So, about that Thor idea

We may have to get a move on:

A new report suggests Marvel Studios will cast a transgender female character in one of their upcoming Phase 4 projects.

The report comes from Geeks World Wide, who indicate the character is currently using the codename “Jessica.” They go on to indicate that they are looking for a “transwoman actress of any ethnicity in her 20s to 30s.”

Geeks World Wide speculates that the character will appear in Thor: Love and Thunder as they state “the casting breakdown calls for ‘transgender actresses only.’” They go on to indicate the character will be Sera.

Sera first appeared in Angela: Asgard’s Assassin #1 back in 2015. Sera was created by Kieron Gillen, Marguerite Bennett, and Phil Jimenez. Sera was a member of a group of wingless male Angels from Heven called Anchorites that were being held by the Hierophants.

The Devil Mouse really does seem hell-bent on tearing down Stan Lee’s legacy as rapidly as possible.

Sophistry over time


1828 Webster’s Dictionary
National character; also, the quality of being national, or strongly attached to ones own nation.

1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica
A somewhat vague term, used strictly in international law (see International Law, Private) for the status of membership in a nation or state (for the conditions of which see State, Allegiance, Naturalization, Alien), and in a more extended sense in political discussion to denote an aggregation of persons claiming to represent a racial, territorial or some other bond of unity, though not necessarily recognized as an independent political entity. In this latter sense the word has often been applied to such people as the Irish, the Armenians and the Czechs. A “nationality” in this connexion represents a common feeling and an organized claim rather than distinct attributes which can be comprised in a strict definition.

2019 Wikipedia
Nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a state. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state. What these rights and duties are varies from state to state.

You cannot hide

If you are a white male, it doesn’t matter what your hobby is. Diversity is coming to destroy it.

Does craft beer have a diversity problem? Of course it does….

Given that big beer makers for decades courted male consumers with sexist TV ads featuring women in bikinis, it perhaps surprises no one that the craft beer business has become a haven for white males — most of whom happen to be hipsters. Sadly, what counts as diversity in this industry is the clean-shaven minority mixing with the bearded majority….

While Boston Beer may be mum about what more could be done on diversity, the Brewers Association, the trade group for small and independent American brewers, is not. Since 2016, the association has been on a mission to figure out how the industry can be more welcoming to everyone, whether as a consumer or a brewer.

Measures include updating advertising standards to ban sexually explicit, lewd, and demeaning language, graphics, and images; forming a diversity committee; hiring a “diversity ambassador;” and giving out grants to encourage brewers to promote diversity and inclusion.

Unlike big beer companies, which rely on expensive TV ad campaigns, craft brewers depend on word-of-mouth and grass-roots marketing to build their brands. Through its diversity grants, the Brewers Association is supporting Fresh Fest 2019 in August in Pittsburgh — the nation’s first black brew fest, featuring 28 black-owned breweries, and Beers With(out Beards), an event series in Brooklyn, N.Y., that promotes women in the craft beer industry and women-owned breweries.

Whether you obediently cuck or whether you try to hide in your basement and brew your beer in solitude, Diversity will hunt you down and try to inclusivate you. So, you’d better learn how to stand up and fight for your interests before they are demolished through diversification.

Aquinas on nation vs state

Yet another proof, if another one was required, to prove that the nation is not and can never be the state. Contemplate Summa Theologica Question 95. Human Law Article 4.

Article 4. Whether Isidore’s division of human laws is appropriate?

Objection 1. It would seem that Isidore wrongly divided human statutes or human law (Etym. v, 4, seqq.). For under this law he includes the “law of nations,” so called, because, as he says, “nearly all nations use it.” But as he says, “natural law is that which is common to all nations.” Therefore the law of nations is not contained under positive human law, but rather under natural law.
Objection 2. Further, those laws which have the same force, seem to differ not formally but only materially. But “statutes, decrees of the commonalty, senatorial decrees,” and the like which he mentions (Etym. v, 9), all have the same force. Therefore they do not differ, except materially. But art takes no notice of such a distinction: since it may go on to infinity. Therefore this division of human laws is not appropriate.
Objection 3. Further, just as, in the state, there are princes, priests and soldiers, so are there other human offices. Therefore it seems that, as this division includes “military law,” and “public law,” referring to priests and magistrates; so also it should include other laws pertaining to other offices of the state.
Objection 4. Further, those things that are accidental should be passed over. But it is accidental to law that it be framed by this or that man. Therefore it is unreasonable to divide laws according to the names of lawgivers, so that one be called the “Cornelian” law, another the “Falcidian” law, etc.
On the contrary, The authority of Isidore (Objection 1) suffices.
I answer that, A thing can of itself be divided in respect of something contained in the notion of that thing. Thus a soul either rational or irrational is contained in the notion of animal: and therefore animal is divided properly and of itself in respect of its being rational or irrational; but not in the point of its being white or black, which are entirely beside the notion of animal. Now, in the notion of human law, many things are contained, in respect of any of which human law can be divided properly and of itself. For in the first place it belongs to the notion of human law, to be derived from the law of nature, as explained above (Article 2). In this respect positive law is divided into the “law of nations” and “civil law”, according to the two ways in which something may be derived from the law of nature, as stated above (Article 2). Because, to the law of nations belong those things which are derived from the law of nature, as conclusions from premises, e.g. just buyings and sellings, and the like, without which men cannot live together, which is a point of the law of nature, since man is by nature a social animal, as is proved in Polit. i, 2. But those things which are derived from the law of nature by way of particular determination, belong to the civil law, according as each state decides on what is best for itself.
Secondly, it belongs to the notion of human law, to be ordained to the common good of the state. In this respect human law may be divided according to the different kinds of men who work in a special way for the common good: e.g. priests, by praying to God for the people; princes, by governing the people; soldiers, by fighting for the safety of the people. Wherefore certain special kinds of law are adapted to these men.
Thirdly, it belongs to the notion of human law, to be framed by that one who governs the community of the state, as shown above (I-II:90:3). In this respect, there are various humanlaws according to the various forms of government. Of these, according to the Philosopher (Polit. iii, 10) one is “monarchy,” i.e. when the state is governed by one; and then we have “Royal Ordinances.” Another form is “aristocracy,” i.e. government by the best men or men of highest rank; and then we have the “Authoritative legal opinions” [Responsa Prudentum] and “Decrees of the Senate” [Senatus consulta]. Another form is “oligarchy,” i.e. government by a few rich and powerful men; and then we have “Praetorian,” also called “Honorary,” law. Another form of government is that of the people, which is called “democracy,” and there we have “Decrees of the commonalty” [Plebiscita]. There is also tyrannical government, which is altogether corrupt, which, therefore, has no corresponding law. Finally, there is a form of government made up of all these, and which is the best: and in this respect we have lawsanctioned by the “Lords and Commons,” as stated by Isidore (Etym. v, 4, seqq.).
Fourthly, it belongs to the notion of human law to direct human actions. In this respect, according to the various matters of which the law treats, there are various kinds of laws, which are sometimes named after their authors: thus we have the “Lex Julia” about adultery, the “Lex Cornelia” concerning assassins, and so on, differentiated in this way, not on account of the authors, but on account of the matters to which they refer.
Reply to Objection 1. The law of nations is indeed, in some way, natural to man, in so far as he is a reasonable being, because it is derived from the natural law by way of a conclusion that is not very remote from its premises. Wherefore men easily agreed thereto. Nevertheless it is distinct from the natural law, especially it is distinct from the natural law which is common to all animals.
The Replies to the other Objections are evident from what has been said.

Since the law of nations cannot be contained under human civil law, the national should never be confused with the citizen. There can be overlap, but the two identities are clearly distinct. The false conflation of national with citizen is profoundly dishonest and philosophically false, indeed, it is a prime example of the sophistic technique that Aristotle calls “amphiboly”, which is “a fallacy of relevance that relies on an ambiguous word or grammatical structure to confuse or mislead an audience.”

Consider this: if the nation was the state, there would be no need for the construction “nation-state” to ever have been created. Furthermore, there would have been no need for economists to make the change from “Gross National Product”, which sums the economic activity of an entire nation regardless of the geographic location of the nationals, to “Gross Domestic Product”, which sums the economic activity of all the people within a specified geographic location.

A Democrat disaster in the making

Matt Taibbi’s article on the Democratic presidential candidates is pretty much all you need to know about the 2020 sacrificial lambs:

Four years ago, the rank inadequacy of the Lindsey Grahams and Scott Walkers and Jeb Bushes who tumbled into the pastures of Iowa made great sport for snickering campaign journalists, myself included. We dubbed the field of governors, senators, and congressgoons who couldn’t beat a game-show host the “Clown Car,” and laughed at what many of us thought was the long-overdue collapse of the Republican Party. The joke turned out to be on us.

The GOP error was epic in scale. The Republicans sent twice the usual number of suspects into the buzz saw of a Throw the Bums Out movement they never understood, creating the comic pretext for the Clown Car: twice the canned quips, twice the empty promises, double the rage, frustration, and eye rolls.

Nobody will want to hear this, but Democrats are repeating the error….

Williamson is a small, almost ethereal figure with silver-streaked hair and intense eyes that 19th-century authors would have described as being “like coals.” Her superficial eccentricities and occasional incautious statements (she once said “there’s a skepticism which is actually healthy” on the issue of vaccines) have caused reporters to chortle at her run.

But her speech is not a lifeless collection of policy positions. It’s an interesting, tightly written diagnosis of the American problem. Precisely because socioeconomic stresses have pushed them into heightened awareness, she says, the American public sees what she calls “a transition from democracy to aristocracy,” and the corporate sector’s “insatiable appetite” for money that dominates American life.

Williamson is not a traditional orator, with a voice that fills the room. You can barely hear her without a microphone. But she grabs crowds. Nobody is checking sports scores or Twitter. They’re in.

Williamson goes on to say that most Americans are aware that their government is now little more than a handmaiden to sociopathic forces. She describes a two-party system that, at its worst, operates in perfect harmony with the darkest impulses of corporate capitalism, and at best — presumably she refers more to Democrats here — sounds like institutionalized beggary.

“ ‘Pretty please, can I maybe have a hundred-thousand-dollar grant here?’ ” she says. “ ‘Pretty please, can we maybe have a million dollars in the budget for all this?’ ”

Heads are nodding all over the place.

“They say, ‘I can get you a cookie.’ ”

This elicits a few yeahs from the crowd.

Christ, I think. This woman is going to win the nomination.

Ironically, a lunatic candidate like Williamson is probably the only one with a legitimate chance of beating President Trump in the general election. Because she’s the only one speaking even a modicum of the truth; the US government really is little more than a handmaiden to sociopathic forces.

My kind of Catholic

ZhukovG perfectly expresses my perspective:

Here we are, Satan’s hosts arrayed against us and we spend more time shooting at one another than at the enemy.

If any man confess that Jesus is Lord; he is my brother, my comrade. I don’t care how he prays or the manner of his worship.

I only ask that he hold his place in the line of battle against the Powers and Principalities that have come against us.

Amen and a-fucking-men. Evil is aggressively attempting to erect the Tower of Babel 2.0, the Synagogue of Satan is shamelessly attempting to subvert language, nations, religions, and history itself, and yet various retards from every church and denomination prefer to engage in theological disputation rather than stand united against the god of this world under the banner of Jesus Christ.

Shut up and get thee to the battlefront.

Shaking the Deep State

That’s the basic idea, gentlemen and traitors:

US President Donald Trump’s nomination of an inexperienced but loyal partisan to become the director of national intelligence (DNI) is an attempt to “neutralise” US spy agencies as an independent and objective voice on global affairs, former intelligence officials warned. It follows the announcement that Dan Coats, one of the most senior national security officials willing to contradict Trump, is to leave the post next month after disagreements with him over policy and intelligence, including on Russian interference in the US election and on North Korean nuclear capabilities.

Step by step, the Storm approaches. C(oates) before D(eclas). US spy agencies aren’t supposed to be independent and objective and self-serving. They’re supposed to be loyal to the US President and dedicated to the national interests of Americans.

Has Darwinism really failed?

Yes. Next question…. I’ve demonstrated the mathematical impossibility of evolution by natural selection and others are now hitting it increasingly hard from a variety of other angles:

Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).

Robinson asks them to convince him that the term “species” has not been defined by the authors to Darwin’s disadvantage. Gelernter replies to this and explains, as he expressed in his essay, that he sees Darwin’s theory as beautiful (which made it difficult for him to give it up): “Beauty is often a telltale sign of truth. Beauty is our guide to the intellectual universe—walking beside us through the uncharted wilderness, pointing us in the right direction, keeping us on track—most of the time.” Gelernter notes that there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether Darwin can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. Meyer explains Darwinism as a comprehensive synthesis, which gained popularity for its appeal. Meyer also mentions that one cannot disregard that Darwin’s book was based on the facts present in the 19th century.

Robinson then asks the panel whether Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution is contradicted by the explosion of fossil records in the Cambrian period, when there was a sudden occurrence of many species over the span of approximately seventy million years (Meyer’s noted that the date range for the Cambrian period is actually narrowing). Meyer replies that even population genetics, the mathematical branch of Darwinian theory, has not been able to support the explosion of fossil records during the Cambrian period, biologically or geologically.

Robinson than asks about Darwin’s main problem, molecular biology, to which Meyer explains, comparing it to digital world, that building a new biological function is similar to building a new code, which Darwin could not understand in his era. Berlinski does not second this and states that the cell represents very complex machinery, with complexities increasing over time, which is difficult to explain by a theory. Gelernter throws light on this by giving an example of a necklace on which the positioning of different beads can lead to different permutations and combinations; it is really tough to choose the best possible combination, more difficult than finding a needle in a haystack. He seconds Meyer’s statement that it was impossible for Darwin to understand that in his era, since the math is easy but he did not have the facts. Meyer further explains how difficult it is to know what a protein can do to a cell, the vast combinations it can produce, and how rare is the possibility of finding a functional protein. He then talks about the formation of brand-new organisms, for which mutation must affect genes early in the life form’s development in order to control the expression of other genes as the organism grows.

Perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind is that TENS is not even remotely scientific. It’s never been more than an unfalsifiable hypothesis. All of the science related to it is circular. Darwinism is not merely outdated and incorrect, it is completely useless for biological engineering and wildly misleading when it is utilized to help interpret the past. (See: evolutionary psychology)

Do you want Nazi 2.0?

Because this is how you get Nazi 2.0:

A chilling incident in which a young boy and his mother were pushed in front of a high-speed train by an Eritrean man has sent shock waves across Germany and seemingly rekindled anti-migrant sentiment.

The tragedy took place on one of the platforms of the central railway terminal in the German city of Frankfurt – the nation’s second busiest railway hub. An eight-year-old boy and his mother were waiting for a train when they were suddenly attacked by a 40-year-old Eritrean. The assailant grabbed the woman and the child and threw them on the rail tracks right as the high-speed intercity express (ICE) was pulling into the station.

The 40-year-old woman managed to escape near-certain death as she made it to the pathway between two tracks. She tried to reach out to her son when the train ran over him, a witness told German media. The boy died at the scene.

The terrible scene left everyone at the station shaken. The ambulances that arrived shortly had to hospitalize some who were suffering from shock. The boy’s mother was also hospitalized, though there has been no information on her condition.

The perpetrator also tried to force another person onto the railway tracks but his third would-be victim escaped. The attacker then attempted to flee the scene but was pursued by a group of passengers and eventually detained by police outside the terminal.

I won’t blame the Germans in the slightest when they start attacking both their own traitorous politicians as well as the migrants welcomed by them. And that’s definitely “when”, not “if”. Nor will I fault that mother if she goes after every single CDU politician with a woodchipper. Their idiotic virtue-signaling has led directly to unthinkable horrors for the German nation.

Multiculturalism will never, ever, work. Diversity is a curse and a prelude to war. English and Spanish settlers never became American Indians. After centuries of “integration” African-Americans remain a nation apart. After 120 years of immigration to the Middle East, Jews have not become Arabs.

There is no Magic Dirt anywhere to be found on the planet.

Churchians against Christian nationalism

It’s very clear what the next rhetorical battle will be:

A group formed by Christian leaders is warning against the rise of “Christian nationalism,” saying the merging of Christian and American identities poses a threat to U.S. democracy and religious communities.

“As Christians, we are bound to Christ, not by citizenship, but by faith,” Christians Against Christian Nationalism’s statement reads.

“Whether we worship at a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple, America has no second-class faiths. All are equal under the U.S. Constitution.”

The statement is endorsed by at least 17 Christian leaders from various churches and organizations, according to the group’s website.

It won’t be even remotely surprising to discover that their funding is coming from distinctly not-Christian sources, most likely the same people who fund the (((Edmund Burke Institute))) Nationalism is under attack by the globalist gatekeepers and Christian nationalism will be targeted by the Churchians.

Well and good. We have the truth, the Bible, history, science, and Jesus Christ on our side. They have lies, usury, and elite pedos on theirs. I like our odds.

Notice how they can’t even bear to state the name of Jesus Christ. That’s because they serve a very different god.