The Cost of Taking Sides - Vox Popoli - (European SHTUPIDITY is giving Americans close competition! - CL)

 The Swiss are being informed that taking sides against a major power on behalf of others is a very expensive proposition when those others lose:

President Vladimir Putin has ordered the Russian subsidiaries of Nestle, Auchan and Leroy Merlin placed under temporary management owing to Western support for Ukrainian strikes on Russian civilian and economic infrastructure......

https://voxday.net/2026/09/19/the-cost-of-taking-sides-2/ 

.....Neutrality is what once made Switzerland the wealthiest country in the world. Kowtowing to the United States and the European Union has already cost them dearly and caused the failure of one of their two major banks; one hopes that the Swiss people will keep this in mind and limit the federal government’s disastrous forays into belligerence by strengthening its official neutrality structure in their upcoming vote.

Just Stop IT! Stop Perpetuating False History - Capt Randall

 Our Universities comply with established propaganda and only teach what government and corporate funding dictate!

To be publicly acceptable, one must self-censor speech to comply with official narratives.

Hidden is the history of Rockefeller medicine, the truth of cholesterol and sunshine myths, the devastating effects of antidepressants and the failures of so many other drugs and vaccines.  (see Dr. Suzanne Humphries expose vaccine fictions)

They even tell ya “There is no other treatment” for diseases I know damn well respond to cheap simple treatments, and so the greed of this fraudulent institution claims lives and exacts untold suffering among the unknowing.

 .

Inconvenient Medical Facts Hidden,…Forbidden

.

This brings us along to the standardized legally ensconced pharmaceutical medical complex.

Of course emergency medicine works, but the drug approach to chronic disease is a fabrication of a profit driven system,…ignoring all knowledge of the requirements for health at the cellular level and largely given to the faulty “Germ Theory” as opposed to more scientifically logical “Terrain Theory” relying on natural immunity.

Pharmaceutical medicine focuses on interrupting discreet biochemical problems/ NOT restoring physiological integrity to the cells, tissues and organs involved in disease.

.

AMA’s Biggest Lie; Vitamin C Does Not Cure Colds!

Full text: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2026/09/capt-randall/just-stop-it-stop-perpetuating-false-history/ 

How to Confront a Woman - by Vox Day - Sigma Game - A lesson for the conflict-avoidant man

 

Most men find it extremely difficult to endure the emotional heat of women, so they behave in an extremely conflict-avoidant manner that wrongly causes women to believe they are psychologically weak cowards who can be verbally bullied at will. This is a problem because it tends to lead to a lack of respect for the conflict-avoidant man. Women simply don’t realize that the man isn’t actually physically afraid of confrontation in the same sense that they are, which is why women tend to react in genuine fear when they finally push a man to the point at which he starts to match her emotional heat by raising his voice or displaying visible anger.

So here is how to confront a woman with whom you disagree in a conflict-embracing manner that will derail that entire process that is ultimately negative for both the man and the woman involved regardless of how the conflict ended.

First, a few guidelines for the man.......

Full text: https://sigmagame.substack.com/p/how-to-confront-a-woman?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2265630&post_id=216124448&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=y7h5a&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email 

.....The objective of embracing the conflict is to simply stand your ground without losing your own equanimity or setting her off entirely. Let her believe whatever she wants to believe. Let her say whatever she wants to say. Let her continue to believe in fairies and the flat Earth. But you remain unmoved, unconvinced, and unconcerned, regardless. Eventually the conversation will shift away from the conflict, she’ll introduce a different tone to inform you that the interlude has passed, and you are expected to respond in the same warmer tone in order to indicate your acknowledgment and acceptance that it is over, never to be referred to again. No one is right, no one is wrong, and no new understandings have been achieved.

And that’s fine. That’s the positive outcome. Everybody wins. And it’s nothing to fear, which is why the customary conflict-avoidant response from most men is both unnecessary and counterproductive.

Now, a lot of men will feel like this is unfair. But that’s a retarded equalitarian perspective, because there is no such thing as fairness or equality between men and women. She’s the river, you’re the rock, and there is no belief, ideology, or education that is ever going to alter that in the slightest.

Churchill Wrecked Britain to Save Himself, by Mike Whitney - The Unz Review

 

There’s no doubt that Winston Churchill secretly took large sums of money from wealthy donors. (The Churchill archives provide documentary proof that Churchill received sizable payments from donors in 1938, 1940, and 1943.) There’s also no doubt that the money Churchill was given saved him from bankruptcy. Again, Churchill’s abysmal financial situation is part of the historical record. (He was teetering on the brink of insolvency.) So, the question we should be asking ourselves is whether Churchill was influenced by the money he received? (Was this pay-to-play or is there some less incriminating explanation?) Most historians say that Churchill’s anti-Hitler positions predated his dealings with The Focus or with Henry Strakosch. (The millionaire donor who is responsible for most of the large payouts.) But others disagree. David Irving, for example, says the following in a video at You Tube:

All Churchill had (by way of income) was his salary from Parliament and his rather pitiful earnings as a journalist. But somehow, he managed to support an enormous country estate which cost a very large sum of money to support…..”So, how did he do it? (pay his lavish debts and expenses on his paltry income.)

Well, the answer is, from 1936 on, he was financed by a secret pressure group called The Focus. You won’t find much reference to it in the history books but there are several files in Churchill’s private papers related to The Focus which was a group of 30 or 40 leading industrialists or bankers and formal politicians who decided that Churchill was worth “keeping afloat.” And they funded him. They weren’t all Jews, but they were socialists and left-wing members of Parliament…. In July 1936, the then chairman of the Shell Petroleum Company wrote him out a check for $40,000 which in today’s money would be around $700,000 and gave it to him as a gift…. So, they bought him. From that moment on he became the pied piper… And the one who pays the piper calls the tune.

https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/churchill-wrecked-britain-to-save-himself/ 

The Cost of the Codex - Vox Popoli

 A fascinating article on the massive amount of information that was lost as a result of the change from rolled scrolls to bound codices at Fields & Energy:

The codex transformed books from narratives to be read from beginning to end into repositories to be consulted anywhere at will. For science, this shift was revolutionary: theories, proofs, observations, diagrams, and tables could now be located, compared, annotated, and transmitted with unprecedented efficiency, making cumulative scientific progress far more practicable. The medium may not quite be the entire message, but media do shape the course of scholarly research in general and science in particular.

The transition was not without a downside, however [[ix]].

https://voxday.net/2026/09/16/the-cost-of-the-codex/ 

.....It was not only pagan works that suffered the culling, but also Christian classics as well. The Didache: The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles [[xx]], one of the earliest surviving Christian writings outside the New Testament, endured only because on Tuesday, 11 June AD 1056 “Leon the scribe and sinner” completed a copy, and signed and dated it. This single eleventh-century copy was preserved in an Orthodox monastery, and in 1873, a Greek Orthodox Metropolitan named Philotheos Bryennios (1833–1917) rediscovered it.

So for the next 1,500 years, Western scholars knew the Didache the way you might know a famous book you’ve never read—by reputation, by quotation, by the references others made to it. Some suspected it was a legend. Others assumed that what survived in fragments was all there was. Then Bryennios found Leon the monk’s careful 11th century copy sitting in a library in Constantinople… When the first English translation reached New York bookstores on 20 March 1884, 5,000 copies sold in a single day [[xxi]].

We may be seeing a modern version of this with the move from the physical book to the ebook. The problem with the latter, of course, is that while they are easily and inexpensively propagated, they hold no value and they are temporally ephemeral, being wholly dependent upon the availability of the technology to read them. Here the insidious evils of copyright can be seen, as the digital rights management most publishers install on their books virtually assure their inability to survive over time.

It’s interesting to contrast the distinction between the historical interest in the Didache and the relative lack of interest in the hitherto unavailable books that we’ve been translating. Of course, I imagine the media coverage of the English translation of the Didache was considerably greater than it has been of the first-ever English translations of various works of Eiji Yoshikawa and Benito Perez Galdos, among others, despite the massive popularity of the latter in their own cultures.

DISCUSS ON SG

II 1.7.3.2 The Parchment Codex Revolution

 THE most momentous development in the history of the book until the invention of printing was the replacement of the roll by the codex; this we may define as a collection of sheets of any material, folded double and fastened together at the back or spine, and usually protected by covers [[ii]].

In other words, a codex is essentially the familiar bound “book” with which we are all familiar today. Between the 2nd and 4th centuries, scrolls gradually disappeared in favor of codices. Their format is little changed from the earliest surviving codices from the 4th century [[iii]]. “It could be made of either papyrus or parchment, but it was the parchment codex which eventually won the day” [[iv]].

Figure 1.83: The Codex Vaticanus, a 4th century manuscript of the Bible in Greek [[i]].

In its early centuries Christianity became a profoundly textual religion, centered on reading, teaching, comparing, and preserving Scripture. Unlike the scroll, the codex allowed readers to turn directly to specific passages, compare multiple books and prophecies side by side, assemble the Gospels and Epistles into a single compact volume, and annotate texts for study and preaching. These practical advantages made the codex ideally suited to the Church’s missionary, theological, and scholarly needs, helping to explain why Christians adopted it earlier and more consistently than the surrounding pagan world [[v]]. The details are the subject of much debate [[vi]], however it is clear that “Christians invested in the codex far more than is reflected in the larger book-culture of the time” [[vii]].

https://aetherczar.substack.com/p/ii-1732-the-parchment-codex-revolution 

If You Hated Women - by Vox Day - Sigma Game

 I have been publicly accused of being a misogynist since 2001. Now, obviously, like every young man since the mid-1970s, I was casually accused of it every now and then from junior high onwards, probably about one-quarter to one-third of the times that I didn’t publicly kowtow before whatever the ever-changing feminist dogma du jour happened to be.

But it wasn’t until I started writing a political column for WorldNetDaily in September 2001 that I began being openly and publicly accused of hating women due to my habit of making factual observations about female behavior and the consequences thereof.....

Full text:

https://sigmagame.substack.com/p/if-you-hated-women?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2265630&post_id=215992816&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=y7h5a&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email 

.....So you see, if you simply ask yourself about the actual, undeniable, observable results of feminism rather than the claimed motivations for subscribing to it, it’s very easy to see that it is the feminists who genuinely hate women. Feminists hate women truly, madly, and deeply; just show a feminist a picture of a happy cheerleader, wife, or mother and you will see that hatred exposed. And they hate women because feminism is just another aspect of satanism, another form of rebellion against Nature and the natural order, and another method that the Prince of This World wages war on humanity.

Feminists are literal servants of Satan. The more self-aware among them even claim that allegiance quite openly, and with pride. The Lindsay Clancy case is not an aberration, it is one of the true objectives of the hatred of women and children that is feminism.