A Hard Pill to Swallow (Social Media) Blog post.

A topic spoken about that causes controversy  and tends to be buried on purpose. I do intend to bring this back to the surface as food for thought.

For starters, I do use the internet. It provides freedom of expression, thought and opinion,  for the most part. This allows me to reach out to you wherever you may be, which brings me to the overall point. What you consume is vital.  

If you ate only fast food, your body would over-time develop major health conditions, but if you consumed nourishing foods that were rich in healthy fats, proteins, vitamins, etc, you would revel in the benefits of good physique, mental clarity, and desired happiness in how you felt and looked. Would it truly take you off guard if this is how you should view social media? 

Identifying what is bad to view and what to watch out for:

This is a matter of personal preference for me as a traditionalist. I believe if it pokes fun at you or tries to persuade  your values, beliefs, religion, or makes you question your identity. It may be a good idea to keep it at arm's length. There is a lot of misinformation we see spreading quickly on the internet, including fake news. The truth is, we are all tempted to click but we are also manipulated a little too easily. They see us like sheeple.

Comparison. I feel with social media it is easy to get in our heads. Especially for the youth that have access. Viewing women or men that present a certain look of importance or beauty on their page. From what I have seen, it makes you compare yourself to something unrealistic. True beauty, true importance do not need 100 selfies.True beauty and importance are things you cannot fully capture with a camera.  You must understand this content is purely their need for attention and nothing more. Learn to love yourself for who you are.

Sexually graphic photos and videos, especially an adult topic known as pornography, are  used as a weapon to dismantle you  in a way that contributes to the downfall of you reaching your true potential . It alters how we function in society and it’s all free.. A truly terrifying reality once you realize the impact it has, the power it has to rewire your thinking . They are a tool used to distort your image and the images of others. Whether it be a woman  posing in a revealing outfit or making sexual advances through imagery. You may not fully understand what imagery can do to you. You can never form genuine relationships or friendships.  I will write another blog dedicated to this topic because it can get intricate. 

This one is for the parents out there. We all want to protect our children from harm, yet some of us let our kids partake in platforms such as tik-tok and instagram. I believe the younger your children are, the more susceptible they are to outside influences. With these platforms, you are allowing your child access to dengerancy. There is no light way to say that. The internet is the devil's playground for them. I would advise against letting them explore the internet because it is no place for a developing mind if you want a healthy and happy child.

The internet and the social media on it  can be very addicting. You scroll for hours without even realizing it, watch videos, and like posts. Doing this on a day to day basis can create a ripple in how you do day to day life. You are no longer present in the moments you have and your mental health can deteriorate. Be careful with what you view but also how much you consume. Make sure to get outside and spend some time in nature. Ground yourself and remember these things when you scroll again.

Essay: "The Problem with Modern Feminism"

Feminism is a term that is both hated and loved by many. A concept that is ever-changing as a new era comes and goes and new definitions seem to appear for it whether it be toxic or positive by radicals or traditionalists A movement originally used for the right of women to be equal and expand their horizons rather than to be seen as worthless and nothing by those that hold power in patrichary now seemingly twists and turns into something new in this new generation of women compared to our ancestors time. There is a debate between the different types of women in her role and their place in life, according to many, depending on who you talk to. In this essay, we are going to talk about the concept of feminism, its good, its bad, and its ugly.

Feminism, according to Merriam Webster, is defined as "belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes expressed especially through organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests". Another quote, according to Britannica, is: "Feminism is the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. Although largely originating in the West, feminism is manifested worldwide and is represented by various institutions committed to activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests." And another, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, quote: "the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state." So we get the idea; it's supposed to be for women to have equal opportunity, equal choice, and be treated as equals as human beings like our counterparts. Where women can go for their careers and delight in the activities they want, just like men do with their careers and what they delight in doing, But according to others, it's an entirely different story. While some radical feminists argue for equality between men and women, others adopt a more extreme position, viewing men and women as inherently different and claiming that women are superior to men. This can include rhetoric such as suggesting that men are inferior to women, promoting the idea that men should be killed or enslaved, and expressing indifference to or even amusement at men's problems, such as sexual assault and other violent acts. These views, although not held by all feminists, are often criticized as being misandrist and unhelpful to the broader ideals of gender equality. Traditional women's view of feminism is typically marked by the belief that it is a woman's place to be subordinate to men and to stay at home rather than pursue a career or expand on other aspects of her life. They believe that feminism is bad because it encourages women to question the established gender roles and social structures that have historically kept women in a lower position in society. This view can also include the belief that women are naturally better suited for duties such as homemaking and childcare and that seeking higher education or employment opportunities is not in their best interests or the interests of society as a whole.

Here's an outsider view: It is a woman's choice whether she should be married, single, career-seeking, or at home. Both radfems and tradtionalists don't understand, as they have a narrow view of what true choice is. For the radfems, yes, the men you deal with are evil in nature, and the ones who mainly hold power, like industry or government, are ones who seek to put you down, but do not assume that other men will be the same way. A double standard has been created by the ones who hold power to encourage division and constant battle, which leads to both sides belittling each other rather than being helpful to each other about free choice and equality in achievement options. For the traditionalists, nowhere did it say a woman couldn't expand her career while taking care of the house and the kids, and nowhere did it say that men couldn't help with the house while working to provide it, nor did it say that men beat their wives, belittle their wives, and cheat on their wives. If we go by true traditionalism, it's actually equal; it's just assigned roles, but men in the roles took advantage of their position to abuse rather than uphold it like they should. Since some traditionalist women go by the Bible, here are examples: 1 Corinthians 7:3–4 (KJV), Colossians 3:19 (KJV), Genesis 2:24 (KJV), and 1 Peter 3:7 (KJV). Where in there does it say a man can beat his wife? Where does it say a woman is inferior? Nowhere does it say they could not work together to help the household. A woman can still take care of the house and the kids and expand on their careers, and a man can take care of the kids and the house while also doing their careers too. There is no inferior or superior; it's just roles you guys twisted into making it look that way.

So what is the problem with Modern Feminism? Modern feminism often centers around its perceived co-option by marketing strategies rather than serving as a genuine human rights movement. Critics argue that it has become a tool for industries to enhance their sales, targeting the masses with a diluted version of feminist ideals. In this context, feminism is portrayed more as a commodity than a catalyst for positive societal change. This commercialization has the potential to overshadow the core principles of feminism, transforming it into a means for profit rather than a pursuit of equal rights. One manifestation of this criticism is the association of feminism with a hypersexualized image, exemplified by popular figures like Beyoncé and Cardi B. These celebrities, while advocates for women's rights, are sometimes accused of perpetuating a hypersexualized and prideful persona that conforms to societal expectations rather than challenging them. and though there is nothing wrong with empowerment through women's bodies and image of their own design, The use of demeaning language in media and music, such as the frequent use of terms like "bitch" and "slut," contributes to the perception of feminism as a movement that is more concerned with projecting a certain image than empowering women to make independent choices about their bodies and lives.

In conclusion, feminism, at its core, champions a woman's right to choose her life path—be it traditional, independent, or otherwise. Criticism should focus on a person's actions and character, not their gender or aspirations. Genuine respect for individual agency, free from imposed standards, fosters an inclusive society where women can authentically pursue their chosen paths. Radfems shouldn't be entitled to not get criticism because they are women, and traditionalists shouldn't be entitled to be criticized because they are Christians or of any other religion.

You know, whenever we find out about a Satanist turning out to be a Nazi, you sometimes get people who say they always assume from the start that any Satanist they meet is probably a Nazi. I don't doubt why they'd think that, but it gets tiresome. I almost wish we were still only being accused of plotting human sacrifices or just good old fashioned sexual deviance. It does feel a lot like Satanism, for an abjectly marginal religious movement, is given an outsized role in the spread of fascism. It's not quite for no reason, since a lot of established organisations are allied with right-wing ideology. But Satanism is still underrepresented, and frequently reviled, in the far-right, despite all overtures by organisations such as the Church of Satan, The Satanic Temple, the Order of Nine Angles, or any other organisation, and if we're being honest this is how it will always be.

Moreover, who do you think is actually overrepresented among fascists? It's going to be Christians in pretty much every instance. Fascist movements and parties can sometimes have a "neopagan" presence, but they are often sidelined or even boxed out by the dominant Christian presence (the Greek Golden Dawn Party springs to mind as an example). Not to mention, who do you think the architects of modern esoteric fascism are? It was tradtionalists whose Right Hand Path mysticism typically works to privilege the Christian God and carry on Christian idealism. Nazism itself is based around a distinct branch of folkist Christianity and therefore Christian fascism, and such most of the Nazis then and now have been and will continue to be Christian. That will probably a not-insignificant factor of why people continually try to argue that the Nazis and Nazism were not Christian or even were anti-Christian: because the fact that Nazism was/is Christian poses obvious problems for Christianity.

I know there's a major fascism problem in Satanism. There's also a major fascism problem almost literally everywhere else, including certain other religions that have frankly allied with fascism since its very ascent to power. The outsized image of Satanic alliance with fascism is both a product of the existing organisations of Satanism (which, ultimately, will always be a shallow representation of Satanism even if they weren't right-wing or fascist) and, to my mind, a latent social desire to, how to put it, be rid of Satanism and drive the Devil out. That much would make sense with the many times I've seen progressive apologia for Christianity come into focus.

I Have a Confession to Make...

You’d never know it because I don’t post about it a lot. My main posts center around my kids and my home life.

BUT I’M SUCH A TRADITIONALIST!!!

I love being feminine, I love wearing dresses, I love bringing my husbands dinner to the table and then cleaning up after him. I love feeling useful and domestic. I love sitting down by his feet while he’s doing something and I read a book.

It fills me with so much happiness to wash and dry all of our clothes. Not so much joy in folding and putting away but we’re working on that. I love going to him with my problems or decisions and letting him take the lead.

I just love it.

https://bloodandsoil.org/join/

Wait you're not trad? it's not a problem but I just always thought you were.

yes and no. i'm not a traditionalist (small "t") but i am a Traditionalist (big "t").

i am a Traditionalist in the sense that i believe that the ancients possessed metaphysical wisdom and that there are certain things that are pretty much universally good and desirable. things like honor, family, duty, piety, discipline, courage, hierarchy, etc. i think these were good and true in ancient times and i think they are just as good and true today. so in that sense i am a "Traditionalist" that believes in the above "Traditional" values. they're "Traditional" because they are values that aren't easy to reach rationally. seriously. go try to convince a liberal millennial that "duty" or "honor" is important solely through reason.

instead, these values are probably the result of millennia of experience and intuition. our ancestors probably learned over time that a society that emphasizes honor and duty is probably much more conducive to well-being and goodness than one that disregards them. even if it seems counter-intuitive. so "Traditionalism" is actually very pragmatic, though it may not be "rational". so you could say i'm a "Traditionalist" in the sense that i highly regard the wisdom (philosophia perennis) of the ancients. importantly, so did our founding fathers. so one could argue that america was founded upon traditionalism. and so i would consider myself an inheritor of our founders' Tradtionalist tradition.

but that's not what i'm referring to when i mock trads. when i mock trads i'm referring to the type of people that think they are the above kind of traditionalist but in reality are just fetishists of some particular time period. most often, in my experience, it's the "feudal" middle ages. basically these people mistake the surface-level material/social expressions of Tradition for Tradition itself. they think cars are bad but horses are good. why? ultimately it's because cars are new and horses are old. that is basically the extent of their value-judgements.

but overall, my point is that "Tradition" is not incompatible with modernity. these trads are the flipside of rationalists. they each see the other as antithetical and impossible to reconcile. but i disagree. this is a false dichotomy. there is no reason why you can't believe in science and reason as well as traditional values. besides, every "tradition" was, at one point, novel. tradition (little "t") is organic and dynamic and constantly evolving along with changing circumstance.

also, it's very telling that the excerpt he posted calls automobiles "diabolical" and compares the term to the "greek term" (lmao. how pretentious.) of "promethean". this comparison reveals the stagnant and impotent spirit of trads. prometheus was celebrated as a hero. the bringer of civilization. the liberator of man. the restorer of fire. a symbol of the spirit of human genius and creativity. of course they, with their viscous spirits, would see him as evil.

Coming out

I’ve been struggling with my sexual identity since I first came out as a lesbian back in 2013. Then, shortly after I re-defined my identity to bisexual and also became religious again after not really being very religious for several years. 

I obviously grew up Catholic, but my parents weren’t strict about it. They never forced us to go to Mass and let us figure it out on our own once we became old enough to ask questions, 

When I first told my parents that I’ve been struggling with my identity and thinking I might be attracted to women, they were nothing but supportive. Sure, my dad wasn’t so keen about it in the first place, but he grew to accept it as well. But they also raised concern that I should take in consideration that I might only feel this way since I’ve been very obese due to years of bullying. And never had any close female friends either. 

I thought about these things and had long discussions with my mom where I tried to voice how I felt about women and I am forever grateful of the support I got, since not every queer person has such loving and accepting parents that I do. 

When I became Catholic again, I got influenced by a lot of tradtionalist voices like Dr. Taylor Marshal and the likes. You know, those people who see homosexuality as an abomination. I also became very conservative and buried my feelings, because I thought “I’m a bad Catholic for having these feelings about other women.” I’ve never acted on any of my feelings though. 

I had long nights where I cried myself to sleep because I hated myself so much, because it was just impossible for me to be either straight or abandon my faith. I even had days where I tried to be non-religious and it didn’t work. I felt miserable. I’m not sure if this is the indoctrination or whatever, 

I know that I only have Catholic mutuals on this blog and they probably don’t want to hear it, but the Catholic Church has harmed so many queer people in letting them think they are scum of the earth for feeling the way they do by stating that Homosexuality is a sin. 

I needed years to finally accept myself for who I am and I am so sick to waste any more of them by denying who I really am: I am bisexual. And there’s nothing wrong with it. And I also happen to be Catholic. Y’all have to deal with that. Sorry, not sorry. 

Harry Shum Jr, homoseuxal, male+ him/he→ isn’t that Marius Kier? i’ve seen them hanging out with the vampires. i hear they’re four hundred and fifty years old, but they’ve only been at the chateau for seventeen years. they seem to be charismatic & playful but also vain & a perfectionist.

Maris barely remembered what it was like to be human- the vague memories swirling around his mind. He was turned in 1571, lured away from party for the richer folks of his city by a handsome face, and a strong jawline, only to feel those blood drip down his neck moments later.  His maker- whoever they were- vanished before the morning ever broke over the morning clouds. A mystery that he’d spent a lifetime trying to solve.  Of course his life before wasn’t all that notable, a son of a noble man, traders in silk.  He was use to a comfortable life. 

Like most vammpires, Marius is the sort to utterly indugle in most of his whims- even when he was a human, he’d always been the type to be the partying type. After his change, he developed a reputatoin for being the vampire who threw the best parties- hosted the best events, ever the showman. 

You’d almost always find him wearing elaborate silks and eyeliner- a mix of feminine and masciline clothes- prettty much he’s always gonna standing out in the crowd.

He’s been alive a long, long time- he’d seen wars break out and the various fractions  from the inside and out, and yet somehow always managed to land on his feet. 

The Chateau had been his latest refugue for the last seventeen years- rather enjoying that company of various others species, finding joy, at least a little, at being able to interact with them without the various older vampires or tradtionalists getting huffy at the very notion of interacting with them. 

First I thought I was a Prince of Doom, then after I took your class and aspect tests, I'm convinced that I may be a Witch of Time instead. Are there any similarities or differences between the two?

Okay, these two actually have quite a lot in common, but here’s how I’d 8r8k it down.

Prince of Doom [Engineer Commander] of [Ethical Convergence]

Function: Destroyer of Mood / Experience

Polarity: Highly active and Convergent

vs.

Witch of Time [Esoteric Commander] of [Ontological Convergence]

Function: Alchemist of Plot / Reality

Polarity: Highly active and Convergent

~

Commonalities

They’re both highly Active Classes that address Existential themes, and are highly motivated by a desire for control over their Aspects and their lives.

They could both have strong interests in death imagery or the occult. Like, these two Classpects both have strong Gothick vibes to me, yknow?

They both have Convergent Aspects, suggesting that their primary strengths and interests are linear, and they tend to see One solution to any given problem, rather than Many possible solutions.

They’re both likely to struggle with a great deal angst involving endings, and may share a fear of or aversion to allowing things to end or pass away (even if they know that such passing is necessary or inevitable).

They both know how to stand out in a crowd, and may hold ideas about ethics and aesthetics that come across as radical, extremist, or at the very least eccentric/unusual.

In-game, they’d both have extremely flashy, explosive, and plot-changing Classpect-related powers with a lot of potential for corruption or misuse.

Differences

The Prince of Doom probably, at least initially, hates the idea of being a Doom player. The Witch of Time, by contrast, probably loves the idea of being a Time player. This is probably the most salient/obvious difference between the two.

The Prince of Doom may initially manifest qualities that resemble a Sylph of Life, and may force themselves into a role of consoler, comforter, or healer even if they feel ill-suited to it. Conversely, the Witch of Time will be very apparently Time-bound by any standards, and will be surrounded by (or deliberately surround themselves with) Time-related imagery and symbolism

The Prince of Doom will harbor an aversion to the idea of allowing anything to end, and will be overtly rebellious, energetic, and anything but stoic or cynical - they may cling to plans or courses of action even after they seem impossible/untenable to everyone else. Conversely, the Witch of Time is more or less okay with endings happening - their angst with regard to endings comes from the fact that they’d prefer to be the one deciding how things end, and they feel as though they often aren’t. Instead of overtly struggling against endings, they’d prefer to manipulate how things end by intervening behind-the-scenes in arcane or subtle ways.

The Prince of Doom doesn’t want anyone, including themselves, to suffer, and is probably rather drawn to the idea of luxury and privilege, if they don’t have it already (which well they might). The Witch of Time, by contrast, sees suffering as a completely necessary evil, and may be more willing than most to subject themselves and others to discomfort, pain, or loss in the interest of having things work out “better” (from their point of view) in the end.

The Prince of Doom probably has a bit of a sentimentalist or tradtionalist ethic, whereas the Witch of Time would consider themselves more pragmatic or utilitarian.

The Prince of Doom is a bit of a perfectionist with an eye for detail and a strong predilection for trying to fix anything that seems “wrong” or out-of-place, whereas the Witch of Time would be much more comfortable in chaotic or complex situations involving a lot of improvisation, compromise, and “tiny moving parts”, so long as they’re still the ones in control of (or keeping track of) the Big Picture.

I hope that helped!! Lmk if you have any other questions ::::) this was a really interesting pair of Roles to compare and contrast, t8h

~ P L U R ~

i think a lot about Angua ad Carrot’s personal arcs in Feet of Clay, and as part of how the book seems a lot about identity or claiming your identity via Dorfl and Cheery (Dorfl being declaring that he OWNS himself, and Cheery being the first Discworld dwarf to say ‘I am She’, and both of them starting cultural revolutions by simply saying “I am who I am”)

and the relevant point is that they start out on opposite sides of sympathizing.

Carrot’s reactions to Cheery speaks for itself. And they’re bad, and worse for the fact that it’s Carrot doing it. He comes off as very much the tradtionalist dwarf he was raised as, with quietly acidic comments like ‘I’m pretty sure my mother is a woman but at least she has the decency not to show it’ and other, even nastier things. It might not have been written as transphobic but it sure as hell reads like it. Most notably, it actually gets Angua pretty steamed, given that she keeps things close to the chest and conceals her feelings. It gets her genuinely pissed. It’s unsettling, like his Men At Arms bigotry towards the undead.

But. Carrot is the only one, throughout a large chunk of the book, to treat golems as people. Everyone else considers them mindless machines, and even Nobby and Colon, who are usually totally harmless, flat out try to use Detritus’ crossbow to kill Dorfl when he is offline; nobody trusts golems, who can do nothing but endlessly labor forever and suffer in silence, deprived of even a voice for themselves, and no one admits they are alive. And as Vime later thinks, that the real reason people are so scared of them is that they know they would deserve it if the Fantasy Robot Revolution came for them, after the way they mistreat the golems.

Carrot is the one to believe in Dorfl, to fight for him, and who believes that what is happening to the golems is wrong.

Angua is Cheery’s only friend at first. She’s the one who helps Cheery accomodating herself to more feminine things that are extremely new for a dwarf, she’s even protective of Cheery and desperately hides that she is a werewolf, knowing that Cheery hates people like her. She inspires Cheery towards what becomes the bedrock of the dwarfish openly female-presenting movement, and its a very humanizing and good thing from their friendship.

She’s also, put bluntly, a vicious and even cruel figure whenever golems are around. She openly regards them as non-sentient machines, hates them effectively because it helps her to have someone to look down on as an undead, and she rationalizes their horrific treatment and endless servitude as ‘being accepted’. She even gets mad at Carrot for empathizing with them and not her, specifically, though she does note that she is asking him to be unfair.

Much of their respective character development in Feet of Clay is their subtle growing over the worst aspects of themselves in this particular book. Carrot grows into less of a traditionalist with knee-jerk reactions, and Angua grows to empathize with the golems and view them as people.

Perhaps most relevant is the capstone to both their character arcs?

Using the pronouns Dorfl and Cheery prefer.

I see that many Star Trek focused bloggers started to follow me. Since I’m no Star Trek specialist, just a big fan amongst others and a big Mcspirk shipper too but I wanted to precise two things since I’ve met these two problems regularly on many ST blogs, so if you’re not concerned by it, please disregard this post and don’t take it personally:

I don’t praise or agree with any kind of hater, whether they hate a real person or a fictional character. I just don’t want hate on my dash, let alone gratuitous hate.

In that regard, I will never post or reblog:

Sth that bashes Bill Shatner. I have no clue why so many fans hate him so much and frankly I don’t care at all and don’t want to know about the whys and hows. I bet most are groundless and based on rumors instead of solid evidence. I don’t know the man personally and never will. I only know his acting work and will strictly stick to it. His private life is of no concern of mine and neither should it be of yours. Neither have I the least interest in his personal opinions about this or that. Why does it seem so important to you?

Sth that’s obviously less serious, even not serious at all, just personal since I love the character: I’ll never reblog posts that make Sarek pass as an abusive, neglecting or incompetent father. Some ppl seem to forget Spock also has a mother, (and it’s really not nice for Amanda to be dismissed like that) and that Sarek is a fucking full-blooded Vulcan and so have less clues than Spock about emotions, let alone how to deal with them. Just watch Star Trek Next Generations series. I don’t know if the JJ Abrams movies or ST Discovery are in cause but if they are, lemme tell you they appallingly mischaracterized him! Yes, he and Spock never had an easy relationship, it even was down the gutter the first time we see Sarek in TOS but sorry not sorry Sarek AND Spock were both to blame. Surely Sarek wasn’t the affectionate dad Spock might have needed, but again Sarek is a Vulcan. He never really let Spock decide over his future, but again Vulcans, not just Sarek, aren’t the type to let their children decide over their own future and rather follow the traditions. BUT I remind you Spock never talked about his problems to his parents though BOTH of them would have liked him to do so, he sometimes played hooky for days never giving any sign of life to his parents, I won’t teach you nothing if I tell you Sarek and Amanda must have been worried to death in these moments, BUT I might teach you a thing if I tell you Sarek himself was the one to look for his son when that happened. 

And if you still think Sarek doesn’t care for his son Spock:

You know NO shit at all about Sarek,

Watch the movies Search for Spock and the Voyage Home. Maybe Star Trek Generations too, tho I don’t quite like what they’ve done with Spock. 

And read the ST novels and comics too, they have plenty of Sarek material.

Sarek, just like many traditionalist parents, just followed the customs and habits he has been raised with and did what he thought best for his children, again if you think he despises his children you don’t know the character at ALL, his only wrongdoing was to never question Vulcan ways until very very late. If Spock himself was the first to praise Vulcan ways and traditions as superior, I can’t imagine how other, older, full-blooded, more tradtionalist Vulcans saw their way of life! If Sarek and most of Vulcans thought their customs were the best, why questioning it? Hell, Sarek even started to ask Spock to teach him friendship, for Sha Ka Ree’s sake! He even raised and cared for a Human child! With the initial idea to have Spock welcoming his human, emotional part! Something Sarek perfectly knew he couldn’t help Spock with because again I remind you, Sarek is a full-blooded Vulcan! He brought in a Human child so Spock would feel better about himself and his difference! While he already had a Human wife! While Human race is extremely frowned upon by the purist Vulcan society!

How can one be more caring for their children than him??

He rushed from the other part of the galaxy, telling his Ambassador’s work to fuck off, just to explode at Kirk for abandoning his dying son on an unknown planet (Genesis)! He told Spock he was wrong for disagreeing with his son’s enrollment in Starfleet because that’s Starfleet folks who brought his son back! Just... just watch The Voyage Home’s end!  

I LOVED Sarek in Journey to Babel’s episode and have been loving him ever since!

He and Spock have so much more in common than genes and some of you are woefully clueless about it!

In short, don’t expect me to hate on Shatner or Sarek.

I don’t see the point in hating the first and I LOVE the second.

The Cringe of Caitlin Jenner

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IzxllRvr-I&feature=share

Well that’s absurdly flattering holy shit.

Brotherhood feels good man

http://www.radioaryan.com/2016/12/the-daily-traditionalist-frank-marlowe.html

Frank was on the daily tradtionalist. I was so psyched when he got interviewed. Good brother of mine. Very noble. It really affirms my dreams to have someone like him at my back, supporting my ambitions.

“Don’t undermine me by fearing others.”

THE KINKSTER \ DOMINANT \ 21+

They fear him, not because he is cruel or abusive. They make assumptions based on the clothes he wears, the activities he participates in, the mark he has. But any submissive that he has scened with knows that he is a caring Dominant, and that sadism does not equate to Traditionalism. He adores watching them squirm and cry out under his whip, but that doesn’t mean he won’t wipe away their tears and rub arnica into their welts. It’s all about a give and take, and anyone who doesn’t understand that can leave his presence.

FC Suggestions: Minka Kelly, Gemma Chan, Zoe Kravitz, Isaiah Mustafa, Wu Yifan, Joseph Morgan

* REQUIRED TRAITS:

Sadistic dominant and has no interest in tradtionalist submissives.

Genuinely believes in submissive and switch rights.

its so funny to see terfs who straight up align with raging misogynists “tradtionalists” like they think that they’re somehow exempt from misogyny too. no idiot these guys want to enslave you and make you a docile housewife doormat too

Robert Spencer on Pope Francis’ visit to Iraq

Robert Spencer on Pope Francis’ visit to Iraq

Bergoglio is no pope. Though i am not a cathopic i have to agree with the sedevancatist Tradtionalists who say the chair ofpeter is empty. He defies catholic teaching. He also rejects basic christian doctrine as held by all christian churches. For exmple he rejects evangelism, believes that “good” people can make it to heaven even if atheist and tolerates the worship of idols ie other gods,…

View On WordPress