Hey friends, I've finally put up the backlog of shows that were on YouTube but not iTunes. They will be uploaded the same day from here-on-out!
While I'm at it, find me on Instagram >>HERE<<.... Follow me & say hi mates!
Hey friends, I've finally put up the backlog of shows that were on YouTube but not iTunes. They will be uploaded the same day from here-on-out!
While I'm at it, find me on Instagram >>HERE<<.... Follow me & say hi mates!
Friends of the show, if you're somehow unaware, I'm putting video versions of all shows onto The Tom Henry Show YouTube channel, please subscribe if you haven't already done so!
I'll update the backlog of videos here onto the site, but to start with, here is the latest: 10 Lessons From The Battle Of Berkeley (Including Based Stickman's Speech)
2017: the public sends a clear message that even if the Government is going to mass import Muslims, we will not tolerate Sharia law in our Nations & communities for two primary reasons:
This is not compatible with any modern, Western, secular democracy. There will be no "Sharia creep" in our communities.
We will campaign for laws which make it illegal to advocate for Sharia in any way.
We will have signs outside of every airport & every town which reads in English & common Muslim-spoken languages: "No Sharia Here"
This is not "hate-speech". This is our right as civilized, democratic, enlightened people to protect our way-of-life & Nations from a system which seeks to turn back the tide to the times of a society run by religious zealots, with oppression & misery for women, cruel & unjust executions for breaking religious laws, and the mutilation, raping & marrying of children.
The People of The West Will Send a Message.
Without laying out detailed arguments, I discuss and speculate on these issues to give a bit more breadth to the discussion I've been seeing online about them lately. Epistemology dictates that we should be more skeptical than most seem to be, when it comes to our underlying, unnoticed, assumptions about reality.
In this show I share a few of my run-ins with the SJW ideology during my time at UQ. These are mostly examples of dogma being taught as fact, with the young and impressionable minds listening to it often none-the-wiser. One example is of a badass professor who was dealing out "Redpills", possibly unintentionally, as well as demanding critical thinking.
I then share some thoughts on the outrageous and desperate "Russia Did It" narrative, as well as the conversation Sargon of Akkad & Dave Rubin had on The Rubin Report recently.
Been recording some audio only shows lately. Another should be up in a day or two, on Consciousness and Materialism. Then I've got a video show planned on the subject of filling the missing role of God and religion in our society.
I don't claim that this list is definitive, but I think it's a good start.
Why the hell would you want strangers raising your kids? For what? Most second incomes only exist to support the persons ability to work the second income (car payments, fuel, extra taxation), or to allow indulgence in consumer whorishness that people don't think they can live without (massive home, cable TV, three iPhones, two iPads, designer goods, etc.). People who send their kids to daycare priortise status, consumer goods, and lifestyle, over their family.
Why would you want to be away from your children during the only time they will be innocent before they realise the truth about the world, or get cynical, or get their heads filled with programming of all sorts? Why would you not want to be the one who gets to instill values in your children? Why wouldn't you want to teach them while they are at their most malleable, how to live life properly?
If you don't want to do these things, why even have children? If you do want to do these things, but still send your kids to daycare when you don't *have* to, what the fuck is wrong with you?
This one I'm going to argue purely from aesthetics: co-joined names are stupid and ugly. Why? Because say you get married and become Carl Brown-Cuckington, what about your kids? Do you expect your son to be Derick Goldstein-Brown-Cuckington? And Derick's kids? Our ancestors long ago realised the problem with this, hence our tradition of taking the father's last name. Keeps it simple, yo.
For millennials, especially people who spend lots of time of Tumblr, polyamory and polygamy have been normalised... if not downright glamorised.
It seems these days that if you don't have a girlfriend, plus a boyfriend, plus a hook-up or two on the side, plus a transsexual orgy-buddy, a sugar-mummy/daddy, and someone you just go on coffee-dates and picnics with, then you're SO last century.
Don't you know: "it's possessive and creepy to not want your partner to sleep with or have a romantic relationship with other people?" This is the mindset of these people. They do not understand loyalty, or discipline. They are hedonists with the "if it feels good, do it" mindset that Bill Clinton epitomises.
I've thought this through, wondered if they weren't onto something with this lifestyle of theirs... But concluded: No, monogamy exists for a reason. Here are some of my reasons for it:
Firstly, between working 55 hours a week, writing articles, podcasting, working on my book, chilling out, catching up on news and researching, house work and gardening, having a social life... I barely have time to be a good partner to ONE person. I don't have any extra spare time for an hour a week worth of yoga, let alone time for another relationship! Which leads me to the question:
How do they have so much spare time? Do these people not sleep? No...
They just don't work.
Seriously though... The biggest advocates of this polyarmous lifestyle seem to be:
D) combination of the above
So for people who have lives that don't revolve around sex, OR who have jobs, monogamy makes sense purely because who the fuck has time for more than one serious, committed, loving, fulfilling relationship?
Another argument against polyamory is that we are wired to fall in love with the people we sleep with. Nature has ensured our continual reproduction and the looking after of offspring, by giving women chemicals to make them fall in love with their child and its father, and the same for men, just not as much... Oxytocin... The love drug. The brain releases it during, and especially after, sex. It makes people feel safe, loved, in love.
So despite your rhetoric about it just being casual sex, or emotionless, or whatever... You can not overcome the power of your biology with your self-indulging rationalisations. So good luck with that.
Finally, my last argument against polyamory is that people have sexually transmitted diseases, and I don't want them. Fact is: people who make sex a lifestyle, who don't care about the sexuality of the people they sleep with, or how many, are more likely to be infected. You may know who you're sleeping with, but you don't know who they're sleeping with.
I don't really have much of a thesis on this one, except to say that in my experience: if someone cheats, and you stay with them, things are never the same. Cheating means a lapse in loyalty, judgement, discipline, and self-control. These are things someone who is to be the Mother or Father of your children needs to have. If your partner doesn't have these qualities before you have a family, don't imagine they'll magically develop them when you do have a family. Cheating in this sense is a great litmus test. My policy is that if it is failed, it's game over.
Be your authentic, true self. If you change yourself and your behaviours to keep someone else happy, if they really care about you, they won't be happy if they know you aren't doing it for yourself.
Being dishonest is the most disrespectful thing you can do to someone, because you're denying them the opportunity to live in reality and engage with you on a level playing field. You are editing their reality for your benefit.
It is a behaviour of cowards. People who are confident in themselves and have courage will tell the truth, and happily invite people to share in reality with them, because they know that their authentic self is sufficient, and so they don't have to "edit" the reality of others to get by.
So that's my list for now. I might add more as I continue to mull this topic over. Feel free to add some others, or your own list in the comments. Cheers!
The major story was their involvement in an Occult practice called Spirit Cooking, a practice often engaged in before rituals and orgies. Spirit Cooking involving eating mixtures composed of human bodily fluids, including blood and semen - often consumed off of a naked body. This ritual has been known to be engaged in by Occult "performance artist" Marina Abramovic with John and Tony Podesta, as revealed in recent Wikileaks releases:
Photographs of these rituals exist, showing members of Clinton's inner circle plus some slightly unexpected guests, including artist Lady Gaga:
Now that this story has broken, clues that the Clinton inner circle are involved in the Occult are being found, hidden in plain site. For example, Chelsea Clinton has been wearing upside-down crosses, an Anti-Christian Occult symbol for years:
And why, you may ask, would she be so brazen? It speaks to the contempt with which these people hold the common person in. It also speaks to their arrogance. To think they could hide this in plain site, speaks to how lowly regarded the intelligence of the average person is by these people.
Furthermore, references to an Ancient Canaanite God of Child Sacrifice have been found in recent Wikileaks releases:
Moloch, the name, as far as we can tell, means King. He was a King God in the Canaanite Religion. He is a God who demands his followers sacrifice their Children in his name, in order that he may spare them from even greater suffering.
The below passage by philosopher Bertrand Russel describes the type of religion the Moloch represents:
With Russel's thoughts on Moloch in mind, it seems that Podesta and others who may be worshiping this God, are in the act of their worship, giving us a reflection of the relationship they expect to exist between those who they rule, and themselves. "Power may be freely worshiped, and receive an unlimited respect, despite its wanton infliction of pain". This is exactly what Clinton and her inner circle project outward and demand from those who they rule. They know the power and devastation they can wield against anyone they wish; their veneration of a King God of Sacrifice may be a wish to tap into the powers of evil that they know from their own Beings, to exist. Or it may be a fearful effort to placate the evil which they know could befall them, knowing as they do, the powers of evil that exist in the world. They know evil exists because they engage in it. Their sacrifices to and reverence of Moloch, may be an effort to protect themselves from this evil.
It would have been easy to dismiss Podesta comments about Moloch as a silly reference, except for the fact that he is now known to be engaging in other Occult, anti-Christian, and generally degenerate and evil activities. Since these revelations have come to the public, people have found other clues that this man has sinister interests:
Plutarch, a Roman writer born 46AD, describes for us the types of sacrifice demanded by Moloch from his worshipers:
Some people have tied the Moloch's desire for the sacrifice of Children in the hope of being granted a relief from suffering and pain, to the current Democratic support for, and public funding of abortion. The sacrifice of a woman's unborn child is offered to her for free, in the promise that it will free her from undue suffering and pain. For some this may be the case, for many others, not.
The fact is though, the US government has engaged in official eugenics and population control up until at least 1977, and overpopulation continues to be an issue pressing upon Global think-tanks and policy institutes.
One Twitter user expresses this concept very succinctly:
Finally, these "Spirit Cooking", Moloch, and general Occult revelations allow light to be shed on the bizarre response by the Clinton Campaign to "Frog Twitter" in the latter stages of this historic election.
"Frog Twitter" is characterized by trollish, pro-Trump, pro-Freedom antics of a mischievous frog named Pepe, who also happens to be the agent in history of Kek, an Ancient Egyptian God of Chaos. The relationship between Pepe and Kek, is equivalent to the relationship between God and Jesus, in that Jesus is God's creation, and agent who enters into history. This I have covered in a previous podcast.
"Frog Twitter" has been pushing memes, articles, and content which has had the effect of disrupting the establishment, leftist narrative. They have been supporting Donald Trump in his bid for presidency, for many reasons, including: his hatred of political correctness, his wish for America to not engage in policing the world, his wish for local industry and small business, his distrust and hatred of the corrupt media, of the taxation system, and trade deals which make the rich richer, and leave the lower and middle class poorer.
The success "Frog Twitter" has had in countering the establishment narrative, and indeed setting its own narrative, forcing the media to cover what they want them to cover, has left the Clinton Campaign extremely worried. They spent million of dollars on shills and astroturfers to manipulate public debate on the election, but compared to the underground, leadership-free, organic movement of "Frog Twitter", they have been powerless to carry out their coercive goals.
They got worried, they got defensive. A "Frog Twitter" explainer appeared on the Clinton Campaign website, and Clinton held a press conference to rebuke and attack the reprehensible people involved in "Frog Twitter". It struck many people as bizarre that Clinton would grant legitimacy and give more attention to a rather small (though obviously influential) movement. It seemed obvious that this would have the opposite reaction to that which the campaign hoped for. "Frog Twitter" had them so worried that launched an ill-advised attack against it, rather than allow it to remain relatively unknown in the public sphere.
Why was this?
I believe the Clinton Campaign came to know of the Esoteric nature of Kek, Pepe, and "Frog Twitter" generally. The meme #EsotericKekism has grown out of the revelation of Kek being an Ancient Egyptian God of Chaos, and out of the growing recognition of the phenomenon of "meme magic". It is widely distributed enough as a meme that the analysts and thinkers of the Clinton Campaign could not have missed its existence.
In light of revelations showing that Clinton and her inner circle are involved in Occult activities, and are making sacrifices to an Ancient God of Child Sacrifice, it seems that Clinton and Podesta are very concerned that their opposition are channeling a God, just like they are.
This scares the shit out of them. They thought they were the only ones gaining power by appealing to long-forgotten-about Gods. Not so.
The trolls of "Frog Twitter" and other anti-establishment groups are tapping into the Chaos bringing power of Kek, in order that the oppressive system the people of America are living under may be smashed.
This election has been Holy, and is now getting Holier.
Trump worships God, and represents Right Christian Values.
He is allied by the Alt Right and others, who themselves are allying with the Ancient Egyptian god Kek.
Clinton worships power, and represents the power-loving, sacrifice demanding false-God of Moloch, and follows and practices the Occult.
The news of the Occult and anti-Christian nature of the Clinton Campaign has broken in the very last stages of this historic event. News of this bizarre twist will spread like wildfire to every American, whether or not they have a TV, let alone a Twitter.
This election could have been won by Trump on his policies, helped by Clinton's health and corruption.
Instead it is now going to be won on the back of the breaking news that Clinton does not represent Christian values as she publicly proclaimed to do, but instead is deeply involved in evil ancient Gods, and modern Occult practices.
The God Loving People of America will not stand for this.
She is sunk.
As the title suggests, I'm talking everyone's favourite psychedelic bard.
Terence McKenna was a psychedelic visionary, writer, public speaker, explorer, cultural critic, & all-round intellectual bad-ass. His head was filled with knowledge from science, to history, to art, to alchemical texts, ancient civilisations, history of the planet - & yet he knew when to not let the truth get in the way of a good story.
He made a living off of his books & lecturing. Potentially thousands of taped recordings exist of his work, meaning that unlike most other philosophers in history, we have a full record of his dialogues & spoken word to compliment his printed work.
I give a pretty rough overview of his life & ideas; this may be a series if I get the urge to address a more specific McKenna topic, or if anyone out there wants me to address anything specific.
My partner is more socially progressive than I'll ever be, but luckily she knows a good argument when she hears one, so she is open to conservative ideas.
So when I proclaim that immigration to Europe from the ME & Africa is a really, terrible idea, I've gotta be able to justify my claim.
Luckily it's really simple to realise why mass migration of people from Syria to Europe is a really terrible idea.
Basically it goes like this:
Do you mean to tell me, dear lefty, that anytime a country has a civil war or otherwise breaks down, that we, as residents of the developed, peaceful world, must allow the people of the country in question to empty out of their troubled homeland & migrate to ours? Lets follow the logic through...
So what happens if Muslim Migrants in Sweden, or France, turn the country from peaceful and stable, to violent, with unrest, with curfews, with potentially civil war....
Where do the people of Sweden then turn to as migrants of a failed nation?
See the problem with this plan?
If instead of temporarily assisting victims of civil unrest and war in refugee centres until they can return back to their nation and rebuild it, with international assistance, we just pick them up and move them to another (developed, first world) country, then ever time there is a civil war in a country, we just give up on that country and move its people onwards.
It's like disposable consumer culture, but for like, nations.
(Quick note to any bleeding heart liberals reading this: the people leaving Syria and going to Europe are NOT refugees. They are migrants. Refugees would go to the nearest safe nation for temporary shelter before being able to return. This is not what is happening.)
Nations are not disposable goods. We don't throw them in the bin when they break, we fix them. Otherwise we'll run out of nations.
Basically its not appropriate to transplant the population of one nation into another because a country has issues, rather than fixing those issues and allowing both nations to exist independently.
So there you have it folks: don't agree with Mass Muslim Immigration to Germany, France, Australian, or the United States?
Neither does the Dalai Lama. Don't let Regressive Leftists bully you into not believing you have a reasonable or justified opinion.
Freedom: it's the thing that unites all those on the conservative arm of politics, despite their other differences.
Freedom as a political concept only needs minor restrictions. You don't get the freedom to impede other people's freedom. Therefore you can't do shit that interferes with, or hurts, others. Other than that, freedom does not need to be, & should not be, restricted.
Liberals, lefties, & nanny-state lovers of all political leanings, all share a distrust & often hatred of freedom. This comes out of fear of the back-edge of freedom: the freedom for bad shit to happen. This can be seen in #Coddle-culture, something related to "Helicopter Parenting", something you could call the result of the modern middle class's lack of having anything better to do with their time, & the transfer of this energy, time & preoccupation to their precious children. (Who must be built up, but most importantly, must be safe.)
This mindset has transferred to our politicians (because they are often also parents). They want to 'Nerf' the world. There are some out there who would support banning outside playtime for children, because a study found that they are much safer inside with iPads, no skin cancer risk either! & so "common sense should prevail" & it would be so. Next it'll be mandatory motorbike style helmets for kids on bicycles, because they're statistically safer, & since no politician wants to be seen as "not caring about the children!" freedoms get eroded for the sake of their reputations, that simply.
Society is getting safer everyday. Eventually this "Safety First My Child Is So Precious" mindset must cease, & give up. It has to. Progressiveness is not realistic here. We have to give up the notion of progress when it comes to the safety of our community & children at a certain point.
Otherwise? Otherwise the social scientists can make a case to our Oh So Concerned politicians that if only every child wore a full fire-proof, impact-proof suit, then serious & fatal accidents will reach zero. In other words, if we don't give up the notion of an ever increasingly safe society, then we will restrict freedom so much you will barely be able to walk down the street without being regulated.
Is this what progressives want? Have they thought about the philosophy of their idiotic mindset? Thought the consequences through?
Do they want a padded-cell society where NO-ONE is ever hurt? Do they want a police state where everyone is under such scrutiny & control that no crime is ever committed? A society like that would be unlivable, 'safe' as it may be.
So... Moral is: Freedom is a double-edged sword. It comes at a price. It comes at risk to safety. But without it, all human progress, creativity, and potential is stifled. Kids who are allowed to skin their knees & fall out of trees, turn out smarter & tougher than those who are never allowed to get dirty, let alone hurt. And societies that are allowed to offend, be dirty, make mistakes, will be more interesting, more true, & ultimately more humane than those that are not allowed their right to freedom of expression.
Remind yourself, your friends, your family, your politicians: that freedom IS worth the costs, & that the costs of not having it are FAR worse.