It’s Blood or Anal

One of the more manifestly foolish liberal cliches is the premise that people yearn to be brought together. The notion is fading out of favor in an environment of white demonization, though historically few leftist pols could conclude a speech without promising to bring people together. This was always spoken in implied or explicit counterpoint to the republicans who ostensibly labored to keep people apart.

Unfortunately, republican efforts to keep Tyson plants and chicken helots apart have proved a lavish failure. Though I’m sure it’s the intent that counts. But the point is that liberals insist on bringing people together—whether they want it or not. For instance, Mark Zuckerberg brings people together at his Hawaiian estate by flying them in helicopters over the wall he has constructed around the property.

But I can assure you, Mark’s desire to be brought together with the residents of Sierra Leone’s Kroo Bay slum is entirely atypical. Throughout history people, affluent liberals in particular, have expended extraordinary resources in efforts to not come together with those unlike them. It really is remarkable how quickly men seek to become untogethered once they gain the means to actually wield discretion in the matter. And all it requires is a few minutes on twitter to understand why.

I can’t say I particularly like twitter. As I infer from its stock price, the platform accommodates dozens of users squawking out their browser windows simultaneously. I prefer the aesthetics and intimacy of a blog, but that’s really not where you find a few dozen people. So I periodically read through tweets in the segregated online nation-states that also oddly resist the alleged human yearning for coming together. There’s jew twitter, black twitter, squatter twitter, and obviously preening white lib twitter. None of which require extensive mining to extract an iron certainty that bringing people together who do not like each other is the most malicious idea ever shit out of a prog’s haunches.

There are two points readers here do not need to hear. First, it can not be overstated how much lurid racial animosity resides openly in the realm of love. Second, and perhaps more interestingly, there does not exist even a shared logical premise from which this gulf can be bridged. The tedium of traipsing through the left’s twitter zoo is not being held in contempt—that’s sand in the desert. It is instead in realizing that what many imagine are universal thought processes and rational progressions are actually unique to each faction. As a result, a gerbil and a trout would have more fruitful discussions. This, by the way, is why prudent fish and rodents do not insist on coming together.

I was quickly reaching these conclusions upon reading a twitter thread by some liberal life-ensconced academic who simply could not believe the comical self-contradiction of the following tweet. His claque of dim sycophants joined in the ridicule.

That is quite a lark. I mean what kind of sci-fi scenario would have people be friends and allies without moving in mass into each other’s home? What term would anthropologists even coin for such a bizarre arrangement? A “neighborhood?” I’m just making up words here.

It struck me that the original tweeter and his gaggle of head-bobbers could not even conceive of the very social proposition in which they all actually live. Reality is defenseless against a well-armored narrative. It was, in fact, preposterous by their rationale. If you are a 1) good person, then you 2) adore all alien peoples, thus 3) you move them into your home and 4) have anal sex. There’s an implied logical progression that can only be broken by hate.

Similarly, nationalists can not feasibly have international allies because if you are 1) a bad person, you 2) do not want aliens to take over your home, which means 3) that you hate people who are different, and 4) will try to kill them if they call you on the phone. As such, nationalists—who are very bad people indeed—can not have friendly foreign relations, QE fucking D.

As a result, we learn that the diplomatic meeting shown below between Chinese and Nigerian ministers ended either in torrents of blood, or a 100 million man population transfer accompanied by mass orgies of interracial anal sex.

Anything else is just laughable.

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “It’s Blood or Anal

  1. Pingback: It’s Blood or Anal | Reaction Times

  2. “Reality is defenceless agains a well-armored narrative.” Goddamn! My hermeneutical, polemical and ‘just plain funny stuff I say’ arsenal, becomes better equipped the more I read here.

  3. There is always blood when you’re being a$$-raped.
    Such is the globalist ideal, that we must all benefit from such ‘enrichment’.

  4. Good call for highlighting how anal sex is kind of the poster-act for all this.

    Funny. I wouldn’t think it took a degree in microbiology to know that receptive anal intercourse is a phenomenally bad idea. Tears in the recipient’s colon causing fecal bacteria to leak into the bloodstream, a weakening of the sphincter muscles such that the recipient develops lifelong anal leakage, anal fistulas and the bulging of the colon lining out past the anus (i.e., hemorrhoids) are obvious likelihoods, and jamming feces up ones urethra seems like such a smart move for he who is pitching….(I call BS on men who claim they always double-glove, sorry, I’m not buying that tripe.)

    There are a lot of folks whose actions (mostly supporting/pushing one narrative or another) make me daydream fondly of sending a 9mm slug through their heads. Those trying to mainstream anal sex as normal are very near the top of that list. Should our society’s conditions change enough, those who push these lies on others as an attempt to make others as miserable as are they will in all likelihood find themselves hanged by their own words.

  5. Pardon me, but it is hard to refrain from observing: Suckenberg hence Spitter????
    But then I was self banned from commenting on this site long ago.
    I will quietly crawl away.

  6. Well, some nationalists can cooperate. But others obviously cannot. For example, Mexican and American nationalists probably aren’t eager to engage in a cooperative model. The thing is, it’s not really a universal principle for action but depends on some non-infinitely fluid parameters. European Whiteness as a concept is relatively new in the historical sense, or at least it’s been expanded recently against the perceived larger threat from the non-European “enrichers”. The nearest international movement I’m aware of historically is the Pan-Slavic movement in the early 20th century. So there’s nothing inconsistent or illogical in some nationalists cooperating internationally. The fact that American nationalists can support and identify with European nationalists but not with Mexican nationalists just validates that race is the primary issue.

    Think about this, nobody cares too much in defending the border with Canada which like the U.S. was settled by the British — although if Justin Trudeau has his wish, that will surely change.

    • I think cooperation with Mexican nationalists would be viable if the operational who/whoms were aligned. By that I mean Mexicans have no interest in alliances with American nationalists because they are presently the who rather than the whom of global colonization. They have their home secure and want ours too. Since nationalism thwarts the latter, they view it quite negatively.

      But if, as trends often shift, it suddenly became a moral imperative to forklift 80 million Africans into Mexico, then nationalism would represent a positive defense of their own home rather than a impediment to annexing the one next door. So before you can consume a burrito, nationalism becomes sacred south of the border. As such, Mexican and American nationalists might very reasonably reach a constructive detente when considering the migratory implications of Africa’s endless eggsac.

      The truth is that most reflexive anti-nationalists are men of principle: they want a secure home, and yours too. As a result, globalists would have to hide in caves if their agenda threatened everyone’s nationalism. But since they target Europe and its diaspora exclusively, they presently enjoy the fulsome support of nearly all non-Europeans.

      So while intra-racial alliances are certainly more natural, and thus easier to cultivate and maintain, I don’t see them as being the only feasible partnerships in a conflict against globalism applied globally. That is unless globalism is merely an expedient to eliminate European derived peoples alone…and who would believe that?

      • I’d like to see George Soros forced to live in a cave. I don’t wish him any harm, mind you, just that he be forced to live in a cave. Along with about 300 Somalis.

        In any event, since Mexico is our greatest cross-border immigration threat (possibly seconded by Justintrudeaunia in the future), discussion of an accomodation with Mexican nationalists has to be premised on some realistic threat to themselves, and unfortunately (or fortunately for both them and us), 80 million Africans forklifted to Mexico is not a realistic threat. But I’m not missing your larger point.

        Maybe there is some way to mesh with Mexican nationalists but I do fear that that time has long passed. It raises a question that has been discussed here before that maybe, just maybe, we’re going to have to get used to the idea of a separate sovereign California.

        Maybe that’s the real threat to Mexico’s elite Globalists/Nationalists like Vincente Fox that they’ve simply never viewed in the correct light because if they think California and other parts of the American Southwest are going to secede from the U.S. and merge into Mexico, wow, have they got a surprise coming! Like an existential threat to the Mexican state itself from a newly-created Aztlan.

        “Larry, do you see now what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass!?”

  7. “A neighborhood? I’m just making up words here.”
    So very clever.

    The Left has all the refs in this league.
    Trump won the one game before they could change the score board.

  8. If I recall correctly when White people need your neighborhood, like really really bad, one refers to it as Colonialism.

    So our all embracing Globalist-y air-lifting brothers are looking fervently to repay the honor. An Homage, if you will to the root word “Colon”.

    I am unclear whether this misunderstanding, or should I say misaCulturalAppropriation seemingly fixated on anal rapey activities is in error, in jest or in fern analy inspired.

  9. “diplomatic meeting shown below between Chinese and Nigerian ministers ended either in torrents of blood, or a 100 million man population transfer accompanied by mass orgies of interracial anal sex.’

    I vote for ‘torrents of blood’ considering the Chinese won’t put up with much BS and the AIDS /ebola rate in that region.

  10. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/10/29) - Social Matter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s