning about a century ago into your precious 1950s*, to being a good little worker and atomised urban leech to be a perpetual GDP machine, family be damned. God forbid we have a deflationary spiral and standard of living goes up!
Mad Men was trying to white wash the history of this grubby little industry, which targets the class-insecure poor, men who want business contacts to support a family and women who want husbands.

[*Personally I’m more of a 1850s gal. Minus crinoline. Dickens was full of shit, like a typical slut.]

You know how fetuses are damaged by cigarettes? Well, this guy (((Bernays))) also encouraged white women to openly smoke.

Since we’re entering the 20s again, let’s discuss universal suffrage by actually doing the research, first? The Left is known to lie about voter patterns, unless Great Aunt Gertrude defied death to vote Obama, such was her conviction. ALWAYS CHECK. The bigger socialist gain were originally actually men, factory workers, (that means low IQ generally, sorry) voting in gibs they never expected to pay for from the “evil” owner of the MOP. Now a vote isn’t enough and we call them unions, like anti-fa, still a sausage fest. The Bernie guys were always… guys and the Yang wankers were not only race traitors hoping a Socialist Asian** would save them from adult decision-making, but again, also low IQ men. Spot the pattern. Women sure do. Judas was paid. How much to betray your nation? Turns out, not much at all.

Pictured: in the centre, people who deserve a vote. Since they earned it.

By all means abolish teacher’s unions or make them fire-able for criminal offenses, but wouldn’t that logically extend to ALL unions? The MRAs just want their gender cake and women’s too, huh? Financial transgenders.

The push for universal suffrage was, in reality, legally based on “no taxation before representation” and thus inevitable (based on citizenship and the right to contribute to society), nothing to do with some BS gender war, WHATSOEVER.

I think a lot of women wouldn’t mind having to dispense of a useless vote if we could keep all of our income, that would make us very bank-independent. Don’t threaten us with a good time, foreign internet misogynists larping as a fellow white. We are not your low IQ wife-cousin, white women have higher averages than brown men – by far. You can’t really threaten us economically, as a weak link in the white Western group (which we otherwise are, the current gender war psyops target it’s trendy to blame). We were happy with (thriving) cottage industries before, in literal cottages. The prospect of banning another adult’s economic production, especially in the internet era, is downright hilarious. You can’t. It’s impossible. Women worked for millennia alongside their families before paying the fiat banks a special serf tax. Just abolish income tax (ancient slaves paid it) and make it all capital gains, which isn’t personally earned but arse-sitting money. You could spend more on investments then if you wanted, or save, or spend. It’s an ideal system. For the people who produce things, that is. Banks HATE IT.

Women can be shockingly… practical, if you push us. You wouldn’t exist if we weren’t.

CBA, tbh

Women can always go back to working in a non-taxed way, do not fuck with us.

What, you gonna tax us for cooking our own food, cleaning our own houses and caring for our own relatives? If only more men were so responsible, as to act like full adults.

The commonly accepted domestic code for it is “waste of money”, women have been the biggest tax avoiders, well, ever? Trans. waste of MY money.

If the bottom falls out of this powderkeg economy, men most affected. You didn’t see bread lines of useless women who only specialised in doing one thing forever. Go ahead, foreign shit-heads, threaten us.

This is our house. They literally don’t know how the West actually works. What keeps it going is cooperation. 

(There’s a reason the white SJWs don’t even take Muslim men seriously. The famous mummy’s boys who can’t do their own laundry or washing-up. You want war, huh?)

Threaten people with an IQ gap you cannot conceive. See what happens to the laffer curve once women go into financial hibernation to freeze out the leeches. [The Russian method.]

~whispers~ It’s already happening. The stagnation isn’t coming from the men larping as a social media CEO. They’re buying/spending/taxed more than ever. Women have just mutually agreed to consume less and pretend it’s about muh environment*** so they don’t try to tax it. When you think about it, that’s very Darwinian phrasing. Women ebb and flow like this financially, historically. We sense things before you do. Men didn’t invent prepping, most of it’s home ec. with macho rebranding for morons. Prepping is literally just feminine nesting instinct, dipshits.

By all means, lecture us about carbon skillets. Not like we grew up with them or anything…

“Ya gotta buy this slow cooker, I just discovered them and it’s perfect for the bachelor life, this isn’t like your grandma’s, it’s CAMO, dude!” – literally this, constantly

When you grew up with an inter-generational teaching process (Youtube domestic information is often wrong) and decades of learning by the time of reaching adulthood, it’s easy to feel smug when the opposite sex arrogantly thinks they can even catch up. Sure, try to replace us. TRY.

Foraging? You mean, like, herb gathering? The thing Disney princesses were shown doing, it’s so feminine? How manly of you, yes. We iz impressed, now go away.

And these soyboys bitch to us about the trend of androgyny and dare slag off trousers. Go back to wearing tights, if you’re so traditional.

Lotta women already going Galt by taking up dressmaking, cooking, gardening and other things we used to outsource to foreigners, just saying? Men cannot multi-task like that. What, you think the hobby choices were a complete coincidence? We just magically picked all the ones that save us the most money and reduce our need to pay state taxes, huh? Aw. Bless your cotton socks. Encourage spinsters at your peril. Nowadays everyone needs a ‘side gig’. We wuz all spinsters. I love how women are just quietly teaching one another apocalypse skills but men think they’re prepping by buying plastic bullshit.

The super secret code among non-trash women is “depression era recipes”.

Not deliberate at all, y u ask? No aforethought whatsoever, mindless men, carry on, carry on.

Keep going for that IT certification. Be the best code monkey you can be.

**Owe the State compulsory debt, I’m sure this ends well and not in Communist firing squads when you refuse to pay back at hyperinflated interest nor do corvee labour (slavery). UBI is easily debt bondage to the State. Like all Leftism, it’s such a good idea, it must be compulsory.

***Er yeah we love the birds, the bees, the …trees, the flowers and shit. Yeah, guess you have nothing to tax. The banks can’t steal my shekels. What a tragedy, I know. But muh Greta ist gut. Girrrl powa, yah. Please go tax the foreign people buying on credit, thanks. I know, we’re such martyrs. We’re so conscious. Tax breaks? Sure. If you insist. I’m just terribly concerned about my carbon footprint, it keeps me up all night while counting my shekels.

Auberon’s slavery reference (1890)

https://archive.org/details/politicianinsigh00herbrich/page/n4

https://www.archive.org/stream/politicianinsigh00herbrich/politicianinsigh00herbrich_djvu.txt

 " Why should either two men live at the discretion of three, or three at the 
discretion of two ? Both propositions are absurd from a reasonable point of view. 
If being a slave and owning a slave are both wrong relations, what difference 
does it make whether there are a million slave-owners and one slave, or one 
slave-owner and a million slaves ? Do robbery and murder cease to be what they 
are if done by ninety-nine per cent, of the population ? Clear your ideas on the 
subject, Mr. Bramston, and see that numbers cannot affect the question of what is 
right and wrong. Suppose some man with the cunning brain of a Napoleon 
were to train and organize the Chinamen, and then should lead them to annex 
such parts of the West as they desired ; on your theory of numbers, if they 
exceeded the population of the country they appropriated it would be all right." 

" I do not say that it is a satisfactory answer; but might not a majority inside 
a country afford a right method of decision, without extending the rule to the case 
of one country against another?" 

" On what ground ? " said Markham. " From where are the rights to come 
which you have so suddenly discovered ? Do you think that the moral laws that 
govern men are made to appear and disappear at our convenience ? Forget that. "

The Victorian translation is “Do one”.

The rationale of mass invasion. It’s even argued by postmodernism a lifetime before it ‘came out’.

Democracy applies ONLY if the people are homogeneous (A People), mature adults (not manchildren or feckless fake tradwives pretending not to be leeches) and not weakened by sexual degeneracy (or they’ll vote in others’ resources to pay for their medical care, welfare, girlfriend’s cohabiting (living in sin) abortion. Sin begets sin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_rebellion
CHINOs present historically too:

The pamphlets at first denounced Catholicism from a radical Lutheran perspective, but soon started to proclaim that the Bible called for the absolute equality of man in all matters including the distribution of wealth. The pamphlets, which were distributed throughout northern Germany, successfully called upon the poor of the region to join the citizens of Münster to share the wealth of the town and benefit spiritually from being the elect of Heaven.

What did they actually do? Rape the women and children. Kill any men who hadn’t deserted and tried to stop them.

The first commune. And they called for immigration to do it.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&version=KJV

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/3-10.htm

Berean Literal Bible
For even when we were with you, we were commanding you this, that “if anyone is not willing to work, neither let him eat.”

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

so Marx didn’t actually invent Communism, it was CHINOs

a plagiarizing Jew, really?

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

SJWs are hardly new.

https://biblehub.com/bsb/1_thessalonians/4.htm

But we urge you, brothers, to excel more and more and to aspire to live quietly, to attend to your own matters, and to work with your own hands, as we instructed you. Then you will behave properly toward outsiders,

Relying on foreigners for your employ is hardly anti-fragile.

This includes remote workers relying on Asian IT.

without being dependent on anyone.

Go Galt as much as possible and dedicate your time to worthy people of your choosing, not a civil servant tyrant.

MGTOW are acting like they invented being single because if they’re not edgy, bachelor doesn’t have quite the same ring to it. They might be compared with the dreaded spinster.

Biblical basis of socialism and work ethic

ECC 5

“10 Whoever loves money never has enough;
    whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income.
    This too is meaningless.

11 As goods increase,
    so do those who consume them.
And what benefit are they to the owners
    except to feast their eyes on them?

12 The sleep of a laborer is sweet,
    whether they eat little or much,
but as for the rich, their abundance
    permits them no sleep.

13 I have seen a grievous evil under the sun:

wealth hoarded to the harm of its owners,
14     or wealth lost through some misfortune,
so that when they have children
    there is nothing left for them to inherit.
15 Everyone comes naked from their mother’s womb,
    and as everyone comes, so they depart.
They take nothing from their toil
    that they can carry in their hands.

16 This too is a grievous evil:

As everyone comes, so they depart,
    and what do they gain,
    since they toil for the wind?
17 All their days they eat in darkness,
    with great frustration, affliction and anger.

18 This is what I have observed to be good: that it is appropriate for a person to eat, to drink and to find satisfaction in their toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given them—for this is their lot. 19 Moreover, when God gives someone wealth and possessions, and the ability to enjoy them, to accept their lot and be happy in their toil—this is a gift of God. 20 They seldom reflect on the days of their life, because God keeps them occupied with gladness of heart.”

Dark.

Bonus: a check against the cult of natalism.

Ecc 6:3

A man may have a hundred children and live many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he cannot enjoy his prosperity and does not receive proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he.

7

Everyone’s toil is for their mouth,
    yet their appetite is never satisfied.

Context in the Bible

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Why mention sexually immoral and adultery also? By modern, i.e. false, meanings those would be the same point? The same act i.e. sexing someone you aren’t married to, a particular type of intercourse.

I’ve been re-reading the sections with the word ‘adultery’, with the historically accurate context of adultery and it was there the whole time.

The Bible did say to test things so I looked and I’m shocked it’s clearly there in the phrasing. The only possible interpretation given the multiple instances of context like this is the Thou shalt not mongrelize linguistic origin of the Sixth Commandment.

This doesn’t bode well for the weebs and other outbreeding fetishists. “Their end will correspond to their deeds.”

The narrow modern definition is interpreted falsely (with intellectual dishonesty) and this lends new credence to the concept of the Way being narrow i.e. having the full context.

Romans 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

That would be a great way for a Satanist to destroy us, sell us a publicized misinterpretation of a Commandment so many break it. It also justifies their own lusts (belly, loins) as not sinful for the same acts. They flatter greedy fools (the simple) and what are men most easily deceived by? The phallus.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

Equalism aka Liberal Creationism is the myth. Nobody who buys into it can be right-wing i.e. reality-based.

We even have genetics studies, we can physically SEE the differences!

Proverbs: Take the garment of one who puts up security for a stranger; hold it in pledge if it is done for an outsider.

e.g.

Consider the context of:

James 4:4 You adulterers! Don’t you realize that friendship with the world makes you an enemy of God? I say it again: If you want to be a friend of the world, you make yourself an enemy of God.

with the modern limited sense, the use of the concept adultery there is erroneous.

They must mean the deeper, broader rooted sense of the sin.

FYI, scroll to the Sixth Commandment

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl720.htm

“In most translations of the Bible, Exodus 20:13 and Romans 13:9 are translated: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” In the literal translation of the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament and in the true translation of the Ten Commandments in The Truth Unveiled, these passages are translated as: “You will not mongrelize”.

In many people’s minds, there is a very great difference between these two translations, though, as we shall see later, this is due primarily to the purposeful degeneration of the etymology of the word adultery. At issue in the Greek Septuagint and in the Greek New Testament are two Greek words: ou moicheuseis. …

In the Latin Vulgate, Exodus 20:13 was translated as non moechaberis and Romans 13:9 as non adulterabis. The Latin word moechaberis is an inflected form of moechari, a transliteration of the Greek moicheuo, and is of little etymological importance since what it means is merely dependent upon what the Greek word means, which we will explore. However, what is important is adulterabis, an inflected form of the word adultero, since this is the Latin word most often used in the Vulgate and elsewhere to translate the Greek word moicheuo. 

The Greek word ou and the Latin word non are simply negative particles, translated not. Thus, the words that we need to define in order to determine the correct translation of Exodus 20:13 and Romans 13:9 are the Greek word moicheuo and the Latin word adultero. 

First, in order to define the word moicheuo, let us turn to a commonly used and commonly available dictionary, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and translated into English by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Now let us note that Kittel was a well-renowned German Greek scholar and is held in high-esteem by the scholarly community. 

Under the entry word moicheuo, the following definition is given: “of the intermingling of animals and men or of different races.” [In the German original, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, we find the original words of Kittel: “auch von Vermischung von Tier und Mensch oder von Mischung verschiedener Rassen”]. 

This, of course, is the classical definition of mongrelization. So the Greek of the New Testament and the Greek Septuagint confirm that the translation “You will not mongrelize” is correct. 

Now that we have defined the Greek, what about the Latin Vulgate? Now we must define the Latin word adultero, and we shall do so using the finest Latin dictionary currently available and the standard among Latin scholars, the Oxford Latin Dictionary: “To mix (a substance or kind) with another, adulterate: to impair the purity or strength of, to give a variety of appearances to, change . . . to corrupt, debase.” Once again, when this is applied to people, we have mongrelization. So we find age-old agreement between the Latin and the Greek. 

Therefore, using two of the most respected reference works available regarding Biblical Greek and the Latin language, and simply looking the words up, we find that these verses in the Bible are in fact an explicit prohibition against race-mixing. 

To any intellectually honest person, the above definitions should be more than enough to convince him that the Bible explicitly prohibits race-mixing. This is exactly why the coalition of evil is so against a true and literal translation of the Word of God. In fact, it may be stated that their theology is little more than a justification system for the breaking of this divine law of God. If the translation You will not mongrelize is wrong, then the two reference works cited above, certainly two of the most prestigious works of their type available, are also wrong. Any legitimate Greek or Latin scholars would agree with these definitions; anyone who would disagree with these definitions have in fact turned their backs on legitimate scholarship and should stop being hypocritical and admit that they do not believe the Bible instead of trying to change what it and what legitimate scholars say.

Now, many people will simply go and find a dictionary that defines the above words as adultery, and then ignorantly presume that adultery is defined as marital infidelity and simply forget about the two definitions cited above.

To show the stupidity and intellectual dishonesty of these people, I have previously written a work entitled Hidden Truth, now published under the title The Truth Unveiled, which gave many more proofs of the definitions of the Greek and Latin family of words commonly translated adultery, and examined in detail every Biblical passage, both Old and New Testaments, where these words occurred. That is not the purpose of this present work. The reader is encouraged to also read the chapter regarding this family of words in The Truth Unveiled for a complete Biblical analysis of this family of words. The objective herein is to examine in detail the etymology of both the Greek and Latin words commonly translated adultery, the ways these words were used in other Greek and Latin literature and in key passages in the Bible, and to explore how the web of deception regarding these words has been woven through the degeneration of language. The information presented hereafter is indisputable and not a subject of debate: one will either be intellectually honest and believe it or one will suffer the fate of all liars and those who help make a lie.