Broad "medical" diagnosis
Reading around the internet I discovered the World Health Organisation has deemed gaming to be a "disorder". What's just as concerning as this made up condition, is what qualifies for being diagnosed with a gaming disorder.
Namely that you have prioritised gaming over something else like work, education or a social relationship for a period of over 12 months.
But with a "medical" diagnosis so broad, the World Health Organisation has just basically said millions of people are mental, with a stroke of a pen.
You show me a bloke who wouldn't rather be at home playing games instead of being at work or a kid who would rather be doing school work instead of gaming and I'll point you out the person with the mental disorder.
As for claiming some people prioritise gaming over social relationships, well that's just complete nonsense. Many people seek out other people with a common interest through gaming. While others use the hobby for some quality alone time.
Anyone with even a cursory level of understanding of gaming would know this, so how did such a well funded organisation make such a mistake? Are they just a bunch of loveable goof balls in charge of what is and isn't classed as a health problem or is something more sinister ahead?
Namely that you have prioritised gaming over something else like work, education or a social relationship for a period of over 12 months.
But with a "medical" diagnosis so broad, the World Health Organisation has just basically said millions of people are mental, with a stroke of a pen.
You show me a bloke who wouldn't rather be at home playing games instead of being at work or a kid who would rather be doing school work instead of gaming and I'll point you out the person with the mental disorder.
As for claiming some people prioritise gaming over social relationships, well that's just complete nonsense. Many people seek out other people with a common interest through gaming. While others use the hobby for some quality alone time.
Anyone with even a cursory level of understanding of gaming would know this, so how did such a well funded organisation make such a mistake? Are they just a bunch of loveable goof balls in charge of what is and isn't classed as a health problem or is something more sinister ahead?
What it means
What this means is that the so-called government has an opportunity to drum up even more restrictive laws around gaming, all while under the protective umbrella of 'helping people'.
We see the cycle often, a so-called government picks a position that it wants to introduce a set of laws, then goes and finds a "victim" to justify their actions. Once a suitable patsy has been found, the story is propagandised out to the general public through controlled media. We've seen this play out in New Zealand as we discussed.
Now as we are seeing with this exact example, where no victim can be found, then they will just make one up.
For years governments have tried to get control over what type of games are made with the ludicrous gaming certificates. They have even gone so far as to blame violence on video games, a claim that has been thoroughly debunked time and time again.
When you see how crazy the so-called Western governments have gone with surveillance and censorship, as they move closer to becoming like China, then you can see how this will be used. Like the UK starting to censor the internet under the laughable excuse of 'protecting the children'. This will, if unchallenged, be expanded to whatever else the so-called government deem as offensive to view, as directed by the ministry of truth.
If you wanted more evidence the World Health Organisation is corrupt, then you need only to learn that the same organisation telling the world gaming is a mental health disease, actually declassified transgender (or to give it it's real name gender dysphoria) from the mental health category.
The snivelling excuse the World Health Organisation used for this gerrymandering of the truth, was they said it helped to "reduce stigma". So ignoring billions of years of evolution and a humans chromosomes, along with established scientific facts is ok, as long as we don't upset a tiny group who has a disproportionately high HIV infection rate.
I see this as a clear attack on our culture, diminishing faith in our governments, as well as the medical and scientific industry at large.
We can pin point heterosexuality being normative behaviour because we are all alive today. Same sex attraction would have made us all extinct along time ago. Similarly, if men or women found themselves attracted to anything but a human, the result would be the same - no humans left.
So we know that the normal behaviour of men and women is being attracted to each other and we call this attraction when it's deep and long lasting - love. While the word is often misused, like "I love beef burgers and chips", we delineate the words used in those specific contexts as being a childlike explanation of emotion, that is not directly attributable - but we get that they really like burger and chips.
But when people make the claim "love is love" they are being malicious. I think of it like when you have a person who is clinically obese, so morbidly fat that they are unable to even leave the house. And you have what's known as a "feeder", which is basically, as the name suggests, a person who is responsible for feeding the puddle of skin that was once human shaped. They are the ones directly supplying the fat person with the thing making them ill, like a drug dealer. No matter how well meaning they are, they are non the less causing the person harm and perpetuating unhealthy ideas in the process.
So too are the people who promote things like transgender and homosexuality out of some misguided notion of "protection". There is no middle ground on this issue and those who accept or tolerate these degenerative behaviours are doing nothing but harm to our societies.
The attitude of 'they are not doing you any harm' could be applied to any unwanted behaviour. You shouldn't have a problem with burglars, as long as they don't rob you. You shouldn't have a problem with paedophiles, as long as they aren't raping your child. You can see where this will go.
The people who condone or tolerate these degenerative behaviours are often deeply conflicted themselves, sharing a lot of similar characteristics. One particular flaw that I find funny is that they accept these people as they are because 'the world is overpopulated' and those with these degenerative disorders wont increase the population.
These same people give money to organisations responsible for ballooning the third world population, to "save the children".
In the same way, classing gaming as a disorder is an attack on the white male.
Despite the rigging of figures to include grannies and stay at home mothers, playing browser games on their unsocial media of choice, gamers in the West are largely straight white males. The product was after all targeted at that group, I mean I don't hear the complaints about men being excluded from Tampons because well all know that would be stupid.
But we find that straight white males are constantly under attack for their hobbies, as they have yet to find their voice.
If you want to see further evidence of this attack on Western culture, you only need to look at the film industry. It has took the films straight white men enjoyed and perverted them to a self-flagellation fest of 'white men bad'.
It's not an accident that Batman is now Batwoman ...and gay...and Jewish. It's not that they can't come up with their own characters to build themselves up, it's that they want to destroy what you have.
Like I say straight white males have yet to find their voice. The gaming and film industry is largely controlled by people who don't have your interests at heart. So start making your own films and video games.
We see the cycle often, a so-called government picks a position that it wants to introduce a set of laws, then goes and finds a "victim" to justify their actions. Once a suitable patsy has been found, the story is propagandised out to the general public through controlled media. We've seen this play out in New Zealand as we discussed.
Now as we are seeing with this exact example, where no victim can be found, then they will just make one up.
For years governments have tried to get control over what type of games are made with the ludicrous gaming certificates. They have even gone so far as to blame violence on video games, a claim that has been thoroughly debunked time and time again.
When you see how crazy the so-called Western governments have gone with surveillance and censorship, as they move closer to becoming like China, then you can see how this will be used. Like the UK starting to censor the internet under the laughable excuse of 'protecting the children'. This will, if unchallenged, be expanded to whatever else the so-called government deem as offensive to view, as directed by the ministry of truth.
If you wanted more evidence the World Health Organisation is corrupt, then you need only to learn that the same organisation telling the world gaming is a mental health disease, actually declassified transgender (or to give it it's real name gender dysphoria) from the mental health category.
The snivelling excuse the World Health Organisation used for this gerrymandering of the truth, was they said it helped to "reduce stigma". So ignoring billions of years of evolution and a humans chromosomes, along with established scientific facts is ok, as long as we don't upset a tiny group who has a disproportionately high HIV infection rate.
I see this as a clear attack on our culture, diminishing faith in our governments, as well as the medical and scientific industry at large.
We can pin point heterosexuality being normative behaviour because we are all alive today. Same sex attraction would have made us all extinct along time ago. Similarly, if men or women found themselves attracted to anything but a human, the result would be the same - no humans left.
So we know that the normal behaviour of men and women is being attracted to each other and we call this attraction when it's deep and long lasting - love. While the word is often misused, like "I love beef burgers and chips", we delineate the words used in those specific contexts as being a childlike explanation of emotion, that is not directly attributable - but we get that they really like burger and chips.
But when people make the claim "love is love" they are being malicious. I think of it like when you have a person who is clinically obese, so morbidly fat that they are unable to even leave the house. And you have what's known as a "feeder", which is basically, as the name suggests, a person who is responsible for feeding the puddle of skin that was once human shaped. They are the ones directly supplying the fat person with the thing making them ill, like a drug dealer. No matter how well meaning they are, they are non the less causing the person harm and perpetuating unhealthy ideas in the process.
So too are the people who promote things like transgender and homosexuality out of some misguided notion of "protection". There is no middle ground on this issue and those who accept or tolerate these degenerative behaviours are doing nothing but harm to our societies.
The attitude of 'they are not doing you any harm' could be applied to any unwanted behaviour. You shouldn't have a problem with burglars, as long as they don't rob you. You shouldn't have a problem with paedophiles, as long as they aren't raping your child. You can see where this will go.
The people who condone or tolerate these degenerative behaviours are often deeply conflicted themselves, sharing a lot of similar characteristics. One particular flaw that I find funny is that they accept these people as they are because 'the world is overpopulated' and those with these degenerative disorders wont increase the population.
These same people give money to organisations responsible for ballooning the third world population, to "save the children".
In the same way, classing gaming as a disorder is an attack on the white male.
Despite the rigging of figures to include grannies and stay at home mothers, playing browser games on their unsocial media of choice, gamers in the West are largely straight white males. The product was after all targeted at that group, I mean I don't hear the complaints about men being excluded from Tampons because well all know that would be stupid.
But we find that straight white males are constantly under attack for their hobbies, as they have yet to find their voice.
If you want to see further evidence of this attack on Western culture, you only need to look at the film industry. It has took the films straight white men enjoyed and perverted them to a self-flagellation fest of 'white men bad'.
It's not an accident that Batman is now Batwoman ...and gay...and Jewish. It's not that they can't come up with their own characters to build themselves up, it's that they want to destroy what you have.
Like I say straight white males have yet to find their voice. The gaming and film industry is largely controlled by people who don't have your interests at heart. So start making your own films and video games.
Who is W.H.O?
The World Health Organisation is an arm of the United Nations and is a globalist organisation. It enters nations under the guise of health care.
As we have discussed, it exposed itself as making medical choices based off societal pressure, not scientific based research.
When it comes to funding the World Health Organisation, we find it sits on a yearly income of billions of pounds.
The largest sources of the money won't surprise you, the US and UK tax payers. Some of their money however comes from former influential businesses, now turned "good guys".
One of note was the Rockefeller foundation, formed from the wealth generated from a monopoly over oil. Whilst another bed fellow is the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, yes the same Bill Gates who made a monopoly with his operating system - Windows.
Now I'll leave it to your own research on whether you think they were in anyway wrong in how they developed those monopolies, who knows maybe they were nice guys, I mean nice guys always do well in business right?
But what I would like to point out is that just these two 'foundations' alone came from people hell bent on controlling their respective markets. They "influenced" their way to the top to get what they want, something all the donators share in common.
So it's easy to see that funding any organisation receives from these types of businesses/nations will have strings attached.
At it's heart I think it's fair to say that despite the sources of funding, the World Health Organisation exists to justify governmental involvement in affairs. It also serves as a vehicle to socially change other nations from forces outside of said nation.
As we have discussed, it exposed itself as making medical choices based off societal pressure, not scientific based research.
When it comes to funding the World Health Organisation, we find it sits on a yearly income of billions of pounds.
The largest sources of the money won't surprise you, the US and UK tax payers. Some of their money however comes from former influential businesses, now turned "good guys".
One of note was the Rockefeller foundation, formed from the wealth generated from a monopoly over oil. Whilst another bed fellow is the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, yes the same Bill Gates who made a monopoly with his operating system - Windows.
Now I'll leave it to your own research on whether you think they were in anyway wrong in how they developed those monopolies, who knows maybe they were nice guys, I mean nice guys always do well in business right?
But what I would like to point out is that just these two 'foundations' alone came from people hell bent on controlling their respective markets. They "influenced" their way to the top to get what they want, something all the donators share in common.
So it's easy to see that funding any organisation receives from these types of businesses/nations will have strings attached.
At it's heart I think it's fair to say that despite the sources of funding, the World Health Organisation exists to justify governmental involvement in affairs. It also serves as a vehicle to socially change other nations from forces outside of said nation.
What can you do?
The problems, to put it bluntly, are market problems, as in "someone" is ruining the markets. The solutions however are simple.
With regards to games and videos, the fact is "others" have controlled your cultural media for too long. The onus is on you.
Stop watching films or playing games that are against you, simply because there is "nothing else". That means stop pirating them too, free poison is still poison.
When something does cater to you, respond accordingly. Waiting for a discount is a sure way to remove your relevance to most. Your money is your influence, so start influencing.
Similar, if you have the means to create films or games, cater to your own people, it's an open market. Media that caters to straight white males has been abandoned, leaving a lot of cash up for grabs - and you'll become a hero in the process.
With regards to the promotion of degeneracy you simply have to call it out, there is no fence sitting. Live and let live ends with your people dead. Whether it's your best friend or your gran, you can't tolerate these destructive attitudes. Stop seeing them as "well meaning". Destructive behaviour is destructive behaviour, no matter if the source looks like a friend or not.
The problem, as a whole is that straight white men need to take their identity back, stop having "those" outside brainwash you and your children.
You are a group with a very prestigious past and with your inclusion in maintaining our market, a very bright future too.
Your people form a government to reflect their will. Once the government doesn't reflect your wishes, it is no longer your government and must be replaced.
To do this you must retain your market influence.
-If a government has the ability to print it's own money, it doesn't care about your vote.
-If a government can just take "tax" money from you without your consent, it doesn't care about your vote.
-If a government can just import new voters, it doesn't care about your vote.
-If a government can just make up laws and impose them on you with your consent, it doesn't care about your vote.
In short you have to regain control of your life and stop being reliant on the government. This means operating outside of their sphere of influence. They need to make themselves relevant to you, not the other way around.
The government can tell your local council they can't have money, but ship billions out to places like the World Health Organisation, in foreign aid or to the European Union without blinking.
Ignore Centrists™ telling you being white isn't any different to any other colour, they aren't clambering to get into non-white nations.
[For your homework look up who coined the phrase "homophobic".]
With regards to games and videos, the fact is "others" have controlled your cultural media for too long. The onus is on you.
Stop watching films or playing games that are against you, simply because there is "nothing else". That means stop pirating them too, free poison is still poison.
When something does cater to you, respond accordingly. Waiting for a discount is a sure way to remove your relevance to most. Your money is your influence, so start influencing.
Similar, if you have the means to create films or games, cater to your own people, it's an open market. Media that caters to straight white males has been abandoned, leaving a lot of cash up for grabs - and you'll become a hero in the process.
With regards to the promotion of degeneracy you simply have to call it out, there is no fence sitting. Live and let live ends with your people dead. Whether it's your best friend or your gran, you can't tolerate these destructive attitudes. Stop seeing them as "well meaning". Destructive behaviour is destructive behaviour, no matter if the source looks like a friend or not.
The problem, as a whole is that straight white men need to take their identity back, stop having "those" outside brainwash you and your children.
You are a group with a very prestigious past and with your inclusion in maintaining our market, a very bright future too.
Your people form a government to reflect their will. Once the government doesn't reflect your wishes, it is no longer your government and must be replaced.
To do this you must retain your market influence.
-If a government has the ability to print it's own money, it doesn't care about your vote.
-If a government can just take "tax" money from you without your consent, it doesn't care about your vote.
-If a government can just import new voters, it doesn't care about your vote.
-If a government can just make up laws and impose them on you with your consent, it doesn't care about your vote.
In short you have to regain control of your life and stop being reliant on the government. This means operating outside of their sphere of influence. They need to make themselves relevant to you, not the other way around.
The government can tell your local council they can't have money, but ship billions out to places like the World Health Organisation, in foreign aid or to the European Union without blinking.
Ignore Centrists™ telling you being white isn't any different to any other colour, they aren't clambering to get into non-white nations.
[For your homework look up who coined the phrase "homophobic".]
Roley
29/05/2019
29/05/2019
