How The Perception Of Disgust Is Manipulated Over Time To Break The Human Spirit

Psychology matters. Just like politics, if you don’t care about it, someone else will take it over for you. Having at least some basic wisdom about how our own minds works allows for self-mastery, through getting distanced from subconscious automatisms, gaining the ability to make explicit ingrained or initially implicit beliefs, and turning aware of our emotions instead of being directly determined by them. This is consistent with the traditional mission of men: someone who masters himself is fit to rule his home and bypass shit tests.

From at least the beginning of the twentieth century, Leftists and some strongly identified Jews slowly took over the humanities. Psychology did not escape their grip, as comparative psychologists can tell about. The Gramscis investigated culture, the Bernays—Freud’s nephew—laid the foundations of “public relations.” Not incidentally, one of Bernays’ first advertisement campaign used powerful symbols of fire and freedom, to lure women into heavy smoking and taking prostitutes as their role models.

Since then, the Left sharpened its weapons, gaining a decisive advantage over the less Machiavellian and generally spineless conservatives. Now, as they use a wide range of psychological determinations such as operant conditioning or bestowing coolness and fashionability on whatever they want to shovel down our throats, they go as far as reverse accusations. Conservative voters are put under extra psychological scrutiny, analyzed much less charitably, more criticized and sneered at, whereas liberals allow themselves many passes and fancy names like “public relations”, “management sciences”, “human resources”, “social justice” or “affirmative actions” to act as manipulation-covering memes.

As Alex Jones says, “there’s a war for your mind”, and here we will cover one of the battlegrounds: the psychology of dirtiness and taboo. Basically, the dirty is what carries risks of contamination, tainting, impurity, and consequently should be avoided or handled with special attention.

The Scriptures have a long list of impure stuff, whether we talk about the Leviticus or the Manu Laws, and many unrelated primitive tribes used to isolate women during their period because of the dirty blood getting away. As for the taboo, it bears a relation with the sense of dirt: if the mere mention of a topic or pronouncing certain words carry a risk, then it is better not to mention these—or follow particular rules when handling them, such as tackling the topic only through a particular framing or in a well-marked context.

Leftists often enjoy deriding whatever sense of purity conservatives still have. They perceive it as “outdated”, not to be compared with, say, a modern surgeon’s sense of hygiene. Yet, far from “emancipating” from that often derided part of the human mind, contemporary libtards have their own sense purity which they have imposed on everyone. Just as the puritan of yesterday would not dare to mention sex without relating it to sin, the problem-glasses wearer of now would not allow xieself to jest while speaking of “Nazism.”

The psychology in itself

Disgust is a universal human emotion. Aside from toddlers and those who got accustomed to certain objects, everyone feels repulsion from, say, cockroaches or eating feces. As psychologist Stephen Pinker sums up,

Though disgust is universal, the list of nondisgusting animals differs from culture to culture, and that implies a learning process… [Disgust] is a straightforward adaptation to a basic fact about the living world: germs multiply… A single, invisible, untestable germ can multiply and quickly saturate a substance of any size. Since germs are, of course, transmittable by contact, it is no surprise that anything touches a yucky substance is itself forever yucky, even if it looks and tastes the same. Disgust is intuitive microbiology. (How The Mind Works, chap.6, “Food for thought”)

Just like some instinctive phobia—people are innately phobic to cockroaches, hairy spiders, or snakes—, disgust can be easily explained from an evolutionary point of view. Phobia of the dangerous has a preventive role. Disgust of what could bear disease prevent from eating or getting in close contact with it. It is better to sometimes have false positives, i.e. be disgusted by something actually not dangerous, than miss the mark and ingest a fatal poison.

It is possible to overcome disgust and phobias, just as it is possible to overcome fear and act courageously in spite of it. Some are able to live in close contact with scorpions or snakes, two animals that are well-known as instinctively feared of. Likewise, throwing oneself in an obviously risky situation or bungee-jumping from a bridge are behaviors that go beyond instinct—not exactly the same one, perhaps, but still an atavistic and usually useful limitation.

In traditional societies, many rites of passage meant confronting one’s own fear: a young boy let alone in the dark for hours had to ride his own fear of loneliness or obscurity. Sometimes, going beyond the fear of something was deemed enough of an achievement for the “vanquisher” to adopt or use the object of his former fear. Bruce Wayne’s “batmanism” is merely an embodiment of this ancient practice. (Tangentially, the object of fear can be overturned into a positive, while the object of disgust appears essentially disgusting and thus to be forever casted out.)

Of course, disgust can go well beyond the actually dangerous for us as living beings, and its objects can vary culturally. A Muslim typically feels disgust at the idea of eating pork, although a well-cooked ham shank has every chance of being healthier than some dirty street kebab. Here Pinker claims that many forbidden foods are so as to exclude the neighbor’s favorite food, and thus maintain each tribe separated by its own dietary customs.

Taboos are the social covering of what raises shared disgust. It could be argued that at least some traditional taboos were socially useful. The Victorian touchiness on sex prevented girls from letting free rein to their hypergamy. Similarly, in the medieval era, heresy was met with horror. Only priests had a right to read heretic texts and consider potentially heretical viewpoints, for example during the disputations (contradictory oral examinations): they had to be intelligent and endowed with a sufficient sense of the good to be able to consider, weigh, and dispel heresies.

The illiterate, on the other hand, could not have such a sense and were liable to “contamination” by bad ideas. This may seem elitist, but if you look at how the European oecumena was really torn apart by Protestantism and how so many shades of anti-tradition were able to find themselves a supporting public after the Church lost ground, the anti-heresy taboo seems retrospectively quite justified to me.

How the psychology was overturned

The cultural, rewritable aspect of the taboo psychology has metapolitical implications. Campaigns to sensitize to X aim at shifting the public attention to X, push for a particular framing, and most importantly raising disgust or tamping it down. In 2015, a feminist successfully attention-whored by allegedly running a marathon during her periods and showing the blood off. While the look-at-me dimension of her act cannot be ignored, the running and media campaign around it aimed at de-sensitizing people so that we would lose any disgust towards menstrual blood or the plain show of it.

Today, the mainstream media are campaigning to trivialize paedophilia. One of their thrusts consists in painting pedophiles as humane, sympathetic people who just happen to feel sexual arousal towards children: the predatory aspect is downplayed, and the impression they create generates much less disgust than the usual. At bottom, all societal progressivism is about manipulating the norms and layman’s feelings. Do you remember that sodomy was deemed disgusting before it was turned into a mean for superior arousal?

Raising and tampering disgust down, erasing taboos and creating new ones, are part of the social engineer’s toolbox. The more we let our autonomy behind in the name of “progress”—or just because consuming the elite’s shows is much easier than pushing ourselves—the more gullible and blank-slateish we become. Journalists and experts are paid to rewrite our brains on the behalf of the elite managers.

The 70s witnessed several Leftist experiments in taboo transgression and desensitization on screen. In 1972, the movie Pink Flamingos exhibited the adventures of a tranny performing all sorts of disgusting acts, from stuffing a pork tenderloin between xis legs to eating dog poo in a non-simulated scene, and of other degenerates who would dwell in human trafficking, prostitution and friendship with gays.

Two years later, a French director released a movie of the same vein although more subtle: Going Places  showed two anti-heroes living a nomad live, committing petty crimes and running away, sometimes having sex with random girls. One of the main scenes features a teenage girl who flees her “boring” bourgeois, middle-class parents and prefers giving her virginity to the protagonists. Back in the US, 1975 saw the release of the Rocky Horror Picture Show, a four-hour piece mixing theatre with cinema and featuring tranny characters as heroes.

All these movies willfully violated the normal taboo around trannyism and trivialized degeneracy. Not incidentally, all three are considered “cult” and of high artistic value by baby-boomers. Of course, what the Left and its degenerate “artists” did is something only they have a right to do: if I claim that Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will (1936) is beautiful and cult, and if I share doubts about the truth of the official version of the Holocaust, a swarm of Leftists will likely call me a “Nazi sympathizer” or a nasty troll. Indeed, by doing so, I would be violating the taboo they created around “Nazism”—but why can’t I go beyond taboos and display disgust as well as they did? Because, according to their scenario, only they have a right to shape culture and rewrite norms.

As Leftists desensitized, trivialized and pretended to “emancipate” from the old taboos, they also created disgust and awkwardness around things that were normal before. Post-1945 common French language features a variety of expressions such as “sulphurous position” or “sulphurous people”, “smelling like fir”, “foul”, all applied to so-called far-right positions or politics. Why these statements referring to smell or dirt whereas immaterial ideas clearly cannot have any? Well, because they activate and reinforce a peculiar psycho-social conditioning.

Communist writer Bertol Brecht framed European traditions and their defenders as a “foul beast”, and since then, the expression has been widely re-used by globalists. Nothing to do with reason of course—this is a purely emotional, framing, and custom-related conditioning, and that works. Before you took the red pill, wasn’t the dirtiness of “Nazism” seemingly obvious? If you are truly red pilled, it should be much less obvious now.

How we can use it as well

Shakti, a Hindu personification of indefinite possibilities. A thousand arms can achieve a lot

The first step is to free ourselves from the Leftist conditioning. This consists into distancing ourselves from, identifying clearly and deconstructing the framings, concepts and other reflexes we have been “educated” with. Some of these can be used, thus turning into tools into our hands instead of outwardly imposed limitations, some ought to be simply rejected.

The second step consists in crafting our own cultural content and concepts. This means, of course, re-inverting what had already been inverted, and venturing into “forbidden territory.” The Alt-Right has done a good job at inverting the stigma against “fascism” by turning it into something fashy, which looks like fashionable and takes up some coolness instead of vegetating at the wrong side of the system.

This also means we have to push for healthier norms. Fat-shaming is good. Disgusting, complacent obese girls are unhealthy and unclean on all points of view—they should be ashamed. The same goes with pedophiles and race-destroying miscegenation. Make a healthier and truer common sense great again.

Before that, we have to troll a bit—and what is trolling after all if not our own version of the Left and baby-boomer’s “revolution” and “emancipation”?

To conclude, I would like to share the following suggestion made by a former liberal:

When an artist submerges a crucifix in a jar of his own urine, or smears elephant dung on an image of the Virgin Mary, do these works belong in art museums? Can the artist simply tell religious Christians, “If you don’t want to see it, don’t go to the museum”? Or does the mere existence of such works make the world dirtier, more profane, and more degraded?

If you can’t see anything wrong here, try reversing the politics. Imagine that a conservative artist had created these works using images of Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela instead of Jesus and Mary. Imagine that his intent was to mock the quasi-deification by the left of so many black leaders. Could such works be displayed in museums in New York or Paris without triggering angry demonstrations? Might some on the left feel that the museum itself had been polluted by racism, even after the paintings were removed? (Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind, chap.5)

If one believes that “Nazism” and defending one’s country are somehow dirty, but sees nothing wrong with trannyism and being aroused by children, one deserves being “triggered.” Let’s shape the unspoken rules of the acceptable and unacceptable, no matter the hysterical reactions we meet with, until they are just as they ought to be.

Read Next: How Irrational Fear Is Being Used To Control Your Behavior 

221 thoughts on “How The Perception Of Disgust Is Manipulated Over Time To Break The Human Spirit”

  1. Very interesting article. The Big Boys want to weed out the insane and the unfit. If people go full-on tranny (and get the operation), they won’t contribute to the genetic pool. Which is one reason why it is so heavily encouraged and promoted these days. By the way, Alex Jones’ wife is Jewish (Ashkenazi, I believe). That puts a big spotlight on good ole Alex (and his true motivations), who I wouldn’t cross the street to piss on, if he were on fire…

      1. But they’ve long-since graduated from the stamping days (Star of David, for the Joos). Now it’s anybody who is a tranny. Or anybody who has green hair. Or face shrapnel. Or tattoos. Basically, anybody who is a liberal. They mark themselves, willingly. Easier than burning up the energy by having to stamp them. (Hmm…tramp stamp. Another sign of insanity.)

        1. Tramp stamp was originally a marking indicating that a girl belonged, as in property, to a particular motorcycle 1%’er or 1%’er club. Literally, marked her as a porn/sex slave. I like telling women who have tramp stamps that, pisses them off to no end.
          “So…I see that you believe in sex slave trafficking. Good for you sweety….good for you…”

        2. Ironic as fuck isn’t it. It’s always that way when it comes to women though, they are a walking contradiction. Kind of unrelated but I find it humorous…I’ll bet a lot of these cell phone-addicted cunts will wind up with a version of carpal tunnel after a decade or two of flick-flick-flicking that screen, and type-type-typing on that little keyboard. Their hands will curl up into claws. “Poor bitch…cell phone syndrome. Can’t even jerk off all those dicks of the guys who follow her on Instagram and Tinder.”

        3. tramp stamp has to be the most disgusting thing.
          Meanwhile, I like telling girls I invented the term tramp stamp. It is especially good when they try to prove me wrong by pulling out their phone and googling tramp stamp lol.

        4. Nothing guarantees dying old with cats like that kind of ink.

        5. If her father hasn’t committed suicide, he should.

        6. Speaking of sex slaves…rumor has it that Kelly is like the universal “go to” name for actual sex slaves…

        7. speaking of stamps- is publicly traded. its over $120/share wtf?

        8. In the sense of property to be rented and leased, yes. Porn stars started sporting them in the 1980’s, which was actually a sign that they were being rented out AND that if she went and did independent work without the gang pimping her out, they could punish/kill her once they found out.

        9. Yeah. Imagine him looking down at some young chick he’s double teaming with a friend and saying “Ah, cool, her name is Kelly”.
          Hilarity, as they say, would ensue.

        10. wow 110 today but climbing. 52 week low is 68. Someone made money

        11. Could you imagine the business opportunies if prostitution is legalized in the USA. The Skank ‘n Shake. Stop in for a blowjob and a burger. Today’s modern, sexually liberated women would jump at the chance to work there.

        12. I have a theory that every single bar in America has a Tara allocated to it as the bar bicycle.

        13. she probably puts her nice girl clothes on, goes home for Christmas and kisses daddy on the cheek…with any luck she has at least brushed her teeth at some point in the last 10 cocks that tapped her throat.
          I have never once met a man who didn’t think his daughter wasn’t a filthy little cum slut. Is it true that SOME men have daughters that aren’t…sure…of course….but not all of them…not all of them.

        14. Yep. Known a few Taras and they were all sluts. Kelly and Tara. I met this single mom at the hotel I’m staying at the other night. She had been tossing her hair and smiling whenever she walked by. She looked pretty good, so I chatted her up. Her name is Bambi. I couldn’t suppress my laughter…

        15. Given biology, they had to come from some dude’s sperm, right?

        16. I know this guy who swears he fucked a girl once, and she said to him after he was done, “You’re the best I ever had…except for my daddy.”

        17. those sick girls are out there…..but there are plenty of girls who are good girls with good jobs and who come from good families who get piped out and dicked down and covered head to toes with cum by multiple parters, who are slapped around, gagged with dick, lick asshole, get pissed all over and beg for more and then go home to those good families and play the good girl,….and I don’t mena there are some ….. there are many

        18. Pauly Shore said it was “Lisa”. Every time he saw a group of skeezy girls, he would just shout, “Lisa!” and one would turn around.
          Can’t believe I’m quoting Pauly Shore. (slits wrist)

        19. Absolutely. Women will do any damned thing, so long as there’s a good chance they won’t get caught by the people who support them (emotionally and financially).

        20. A Kelly once gave me the lust-at-first-sight itch, but something about her demeanor kept me from acting on it. A year later she had doubled in weight and wouldn’t I come to find out she had slept with a long long list of mutual acquaintances. I never could precisely identify what it was that stopped me, but whatever it was, it was loud and clear.

        21. I saw a tourist family walking around last week. mother father and daughter (daughter maybe early 20’s). They were from somewhere all Americana…not sure where I am not good with accents. At any rate, I was looking at that girl and she was such a daddies little girl and I saw her eyes…I know….she has had more trains run on her than grand central. There is not an inch of this girl that hasn’t been covered in cum. I would bet that with a black light you would find a minimum of 3 semen samples in this bitches mouth and that she wouldn’t even be able to narrow down who they were or what nationality they were as she was grabbing daddies arm and playing good girl. The kneeman knows em when he seems em

        22. I can spot a submissive chick by looking in her eyes, and by watching her demeanor for a minute or two. Same kinda thing. And they always give you “the look”. You know, the look that says, “Do whatever you want to me, I fucking love it all…”

        23. yup. I knew right away that every time this girl gave daddy a kiss on the cheek she was transferring semen samples from someone whose name she may or may not know

        24. Yeah it’s…everywhere. This girl I know whose dad owns this bar that I frequent periodically, she has recently convinced her boyfriend to work at the bar with her. They take photos together, and post them on Facebook. Dressed in similar outfits. She lists her passions as music and her boyfriend – they both have won my heart. But that’s all cover (as you know).
          First time I ever saw her and looked into her eyes, I knew she was down for the dick. Whenever her boyfriend’s not around, she says things to me, like, “Hey daddy,” and she purrs when she says it. And her eyes just glow. You know what I mean. I’ll get around to lathering her one of these days…after her sucker boyfriend breaks up with her (which won’t take long).

        25. strangers who aren’t sharing information. It’s quite possible there could be some kind of partition in place

        26. I’d come up with the lyrics for “Spit-roast With Strangers”, based on the song, “April in Paris”, but I have a hangover the size of Montana…aw fuck it one verse –
          Spit roast with strangers
          Their nuts in blossom
          Porking the harlots
          Under the trees…

        27. Every once in a while, I feel like a pied piper when I talk to a lady. It’s pitch dark when we get off of the train and it is just me and her walking on a dark street. A part of me always feels they want me to lead them into some dark alley and bang them out, before sending them home to their husbands/boyfriends. Instead I settle for a number. Sometimes. But have noticed this trend.

        28. They do. What is worse: most of them probably have more than plenty of experience

        29. Damned. The last one that I let walk was a cute blonde who was married. Maybe I should find a spot or get a ‘I can’t’ rebuttal together.

        30. I saw this picture before – if i remember correctly she is a prostitute on meth and made the tattoos as an “artistic” way to remind her clients that they are using a human being

    1. I thought he was going through a divorce. She alleged he was unstable or something, and he responded by saying his character was just an act

  2. Disgust is a spectrum. At one end you have people with extremely *strong* disgust reflexes — these are true conservatives (like many on this site). On the other end you have people with extremely *weak* disgust reflexes — these are true liberals.
    This explains pretty much all political discussion. We’re all just defending our own physiology. Everything else is window dressing.
    (hat tip to Jonathan Haidt)

    1. I wonder how libertarians rank on this? While some stuff does disgust me in a real visceral way, most of the time the silliness that people do to themselves comes across to me more as humor or something fun I can use to mock them, and not something I’m sitting holding a cross up to like it was a vampire.

      1. That’s how I look at it…I’ll rant and rave about it in here sometimes. But down deep I know it’s been designed to be that way. And we’re winning.

    2. Well, liberals are disgusted by “racism” and sometimes even by themselves being white, hence their hesitation between converting to exoticism and shrieking at each other “no cultural appropriation!”
      Historically, big Leftists have introduced various expressions such as “foul beast” (Bertol Brecht) or “nausea” (Jean-Paul Sartre) to build this linguistic category usually known as “far right.” They have aroused disgust at the same time that they were creating the scarecrow. And now I could bet that at least some Leftists really felt nausea when they suspected someone they knew could have “far right thoughts”, thus feeling exactly the same as, say, a normal person facing a dangerous and contagious disease.
      They have hijacked normal disgust and redirected it at categories they created – thus building a social prison through conditioning people into rejecting thought crimes.

  3. I have all the characteristics of a human being: blood, flesh, skin, hair; but not a single, clear, identifiable emotion, except for greed and disgust.

  4. Funny, but Piss Christ doesn’t disgust me at all, and I’m a born-and-raised Catholic.
    However, seeing a tranny, the classic bearded lady, DOES disgust me. It literally makes me sick to my stomach. I don’t want to infringe on the rights of the freaks, the gender fluid, whatever you want to call them — they’re citizens too. But the media shouldn’t elevate them.

    1. I agree on piss Christ….and tranny’s out at large totally disgust me… but bearded ladies…as long as they are contextualized in a pay-per-view freak show I am ok with.
      I have no problem with freaks in a freak show. It is when we try to pass freaks off as normal that it gets yucky

    2. Trannies don’t have a right to actually try to gestate a baby in their body. It’d put enormous burdens on health care and schools and we don’t have to allow it!

      1. actually the Arch Diocese of New York with then Cardinal O’Connor along with Bill Donahue who was (maybe still is) president of the Catholic League and our then Mayor Rudy Giuliani (also a catholic) launched a huge and vigorous campaign against the piss Christ exhibit at the Stux Gallery (not a major museum as is often sited) despite the city’s liberal and artistic bent. This was something that I really liked about Rudy. I disagreed and thought that the church and government should stay 20 miles from an opinion on art, but watching how passionately Rudy argued against the Piss Christ despite it hurting his numbers in liberal and art-centric NYC really showed something that most politicians then (and none today) have…..real beliefs that were more important to them than polling numbers.

        1. I imagine Giuliani made a calculated decision, as all politicians do with regard to these things. A failure of action in such a situation, with the risk of alienating an aggrieved group is a greater danger than pandering to liberals who themselves might well be highly divided on such an issue. After all we’re not talking about conventional art, but transgressive art which is designed to be controversial and divisive. Serrano, the creator, is apparently someone moreover who works with ‘bodily fluids’ i.e. with exactly those substances which have often been most associated with taboos, and which for the same reason are considered sacramental by those who would violate or if you prefer sin against ancient prohibitions. Transgressives, whether they are occultists like Serrano (or Podesta’s Abramovitch) or just run of the mill leftists, are united in their goal of wishing to smash the old order by offending against it’s hang-ups and sacred cows. Catholics are an easy target, and arguably dropping a figure of christ on the cross into a jar of piss is no longer genuinely transgressive at all given the reduced status of christianity in the latter day power structure

        2. yes, I’m sure rudy made a calculated decision. However, one decision he could have made would have been to stay out of it…or to make a brief comment to placate the catholic voters but then back away from controversy which is what I guess many would do in his place. Instead he was out there marching like a fucking protester. I believe I can see the difference between real conviction and bullshit politics and if this wasn’t real conviction than it was the most impressive and convincing display of bullshit politics I have ever seen.
          You are right, btw, about the transgressive nature of Piss Christ being pretty much nil today but that is kind of the point isn’t it….the pushed a boundary in a way that the boundary didn’t return all the way to its former level.

        3. I don’t recall how he handled it personally, but then it’s not local politics to me of course. It sounds like he handled it well though.
          You’re no doubt not wrong about such acts of transgressive art and politics (for I would regard it as fundamentally political) as being very effective. The boundary was pushed and exploded, and what was once holy is now a little less so, at least in terms of any kind of continuing taboo against blasphemy. But unless transgressive art (etc) has purely limited goals, rather than being a tool to challenge power wherever it lies then as I think we both agree any kind of new transgressive act (i.e. that was relative to current power relations) would have to be a somewhat different affair. We would have to identify the current institutions of power, and then I suppose dip them in piss so to speak in their turn? That would I think be true nihilism. I’d like to think the left liberal art world would be a good place to start.

        4. well, piss dipping is passe now and if I knew a) which sacred cow was next and b) which way of making it ugly would be the next step then I would be a great artist. Georges Bataille, I think, speaks best on Taboo in his Eroticism, Death and Sensuality. The idea that the apple is boring until the worm is there is fantastic. Remember Mobius, all taboos are pre-transgressed otherwise they would not be taboo. You simply can’t have the inside of a circle without the outside of a circle and since society is a group of people who fundamentally have a tacit agreement on, amongst other things, mores we need the transgressed taboo in order to have the society which bans it. People who get up in arms when something offends them, whether it is the right or the left, aside from simply playing their idiot roles in a stage show much bigger than their comprehension allows for, are consciously fighting against their own survival.
          Sexuality is a taboo which is broken. There was a time when Frank Zappa could dress up in a tutu and elicit a response or saying blowjob on national TV would have been an outrage. What is the next field. Some people think it will be an attack on a liberal sacred cow. I know one person who thinks that eventually the left will degenerate everything we consider normal to such a point that it will be taboo to be a white, heterosexual male and a married couple having sexual relations for the explicit purpose of procreation will be seen as a taboo and thus picked up by transgressive artists. I don’t think this is so. I think that is a game of tit for tat that only exists in the minds of small men for whom the imagined war is the only thing that gives their lives value.
          I really don’t know what comes next but I will say this: I am glad to be alive in 2017 and really excited to see what the future has in store. I think we live in very cool and very interesting times indeed.

        5. Bataille was an interesting guy, if possibly a slightly sick one. What’s with that fixation on the limit, on the transcendence of pain and suffering. His picture collection wouldn’t do much to shock people today perhaps, but then we’re rather overdosed on limit experiences. Normality probably is the new taboo, however dull it may be to say so. You make some interesting points about the always already breached nature of the taboo although that does involve something of an implied pedegogy – did ancient man have to sleep with their mothers / sisters a great deal to realise the genetic abnormalities would arise or did boundaries arise more instinctively. Probably the former, but even so the difference today seems to be that even if that was so, the taboo has hitherto been enforced through the breach. Maybe the marquis de sade was not untypically french, but his books were never permitted to be generally published (in england I think the archbishop of canterbury had to authorise their reading) whereas today I can go into my local bookstore and flick through the pages. Taboos have always been at risk of being breached including by a general change of attitudes or political culture, but I don’t think there has ever been a culture that so self-consciously seeks to breach them, and moreover to do so with an explicit political purpose. Indeed over the last couple of centuries and in particular the 20th century taboos have been systematically broken and transgressed with a view to fostering social change. The transgression is one of the, if not the most important weapon in the revolutionaries toolbox arguably. So the argument that there is something random about the breach of taboos, the nature of the transgressions, and that the next sacred cow could be pretty much anything seems unlikely to me. If the next set of transgressions really do target liberals and leftists rather than the already war ravaged ruins of the institutions of conservativism then it will presumably be something dialectically rather than randomlly determined

        6. Husband picture collection is bat shit even by today’s standards. The one pic of the crusified African women with their tits cut off that he would jack it to?
          But you ask why? Because it’s necessary.
          And yes, you are right…each generation needs to push further. This coupled with the technology we now have may be pushing the line to the point where the whole system collapses. But it too would collapse if we stopped. Maybe this is just the way it works.
          I agree with everything you say here and would only add that it is absolutely necessary for civilization regardless of the fact that it happens at different factors during different periods. The dialectic of church/social orthodoxy —- taboo sexuality/science synthesizing to create society seems pretty clear.

        7. I haven’t seen that ‘collection’ and to be honest I think I will give it a miss. The only one I remember is of the thousand cuts assassin with his eyes rolling towards heaven in what bataille considered must be ecstasy. Lets hope it was ecstasy.
          I’m not sure I quite meant to suggest that each generation needs to push further, or agree that it is necessary, at least today we seem to interrogate everything but the underpinnings of our revolutionary more than evolutionary paradigm. Why is that? We push forward so quickly there is no time to consider what propel us forwards, or for that matter why we are propelled, or need to be propelled. Perhaps it is necessary. But nobody has really – I mean really – explained why.
          Still like jon voigt we are stuck on the runaway train, and need to keep shovelling coal for the time being otherwise we’ll derail. But that’s just a description of the situation we’re in, not an explanation of why we’re in it

        8. Well an explaination of why we are in it is Easy. Because we are and it couldn’t have been otherwise.
          The real question isn’t why. The real question is what part of the insanity was necessary?
          Durkheim does this well. If theft wasn’t somehow necessary society would have evolved it away. It is there to serve some purpose. Today’s degeneracy can be dissected ad nauseum. Hell, I enjoy it. But I’m the end here we are and it has played a role for better AND worse…but what?
          Answer this question won’t help or hurt anything, just sate curiosity

        9. “it couldn’t have been otherwise.” You’re not a big believer in free will then. Teleology again. Inexorable historical forces, that can’t be resisted. But then you always insist you like things the way they are. If you didn’t maybe you’d believe in the possibility of counterfactual histories, and with it an alternative future to the one telling us about progress all the time

        10. Possible. Truth is that I happen to be well suited to these times. Free will? That’s more complicated than people make it out to be. Things are as they are. The dominos fell. Eden fell. Postulating possible worlds that could have been isn’t productive.

        11. NY has a huge catholic population….Italian Catholics (yours truly) Irish, all the hispanics.

        12. I thought they had relinquished the appearances by now. The last time I went there (2015) not even the priests (judging from their sermons) were catholic and not a single girl I met was religious, hence my opinion.

        13. Depends on where you go. New York is a big city and you can find anything. If you want to find a conservative catholic girl you start by finding the churches that still do Latin mass.
          I’ll grant you that there isn’t a large percentage of young religious people but since there are so many people even a small percentage is a lot of heads. It’s just a matter of knowing where to find them. So yeah, if you are in NYC and want to meet a religious girl who is catholic find a church that does Latin mass, hit up their bulleitin board and partake in some of their activities.
          It’s easier to find godless whores of course, but it isn’t difficult to find what you are looking for if you put some effort in

        14. Well, I accept I wasn’t searching. I had the chance to attend a service because an acquaintance invited me. The sermon was the normal screed (immigration, discrimination, etc etc) not a word of the “Last Things” (heaven, hell, purgatory, the man’s eternal destination etc.), of sin, responsibilities, the meaning of being a man etc. If you have read any of the old “princes” of the church, or the old sermons from the days of yore, well, disappointing and “let down” can’t begin to express one’s feelings.
          Regarding the girls, I confess I wasn’t searching but unlike many countries in South America, not even the appearance of religious did they keep. But I know there are some movements. Right now the most coherent are the so called sedevacantists, but that’s another story.
          Granted NY is a big place and for good or ill is the best city of the U.S., so there you go.

        15. It’s called the Overton window. They keep pushing it further towards degeneracy.

        1. Not American Catholics. Most have no problem with either of those issues, plus they mostly vote Democrat.
          Doesn’t sound too conservative to me.

        2. I did not know that. Of course, I’m talking form my brief experience at catholic high school.

        3. there’s a big gay movement in the catholic church at least behind the scenes. Not sure there’s much diversity on abortion though

    3. “Piss Christ” is actually a pretty good photograph – that makes the insult even worse. Because, let’s be honest – the intention of that piece is to directly insult Christianity, whether Christians feel insulted or not. That is why we are still talking about the picture. It wasn’t an expression of the artist’s feelings, or an introspective exploration of his loss of faith. It was an attack.

      1. the controversy was part of the point and yes, us still talking about it proves that it was successful art.

        1. I would wager that maybe 35% of the people who have ever discussed the picture have actually seen it. I guess, that means the concept had resonance, and made it effective art, beyond the quality execution of the photography.
          I did see the elephant dung Madonna at a gallery exhibition in Los Angeles. It was both literally and figuratively a piece of shit. Actually, it was several pieces of shit, stacked up snowman-style with two eyes and mouth holes poked in the top shitball. Absolutely valueless.

        2. I saw elephant dung Madonna as well and agree and one way you can tell which had some kind of artistic merit and which didn’t is that piss Christ is a relevant work today and dung Madonna, when mentioned at all, is only mentioned in the context of comparison to piss Christ.
          Time has a way of sorting out the art from the squiggly lines which is why I think gov’t and religion need to step back and keep their opinions to themselves.

        3. All it did was alert me to the fact that Maplethorpe was a totally deranged faggot with a lot of attention whore qualities.

        4. Gauging art only on controversy seems so boring to me. Once you reach a certain level of shock factor it just becomes another bottle of urine and everybody is walking around jaded and bitter. I like art that truly says something to my soul in one way or another. In other words, somebody could have shot Andy Warhol and I’d be none the worse for wear about it.

        5. Of course and there are always derivatives and they are always boring. I think Piss Christ was genuinely important and the bull that it spawned wasn’t. As for Andy: I would say he was interesting, not important (in the way that Jackson Pollack is actually an important artist) and while I agree that shooting him wouldn’t have made much of a difference I don’t think shooting artists you don’t like is a trait of a civilization I would want anything to do with.

        6. I am not a big maplethorpe fan by any means, but he wasn’t without relevance to his time. His work wasn’t meant for you. You weren’t his audience. That he was an attention whore you could have taken from the fact he was an artist. Michaelangelo was an attention whore too. That he was a faggot isn’t anything new to anyone. Maplethorpe is important to the world of art, maybe not incredibly so and without him I don’t think we would have lost much, but he was an artist. Being hostile to art we don’t like is the mark of the barbarian (in the sense that the greeks used the word)

        7. Who said I was hostile to it? I just shrugged and thought whatever the term was for “attention whore” at the time (don’t know if the term had been coined yet then). When his lifestyle was ultimately revealed on the news I shrugged and said “Yeah, figures”. He basically affected me like a shock jock does, which is to say, well, I shrugged and said “That’s all you got?”
          I did a lot of shrugging back then.

        8. I wasn’t suggesting I’d have shot him. But if he’d been shot I really wouldn’t have cared one way or the other. Like, John Lennon was shot and, well, big deal. That kind of thing.
          I really don’t see Piss Christ as important in any real sense (and acknowledge that I’m not the target audience of course), it just seemed like Trolling Christians To Be Trendy, which was all the rage at the time. He bored me.

        9. Ha. You still should! Traps are important! Maybe that’s why all the 90’s kids seemed weak, they didn’t spend enough time shrugging lol
          At the end of the day I’m glad I live in a country where there can be obscene degenerate meaningless art 98% of which will be lost in time and was total bullshit to begin with—that is truly the real value…that we place importance on creativity and let it run in every direction, even when it is stupid, even when it is offensive…..that is one of the freedoms I am very thankful for

        10. Yeah, as the resident mostly-libertarian, I’m down with that. While it’s fun to get worked up here in theory world on ROK, in real life I really don’t have time to give a fetid dingo’s kidney about people out trolling in real life. I just don’t fucking care, and those who get worked up over artists, or singers, or whatever I’m like “Well then don’t go to the exhibit/change the station or channel, get on with life”. The point about it ultimately degrading culture is only valid insofar as we don’t change the channel or turn off the radio, so really, it’s them protesting their own weakness, which to me, is odd.

        11. the real tragedy of lennon being shot was that yoko didn’t catch one too.
          Piss Christ was new, interesting, started a dialogue and a series of mimesis afterwards. It put a flag in the art world and pushed boundaries in the way that other Christian trolling didn’t. He bored you, but you weren’t his audience. He wasn’t playing to you. This is like girls saying that they were bored during the revenant or guys saying that the latest rom com was dull.
          Cutting edge art is not trying to be relevant to 50 year old men in Ohio. That isn’t a good or a bad thing, it just is what it is.

        12. and that is the other (very cool) side to the freedom to be an offensive dickweed and call it being an artist, that other people can roll their eyes and walk away and not give a shit. Like you say, it is fun to get worked up — couldn’t agree more…but we really do live in a great country where we have freedoms like this that are too often taken for granted.

        13. See, to me, at the time (when I was actually a 20 something young buck) it really did seem like just another in what was becoming a long line of trolling Christians. I found it wholly unoriginal, and the Christians reacting to it also ticked me off, because clearly they had no idea he did it just to snigger at them and point his finger. Meh, who cares, I figured, but I guess they did.

        14. I’m finding your flag waving patriotism rather new and strange, heh.

        15. Not new at all. I’ve always been pro America RE opportunity this is an offshoot of that

        16. No. Art is the realization of the ideal and the idealization of the real. “Piss Christ” fails both these criterias miserably. It’s only purpose was blaspheme and to piss people off. Just because it as efficacious in its goals does not make it art.

        17. But couldn’t shooting artists you don’t like be considered a form of performance art itself? Especially if you smeared them with chocolate sauce or let chickens walk all over them with painted feet afterwards? Just how far do we go with this…

        18. yeah – takes real heroes to antagonize members of a religion who’s major theme is forgiveness and repentance…

        19. Someone did shoot him…that deranged woman that wrote the Scum Manifesto. Of course, she didn’t do it right.

        20. Exactly. Shit like Piss Christ is just idiotic trash and is not “art” by any standard whatsoever.

        21. Piss Christ was new, interesting, started a dialogue and a series of
          mimesis afterwards. It put a flag in the art world and pushed boundaries
          in the way that other Christian trolling didn’t. He bored you, but you
          weren’t his audience. He wasn’t playing to you. This is like girls
          saying that they were bored during the revenant or guys saying that the
          latest rom com was dull.

          Sorry pal but it sounds like those reviews prepared by so called experts trying to make a piece of dung look like a piece of art…except that no matter how you slice and how many mental gymnastics you use (subjective criteria pulled out of their arses), it’s still a piece of dung and hence the stench (objective criteria).
          By your definition, I should guess that every engineering project whose effects were everlasting and remained a topic of conversation for decades would be a piece of art…

        22. Not that wouldn’t work for my definition. Just one part of it. Did you see the piss Christ?

        23. I have to respectfully disagree with you here but I do appreciate that you have voiced your opinion politely and intelligently and not like a drooling moron just saying “it’s baaaaaad”
          I think that the art world and the photography world is a very long and detailed discussion, not dissimilar to a message board on a website like this one and if you follow out the threads from the original comment through all the tangents that break off and get a picture of an entire conversation there are points and moments that become legitamitly valuable.
          I wouldn’t say that piss Christ is the Mona Lisa, blue poles, Don Quixote, melancholia I in terms of where it belongs in the pantheon but I would argue it is a relevant and important part of the discussion that is the history of art whether we like it or not.
          I really do mean it, however, I appreciate your candor and tone. This is a conversation worth having with people who have different opinions—just not with morons who are either for or against without having any idea what they are talking about so thank you

        24. Thanks for your reply. A few months ago I had the chance to return to Europe and was strolling in the Antwerp Rubens Museum. Those paintings (yeah I know many are likely to be copies since they won’t risk the originals but whatever) had the ability to convey the feelings of the artist even though we are talking about paintings at least 300 years old. Many of the paintings were so well done that those images (at least to my eyes) were close to the living thing in many cases. The painstaking attention to detail bordered madness or genius itself. Even the clouds in those images are well done for God’s sake.
          My point: I am of the opinion that art went into a crisis after the impact of photography and our ability to generate digital images (20th century onward). Suddenly painting a landscape, the clouds, animals and/or humans became a boring task and one of low value since the machines could do it, at first clumsily and later on ever better. Hence the need to go into unexplored avenues and the rise of abstract art (Picasso, et al if I am not mistaken). Mainstream art went from trying its best to depict the physical world in all its glory to try to depict the universe within, sometimes with success, other times not so successful. And of course politics hasn’t left art alone. Piss Christ is just an example of politically motivated art in my opinion, making fun of one of the pillars of the West while the artist would never dare to do so with a Hindu deity (a religion more than partly responsible for the backwardness and despair of one sixth of humanity), let alone Islam. Therein lies my lack of appreciation for that piece. Thank and sorry for the rant.

        25. Lolknee like other Jews appreciates piss Christ because it is deeply offensive and belittles Jesus and Christianity. Anything else is just neatly woven horse shit.
          The Talmud proudly blasphemes Christ depicting him as the son of a whore that shall boil for eternity in excrement.

        1. I was referencing the Terrorist Attack on the cartoonist (some would say cartoonist are artists) at Charlie Hebdo. What does False Flag mean?

        2. I know what you were referencing. There is a hypothesis that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was a False Flag operation (i.e. undertaken by one group with the deliberate intention to incriminate another).

        3. Wow, thank you for drawing my attention to the False Flag theories; there’s a lot of interesting information on the subject for me to peruse…

        4. Wait what? You believe that they killed themselves to incriminate muslims?

      2. Agreed. It’s a SIN to insult people’s religion/faith and the Supreme Power they believe in. Doesn’t matter whether it’s Christianity, Hinduism or any other faith.
        I pity people who insult and/or belittle other faiths.
        There is only ONE Supreme Power, the GOD. You call Him as Christ, I call Him as Lord Siva and somebody else calls Him as Allah. It doesn’t make any difference.
        If Christ is GOD to you, He can’t be a Demon to me; it’s that simple.

    4. “If one believes that ‘Nazism’ and defending one’s country are somehow dirty, but sees nothing wrong with trannyism and being aroused by children, one deserves being “triggered.” – André du Pôle
      The inclusion of Pedophiles in this article is a bizarre stretch; and certainly not a true reflection of how offensive Pedophiles are to the most people, no matter what their political leanings are:
      “Europol, FBI arrest nearly 900 in crackdown on global pedophile ring “-5/5/17

    5. Its not a far stretch from being disgusted by a man who sticks his dick in another man’s arse to being disgusted by a man who sticks his dick in children. As this disgust can flow the other way, the Leftists will try to reduce our disgust towards pedophilia.

    6. Funny, but Piss Christ doesn’t disgust me at all, and I’m a born-and-raised Catholic.However, seeing a tranny, the classic bearded lady, DOES disgust me.

      Maybe because you are no longer Catholic, but you are still a functional man (I suppose…)

  5. Interesting that we are seeing a return of the old circus sideshows and freak shows…but they are now showing up on TV. “My 600 Pound Life”. And those midget-chick shows. And all the rest of them…they incite disgust and horror…along with a morbid fascination (at least for the people who watch ’em).

      1. Gozer: The Choice is made!
        Dr. Peter Venkman: Whoa! Ho! Ho! Whoa-oa!
        Gozer: The Traveller has come!
        Dr. Peter Venkman: Nobody choosed anything!
        Dr. Peter Venkman: Did you choose anything?
        Dr. Egon Spengler: No.
        Dr. Peter Venkman: [to Winston] Did YOU?
        Winston Zeddemore: My mind is totally blank.
        Dr. Peter Venkman: I didn’t choose anything…
        Dr. Raymond Stantz: I couldn’t help it. It just popped in there.
        Dr. Peter Venkman: [angrily] What? WHAT “just popped in there?”
        Dr. Raymond Stantz: I… I… I tried to think…
        Dr. Egon Spengler: LOOK!
        Dr. Raymond Stantz: No! It CAN’T be!
        Dr. Peter Venkman: What is it?
        Dr. Raymond Stantz: It CAN’T be!
        Dr. Peter Venkman: What did you DO, Ray?
        Winston Zeddemore: Oh, shit!
        Dr. Raymond Stantz: [somberly] It’s the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.

      2. “The human head weighs 8 pounds.”
        Not that one. That’s gotta be 16, maybe 20 pounds right there.

  6. Bob’s right. This is an interesting article, and one that gets very close to the crux of the matter, of what’s been going on for a while now. What is clean and what is not. What is fit to consume and what will poison or contaminate. The author is quite right that there is a great deal of tinkering going on with how we react emotionally, including with regard to what we are conditioned to react to with disgust, or regard as taboo or stigmatic.
    It’s worth understanding the argument here though. The topic has been dealt with amongst others by the philosopher Martha Nussbaum. I haven’t read her book on the subject, but here is a snippet of some woman called Mary’s review on the book:
    The basic idea is that considering the nature of some people to be “disgusting” is a way of controlling them, keeping them in their place. Though it seems as though the objectionable qualities are objective descriptions, justified in the public mind by associating them with nastiness like excrement, stink, bugs, ooze, slime, disease (J.K. Rowling’s “mud people”) , it often becomes obvious that calling them disgusting is a prelude to treating them like animals, excluding them, beating up on them, defunding them, and in the most extreme herding them into the prison camps and gas chambers of the Holocaust. Retarded and otherwise disabled or crippled people, gypsies, gays, Jews, dissidents, and so on were all considered “disgusting” and therefore their extermination could be called “cleansing.”
    So, if this reviewer is right it is not that disgust is a natural reaction, it is that it is a means of controlling others….or in leftist jargon controlling ‘the other’ or if you prefer to use the verb ‘othering’ someone or a group of people.
    What the left doesn’t tell you is that as it seeks to de-stigmatise those who have been ‘othered’ it also seek to re-apply the stigma – to re-jig the emotion of disgust – to apply it elsewhere. In other words de-stigmatising groups and activities, and removing the conditioning to find something disgusting is not the end of the matter. What they are seeking to do as always is to turn everything on its head.
    Personally I have no issue with homosexuality for example, but as being adventuresome with gerbils is de-stigmatised (it’s possible I am indulging in a stereotype here) it does seem that less gerbil oriented sexual activities are themselves stigmatised. Feminists learn to react with fear and disgust to evidence of heterosexuality for instance, and even the slightest instance of spontaneous heterosexual interest in a woman can be deemed harassment – a sex crime to be associated with rape, and paedophilia instead of the innocence of genuine attraction
    The emotion of disgust is indeed a battleground

    1. Nussbaum is confounding “controlling” with “excluding”. If you quarantine people who have a dangerous disease and could very much contaminate you, you are only “controlling” them to the extent that they cannot go too near or have to stay in a particular place. If, say, Africans were excluded from invading Europe, would they be “controlled” at all, when they could roam freely in Africa and do what they please there?
      As far as it seems, Nussbaum is using gross, broad categories, and goes straight to reinforcing the official narrative – muh Holocaust, muh poor Other who’s so cool and “otherized”! In truth, the only otherizing and controlling we’ve witnessed lately in the West is how the System has been treating dissent. We are the real Other, because the Left has decided so. And before, there was no controlled Other but a string of different people living side by side with the minimal constraint of respecting the neighbor’s integrity (if you call that “control” you’re seriously fucked up).

      1. I haven’t read the Nussbaum book, so a review I read way back, and the amazon review I quoted from is the extent of my knowledge of her argument. I mentioned it because she’s a fairly established name and she’s the only I know of who has explicitly dealt with disgust as an emotion explicitly. As far as I can tell – and very unsurprisingly – she’s arguing from a social constructivist position, and if that latter review is correct arguing that when we have particularly kinds of strong emotion they are likely to be something more than just ‘natural’. I can’t say much more than without looking into it further but it seems to me that it is the argument that must be contended with if we can make a case for disgust as being something ‘natural’ and ‘healthy’ at least to a degree. It’s clear that it’s not entirely socially constructed – bad smells, disease etc., are almost certainly very long standing evolutionary adaptations in many cases without which we would probably all be living much shorter lives. Equally though some taboos, which ordinarily produce a ‘disgust’ type reaction – recoiling, making a face, closing our nostrils or whatever may no longer serve quite such a sanitary or sanguinary purpose. I doubt I’d agree with her idea that we recoil from the idea of anal sex for instance because of some kind of heteronormative control system (if that’s the kind of thing she is saying) – if you think about it there is no particular disgust / revulsion associated with girl-on-girl action – it seems to me that that the disgust reaction relates particularly to male homosexual practice – which once we reject political correctness, and even if we are tolerant of homosexual lifestyles – still manifests as related to considerable health risks.
        You’re right, today we are probably ‘the other’ and not the usual victim classes and hangers on, yet as far as I’m aware Nussbaum’s liberation theology applies exclusively to those fashionable victim classes – gays in particular, rather the kinds of people she probably considers to be ‘part of the problem’. I don’t think there’s ever been a conscious system of control in that sense until the left came onto the scene and sought to redirect emotions of disgust, shame etc. onto their identified enemies. It’s worth examining such emotions though rather just assuming they continue to be ‘natural’ and adaptive

    1. It’s as if individuals have their own opinions or something, right?

    2. There’s a wide mix of men here. I’m definitely on the foreign side, for example.
      If you want to see a true circlejerk of frustrated white supremacy, look at what Heartiste has become.

      1. Yeah, it’s beyond annoying over there, even if there are still good articles from time to time, the comments section is a Klan meeting.

        1. That is one of the reasons I don’t go there as much.
          While I get that people should be able to associate with who they want, when people talk about wanting to use State power to force association or disassociation, from sea to shining sea regardless of how other people might not consent, then I’m out.
          Do all the dumb Nigger-Jooz-Muzzie-Spic Hating they want, whatever. But talking about wanting to use the incompetence of governmental monopoly as a means to achieve their (or anybody’s really) ends, gives me the heebie jeebies. Just more collectivist bullshit.

    3. Foreign in nationality is different from foreign in race. You can find a bride at the other end of the world and she’ll be as Aryan as you are. Same extended family.

      1. Yeah but I have travelled from Finland to Serbia and it’s all pretty much a cuckfest. The only ones in Europe who feel a genuine purpose in life are the Muslims, kind of tragic to see but it’s true.

    4. because the more red pill one gets, the more they realize there is a fundamental problem with race mixing. different races behavior quite a bit different.
      the white european based race built western civilization, nothing major or anything.
      contrasted to how the black african race has behaved in their homeland of africa for thousands of years or the mexicans in the past 200 years. heck look at the orientals, while generally intelligent they too have different behavior patterns.
      why is it that humans are all the human race with no difference between us despite anyone with eyes can easily tell we are different. yet we will categorize and separate the species of dog or cat or whatever else down to the smallest minut detail and classify it as a new species of dog cat or whatever else.
      no, the red pill wont discourage race superiority, rather it will encourage it because it is the God-honest truth. the races behave differently. and speaking of taboo, why am i racist if as a white man i want to fuck a white girl?
      red pill is about breaking through the taboo’s and embracing reality and truth. well that is reality and truth. racism is code for anti-white.

      1. I get your point but also since we understand differences between dog breeds, we can make the conscience choice to breed two varieties together to get better traits. Not to sound crass but I think you get my point

        1. just saw this….honestly its a pretty well done video. going to have to look up that SCUM book now.
          the only thing you should have sourced if you could were those long list of statistics.
          but the videos you showed and the points made were really well done. not that hardly anyone cares mind you…

        2. ty 🙂 it’s my first video, took 3 days. hardly anyone cares – Exactly.
          i think each one of the statistics come from different places, but i’ll add the text to the description for now.
          haven’t read the book, i just know of the bltch, and that’s andy warhol she shot… it’s my favorite way to describe people who promote circumcision. and the irony is fabulous – she obviously intended to call men ‘scum’, but inadvertently self-identified herself as such. freudian slip?

        3. sounds good….yeah i’d love to see the stats.
          i looked at wikipedia….she seems to have quite a history. apparently strangely quite influential.
          SCUM according to google is a free pdf that is 16 pages. just google it, it is easily found. reminds me of this one blog i found…its on my other computer if i remember right, i’ll try and remember to link it to you.
          its feminism in its fully unmasked state. its truly hideous…..from the closing of the PDF
          “Rational men want to be squashed, stepped on, crushed and crunched, treated as the curs, the filth that they are, have their repulsiveness confirmed.
          The sick, irrational men, those who attempt to defend themselves against their disgustingness,
          when they see SCUM barrelling down on them, will cling in terror to Big Mama with her Big
          Bouncy Boobies, but Boobies won’t protect them against SCUM; Big Mama will be clinging to
          Big Daddy, who will be in the corner shitting in his forceful, dynamic pants. Men who are
          rational, however, won’t kick or struggle or raise a distressing fuss, but will just sit back, relax,
          enjoy the show and ride the waves to their demise.”

        4. Molech was the name of that “god” in that spirit cooking in the pizzagate scandal…..
          and really that picture isnt that different than SCUM.
          though i havent looked up much about Molech specifically.

  7. The key is establishing that men and women have different reproductive rights. Right now people think we have the same rights, because that was what Monty Python said in Life Of Brian. But only females have a right to be pregnant and we need Congress to ban male pregnancy and female impregnation, preserve the reproductive rights of marriage, and void all same sex marriages.

    1. Here’s the thing John (and I don’t disagree with you)……that isn’t going to happen. It isn’t going to happen now. It isn’t going to happen in the future. So the question really is: what now?

      1. What if you are wrong, and it is going to happen sooner than later. The public is sick to death of transgender, the Dems are ready to throw them and gay marriage under the bus to get universal healthcare. 99.9999% will not want male pregnancy to be an option. Ending gay marriage will end terrorism, resolve whole host of problems.

        1. IT is a win win for me. If I am wrong then I no longer have to deal with degenerate faggots….great. If I was right I get to be right. In the end, I think I am right and will act accordingly. Really doesn’t matter much to me. Either way is fine. But what about you? If you are wrong then you will have wasted your energy and intelligence beating your fists against a wall that isn’t going to come down when other walls stood there that you could legitimately have broken.

    2. Right. The male relation to the females differs from the female relation to the male. The authority of man over woman being one. The service of woman to her man being another. The devotion of mother to all nursing infants being still another. And yet another being male solidarity and comradery in quelling female herd hysteria and keeping the greater herd of females orderly whilst men engineer higher civilized endeavors.
      A man operates his female like a driver operates a vehicle, with skill and precision. You wouldn’t take your car into a gynecologist for an engine overhaul and likewise you wouldn’t go to your local auto garage for your yearly check up, sit on the lift and stuff a red rag in your mouth while the mechanic sticks a tire gague in your ear as you stick out your tongue and say “aaaah”. The service for men and women is different especially with matters of the psyche.

  8. My future response for all people who try to start shit with me here in the comments section:
    “Thanks so much for your audition. If we decide to debate with you, during a future episode of ‘Bob Debates a Beta’, we’ll call your agent…thanks again.”

  9. That “disgust” angle is very interesting. I think the problem with women is, they have to know what it’s like…doesn’t matter what it is. Their curiosity compels them to try it, especially if it’s taboo or considered disgusting. For example, they have a friend who gets gangbanged. They have to know what it’s like. They see a woman with green hair and face shrapnel. They have to know what it’s like. And that’s why they need supervision – they will get into trouble if left unsupervised. Which is why we see so many fucked-up women these days. (In other news, the sky is blue…).

  10. Get rid of our aversion to war. Stop saying ‘war is the last resort.’ In truth, surrender or groveling is our last resort.
    If war is the last resort, the by logic surrender is an option that comes before war.

  11. They control your mind through their LANGUAGE.
    Language is power – they are choosing the tools for which your mind forms thoughts.
    Use etymology ( to discover the TRUE meaning of words.
    The article is correct, don’t fall into their frame of reference and attack there.
    Attack from the highest point, which is true KNOWLEDGE of the power of language.

  12. Yeah, funny how racism became “disgusting” but Bill Nye’s enthusiasm for polymorphous perversity became “normal.”
    Instead the racists stand closer to the humanist tradition by holding up a standard of human flourishing and the good life, based on a rational understanding of man’s nature: We find fulfillment by living in extended families, tribes and nations of people who share a common historical ancestry and a common culture. Our elites’ project of progressive utopianism inflicts violence on this nature by ripping people away from their homes and tribes and throwing them into a blender.
    Naturally this didn’t happen through some mysterious negligence, mistake or accident:

    The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. […]
    Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe’s feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.

    1. Barrack Obama, another racial hybrid groomed by the elites was also given a latchkey to globalist policymaking. Both were intelligent bred ‘swing men’ able to present a “just like me” fascade universally – similar to a semite. You might say they were both semites despite Kalergi-Coudenhove being raised RC and Obama babtized COMS (Church of the Mudshark). Semite comes from the root word ‘semi’ meaning ‘half’ as in half breed. . . Ooh ooh – I just realized if Jeb had taken the POTUS, get this – it would be a barrage of half breed little people shows all over TV. I think that’s what all the midget reality shows are about – in anticipation whether the half-wonk pres. would have been the preselected midget monger.

        1. I actually chose #2 based on what you’ve said that you like in the past. She’s a looker.

  13. In fairness to Sigmund Freud, he does make some shrewd observations about human nature in his writings which get into Red Pill territory; only he mitigates their impact by trying to force his arbitrary theory around them.
    For example, in his essay titled, ‘”Civilized” Sexual Morality and Modern Nervousness’, at least in the translation I have, Freud observes:

    The behavior of a human being in sexual matters is often a prototype for the whole of his other modes of reaction to life. A man who has shown determination in possessing himself of his love-object has our confidence in his success in regard to other aims as well. On the other hand, a man who abstains, for whatever reasons, from satisfying his strong sexual instinct, will also assume a conciliatory and resigned attitude in other paths of life, rather than a powerfully active one.

    So you have to wonder whether this insight plays a role in our elites’ efforts to shame men from pursuing sexual relationships with women by, for example, spreading nonsense about the rape culture. Forcing abstinence on young men probably has the effect of making them “conciliatory” and “resigned” towards our elites’ utopian social projects; whereas young men with normal sex lives just might discover within themselves the motivation and energy to oppose these abominations.

  14. First the left “pathologizes” normal behavior (making traditional beliefs seem aberrant and aberrant beliefs seem normative). Then they create a culture of victimization via Hollywood and the NYC media. Finally, they sit back and watch the brainwashed low IQ antifas and the mutually weak-minded groups fight their wars for them.

  15. “Psychology matters. Just like politics, if you don’t care about it, someone else will take it over for you.” ~ Psychology is a scam invented by jews to dominate the goyim, it has devolved into behaviorism. I remember back in the 70’s everyone understood it was BS. Psychology is supposed to be the study of the human soul but psychiatrists deny the existence of the soul. I think Tony Soprano’s mother explains it rather well in one sentence…

    1. What a red pill show that was. Many people hated it because they took it to be drama or melodrama. It was really a sitcom like All in the Family where everyone is an Italian Archie Bunker. They should try it with a laugh track varying from slow clapping mobsters to Italian wedding whoops and Italian catcalls and laughture, like a special laugh track in Italian. “mama mia guarda la dimensione di questi seni” with raucous donkey laughs, sounds of bottles breaking and small caliber gunshots etc.
      If they had sitcommed it at 8pm fridays, then it would probably still be on air like All in the Family ran continuous throughout the 70s. But the show was rich in machismo and red pill bluntness in a humorously vulgar kind of way:

  16. The goal is really to make people question themselves – their tribal instinctivness – to a point of undeterminable chaos. Most people, starting as kids, understand survivability of the self. The idea is to start the chaos thought process of self-questioning so early in youth that the moral compass is absolutely moldable mush… and it’s working.
    There’s a slap-back affect to where adults are now doing the same in reconsideration of once-established social mores. When simple mathematics – the underlying basis for language ultimately (if x then y) begins failing, the slate MUST be wiped clean. This is where we are in society of 1st world nations currently. 3rd world players pick at opportunities afforded them due to basic survival, for which we can’t blame them. But who opened this door? You have to close the door at those gate keepers, removing them with force if time doesn’t cure. Only then can we help outside our own.
    I firmly believe our purpose is to rise above, and lead the masses eventually. The most influential will display methods to kindly show disgust and aggressively command respect . Triggering simply isn’t being done harshly enough. It’s the land of opposites folks. Brutal honesty, which is always digested as extreme negativity, is in fact pure love.

  17. Everything started with the idea of selling to people some disgusting food. Nowadays almost all available food is just disgusting. That’s why I had to learn how to cook. I am a good chef, by the way.
    Now, combining food with philosophy we can summarize the ingredients of human existence as:
    1) Food for the soul
    2) Food for the body
    Translated into the liberal language we have:
    1) Disgusting food for the soul
    2) Disgusting food for the body

  18. Help me – I’m 43 years old and for the past 3 or 4 years my face has been locked in a rictus of permanent skin crawling disgust every time I read the news or watch tv

      1. Why didn’t I think of that? Will take some time to retrain those facial muscles though

  19. Another conservative trying to impose his philosophy on the unaware with pseudo-scientific psycho-babble. Disingenuous at best…ham-fisted, really, this moron actually thinks he is clever! BWAHAHA!

  20. Moron alert from the first paragraph: Freud and other Jews INVENTED psychology, how could it “escape their grip” to avoid being “slowly taken over”? I don’t even think this author has the background info on the totally unnecessary slur he’s making. Low hopes for rest of article.

  21. This is why it’s important not to give these people an argument. They want negative attention from those with opposing political views. Every article on some right wing website about some morbidly obese woman not using a sanitary napkin on the bus as a form of womyns protest or some gay drag queen wearing a dress in public or a tranny talking about his girl dick sparks further rebellion in these emotionally immature people. Focus on building the next generation, be the change you want to see to the best of your abilities and ignore the freaks. Giving these clowns attention is like feeding a gremlin after midnight.

  22. No, the left does not try to legitimise paedophilia.
    It’s the left that creep shames 40 year old men who like 18 year old girls so you won’t convince me that they would allow 40 year old men to sleep with 8 year old girls instead. Bullshit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *