The Pay Gap and other Tall Tales

Feminism has traditionally been a positive position held by both men and women in order to advance equal rights between the genders. However, in the past 20 years, the feminist position has taken a dark turn. Like the previous waves of feminism, largely occurring in the twentieth century, this new wave seeks to forward the liberties, opportunities, and power women can hold. This is fine. However, this new wave is markedly misandrist in stark contrast to the movements prior to it, which were advocating for equal rights. They hope to not only rise to the level of men, who are merely equals with women in the eyes of Nature, but surpass them in terms of power and control. These women, hereby referred to generically as "Feminists," push their boundaries higher with every passing year and push men further beneath them and society at large. There are many examples of the ways they do this, and they all intertwine and highlight the differences between the sexes. One instance, the gender pay gap, is commonly discussed but often misunderstood. It is well-documented that there is, at face value, an average (median) difference between the average income of individual men and women. These feminists point at this difference and scream that it must change without looking at how we actually get to that number. The way we reach this difference is simple. For any statistics referenced here, I cite the 2017 Labor Force Statistics from the website of the U.S. Department of Labor. It is also of note that the U.S. labor force is split 50/50 between men and women. We live in a free society here in the United States and in most of the first world. Men, women, and even some children of all creeds and backgrounds can plant their own flag and live their life according to their own values, interests, and needs. Men and women simply value different things and take on different jobs based on those values and their personal interests. For instance, consider Construction. 9.1% of the construction industry is composed of women, meaning 90.9% of that industry is male. Remember, we live in a free part of the world where both genders are given equal opportunities for employment. Is 9.1% of the Construction industry being female a sign that we need more women building high-rises? No. It is simply a sign that there are significantly more men interested in this career path than women. On the other extreme of the spectrum, 83.8% of the Social Assistance industry is female while only 16.2% of it is male. This does not mean we need more men in this industry; it means men are significantly less interested in Social Assistance. There are also higher-paying industries which mostly employ women; 76% of hospital employees are female. On the other hand, 58.3% of the Management industry is male. In all of these industries, we can see that some of the stereotypical traits of each gender are present. Construction and Management, the male-dominated industries, can be seen to exemplify male traits, such as higher assertiveness, more refined spacial abilities, and overall better math skills. Healthcare and Social Assistance, the female-dominated industries, can be seen to exemplify female traits, such as lingual skills, emotional awareness, and higher agreeableness. These traits, among others, do not necessarily make one sex better than the other. They are simply differences, originating biologically, and it is important to recognize these differences if we are to achieve true equality between the two genders. Granted, there are definitely some women out there who outclass men in their own mental fields, and the same goes for some men. But to say that these generalizations cannot apply because these outliers exist is simply fallacious. Just like employment by industry, the original issue of the pay gap is fallacious as well. I will not list every industry and their average salary and their employment by gender; this data set is vast, and this document is no textbook. However, it is known that, generally, women are indeed paid less. This is only true because women take jobs that pay less to begin with. Think back to the industries from before: Construction, Management, Healthcare, and Social Assistance. At least 55% of social assistants, such as daycare employees, individual and family services, or vocational rehab councilors, are female. These jobs typically have a low pay grade, as do educational jobs, which also employ at least 60% women overall. Male-dominated jobs and industries, such as Construction, Management, Public Administration, or Information all have at least 60% male employment. These industries, as previously stated, generally take more male traits to perform, whereas the female-oriented industries described above typically are more suited to female traits. However, it is easy to find that the male-dominated industries pay more on average. This is not because men are performing the job; it is simply because the job is considered more difficult or more elite. As a matter of fact, in many positions in these industries, there are women who are paid more than their male counterparts, if only because of the myth of the pay gap. Feminists describe a glass ceiling preventing them from climbing higher in life. The only glass ceiling I see is the one they built on their own. The pay gap is simply one of many issues being created by postmodernist feminism. These feminists are no longer champions of women's rights, but an enemy of men's rights. Think of the way more authentic feminists acted in the 20th century, or how they act in the third world today. Those feminists are champions of women's suffrage, their right to equal pay, and overall equal opportunity. Today's feminists have all of those things and simply seek to take rights from men to meet their own selfish, hedonistic ends. For instance, in 2014, California State University adopted Executive Order 1095. This implemented the Campus SAVE act, Title IX, etc. on all CSU campuses (hundreds of thousands of students). Part of this order involves the implementation of training and prevention programs for all incoming students and on at least some campuses, all students, every year. This program, in the form of a sort of online class called Haven, includes a pre-program quiz. The questions, and the correct answers, go against how human sexuality typically functions and serves to confuse and brainwash the men who take the test. It throws nonverbal communication out the window when it comes to its questions and answers, and the sorts of answers they expect men to choose as the "correct" answer leave me fearful of even attempting to seduce a woman of my own age. For instance, one question expects the male participant to walk away and explicitly ask a woman if they have permission to do each thing in a sexual encounter, regardless of body language and nonverbal communication. I am not saying consent is not important, it is. However, there is a large consensus that this sort of awkward, up-front sort of pseudo-seduction is not sexy or engaging for the men and women involved. There are some token quotes from the exam that, on their own merits, can potentially convey the point I am trying to make: "Sexual Harassment also includes acts of verbal, non-verbal, or physical aggression, intimidation, or hostility based on gender or sex stereotyping, even if those acts do not involve conduct of a sexual nature." On consensual sex, "[Some women] don't even realize that what happened to them is a crime." Men are expected to say things such as, "All right if I kiss you there? Can I touch you here? What would you like to do?" during a sexual encounter with a partner. Additionally, on CSU campuses, jokes about gender are now sexual harrassment. Haven and programs like it occur at universities across the U.S, including Indiana University. One young man I know on that campus is required to take a similar course in-person as part of his dormitory's requirements. He, a man whom I'd characterize as representative of the average young scholar in many respects, has complained to me about it and I have nothing but sympathy for him. On the other hand, there are many young men who merrily go along with the whole feminist train of thought. These men buy into the things feminists feed them, and I interact with them on a daily if not hourly basis. My industry (which will go undisclosed) is very receptive to this sort of polite, more effeminate man, but I digress. There are two simple reasons why these men choose to go along with the feminist ideology. Firstly, people who don't fit into traditional gender roles, such as transsexuals, LGBT persons, radical feminists, and these "beta" males who are brainwashed by feminism, all could be said to seek the elimination of gender as a social construct. This is so they are, at the very least, no longer viewed poorly. Beta males in particular are not masculine, so they want masculinity to cease existence. If there is no standard, then they are no longer inferior. Secondly, since they buy into feminist ideology, they may be led to believe that women are mostly asexual princesses who can be won over with kindness (I can say with experience that I have only ever met one woman who actually meets that description, and it was awful and unfulfilling). By aligning with feminism, they try to present the image of a heroic, compassionate ally. This, of course, leads to their stereotypical behaviors: Hanging out with women exclusively too much, being eerily too available to the women in their lives, watching excess pornography, and never taking initiative when it comes to initiating relationships or anything really. Along with their own nature (which cannot be helped), these men become the way they are because feminism destroyed their boyhood, and the same goes for girls too. Childhood is a crucial stage for people in their development. Their personalities begin to develop, they form attachments to people and things, and they learn to express themselves in various ways. Both genders also learn to manifest their aggression. Boys' aggression is supposed to be primarily physical whereas girls' aggression is mostly social. At this point, the boy's development is undermined. When he becomes physically aggressive, his behavior is labeled as bad and is always punished. How many times have you heard the saying "Never hit a girl, even if they hit you first," or "You should always be nice to girls?" Probably more times than you care to count. This form of programming usually lasts for 18 years. Granted, men throughout history have typically not been cruel to their lovers on purpose either. This feminist intervention is detrimental to the male brain. These men withdraw socially, lose their sense of self-worth and self-image, their masculine traits are replaced with feminine ones, and worst of all, even they are now, in the 21st century, being taught misandry in some schools. Of course, feminist intervention has also crippled traditionally male activities despite there being perfectly viable alternatives for girls. Case in point: The Boy Scouts of America. In 2017, the organization's membership became open to girls. The Girl Scouts of America, on the other hand, has refused to become open to boys (not that we would want them there anyway). Of course, what sort of woman really wants a man like that, with those problems and behaviors? None! No woman is mentally wired to want a partner like that. If the trend continues, not only will the majority of society's men be unhappy, but the women will be too. They will push for more feminism, which will make more men into betas, and the cycle will continue to extinction. It is almost hilarious. Proponents of feminist ideology, through the methods previously discussed, manage to raise young men who women do not want. These men are politically correct, polite, chivalrous, and the proponents of feminism pervade society and the education system. Not only do they destroy men, but they manage to, through the same systems, create women who hate themselves as well. In this country, there is currently a female depressive epidemic. One in four middle-aged women is taking anti-depressants. A quarter of our society's women have to be pumped with drugs just to be happy. Think about that. The information is very hard to swallow, and for many it is impossible to believe. However, when you see the things the new feminists have done to undermine men – the lack of masculine role models for our children, the demonizing of male sexuality, and the constant criticism of male behavior, you can begin to see the effects of feminism across your life, and it is downright scary. Have you ever asked yourself why there are so few male teachers or role models in modern media? Why aren't men allowed around children on planes, parks, and most other public places? Why are men socially humiliated when they stand up for themselves especially if their attackers are women? Why is it that, even when the father is more economically and mentally stable, the wife always takes custody of their children after a divorce in addition to a monthly check from the father? We live in a society that has become anti-male and pro-woman, when it should be pro-everybody. Others may look at you after you tell them about these things and reassure you that society is not inherently misandrist in 2018, but I implore you to do your own research on the subject. All of the signs of these things have been present your entire life, and it is a wonder that most men do not notice them. Take a look behind the red curtain and see the actors for what they really are! Rise up out of your seat, and see the stage collapsing before your very eyes! And I implore you, learn to get angry.

Google is a monopoly, a Monopoly that Must be Obliterated

Its in every single thing you do online. It hides in your search bar. In your websites. In your browser itself. Watching keystrokes, collecting analytics. Google is an incredibly pervasive force. With powers of investigation beyond even the state, and the resources to process it, Google is a dangerous force. It is a threat to our country. A threat that must be obliterated. This opinion might seem radical at first glance. A bit unhinged. Google has kept an amazingly positive image up. People like Google, because it gives them free things. Free email, free online storage, free entertainment, free analytics, free everything. Google's most used services come at no cost. This is because Google's product is the users that depend on its services. Yes, you are the product. While you are happily using Google's services, Google is manipulating you for advertising. In June of 2017, Google was sued by the EU over anti-trust violations. They had sneakily manipulated search results to increase profits, giving friendly brands high placements in search results and demoting competition to page four of its search results. Omar Suleiman pressured Google to manipulate search results in favor of his pro-Islam political organization in 2017. It isn't just trying to maximize its profits either. Google has no problem forcing its political views down the throats of its users. In August of 2017, the company manipulated search results to present pro-Muslim views over anti-Muslim websites. Later that same year, it moved out a controversial program on Youtube that hid right wing videos the company viewed as "hate speech," and preventing users from being able to search or comment on videos. Those who speak out against it often find themselves censored under the same policy. An anti-google video, censored by Google. Making matters worse, Google company leaders are expanding their reach directly into the political field. Eric Schmidt, CEO of alphabet inc (parent company), help to found and back a small company named Timshel. With ex-Google employees, Timshel built a piece of software called The Groundworks. The Groundworks is a campaign management software system originally designed to assist Hillary Clinton in her ill fated presidential run. Since 2016, it has expanded its clientele to prop up other leftist groups. Removing a group like this from power is already an uphill fight, but it can be done. Google relies on the money it gets from advertisers. If advertisers believe that the clicks they pay for don't lead to profit, then they don't purchase clicks from Google. With software like adnauseam (an adblocker that automatically clicks ads, waisting money), I think it is easily possible to at least rock the boat. A little threat has the chance to go a long way.

A Mental Disorder is a Mental Disorder

Do you feel like you are always fat despite being 90 lbs? Well then you have Anorexia-Dysphoria. That means that you are a slender-man born in a humans body. To treat this we need to have you fast for a few months as well as be infected with tape worms and have a few centimeters of bone cut off your hips along with a few ribs removed. Feel depressed or suicidal? Then you are trans-mortal, just a ghost living in a living persons body. The treatment? One dose of lead to the back of the throat! Now obviously these are ridiculous statements, and you should think that. You should also react the same way when someone tells you that they want to replace all of their hormones in their body with ones that they are not designed for, or even go as far as mutilating their genitals (both have been shown to cause an increase in both statistical suicides and general suicidal thoughts which is information for another article), when they show the slightest inclination for acting like the other sex. Gay guys act like girls more than most girls do, that does not make them any more girls than that makes tom boys boys. Gender Dysphoria is listed as a mental disorder in the DSM-V. Which for those of you who never take psychology 101, the DSM-V is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders that is put together by the psychological community. For all mental disorders and even illnesses I know, they all treat them one way. By prescribing medication and psychological therapy to help pull themselves away from their brain for a second and help them realize that their inclinations are all in their head. The Anorexia Nervosa patient is treated with anti-psychotics to help them realize that they are really are not fat and that the thought is just all in their head. Depression and suicide is usually treated by antidepressants, gee what a shocker! Yet when we deal with people who have the strong feeling that they are the other gender or sex, our response is to try and change their body into being what its not. I mean these people know full well that its someone who feels like they are in the wrong body. This isn’t Freaky Friday where you switched brains with your mom and now you have to go about your lives living in someone elses shoes; It’s a mental disorder and should be treated as such. Because as we all know, a mental disorder is a mental disorder.

Civil disobedience: A destructive Euphemism

"Civil disobedience" is a euphemism utilized by those who would manipulate others into great harm to advance a political cause. The term isn't just deceptive; the concept of "civil disobedience" is a term I hold in great contempt due to the sheer amount of violence it has inflicted on the innocent and unknowing. On March 7th, 1965, nearly 600 people marched over the U.S. Highway 80 bridge. Of these people, only one person knew what was about to happen to them all. The next day, America woke up to one of the bloodiest police confrontations in history; broadcast right to their TV. Now lets re-wind. Before we can understand what really happened on that Sunday, first you must understand the core principles that gave birth to "civil disobedience" as an emotional persuasion tactic. In the mid 19th century, most people approached politics by examining ideology, rhetoric, and arguments. However, a very intelligent man had a different idea of the situation. Ludwig von Rochau proposed a system of realpolitik, the idea that politics should be viewed as a set of underlying factors that lead up to the gaining of political power. Realpolitik gave way to a new model of political thought: the Hypergame. The idea of the hypergame is to take into account the many differing perceptions of events while keeping in mind the "conditions of opposition." Different groups have different underlying motivations, goals, and perceptions; by understanding the ways that these goals interact, one can cause groups to take actions that they would not normally even consider. Although the hypergame is a fairly contemporary term, the use of the hypergame model dates back to the 1920's. Edward Bernays, the little known cousin of Sigmund Freud, was hired by the American Tobacco Company (ATC). The ATC had realized that there was an incredible market for women in smoking, however due to cultural factors women who smoked were looked down upon. Bernays utilized physiological factors to attach smoking to feelings of rebellion and independence in women in his famous Torches of Freedom campaign. The Torches of Freedom campaign is an excellent example of the basic psychological tactics employed in most propaganda. First there must be a shock, the viewer must be given a reason to care. In Torches of Freedom this came from the shock of women smoking cigarets in the Easter Sunday Parade. Next, the viewer must be given the "payload." The "payload" is the base message the campaign would like to get across, with some extra elements to increase their effects. Although the base message of this campaign was to encourage women to smoke, it does this by attaching the feeling of smoking to the idea of rebellion against social norms. With the basic structure of most propaganda campaigns in mind, we can now see the true nature of "civil disobedience." In the mind of Henry David Thoreau, this act of protest was originally designed to provide "counter friction" and eventually "stop the machine." However it is not through the ideas of Thoreau that "civil disobedience" became the gut-wrenching tactic that is known today. "Civil Disobedience" is not designed to create "counter friction." If it was, the act would be carried out in a silent fashion. The point of this act, is to incite the defending party into an act of violence and perceived retribution against the attacking party. The general public will only notice the extreme brutality of the defending party, and given no background information on the events, will swiftly condemn the violence they see televised on the local news. The process of this tactic begins long before the news stories ever begin. First a chosen target must be analyzed and their motivations understood through a hypergame-esc lens. The attacking group must identify a way to anger the defending group in such a way that they will respond with retribution. In many cases, this a direct violation of a law that would have severe and immediate consequences to those partaking in the activities. Then the "actors" must be chosen. These are the people (usually protesters) who will take place in the act. This group of people must be kept in the dark about the events that are about to unfold. If they were to understand the violent acts that would befall them, they would quickly leave. These unknowing participants are then led into the "act of protest" designed to incite the defending party. When this "act of protest" ends, the propaganda begins. Imagine turning on the news as you woke up in the morning. You watch the weather, and hear a few small headlines before the biggest headline of them all is shown. "Protestors from X cause were brutally beaten by police last night during an all night standoff," says the nice looking lady on the screen as intimidating images of police with baton and riot shields are shown clubbing a poor defenseless old woman while smoke almost cloaks the scene creating an ambiance akin to that of a horror film. Did you see what just happened? An almost perfect piece of Bernays style propaganda was formed. You were lead in with the shock and awe of people being beaten, while you were guilted into condemning the anti-riot team that was forced to take action against the protesters. With no background information you wouldn't have known that the leaders of this protest had been trying for days to reach this type of scenario with no luck, or that some groups had left because they perceived the tactics being employed as "dangerous." Most people don't have the time nor the patients to look that deeply into the issue, and will go with even the most limited slivers of information they have on a topic. There is no such thing as a "peaceful resistance" to a law. The concept of "civil disobedience" is to entice an apposing party via proxy. Do you think that anyone who watched the altercation between police and protesters in Selma on the so called "Bloody Sunday" knew that Martin Luther King Jr. and the SCLC had been trying for weeks to incite attacks from the local police fore? Do you think anyone noticed that SNCC pulled out and denounced the attempts made by the SCLC to create a violent situation? Or that Martin Luther King Jr. had been warned beforehand of the events that would occur on "Bloody Sunday" and decided not to attend? May these words act as a warning to all others. Be warned of those who would lead you into a trap to further their own political reach.

Why I Don't Support Gay Rights

Once upon a time, I was a usual liberal with stereotypical liberal views.  I agreed with the talk-show hosts and the news, I preached the benefits of Gay rights, and criticized those who disagreed.  Things are different now.  Very different. I became truly disgusted by the LGBT community through overexposure to it.  Repeating "their love is just like your love" get harder with every "poz pig" and "pup lover."  Calling them normal gets more difficult with every new meth smoker and ABDL.  I will never say those words again, and by the time you have seen these same things, you will not either. Meth in the LGBT community Meth is highly prevalent in the LGBT community.  Many people would be surprised to know that it is so common that it is actively posted about on many websites with significant amounts of gay users.  There are hundreds of examples of this online. Many would try to understate this problem, and state that this is a small selection of bad users.  I have some news for those people, there are a lot of people that talk online about this.  If you would like to see it yourself you can take a trip to common websites such as twitter or tumblr. "Poz chasing" Yet another disgusting yet common concept in the Gay community is "poz chasing."  Poz chasing is when HIV negative men intentionally get "pozed" (or catch HIV).  The idea is that because they already know that they are HIV positive, they do not need to worry about the status of their partner.  However this is fetishized to a scarey extreme. Being "poz" is so prevalent in the community that there are even magazines written for and advertized exclusively to HIV positive gays.  HIV positive acceptance is common, and considered normal.  Check out the evidence yourself. "Pup" play Not involving real dogs, pup play refers to the act of one "sub" playing as a dog, while the other plays as a human and commands the dog around, usually telling him to do sexual acts.  Pup play is usually included in BDSM, but it is large enough that I would consider the act its own thing. ABDL Although not exclusively gay, this fetish has an extremely large gay following, which is generally paired with some sort of incest/incest roleplay.  Adult Baby Diaper Lovers are a group of people who attempt to re-live their childhood years by wearing diapers.  They will soil said diapers, with much more than urine. If you think for one moment that this is decent human behavior, I would highly encourage you to think again.  Many would attempt to defend these actions by saying something like "this does not affect you, two consenting adults should be allowed to do these things."  Some of these actions, such as Meth use and "Poz" chasing are actually illegal. People who actively support this type of behavior need a reality check.  Is this the society you would like to create?

Quantifying Propaganda

There is a problem with all types of propaganda. Being Nationalists, and having to work in the realm of logic, we need some way to quantify the results of a specific type of poster, sticker, or what not. How many people look at it, how many people follow up on it, and how many people are swayed by it; these are all questions we need to be asking ourselves. Unfortunately, these are very hard questions to answer when one is so far removed from an audience. However, there is a solution. The first question is, how many people will see our sticker/sign/whatnot? Figuring out the size of an audience is not actually difficult when dealing with traditional paper signs. Simply camp out an area that you plan to hang some propaganda in for about an hour or more. Count how many people you see go through the area. Do this three or four times throughout different times of the day. Get the average. This is a good estimate of how many people are in our audience. For example, let us say I staked out sidewalk A. I recorded that there were 76 people that walked through from 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM, 43 people from 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM, and 72 people from 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM. That gives me an average of about 63 people viewing the sign per hour, with a variance of about ten people. This would be a good place to hang something. Although many people may ignore it, the more people are around the greater chance that someone will pay attention. Now we need to know how many people are actually following up on the propaganda, looking at links, and so forth. To solve this, I have been using a custom link shortener. I will actually end up releasing it on soon, it isn't exactly ready for widespread use yet, but I will explain why I am using this to tell how many people are interacting with the content. When a person views my link and gets redirected to the page I want, I will nab a hash of their ip address (hashes only, I take privacy seriously) and their useragent. The number of views are then stored in a database as well as information about what device they are using to view it, where they are doing it from, ect. Lets return to our example, sidewalk A. Lets say I am getting about two views on my shortened link per hour. This means that about 3% of my viewers are interacting with my content (2/63 is about 0.0317), which means I could probably be doing more to make my propaganda flashy. The moment of truth, however, is in retention rates. How do I know if people are coming back to my website? Just as with the link shortener, I have a somewhat shady solution (I did say IP hashes damn it). I have imbeded a small image that will note if the hash-useragent pair that it is looking at now was redirected here from a poster. Are any of the systems here flawless? Not even close, but they are a step in the correct direction. In this new, digital age we need to adapt to the times and create new tactics to understand and persuade people to our cause.

Everywhere Yet Nowhere

There is one tactic that I think many Nationalists no longer employ, but is very useful. At one point in time, there were many people who used it, but it has been left behind. The truth is we need it back. The one power that hold are enemies at least arms length away from ourselves is fear. Nationalist systems in general have a stigma around them that cause a lot of fear, and this stigma has kept us somewhat safe from intrusion. Why not use this fear in our favor? The very concept of infiltration would send shivers down the spine of any group. Whether said infiltration is real or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is the simply the idea that anyone inside the group could secretly be a Fascist. It is not hard to make a group believe this, a simple set of faked screen-shots would be enough to raise concern. Now lets take it a step further. Why simply create a stigma of hidden Fascists in a single group, when you can propagate the idea that anyone could secretly be a Fascist, and advise people to turn against each other if suspected? This is a powerful yet underutilized concept that has a wide range of uses. This is what I mean when I say we must be everywhere yet nowhere. People must believe that everyone could be a Fascist until proven otherwise, that we are lurking in the shadows in mass numbers. This idea also has enormous recruitment opportunities. When a sensible person is thrown into a world where everyone is encouraged to report possible Fascists, they will automatically question themselves, “Why am I doing this?” A push in the correct direction is all it takes to get someone to lurk on a popular nationalist website, and maybe eventual persuasion. There are problems with being everywhere yet nowhere, but the main question is, “How?” The answer is simple, we can let the media do the heavy lifting for us. This doesn't exactly make sense, but allow me to explain. Let us say there is a man named Bob. Bob owns a local newspaper called the Smalltown Herald. One day, the Smalltown Herald picks up a report from a local university that someone has been placing anti-Semitic messages, swastikas, and other “hate” symbols all around campus. Will Bob pass up this opportunity to print a sensational story? Of course not, this is nearly front page material. To make ourselves truly everywhere, we need people to create news stories for the media to report on. We can roughly predict what the news will print about an action that we take, why not use it to our advantage. It should be the objective of every Nationalist organization to keep themselves in the news constantly. The second trick is to stay invisible in the news. Let us say I run a small Nationalist group. If I pull a publicity stunt to get into the news, I do not want my organization to go under the microscope. To make sure I do not receive damage from the reports I have created, I will make a fake Fascist organization to take the hits for me. Chances are little to no people will attempt to join such a public organization, and in the case that people do try a careful screening process can me made. Signs are not the only place to start. Flash protests are excellent if planned correctly. All it requires is about 4-8 people gathered in a set location at a set time. They need to be able to pull Nationalist signs and propaganda out of seemingly thin air. People engaging in flash protests need to remember that they must also conceal their identity; fear is hatred of the unknown. Fear is a powerful thing. Use it correctly, and a world of options can be opened.

Why Gods of Egypt was doomed to fail, and why it still deserves Praise

Opinion piece submitted by: Anonymous Life isn't Easy for an Eternal Shitlord like Gerard Butler. In a microcosm of film filled with Liberal degeneration, Race-mixing and subtle propaganda, his heart still sings out in a glorious tone - Although certainly still hindered by the shackles of Hollywood. The story kicks you off in a bland, brown, farmer's Egypt, introducing you to the bland love couple that are torn apart and serve as the base story to the movie. you see all the token multi-ethnic celebrity gods, introducing you to Horus, the protagonist of the main arc.  The main arc to the story is what I'll be focusing on as it's the only part which holds any value - the brownie love couple and all the quirks that come with those characters are just plain boring. Almost all of Egypt is sitting happily in a dome, Jerking each other off over how amazing life in a mud hut is while they give all their gold away to the gods, before Gerard Butler (playing the God, Set, the antagonist) shows up with his Roman Warrior Death Squads, kills the king, blinds Horus, Declares rule and forces the gods to bow to him. But is is not necessarily Set's actions that create an appeal to Fascism, as his actions are often exaggerations of character for the sake of filling the role necessary to them to make him unjust. It is his character, Butler created a Villain that is almost as alluring and righteous as The Dark Knight's "Joker", and managed to feed fire to a semblance that perhaps the people would actually be better underneath his rule, and he's on a Megaman-like quest to fuck up useless gods and collect their powers. To add to this factor - He is a well-played personality amongst a sea of Hero-complex garbage, race-mixing propaganda, token "Blax r the smartist" writing, and more.  This creates an odd paradigm within the movie - the story is garbage - Female audiences reject it because men are at the center of it and There is no white woman for them to project onto - a Manipulative Arab sits atop the throne instead, and the love couple is so mind-numbing and spread out that it's a non-factor. All that is left is the CGI violence and Setman's quest to get all his armor upgrades. It makes for roughly 20-30 minutes of decent entertainment for the average person, but I have to give a Salute to what could've been.