Similar posts

rightfulcel #sexist #crackpot incels.co

[Serious] Inceldom has nothing to do with natural selection

One Chad having a harem of women is not natural selection. Maybe with idk seals? But humans are social and intelligent creatures. So one Chad has harem of 10 females. 2 males could easily just kill the Chad and take all the females for themselves by throwing rocks or whatever the fuck at the Chad. Height means shit when you have access to spears etc. The Romans kicked the Gallic and Germanic peoples asses who were protein rich tall people and the Romans were grain fed manlets. The thing is Chad can have a harem right now because he is protected by the society he lives in who support female interest due to them being the majority of voters.

Once society collapses Chads harems will disappear simple as. There is a reason why there is 1 man born for every woman or so, no in fact there s more men born. This is because men are more valuable than women. You need men to do everything in society from defend it to do all the tasks, labour etc. Women are USLESS at this. Fact. If tribe a has 10 men and 100 women and tribe b has 50 men and 50 women tribe b will kick tribe a's ass and take all the women for themselves. Its very simple. Genghis Khan was a manlet and yet a percentage of the worlds population is descendent from him.

This thread is not cope, its objective. Lets see how long cultures that let Chads fuck all the women last ok? Lol

Zyros #fundie incels.co

I did magic mushrooms and came to a blackpill: we are even more bound to nature than I thought

So I was at this firends house in a pretty nature-y part of the city and did psychedelics for the first time in my life: around 3 grams of psilocybin mushrooms (a medium dose).

I felt I was part of the nature around me, and even if I was totally conscious of my hatred for nature, I feld that connection and primal oneness with it, kinda like while my brain still hated nature rabidly, my heart loved it.Fucks even the dogs in there were more around me seeking my company. I felt like i wandered around as part of the wildlife there, instead of some cilvilized human. Sounds outside of cars, civilization or people in other areas talking grew hostile fellings in me.

And there is the blackpill. We are so fucking attached to nature NOTHING sort of radical manipulation of the human race will solve anything. We will ALWAYS still crave it. There is NO societal measure, NO self condition NOTHING that won't net us free from its shackles, and specially, our natural needs (validation, company, sex, oneness, belonging).

The uglier you are, the less those needs will be covered while still being absolutely imprisoned by it, no matter how civilized you think you are, no matter how much you hate it, no matter how religious you think you are, no matter how much self conditioning you subjected yourself to.

Jedidiah Van Horn #sexist identitydixie.com

[From "Sexual Utopia in Power"]

It is well known to readers of this journal that white birthrates worldwide have suffered a catastrophic decline in recent decades. During this same period, ours has become assuredly the most sex-obsessed society in the history of the world. Two such massive, concurrent trends are hardly likely to be unrelated. Many well-meaning conservatives agree in deploring the present situation, but do not agree in describing that situation or how it arose. Correct diagnosis is the first precondition for effective strategy.

The well-worn phrase “sexual revolution” ought, I believe, to be taken with more than customary seriousness. Like the French Revolution, the paradigmatic political revolution of modern times, it was an attempt to realize a utopia, but a sexual rather than political utopia. And like the French Revolution, it has gone through three phases: first, a libertarian or anarchic phase in which the utopia was supposed to occur spontaneously once old ways had been swept aside; second, a reign of terror, in which one faction seized power and attempted to realize its schemes dictatorially; and third, a “reaction” in which human nature gradually reasserted itself. We shall follow this order in the present essay.

Two Utopias

Let us consider what a sexual utopia is, and let us begin with men, who are in every respect simpler.

Nature has played a trick on men: production of spermatozoa occurs at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than female ovulation (about 12 million per hour vs. 400 per lifetime). This is a natural, not a moral, fact. Among the lower animals also, the male is grossly oversupplied with something for which the female has only a limited demand. This means that the female has far greater control over mating. The universal law of nature is that males display and females choose. Male peacocks spread their tales, females choose. Male rams butt horns, females choose. Among humans, boys try to impress girls—and the girls choose. Nature dictates that in the mating dance, the male must wait to be chosen.

A man’s sexual utopia is, accordingly, a world in which no such limit to female demand for him exists. It is not necessary to resort to pornography for example. Consider only popular movies aimed at a male audience, such as the James Bond series. Women simply cannot resist James Bond. He does not have to propose marriage, or even request dates. He simply walks into the room and they swoon. The entertainment industry turns out endless images such as this. Why, the male viewer eventually may ask, cannot life actually be so? To some, it is tempting to put the blame on the institution of marriage.

Marriage, after all, seems to restrict sex rather drastically. Certain men figure that if sex were permitted both inside and outside of marriage there would have to be twice as much sex as formerly. They imagined there existed a large, untapped reservoir of female desire hitherto repressed by monogamy. To release it, they sought, during the early postwar period, to replace the seventh commandment with an endorsement of all sexual activity between “consenting adults.” Every man could have a harem. Sexual behavior in general, and not merely family life, was henceforward to be regarded as a private matter. Traditionalists who disagreed were said to want to “put a policeman in every bedroom.” This was the age of the Kinsey Reports and the first appearance of Playboy magazine. Idle male daydreams had become a social movement.

This characteristically male sexual utopianism of the early postwar years was a forerunner of the sexual revolution but not the revolution itself. Men are incapable of bringing about revolutionary changes in heterosexual relations without the cooperation—the famed “consent”—of women. But the original male would-be revolutionaries did not understand the nature of the female sex instinct. That is why things have not gone according to their plan.

What is the special character of feminine sexual desire that distinguishes it from that of men?

It is sometimes said that men are polygamous and women monogamous. Such a belief is often implicit in the writings of “conservative” male commentators: Women only want good husbands, but heartless men use and abandon them. Some evidence does appear, prima facie, to support such a view. One 1994 survey found that “while men projected they would ideally like 6 sex partners over the next year, and 8 over the next two years, women responded that their ideal would be to have only one partner over the next year. And over two years? The answer, for women, was still one.”[1] Is this not evidence that women are naturally monogamous?

No, it is not. Women know their own sexual urges are unruly, but traditionally have had enough sense to keep quiet about it. A husband’s belief that his wife is naturally monogamous makes for his own peace of mind. It is not to a wife’s advantage, either, that her husband understand her too well: Knowledge is power. In short, we have here a kind of Platonic “noble lie”—a belief which is salutary, although false.

It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best. By definition, only one man can be the best. These different male and female “sexual orientations” are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top.

Women, in fact, have a distinctive sexual utopia corresponding to their hypergamous instincts. In its purely utopian form, it has two parts: First, she mates with her incubus, the imaginary perfect man; and, second, he “commits,” or ceases mating with all other women. This is the formula of much pulp romance fiction. The fantasy is strictly utopian, partly because no perfect man exists, but partly also because even if he did, it is logically impossible for him to be the exclusive mate of all the women who desire him.

It is possible, however, to enable women to mate hypergamously, i.e., with the most sexually attractive (handsome or socially dominant) men. In the Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes the women of Athens stage a coup d’état. They occupy the legislative assembly and barricade their husbands out. Then they proceed to enact a law by which the most attractive males of the city will be compelled to mate with each female in turn, beginning with the least attractive. That is the female sexual utopia in power. Aristophanes had a better understanding of the female mind than the average husband.

[...]

Fallout of the Revolution: “Date Rape”

A few years into the sexual revolution, shocking reports began to appear of vast numbers of young women—from one quarter to half—being victims of rape. Shock turned to bewilderment when the victims were brought forward to tell their stories. The “rapists,” it turns out, were never lying in wait for them in remote corners, were not armed, did not attack them. Instead, these “date rapes” occur in private places, usually college dormitory rooms, and involve no threats or violence. In fact, they little resemble what most of us think of as rape.

What was going on here?

Take a girl too young to understand what erotic desire is and subject her to several years of propaganda to the effect that she has a right to have things any way she wants them in this domain—with no corresponding duties to God, her parents, or anyone else. Do not give her any guidance as to what it might be good for her to want, how she might try to regulate her own conduct, or what qualities she ought to look for in a young man. Teach her furthermore that the notion of natural differences between the sexes is a laughable superstition that our enlightened age is gradually overcoming—with the implication that men’s sexual desires are no different from or more intense than her own. Meanwhile, as she matures physically, keep her protected in her parents’ house, sheltered from responsibility.

Then, at age seventeen or eighteen, take her suddenly away from her family and all the people she has ever known. She can stay up as late as she wants! She can decide for herself when and how much to study! She’s making new friends all the time, young women and men both. It’s no big deal having them over or going to their rooms; everybody is perfectly casual about it. What difference does it make if it’s a boy she met at a party? He seems like a nice fellow, like others she meets in class.

Now let us consider the young man she is alone with. He is neither a saint nor a criminal, but, like all normal young men of college years, he is intensely interested in sex. There are times he cannot study without getting distracted by the thought of some young woman’s body. He has had little real experience with girls, and most of that unhappy. He has been rejected a few times with little ceremony, and it was more humiliating than he cares to admit. He has the impression that for other young men things are not as difficult: “Everybody knows,” after all, that since the 1960s men get all the sex they like, right? He is bombarded with talk about sex on television, in the words to popular songs, in rumors about friends who supposedly “scored” with this or that girl. He begins to wonder if there isn’t something wrong with him.

Furthermore, he has received the same education about sex as the girl he is now with. He has learned that people have the right to do anything they want. The only exception is rape. But that is hardly even relevant to him; he is obviously incapable of doing something like that.

Samuel James #fundie patheos.com

One moment during the lowest point of their journey, when all seems lost in the black ashes of Mordor, Samwise Gamgee asks Frodo whether he can remember the taste of good food and the feeling of warmth. Frodo’s reply has haunted me often:

‘No, I am afraid not, Sam,” said Frodo. ‘At least, I know that such things happened, but I cannot see them. No taste of food, no feel of water, no sound of wind, no memory of tree or grass or flower, no image of moon or star are left to me. I am naked in the dark, Sam, and there is no veil between me and the wheel of fire.”

I don’t think I have ever read anything that more poetically expresses what it’s like to be addicted to pornography than that passage.

Of course, that’s not what J.R.R. Tolkien was going for. In fact, Tolkien never quite fully fleshes out what kind of psychological affect the One Ring has on Frodo or Gollum or any other bearer. In a way, the lack of specific detail enhances the horror of both Gollum and Frodo’s transformations; we don’t know what exactly is going on inside them, but we can hear their cries.

The corrosive effect of porn on the soul is likewise shrouded in that kind of agonizing mystery. As someone who was rescued from severe bondage to porn, I can feel the contrast in my life now versus my life then much more keenly than I can describe it. I feel emotional lightness, I suppose, and I no longer live in that withering dread of exposure that colored every human encounter. But there’s something deeper, something in the inner chambers that seems to be pointed in another direction, almost as if I’d spent my entire life in a basement and have just recently seen through a window.

What does Frodo mean by “naked in the dark”? I’m not entirely sure, but I do know that the metaphor rings true when applied to porn. Porn requires nakedness, and that is part of its appeal, but the nakedness it demands is in the darkness, so that the porn addict can neither see himself clearly or the object of his desire clearly (and those are often the same thing). To be naked in the dark is to be blind and vulnerable, unable to cover oneself because of the darkness, and unwilling to walk into light until clothed.

Interestingly, the One Ring frequently tricks its wearer into thinking that he is the rightful owner of the Ring’s power and is thus entitled to it (this is Samwise’s temptation earlier in The Return of the King). The Ring initially bestows a false sense of glory, but then what happens, according to Frodo? “Naked in the dark.” The Ring promises to make kings but only creates servants.

Pornography’s primal appeal is erotic but its deepest appeal is spiritual. Viewers come for the titillation but they stay for the autonomy, the power to make an alternate reality in which mythological figures (actors and models) submit unhesitatingly. But like the One Ring, this is an illusion, one that conceals porn’s slavish designs. This is one reason pornography is not merely an aberrant species of sex, but something different from sex altogether. Sex, even prostitution, requires reality and knowledge; porn depends on fantasy and ignorance. Like the Ring, pornography promises kingship but delivers only serfdom.

Freedom comes for Frodo after the Ring was destroyed. Tolkien describes the moment right the Ring falls, with Gollum, into the volcanic Crack of Doom:

‘Well, this is the end, Sam Gamgee,’ said a voice by his side. And there was Frodo, pale and worn, and yet himself again; and in his eyes there was peace now, neither strain of will, nor madness, nor any fear. His burden was taken away.

When the Ring was destroyed, Frodo’s enslaved state of mind was destroyed too. So it seems that the nefarious power of the Ring included the eventual melding of its wearer’s mind with the Ring’s own mind. The Ring joined its evil nature to the nature of the One who desired it, so that the fate of the one was connected to the other.

This is true in a meaningful way of addiction. Theologian G.K. Beale has written about a motif in biblical literature whereby those who worship idols eventually become like the idols they worship. The Old Testament prophets seem to believe that to worship a false god is to, in a sense, take on the nature of that god, so that those who worship a god that cannot hear, speak, or move, likewise become deaf, mute, and impotent.

What about those who worship porn? Porn is illusory, and indeed, those addicted to it are often deeply disconnected from reality. Porn is cruel; those hooked on it are frequently manipulative and exploitive of others. And porn is dark, and very many people in its hold live under thick layers of secrecy and isolation.

Pornography is torture. Even in the midst of its most pleasurable delusions, it tortures the mind and spirit. Like Frodo under the spell of the Ring, people trapped in the compulsions of pornography often cannot imagine the tastes and smells and sights of life in the light and the open air, the warmth of existence not shrouded in shame. The Ring could only be destroyed in the place it was made. The same is true of pornography; its shackles can only be undone in the spiritual realm, the realm where the shackles were forged.

Like Frodo, Christ entered the heart of darkness’s domain. He did so for Ring-bearers who couldn’t even take the journey towards their freedom. In Christ the power of sin was destroyed forever so that those united with him can be rid of their hellish burden. “Peace I leave with you,” Jesus said. “My peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.”

Kings Wiki #sexist en.kingswiki.com

Harem management, also known as plate-spinning, MLTR, OLTR, or multiple women, is an advanced aspect of game. André du Pôle notes, "Can a man who is busy banging several women ask at least some of them to accept the other girls? If the answer is yes, be the man a pornstar, a musician, a community leader or someone able to wife several women at once, then he has reached the highest levels of game. Such a man’s competition ranges from rare to nonexistent. Only a woman who worships a man can tolerate him to bang other girls and even be glad that he deigns to bang her too."[1]

The two kinds of harems are the soft harem and royal harem. In a rotating soft harem, a man dates multiple women, with no expectation of commitment from anyone. He bangs other girls, and assumes his girls bang other men. In a royal harem, the women in a man's harem know he dates and fucks other women. But they still remain loyal – monogamous to him. Women in a royal harem tend to be more stable, since they’re fucking only the man of the harem. They’re more bonded, physically and emotionally. Younger women are more tolerant, more likely to agree to be part of a harem.[2]

Heartiste notes, "Women have a natural instinct to sort into concubinage under a sole alpha male. Now, this does not mean women favor such an arrangement to the exclusion of all others; ideally, women would like an alpha male all to their own. But given a world full of competing choices, a woman’s evolutionarily guided hindbrain impulse pushes her, continually like the slow but forceful eddies in a tidal pool, into an arrangement where she feels more sexually fulfilled, as a woman, being the second or third or even thirtieth concurrent lover of a powerful man instead of the first and sole lover of a weak man."[3]

Mulattocel, Rheinkwell & Gymcelled #sexist incels.co

(Mulattocel)

[Serious] “You’re being a defeatist” yes I am and the science says I should be

One of the main arguments against an incel having a “defeatist” attitude and submitting yourself to misery. Well if we are talking science, biology, and human sexual selection I was quite literally “defeated”. I have been defeated by nature. I was purposely given traits the majority of women find unattractive with the idea dating and reproduction would be harder for me. Nature has deemed my genes mediocre and doesn’t think I should reproduce period. It has defeated me or it would have thousands of years ago when I would have been torn to pieces by alpha males so they could fuck women easier.

Humans are such egocentric creatures. Making up concepts like “soul mates” “love at first sight” “spiritual connections”. All man made concepts to try and convince ourselves our mate selection process is something more then other creatures in the animal kingdom. It’s not just like everywhere else reproduction = having the right genes. Mother Nature said I’m not good enough so yes I do have a defeatist attitude because nature says I should. If it had its way I would have been defeated and killed awhile ago we just lucked out by creating modern society.

(Rheinkwell)

Normies really love the "fighters" - the losers who still work their asses off and keep a friendly face. With the cards I've been dealt with, it takes me a hundred times the effort to get something. My 'ceiling' is what chad is laughing at.

When I started gymmaxxing I could barely bench 40kg. My brother benched 60kg on his first attempt. When I was 15 years old I never left the house, played video games and rot at home. When my brother was 15 years old he had 6-7/10 foids over and FUCKED them. I've learnt at a very young age that I've been dealt bullshit cards.

(Gymcelled)

jfl chad achieves more than i could possibly dream of without even trying

Yeah I benched 25kg and got stuck under the bar at 17. My vertical jump is like 10in, pure garbage. I couldn't deadlift a plate when I started but some guys can pull 3 plates on their first day. I spent years following a strength routine and couldn't pull that much

Genetics are everything, life is bullshit

My body looks ok aesthetic wise but my strength has always been absolute garbage

Corey Savage #sexist returnofkings.com

10 Feminist Fantasies That Could Become A Reality In The Near Future

Corey is an iconoclast and the author of ‘Man’s Fight for Existence’. He believes that the key to life is for men to honour their primal nature.

Around 2013 when I first discovered the manosphere, I knew things were bad in our society in terms of sex relations along with the corroding effects of feminism. But at the time, I didn’t appreciate just know how bad. In just few years since then, I’ve seen enough madness to know which direction we’re headed and it doesn’t look good. We already live in a feminist society and the harpies are pushing to make things even harder for ordinary men who just want to get on with their lives. The following will demonstrate what will happen to our society if we were to give into all the demented demands of today’s feminists.

Although this article is meant to highlight the craziness of it all, note that many of these concepts are already starting to take shape in our societies to become a reality.

1. Expansion Of Hate-Crime Laws
image
“You can’t save Mary Jane anymore, Spiderman. It’s ‘benevolent sexism’, and therefore, a misogynistic hate-crime.”

In England, trying to pick-up a woman or even just whistling at her is considered a “hate crime” if the woman gets upset by it. It is a real possibility that this law might spread to the rest of the West and expand to include other misogynist offenses including: looking at a woman (what feminists call “stare rape”), calling a trans-woman a he (there’s already a similar law in New York), arguing with women online, manspreading, mansplaining, helping a woman, and so on.

2. Consent Forms
image
Since women get to dictate the terms of all sexual interactions, consent forms will have to become a necessity in the future. And not just for sex, but in all forms of interaction like being able to approach a woman on the street. Maybe an app will be developed where a woman could consent to sex, conversation, or being looked at so that she could screen out all the low-life misogynists who want to compliment her for her looks.

3. Anonymous Rape Accusations + 100% Belief In Woman’s Testament
image
All men are rapists; we need to believe her because she’s a woman. It’s a perfect circular logic.

Feminists claim that the reason we live in a patriarchal rape culture is because our society discourages rape victims (always women) from coming forward and also because their words are not taken seriously. So, what they’re proposing is clear: rape accusations should be done anonymously and the “victims” should always be believed against evidences that are biased because… patriarchy.

Men have already lost their jobs, kicked out of school, jailed, and even murdered for false rape accusations while their accusers faced no legal consequences (and got to keep their anonymity). So, we’re not really that far from reaching that level.

4. Feminist Re-Education Camps
image
This book is not a mandatory reading in kindergartens yet. What more proof do you need that we are all oppressed by the patriarchy?

With feminism taking over the educational institutions and already working to reprogram men to serve the system, it won’t be long before men who have been found guilty of misogynist hate crimes to end up in re-education camps. We already have sensitivity training in jobs while colleges are adding courses on toxic masculinity to re-define what it is to be a man on feminist terms. It probably won’t be long before “toxic masculinity” is added to DSM as a mental disorder (in place of homosexuality) and treated like a disease in mental health institutions.

5. Government-Sponsored Feminist Tribunals
image
Canada already has an actual social justice tribunal.

Since it’ll be difficult to charge men of bogus hate crimes against women with nothing more than a woman’s feelings as a proof, the government may introduce tribunals similar to the kangaroo courts in universities and HR departments at workplaces, all in the name of creating a harmonious society free of hate. Those who enter these tribunals will also be destroyed by the media and have no chance of being employed and be subject to permanent social ostracism even if they’re found not guilty.

6. Systemic Castration
image
As I’ve mentioned in my other article, docile and compliant dogs are the ideal that feminists aim for in their efforts to domesticate men. A significant number of boys are already on ADHD medication to have their behaviors controlled while male sex offenders are given chemical castration. If all men are violent hooligans and rapists as some feminists claim, then the next logical step is to let the government control men’s testosterone levels to an “acceptable” level. Note that we already have many parents who are letting their children take hormones to alter their “gender.” This practice will likely become more common in the future.

7. Non-contact Sex
image
“She did not consent; I must not touch.”

Feminists have been so effective in terrorizing the beta males that many of them are afraid to interact with women in any shape or form. Consider that we already live in a world where walking past some deranged woman will get you accused of sexual assault. In the future, all physical contact with women may become sternly discouraged or even forbidden that more men will retreat to porn and sexbots as alternatives. Haptic technology for sex is already being developed to pave the way for a culture of non-contact sex.
8. Bachelor Tax
image
Did you think you pesky “MRA’s” could escape the gynocentric order by refusing marriage and going your own way? With the drop in number of men who are manning up that coincides with the rising number of single mothers who need to leech the welfare state, it’s not too unreasonable to expect a push for bachelor tax that will penalize men who refuse to put a ring on an aging, post-slut sow.

Knowing that it will cause a major backlash, the bachelor tax will probably not come into being in an obvious way. Instead, it will be introduced under the guise of supporting the poor single mothers and helping to foster families. Heck, considering how men are the primary tax payers while women are the primary beneficiaries of the welfare state, you could say that we already have a gynocentric taxation system in all but name.

9. Polyandry
image
Women already practice ‘Alpha fucks, Beta bucks’ strategy. So why shouldn’t an empowered woman be allowed to do it openly without shame?

With the institution of marriage already destroyed and with many men already accepting cuckoldery as the norm in the form of “open marriage,” women may as well be allowed to have multiple husbands. And why not? We already know that there are far too many men for the number of women in our society and that those lazy men should do more to support women. Is it that crazy to have one husband for sex and another three for money? I’m sure many desperate simps will have no issue sharing a wife with several other men as long as they get some cuddling action when she’s not too busy banging her more attractive husbands. The implementation of bachelor tax, mentioned above, will also make marriage more desirable.

10. Concentration Camps For Men
image
The final solution to the testosterone problem.

If the above measures to protect women and ensure equality are implemented, it’s likely that all the misogynists will grumble in anger and resist them. If that is the case, it might be best to take the advice of the feminist, Julie Bindel, and place all men in concentration camps. No man, no problem! If you’re wondering how feminists could even achieve this, know that there is already an army of goons called the police who will gladly do as they’re told to maintain the gynocentric order.

Conclusion

As I’ve said in an older article of mine, feminism is practically a terrorist movement that demands more and more political, social, and cultural oppression of men for the sake of radical women who play the eternal victim and cry for never-ending privileges. While you may think that the above nightmare scenarios are over-the-top and unlikely to happen, I bet those who lived just few generations ago couldn’t have imagined what we’re witnessing today either. Feminism, by colluding with the government, will continue to grow like a tumor and it will not stop until you make it stop.

Remember that if we don’t fight back, no one else will.

Corey Savage #sexist returnofkings.com

7 Ways Modern Women Treat Men Like Dogs

Corey is an iconoclast and the author of ‘Man’s Fight for Existence’. He believes that the key to life is for men to honour their primal nature.

For all the feminist criticism of men supposedly treating women like dogs, it is actually today’s feminism-infected women that are treating men like domesticated animals.

While the majority of women still prefer masculine men for relationships, I’ve been noticing how more and more women today are defying their biology for ideological reasons and are pursuing long-term relationship with men they’re not even attracted to just because they are supplicant and effeminate. If this trend continues unabated, I expect the entire male population to turn into weak and feckless bonobos who grovel around to serve female interests.

Observe the following comparisons to see how men are being turned into dogs for both women and the state:

1. Dogs are optional

Dogs as pets are optional. People get a dog only when they want one; it’s not a necessity. Men today are also increasingly becoming an object of utility for a woman rather than a man whom she forms a bond with for a nuclear family. She will marry a man when she wants to (if at all) and she will dump him when she feels like it.

2. Once attached, dogs offer unconditional loyalty

If you want a picture of what the feminists want from men, just imagine a world where all men are male feminists.

Once dogs have a human to call a master, it doesn’t care whether he is a scumbag, loser, criminal, or homeless. Dogs are faithful no matter who their master is and what he does. In fact, they’re so loyal that they’ll even remain with an owner that mistreats them. And that’s exactly what feminists want men to be.

If you observe the rhetoric of the feminists, you’ll notice two general themes: first, the desire to be free from all criticisms. And second, for men to believe them and “support” them no matter what. Feminists want their prospective low-testosterone boyfriends and husbands to fully accept them for who they are no matter how disgusting, slutty, crass, and toxic they are. They want their men to show unconditional loyalty so that they can openly cheat on them and brag about it. And men, if they don’t want to be called a misogynist, must never question their partner’s past or present behavior and remain faithful even if they’re treated like garbage.

3. Dogs do what they’re told

Once the owner has secured his dog’s loyalty, he can train it to behave on command. Some owners enjoy the power they have over their companions and they will order their dogs around for fun.

Western women today have discovered that there are truck loads of desperate men who will do just about anything for them to win an ounce of female approval. These women have successfully used men to take them out on expensive dinners (only make fun of them on their blogs afterwards), buy pizza for them for free, shovel snow for them, and so on. The women who order these men around like dogs didn’t even have to train them as they’ve already been conditioned from birth by the society to do what women tells them to do.

4. Dogs are treated for good behavior
image
Dogs need to be treated to reinforce good behavior; the same is true when you want to domesticate men as second-rate citizens.

Women understand just how desperate the general male population is for affection and sex. Women today are leveraging this power over men to make them behave the way they want them to, rewarding these simps with faked compliments so that they’ll continue being good boys.

5. Dogs defend their masters
image
One serves a man, the other serves the government and its harem of women.

Besides companionship, the main roles dogs play is to defend their masters. In spite of all the calls for equality, the reality is that women still expect men to defend and save them. The men suffering from white knight syndrome will go as far as sacrificing their own lives to rescue women they don’t even know.

Feminists also don’t mind that many men are serving the police and military force to serve their alpha boyfriend: the government. Women are innately attracted to power and the government is the new protector and provider of women that grows bigger and stronger each day while ordinary men are becoming weaker and irrelevant.

6. Dogs are neutered

Although men aren’t getting physically neutered the way dogs are, other methods are being employed to psychologically castrate men. This includes the epidemic use of ADHD drugs to tame boys, ridiculous laws aimed at controlling men’s sexual interactions with women, and the overall cultural currents to shame masculinity while promoting all sorts of degeneracy that dilute it. Today’s wives don’t even want to get sexual with their husbands.

7. Dogs that are not domesticated are pests

“Masculine men are organizing a meeting? They must be rapists!”

When a dog is not owned by a human being, it is considered a pest that needs to be controlled.

Men today who do not submit to the feminist agenda are constantly attacked as being losers, sexists, misogynists, rapists, and so on. In today’s feminist society, you either serve the female imperative or you’re a Neanderthal who is out of touch with the times. Steps are already being made to control every aspect of male behavior in public.

You should also remember that dogs are natural pack animals (think of their cousins, wolves). By being removed from the pack, they become isolated and dependent on their masters. Can you see how the same applies for today’s men?

The Differences

In addition to being dogs, men are also expected to serve as drones to keep the feminist nanny-state running.

In spite of all the similarities, there are differences that need to be addressed.

First, unlike dogs whose owners house them and feed them, men are not supported by women. Women are free to throw men away like used tampons or divorce their husbands to extract their cash. If anything, men are usually the ones who must provide for their wives.

Second, whereas dogs are under the responsibility of their owners, men are expected to be fully responsible in all their interactions with women. It is the man’s job to ensure that a woman is giving consent even if both parties are drunk; it is men who must watch over their own behavior to ensure that what they say is non-offensive and conforming; and it is men who must ensure that women feel perfectly safe and comfortable in all their interactions. If you so much as walk past a woman in the wrong manner, you’ll be accused of rape. Again, it is the man’s responsibility to ensure that he is acceptable enough to share the same space as women, not the other way around. Feminists want “equality” without accountability.

Are men becoming collectively domesticated?
image
The domesticated cows we see on farms didn’t end up the way they are now naturally. It was through thousands of years of herding and selective breeding that they became smaller, more passive, and accepting of their conditions. But the fact is, it doesn’t take thousands of years to transform entire species. In this article which I recommend you read, a Soviet project to domesticate foxes have shown that it only takes several generations of selective breeding to transform wild foxes into effeminate and tamed versions of themselves.

The global testosterone level around the world has been mysteriously dropping for the past few decades. While chemical toxins in all the products we consume and come in contact with has been given as one possible explanation, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that we as species are gradually becoming emasculated at a genetic level through the selective breeding process. In other words, we are becoming socially engineered to be effeminate. It’s not something impossible when you consider that easily tamable beta males, the sperm donors, are usually the males women select as their mates after they themselves are done riding the cock-carousel. I think it’s a factor we should consider besides the emasculation through cultural degeneracy that we’re already familiar with.

Men are supposed to be men unleashing their primal energy through raw adventure instead of getting tamed into submission. I have no doubt that the systematic domestication efforts of today is what is causing collective male nihilism, depression, and frustrated energy. Men who are awake must allow themselves be men.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh's book Free Speech Isn't Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Fontaine #fundie incels.co

My general theory of politics and culture in the 21st century

Every day, the world is becoming more divided into two factions. I would go as far as to say that the world is becoming ever more divided into two worlds{/i]. The two worlds are already clashing. This clash is extremely painful to human psychology and is responsible for a lot of cases of depression or suicide; the incel predicament is one symptom among many. The conflict will continually increase until at some point in the 21st century, no sooner than 2040 but no later than 2080, a great clash ("the big event") will bring absolute, total victory to one world. The victory will either be perfectly bloodless, or a devastating carnage that will tear open the bowels of this planet: there will be no intermediate solution.

I will name them world A and world B. Below, I will list attributes and characteristics of each world. They are not necessarily interlinked; some can even be contradictory. If you think I have gone crazy, bear with me and be patient. Everything will become clear in the end.

World A: State, Nation, Law, war, family, religion, conservatism, traditionalism, nationalism, patriotism, anti-semitism, marriage, Russia, René Guénon, Codreanu, Julius Evola, Adolf Hitler, Aleksandr Dugin, Christian Orthodoxy, white nationalism, Iran, Islam, cautiouness, reluctance to change, anti-feminism, anti-capitalism, racism, racialism, hierarchy, alt-right, Richard Spencer, death, heredity, eugenics, art, soul, cemetery, military chaplain, apple pie, roast beef, chimney, wood fire, Luddism, tribunal, gallows, military service, rifle, sword.

World B: Internationalism, capitalism, technology, progressivism, pacifism, feminism, liberalism, nihilism, atheism, transhumanism, divorce, Jews, Protestants, Silicon Valley, crypto currency, stock market, the internet, cyborg, China, anti-racism, Elon Musk, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, Justin Trudeau, genetic engineering, ramen, avocado salad, electricity, self-learning, peer-to-peer networks, longevity research, cryonics, computer, drone, robot, democracy, Barack Obama, plastic surgery, emigration, atom bomb.

Well, what do you make of everything I've just brainstormed? Here are possible answers, depending on your personality:

- World A is basically conservatism, world B liberalism.
- World A is reassuring, world B scares me.
- World A is what I want, world B is what I hate.
- In both worlds there are things I want, and things I hate. Why can't we do a synthesis?

My personal opinion is that world A corresponds to applied terror management theory, while world B is basically an attempt to remove ourselves from the shackles of nature so as to end heredity, aging and death.

I am also utterly convinced that {b]no synthesis is possible, even if it appears wishable. Psychological suffering will thus continue. We are stuck in an antebellum period where world A and world B will continually face each other without coming to a permanent resolution, before at least two decades more.

If you have any question, I'd be glad to answer them.

Filippovna #fundie therightstuff.biz

Be the Chad You Wish To See in the World

Marrying and having kids is one of the most arduous challenges our generation must face. Women are rushing to the edge of the cliff of their youth in droves, and falling to their ruin with a splatter at the bottom of their thirties, covered in bodily fluids, cellulite, and tattoos. Young men are seriously contemplating whether cartoons can be girlfriends, while the abandonment of monogamy and the tremendous risks of dating and marriage keep all but the top stratum of men, the Chads, from even chancing a relationship.

It is no wonder the word cuck hits such a nerve for so many. With divorce being initiated three times as often by women, resulting in her being awarded the children, and most of his income and his assets going towards her new family, the similarities are staggering. Even finding a marriageable woman comes with the high likelihood of her having a plethora of previous partners, men she bedded for passion and for fun, and having settled when she realized she needed to cash in her assets before it was too late.

Add to that the impending threat of demographic displacement, where White men have been granted the privilege of supporting other men’s families, as they are systematically bred out of existence, and it paints a picture of utter defeat to anyone who wishes to have a family of his own.

This is also why Chad receives so much bitterness and envy from the everyman. The highest caste of sexual fitness, Chad is a symbol of what most cannot have: access to the best women. Chad is stronger, cooler, more interesting, and most importantly, the only type of person impervious to many of the pitfalls of the sexual marketplace.

There have been varied approaches to this problem. One is for a man to go his own way, rejecting women altogether, and deciding to not play the game if the outcome is likely losing. The problem with that is he does not get to reproduce. Another approach is to look toward a certain uprising, hoping that sexual disenfranchisement reaches maximum capacity within one’s lifetime, with the multitudes of six-and-unders overhauling the status quo entirely, and sending women back in time, back to the kitchen, while raising monuments and statues which read: THE INSIDIOUS VAGINAL JEW - NEVER FORGET.

The problem, again, is that they will likely not get to reproduce. And even if they do, the minefield of modern marriage is a gamble that makes shooting up a sorority house look like an appealing way to leave the world in comparison. The only way to win, it seems, is to become Chad.

Chad is not an individual, but an archetype latent within all men, not any specific mould or make, but rather characterized by how victorious he is in winning the attention of women. He is the superman of the principal imperative in life, and our relationship to him is like a Rorschach test for how close one is to realizing his potential--anything from jealousy, to disdain, to ambition. He is the sexual Volksgeist of our generation, and much like the literary hero, represents the psychological and physical battle of the most rudimentary of life’s quests.

There is no anguish and resentment reserved for any type of man as there is to Chad. Few Wojaks cry bitterly when contemplating the disheveled genius or the legacy of the celibate inventor. As comforting as denial would be, having access to women of the highest quality and quantity is supremely important.

This means that in order to be a Chad, a man must be appealing to the nature of women. The same creatures who wear fishnets and lingerie in public holding signs that say, “STILL NOT ASKING FOR IT“ are the ones qualifying a man’s SMV, not other men. If the majority of women consider a man a 4 out of 10, a 4 he is. This is a pill so black it burns down its own neighbourhood for a new pair of Jordans.

What women want in a man is difficult to discern, as what women say they want and what women actually want are not just different but contradictory, but it can easily be defined as masculine, or in other words, useful to women.

To men, women are primarily sexual objects. An ideal woman is beautiful, fertile, sensual, and pleasant. This is for good reason, as the other qualities of a woman are generally unexceptional. She is physically weak, her intelligence tends towards the mean, and in most cases anything aside from giving birth, men can do better. A woman has little else to bring to the table on a reproductive level than her looks and fecundity. Men must fulfill a much greater range of qualifications in order to impress a woman.

To women, men are kind of like tools. This is why one of their most commonly used phrases in online dating in 'Looking For' is “can fix anything”. Women are social cultivators of the male ability to subvert the material world, and can rarely advance their social standing in life without riding on the back of a capable man. Women coast on the status and power of men, men do all the work, and women reward men with what they do as sex objects, mainly acquiesce, sometimes enthusiastically.

Chad is, in a way, a multi-purpose tool. He may be funny, goal-oriented, successful, wealthy, or even under 6’2. But he is some combination of traits that women find useful, and carry the potential to help propel her social standing in some way. The antithesis to Chad, then, is a man who is useless. Look to the behaviour of teenage girls for a demonstration of the uncivilized, uncensored reaction to a man who is seen as useless--revulsion, cruelty, or fear, sometimes even at a simple hello. To women, these men aren’t just undesirable people, they may not even be men, or even human.

An interesting study to highlight this point is "Rape From Afar: Men Exposing to Women and Children," in which an unwanted display from a man even in the form of flashing can "have a significant impact on their lives and can be interpreted...he could also rape or murder them." A lesser man even showing arousal in a woman’s general vicinity can make a woman perceive the threat of rape or death.

There are very few perks of being merely a mediocre man, either. He may get to marry and reproduce if he is lucky. He will spend the entire relationship being tested ruthlessly, on the off chance he will lose his grip and give her an excuse to find someone else who is more useful. Many women will not hesitate to climb onto the back of a great man, only to stand on his shoulders and climb higher once the opportunity arises. This is not a comforting idea, but such is the fate of the average man.

Feminist influence in government has proven nothing more than the fact that women will act like women even in circumstances where they are permitted to act like men. Social degeneration leading up to and caused by female-led policy, just like the dating scene, has become much like a harem, as big daddy government coerces resources from men and families and makes it rain on his loyal voter base.

Being an accomplished or honourable man by the standards of men has little real bearing on the realities of the current year’s sexual marketplace. We are in a dysgenic age in which the same demographic of people taking the feel-good flamethrower of uncontrolled third world immigration to Europe are the ones arbitrating who gets to reproduce. Men with valuable things to offer the next generation are being pushed out of the gene pool, or out of the lives of their own children. Counteracting this is an incredible feat of overcoming the odds, but the other options are even more grave.

Chad is the very embodiment of overcoming the odds. He may not have done so on purpose, or worked very hard for it, but he has succeeded in making women believe that he has value to offer them. Whether we like it or not, Chad is the hero of the story of our modern era. He wins. Any approach to this archetype outside of aspiration and the will to power is self-defeating. We are living in a dystopian sci-fi novel, and just like in any story, the jealous foil who attempts to murder the hero always loses.

RichCel #sexist incels.co

This. In general, femoids are not intelligent enough to venture outside of simple materialistic desires. There is ample evidence of that; any femoid in a "leadership" position got there by virtue of white-knighting beta males and political correctness that propelled her based on what's between her legs rather than what's between her ears.

Femoids are voracious consumers by nature, so they invade any space available to them and then loudly demand that it be rebuilt to suit their desires. Videogames are just one example. Though we, the gamers, are partially responsible for the current state of things, because enough of us were deluded enough to think that "girls will play games with us, and then they will fuck us! YAY!" We all know how that turned out.

Now of course the world isn't made of absolutes, and I would imagine that there are a few femoids who are GENUINELY interested in the nerd culture, rather than driven by the desire to invade it, appropriate it, fuck it up and move on to something else. However, those are all genderless hambeasts that can barely be called human beings at all. The cute streamers that play CoD on youtuubs and spam their gofundme/patreon links every five seconds log off, and merrily skip away to fuck Chad and Tyrone. Forget the ten-foot pole; they would not touch us with a 100-foot one.

Alan Burns #fundie religionethics.co.uk

Souls are completely compatible with determinism, but not with the deterministic nature in the reactive properties of material based entities over which there can be no control - just inevitable uncontrolled reaction. The question is in what determines your conscious will. In your scenario, there can be no entity within you which can exert conscious control or choice - all is just inevitable reaction. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of your thoughts being deliberately directed by conscious willpower. The entity within you which exerts control is not random, neither is it uncontrollable reaction. It is not shackled by the uncontrollable nature of physical cause and effect, but driven by the spiritual interaction of the human soul - which is you. We all have the freedom to choose our own destiny.

The Incel Decade #sexist #dunning-kruger incels.co

[Blackpill] Along with social media and dating apps, how much has globalization destroyed the dating market?

Social media taking off with Fuckbook and then Tinder and Instagram killed the dating market as hypergamy accelerated out of control.

But alongside that, the effects of globalization have had a big effect. Take an example. Rice and Curry women are now chasing mostly white men. Rice and Curry men have therefore seen Inceldom explode. Therefore these sex starved thirsty bluepilled men are going on white women's Onlyfans accounts and paying them money. They're going on Tinder and swiping every single woman on there, regardless of location. They're fighting over themselves to be part of a woman's harem. These things further accelerate Inceldom for more men due to extended hypergamy as women's options are limitless now from the billions of men on planet earth. Added to the mix the mass immigration to serve the global economy and the age of mass travel which has supplied again an endless supply of exotic Chad cock.

50 odd years ago when Boomers were in their 20s dating was pretty much restricted to their local community and it was one man to one woman and you didn't get many Incels. Boomers were the last generation to really get lucky and fucked it up for subsequent generations by pushing globalization and feminism to the extent that they did which has killed the dating market for sub 8 men.

Aurelius Moner #fundie returnofkings.com

Let me first state that any philosophy allowing for rights in abstraction from the norms of objective morality, is Liberal—and this includes almost all of what calls itself “Conservatism” in the Anglosphere (and, increasingly, beyond). At the heart of Liberalism, aka Modernism (in the technical terms used by Catholics such as myself), is the incoherent and irrational endowing of error with rights, often consequent to an incorrect valuation and application of the good of tolerance.

The first manifestation of this new philosophy in the West was Protestantism, which as Don Felix Sarda y Salvany said, “begets by nature tolerance of error.” I do not say this to be offensive, but descriptive; it was the first manifestation of the feeling that men are entitled to their own opinions on ultimate questions, and ought to be “free” to act in accord with their conscience on these opinions—and that, therefore, authority must yield more or less to individuals’ rights of conscience.

[Picture of Liberty Bell with "Freedom of Conscious" and "Freedom of Religion," with the caption "Concepts as Flawed and Broken as the Bell that Stands for Them"]

One can see that there is essentially no difference between this and the maxim of Justice Kennedy, which he penned to uphold worthless whores’ rights to murder their children without so much as notifying their husbands, the fathers: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” I spit upon such damned nonsense; this is literally a carte blanche to do whatever the hell you want. The story of Western Civilization from about 1500 A.D. to the present, is the story of how this absurd idea has played out in successive waves of incoherence and irrationality.

The only limit on this “right to define one’s own concept of existence” is the flimsy protestation that “your rights end where mine begin,” or, put otherwise: “don’t inflict your morality on me!” This sounds good to the person who has not analyzed it critically, but in fact it is a complete impossibility. We all live together in society. Any view that one enshrines as the societal ideal is automatically and inevitably going to inflict itself upon everybody in that society, and will frustrate or contradict their own “concept of existence,” to some extent.

Indeed, it is a wildly tyrannical idea, because it is tantamount to saying that everyone who does not consider their concept of existence to be totally private, relative and arbitrary, has no right to implement their views in society. Yes, as we see, even Libertarianism advances this radically hegemonic principle, squelching all opinions and beliefs that reject the relativistic premise. For, even to advocate that one should not inflict his moral views on someone else, is already an attempt to inflict one’s moral views on someone else! And in the absence of an objective norm of morality, there is really nothing stopping the Supreme Court from interpreting the Constitution to mean that your right not to bake cakes for sodomites, ends where a sodomite’s right to demand cakes of you begins. That this is even an issue, is proof of the absurdity of our system.

...

I, for example, believe that there are objective principles of morality, and a moral and rational role for the state; I believe it is absolutely right and just and salutary for society to be run on these principles, and that this means making definite judgments upon certain ideas and behaviors, “inflicting” this system upon everybody. I also believe that I am morally obliged to prefer this system of governance, and to reject a Liberal one.

The Liberal, Libertarian or “Conservative” will recoil in horror; but, they are reacting to the mere candor of my position. The fact, is that their viewpoints also require me to shut up, forsake my dearest religious and moral principles, and submit to a society organized along their preferred principles, which I know to be not only immoral, but also impossible and irrational.

When members of society install a form of specious relativism as their governing principle, they are inflicting their moral view upon me. They limit the scope of my social and moral action; they compel my submission to what they accomplish via their appeal to the mob; they shackle me to the moral drift and societal decline of a state piloted by the demagogued masses. They are denying my moral view that a just, rational and even divine social order should reign over society, and that, far from according “power to the people,”

I should hold the uninformed dissent of infidels and fools in contempt, regarding this latter as the infallible source of civilizational decadence. If they succeed in preventing me from implementing my moral vision and living in the society I would form for myself and others, they have succeeded in inflicting their moral vision upon me. They have nullified my moral and social aspirations. They have compelled me to live in a State where a chimerical relativism bulldozes my sublimer views without scruple.

...

That’s the heart of all this. Since we no longer believe that the only basis of rights is objective uprightness, and since we no longer orient our society towards this (allowing the masses, instead, to simply assert their whimsies as “rights”), and since we have founded a society based on the irrational attempt to accord rights to this tangled abyss of error, we are doomed to pretend that we are not inflicting ourselves on each other, despite the fact that any set of social norms—even the norm of pretending to reject norms—inevitably inflicts itself upon everyone. Unless we repent, this already bitter crisis will keep playing out to the bitter, bitter, bitterest end.

I used to think people would wake up. Yet most still seem oblivious to the manifest inevitability of “inflicting a view,” despite the steadily escalating clash of moral inflictions in the name of forbidding moral inflictions over five centuries. This has now entered a critical stage, because, having moved on from disagreement about less obvious points like the Trinity and Papal Primacy, sane people are now being asked to acquiesce even to palpably absurd ideas: collusion in sodomy = holy matrimony; Bruce Jenner = woman; up = down; square = circle.

The only thing for it, is to stop worrying about inflicting “a” view, and to start worrying about inflicting the right one. Until men with just convictions no longer fear to take up the sword of a righteous authority, and to smite those who demand the right to dissent from justice and just authority, the West will continue to tear itself apart with a specious and manifestly prevaricating, passive-aggressive, intolerant “tolerance.”

corriander chef #conspiracy answers.yahoo.com

Conspiracy theory. can the gov't contaminate water supplies?
This is not a wind up. Is it possible for the British Gov't to contaminate water supplies with some kind of drug / suppressant, which affects those people who drink tap water, so we are somehow blinkered, or have our eye taken off the ball as to what's actually occuring in this country? With all the Gov'ts lies, deceit, and goings on, raping us of every penny, selling Britains soul to the devil so to speak, the people of this country just stand to one side and let them get away with it, as if nothings happening. Is this possible?,because most of the population drink tap water. It's as if the Gov't are blatantly doing things but the British people won't do anything about it. I don't drink tap water, & I can see through their smoke screen of scams, lies, global warming tactics for taxation ( the planet goes through a natural carbon cycle, and whats happening now is to do with what occured 200/300 yrs ago) Could this be the biggest conspiracy theory ever, becuase we all need water to live

The Knights of Banjo Hollow #racist thekbh.org

Circumcised Rapists

Howdy folks. Now I gots to tell ya, a not often reported aspect of male emasculation is how it facilitates rape.

***For those of you who are squeamish please do not read any further***

Circumcision removes the movability and touchiness of a man's baby-makin' organ. That movability and touchiness makes it nearly impossible for a man to stick an unwilling woman, a butt, or anything else that is not naturally slimy. Heebies, North-African Negroes, Mud-slimes, South Koreans and some other smaller groups in other countries are rape-ready. Heebies, Negroes and Mudslimes have traditionally had trouble rapin so many wimmin, then boys, then goats with their touchy, sin-protected implements that they willinly cut off their self-diseased skin parts - then in further and more brutal acts of rapin', they done started to pre-cut these parts off from their baby boys and girls. The result has been that in much of Africa and the Middle-East today, men and wimmin are extremely horny creatures, bein' ever-frustrated in gettin a natural sensation they'll never get, messin around like fools with nothin but dry poles and holes with no lips or slime to ease the act - and the men are free to rape.

Now here's somethin real interestin. In prepucially-deprived South Africa men seem to think that rape is just normal, fine and OK [1], even if the woman is killed. In a survey of South African men, one-third of them thought that rape was hunky-dorey - and these are the men that admit so much [1]. Also worthy of note, their preferred target is mysogynist females (or "lesbians").

Strangely in the Kali-yuga, we have a mostly white-skinned (though Mongolian white-skinned) race which is pretending to be of the now Is-slime "House of Shem," or "shemites." In pretendin to be what is a generally lowly race of goat and camel eaters who leaves desolation wherever they goes, somewhere in the seventh century they picked up on this idea of genital mutilatin as their preferred form of self hatred and misandry. Within this group of Jews, rape, humiliation, mutilation and torture is passed down from generation to generation of men. Several men of the Jewish persuasion (in spite of their incredible worldy riches) still manage to be the highlights of major rape cases, organized misopedia rings, bestiality and so on.

A good place to start for looking into rape and its causes is Jews, because Jews have had for centuries an organized system of genital mutilation and have been well-known for rape, misopedia, and even mutilation murders. Traditionally either being gypsy-type theives and beggars in ghettos or being money masters and slave owners, Jews have a long tradition of raping their slaves (as Thomas Jefferson and other founding forgers did). You can check out your local genital mutilators through these listings [1] [2] [3] [4] and be sure to steer clear. There is also more specifics on these clean cut perverts and how they like sucking baby penis blood [1] [2]. There's also a lot more on clean-cut killers hackin up babies [1]. In more recent news, clean-cut billionare/misopede Jeffery Epstein buys and rapes children, and his clean-cut lawyer gets him off scott-free.

Seein that most rape is organized, the quickest way to reduce rape in the world would be to arrest those in the organization. The first place would be to arrest, kill or otherwise permanantly isolate mohels. Jews being a minority in society, us White folk have let down Jews by givin into their devilish temptations and not takin up the throne of morality and enforcin the laws of God in our lands. If Jews were forced to stop mutilatin their boys like under the Greek Emperor Antiochus the Fourth, a substantial portion of Jews would grow up with normal bodies, normal passions, and normal inhibitions. This would revolutionize and refresh the Jewish people and give them much-needed credibility when taking on leadership positions in the world.

Current efforts to save Africans from razor rape is only for girls. And through the malice of Jews like Bill Gates and Steven Lewis, more of our African boys are bein razor raped and prepared to start doin the deed themselves.


*****The KBH*****

Pablo Martinez ,Webmaster #fundie returnofthenephilim.com

[I discovered this website because my father was looking at it earlier. Yeah, he actually believes this crazy shit. And yet he calls everyone else gullible...]

(site logo)
image

The Alien Nation. Historical and religious evidence of the Nephilim


Human skulls with horns were discovered in a burial mound at Sayre, Bradford County, Pennsylvania, in the 1880's. The horny projections extended two inches above the eye-brows, and the skeletons were seven feet tall, but other than that were anatomically normal. The find was made by a reputable group of antiquarians, including the Pennsylvania state historian and dignitary of the Presbyterian Church (Dr. G.P. Donehoo) and two professors. The American Investigating Museum in Philadelphia "convenientlythe American Investigating Museum in Philadelphia lost them

forever13 #pedo #psycho rapey.org

I followed a girl who must have been 11 years old shopping with her mother in the Mall on Sunday. The girl had ass cleavage in shorts, toned thighs, curves and low cut top and perky c-cup breasts already. So proof she was menstruating, but I don't think she'd had cock yet.

I'd taken an unspoiled virgin slit vagina over a 21 year old roastie any day of the week. Men who say 21 are fearful and trying to appease normies, instead of letting nature take its course. Male sexuality is a tool for making him horny and guiding him into making the right mating choice. All while warning him to avoid used up women unable to conceive healthy babies with paternal certainty.

Incel Wiki #sexist wiki.incels.info

Feminism

image

Over a hundred years ago a bunch of rich women were upset that they could not move up in official positions of power in work or politics. So they got men to give them the vote and affirmative action for political office. Through legislation women made it even easier for themselves than men to climb traditionally male dominance hierarchies! Only problem is that they aren't sexually attracted to men who are lower in dominance hierarchies of status and money than they are. So as women gained dominance in traditional male hierarchies, they complained a bunch about there being 'no good men'[1] aka the dwindling amount of men wealthier or more powerful than them to give them tingles. As less men gave them tingles more incels were created and more men were sent their own way. And as women gained more dominance in society they complained more about beta males, and "rape" etc...
?
They even created campaigns against these increasing amount of men lower on the social hierarchy than them they are not sexually attracted to like the:

Anti Catcalling Movement: aka 'Men poorer than me better not hit on me in public'

Anti Manspreading Movement: aka 'Public transport users (people poorer than me, or people who have not yet proved they are higher status than me) should not make me think of their junk'

Metoo movement: aka 'Autistic and socially isolated ugly men who can't read social cues should be locked up or ridiculed as much as rapists'[2]

image

Female Contempt for an Obvious Outcome of Feminism: Househusbands

A matriarchal world where women make more money than men would seem to necessitate an increase in house-husbands. The male liberation movement, a subset of feminist MRAs in the 60s wanted a dramatic increase in househusbands. However even in the most feminist countries, women will still expect the man to work or else a breakup, even if she makes enough to provide for the family in an uber-welfare state. This is of course, insanely pointless. Early 20th century anti-feminist and Marxist Belfort Bax' quote still remains true, "Among all the women’s rights advocates I am not aware of one who, in her zeal for equality between the sexes, has ever suggested abolishing the right of maintenance of the wife by the husband."[3]

Even in a country where feminism is intitutional and mainstream, where equal-pay laws are in place, and where women have more total personal wealth than men, "the key factor in the decision to divorce is whether Hubby has a job. If he doesn’t, even if his job loss is involuntary, his odds of being ditched by his wife skyrocket"[4]

As Eggman puts it, "Talk to any US woman and they'll tell you about men offering and actually buying them all sorts of things, when was the last time a woman offered to buy you a house or car, now that we have gender equality and all?"[5]

A 100% Completed Feminist World Be Better for Incels Than Partial Feminism... Theory

So far we see that feminism literally creates incels, but there may be a silver lining in a 100% feminist universe compared to a partial feminist universe, in that feminists feminize societies to the point where all men are so beta that it's not hard to become a chad or to get a woman to agree to be asked out. Since no men ask women out in the 100% feminist universe once men are so beta.

The Eradication of Feminism is Best for Incels... Theory

Because feminism has created more incels, many if not most self-identified incels are trad-con, patriarchal, and don't subscribe to the previous theory and think matriarchies won't be sexually generous. They should argue for a generous patriarchy with strictly socially enforced monogamy as not all patriarchies are alike. In most if not all modern patriachal countries, polygyny arises and men hoard women, causing inceldom as well. And in patriarchal muslim countries, the hoarding of women in harems, inflates the bride-price so high that there exists a vast underclass of singe men who are susceptible to the promise of either real life brides or virgin brides in the afterlife through terrorist organization like al-Qaeda or ISIS. It is for this reason that people joke about incels and muslims terrorists on incel boards. Some incels also believe that the only kind of pro-natalism that can be achieved to wipe out inceldom would be through a racial supremacist movement, which partly explains why people like Richard Spencer pander to incels.

holocaust21 #sexist holocaust21.wordpress.com

Morality is just an subjective concept, a social construct created by parochial minded religious people that are trying to make you submit to their antiquated group think. They often craft shaming language toward you, accusing you of having a “high hope for a low heaven.” Evil and morality are points of view. Picture a cat playing with a mouse. To the cat, he is just playing with his food. To the mouse, the cat is the equivalent of evil it’s self. This on the other hand, this is not evil; this is evolution adapting people to be attracted to youth as an adaptive strategy. It’s the way we have evolved and is why there are so many supposed “pedophiles” everyone is freaking out about.

This is the realist’s perspective who lives by natural law and understands evolution – Life is a question, asked of the Universe, “Is this right?”…and answered by death if it isn’t. We literally evolved, through evolution, to be attracted to youth and neoteny to survive! If the trait of being attracted to youth was not beneficial, it would not have been passed on!

So, every one, stop being uptight prudes, know that everyone is different, and just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean that it isn’t or wasn’t at some point a good thing. Older people taking in younger people, as companions, was natures answer to a social safety net; there was no welfare for them when their parents died at an early age. Can you imagine using the strategy that women do today, of waiting ’till age 30 to have kids, back when there was no medical system of any kind, with your teeth rotting out of your heads! You people are silly for not seeing the obvious truths of our own biological evolution.

Again, our biology hasn’t changed, only the laws, and peoples brainwashed, reactive monkey, herd-like perspectives. Think for yourselves people! We are throwing people in jail for stupid non-violent crimes longer then people who attempt, or succeed, in murder because some stupid politicians were grandstanding for tougher laws that we didn’t need. It doesn’t even begin to make sense unless you consider it is being used to manipulate politicians through deep-state intimidation. Seems to me some arm twisting like that would explain a lot about the crazy decisions our politicians have made. I would say the age of consent of 12, like in Mexico, is about right for a legal cut off. Nature gave us every thing we need to consent to sex and that is the drive to have sex. I was a horny little bastard at 12, and so was everyone of that age around me. If you deny this, you are not only being disingenuous with yourself but everyone around you as well. Perhaps your memory is faulty, and doesn’t go back that far?

Do other animals wait for a certain age to have sex after they become able to sexually reproduce? No. It’s just as stupid to put limits on it for us after one has reached puberty. People had jobs at those ages 100 years ago. My father would be 92 this year if he was still alive, and he told me that when he was 14 he earned a man’s wage reading water meters. The population was younger in the past, on average, than they are now. In 1900, 18 percent of all American workers were under the age of 16. Child laborers often worked to help support their families. In colonial America, child labor was not a subject of controversy. It was an integral part of the agricultural and handcraft economy. Children not only worked on the family farm but were often hired out to other farmers. Boys customarily began their apprenticeship in a trade between ages ten and fourteen. Years ago each child you had made you richer, you could tend another acre of crops. Now, each child you have makes you poorer or if you are too poor to support them, burdens on the system.

The economy has changed but our biology hasn’t. We are keeping young people in school, which is essentially just giving them busy work to keep them out of the real economy, and treating them like kids longer and longer because the economy can’t support work for them, as it has all been outsourced due to globalism. The system is all screwed up, and people are too concerned about being called names rather than speak out about the real problems in western society.

I see a globalist system, which has shipped all our jobs over seas, and implemented silly laws restricting sex WELL beyond the ages of puberty. It looks more like a means of genocide to me. Those people in the middle east aren’t exactly having a shrinking population like Europeans in the west are. Yes, the young people are still having sex because they have a high sex drive, as nature intended. Nothing is going to stop that but instead of society pushing them into safe, monogamous, long-term relationships, they are making it to dangerous for that. Yes, these elites know what they are doing to us, and have been doing for a long time now. I think it’s genocide.

Grandparents were a rare breed until 30,000 years ago… when life expectancy grewhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2016759/Life-expectancy-Grandparents-rare-breed-30-000-years-ago.html

90 percent of a womens eggs are gone by age 30http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/women-fertility-falls-lose-90-percent-eggs-30/story?id=9693015

SchrodingersDick #sexist incels.co

A countdown was started on August 18, 1920.
image


On August 18, 1920, The first snowflake that would later form the snowball that is the collapse of the west and return to the dark ages was formed. We’re nearing the end of the countdown. Brace yourselves.

I don’t say this to be hyperbolic or anything.. this was planet earths biggest fuckup. Too many generations of “men” living too comfortable lives fed too many comfortable “truths” didn’t consider why women were kept subservient for all of history. Didn’t take a second to think about it. They fucked up big time. Whether the masses acknowledge it at all is irrelevant. This is the great blackpill of the 21st century. The most taboo topic on earth. The shit you can’t even discuss without being publicly executed.

Don’t believe it the end of times? How about a reminder than a degenerate woman with a degenerate agenda almost became leader of the free world and the powerful person on earth.. we NARROWLY extended the west’s life by maybe a few years. That’s how close we are.. this is a dangerous game.. people need to wake the fuck up and do something about it.

Unrestricted female hypergamous sexual nature is the most destructive force in the world.

Just know that the next step is harems becoming “trendy”.. just wait until some instagram famous guy has 2+ girls that he treats equally (I.e. not main chick/side chick).. once that catches on, it will become normal very soon as that is the default nature of our species. We are literally a few instagram posts away from finally severing the last string that ties us to the developed world and reverting back to life in the jungle..

and then we only a few years after that at most. What a time to be alive.

(Emphasis original)

CH #fundie heartiste.wordpress.com

Chicks with six pack abs: A problem that is, thankfully, for now, small enough to tuck away for use as a hypothetical. But maybe not for long. It seems our world is careening toward an androgynous, sexually unimorphic hell, populated with femininity-crushing fatties or muscular femmes carving their bodies up to high-T specs.

Reader mac speaks for the vast majority of men,

i agree about the abs. don’t like a big beer gut on a girl of course but i’ve never been into visible abs on a woman either. i don’t understand why young guys these days all want their women to be ripped like men.

They don’t. They just say that for PR.

not feminine at all and ugh is right.

Rippling six packs on women are almost as nauseating as distended rolls of pork fat. Both obscure in their own ways the nascent feminine form struggling to emerge and soak up the sun of horny male attention. A perfect female stomach is flat, soft, and subtly terraformed as if to guide the adventurer to the furrow below it.

So while obesity is the epidemic destroying the natural beauty of America’s women, there is an opposite trend, much smaller but almost as destructive, toward hardened, fibrous, X-Fit borgs anchored atop a fulcrum of narrowed boyhips, tromping city streets in flats and trainers, shoulder checking personal space invaders, all the while denying the truth of their essential female nature.

The answer to obesity isn’t the masculinization of the female form.

Softness and slenderness, these are the gravitational forces of purest femininity.

Serena Williams would weep, but she lost touch with that part of her femaleness a long time ago.

Hope Solo wouldn’t weep; she’d just crush your nads in her clenched fist like they were walnuts.

Insideac #fundie ultimate-guitar.com

You know, truly, everyone could become a "sexual predator". These guys, the dateline people, they pose as a 13 year old girl, and initiate the conversations, and lure the men into saying things like that, and eventually getting them to a point where they are so horny that they just need a quick fix, and so that leads them over. Any male in his natural mind would not resist having sex with a younger, fresher girl that started talking to him, provoking him, prodding him, arousing him, and enticing and seducing him. I say what alot of people think, but are too scared to say. Its the truth, that most of the people on this show are really set up, basically, and lured in. There are some pedophiles that are actual predators, in that they actively seek out little boys and girls and violate and rape them, but there are also alot more that are just normal people, who were seduced into something that they would clearly not do, had they been in a normal state of mind.

Mark Creech #fundie barbwire.com

Once upon a time there was a dear little girl who loved her grandmother supremely. The grandmother had given to her a little cap of red velvet, which suited her so well she would never wear anything else. Thus, everyone called her Little Red Riding Hood.

One day her father and mother said to her, “Come Little Red Riding Hood, here is a basket of cookies, assorted nuts, fruit and other goodies. Take them to your grandmother and enjoy them with her.”

Grandmother lived far out in the woods and Little Red Riding Hood had never thought much about the dangers she might encounter as she entered the forest. Soon she would meet a wolf, a wicked creature indeed.

“Good day, Little Red Riding Hood. Where are you headed so early in the day?” the wolf said.

“Good morning to you, Mr. Wolf,” said Little Red Riding Hood. “I’m on my way to my grandmother’s house.”

“What is it that you have in the basket?” he asked.

“A basket of many blessings,” she replied. “I plan to enjoy all of them with my wonderful grandmother.”

“Where does your grandmother live?” asked the wolf.

“Her house, picturesque, stands under the shade of a beautiful grove of strong oak trees, where refreshing waters pass in a brook, flowers grow, and the birds sing. Surely you’ve seen it before,” Little Red Riding Hood replied with innocent charm.

The wolf thought to himself, “What a tender, impressionable and naive child. What a nice mouthful she will be when I eat her. She will be a much better meal than the old woman. But if I am to have her, I must work craftily, so I might consume them both.”

For a little while longer the wolf spoke with Little Red Riding Hood, mostly telling her about the way wolves are wrongly perceived by people. “Wolves are nothing to be feared, they just want to be treated like everybody else,” he told her.

While on her way, Little Red Riding Hood pondered, “Yes, I think I can understand how the wolf must feel. Perhaps he is a victim, as he says, and his way is not decadent.”

Meanwhile, the wolf slipped away and made straight for grandmother’s house ahead of Little Red Riding Hood.

When he reached grandmother’s house, he knocked on the door.

Grandmother called out, “Who is it, and what do you wish?”

“It is Little Red Riding Hood,” replied the wolf. “I am bringing a basket of goodies to brighten your day – to bring about a whole new day for you, grandmother,” said the wolf convincingly.

When grandmother lifted the latch to the door, the wolf devoured her. Then he put on her clothes, dressed in her nightgown and cap and lay in the bed as if he were grandmother.

When Little Red Riding Hood arrived at grandmother’s house she was surprised to find the door ajar. There was something strange and uncomfortable about this situation, even unnatural, she thought to herself.

As she made her way through the house, she came upon grandmother’s bedroom, and there laid her grandmother in her bedclothes with her cap pulled over her face, with the shades down, and looking inexplicably unfamiliar.

“Oh grandmother,” she said, “What big ears, eyes, hands, and mouth you have.”

“Certainly you can appreciate diversity,” replied the wolf. And just when he thought the time was right, he sprang from the bed to eat Little Red Riding Hood.

A woodcutter nearby heard her screams and rushed to save her.

He overcame the wolf with his trusty axe. The townspeople hurried to the scene, cheered and supported the woodcutter, except for five foolish judges.

The five foolish judges declared the woodcutter prejudiced, bigoted, and intolerant. They said he had no right to defend either the grandmother or Little Red Riding Hood. They said the axe must be cast away.

Standing with the five foolish judges were also some clever foxes, relatives of the wolf, who argued the wolf’s proclivity for carnage was completely normal. In fact, to suppress the wolf’s appetites, something which was inherent to his nature, would be wrong, they said. Besides, it was claimed that grandmothers are like old traditions that need to give way to the new anyhow.

And so, on the basis of these considerations, not only did the mindset of many of the townspeople start to change, but the wolf was lauded and praised. Many townspeople would fly the wolf flag from atop their village cottages and buildings. An advocacy group called WUVS, standing for “Wolves, Underfed, Voracious, and Famished,” fought to give wolves special protections in law. And no one dared challenge the true nature of the wolf for fear his house, his livelihood, and even his freedom might be taken away.

So the years passed, grandmother was dead and Little Red Riding Hood would live her life in confusion, always in danger of many wolves and never to enjoy the basket of goodies with her grandmother, whom she had known and loved for so long.

*****

I would not do all the work for the reader here, but if it helps, in this fable of Little Red Riding Hood, the Grandmother is traditional marriage. The wolf is homosexual activism. Little Red Riding Hood is an unsuspecting public, and, in another way, children and their future. The basket of assorted goodies signifies the many blessings and joys of real marriage. The woodcutter is true religion’s opposition to so-called gay rights. His axe is state constitutional amendments to define marriage as one man and one woman. The five foolish judges are the U.S. Supreme Court justices who ruled to redefine marriage for the nation. The clever foxes are professionals who argue homosexuality is inherent, fixed, unalterable, and normal. The townspeople represent ever-changing public opinion.

1864897514651 #fundie kiwifarms.net

It has everything to do with jealousy. Chapter 5 in Paul's letter to the Galatians goes over the sins of the flesh, and these are sins that are at war with God. Envy is a very important sin to understand because narcissists are ubiquitous in this day and age, and it's through narcissism that many find themselves lost in sin. Narcissists only experience a very limited range of feelings towards humans, and these feelings are all based on pride and envy: fear, self-pity, anger, and hatred. All of the actions of those who are narcissistic can only ever be based on those four feelings. There is no purity of faith, hope, charity, or any heavenly virtue found in their actions, and narcissists will manipulate others into believing that they are of good virtue. And they succeed if they are intelligent because they enjoy deception and manipulation. However, so long as the base premises are pride and jealousy, the fruits of their actions can only procure evil.

I'll tell you right now, Western society wants to destroy the Church. We do not believe in contraception, aberrosexuality, divorce, obscenity, or other sins that the United States government so gravely wants to protect. A Catholic can no longer have a federal tax-paying job in the United States without entering mortal sin. People will tell you that there are levels of separation to sin, but that is a lie devised so incredibly well by Satan himself. Money is you. Money is humanity—the fungible proxy of man's ability to logically function through time and space. And our Lord especially rallied against sinful taxation, as we know from the second verse of chapter 23 in the Gospel of Luke. Emphasis on sinful taxation because it is possible for taxation to be moral and in accord with God's Word.

So, all truly Catholic persons are always at an immediate risk of incarceration and having their assets levied because they must evade federal taxation. This is Satan's game plan. Let's go back to jealousy now. Jealousy of faith is not something that is understood by the person experiencing the jealousy; yet, the jealous person will still feel hatred, rage, self-pity, and fear towards the faithful person that reveals the Truth to them. I can only explain this phenomenon as supernatural—of God. The Word of God tends to incite those feelings in those that have capitulated to Satan. The hatred is because they are too prideful to acknowledge that they are wrong.

The rage is because they cannot understand how someone loves them so much as to tell them the Truth. The self-pity is because they cannot even understand themselves. And the fear is because they are constantly afraid of someone discovering who they are. Narcissists are people that live in these four feelings as a result of purging themselves of love. Our government and most citizens living under our government have completely purged themselves of love, and as a result, they are at war with God—which means that they are obviously at war with faithful Catholics. Physical and spiritual war. Catholicism is a 'threat' to the oligarchs, and so they up the ante by not only making it impossible for honest Catholics to work normal jobs within the United States without entering mortal sin, but incarcerating them and levying their assets if ever the government should find out that they are evading federal taxation.

This is why base premises must be understood. It is critical to understand sin and its consequential manifestations. The Holy Bible is Truth. Not 'my truth', not 'your truth'. It is Truth, the only Truth. I really need to take the time to explain the origins of evil because a lot of what I'm telling you right now cannot be understood completely without understanding evil itself. These consequences of our criminal government are just manifestations of evil. I think I might have touched this topic just a little when I explained the logic for the jealous person's feelings.

IncelKing #dunning-kruger #sexist incels.co

[Blackpill] [For IncelTears & Normies] The patriarchy was necessary for maintaining social order via equal distribution of sexual resources (SEXUAL COMMUNISM)

In caveman times where survival of the fittest was the norm, women had sexual preferences for tall men and men with robust, trauma-resistant skull-structure (square jaw, prominent chin, hunter eye area, hollow cheekbones), as these qualities were an indicator of strength and ability to protect one’s tribe from predators/other men. However, the men who possessed these traits only comprised roughly 20% of the male population, yet they were mating with 80% of women.

These genetically elite men (alphas) had harems of women while the genetically inferior men (betas) were left with scraps or nothing. The only way for beta men to mate was to form packs, kill an alpha and take his women for themselves (by force). It was during this time that rape and murder became part of male nature, an evolutionary mechanism which allowed weak men to bypass female sexual selection in order to pass on their genes by force, the same way it became female nature (through evolution) to select the most genetically elite men.

However, this system was one of total chaos and anarchy. Men were killing each other for sexual resources and women were raped. Men of the past, knowing that everything in life comes down to sex, realised that the only way to establish peace and order (where men were no longer being killed and women were no longer being raped) was to create a safe and fair distribution of sexual resources

You see, a society with 100 women and 1 man can still survive, as one man can impregnate all the women in a short span of time. Whereas, a society with 100 men and 1 woman is doomed (a woman can only give birth once every 9 months, and past a certain age she becomes infertile). The men of the past understood the fact that women held a monopoly power over sexual and reproductive resources (sex being the primary motivator of men, who are the creators and destroyers of the world) so the only way to “even the playing field” was to give men monopoly power over all other resources.

Therefore, women were not allowed to work or own property, thus creating a system where a man would provide a woman with house, clothing, food etc. IN EXCHANGE for access to her sexual/reproductive resources. By giving each sex monopoly power over their respective resources, a TRANSACTION of resources was able to take place between a man and woman. This took place on a SOCIETAL SCALE, thus giving birth to what we all know as THE PATRIARCHY

The patriarchy was essential for creating social order. You see, the patriarchy was a MERITOCRATIC SYSTEM, where instead of 1 man (alpha) having a harem of 4 women to himself while 3 beta males missed out, every man (irregardless of genetics) had claim to a woman BY MERIT of fulfilling his role in society as a productive member, hard worker and valued contributor.

Because each and every man had a woman to themselves, women were no longer raped (as each and every man was sexually satisfied) and men no longer felt the need to kill other men in order to gain access to women.

IF WE CONSIDER SEX TO BE A RESOURCE, THE PATRIARCHY WAS NECESSARY FOR MAINTAINING PEACE AND ORDER VIA EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF SEXUAL RESOURCES, THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF "SEXUAL COMMUNISM"

But many women weren’t happy to be married to an average/below average looking man, they all wanted a chance at being with a good-looking man, even if it meant sharing him with other women (which was preferable over having an average/unattractive man to themselves), so feminism was born, a movement which would enable women to get what they truly want (genetically superior men).

The greatest mistake of the men of the past wasn’t giving women the right to education or even the right to vote, it was giving women the right to work and own property, because this meant women were no longer dependant on a man’s resources for survival, once again allowing them to revert back to their nature of having sex/reproducing with the most genetically elite men, while genetically inferior men “miss out”. SEXUAL COMMUNISM WAS ABOLISHED WHILE SEXUAL CAPITALISM WAS IMPLEMENTED IN ITS PLACE, a ‘free for all’ system which gave the upper hand to the genetically elite (the bourgeoise class) at the expense of the genetically inferior (proletariat class).

However, everything comes at a cost, in order for one group to “gain” something, another group must be at a “loss”, such is the nature of the world where resources are limited. Rape and murder were at their lowest during the patriarchy, yet ever since feminism changed the structure of society, the rates of rape and murder have once again increased as average/unattractive men who were previously sexually satiated during patriarchal times have been left sexually unsatisfied in the modern era, hence lashing out at a society which they consider to be against their personal interests.

But women only care about getting what they want, even if it comes at the cost of the greater good of society. As far as women are concerned, the current system we're living in is the perfect one and that the rise in violence in society is just "collateral damage."

SchrodingersDick #sexist incels.co

The collapse of civilization is happening in your lifetime. Feminism caused it. There is no coming back from this. Long post.

Expanded upon another post of mine in another thread.. been meaning to post this for you all. I kinda suck at writing so it might be all over the place. There’s a TL;DR down below but I put a lot of effort into this so I’d appreciate if you took the time to read.

For the cucktears lurkers, before you shit on this, Take a step back and look at the world in the context of just another sexually dimorphic mammal species to understand the following.

Civilization is inherently a patriarchy. They are the same thing. One cannot exist without the other. In order for a civlization to exist, female sexual nature (hypergamous genetics-based mate selection) must be kept in check, for men to be treated equally and fairly, to allow for all members to have hope that if they contribute, they can be rewarded with guanrateed breeding right over a female of their choosing. In this sense, it is necessary for the success of a civilization that women be sexually oppressed.. this developed world is a man’s thing and will only ever cater to men. It is our creation for the benefit of all, but mostly genetically subpar, men. It’s all built at the expense of women’s vaginas. Any society in which women have free mate selection can not function. In tribal times, there was 1 sexually successful man for every 17 sexually successful women.. assuming a 100% female sexual success rate, that leaves 94% of men sexless. This is important. If it weren’t for this fact, we wouldn’t have a problem and this site wouldn’t exist. We need to replace genetic currency with something else in order to appease all men and make it possible for everyone to contribute and build something great.. Money was invented. Money must represent survival in order to be worth anything. It must replace the baseline definition of survival meaning a big strong male able to kill other males in a fight. Well we have a police force for that now so no need to worry. But most importantly, it must be able to be used as leverage to purchase pussy under the guise of survival. That’s the only way to keep the male population happy. Without it, women have to reason to mate with subpar men.. This system is inherently oppressive to women. Unfortunately for them, this system favors survival over reproductive success. Everyone survives and procreates but at the expense of females carrying and birthing inferior DNA. Survival is not enough for them. The idea of 1:1 male to female mate pairings guarantees that all the females not paired with a high SMV male with be with a low SMV male and produce genetically poor kids (which is why they are repulsed by low SMV men, which is why rape only exists with low SMV men, but you knew this already, no need to expand), something that disgusts them on a primitive level. It’s a system they need to get rid of.. hence the sexual liberation, fighting for rights, fighting for a right to work, etc. no matter how hard men try to keep a society strong and prosperous, women will actively try and tear it all down.

This snowball formed when women were given rights.. it started a snowball effect. Now there are several things that compounded with each other make for a nightmare scenario for the world.

1: women in the work place. Women earn their own money now. A Man’s resources cannot be used as leverage to purchase reproductive rights with a female. Thus his contributions to the tribe are meaningless as his reward holds no value.

2: genetic misrepresentation and contraception. Estrogen frauding Makeup, plastic surgeries, gym to build a high estrogen ass.. all these things are being used to falsely elevate women’s sexual dimorphism, perceived serum estrogen concentration, age, fertility, etc. notice how every foid does makeup the same way. Thin narrow nose bridge, shadows under the zygos to show zygo projection, rounded chin makeup, eyeliner to fraud thick eyelashes (health indicator).. women are walking around looking like top tier specimens the likes of which would make your caveman ancestors balls explode. Tbh they should bow down to partiarchy that they’re able to walk around like this alone and not immediately be gangraped when they step out of the house looking like they sweat pure estrogen and fertility. And lastly contraception.. things like birth control, condoms and abortion make casual sex and being a whore consequence-free. It’s the reason the cock carousel exists.

3: easy access to a global sexual market. The tribe is no longer a handful of guys and girls with the top guy doing all the fucking. Smartphones, Tinder, Instagram, cars, planes, buses, etc all help make the sexual marketplace a global thing.. in essence it’s an 8 billion member tribe, with easy access to all types of chad dick. Far more competition among males and a far lower sexual success rate among the male population.

4: destruction of religion. Religion isn’t really a thing anymore. It was once a powerful tool to convince women that 1:1 mate pairings are what’s to be expected, no sex before marriage, shit like that (had other reasons too. Keeps men’s testosterone at bay, thou shall not kill, steal, etc. keeps things civil) .. They had a reason to abide and ignore their primal instincts. It did a pretty good job.. now that’s gone, and there’s virtually no way of enforcing monogamy and chastity. Which funny enough, is also the only prerequisite for a woman to get married.. just be a virgin. They can’t even manage that yet a bunch of captain save a hoes are quick to wife em up, and these hoes will wear white on their wedding day symbolizing their purity.. jfl

Compound these 4 new phenomenon together, and you can quickly see that the sexual market is fucked, and a society with a SMP like this cannot sustain itself.. This is a world that belongs to women now. This world automatically excludes all men unfit for reproduction. In this case, it’s likely over 99% of men. What will these men do once they realize money doesn’t buy pussy? Once they realize that if there’s truly no hope for them, they can rely on government assistance, or work a menial bottom tier job just to make enough to survive. If these men even have the drive to go to work, they will have no drive to innovate, get promotions, invent something, become millionaires, etc. you’ll have a lot of complacent men with no motivation to contribute anything. Best hope automation can replace the entire workforce, and if not, then you got a work force made up of 99% women and just lmao if you think that’s gonna take us anywhere. Women have no incentive to make money other than to rid men of their only leverage and open up their prospective mating options. Same deal with them.. they’ll just aim to make the minimum amount to survive and genefraud enough to land 6’4” chad.

This results is a catalysmic shift of the world as we know it.. there will be a total collapse once the number of men who drop out of society reaches critical mass. But until then, you will see a shitload of people dependent on government assistance, the rich being taxed out the ass, who now have even less incentive to keep perusing high paying careers, more people coping with drugs/alcohol, a spike in suicides and mass shootings, high SMV men forming harems, etc.. basically 2018 x10.

For this to happen, It’s not even necessary for the masses to swallow the blackpill.. it’s only necessary for them to realize money doesn’t mean anything anymore. That’s all it takes. Put simply, one’s contributions to society are no longer worth the effort. It’s basically slave labor at that point.

So there you have it. All the causes are there and cannot be reversed.. things have already been set in motion. just wait till the effects of them become painfully obvious. This cannot be fixed since nobody is gonna accept that women’s vaginas are the reason for this. Maybe next time around men don’t fuck up and start the civilization off strong with commoditized pussy. This will all go down in documented history so a mistake like this likely won’t repeat itself. That’s the good news.

This should be lifefuel for you all. You are witnessing the collapse of the most successful civilization on earth in YOUR lifetime. Pretty cool. So ditch your ER plans, untie your ropes, and Sit back and watch the world burn.

TL;DR; a couple rights here and there and a few apps destroyed the world. Patriarchy, religion, and commoditization and sexual oppression of women are paramount to the existence and survival of any civilization. We lack all 4. It’s over. Bunker up and stockpile food and ammo. We’re going back to the jungle.

IncelKing #sexist #crackpot incels.co

[Blackpill] [For IncelTears & Normies] The patriarchy was necessary for maintaining social order via equal distribution of sexual resources (SEXUAL COMMUNISM)

In caveman times where survival of the fittest was the norm, women had sexual preferences for tall men and men with robust, trauma-resistant skull-structure (square jaw, prominent chin, hunter eye area, hollow cheekbones), as these qualities were an indicator of strength and ability to protect one’s tribe from predators/other men. However, the men who possessed these traits only comprised roughly 20% of the male population, yet they were mating with 80% of women.

These genetically elite men (alphas) had harems of women while the genetically inferior men (betas) were left with scraps or nothing. The only way for beta men to mate was to form packs, kill an alpha and take his women for themselves (by force). It was during this time that rape and murder became part of male nature, an evolutionary mechanism which allowed weak men to bypass female sexual selection in order to pass on their genes by force, the same way it became female nature (through evolution) to select the most genetically elite men.

However, this system was one of total chaos and anarchy. Men were killing each other for sexual resources and women were raped. Men of the past, knowing that everything in life comes down to sex, realised that the only way to establish peace and order (where men were no longer being killed and women were no longer being raped) was to create a safe and fair distribution of sexual resources

You see, a society with 100 women and 1 man can still survive, as one man can impregnate all the women in a short span of time. Whereas, a society with 100 men and 1 woman is doomed (a woman can only give birth once every 9 months, and past a certain age she becomes infertile). The men of the past understood the fact that women held a monopoly power over sexual and reproductive resources (sex being the primary motivator of men, who are the creators and destroyers of the world) so the only way to “even the playing field” was to give men monopoly power over all other resources.

Therefore, women were not allowed to work or own property, thus creating a system where a man would provide a woman with house, clothing, food etc. IN EXCHANGE for access to her sexual/reproductive resources. By giving each sex monopoly power over their respective resources, a TRANSACTION of resources was able to take place between a man and woman. This took place on a SOCIETAL SCALE, thus giving birth to what we all know as THE PATRIARCHY

The patriarchy was essential for creating social order. You see, the patriarchy was a MERITOCRATIC, where instead of 1 man (alpha) having a harem of 4 women to himself while 3 beta males missed out, every man (irregardless of genetics) had claim to a woman BY MERIT of fulfilling his role in society as a productive member, hard worker and valued contributor.

Because each and every man had a woman to themselves, women were no longer raped (as each and every man was sexually satisfied) and men no longer felt the need to kill other men in order to gain access to women.

IF WE CONSIDER SEX TO BE A RESOURCE, THE PATRIARCHY WAS NECESSARY FOR MAINTAINING PEACE AND ORDER VIA EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF SEXUAL RESOURCES, THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF "SEXUAL COMMUNISM"

But many women weren’t happy to be married to an average/below average looking man, they all wanted a chance at being with a good-looking man, even if it meant sharing him with other women (which was preferable over having an average/unattractive man to themselves), so feminism was born, a movement which would enable women to get what they truly want (genetically superior men).

The greatest mistake of the men of the past wasn’t giving women the right to education or even the right to vote, it was giving women the right to work and own property, because this meant women were no longer dependant on a man’s resources for survival, once again allowing them to revert back to their nature of having sex/reproducing with the most genetically elite men, while genetically inferior men “miss out”. SEXUAL COMMUNISM WAS ABOLISHED WHILE SEXUAL CAPITALISM WAS IMPLEMENTED IN ITS PLACE, a ‘free for all’ system which gave the upper hand to the genetically elite (the bourgeoise class) at the expense of the genetically inferior (proletariat class).

However, everything comes at a cost, in order for one group to “gain” something, another group must be at a “loss”, such is the nature of the world where resources are limited. Rape and murder were at their lowest during the patriarchy, yet ever since feminism changed the structure of society, the rates of rape and murder have once again increased as average/unattractive men who were previously sexually satiated during patriarchal times have been left sexually unsatisfied in the modern era, hence lashing out at a society which they consider to be against their personal interests.

But women only care about getting what they want, even if it comes at the cost of the greater good of society. As far as women are concerned, the current system we're living in is the perfect one and that the rise in violence in society is just "collateral damage."

High IQ post.

IT won't touch this

No, they wont, they only ever share low IQ posts from this forum onto their sub-reddit. Thats why i wish there were less low IQ posts on the forum, because the only thing low IQ posters are doing is providing IncelTears with the material they need to misrepresent the entire forum as being full of low IQ retards so that nobody takes us seriously (which means the few high IQ and knowledgeable posters here are never able to spread the blackpill to normies).

I think feminism might of had some progressive aspects to it but this aspect was aborted by the female strategy you mention is the root cause of feminism .

Women consider serving their husband and children in return for food, clothing, shelter and all their needs being accommodated for, as being "enslaved," but they don't consider being a wageslave for government and corporations (in order to accomodate those same needs) as "slavery", which makes me think that feminism was never about female empowerment but about liberating themselves from being married to those evil, unattractive men who kept women in concentration camps known as "homes", enabling them to chase Chad dick and have their fill while society foots the bill.

Women are enjoying this new system which has given them so much freedom, although its not women (but society rather) which is paying the price of increased violence and social instability.

Sri Swami Sivananda #fundie dlshq.org

Those who have no faith in God do not know what is right and what is wrong. They have lost the power of discrimination. They are untruthful, proud and egoistic. They are given to excessive greed, wrath and lust. They hoard up money by unlawful means. They become men of demoniacal nature. They commit various sorts of atrocious crimes. They have no ideals for their lives. They are thrown into demoniacal wombs. They sink into the lowest depths, deluded birth after birth.

Energy Enhancement #homophobia #magick #conspiracy #racist energiaelevada.org

Luciferian Satanic Illuminati Kabbalist Sabbatean Frankists - CULT OF THE ALL SEEING EYE

Luciferian Satanic Illuminati Kabbalist Sabbatean Frankists, also referred to as the Cult of the All-Seeing Eye are everywhere. Everywhere where there is power. Infil-traition is their modus operandi.

Jacob Frank (1726-1791), the leader of the Luciferian Satanic Illuminati Sabbatean/Frankists, proclaimed himself to be the reincarnation of Sabbatai Zevi the living Messiah.

If it is possible to have evil personified, Jacob Frank represented evil at its absolute worst. Not even Sabbatai Zevi was as evil as Frank and his disciples.

It was the Satanic Kabbalistic leadership that handpicked Jacob Frank to develop the teaching begun by Sabbatai Zevi and to indoctrinate Mayer Amschel Rothschild and Adam Weishaupt. This alliance of Frank-Rothschild-Weishaupt formed an unholy trinity.

1. THEOLOGY: Jacob Frank was in charge of creating a Satanic theology that would be the foundation for revolutions.
2. BANKING: Mayer Amschel Rothschild was in charge of world banking.
3. REVOLUTION: Illuminati Jesuit Adam Weishaupt was in charge of the Satanic revolutionary political development in the world.

Luciferian Satanic Illuminati Sabbatean/Frankists have infil-traited the upper levels of Judaism, Cathoicism, and Islam worldwide.

This same Satanic Frankist hetero or Sodomic hierogamy or Ritual Sex, existed in Pagan fertility worship and was also popular in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, which led to their downfall and eventual captivity.

Frank reworked the concept of Tzvi's Sabbatean " Messiah who sins" in encouraging adherents of the movement to engage in sin, with the logic that if salvation could be attained through holiness from sin, it could also be achieved through indulging in sinfulness.

Thus, the practices of the Frankists consist of orgiastic, sexually promiscuous rituals.

Jacob Frank taught "holiness through sin" and that "good" would come through the triumph of Evil.

What was prohibited would be allowed including adultery, incest and pedophilia.

Witchcraft and satanic rituals were introduced with animal and human sacrifices.

Jacob Frank reversed the truth. "Since we cannot all be saints, let us all be sinners."

"To ascend one must first descend. No man can climb a mountain until he has first descended to its foot. Therefore we must descend and be cast down to the bottom rung, for only then can we climb to the infinite. No region of the human soul can remain untouched by this struggle."

"I did not come into this world to lift you up but rather to cast you down to the bottom of the abyss…The descent into the abyss requires not only the rejection of all religions and conventions, but also the commission of ‘strange acts,’ and this in turn demands the voluntary abasement (degradation) of one’s own sense of self, so that libertinism (no morality) and the achievement of that state of utter shamelessness which leads to a tikkun of the soul are one and the same thing.”

Inspired by Satan, he wrote the doctrine of the Antichrist which permitted orgiastic, sexually promiscuous rites – incest, rape and sexual intercourse with children, including sodomy on young boys. Lucifer was declared the “true god”. Witchcraft and satanic rituals were introduced with animal and human sacrifices.


THE CREATION OF NEW RELIGIONS, MYTHS AND CULTS BY THE SATANISTS

Monty Python's, "Life of Brian" got it right when the reply to, "Why do you do that" is always, "It is written..."

But understand that these creations are created for both good and evil. A good man will interpret evil in the best way possible. But trauma, damage, the splitting of the mind requires much healing.

Sabbatean Frankism is an example of Satanism growing through the creation of new religions and myths.

Satanism grows through the perversion of Religions and through the creation of new Religions. After having seen them grow up. After having seen if they have legs. They are then let go, or infil-traited, funded and supported.

New religions like Protestantism, Calvinism, Mormonism with their polygamy, Pentecostals, Jehovaha's Witnesses, Children of God whose most famous stars are River and Joaquin Phoenix, and of course Sabattean Frankists are tested, and then used by the Satanists as seen fit..

In "Wise as Serpents" by Springmeier he details the Satanic creation of this new religion, the Masonic background of Jehovaha's Witnesses founder William Taze Russell and the fact that Russell is a bloodline (See, "The Thirteen Bloodlines of the Illuminati by Springmeier) of the British Russell Illuminati making their money from Drug running to Hong Kong and China, a Russell creating the Sodomic Skull and Bones Society at Yale University and having Satanist Lord Bertrand Russell amongst their alumni.

Calvin's previous name was Cohen as a Frankist Marrano Jew.

Protestants were founded as a counterveiling force against Catholicism, after the Siege of Cambrai in 1507, by the Satanic Venetians whose Drug Running, Banking and Slave trading Venetian Empire is in a direct line from the Satanic Babylonian Empire to the Drug Running, Banking and Slave trading Roman Empire. Venetian Agent Luther was under the aegis of Venetian Cardinal Contarini, who also was responsible for the founding of the Jesuits under Venetian Agent Loyola.

Christianity created by the Roman Piso Family? There are many Religions prior to Christianity which use the same Myths as Christianity. The aura of Christ is the aura of the Sun, Mithras. "Not the Spanish Inquisition!!" - Monty Python.

Another example is the creation of older religions like Judaism and Islam. When the Satanic Babylonians created Judaism and Islam they added pain in order to split the minds of the adherents at birth. The genital mutilation of babies will accomplish that sub personality split off from the normal mind at the age the trauma was performed.

Circumcision is the key to mind control. Monty Python's, "Life of Brian" got it right when the reply to, "Why do you do that" is always, "It is written..." The technology of Trauma Based mind control with the addition of drugs and hypnotism to infil-trait the trauma split minds of those who must be controlled further, later, and more completely, is a Satanic secret from before the time of Babylon - see, "The Illuminati formula to create a completely mind controlled slave" by Springmeier.

Originally Judaism was invented to create a group of hard head terrorists to protect the right flank of the Babylonian Empire. Today it is the, "Arc of Crisis" maintaining control of the petroleum riches for the British and Anglo-American Empires.

Islam was created "During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) circumcision was done for boys at the time of their Aqiqah (It's a traditional celebration for the birth of a child which involves the sacrifice of an animal in thanks to Allah.) as reported in al-Bayhaq."

Rent-a mob utilises mind split armies to follow the Arab Spring destabilising countries like, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Russia, Uighur China, after which Rockefeller (a branch of the Rothschilde family) funded NATO and UN finish them off.

The technology of Trauma Based mind control with the addition of drugs and hypnotism to infil-trait the trauma split minds of those who must be controlled further, later, and more completely, is a Satanic secret from before the time of Babylon - see, "The Illuminati formula to create a completely mind controlled slave" by Springmeier.

In my HOMOSEXUALITY IN SATANIC RITUAL AND THE PERVERSION OF BASE CHAKRA KUNDALINI AWAKENING - HOMO-OCCULTISM, FORCED PEDERASTY AND CHILD SACRIFICE I mention another common method of splitting the mind which is the sodomy of babies. Together with genital mutilation these two techniques are the most common methods of splitting the mind and creating an underlying rage which is ideal for the creation of clone armies.

However, generational dynastic families for 10,000 years have used sophisticated mind control techniques as detailed in, "The Illuminati formula to create a completely mind controlled slave" by Springmeier, in order to completely control every member of their very important families.

Using trauma, hypnotism and drugs - now there is an amazing pharmacopeia from which to choose the appropriate drug, but these drugs have been studied since Ancient Egypt - and hypnotism, the mind is split by experts - Mengele after his research in concentration camps became the worlds expert on splitting the mind by trauma; physical, emotional and mental torture - into a three dimensional matrix of Sub-personalities accessed by hypnotic codewords by the handler. The engaging front personality is controlled by the satanically evil back personality in every important function in the world..

The healing of these trauma-formed sub-personalities whose symptoms include unstoppable emotions like rage or fear and amazingly illogical gaps in the intellect are removed and healed in Energy Enhancement Level 3

Breeding for psychopathic intelligence is the trick which allowed Europe to outbreed the harem breeding tactics of the Ottoman Empire and Genghis Khan. 20% of Mongolia now has Genghis Khan genes from his harem of 700 wives. The Ottomans highly educated their many harem sons then chose the most intelligent to rule.

However inbreeding creates idiots and a few incredibly intelligent psychopathic monsters.

When the Darwins, Galtons, Wedgewoods and Huxleys decided only to breed within their own families they did create a few cretins as all inbreeding does, but they also created psychopathic genius.

The Satanic Eugenics of Hitler was created by Galton and Darwin then funded by the Rockefellers. Later it was continued by Sir Julian Huxley at the UN where he obfuscated the name of Eugenics into Family Planning and Transhumanism. Aldous Huxley helped with the MI6 operation to corrupt America with the introduction of illegal drugs there as a prior attack before further destabilisation, and as part of the one trillion dollars per year international drug trade, however using conversations with his brother, Sir Julian, he completely exposed the Eugenic plan for the world in, "Brave New World", a vision of the future of totalitarian control he considered superior to Orwells, "1984".

The genealogies of all Elite Families Europe are completely known as much as are as are the great horses, and they are all completely inbred.

Illuminati Watchdog #conspiracy illuminatiwatchdog.blogspot.com

Five Reasons Why Cracked.com Is Filled with Liars!
The American humor website, Cracked.com, makes a mint off of its low-brow mockery of all things it can grasp whether it's video games or B-movies. Very little can escape the simian intellects of its vile writers. Until now, we here at IW have taken little notice of this site's depraved content, but that has recently changed. Cracked.com published an article that states those of us who promote conspiracy theories are "destroying the world".

This is not the first time that the humor site has denigrated those who stand for the truth. Its writers have frequently made fun of anyone who believes in the Illuminati, the truth behind 9/11, and the moon landing hoax. However, this latest article has sparked more outrage on our side than anything previously seen, so much to the point where we feel that a rebuttal is necessary.

"5 Reasons Conspiracy Theories Are Destroying the World" is based on multiple fallacies and Illuminati lies. The first "reason" concerns the amount of knowledge available to us via the internet. The writers assert that more knowledge leads to more theories and thus more ignorance. That cannot be further from the truth. Knowledge is power and will always be so. Only those who want to help usher in the NWO would promote such anti-intellectualism.

The second one is possibly one of the most vicious, and that's the one accusing truth seekers (anti-vaccination advocates) of killing people with our perspectives. We had a hard time stomaching just how low Cracked went on that one. Do not trust the stats on that website. They are most likely manipulated. Besides, there is a preponderance of evidence that America over-vaccinates its children. If you don't believe us, just check how many shots other developed countries recommend in comparison to the U.S. We'll save you the time and give you the answer, it's a lot less.

The remaining garbage items on Cracked's list don't even come close to holding water. The third one indicating that conspiracy theories are a big business is rubbish. Most people who do their homework on pundits such as Alex Jones and Glenn Beck realize that they're just pieces of the Illuminati's gigantic puzzle. And as far as "bringing out the worst in people" (#4) goes, that bit is just poorly connected anecdotes that lack any real numbers.

The fifth and final item that accuses us of making it "impossible to fix the real problems" is way off the mark. For starters, WE ARE TRYING TO FIX THE REAL PROBLEMS!!! The hidden forces that control our world is the most pressing issue, and we are doing everything we can to raise awareness to stop it. How dare Cracked try to insinuate otherwise.

These people who try to debunk us fail miserably. The only ones they convince are those already brainwashed. That's because we do base our findings on evidence, we do consider all possibilities, and we do subject our findings to scrutiny. If you still don't believe, just take an objective look at the state of the world. It's rapidly becoming a morally bankrupt cesspool all set for the beast to take over.

If you're interested in seeing the original Cracked article, here's the link. http://www.cracked.com/article_21341_5-ways-every-conspiracy-theory-makes-world-worse_p2.html

Council of Conservative Citizens #fundie conservative-headlines.org

[From "If The South Had Won"]

Like Hank Williams fantasized in his famous song, it’s fun to speculate about what America might be like if history had taken a correct turn, and the South had won the War Against Yankee Aggression and then seceded.

Two Jew-boys who produced the Game of Thrones are allegedly planning a new cable series on HBO, to be titled “Confederate.” It is rumored their new series will speculate about what America would be like if the South had successfully seceded from the Union, and slavery were still legal. Clearly, their “speculations” will be very different from my own, which follow…

First of all, if the good guys had won, there would be no holiday celebrating Martin Luther King, and King’s FBI Files would have been released and not redacted in any manner. The truth about this disgusting communist and pervert would finally penetrate even the skulls of the ghetto-dwellers, race-hustlers and frauds that routinely invoke his name.

Instead, America would have established real holidays to celebrate our true National Heroes, such as George Washington, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest, George Patton and Ronald Reagan. All those arbitrary three-day weekends created by Congress would end: Holidays would be celebrated only on the birthdays of these genuine, American heroes.

Taxation would be used exclusively to fund a Public Purpose: Use of the Taxing Powers as a means to achieve transfers of wealth would be unconstitutional, a restriction that would apply to Foreign Aid, as well.

Welfare would have become a true “safety net” and not a way of life. There would be semi-annual drug-testing of all welfare “Heads of Households,” and a positive test result for any illegal substance would be sufficient to permanently remove these scammers from the welfare rolls.

Furthermore, those who apply for welfare benefits would be eligible only once, and annual benefits would decline by 20% each year for five years, until they ceased altogether. (After five years, “If you breed ‘em, YOU FEED ‘EM!”)

Once again, America would have become an avowedly Christian Nation: Moreover, anyone running for public office or appointed to public office would be required to give a detailed description of the churches they attended and the years they attended them. These would substitute for the detailed financial disclosure statements usually required.

Using its powers under Article 3, Section 2, Congress would have removed Federal Court jurisdiction over school assignment cases, Congressional and state redistricting, and any other alleged inequities involving race, ethnic identity or gender.

Likewise, any member of the Federal Jewdiciary who attempted to create law — rather than merely apply the law — would be subject to summary removal from office by the President, or impeachment by a 51% vote of Congress. This would become our 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

Mapp v. Ohio, Escobido v. The United States, Brown v. Board and any Congressional Redistricting cases would all be considered “judge-made” law, since each is a blatant attempt by federal judges to usurp the functions of Congress and all state legislatures by writing “codes of conduct” for them. They also perpetuate the lie that federal judges are less biased or “political” than members of a deliberative body.

Anyone engaging in voter fraud would face a mandatory sentence of three years and a fine of $1,000 on each count. Those found obstructing justice in such cases would serve the same sentences as those convicted, and in the same penal institutions.

Term Limits for Congressional office-holders would not only be Constitutional, they would become the 29th Amendment to the Constitution. Also, any member of a state’s Congressional Delegation could be Recalled by a 55% majority of voters at any properly scheduled election.

A petition by any citizen with evidence of a pattern of “fake news,” lying, or disinformation by any electronic news media outlet would be sufficient to compel the FCC to investigate such allegations. If found to be true, revocation of that offender’s FCC License would be mandatory.

Any law enacted by Congress would have a five-year “Sunset Provision,” requiring that it be re-enacted by a Majority of both Houses of Congress and signed into law by the President every five years of its existence. Failure to re-enact would constitute automatic repeal.

There would be no Department of Education, no Labor Department, and no Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EPA would be staffed with scientists, not radical environmentalists, and they would have no authority beyond making recommendations to Congress.

America would have become a sanctuary to white people, so long as they pledged allegiance to democratic and Republican principles in the Constitution, and were financially self-sufficient. Those who betrayed their Oath of Allegiance — like the Jewish communists who emigrated here from Europe in the first half of the 20th Century — would be hastily deported to some far corner of the globe, preferably one populated by cannibals or head-hunters.

Immigrants who have gone without employment for two years would be deported to their nations of origin, along with their families, pets, friends and associates. (Just kidding…)

Those who interfere with immigration authorities in any manner would become subject to deportation, as well. This would apply equally to clergy or political authorities that defy immigration laws and harbor illegal immigrants, particularly those who attempt to create “sanctuaries” for them.

Illegal immigrants would be subject to asset forfeiture by the states in which they reside. Return of such assets would be exclusively at the discretion of the individual states involved, and done so only after all debts and penalties against them have been assessed. The residual could be refunded to them in their new nations of residence.

Finally, Capital Punishment would be used to a far greater extent for First Degree Murder and crimes that involve significant amounts of violence or murderous intentions. Each capital case would be allowed one Habeas Corpus appeal to the Supreme Court: If rejected, only a commutation by the state’s Governor could stop a scheduled execution.

This would mean an end to absurdly long and frivolous appeals in capital cases, some of which have taken 30 years to effectuate.

dailyantifeminist #sexist dailyantifeminist.wordpress.com

One of the points that I believe should be constantly repeated — both because it’s true and because it’s a strong “talking point” for our propaganda — is that all men, universally, find women who show signs of puberty to be sexually attractive.

Furthermore, I think that, having become pubescent, women enter the phase in their lives when their sexual allure is at its strongest. And one of the reasons many men today fail to realize it is because the media, in its “entertainment” branch, keeps showing us older women (women in their twenties and thirties) rather than teenagers. Because teenagers are rarely shown by the modern entertainment establishment as valid, legitimate ‘sex objects’, i.e.: “look at her, this teenage chick is very hot, you should find her attractive,” it can be said that we are actively being programmed to find older women attractive rather than younger women.

For the past several decades, teenagers have been consistently de-sexualized by the entertainment business, while women in their twenties and thirties are presented as “the” most appealing sexual entities. It is no surprise that teenage sex and teenage pregnancy are falling down rapidly. This de-sexualization campaign is happening all at once, coming from all directions: the schools, the political establishment, the entertainment business – everywhere you look, teenage sexuality is being suppressed.

There is nothing natural about this state of affairs. If you look at paintings from the 19th century and early 20th century, you can see that sexy teenagers had been depicted all over by the painters. I’d say that the artists preferred their works to show teenagers rather than older women. They realized the immense appeal of teenage beauty, and they certainly weren’t trying to “program” their audiences to mentally respond in certain ways contrary to their inborn nature, as the modern entertainers are doing, consciously or not.

I sound like a goofball when I write about “lizard brain versus mammal brain,” but this is a crucial concept, and Heartiste — a genius — recognizes it as such. Basically, there is an older part of our brains that controls our instincts, such as the FFF (Fight, Flight, Freeze), and yes – our sexual responses. This evolutionarily older brain doesn’t give a damn about ideology or some such; it is purely animalistic. And it ought to be said, again and again, that if you’re a heterosexual male, your lizard brain is telling you that teenage females are sexually attractive. It is universal, plain and simple.

This may or may not be in contrast to your mammalian brain, which controls social behavior. If you, a heterosexual male, are opposed to teenage sexuality, and wish to see it denied and eliminated, it is because your mammalian brain is telling you that this is how you should feel. Don’t get me wrong: the manmal brain, albeit new in terms of evolution, is mighty strong. It can actually convince you, firmly, that you don’t find teens sexy at all. (If you’re into HBD, that is Human Bio-Diversity, you can argue that among certain human races, there’s an especially strong disconnect between the lizard brain and the mammal brain)

This lizard brain (hindbrain) vs. mammalian brain (forebrain) notion is important, because it helps us understand why people act against their own nature. Simply put, they ignore those older parts of their brain telling them: “this female is fertile so you should impregnate her,” and instead listen to the newer parts of their brain, which may tell them: “you are a bad person if you’re attracted to teens.” And as I said, your mammalian brain can literally play a trick on you, using various emotions, to believe that you don’t find teenagers sexy, even though “deep inside” you do find them sexy.

The entertainment establishment is working non-stop to pit your mammal brain against your lizard brain, brainwashing you to think that only women above 16 or 18 or 20 or 25 are attractive. In your ‘guts’, you’re a hebephile/ephebophile just like me. This is the reality, like it or not.

As I write down my thoughts, I am 23 years old. And, being someone who is very aware of his own inner feelings, I can tell you this: the impression left on my mind by the horny chicks from my elementary school (around age 12) and from middle school (ages 12 to 15) is the strongest of all. Yes, I find women in their late teens or early tweens attractive. Of course. Yet, in my fantasies, I often encounter those lustful teenagers from the past, girls that were either sexually active back then, or at the very least exhibited clear signs of being very horny. A whole decade has passed since then, yet I still see those exact slutty girls in my imagination.

My mind is strong enough to resist media brainwashing; my lizard brain is fierce; and my memory is well-functioning. All these factors combined make it so that the impressions I had from those teenage sluts may never vanish. I sometimes imagine a parallel reality, in which I was married at the age of 12, to a girl of the same age, and grown up having sex with her the whole time. In my case, that shall forever be but a figment of my imagination; but I wish that one day, such things will again become normal. Maybe under a new world order, maybe under Islam – I don’t know.

And as I keep saying, imagination is still legal.

Reddit_is_for_cucks #sexist #wingnut #psycho incels.co

[JFL] If you allow yourself to get drafted in ww3 you are a cuck. Dont Fight for the rights of these whores to fuck as many chads they want

When it comes time for war, it’s the time to go ER on as many girls as possible.

fucking fighting for a country where no girl liked you where there whoredom is displayed all over the TV. “Just sacrifice your life so whores back in country can fuck chad”.
I say fuck this country. Let these whores be captured and raped and decapiated Isis style.

It makes sense for chad to go to war so he can fight for his life style of fucking his harem of girls.
He is the one enjoying life so he should go fight.

If you are normie you can fight for your roastie wife but don’t expect her to stay loyal to you once you come back with both legs blown off. She will be fucking different guys anyways while normie is drafted.

If you are a incel these are your options

1. Go ER on as many as rosties as possible
2. Sui (coward)
3. Join military and snipe chads in your team. Fuck chad he had enough sex already. If every guy does option 3 and kills alll the chads then when the war is over, rosties will have to fuck the returning sub8s. But even that’s not guarantee, since rosties would rather get raped by opposition chads then fuck the returning sub8s.

Here is the argument I heard.

If all Guys get drafted then the returning men will get to enjoy the buffet of women back home. Jfl. When you come back rosties nature will not change they will still fuck chads but this time there will be less chad so each chad will have a bigger harem.

average sub8 would still be a incel upon return

Incel Paradox Award

"Females are whores because they won't fuck just anybody"

SaintElliot #fundie reddit.com

Even if we escape inceldom we will be cucks unless we become uber chads

This post aims at answering all the questions there is like:

Why is female nature evil on default?

Why are all females whores?

Why are all normies cucks and delusional?

Why self-improvement isn't worth it if we can't become uber chad?

What is the best endgame for incels?

16-year-old fat girls have had over 10 sex partners. Females in this day and age are now starting to have sex at ages as early as 12. There can never be any female incels. You can't compare male and female sexuality. Females will most of the time lie about their sex partners or find a beta cuck that will accept this bullshit. No matter what they say to you. Your future wife or LTR will have had 20-50 cocks inside her. Every female can get chad in this day and age while we incels can't get shit. This is an injustice and a travesty. You could spend your entire life doing the self-improvement normie meme getting legit surgeries or even be born an 8/10. It won't matter anyway unless you are uber chad she will have had more partners than you. Unless you are uber chad like the top 0.01% you will get cucked either way. We have to do all that self-improvement stuff to get a chance at a long term GF or wife and to be cucked. Why is it like that? Why do men don't have that many partners but females do? Simple because the 80/20 rule is true. 80% of females share 20% of chads and give the pathetic normie beta cucks a bit of sex so the system and their monopoly keeps working.

Females hit the wall from age 30-40 they then will come to you to beta provide for them and marry them. It's gonna happen all you have to do is stay alive for the next 12-20 years and you will see. The worst part is she will be less attractive, and fertile and expire at light speed right each year till about age 50 when she hits menopause.

Females divorce out of anger because the chad they fucked in high school or in college never married them. So they will look for a bluepilled beta cuck and beta provider. The bluepilled moron is a guy she was friends with in her prime in highschool or college or she grew up with but never dated or fucked because she never liked him sexually. She will say why we never dated back then and all that female manipulation stuff that comes so easily to them due to their evil nature. Then she will give out low-quality blowjobs and sex. They will marry and have kids, she will take out her frustration out on him for not being chad, starting arguments, with-holding sex, making more demands. Even cheating on him adding to the cucking. They will divorce and she will get the kids the house and part of the pension, maybe even alimony. Evil female nature at work again. Society has been manipulated in their favor they can get away with all of it and they will be rewarded for it. You guys can thank feminism for that.

The best part is you will hate yourself, for only being able to fuck females and have options when they are past their prime. That time in highschool or college when she was in class smiling or giggling it was chad she was texting. The reason females don't make these demands is because chad is in demand. If she starts asking for commitment. Chad might decide to, choose another girl who will join his harem. So these girls, don't wanna lose out on the good sex, along with a short-term exciting relationship. Notice in their peak years of 11-16 girls aren't demanding chads give them commitment. If you do end up with post-wall female just fuck and leave them. Just don't marry them or have LTR's with them. If you do you are a cuck and they win.

That's, why post wall females biggest complaint, is men not wanting to marry and cheating. The true reason for this is that chads know the truth deep down and aren't as moronic as the bluepilled hordes of normie idots. Ex-chads know the truth deep down.

What do you guys think prime whores do at this very moment? Most likely they are:

Texting different Chads.

Sucking the cock of some Chad.

Getting pounded by some Chad.

Being in the gym doing fitness-work drooling at Chad's.

Being drunk flirting with Chad.

Getting gangbanged by Chads.

Checking her Tinder for new Chads.

Other online dating searching for more Chads.

Eating meatballs and potatoes and phoning with Chad.

And this has gone on since she was 12 every single fucking day over and over and over again.

Meanwhile, at any point during the day you are:

LDAR'ing

Thinking of ways to kill yourself

Even if you come to terms with being a cuck. She won't even love you or enjoy sleeping with you. You can't compare female and male sex. Females only want Chad, so yeah the 5/10 female had sex with 50 guys. but only 5 times she enjoyed it. Which makes it pretty even to a regular 5/10 guy, because he probably has a 100% enjoyment quote when getting laid. This is why finding a wife or LTR is pointless. She won't even enjoy having sex with you not that it matters. She will always think of chad.

All females are such big whores that the regular normie would most likely kill himself if he learned the truth. This is where their coping delusional explanation comes from: Only a few girls are whores like that. These are mental mechanisms that protect their already lackluster sanity. This is why normies and females feel so threatened by incel ideology. Normies feel threatened by anything that goes against their worldview/ideology to protect themselves and females are threatened by it because they are afraid they will be exposed. Only a moron would get married in this day and age since all females are whores. Rape is better than becoming a cuck like all the normie men are destined to.

Now guys listen to me closely. Never marry any female ever. Don't get them pregnant don't have an LTR with them. It is not worth jumping all the hoops and self-improving just to be cucked. Just get a virginal wife abroad. This is the best option for incels. /u/fschmidt was right. He was right all along. About modern society and that even if we succeed at it that we will be just as bad as the normies. Even if we succeed we will be cucks.

Doing anything else like settling with a post prime female while she is in decline beauty, youth and fertility wise is beyond moronic. Something she gave away at almost no cost to men she really liked. The only reason she wants marriage from you is because she is getting less attractive and the quality of men courting her gets less in quality and quantity. If she wanted marriage she would have gotten it. If she tried hard enough she could have found a chad to commit during her prime. Not when she is post wall. Normies invest into a declining prospect, when other men got her during her prime years. Females never asked those men for much resources or commitment. But here we have a post wall females making more demands when she has less value. During those peak years she never made those demands to the chads she truly wanted.

I hate every human with a vagina with the very core of my being.

Julie Earth Angel Walker Longhill #fundie manataka.org


Imagine you are a child growing up in a prominent white family on a plantation in colonial America. One day you go into town with your parents and they say "we need to buy us some slaves ". At the auction block, dark-skinned people are lined up with metal collars around their necks and shackles on their hands and feet.

Some have been transported in large cages; their humiliation and hopelessness are palpable. Imagine that your young heart is broken when you witness these atrocities. Something inside you screams "This is not right!". Your family and society however, act as if this is normal. You soon learn the underlying message "conform or be destroyed ". It must have been very lonely for those people who grew up with human slavery, (knowing in their hearts that it was wrong).

Imagine you are a child growing up in an average family in modern America.

One day you go into town with your parents and they say "we need to buy us a pet". You enter what is called a "pet store", where all kinds of animals ( in cages and aquariums) are for sale. One of the clerks slips a metal choke collar on a puppy, hands the leash to a young couple, and they walk out. You feel the humiliation and hopelessness of the captive animals. Imagine that your young heart is broken when you witness these atrocities. Something inside you screams " THIS IS NOT RIGHT "! Your family and society however, act as if this is normal. You soon learn the underlying message "conform or be destroyed". It is very lonely for those people who grow up with animal slavery, (knowing in their hearts that it is wrong).

I grew up in the suburbs of America in the 1960's and '70's. We were taught that humans have a right to keep some animals captive, and we call these "pets". Our family owned many pets over the years: cats, dogs, mice, horses, turtles, fish, birds, hamsters, and even a raccoon. Most of these animals were kept in cages except for the dogs, cats, and horses. I truly loved our pets and a part of me felt their loneliness on some deep level even though I could not put it into words.

I remember when we bought our collie puppy and first brought her home. I stayed beside her many nights as she cried and cried. Only recently have I fully realized that she was taken away from her mother and siblings, and forced to live with our family. I secretly celebrated when she slipped out of her collar and got free, which happened a lot. I remember pony rides for children. I loved having the chance to be around them, but the ponies were sad and bored. As a teenager I went to a fancy horse show where they pranced around doing tricks for their riders. At the end of the show they let the horses run free in the rink for ten minutes. They were so alive and happy; it was my favorite part!

I had a pet cat (who had been rescued as a kitten) when I was a young adult. She was sometimes my only friend and companion. Like many Americans, I was a wounded and isolated soul needing compassion and love, but finding it hard to connect with other people. I began to heal, and my self-awareness increased along with the awareness of society's wounds. I allowed myself to feel, and in "feeling" my compassion for other Beings grew. When my cat was young, I had her spayed and de-clawed. Much later I began to grieve this decision; feeling terrible for taking away her ability to defend herself and to climb trees I asked my cat for forgiveness as I shed many tears. Through my process of personal growth I discovered a connection between repression of our emotions and how we treat and interact with people and animals. Two weeks after my cat died of old age I had a dream; her Spirit was free and she was climbing a tree!

It has taken many years for me to openly question and confront the common American practice of owning animals as "pets". I too have been brainwashed by this culture, like so many others. When I am honest, my heart has been telling me all along that "something is wrong, very wrong!" Animals' basic rights are being violated daily by millions of Americans, and it is perfectly legal and condoned.

We hold them prisoners, and call them "pets". We separate them from their own species, families, and from the Earth, to provide companionship and entertainment for our children. Cats, dogs, and horses are now routinely sterilized which causes them to be more docile (and easier to tame). Many animals, (as pets), are treated like property; they are bought and sold, bred for pet shows, their wings are clipped, their tails are docked, they are chained up and exploited. We cause great suffering to other creatures, and in the end we suffer too.

But there is hope. Human slavery was once legal , condoned, and widely practiced in America. A few brave individuals spoke out against this injustice and a war was fought over this moral issue. The ideal of "liberty and justice for all" prevailed, and we are a better people and country because of it.

It is time NOW to expand this ideal of "liberty and justice" to include All Our Relations. As we release our hearts from the shackles of human repression, we are free to liberate animals from human oppression.

Together we can live in harmony again on Mother Earth, respecting the natural ways as the Creator intended.

Incel Wiki #wingnut incels.wiki

Galting is a by-product of non-altruist and Beta Upriser thoughts which leads those on the inceldom spectrum to believe that they should financially punish bluepilled normies of society for its apathy towards inceldom. This is done by contributing as little tax as possible, through either the off-gridder lifestyle, by refusing to betabux or other similar lifestyle choices wherein taxation is minimal. It is a form of protest characterized by economical subversion of society, such as participating in brain drain, refusing to invest within society, divestment from pro-feminist companies and boycottage of bluepilled brands.

It is a Gandhistic variation of the Beta Uprising.

Mike King #sexist tomatobubble.com

In this mad, mad, mad Marxist world of ours, leave it to Sulzberger's Slimes, in the immediate aftermath of the murder of a New York City female police officer, to praise the "progress" that has been made with regards to the hiring and promoting of female police officers.

From the article:

"And across the nation, women have pushed their way into policing’s most demanding jobs. To them, Officer Familia’s death was seen as a grim signifier of their growing front-line roles."

There are now 6,394 female officers on a force of just over 36,000 in dangerous New York City. That's almost 18%. The percentages in other cities that are even more dangerous are about the same and growing -- with more and more of them being killed "in the line of duty" every year. This is all part of the "progress" that "women's liberation" has brought to today's miserable, manified, modern woman. Thusly "liberated" from the "yoke" of marriage and traditional family life, the loony ladies now get to dress up in blue, carry a gun, chase bad guys through dark alleys, and then get killed -- often with their own gun.

A blast from the past, from the article, about a hyped-up event which your New York metro-area high-school aged reporter here remembers very well:

"In the early 1980s, the New York City subways were forbidding, with robbers lurking in graffiti-covered cars. Very few women were on patrol, but Officer Irma Lozada took one of the most dangerous jobs: She hid her badge and draped fake gold chains around her neck, courting robbers to come after her in some of the most desperate parts of Brooklyn.

It was on one of these plainclothes assignments in 1984 when something went terribly wrong: Officer Lozada chased a suspect, got separated from her partner and was killed after the suspect wrested her service revolver from her and shot her twice."

She became the first female officer killed in New York City history. So jolted was the police force by her death that, in the aftermath, some officers spoke of women being better off reassigned to office jobs, several people recalled."

Yes indeed, you've come a long way, baby!" How's it workin' out for ya?

In a healthy pre-Marxist society, dead officerettes Irma Lozada and Miosotis Familia would have been home cooking dinner for their husbands and checking the kids' homework.

As it was with the mentally sick reaction to the death of Officerette Lozada then, so it is again today with Officerette Familia, who was shot and killed execution-style by an admitted cop-hater, just last week. Rather than reassess this abominable practice of sending women off to fight criminals and enemy soldiers, the unisex Marxists act as if it's part of the normal course of business and continue to praise the "progress" that these misguided police-gals and Marine-ettes are making.

The societal perverison of cultural Marxism / libtardism offers oppression to women, not "liberation." How much happier, safer, and alive would Ms. Lozada and Ms. Familia had been if they were stay-at-home wives and mothers. Of course, given how the corresponding economic hands of Marxist taxation & the Fed's debt-currency racket make it increasingly impossible for a woman to stay home -- because a huge chunk of her husband's earnings (if she even has a husband), are taxed and inflated away -- these ladies are often forced to work. How hypocritically ironic it is that the Left condemns the Taliban for banning women from the workforce, as we here in the oh-so-enlightened West essentially, through economic policies, ban women from becoming traditional housewives!

Even when faced with the horrible murders and ghastly battlefield casualties of the fairer sex, very few of today's "men," especially those in the public realm, will dare to question the perverse policy of depriving strong men from 18% of police jobs just so that mostly infertile women can take them, and get killed. Chivalry truly is dead -- as is sanity!

The Great One (that's Hitler for you all newbies and normies) had a few observations on this matter. And his truth, no matter how out-of-fashion it may seem to the modern libtard, will always be the truth. Tell it Great One, tell it:

"If I think to myself that a woman should make an appearance at a trial, then I have to say: if that were a woman close to me, and if I wanted to imagine my mother were still alive and has to sit in front of a murderer in a court and decide the verdict,... never, never! We don't want that.

I do not want a uniformed female police officer to walk around and run after scamps or criminals. These are things we naturally don't want. Then they say, 'Excuse me, you don't allow women in the parliament as well.' Certainly, but only because I am satisfied that the parliament does not raise the value of women, but it would only degrade her. I also removed the men from parliament because they were all rotten. (Reichstag laughter)

Then they say, "Why not put some good women into parliament." Because they would turn rotten too. (more laughter)

...

A women's regiment of snipers is being trained in the Soviet Union... grenadiers in Spain (pre-Franco). All I can say about this type of female equality -- I have experienced war. I know how hard it is. I know how many men’s nerves have been shattered by war. I have often seen them return by the dozens, doddering, completely ruined and broken. The idea that a girl or woman should take this upon herself --- I could have no respect for German men then. As long as we have a healthy male gender in Germany, no female sharpshooters or grenadiers will be trained in Germany. That is no equality, but rather, inferior rights for women because it is much harder for her than men. We won’t do it – because for us, the woman has been the most faithful work and life companion of the man at all times."

Hitler: "The catchword “Women’s Liberation” is merely a phrase invented by the Jewish intellect, and its contents are marked by the same spirit. The German woman will never need to emancipate herself in an age supportive of German life. She possessed what Nature gave her automatically as an asset to maintain and preserve; just as the man, in such an age, never had to fear that he would be ousted from his position in respect to woman."

No wonder why women loved Him so. The Great One cherished and protected them from the "progress" that Jewish-Marxist "liberation" offered them.

Boobus Americanus 1: It' a shame what happened to that female police officer.

Boobus Americanus 2: Indeed. Unfortunately, such tragedies are the price for the tremendous progress that women in law enforcement are making.

Sugar: "Progress, my asss, Bobusss!! Thesse deluded dames sshould have sstayed home and raissed a litter -- like I did!

Editor: How come your kitty children never call you? The bastards.

Triweekly Antifeminist #fundie triweeklyantifeminist.wordpress.com

The esteemed commentator Chinzork wrote:

For one of the first posts on this blog, I think you should debunk all of the common talking points against abolishing the AOC. The talking points get repetitive after a while, so an article debunking all of them sounds good.

Alright then, you got it. Herein is a compilation of the 15 most popular Blue Knight arguments, each argument followed by a thorough dissection thereof.

#1: Teenagers only become sexually mature after completing puberty around 16.

This is a wholly metaphysical proposition; a statement of belief. The Blue Knight starts out from the premise that a “completion of puberty” is a prerequisite for this nebulous state known as “sexual maturity,” then makes the circular argument that, because a 13-year-old has not yet completed puberty, he or she are thus sexually immature. “Sexual maturity” is an altogether arbitrary concept, and there isn’t any way to measure it or test it.

The Blue Knight makes it seem like he or she has objectively examined the issue and reached the conclusion that the age of “sexual maturity” just so happens to start when puberty is over; but there has not actually been any such objective examination of the issue – it simply has been assumed (axiomatically) that this is the case, and the whole “argument” proceeds from this unproven, arbitrary, and essentially metaphysical assumption.

The Blue Knight argument posits that 1) without “sexual maturity” sex is harmful and as such should be illegal; 2) a full completion of puberty is a prerequisite for “sexual maturity.” You may well give the following counter-argument, accepting — for the sake of discussion — the former premise, while rejecting the latter, and say thus: “children become sexually mature after completing adrenarche around the age of 9.”

Fundamentally, however, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that a “sexually immature” person is necessarily harmed (or victimized) by sexual relations merely due to being, according to whatever arbitrary definitions one uses, a “sexually immature” person. I suspect that, as a matter of fact, “sexually immature” people often enjoy sex and benefit from it even more than the so-called “sexually mature” folks. And again, the very distinction between “mature” and “immature” is altogether metaphysical in this regard, like the distinction between “pure” and “impure” or “holy” and “unholy.” It is hocus pocus; theology not-so-cleverly disguised as biology.

According to Blue Knight “morality,” an extremely fertile 15-year-old female should be prevented from sex (because “sexually immature”), while a 55-year-old female who has no ovaries left should be free do get fucked however she likes. It is very clear that such a “morality” is really an anti-morality; it is against what is biologically natural, it is against human nature specifically, it is degenerate, and it is detrimental to the interests of civilization and the TFR.

#2: The Age of Consent protects young people from doing things (sex) which they don’t really want to do.

I have seen no evidence that young people “do not really want” to have sex. On the contrary, I have seen, and keep seeing, that young people greatly desire to engage in sexual activities. That is why they engage in them. If 11-year-old Lucy is a horny little slut who enjoys giving blowjobs to all the boys in the neighborhood (many such cases), the Age of Consent does not protect her from something which she is reluctant about doing; it prevents her — by deterring men from approaching her — from doing something which she does in fact desire to do.

The Age of Consent is simply not needed. Think for a moment about young people. Do you not realize that they are just as eccentric, and can be just as wild, as older people? Why is it that when a 19-year-old chick randomly decides to have an orgy with 3 classmates after school, that is okay; but when a 12-year-old chick likewise randomly decides to do just that, oh noes, she is a “victim” of a horrible crime? We accept that each person is unique, independently of age; and we realize that there are children –not to mention young adults — who are very much into X while others are very much into Y. Why, then, should it be so “shocking” when it turns out that some children, and plenty of young teenagers, are very much into sex? Being interested in sex is arguably one of the most natural things there are, on par with being interested in food; certainly it is more natural than being interested in physics and chemistry and mathematics, right? If we accept the existence of child prodigies, children who are naturally driven to pursue all kinds of weird and special callings, why can’t we accept that there are indeed lots of children who pursue the very natural thing which is called “sex”?

Young teenagers have extremely high sex-drives, and the idea that they “do not really want sex” is contradicted every single moment. This is all the more remarkable given that we are living in a puritanical, prudish, sex-hostile, joy-killing, pedo-hysterical, infantilizing society; yet teenagers manage to overcome this intense anti-natural social programming, and do what nature commands them to do. “Child innocence” is a self-perpetuating myth, which society shoves down the throats of everyone all the time since age 0, and then uses this self-perpetuating myth which has been forcefully injected into society’s bloodstream to argue that “oh gee, young people just don’t really want to have sex.”

The entire entertainment establishment is concomitantly brainwashing children to remain in a state of arrested development aka infantilization, while conditioning the consumers of this “entertainment” to only find old women attractive. That’s one reason why I believe that we must create Male Sexualist aesthetics – we must reverse the brainwashing done to us by the entertainment complex. The television box is deliberately hiding from you the beauty and the passion of young teenage women, and is actively engineering your mind to only find older women attractive. And yet, despite there being a conspiracy by the entire society to stifle young sexuality, young sexuality lives on and thrives. Well, not really “thrives” — young sex is in decline, which conservative total dipshits blame on pornography rather than pointing the finger at themselves for propagating a climate that is extremely hostile to young sexuality — but it still goes on, to the consternation of all Puritans and Feminists everywhere.

Blue Knights claim that young teenagers are “peer-pressured into sex.” This assumes that your average teenager is asexual or close to being asexual, and thus would only engage in sexual activities if manipulated into it by his or her environment. The reality, meanwhile, is that those 12-year-old sluts who have orgies after school time (or during school time) are often as horny as a 16-year-old male. They are not being pressured into sex – they are being sexually restrained by a society that is terrified of young sexuality.

#3: Young people who have sex grow up to regret it.

First of all, when the whole of society is determined to portray young sex as a horrid thing, it is no wonder that people — especially women, who possess a herd mentality — arrive at the conclusion that they’ve been harmed by it. If young sexuality were presented in a positive light by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, people would be more inclined to remember it fondly than regretfully.

The second thing is that it doesn’t even matter. People feel regret about doing all kinds of things – so what? Does that mean that for each and every case of such “regret,” society needs to go on a witch-hunt for “victimizers” in order to inflict punishments upon them? It’s time to grow the fuck up and accept the fact that people sometimes do things which later on they regret doing, and that this is an integral part of life, and that the state has no business protecting the civilians from “bad feelings.” That’s literally what this Blue Knight argument boils down to – “the state should punish men because women experience negative feelings due to their own behavior.” No, women should learn to deal with their bad fee-fees without demanding the state to find “abusers” to penalize. We are living in a totalitarian emotocracy (rule by emotions) and I’m sick of it.

Also: what is the difference between feeling regret about fucking at 13 and feeling regret about fucking at 17? Women generally feel bad about promiscuous sex (hence the phenomenon of “regret rape” false accusations), and they feel it at the age of 21 as much as at the age of 11; actually, older women may be even more regretful than young ones about sexual activity, because they’v been longer exposed to Puritan-Feminist brainwashing, and because their biological clock ticks much faster. So, according to the victimization-based morality of Blue Knights, men who sleep with 23-year-olds should also be punished. Again, the Blue Knights want men imprisoned solely due to some vague negative fee-fees felt by some women. This is emotocracy in action. No wonder that testosterone and sperm counts are in sharp decline – society is ruled by catladies, and is structured according to catlady morality.

The state simply should not protect people from the consequences of their own behavior – and here “protect” means “punish men,” and “consequences” means “vague negative fee-fees.” Our society is severely infantilized by the victimization-based morality, and infantilization is degenerate.

#4: Young sexual activity is correlated with many bad things.

That may or may not be so, but what are the implications? Generally, people who are natural risk-takers will do all kinds of things, some of which may be positive, others negative, and still others just neutral. The conservadaddy making the “correlated with bad things” argument implies that punishing men (and women) for young sex would somehow reduce those negative things supposedly correlated with young sex. That, of course, is bullshit. If a risk-taking 12-year-old decides to have an orgy with her classmates, she will remain just as much of a risk-taker whether or not her classmates or other people are punished. Depriving her of the opportunity to take “sexual risks” won’t diminish whatever other risk-taking behaviors she is prone to.

The thing about Blue Knight arguments is that they aren’t arguments at all. There is no logic in stating “young sex is correlated with X, and X is bad” and then using that to support the criminalization of young sex. This is the same logic used by pedagogues to justify pedagoguery, only in reverse: the pedagogues argue that education is correlated with intelligence (as measured by IQ tests), then use that claim to imply that education makes people smarter, and therefore everyone should undergo education. This is a wholly fallacious argument. At the risk of sounding like a spergtastic redditor goon – correlation does not imply causation. The Blue Knight argument is not an argument at all. It’s plainly illogical.

By the way, I’d say that there are plenty of negative things correlated with young sexlessness – such as growing up to be a school shooter, for instance. You’ll never hear Blue Knights discussing that.

#5: Some Statutory Rape legislation allows teenagers to have sex among themselves, and only prohibits older people from predating upon them.

This argument typifies what I call the “victimization-based morality” aka “victimology.” The people making it assume — against all the available evidence — that within any relationship between a young person and an old person, the former is necessarily victimized by the latter.

The individuals making this argument (usually you’ll hear it from women) will often tell you that it is “creepy” for older men to be interested in young women. They will pretend that young women are exclusively attracted to young men, when in reality they are attracted to men of all ages – to men as old as their father as well as to their classmates. My own life experience confirms this, as I personally, in-real-life, know of women who fucked significantly older men when they were aged 14-15. It was all passionate and voluntary and enthusiastic, believe me. And the many accounts you can find on the internet leave no doubt that it’s common for young women, pubescent and even prepubescent, to be sexually attracted to significantly older men.

It is important to stress the point that the women themselves pursue and desire those sexual relationships, because the Blue Knights have created the false impression that the entire argument for abolishing the AOC rests on our attraction to young women, an attraction which according to the Blue Knights is completely unreciprocated; whereas in reality, it is incredibly common for young women to initiate sexual relationships with men as old as their father. It takes two to tango – and the tango is quite lively indeed. Given the sexual dynamics elucidated by Heartiste, wherein women are sexually attracted to “Alphas,” it makes perfect sense that young women would be sexually attracted to older men even more-so than they are sexually attracted to their peers, since older men possess a higher social status than young ones, relatively speaking. Again, life experience confirms this.

Thus, there is no sense in punishing old men who fuck young women, unless, that is, one embraces the whole “taken advantage of” argument, an argument which relies on a denial of the biological and empirical reality on the ground, and simply defines (as an axiom) all relationships in which there is a “power imbalance” as “exploitative.” That is, there is no evidence that any “exploitation” is taking place in such relationships, and Blue Knights assume its existence because they refuse to believe that young women can be horny for older men.

Also, the Blue Knights will bring up argument #1 to “substantiate” argument #5, and argue that due to the “sexual immaturity” of the younger party, the older party must be forbidden from being in a sexual relationship with it altogether – because otherwise there may be “exploitation.” Again, the moment you realize that a 12-year-old female can be as horny as a 16-year-old male (who are, needless to say, extremely horny), the idea that the slut is prone to be “sexually exploited” by a sexual relationship with a man who is statistically likely to be high-status (and thus naturally sexually attractive to her) become absurd. And as we’ve seen, the whole “sexually immature” line is ridiculous – it has never been shown that maturity, for whatever it’s even worth, is reached at 16. In saner, de-infantilized times, 12-year-olds were considered to be mature, were treated as such, and evidently were mature. Hence my saying: “child (and teen) innocence is a self-perpetuating myth.”

#6: You only support abolishing the AOC because you’re a pervert.

A common ad hominem. Now, it is expected that possession of a naturally high sex-drive would be correlated with sexual realism (i.e. being woke about the reality of sex), because a high sex-drive individual would be much likelier than a low sex-drive individual to spend hours upon hours thinking about the subject of sex in its various and manifold aspects. But that only goes to prove that it is us, the “perverts,” who were right all along about sex – and not the catladies and the asexuals who haven’t ever thought about sex in realistic terms because they never had any incentive to do so. Our “bias” is a strength, not a weakness.

There really isn’t anything else to add here. When they accuse you of being a pervert, just agree & amplify humorously: “oh yeah, I jerk off 8 times each and every morning before getting out of bed – problem, puritan?”

#7: You only support abolishing the AOC because you are unattractive and trying to broaden your options.

Also known as “projection.” Well, actually, there also are men who make this argument and not just dried-out wrinkly femihags, so let’s address it as if a man said it. Again, this is an ad hominem that presupposes that your motivation to engage in sexual politics of the Male Sexualist variety is merely your desire to improve your personal situation in life. Now, even if it were true, that 1) wouldn’t matter, because what matters is the arguments made and not the ostensible motivation behind them; 2) there is nothing essentially wrong with trying to improve one’s situation in life – and “there are no rules in war and love.”

By the way, abolishing the AOC, by itself, is not going to get all of the incels laid over-night. There are other measures that must and will be taken to ensure sexual contentment for all of society. Abolishing the AOC is a crucial part of the program, but it’s not the single purpose of Male Sexualism, in my view. What I personally would like to see in society is maximal sexual satisfaction for everyone. There are many ways to try reaching that point.

Anyway, the point is that “you are motivated by a desire to increase your options” is not even true regarding most of the prominent Male Sexualists. Presumably. I won’t speak for anyone else, but I’m married, and very satisfied with my great wife.

14376_7
Big Beautiful Women are not for everyone, but I’m cool with it. In this scene from the Israeli film “Tikkun,” my wife — who is an actress — plays a prostitute. Sorry, Nathan Larson, I’m not sending you her nudes; this one should suffice.
As a matter of fact, as I wrote in one of the last posts on DAF, my own kind of activism would not be mentally possible for me if I were not sexually satisfied. I’m not driven by a personal sexual frustration; on the contrary, as I keep saying, what drives me is essentially a spiritual impulse, which has awoken to the extent it has as a result of getting laid.

#8: If you support the abolition of the AOC, it’s because you’re a libertine who believes in “everything goes.”

Some Male Sexualists are, unmistakably, libertines – and proud if it. However, others are faithful Muslims. The notion that opposition to the AOC must necessarily be tied to libertinism is nonsense. Look at traditional European societies 350-300 years ago – almost none had an AOC at all, yet they were hardly “libertines.”

This Blue Knight line is somewhat related to the “LGBTP” meme – they think that we are Progressives trying to advocate for pedophilia as part of a Progressive worldview. I think that it’s safe to say that no one in Male Sexualism belongs to the Progressive camp, which is the camp where Feminists and SJWs reside. That said, some versions of libertinism (sexual libertarianism?) aren’t so bad, anyway. As TheAntifeminist said in a comment at Holocaust21:

[M]y utopia as a male sexualist would be somewhere like 1970’s Sweden or Holland.

This is a legitimate view within the movement.

#9: If young people are allowed to have sex, their innocence will be ruined; sex is exclusively for adults.

Here we see the Enlightenment-spawned Romantic idealization of “childhood” as a period that, due to whatever values one attaches to it, must be preserved against encroachment and incursion from the “fallen world of adults.” This is the Romantic basis of modern-day infantilism.

It used to be understood that the purpose of “childhood” is growing up into adulthood. The so-callef ‘child’ should be made into an adult, should be given adult tasks, adult responsibilities, and — all the sooner — adult rights. Today, society does just the opposite, and infantilizes people with a historically unparalleled intensity. That’s the result of elevating “childhood” into an ideal form. No wonder that now, it’s not just teenagers who are called “children,” but people in their 20s. That’s the process of infantilization which society goes through.

As usual, conservative dipshits, addicted to their own Romantic conceptions, claim that “actually, children are not nearly infantile enough these days.” They don’t see the pervasive “kid culture” that has completely zombified kids into being basically a bunch of drooling retards; no, what the prudish-types care about is “MOAR INNOCENCE,” as usual.

Fact is, kids today are not shown anything about the real world; a whole culture of idiocy, blindness, silliness, and clownishness has been erected like walls all around them. It is the culture of the TV channels for kids, the culture of Toy-Shops, the culture of child-oriented video games. Muh “birds and bees.”

Look, I get the temptation to indulge in infantilism. In fact, I’m probably a hypocrite, because I haven’t yet begun doing anything to de-infantilize my own 19-month-old son. He, like most toddlers, also watches the stupid TV shows and has all of these damn toys all over the place. It’s not easy resisting the ways of the system. But the real problem is that society is not structured in a way that allows children to be de-infantilized. When people only get a job at 18 or at 21 or they are NEETs, and there is an age-ist Prussian School System that is mandatory and which brainwashes its prisoners to believe that “school is good,” and Feminist careerism is pushed on all potential mothers by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, it’s no wonder that people are very immature nowadays. That only goes to show how radically modern society must be transformed, in my opinion.

To get back on point: “childhood” and “adulthood” are both fictional concepts. These may be useful fictions, but they are still fictions. The telos of childhood is adulthood. It’s a transitional state, and if we must choose an arbitrary age when childhood should be officially and finally over, that age should be 9. That is, if we discover that 10-year-olds behave in an infantile manner nowadays, it’s because their parents — and, crucially, society at large — have not properly de-infantilized them. It’s a wholly artificial state of affairs, rooted in Romantic delusions.

Young people should have sex, because young people should experience real life in order to become functional adults; and an integral part of real life is — and should be — the sex life. Far from constituting a “problem” for young people, sexual intercourse is one effective way for getting young people to see the broader picture of reality. Deprived of sex, ‘kids’ grow up with warped and unrealistic notions about reality, and suffer dysfunction as adults. They don’t get to learn what’s important and what’s unimportant in life when they should learn it – young. Getting laid gives you a mentally clear vision of priorities in life, gives you a clarity of mind which allows you to deeply reflect on what’s actually going on in the world. Sex is necessary for young people, whose one and only task is to — repeat after me — become adults. Sex is a fundamental part of a fulfilled adult life.

#10: Young sex leaves young people traumatized.

No, it doesn’t. The ‘trauma’ stems entirely from being repeatedly and incessantly told by Blue Knights (Puritans, Feminists, Conservadaddies, Catladies, etc.) that a horrible crime has been committed against you by a wicked individual, that you have been “taken advantage of,” “deprived of innocence,” “ruined forever,” “sexually exploited,” “abused,” and the rest of the victimological jargon. The sex itself and the relationship itself feel good, and are indeed good biologically and psychologically; they bring fulfillment to one’s life and a satisfaction for one’s fresh and burning biological needs. The whole “trauma,” such as it is, is inflicted by society on the younger party, due to society’s strict adherence to a victimization-based morality.

That’s why I call for a Moral Revolution. This is not a troll. As long as people adhere to a victimization-based morality that sees “power imbalances” as inherently and fundamentally victimizing, people won’t be able to think logically about young sexuality. The current prevailing system of social morality must be replaced with a new one. Once that is achieved, all of this “trauma” — which is inflicted by the Blue Knights on horny young people — will dissipate and evaporate altogether

Young people greatly enjoy sex, and will go to great lengths to achieve it, overcoming the very many mechanisms of sexual oppression established by Blue Knights.

#11: Young people don’t know what’s good for them, and therefore need to be protected from risky situations.

If young people don’t know what’s good for them, it’s because society itself has successfully destroyed their ability to know what’s good for them. I mean, by the age of 10, a person should have a basic idea about what life is all about. If that’s not so for most or all people, something is deeply rotten in society.

And the reason for this indeed being the modern state of affairs is exactly because the protectiveness of parents, combined with wholesale cultural infantilization, has rendered young people incapable of independent thought. Thus, instead of “MOAR PROTECTION,” young people need infinitely less of it – so that they will learn to deal with reality.

And at any rate, sex is not as risky as the Blue Knights claim it is. They scare people about STDs, but then the solutions to that problem are well-known, and are completely independent of age – if instructed properly, and possessing a responsible personality, a 10-year-old can behave just as carefully — if not much more carefully — than many 40-year-olds.

Then there is the issue of pregnancy. First of all, what I wrote in the above paragraph about responsiblity applies here as well – the pregnancy-avoidance methods are well known. Secondly however, there’s a great differences in here: pregnancy is not a disease. It’s not a bad thing, but a good thing. I support young pregnancy and young parenthood. That is the primary “risk” which Blue Knight scare-mongers warn about, and I don’t see it as a risk at all. Instead of being protected from reproduction, people need to be instructed about how to reproduce. I once wrote, trollishly as usual, that if there should be any schools at all, then the “homework” of young females should be getting impregnated. The essence beneath the statement is on-point: pregnancy is good, because reproduction is good; fertility is good, while sterility is bad.

So, in my view, young people should not be protected from the “risk” of pregnancy. They should be instructed about it, made to comprehend the how’s and why’s of it, and then allowed to use their mind-faculties to figure-out what should or should not be done. That’s the gist of any de-infantilization program.

#12: Young people don’t desire to have sex.

Young people do, as a matter of actual fact, very much desire to have sex; much more-so, even, than many old people.

#13: If the AOC is abolished, parents will no longer be able to control their children.

What is the purpose — the very raison d’etre — of parental control over children? To turn children into functional adults, so as to allow them to form families and continue the bloodline. This cannot be achieved by hindering the ability of children (or “children”) to engage in the one thing that marks the arrival of maturity – sexual activity. Sexual activity is the thing that most unequivocally transforms an un-developed person into a developed person. Since the purpose of parenthood is the creation of adults, parenthood should serve to (at the very least) give-way in face of the natural maturation of children, rather than artificially prolonging “childhood” in order to extend the period of parental control. Parental control is only good insofar as it allows parents to facilitate the de-infantilization of their children; when, as in our deplorable times, parental control is used to exacerbate the infantilization of children, it is in the interest of society to tell parents to fuck off.

Since parents these days abuse their parental power and authority by artificially prolonging the infantilization of their own children, the abolition of the anti-natural AOC is exactly a thing that is needed in order to put parental control in check. The power of parents vis-a-vis their children must be drastically reduced when the child reaches the age of 8. That’s usually the age when sex, reproduction, and marriage all become relevant. If you want to argue that 8 is still too young, perhaps (maybe) we can compromise on 10. Point is, between 8 and 10, parental power should be dramatically restricted.

As a 23-year-old father, I can tell you that parents and family in general continue to significantly shape your life long after you cease being under “parental control.” An abolition of the AOC won’t result in all teenagers running away from home never to be seen again. But it will, God willing, result in the establishment of many new young households. That is something that we should strive for – getting teenagers to form families. That is the meaning of creating adults.

#14: Without an AOC, there will be grey-zone situations of child prostitution.

Child prostitution should be legal.

#15: Abolishing the AOC will increase pre-marital sex, which is a bad thing.

First of all, I couldn’t care less about whether or not sex is “pre-marital.” I had fucked my wife and impregnated her before we were married; so what? What matters is the bottom line: the creation of a patriarchal and stable household.

The second thing is, people today marry extremely late, and many forgo marriage altogether. This is related to the war against young sexuality: not reproducing when young, people struggle to reproduce when old; and living in sexlessness until the late teens or early twenies (or until later than that), a total sexual dysfunction takes over society, and people find it difficult to form long-lasting relationships at all. Young love shines the brightest, the younger the love, the brighter it shines; couples who start young last longer than those who start old.

Puritanical Blue Knights have brought about the plummeting of the TFR in Western Society. In my view, pre-marital sex should be accepted, as long as everyone involved understands that the purpose of any “romance” is the formation of a household. Early teenage marriage should be encouraged, and if early teenage sexual intercourse facilitates that, so be it – it’s all the better. It is not sex that is harmful to young people; sex is good for them. It is sexlessness that is the central and overarching problem of our times.

In conclusion
Man, that was exhausting, I gotta say. But hopefully, this post will serve as a guide to answering Blue Knight talking points. All of you must remember this: before you can annihilate Blue Knightism, you must mentally internalize what it is that we Male Sexualists believe in. In moments of uncertainty and doubt, consult this post, and you may find the core idea needed for you in order to formulate your own Male Sexualist position about any given issue.

There is a new revolution on the horizon. I don’t know how long I personally have left in this world. Perhaps the intelligence operatives threatening me will decide against killing me, or maybe they’ll slay me this very night. Who knows. What I want you to do is to take the ideas provided on DAF and now on TAF, understand them, and spread them. This is not a cult of personality or a money-making scheme. This is a political movement that has its own ideas, ideas that may initially appear groundbreaking but which in reality may also be primordial, ideas which we hope will be implemented in reality – be it 30, 80, or 360 years from now. At some point in the future, somewhere on the face of our planet, there will be a Male Sexualist country.

If during the next half-decade we manage to bring into the fold both edgy 4channers and 8channers (“meme lords”), and serious, intelligent, competent, affluent, deep-thinking, and strategizing supporters, we will be able within several decades to achieve our political objective.

Beer_Grills #sexist reddit.com

Blackpill of the day: Chad landmines are everywhere

If you manage to looksmax and socialmax, and crawl your way out of inceldom and finally get a girlfriend, be aware of omnipresent Chad landmines. And this is also a warning to the beta normies lurking this sub.

One day if Chad is bored and horny, and notices your mildly attractive or even ugly girlfriend, and he gets the idea in his head that he wants to pump and dump her in a sloppy one night stand. Chances are 80-90% that he will be able to do that.

And it's not exactly uncommon these days, there are millions of feral Chads running around who had no proper parenting and will do this kind of stuff just because they are bored.

There's also a high chance he won't use protection and she will give birth to his demon spawn. Which she will likely claim to be yours, and you'll end up raising his child as a beta cuck provider.

PS! This is why you looksmax and gymcel. If you do get a gf eventually, then you want to be able to physically dominate or at least match potential Chads and tell them to fuck off.

PPS! This is not meant to discourage incels from trying to get laid or get a gf. It doesnt discourage me. This is just a blackpill reality. Infidelity is real and more common now than ever. Better to accept it now than be ignorant and shocked if/when it happens.

Roosh Valizadeh #sexist archive.fo

All That’s Left For Normal Men Are Rotten Women

Nature has given humanity a roughly one-to-one ratio of adult men to women, but the most attractive women are being taken out of circulation to either join alpha male harems or participate in degenerate lifestyle choices. This leaves the average man practically no choice in settling down with a mentally stable and cute woman in her prime.

In Islam, a man is able to marry four wives, which is what my wealthy Iranian grandfather did on his way to siring 24 or so children that included my dad (the exact number is a mystery). He took away three women that an Iranian man of lesser means could have married, creating a societal imbalance, but that’s nothing compared to what we have in the modern Western world, where a single famous man can command the sexual attentions of dozens—if not thousands—of women in their sexual prime, spoiling these women for normal men who don’t have the ability to tingle their vaginas with the same intensity.

How many actors, musicians, and sports athletes are trying to plow through as much prime pussy as possible? How many Hollywood directors and music producers are leveraging their positions for sexual gain? How many club owners, restaurateurs, Arab sheikhs, and politicians are doing the same? Each one is taking way more beautiful women out of circulation than men like my grandfather, all while elevating their standards to such an extent that no average man can ever gain their love, let alone two hours—or even two minutes–of their uninterrupted attention.

We also have to account for female lifestyle choices that are designed to delay or prevent pair bonding and marriage. The biggest is career. Most girls, while embarking on a career, balance out the boredom of working a meaningless job by hopping on the cock carousel and banging at least a few men every year. By the time a girl hits 25 years old, any man who meets her will have to deal with a walk-in closet of emotional issues and hang-ups from being pumped and dumped as much as a 1930’s brothel whore.

Then there is the Instagram and Facebook lifestyle that creates crippling dopamine addiction, which causes a girl to only be satisfied if dozens of men are actively thirsting for her every day. I estimate that if a girl has over 500 followers on Instagram, she is so used to attention from throngs of men that the love of one man cannot possibly satisfy her.
We must also throw in the growing “travel blogger” lifestyle where, instead of using only her body to get attention, a girl uses pictures and video from exotic locations to enhance her beauty. Other girls, with nothing substantial to offer the world, decide to showcase pictures of pets or their tasty overpriced meals, but even that puts them on a dopamine loop that ruins their future interactions with men.

By far, the most damaging lifestyle choice women make is becoming a sugar baby, a politically correct term for “prostitute.” For some easy cash, she whores out her body to the highest bidder (some women combine Instagram and prostitution in a seamless package). How can such an Instagram prostitute ever settle down with a man who has a normal salary? There are also the hundreds of women who enter porn every year, some from seemingly stable families. Sadly, men are so desperate for love that many would wife up a former prostitute or porn star, but it’s highly unlikely those women will make for stable families.

The Western world is a sinkhole for women. The prettiest of the bunch fall into the hole and get spit out years later an entitled #MeToo hag who can never be happy, making the Islamic four-wive rule seem downright egalitarian. The sad truth is that if you meet an attractive girl today, she was pumped and dumped by numerous sexy men, prefers to nurture her career than children, is addicted to attention via the internet, and has participated in some kind of scheme to exchange social status or cash for her pussy. She’s more than suitable for a bit of fun, but would it be wise to seek a relationship with her?

Even with the obesity and short-hair epidemic, I still see a bountiful supply of cute girls I would happily reproduce with. I would love them, let them caress my beard, and lay my seed deep within their vaginal guts, but the problem is that those guts are not for me—they are for the Chads who would never marry her, the beta orbiters who await her newest selfie as if it were a source of food, or the rich and lonely men who would sponsor her for thousands of dollars a month. They’re taking her out of circulation at the time I want her most, and by the time they are done with her, I no longer want her. I guess I’ll try to weasel in a bang or two when she is not yet fully degraded, and enjoy the fleeting pleasure that comes from it as much as I can.

Lv99_BixNood #racist #sexist incels.co

RE: [Blackpill] Asian cuck culture

In the recent study about facial attractiveness I posted the authors made a speculation as to why Asian men have evolved to be less attractive than whites or blacks:

We can do this if we assume that, just like the arctic tundra conditions of Europe, the mountainous expanses of Asian lead to a lifestyle of difficult agriculture. Several males may be required to support a single female as is currently the practice in the polyandrous Tibetan culture [31]. Such a society would show sexual selection for feminine features as a highly feminine female would be able to attract the support during child rearing of one, or more, productive partners.

Ricecels have been cuckolds since aeons ago

Although I have my doubts on this hypothesis as rice culture has been monogamous for at least the last few hundred years.

I don't see how such a society would even function. So men were hypergamous in Tibetan polyandrous culture? Multiple men sharing a single Stacy even though they wouldn't be able to pass on their genes (due to long gestation times and the wear and tear on the female's body due to multiple births)? It seems like a polyandrous society is broken by nature and would eventually revert to the more natural state. I just can't believe any man would choose to be a cuckold rather than breed with one of the many unpaired women who would be left over from these "reverse harems."

Well look at "open relationships" today

Leucosticte #sexist #psycho rgif.is

[OP of "[Rapefuel] Foids who come to RGIF need to understand", presenting the "Femoid Containment" subforum]

that their role is to be rapemeat for the men of this site who want to dominate them. This is a supermarket and the femoid containment section is the meat department, where men will stroll down and select a femoid who is to their liking, to throw in their cart for consumption. Otherwise, the meat would just sit aroundn and rot. The whole point of the meat's being there is so that some use can be made of it; otherwise, what was the point of producing it (i.e. why did parents produce these femoids, if not so that they could be some man's rapemeat, given that femoids don't have a lot of other useful purposes)?

When you're hungry and want some rapemeat, the only question is whether you're equipped to handle it. If you were buying a steak, you might consider, does my oven work; do I have silverware (although a REAL MAN might also just pick up that raw steak and wildly sink his fangs into it like a starving wolf, and let the blood run down his bare chest as he's devouring it, to get in touch with his primal fierceness). Similarly before grabbing a femoid to be your property, you might consider, "Am I set up to take care of a foid? Do I have a basement that's equipped with shackles, etc.?" but it's not mandatory.

It's not mandatory for a man to stroll down the meat aisle. You can avoid the femoid containment section. And if you go to the meat aisle, you're not required to pick out any meat. You could find none is to your liking, and keep going. Maybe it's not fresh enough, maybe it's too expensive, or whatever. Similarly, you might find there aren't any femoids who are cooperative enough or whatever to where you can deal with them. Then you just keep going. No need to linger around the meat aisle saying to the steaks, "I'm sure you'll find some customer who wants you."

No, it is the job of the butcher to make the meat fresh and attractive-looking and reasonably priced. The father of every girl should have put her on the meat market no later than when she hit puberty, and he should have given her over to a rape-patriarch. He should not have let a bunch of men have the opportunity to poke their penises into the steak and ejaculate into it, to where no other man would want to purchase it. He should not have left the steak sitting around till it became gray and didn't look attractive anymore. Society fucked up when it didn't let butchers prepare the meat properly and didn't let men consume the meat in the way they like (saying instead that meat has rights).

If some foid complains, "I met some guy from the site and he made me his rape-slave till I was able to escape" the site owners of course will have zero sympathy, and will say, "WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU EXPECT?!" That's why we put "rape" all over the site, so that nobody can say that foids didn't know. If foids still show up that means they either want to get raped or they're too dumb to realize what this site is about; either way, the feminists lose because their theories about femoids (that they're strong, independent, and intelligent) are refuted.

Jessy #fundie boychat.org

The question is best answered by a question.

Why is society so hysteric about sensual erotic pleasuring?

Why did this society make a massive industry on invading youths and their right to be physically affectionate?

Why do psychology academics feels so brave and pompous in promoting false science and exaggerating the shame of sexuality of a desirous youth?

Why do women flock to employment that have this fantasy of protecting boys from the very stimulus they desire, crave, and seek?

Do you think pedophilia is normal? Why ask the question? for what does it really mean anyway?

Do you think youth under 16 are horny, and have right to be sensual?

It's a disease?.. Could it be a cure? Could boys that are hyper, and un-attentive and given "pills", and pharmaceuticals be better off being sexual?

A natural fact in nature? the fact that it is in nature is then "natural.... do boys under 16 have erection and like penal stimulation?

What do you think?... I think the subject is criminally over blown, the hysterics shame and punishment that have been a part of this society is unforgivable, and justice and mental health have a lot to be responsible for, and should be made to pay restitution for their intervention and over the top fabrication of ignorant conclusions!!!!!!!!!!!

wwwarea #fundie wwwarea.deviantart.com

UPDATE 11/7/2015
Some people take offense that I shouldn't compare people with disabilities to animals.
The time I used them was to compare them (And now I will just consider the type of people who lacks certain abilities) only for the sake of the argument that it depends on 'how much we can do', and I thought it would be fair to compare a person who lacks an arm (for example) to someone who has that and can do more.. Only for the sake of that kind of argument of 'more'. So I thought it was fair. I did NOT intend to harm. I just thought one thing connected to an argument type, I am not saying some humans are like non-human animals (Or that depends, and yet, all humans are similar anyway).
Also, I may have lack of stuff that I can't control too. But I'm still standing up, and so can anyone else.
Also, all animals are equal to living anyway. Soooo.
UPDATE DONE

NOTE: It's completely fine to personally prefer humans over other animals, just like how it's fine to personally prefer other animals over humans.

But it pisses me off how humanaboos go act like humans are "more important", "special", and so forth.
It's just as bad as when a wolfaboo morally treats wolves as "superior".
After all, IF people are allowed to give the opinion that human animals are superior, then people are ALSO allowed to do the same with other animals then.
Or if it's considered "animalaboo, or whatever" to argue that a non-human animal is "superior", then the same concern (the term humanaboo) should be about treating humans as superior to other animals.

Anyway, treating humans as "superior" in terms of morality, and rights is one of the 3 main reasons why I have a general dislike on our own race. It disgusts me.

blog.burningman.com/wp-content…

Now I like to show some stupid idiotic myths.

"Not all animals are equal because humans can do more!!!"
In terms of what we do, it's kinda true that all animals (including animals) on this planet can't do everything (Though we do not fully know what each creature can do) humans can do. However, does that mean they are not morally equal, with respect, etc? NO.
Hell, even non-human animals can do things humans can't do. There really is no 'actual more' either.
Yet, what about all the humans that has disabilities? Are we going o say that people with disabilities are not equal? Because according to logic, if I had to agree based off what we do, then I would need to agree that humans with disabilities are not equal then.
faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/p…

"Animals don't have rights."
Humans are animals. If other animals do not have rights, then neither does homo sapiens.
Also, who gave out the illusion that it must depend on what humans do? Just because humans can build all this cool technologically, that doesn't mean other animals can no longer have rights. What we do, does not connect with nature fundamentals of other creatures.
blog.burningman.com/wp-content…
www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news6…

"But humans understand rights, therefor, humans can only have rights!"
The term "Human rights" it's self, is just an idea made up by humans.
But if a human said that we have super powers, does that mean we have them? No.
Human rights are 'real', because it's based off 'natural rights'.
A natural right is a basic nature fundamental thing. And you want to know also shares this fundamental thing?
Non-human animals.
All animals have rights. Natural Rights.
Humans have natural rights, and so does non-human animals.
Just like humans, other animals try to survive too.
eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers… - Don't know if I agree to all though.
Another interesting article: animalrights.about.com/od/anim…

"Animals don't have Free Will!"
Not even humans have free will. I mean what is 'Free Will'? Despite the fact that there IS evidence of free will in non-human animals, but humans don't have this special 'free' choice. I believe they are controlled by some part of their nature brain in a physical sense.
www.scientificamerican.com/art…
At the same time, I do believe it might exist, but the same can be said for other animals because of the evidence.

In the end kinda, it doesn't matter what we do, what matters is the fact that all animals consent to living, taking some action/behavior, and other.
If an animal is trying to live/survive, it's a natural right. It may not 100% be the same as what humans do (Humans saying words, etc.). But how does that somehow "change" it? Face it, the idea that it "does" is based off the egoist mind of some humans.
You do not need to 'say or reason' to show rights. You just have to show that you are trying to live.

Also, remember if we do depend on what 'humans do', then what about the humans that has disabilities?

All animals have rights, all has a soul, and all can possibly be unique with intelligence, which by the way exist in at least a lot of other animals.
Other animals feel pain too. I also wonder why people are against actual rape, but is fine with killing? Kinda odd.

Yet, to the arguments that "animal rights are made up"? The only thing that is completely made up is the idea that other animals don't have rights.

---------

There is other myths and possible facts. I do think I didn't write this very well much.
Here is some other links though!
speciesismthemovie.com/
www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news6…
lesswrong.com/lw/i63/arguments…
www.livescience.com/41601-spec…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesi…

_______________________________________

Other arguments - Free Will and Possibly Consenting

io9.com/5714341/even-animals-a…

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/a…

The Republic of El Salvador #fundie #sexist washingtonpost.com

A Salvadoran woman charged in the death of her stillborn baby was cleared Monday, a ruling advocates say is a notable triumph in a country with one of the world’s most severe abortion bans.

A judge’s decision to acquit 21-year-old Evelyn Hernández marks the culmination of a tragic saga that began when she was raped at the age of 18, her lawyers said. Those close to Hernández say she didn’t know she was nearly 34 weeks pregnant in 2016, when she walked into a latrine and delivered a stillborn child. Her mother found her, bleeding and unconscious, before rushing her to a hospital.

Paula Avila Guillen, director of Latin America Initiatives at the Women’s Equality Center, said a doctor concluded that Hernández’s condition was a result of an “incomplete abortion.” Police discovered her fetus in the latrine and charged Hernández with aggravated homicide. In 2017, she was handed a 30-year prison sentence.

“Mere suspicion of possible abortion immediately makes [women] guilty, presumption of innocence gets erased,” said Guillen, who worked closely with Hernández’s defense team. “When police were notified, they shackled her to a hospital bed and interrogated her.”

[Women serving decades-long prison terms for abortion in El Salvador hope change is coming]

Hernández spent 33 months in prison and was released in February after a successful appeal. In an attempt to retry Hernández on the same charges, prosecutors last week fought to increase her sentence to 40 years, arguing that she had lied about being raped and should have known she was pregnant.

The woman bled frequently and faced other obstetric ailments during her pregnancy, Guillen said, which she confused with her period.

The judge “simply couldn’t see enough evidence to be convinced she had done anything to commit any crimes,” Guillen said. “It was the right thing to do.”

Several Latin American countries have stringent abortion laws, including Argentina, where an 11-year-old rape victim was forced to give birth in February, even though the girl had repeatedly asked for an abortion. But no restriction is more severe than El Salvador’s absolute ban, which has been in place since the late 1990s and applies even if a mother’s life is in danger.

Guillen and other advocates say the ban is applied arbitrarily and specifically targets poor women in El Salvador who lack access to quality medical care. Even in instances of miscarriage, prosecutors in the country seek homicide or manslaughter charges on top of abortion-related counts.

Hernández’s case was remedied only after a painstaking process, and Guillen notes that this was just the second time a judge in the country has ruled that a stillbirth or miscarriage was not criminal. About 20 women remain imprisoned under similar circumstances, Guillen said.

But slowly, some of them have had their charges commuted or dismissed.

In December, Imelda Cortez was released after spending about 18 months in prison for attempted murder. She also gave birth to a baby in a latrine, but the infant survived, and prosecutors argued that she hid her pregnancy and was negligent. Cortez contended she was a rape victim and did not know she was pregnant.

Four months later, three Salvadoran women charged with aggravated homicide after suffering miscarriages had their sentences commuted. They’d spent a collective 29 years in prison.

“The stories are all so similar because they all follow a pattern of persecution of women who have stillbirths and are impoverished,” Guillien said. “You have to mobilize the world to save one woman; that’s what it takes in El Salvador."

Morena Herrera, an prominent advocate for women’s rights in the country, said in a statement that Hernández’s acquittal “is a sign of hope for all women who remain in jail for crimes they did not commit, for health problems that should have never been brought to court."

“It is a hope for Salvadoran society because we are beginning to take steps along the path of justice, of truth and of well-being for everyone,” Herrera added. “No woman should go through the ordeal that Evelyn did.”

savagesusie #fundie freerepublic.com

Oh-—the Truth will eventually come out-—the reason why the Vice of “sodomy” is now considered “Good” in our military—— Whoever pushes “Homosexual “RIGHTS”” are forcing God OUT and Natural Laws (basis of our Constitution Rights) OUT. Homosexualists want to destroy freedom of thought and religion and Rational Thinking.

It is why our muslim-in-chief homosexual president is forcing our military to look the other way as harem of boys are sodomized in Afghanistan —and we “help” with that sodomization of boys.....and our troops are now forced to be “reeducated” in the Maoist sense-—so they will be transformed from their Christian Ethics and adopt Marxist/Atheist/Satanic/muslim Worldview and teach their family that “sodomizing other human beings” is a “Right” and should be celebrated in “Pride” parades and glorified in the schools (Milk) so our young children think “Sodomy is Good” just like the little Afghanistan boys.

Jerry Brown should be in prison. Sodomy is a Vice for an extremely good reason as all history and Natural Laws have proven for thousands of years. Christianity removed the idea that Sodomy/pederasty (they go together always) and Slavery are evil.......The sodomites want to destroy Western Civilization and erase Christian Ethics. Homosexual “Rights” is their camel. There can be no “Rights” from Lucifer conferred on people in the USA—at least, Constitutionally.

But alas, as Mark Levine laments-—we are post-Constitutional.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.; various Randroids #racist mises.org

Open Borders Are an Assault on Private Property

Whether we’re talking about illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America, or birthright citizenship, or the migrants coming from the Middle East and Africa, the subject of immigration has been in the news and widely discussed for months now. It is an issue fraught with potentially perilous consequences, so it is especially important for libertarians to understand it correctly.

This Mises Circle, which is devoted to a consideration of where we ought to go from here, seems like an opportune moment to take up this momentous question.

I should note at the outset that in searching for the correct answer to this vexing problem I do not seek to claim originality. To the contrary, I draw much of what follows from two of the people whose work is indispensable to a proper understanding of the free society: Murray N. Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Some libertarians have assumed that the correct libertarian position on immigration must be “open borders,” or the completely unrestricted movement of people. Superficially, this appears correct: surely we believe in letting people go wherever they like!

But hold on a minute. Think about “freedom of speech,” another principle people associate with libertarians. Do we really believe in freedom of speech as an abstract principle? That would mean I have the right to yell all during a movie, or the right to disrupt a Church service, or the right to enter your home and shout obscenities at you.

What we believe in are private property rights. No one has “freedom of speech” on my property, since I set the rules, and in the last resort I can expel someone. He can say whatever he likes on his own property, and on the property of anyone who cares to listen to him, but not on mine.

The same principle holds for freedom of movement. Libertarians do not believe in any such principle in the abstract. I do not have the right to wander into your house, or into your gated community, or into Disneyworld, or onto your private beach, or onto Jay-Z’s private island. As with “freedom of speech,” private property is the relevant factor here. I can move onto any property I myself own or whose owner wishes to have me. I cannot simply go wherever I like.

Now if all the parcels of land in the whole world were privately owned, the solution to the so-called immigration problem would be evident. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that there would be no immigration problem in the first place. Everyone moving somewhere new would have to have the consent of the owner of that place.

When the state and its so-called public property enter the picture, though, things become murky, and it takes extra effort to uncover the proper libertarian position. I’d like to try to do that today.

Shortly before his death, Murray Rothbard published an article called “Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation State.” He had begun rethinking the assumption that libertarianism committed us to open borders.

He noted, for instance, the large number of ethnic Russians whom Stalin settled in Estonia. This was not done so that Baltic people could enjoy the fruits of diversity. It never is. It was done in an attempt to destroy an existing culture, and in the process to make a people more docile and less likely to cause problems for the Soviet empire.

Murray wondered: does libertarianism require me to support this, much less to celebrate it? Or might there be more to the immigration question after all?

And here Murray posed the problem just as I have: in a fully private-property society, people would have to be invited onto whatever property they traveled through or settled on.

If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no person could enter unless invited to enter and allowed to rent or purchase property. A totally privatized country would be as closed as the particular property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. and Western Europe really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

In the current situation, on the other hand, immigrants have access to public roads, public transportation, public buildings, and so on. Combine this with the state’s other curtailments of private property rights, and the result is artificial demographic shifts that would not occur in a free market. Property owners are forced to associate and do business with individuals they might otherwise avoid.

“Commercial property owners such as stores, hotels, and restaurants are no longer free to exclude or restrict access as they see fit,” writes Hans. “Employers can no longer hire or fire who they wish. In the housing market, landlords are no longer free to exclude unwanted tenants. Furthermore, restrictive covenants are compelled to accept members and actions in violation of their very own rules and regulations.”

Hans continues:

By admitting someone onto its territory, the state also permits this person to proceed on public roads and lands to every domestic resident’s doorsteps, to make use of all public facilities and services (such as hospitals and schools), and to access every commercial establishment, employment, and residential housing, protected by a multitude of nondiscrimination laws.

It is rather unfashionable to express concern for the rights of property owners, but whether the principle is popular or not, a transaction between two people should not occur unless both of those people want it to. This is the very core of libertarian principle.

In order to make sense of all this and reach the appropriate libertarian conclusion, we have to look more closely at what public property really is and who, if anyone, can be said to be its true owner. Hans has devoted some of his own work to precisely this question. There are two positions we must reject: that public property is owned by the government, or that public property is unowned, and is therefore comparable to land in the state of nature, before individual property titles to particular parcels of land have been established.

Certainly we cannot say public property is owned by the government, since government may not legitimately own anything. Government acquires its property by force, usually via the intermediary of taxation. A libertarian cannot accept that kind of property acquisition as morally legitimate, since it involves the initiation of force (the extraction of tax dollars) on innocent people. Hence government’s pretended property titles are illegitimate.

But neither can we say that public property is unowned. Property in the possession of a thief is not unowned, even if at the moment it does not happen to be held by the rightful owner. The same goes for so-called public property. It was purchased and developed by means of money seized from the taxpayers. They are the true owners.

(This, incidentally, was the correct way to approach de-socialization in the former communist regimes of eastern Europe. All those industries were the property of the people who had been looted to build them, and those people should have received shares in proportion to their contribution, to the extent it could have been determined.)

In an anarcho-capitalist world, with all property privately owned, “immigration” would be up to each individual property owner to decide. Right now, on the other hand, immigration decisions are made by a central authority, with the wishes of property owners completely disregarded. The correct way to proceed, therefore, is to decentralize decision-making on immigration to the lowest possible level, so that we approach ever more closely the proper libertarian position, in which individual property owners consent to the various movements of peoples.

Ralph Raico, our great libertarian historian, once wrote:

Free immigration would appear to be in a different category from other policy decisions, in that its consequences permanently and radically alter the very composition of the democratic political body that makes those decisions. In fact, the liberal order, where and to the degree that it exists, is the product of a highly complex cultural development. One wonders, for instance, what would become of the liberal society of Switzerland under a regime of “open borders.”

Switzerland is in fact an interesting example. Before the European Union got involved, the immigration policy of Switzerland approached the kind of system we are describing here. In Switzerland, localities decided on immigration, and immigrants or their employers had to pay to admit a prospective migrant. In this way, residents could better ensure that their communities would be populated by people who would add value and who would not stick them with the bill for a laundry list of “benefits.”

Obviously, in a pure open borders system, the Western welfare states would simply be overrun by foreigners seeking tax dollars. As libertarians, we should of course celebrate the demise of the welfare state. But to expect a sudden devotion to laissez faire to be the likely outcome of a collapse in the welfare state is to indulge in naïveté of an especially preposterous kind.

Can we conclude that an immigrant should be considered “invited” by the mere fact that he has been hired by an employer? No, says Hans, because the employer does not assume the full cost associated with his new employee. The employer partially externalizes the costs of that employee on the taxpaying public:

Equipped with a work permit, the immigrant is allowed to make free use of every public facility: roads, parks, hospitals, schools, and no landlord, businessman, or private associate is permitted to discriminate against him as regards housing, employment, accommodation, and association. That is, the immigrant comes invited with a substantial fringe benefits package paid for not (or only partially) by the immigrant employer (who allegedly has extended the invitation), but by other domestic proprietors as taxpayers who had no say in the invitation whatsoever.

These migrations, in short, are not market outcomes. They would not occur on a free market. What we are witnessing are examples of subsidized movement. Libertarians defending these mass migrations as if they were market phenomena are only helping to discredit and undermine the true free market.

Moreover, as Hans points out, the “free immigration” position is not analogous to free trade, as some libertarians have erroneously claimed. In the case of goods being traded from one place to another, there is always and necessarily a willing recipient. The same is not true for “free immigration.”

To be sure, it is fashionable in the US to laugh at words of caution about mass immigration. Why, people made predictions about previous waves of immigration, we’re told, and we all know those didn’t come true. Now for one thing, those waves were all followed by swift and substantial immigration reductions, during which time society adapted to these pre-welfare state population movements. There is virtually no prospect of any such reductions today. For another, it is a fallacy to claim that because some people incorrectly predicted a particular outcome at a particular time, therefore that outcome is impossible, and anyone issuing words of caution about it is a contemptible fool.

The fact is, politically enforced multiculturalism has an exceptionally poor track record. The twentieth century affords failure after predictable failure. Whether it’s Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, or Pakistan and Bangladesh, or Malaysia and Singapore, or the countless places with ethnic and religious divides that have not yet been resolved to this day, the evidence suggests something rather different from the tale of universal brotherhood that is such a staple of leftist folklore.

No doubt some of the new arrivals will be perfectly decent people, despite the US government’s lack of interest in encouraging immigration among the skilled and capable. But some will not. The three great crime waves in US history – which began in 1850, 1900, and 1960 — coincided with periods of mass immigration.

Crime isn’t the only reason people may legitimately wish to resist mass immigration. If four million Americans showed up in Singapore, that country’s culture and society would be changed forever. And no, it is not true that libertarianism would in that case require the people of Singapore to shrug their shoulders and say it was nice having our society while it lasted but all good things must come to an end. No one in Singapore would want that outcome, and in a free society, they would actively prevent it.

In other words, it’s bad enough we have to be looted, spied on, and kicked around by the state. Should we also have to pay for the privilege of cultural destructionism, an outcome the vast majority of the state’s taxpaying subjects do not want and would actively prevent if they lived in a free society and were allowed to do so?

The very cultures that the incoming migrants are said to enrich us with could not have developed had they been constantly bombarded with waves of immigration by peoples of radically different cultures. So the multicultural argument doesn’t even make sense.

It is impossible to believe that the US or Europe will be a freer place after several more decades of uninterrupted mass immigration. Given the immigration patterns that the US and EU governments encourage, the long-term result will be to make the constituencies for continued government growth so large as to be practically unstoppable. Open-borders libertarians active at that time will scratch their heads and claim not to understand why their promotion of free markets is having so little success. Everybody else will know the answer.

peter quiggins #conspiracy #racist #quack peterquiggins.wordpress.com

Goy Enlightenment.


Please read the following link first from “alloya.com”

“Are you waking up in the fourth dimension and Do Not” know it?”

Lights on
Now read this Blog post from fourwinds10.com. I am not endorsing the site, I am using the article “False flags are legal propaganda produced by the department of defence” to illustrate a concern. Welcome to the sickness grid tech of 5G! designed in “Israel” for everyone! but maybe not “Israel”…Oy Vey!!

Once read, apply logic to pattern recognition and basic arithmetic to understand why, and how all governmental policy changes since the end of WWII in all European nations have been scientifically created with “ambiguity” (double speak) objectively to subvert, confuse, and slow kill us into submission. This is deemed part, but not all of, “perception management” that uses predictive programming and psychological techniques including the control of food, medicine and other social needs at the behest of their (((Kehilla deep state))) to keep us in a constant state of anxiety.

Crisis acting and terror false flag scenarios are all part of military propaganda remit passed through governmental policy across the globe. Our own military is now the surrogate enforcer for who we now know to be “)’wsh Bolshevists” who are more than likely using far advanced nano hybrid organic technology such as nervous system manipulation that can Pavlov condition society with low frequency subliminal, and silent communication methods that if not already in use may be impacting instruction, or sickness on more susceptible individuals, Similar to how the silent dog whistle manipulates the dog.

Patent N0.: US 6,506,148 B2 L00s (45) Date of Patent: Jan. 14, 2003

“Big Pharma Paid Millions in Secret Settlements After Antidepressants Linked to Mass Murder”

”600 strains of an aerosolized thought control vaccine already tested on humans; deployed via air, food and water”

Americas DARPA (Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency) is lead by )ewess Dr. Hava Siegelmann having been schooled in Israel but not “Mossad”.. WTF!!

Strategy of tension
Problem, reaction, Solution the “Actuarial science“, the industry of ‘Insurance of prediction of success or failure’ by betting on both sides. This is the science of contingency that the soulless )’w applies to all his dirty dealings-also see dialectics. The “Demiurge” is leading us away from our spiritual destiny down it’s materialistic road of perdition into chaos and “Marshall law”

The old Operation Gladio trick is a prime example of such terror bating, a well-known Zionist/Mossad psyop, and no matter how hard they try attach godless Gladio to national socialism and Fascism their Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) operator = America’s Stasis will always remain Mossad masquerading as terrorism.

It must be also noted that all past and present, wave through puppet Presidents, Prime ministers, senator’s and politicians on either side of the L and R dialectic spectrum = career criminal politicians are cherry picked enablers for engineering conditions in order to, by piecemeal, remove all our civil liberties which is in violation of constitutional and human rights. Sleight of hand policies that deceive and maintain nations in a permanent state of “military occupation” in contrast with Trotsky’s Constant Revolution aimed only at the Goy. Proven Soviet/Bolshevik methods, now bolstered with advanced technology to use on us by the same (((Soviet Bolshevists))) who murdered two Tzars and one Prime minister of Russia, the slaughter of Tzar Nicholas Romanov II 1917 was their breakthrough that took that European country into submission during which time they slaughtered 60+ million Europeans then continued their rampage through Ukraine butchering 16.5 million more in three Holodomors.

Take note, the spiritual fight back has started, more and more Goy are seeing through, and accepting we are under attack having recognised these patterns of manipulation deployed to keep us in a state of anxiety and so are arming themselves with unofficial knowledge that will counter their plans for global dominance. Our objective as “peaceful civil rights activists” is to expose “)’sh Supremacism and crimes”. Our collective objective is to achieve “Gnosis”

Remember A.I (artificial intelligence) on the net is another Zio military weapon creating counter storeys, arguments, or scenarios to our fight back while (((their))) old Operation “Gladio trick”.. sets the stage!!

PC Cuff’s
So when being told it’s not about race… the reply should be “Take your 6m soapy Sausages toBirobidzhan ”!

Race certainly matters to the )u’sh criminal banker families, knowing it is attached to their controlling mechanism “Money” because if it wasn’t you wouldn’t even be debating their holo’hoax Anti Semitic trick and their non-organic mass influx of non-Europeans into our homelands.

No matter what the “anti” national Socialist Brendan O’Connell or his followers say,. Socialism is not )u’ish …. Marxists have been scripted to apply it to open all borders “Internationalism” …….The self-confessed Ausi aboriginal child…”O’Connell” is driven by his ancestry so he has a dog in the Marxist fight.

National Socialism existed before “Hitler” …. …….

“If you love our country you are national, and if you love our people you are a socialist.” – Leader of the British Union of Fascists Oswald Mosley

“Socialism, is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, institution. Our Aryan ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic…..We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.” – Adolf Hitler interviewed by George Sylvester Viereck 1923 –

“National Socialism = (natures laws applied to politics” and is “Not” the problem… it is the “solution” …

Marxism and their International (((Cannibalistic guardians))) have purposely confused the race issue in order to sustain power over the shadow boxing Goy. It is the European/Caucasoid who is shackled with their “politically correct handcuffs” to silence the obvious…. “race matters”

Patrick Little of Little revolution, and Handsome Truth of GDL (Goyim defence league) have opened up avenues that where at one time impossible, but this will only have a limited shelf life if they don’t get it right from its inception …… use it wisely …be )’w Savvy because being )’w Savvy is (((their))) nemesis.

)’wish Banks = Government

Politically Correct policy = Race…

So the guarantee to their £$ is!

“Race”

Say no to…. Political Correctness!

Say yes to… Interest free banking

unofficially think…

“Race matters”

Cattle Market
I wonder when the penny eventually drops for these moronic Goy, how many will accept that their debt enslavement has always been attached to race which is why race matters to the controlling )’w who are at this moment bitterly tasting the spiritual awakening of the Goy, so are in a “politburo scrum” preparing contingencies such as “Semitically correct Policing” to whisk off, or suffocate )’w Savvy unofficial thinkers in even more (((Shoah))) and Shetar corruption.

All Goy are being farmed, culled and bond traded within (((their stock market))) scam. The Juice can’t loose as “It” hedge funds both sides ….. Win or loose – (((the banker crime families win))) and their whole tribe benefits… or show me where they don’t?…..
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars
Descriptive introduction of the silent weapon.

‘Everything that is expected from an ordinary weapon is expected from a silent weapon by its creators, but only in its own manner of functioning.

It shoots situations, instead of bullets; propelled by data processing, instead of chemical reaction (explosion); originating from bits of data, instead of grains of gunpowder; from a computer, instead of a gun; operated by a computer programmer, instead of a marksman; under the orders of a banking magnate, instead of a military general.

It makes no obvious explosive noises, causes no obvious physical or mental injuries, and does not obviously interfere with anyone’s daily social life.

Yet it makes an unmistakable “noise,” causes unmistakable physical and mental damage, and unmistakably interferes with the daily social life, i.e., unmistakable to a trained observer, one who knows what to look for.

The public cannot comprehend this weapon, and therefore cannot believe that they are being attacked and subdued by a weapon.

The public might instinctively feel that something is wrong, but that is because of the technical nature of the silent weapon, they cannot express their feeling in a rational way, or handle the problem with intelligence. Therefore, they do not know how to cry for help, and do not know how to associate with others to defend themselves against it.’

When a silent weapon is applied gradually, the public adjusts/adapts to its presence and learns to tolerate its encroachment on their lives until the pressure (psychological via economic) becomes too great and they crack up.

Therefore, the silent weapon is a type of biological warfare. It attacks the vitality, options, and mobility of the individuals of a society by knowing, understanding, manipulating, and attacking their sources of natural and social energy, and their physical, mental, and emotional strengths and weaknesses.’ SILENT WEAPONS for QUIET WARS

Denialism
This is for you faceless, and hide behind keyboard activists doing so to preserve your little material nest egg! ….. What a waste of time, )u’s are already tracking each and every one of us through our allocated National Insurance numbers which they own and control, it’s their (((ace card)))…. So don’t be scared showing your face they are already breathing down your neck, and only a matter of time before (((they))) deal with you….. Faceless warriors (fear) will only ever reinforce (((their objectives))).

The Removelers are awakened…. name the )’w

Anonymous Misogynist on The Pirate Bay torrent site #sexist pedestrian.tv

It is utterly tragic that MRAs aren’t given the respect they deserve. It’s truly galling that just because their entire worldview was formed around a profound sense of entitlement induced by watching thousands of hours of harem anime, no one takes them seriously. It’s heartbreaking to think that people dismiss them out of hand just because – instead of addressing actual issues like the rates of suicide and depression among men – they focus on dumb shit like editing out all the parts of The Last Jedi that aren’t centred around men.

If that last thing sounded too ridiculous to be true, you have clearly forgotten which time it is that we live in and the corresponding fact that pretty much nothing now is too ridiculous to be true. We live in the most aggressively ridiculous timeline. Accordingly, the self-described “chauvinist cut” of TLJ is very, very real, and exactly as dumb as it sounds.

Uploaded to The Pirate Bay yesterday by an anonymous user, the “The Last Jedi: De-Feminized Fanedit” is, according to their own description “basically The Last Jedi minus Girlz Powah and other silly stuff“. You might be wondering how this is possible, seeing as the film is still a ways off from its DVD release date, but the intrepid nerdlinger(s) who decided to make this possible were so impatient for a version of TLJ where boys don’t get old off that they used a dodgy camrip with hardcoded subtitles:

The resulting movie is (wait for it …) 46 minutes long. Yeah I know, it’s not ideal. It’s made from a CAM source (the most recent HDTC one with the Asian hard subs, which is pretty watchable). It has issues. But it had to be done. You will probably enjoy it most when you view it less as a blockbuster movie and more as some kind of episode from some non-existent mediocre Star Wars series.

If you’re wondering what sort of stuff was cut, here are some examples:

* “Cut out most shots showing female fighters/pilots and female officers commanding people around/having ideas.“
* “NO HALDO (sic)! She simply doesn’t exist. Her whole subplot doesn’t exist. The Kamikaze is carried out by Poe. ( = Poe dies.)“
* “Leia never scolds, questions nor demotes Poe. He is a respected and very skilled high-ranking member of the resistance.“
* “When there’s a scene where a woman is cut in making some important statement that can be substituted by another statement by a guy, then she gets cut out. Works pretty well actually.“
* “Wookie eats the Porg, or at least isn’t interrupted in trying to do so.“
* “No green milk.” (What the fuck)

As you can see, it is clearly the product of a deranged mind. It’s so perfectly bad that it might just be a troll but, for the love of God, I downloaded it to check (please don’t tell the cops) and all the edits they say are in there totally are, so I can’t imagine this was all that far away from someone’s actual convictions.

Whichever weirdo threw this together is also not entirely sold on it:

Obviously it’s far from perfect. The source is not even on DVD-level. Some of the technical edits were slacked because why not, it’s a CAM source (e.g. some masks and Snoke disappearing). Sometimes there’s an extreme zoom despite the mediocre quality. There are plotholes and continuity errors and some cuts are not as smooth as they should be, especially audio transition-wise.

But for what it’s worth, it can now at least be viewed without feeling nauseaus about most of the terrible big and small decisions they made in this film. Also, at least the intro sequence is now very watchable and actually much cooler without all of Leia’s nitpicking. Now it’s all one united Resistance fighting without inner conflict and that’s much more satisfying to watch. Due to the extreme shortening, the whole movie is much more fast-paced now, at times unfortuantely also rushed due to a lack of usable filler footage.

Dear, God.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

Paternalism grows out of the “big man” societies in which there is a top-down system for wealth redistribution. All wealth flows to the chief, and he doles it out to his subjects, often favoring those who support him or otherwise please him.

...

Ultimately, in some cases, this led to the development of a formalized system of patriarchy, in which it was legally recognized that each male householder had a privileged status in regards to his own family, if nothing else, which gave rise to the practice of patrilineal descent. This laid the groundwork for the development of civilization from barbarism, as taxation and patronage now required recordkeeping and certain conditions. A shift then began to occur away from a purely paternalistic society to one in which rulers had to adhere to laws that placed controls on their wealth collection and redistribution. Thus, social hierarchies flourished, social organization solidified, and increasingly large and complex forms of government evolved.

...

To increase revenue and political support, [politicians] have promoted and passed laws that shatter the concept of the patriarchal family. A few examples include preferential maternal custody, decriminalization of adultery, introducing no-fault divorce and preferential welfare to single mothers. Gay marriage, which is essentially a formal declaration that the government does not recognize patriarchy as valid or supported by any law or policy at all, is the latest example.

...

So, what we’re really facing today is not matriarchy, but an increasingly despotic paternalism, in which men’s autonomy and authority is being steadily eroded in the interests of those in power. Our intimate relationships, our conditions of employment, and taxes all conspire to subjugate us to the powerful, who are working steadily to remove any checks on their own power and challenges to their authority. Almost every government-led initiative, whether it be population replacement through immigration, women’s “empowerment,” or highway checkpoints leads in this direction.

...

In the meanwhile, as men, we should hold out not for “equality” with women, which will never, ever, turn out equal, but a more desirable system of democratic patriarchy, in which all men are afforded equal rights to independence in their own homes and affairs and freedom from arbitrary paternalism.

Octavian #fundie goingyourownway.com

Im no Issac Asimov, so bear that in mind when reading this.

Personally, I think marriage will go the way of the mechanical typewriter.Some folks of certain religious or traditional socieities & families thereof will do so, but for the most part it'll fade into history.

As others have noted marriage is becoming obsolete, although IMO the pressure will come from females vs males. There arent enough unplugged men to make a dent in the matriarchy- for every committed man who leaves the system ten more become shackled to it.Rather women will be so disgusted by the spineless fem-dudes their moms created that they'll be repulsed at the notion of shacking up with any 'guy'.I live in a rural area of America and am amazed at the general feminized nature and thinking of average guys nowadays.Forget about urban cities. At times walking through and interacting with people in LA made me feel like I was Don Draper time travelling to 2015.Why the hell would a female shack up with a dude who knows less about a car motor and spends more time in the bathroom prepping then she does?

"Money,duh" you might say in response.
But you dont need a marriage to do that.A simple cohab arrangement is enough in many places, and fairly soon the governments of the world will get hip to the fact that the dudes who dont have women in their lives have a LOT of disposable income . If 80% of the dudes in society are unattached beta males with no kids and no wife, fairly soon someone's gonna realize taxing those guys will pay for a lot of Mr Thundercock's progeny.

Thats how things went in ancient Rome, and thats how things are likely to play out for us.We'll be served with a summons to present proof of gay marriage ,alimony expenses paid ,a court order for child support or a documented relationship with a female....or pay a 40% income tax until we do.The reason?

"All men should share the burden to pay for child support, because patriarchy.Whats more important-a kid or your classic 1965 Mustang restoration?"

At first to sell the "Bachelor Tax" theyll apply it to females as a gesture of "equal burden", but that'll be a non-binding price ceiling. They'll find a beta to happily vouch for being in a relationship so she can dodge the taxman, who wont be encouraged to enforce female recievables due anyways .

Meanwhile , we single dudes will be looking over our shoulders every time we use an ATM.Next floor in the elevator of decline after that is polyamory-ive already seen a few examples of this in LA.One woman in a relationship with a harem of dudes who exclusively 'date' her in return.

The financial squeeze will justify part of this. Want to dodge the 40% bachelor tax, Mister Bluepill? Go find a bored fat girl who's willing to vouch for you to the IRS that you're a taken man.Of course nothing is free in this world......and you'll have to prove to Miss Fatso you have the commitment required to join her roster.

As for the alpha's, itll be a lonely club-moving between harems means pissing off a few women. Itll be the lowest social category of public society; staying out of jail & poverty will mean fake ID's and quick feet.Plate spinning for males will require CIA tradecraft to avoid imprisonment.

I hope we dont suffer a Big Collapse ; the only thing worse then living in a matriarchy is wandering a post-industrial disaster filled with desperate bluepill males ,ruthless whores ,and easy accessed personal weapons with no law or order.You think guys are thirsty simps NOW....just wait until a society of feminized she-dudes have to figure out how to live without Amazon Prime and extended warranties. Just remember-most forms of pornography require electricity to work. As does the production of birth control.

bsutansalt #sexist #crackpot reddit.com

[Repost] Women Do Not Have A “Sex Drive”

tl;dr Red Pill Theory focuses on inducing and maintaining female sexual attraction, but the applied theory (e.g. dread) is missing the underlying connective tissue - women have an attention drive, not a sex drive. If you want to maintain sexual attraction, learn to give the right type of attention (but not too much!).
________________

What Makes a Woman Feel "Sexual"?

Anyone who reads the sidebar understands that the Game is all about FEELINGS. How you make her FEEL is the key to unwrapping every other aspect of attraction.

"Feelings" are temporary emotional states. They are also overwhelming, meaning at sufficient levels they take priority over the rest of the cognitive processes.

Female sexuality is REACTIVE - it's not the dull aching horniness that men experience. It is rapid-onset response to desirable male attention.

The price of male attention is sex. Sex is the glue that holds male attraction firmly in place. 1

Ipso facto women are willing to pay the sex price and a natural feedback loop is created; male attention makes her "sexual", the sex engenders more attention from the male, the attention makes her FEEL "sexual", and so on.

They fuck because they want to FEEL sexual. Not because they want sex.

What Do Women THINK Makes Them Feel Sexual?

Who cares. Ask 10 of them once a day for a week and get 19182 different responses. Listen to their advice and get 0 sex.
________________

What Motivates Women vs. Men to Play This Game?

I don't buy the line that "women are natural Machiavellians/She's always planning the next branch swing/etc.".

Her goal is to maximally exploit her youth (in other words beauty) for maximal desirable male attention.

Can this take the form of a conniving woman, ready to trade up at the next possible chance? Sure. But that is a SYMPTOM and not a CAUSE.

Men want to fuck for fucking's sake. Some trade resources and their dignity for this (gradually rarer) privilege - we call them beta males. Others learn to exploit the desire for their attention. Be the latter guy.

Men's goal is sexual variety.
________________

The Breakdown - Why Women Leave

Ultimately, whether through fault of the man or woman, the cycle of attention stops.

Men who break the cycle generally stop giving the girl "sexy" attention. This can be the result of him becoming unattractive physically 2, but more often the man fails to make her FEEL seduced.

His attention shifts from "sexy" to "expecting" - this makes the girl FEEL...at best nothing, at worst like she is doing work. What used to be motivating attention has been replaced by a demand for service. Wrong kind of attention.

Cheating happens when some other guy steps in and gives her that seductive attention again, making her FEEL sexy. She might fuck him then, she might not. BUT the relationship enters Stage 4 Terminal Cancer at that point.

You may hear "I love you but I'm not IN LOVE with you" at this point 3. Scrap it and move on.
________________

Attention in Context of TRP Terms

Let's re-frame a few core concepts from applied (things you do) to theory (abstract thought that creates broader understanding).

* Dread is reminding a woman your "sexy" attention is always for sale, not overtly stating you will fuck other women

* The 3/2 rule is meant to stifle inappropriate outflows of your time and resources aka limitation creates mystery, it is not a math equation

* Pre-selection and social proof are when other women competing for YOUR attention increases its perceived value

I could go on - the point is the underpinning theme is provisioning and framing of attention.
________________

Conclusions

* Women do not have a sex drive - they respond sexually to desirable male attention

* Never rely on a woman to tell you what makes her FEEL sexual - especially not one you are fucking

* Males desire sexual variety, women desire maximal exploitation of their youth and beauty for attention

* Women cheat when they stop getting the sexy kind of attention - this PERMANENTLY prevents your attention from being "sexy" ever again
________________

Footnotes

Throughout the post there are footnotes of side observations. Each references a specific problem in the modern SMP. Here they are in order.

1. Men giving away attention for free in never before seen quantities - Remember how I said the price for male attention is sex? This dynamic is fucking that up - attention is available in mass quantity without the old cost.

2. There's a reason our advice starts at "lift" - there's no excuse to be physically unattractive - Don't lose the game because you didn't learn the basics. Keep it simple.

3. Reinvesting in a dying or dead relationship - Don't go looking in the dumpster. You'll only find trash. Roll around in there and that smell will be stuck on your for awhile.

Dr Isaac Golden #fundie #quack smh.com.au

A leading Australian anti-vaxxer and Senate candidate has a secret past as a key member of a bizarre quasi-religious cult whose leader was jailed for sex crimes against the children of cult members.

Dr Isaac Golden, a homeopath from Gisborne, Victoria, has confirmed he was heavily involved in the organisation but denied encouraging or being involved in any abuse. The cult was unnamed but dubbed 'The Seaside Sect" in early media reports. It was active in the 1970s and '80s after forming in Goulburn, NSW and then Sydney.

The cult’s leader Ian Lowe, now dead, was a former policeman from New Zealand who reinvented himself as Alistah Laishkochev, a paedophile with a harem of nine wives and 63 of his own children, and a belief system based on UFOs and Hawaiian-Old Testament spirituality, according to court documents and insider accounts.

Dr Golden is the national secretary and Victorian director of the Health Australia Party (HAP) which promotes natural medicine and distrusts mainstream medicine and medical research. The party states in election and publicity material it is not anti-vaccination but rather supports parents’ right to choose. However, it wanted to overturn the Turnbull government’s "no-jab, no-pay" policy, which denied welfare benefits to families with unvaccinated children.

The party gained the coveted first position on the NSW Senate ballot in 2016, from where it received 1.18 per cent of first preference votes and negligible results in three other states.

Dr Golden's PhD contended that homeopathic immunisation had a 90 per cent success rate on his own patients. He sells "nosodes" or homeopathic vaccines from his Gisborne clinic.

[...]

“Isaac Golden was involved right from the start,” said a former cult member who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “He didn’t have a particular role as such because Lowe was basically a dictator. But I would say he was definitely part of the unofficial hierarchy. He was pretty well up at the top as far as the men went.” There is no suggestion Dr Golden was involved in or encouraged any child sexual abuse perpetrated by Lowe.

[...]

Dr Golden was awarded a PhD by Swinburne University’s Graduate School of Integrative Medicine in 2004 and was attached to Federation University in Ballarat as an honorary research fellow until 2016. Two years after his Swinburne PhD the university discontinued complementary medicine programs.

KDM #fundie quillette.com

Yup. That what the literature and a thousand years of history tell us. Multiethnic and culturally diverse democracies, like the USA, consist of peoples of different religions, languages, cultures, races, and nationalities. One of these groups dominates the others by naked military and police power. Nations, on the other hand, are dominated by one group that makes up a strong majority of the population. Finally and most important, nations are inherently stable while multicultural democracies are always inherently unstable. Nations are naturally stable because a majority of the people mutually recognize each other as co-nationals. Multi-ethnic democracies like the current USA never achieve true internal stability. They survive only by military and police suppression and break up the minute the dominant group loses the power to shackle the society together. To understand the future, study the past. Throughout world history, all multi-ethnic democracies have broken up, and almost always in cataclysmic violence. Therefore, the question is not if the multi-ethnic America will shatter, but when and under what circumstances. The only was a culturally diverse multiethnic society can be kept together is by a totalitarian government, a choice the people of the USA are not likely to make.

Black KNight of Scotland #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

TRUE Calculusism & Doctorism & Lawyerism & Yudaism = Law-of-oNe Religions = Nazism

TRUE Christianity & Islam & Zen Buddhism & ALL Nature Religions = Law-of-Zer0 Religions = Egalitarianism

What RELIGION are YOU?

“Science without Religion is lame; whereas Religion without Science is blind.” – Albert Einstein

"Religion without Science is without-a-doubt st00pid but Science without the 'Creator(s)' goes bEy0nd rEtArdEd, which that "rEtArdEd" then EASILY qualifies as Closed System INFINITY!" - Old Toad Proverb

"If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch." - Luke 6:39 & Matthew 15:14

"Compassion (aka: Perfect Love -or- Logical Love) & Passion (aka: Perfect Lust -or-Logical Lust) combined forms Open System COMMON SENSE and Common Sense always sources from a logical Heart; whereas Love & Lust combined forms Closed System MORALS and Morals always source from an illogical Asshole." - Old Toad Proverb


The Law-of-oNe's GOD has "INFINITE LOVE" for its FOLLOWERS (see: Georg Cantor's PROOF of Infinite degrees of Infinite), and, from that:

IF - "all YOU need is LOVE" - THEN you ARE a NAZI!

IF - "you ARE a NAZI" - THEN you ARE also a PRACTITIONER of YUDAISM!

IF - "you ARE a Practitioner of Yudaism" - THEN you ARE a YEW/YUDA!


The Law-of-Zer0's GOD has "Infinite + 1" (aka: OPEN System) COMPASSION for its FOLLOWERS.

Love = EVIL-as-LUST

Compassion = RIGHTEOUS-as-FUCK!

[center justify the acronym spelled-out below)

Friends
United in the
Compassion and
Kindredness of the
oNe

"FUCK!" = 42

F = 6
U = 21
C = 3
K = 11
! = 1

6 + 21 + 3 + 11 + 1 = 42

OPEN System 13 String Kabbalah (aka: Pyramid of the Universe):

[center justify]

0
0000
00000000

OPEN System 42 String Kabbalah (aka: Diamond of the Universe):

[center justify]

0
0000
00000000
0000000000000000
00000000
0000
0

“No ToE (Theory of Everything) is possibly VALID if it can't/doesn't explain Girls/Tits, relative to the Boy/Prick, at the SAME TIME as COMPLETELY explaining the Universe.” - Horny Toad Proverb (aka: Ode 2 George Carlin)

“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” - Albert Einstein (see: Occam’s Razor)

"eVerYthinG's Refractal, Inversely." (Open System LAW of eVerYthinG) - Old Toad Proverb

ALL CalculusTurd's & Doctors & Lawyers & Yews/Yudas = ASSHOLE/sea-eWe-in-tea NAZIS! It's NATURAL ORDER for THEM, especially since ALL were FORMED out-of the Law-of-oNe, thus, since that which creates, only recreates, then that which is FORMED by the Law-of-oNe is CONTROLLED ABSOLUTE by the Law-of-oNe.

“When Calculus was asked about Futile, Calculus replied: “ALL re$i$tance is Futile; $uccumb or eWe $hall be a$$imilated (aka: CalculusTurd’s Closed System Theory of “eVerYthinG i$ Complicated”). Whereas when Zer0 was asked about Futile, Zer0 replied: “The oDDs dictate that kNot EvEn n0thing (aka: Zer0) is Futile, so qUesTion eVerYthinG 2 find the trUth your$elf, 2 include qUesTioning n0thing/Zer0 itself; and ALWAY$ be sure 2 qUesTion eVerYthinG all 5-ways 2 $un-day: inside/within, outside/without, above/super, under/sub, and kN0where." (Open System Law of 'Question eVerYthinG, ABSOLUTE, to include Questioning Your$elf AND Questioning Absolute/God/SourCe'; aka: Law of 5). - Old Toad Proverb

The Doctors are on that List above because they were formed by the Lawyers (aka: SATAN) in 202 AD and since "that which creates ONLY recreates", then ANYTHING that "Satan" (aka: the Lawyers) CREATES will be just as eViL as its CREATOR. That's why the Doctors are eViL, it's INHERENT in their CRAFT, just as the SAME eViL is INHERENT in the Religion known as Yudaism but most peeps don't know that Yudaism is the SOLE SOURCE of POLITICS, with FULL BACKING from Single Verse Closed System Numerical Math and NOW Calculus.

"A patriot to the politics of government is a traitor to the People of the World." - Old Toad Proverb

"Nationalism (aka: Nazism) is an infantile disease; it's the measles of mankind." - Albert Einstein

"Peace CANNOT be kept NOR achieved by FORCE; Peace can ONLY be achieved AND kept THRU UNDERSTANDING." - Albert Einstein (requoted by Toad)

Enjoy TEOTWAEKI (The End of the World as eWe kNew/kN0w IT)! flip

And so it rebegins ... AGAIN ... .. .

"Oh n0! kN0t again?" - Petunia (see: Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy)

Ribbit

Ps: I see the 'idiots' didn't realize WHO it was that just got through CALLING for a Worldwide Military coups d'état to go down (see: my Military coups d'état PUBLIC NOTICE post here on GLP) and, from it, the 'idiots' obviously didn't catch that I happen to CONTROL ALL MILITARY's ON THIS ROCK, especially given MY 'unique' Military BACKGROUND/HISTORY! It's the POWER the true BLACK KNIGHT possesses, that the other Knights do NOT possess, but Revelations warned EVERYONE to CONVERT before it's TOO LATE.

It's now 2 LATE! chuckle

I,CWAS #fundie politicsforum.org

I've been saying it for years: The Bush Administration and the GOP are secular and bent on spreading secularism and they govern like atheists who want power and try to appeal to the common religious citizen.

Polls have been released showing that Evangelicals and Authentic Christians are not satisfied with the Bush admin., and the GOP. It isn't hard to see why: miniarchic-theocracy has not been established, school prayer has not been mandated, homosexuality is legal, abortion is legal, taxation is high, secularism is rampant, etc. The GOP has done nothing to show that they aren't militant secularists.

The GOP enjoys money and power just like the Democrats.

Fabius Cunctator #fundie townhall.com

Individual Rights?
Where do "individual rights" come from?
Answer: Individual rights are based on morality. Morality comes from God.
When individuals define their own "rights" or "morality" we get anarchy, immorality, chaos, and moral relativism (whatever I want is good as long as I don't (seemingly or immediately) "hurt" anyone else).
For example, "individual rights":
1) Redefine real heterosexual marriage to mean a union of same-sex couples; then what follows are other deviant marriages - polygamy, bestiality, male and female harems, child-adult marriages, and any combinations that the deviant and debased mind can imagine.
2) The "right" to murder babies in the womb; the "right" to chose who lives or dies- the weak , the sick, the old, the handicapped.
3) The "right" to suicide.
4) The "rights" to produce, sell, and watch pornography.
5) The “right” to special rights; affirmative action, quotas, hate crimes, hate speech (calling someone who disagrees with the Homosexual agenda a “homophobe”), and some people are more equal than others.

F. Roger Devlin #fundie toqonline.com

[A review of "Third Ways" by Allan C. Carlson]

Adam Smith and David Ricardo expressed cautious optimism that an unhindered market in labor would provide the ordinary working man a large enough wage to marry and raise a few children; but neither claimed to have demonstrated the necessity of this. Radicals such as Marx and Engels soon challenged the idea, maintaining that capitalism transformed labor into an ordinary commodity which women and even children could sell to capitalists at a fraction of the cost for adult men. The traditional autonomy and solidarity of the family would thereby fall prey to industrial efficiency and the Faustian quest for profits. Later liberal economists such as J. S. Mill and Alfred Marshall came to agree with the Marxists that the capitalist market economy makes no natural accommodation to the family.

...

It might at first sight seem paradoxical that families could ever be economically worse off having a second income instead of just one. But this is a classic example of what logicians call the fallacy of composition. It works like this. When an exciting play occurs in a baseball game, all the fans jump to their feet to get a better view. Do they actually get a better view? On average, no. If only one fan were to rise, he would get a better view; but when all rise, the overall view is no better than before. Analogously, an individual woman entering the workforce undoubtedly improves her own material situation; but if the great mass of women enters the workforce, the overall effect is merely to glut the market for labor, driving down wages for everyone.

...

No “law of economics” prevents such insulation of women and children from the labor market. All societies treat certain things they especially value as extra commerciam—outside the scope of market exchange. There need be no market for beef, for example, in a country where cows are considered sacred. Or again, as long as a market in slaves existed they were subject to the same law of supply and demand as any other commodity; but this market could be abolished, and was. Similarly, there need be no market for women’s labor in a country which values home life and family solidarity more than maximal industrial efficiency. Except under rare conditions involving extreme destitution—e.g., where women’s or children’s wage work might be necessary to allow everyone in a family to eat adequately—any society can enjoy as much family autonomy as it is willing to pay for in such efficiency. Proponents of family-centered “third ways” believe such a tradeoff worthwhile; some may disagree, but there is no economic absurdity involved in the idea.

If you are even familiar with the term “family wage” today, you are showing your age. Yet this ideal, writes Carlson, “dominated labor goals throughout the North Atlantic region from the mid-nineteenth through mid-twentieth centuries and had measurable effects on wages and the labor market.” While industrialists almost without exception advocated the “right” of poor women to work (and drive down men’s wages), working class husbands felt differently. They fought for and won wages that permitted their women to remain at home with the children. In Britain between 1842 and 1914, for example, “substantial gains in material standards were achieved by the working class, accompanied by the movement of women from wage-earning to domestic pursuits.” Similarly, in Belgium there was “a thorough transformation in the family life of workers between 1853 and 1891, based on a withdrawal of married women from the labor market and a dramatic rise in the real incomes of men” (p. 44). Keep this in mind the next time you hear a feminist complacently assert the “impossibility” of returning to the days when a woman’s place was in the home.

In America the family wage ideal rested on legal barriers, direct discrimination (gasp!) against categories of female workers, marriage bans, and labor laws requiring the special treatment of women, discouraging their employment. The system was strong enough to survive the New Deal, but was dealt a body blow by the entry of the United States into World War II and the consequent mobilization of women for industry. The National War Production Board recommended “a single evaluation line for all jobs in a plant regardless whether performed by men or women.” Only 13 percent of US firms had followed such a policy in 1939, but by 1947, 57 percent did (pp. 45–46).

...

“Equal pay for equal work” is a masterful piece of political rhetoric with a sort of “2+2=4” ring to it. Carlson catalogues for us a few of the realities this deceptive slogan has served to conceal. First of all, family households with only a single male wage earner have experienced a decline in real income: between 1973 and 1993 alone, this decline amounted to 13.6 percent. Next, single-income families have been put at a mounting competitive disadvantage relative to two-income families in the acquisition of consumer goods. There has also been a sizeable increase in the number of men earning less than a “poverty line” wage, and similar growth in the number of children living in female-headed households. Married women are increasingly faced with a stark choice: leave their young children during the day to try to earn income, or stay with them and fall into poverty. Either way, the children lose (pp. 50–51).

For the first time in history, notes our author, the family is becoming completely industrialized. Gardening, food preparation, home repairs, child care, and other residual forms of home production are being abandoned by busy couples in favor of market-provided services; in other words, the home has no economy of its own, but has become at best a kind of consumer’s cooperative (pp. 51–52). With the economic rationale for marriage thus eroded, divorce, transitory cohabitation, bastardy, abortion, and loneliness all increase. We have come a long way, baby.

Sweden is often held up as the best model of a country pursuing a “third way” between capitalism and socialism. Carlson devotes a chapter to the evolution of Swedish family policy in the past century and the ideological debates surrounding it; rumor has it that its original title was “Desperate Swedish Socialist Housewives.” However that may be, this chapter makes especially clear the difficulty of arranging family policy prescriptions neatly on a conventional left-right ideological spectrum. As early as 1866, delegates to the First Socialist International “approved a resolution calling for bans on the employment of women. The measure’s sponsors reasoned that working women pressed down overall wage levels and displaced men; in their view, working women were the equivalent of strikebreakers” (p. 113). Sweden’s Social Democratic Party adopted this view, and for many years it remained normative for Swedish “progressives.”

...

By the 1960s, however, Alva Myrdal and her stridently anti-familial feminism were again on the march. Individual rather than familial taxation became a central issue in Swedish politics. As passage of the measure approached, a “Campaign for the Family” was launched. Fifty thousand letters of protest poured into the Prime Minister’s office; thousands of women marched on the Riksdag in (as one Swedish newspaper put it) “history’s first housewife demonstration.”

It was to no avail. In 1970, individual taxation went into effect; overnight, a housewife became an expensive luxury (pp. 129–31). Carlson writes: “Correctly labeled the era of Red Sweden, the first Olaf Palme government committed a kind of feminist genocide, intentionally eliminating a whole class of women through coerced ‘reeducation’ and forced labor” (p. 179).

The family wage is by nature a compromise with industrial capitalism; it turns one member of the family over to the labor market in exchange for keeping the rest insulated from it. Distributism, the economic platform advocated by Hilaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton, went farther by seeking to counteract some of the inherent tendencies of capitalism directly.

Roosh Valizadeh #fundie returnofkings.com

It was Joe’s first date with Mary. He asked her what she wanted in life and she replied, “I want to establish my career. That’s the most important thing to me right now.” Undeterred that she had no need for a man in her life, Joe entertained her with enough funny stories and cocky statements that she soon allowed him to lightly pet her forearm.

At the end of the date, he locked arms with her on the walk to the subway station, when two Middle Eastern men on scooter patrol accosted them and said they were forbidden to touch. “This is Sharia zone,” they said in heavily accented English, in front of a Halal butcher shop. Joe and Mary felt bad that they offended the two men, because they were trained in school to respect all religions but that of their ancestors. One of the first things they learned was that their white skin gave them extra privilege in life which must be consciously restrained at all times. Even if they happened to disagree with the two men, they could not verbally object because of anti-hate laws that would put them in jail for religious discrimination. They unlocked arms and maintained a distance of three feet from each other.

Unfortunately for Joe, Mary did not want to go out with him again, but seven years later he did receive a message from her on Facebook saying hello. She became vice president of a company, but could not find a man equal to her station since women now made 25% more than men on average. Joe had long left the country and moved to Thailand, where he married a young Thai girl and had three children. He had no plans on returning to his country, America.

If cultural collapse occurs in the way I will now describe, the above scenario will be the rule within a few decades. The Western world is being colonized in reverse, not by weapons or hard power, but through a combination of progressivism and low reproductive rates. These two factors will lead to a complete cultural collapse of many Western nations within the next 200 years. This theory will show the most likely mechanism that it will proceed in America, Canada, UK, Scandinavia, and Western Europe.

...

The Cultural Collapse Progression

1. Removal of religious narrative from people’s lives, replaced by a treadmill of scientific and technological “progress.”

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles through feminism, gender equality, political correctness, cultural Marxism, and socialism.

3. Delay or abstainment of family formation by women to pursue careerist lifestyles while men wait in confused limbo.

4. Decreasing birth rate among native population.

5. Government enactment of open immigration policies to prevent economic collapse.

6. Immigrant refusal to fully acclimate, forcing host culture to adopt external rituals and beliefs while being out-reproduced.

7. Natives becoming marginalized in their own country.

1. Removal of religious narrative

Religion has been a powerful restraint for millennia in preventing humans from pursuing their base desires and narcissistic tendencies so that they satisfy a god. Family formation is the central unit of most religions, possibly because children increase membership at zero marginal cost to the church (i.e. they don’t need to be recruited).

Religion may promote scientific ignorance, but it facilitates reproduction by giving people a narrative that places family near the center of their existence.[1] [2] [3] After the Enlightenment, the rapid advance of science and its logical but nihilistic explanations into the universe have removed the religious narrative and replaced it with an empty narrative of scientific progress, knowledge, and technology, which act as a restraint and hindrance to family formation, allowing people to pursue individual goals of wealth accumulation or hedonistic pleasure seeking.[4] As of now, there has not been a single non-religious population that has been able to reproduce above the death rate.[5]

...

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles

Once religion no longer plays a role in people’s lives, the stage is set to fracture male-female bonding. It is collectively attacked by several ideologies stemming from the beliefs of Cultural Marxist theory, which serve to accomplish one common end: destruction of the family unit so that citizens are dependent on the state. They achieve this goal through the marginalization of men and their role in society under the banner of “equality.”[6] With feminism pushed to the forefront of this umbrella movement, the drive for equality ends up being a power grab by women.[7] This attack is performed on a range of fronts:

medicating boys from a young age with ADHD drugs to eradicate displays of masculinity[8]
shaming of men for having direct sexual interest in attractive and fertile women
criminalization of normal male behavior by redefining some instances of consensual sex as rape[9]
imprisonment of unemployed fathers for non-payment of child support, rendering them destitute and unable to be a part of their children’s lives[10]
taxation of men at higher rates for redistribution to women[11] [12]
promotion of single mother and homosexual lifestyles over that of the nuclear family[13] [14]

The end result is that men, confused about their identify and averse to state punishment from sexual harassment, “date rape,” and divorce proceedings, make a rational decision to wait on the sidelines.[15] Women, still not happy with the increased power given to them, continue their assault on men by instructing them to “man up” into what has become an unfair deal—marriage. The elevation of women above men is allowed by corporations, which adopt “girl power” marketing to expand their consumer base and increase profits.[16] [17] Governments also allow it because it increases their tax revenue. Because there is money to be made with women working and becoming consumers, there is no effort by the elite to halt this development.
3. Women begin to place career above family

At the same time men are emasculated as mere “sperm donors,” women are encouraged to adopt the career goals, mannerisms, and competitive lifestyles of men, inevitably causing them to delay marriage, often into an age where they can no longer find suitable husbands who have more resources than themselves. [18] [19] [20] [21] The average woman will find it exceedingly difficult to balance career and family, and since she has no concern of getting “fired” from her family, who she may see as a hindrance to her career goals, she will devote an increasing proportion of time into her job.

Female income, in aggregate, will soon match or exceed that of men.[22] [23] [24] A key reason that women historically got married was to be economically provided for, but this reason will no longer persist and women will feel less pressure or motivation to marry. The burgeoning spinster population will simply be a money-making opportunity for corporations to market to an increasing population of lonely women. Cat and small dog sales will rise.

Women succumb to their primal sexual and materialistic urges to live the “Sex and the City” lifestyle full of fine dining, casual sex, technological bliss, and general gluttony without learning traditional household skills or feminine qualities that would make them attractive wives.[25] [26] Men adapt to careerist women in a rational way by doing the following:

to sate their natural sexual desires, men allow their income to lower since economic stability no longer provides a draw to women in their prime[27]
they mimic “alpha male” social behavior to get laid with women who, without having an urgent need for a man’s monetary resources to survive, can choose men based on confidence, aesthetics, and general entertainment value[28]
they withdraw into a world of video games and the internet, satisfying their own base desires for play and simulated hunting[29] [30]

Careerist women who decide to marry will do so in a hurried rush around 30 because they fear growing old alone, but since they are well past their fertility peak[31], they may find it difficult to reproduce. In the event of successful reproduction at such a later age, fewer children can be born before biological infertility, limiting family size compared to the historical past.

...

Cultural decline begins in earnest when the natives feel shame or guilt for who they are, their history, their way of life, and where their ancestors came from. They will let immigrant groups criticize their customs without protest, or they simply embrace immigrant customs instead with religious conversion and interethnic marriages. Nationalistic pride will be condemned as a “far-right” phenomenon and popular nationalistic politicians will be compared to Hitler. Natives learn the art of self-censorship, limiting the range of their speech and expressions, and soon only the elderly can speak the truths of the cultural decline while a younger multiculturalist within earshot attributes such frankness to senility or racist nostalgia.

With the already entrenched environment of political correctness (see stage 2), the local culture becomes a sort of “world” culture that can be declared tolerant and progressive as long as there is a lack of criticism against immigrants, multiculturalism, and their combined influence. All cultural identity will eventually be lost, and to be “American” or “British,” for example, will no longer have modern meaning from a sociological perspective. Native traditions will be eradicated and a cultural mixing will take place where citizens from one world nation will be nearly identical in behavior, thought, and consumer tastes to citizens of another. Once a collapse occurs, it cannot be reversed. The nation’s cultural heritage will be forever lost.

...

How To Stop Cultural Collapse

Maintaining native birth rates while preventing the elite from allowing immigrant labor is the most effective means at preventing cultural collapse. Since multiculturalism is an experiment with no proven efficacy, a culture can only be maintained by a relatively homogenous group who identify with each other. When that homogeneity breaks down and one citizen looks to the next and does not see a person with the same values as himself, the culture falls in dis-repair as native citizens begin to lose a shared means of communication and identity. Once the percentage of the immigrant population crosses a certain threshold (perhaps 15%), the decline will pick up in pace and cultural breakdown will be readily apparent to all observers.

Current policies to solve low birth rates through immigration is a short-term fix with dire long-term consequences. In effect, it’s a Trojan-horse prescription of irreversible cultural destruction. A state must prevent itself from entering the position where mass immigration is considered a solution by blocking progressive ideologies from taking hold. One way this can be done is through the promotion of a state-sponsored religion which encourages the nuclear family instead of single motherhood and homosexuality. However, introducing religion as a mainstay of citizen life in the post-enlightenment era may be impossible.

We must consider that the scientific era is an evolutionary maladaptive feature of humanity that natural selection will accordingly punish (i.e. those who are anti-religious and pro-science will simply breed less). It must also be considered that with religion in permanent decline, cultural collapse may be a certainty that eventually occurs in all developed nations. Religion, it may turn out, was evolutionary beneficial to the human race.

Another possible solution is to foster a patriarchal society where men serve as strong providers. If you encourage the development of successful men who possess indispensable skills and therefore resources that are lacked by females, there will be women below their station who want to marry and procreate with them, but if strong women are produced instead, marriage and procreation is unlikely to take place at levels above the death rate.

A gap between the sexes should always exist in the favor of men if procreation is to occur at high rates, or else you’ll have something similar to the situation in America where urban professional women cannot find “good men” to begin a family with (i.e., men who are significantly more financially successful than them). They instead remain single and barren, only used occasionally by cads for exciting casual sex.

thegambler953 #sexist reddit.com

I became a witness to female empowerment

I was sitting on the bus and a conductor got on it. He went to a girl and after she showed him her ticket he told her she is beautiful( she was tbh).

The horny idiot did not realise that by complimenting her he empowered her and raised her ego even more. Now she thinks she is a godess and men should praise her by fapping to her pictures and sacrifcing their sperm to her beauty.

Men like him should be punished because they enhance the female privileges and contribute to the inceldom problem.

Red Steel #conspiracy freerepublic.com

Plenty of evidence that Obama is not who he says he is.

[Jon] Stewart and the Media think they can brow beat the 'Birthers' and they will go away. Not going to happen.

Obama lies all the time. You need proof that Obama lies all the time? Exhibit 'A', last nights press conference how many lies did Obama make in an hour?

We're still waiting for Obama to quit hiding his past and prove he's a natural born citizen in court - Stewart.

metabuxx #sexist #psycho incels.co

[RageFuel] Imagine 50 men and 50 women are stranded on an island after a violent sea storm.

They are out of resources so they would have to cooperate together for survival until help arrives.

Now imagine that out of those 50 men, 5 are Chads. What do you think is gonna happen? Each one of those 50 women will be fucking Chads for the rest of their days on the island while the other 45 men will be rotting alone. Holes will be like - "Its just a preference sweaty. Why don't you go fix the ship while I suck Chad's dick"

Do you see this island functioning at all? What incentive would these men have to contribute to the island's economy? Why the fuck would they even contribute? Just so that those holes and Chads can fuck without any worry.

And if you can't see this island functioning then how do you expect the society to function. A society where millions of women are dying to be a part of Chad's harems while their looksmatches are rotting in their basement. JFL at this cucked society.

We'd enslave the whores and make chads build ships

based thing to do

the other men would just kill the chads and redistribute the foids with the 5 left out used for being raped by anyone

Rapemaxing is the only way for sub-8 men to ascend

I think there was a show similar to this.
what ended up happening was the Chads didnt do anything (okay they did hunt once or twice) and fucked any woman they wanted. all the women didn't help in any serious way (they would fucking gather firewood/driftwood and shit that fell off the trees) and eat all the food and complain about everything then the average guys did 90% of the work. building stuff. cooking the food. making shelter. gathering food and resources.

The girls that were not good enough for Chad would find a beta male and fuck him and live in his hut and get free resources. but that was only 2-3 guys. All Chads fucked. All girls fucked. 2-3 average guys fucked. The rest rotted away BUT STILL HAD TO CONTRIBUTE to the group otherwise the women would call him a pig and sully his name to the rest of the group. then he would be outcast. So even though they were literally getting NOT A SINGLE DAM THING from the group they still had to contribute otherwise be ousted. Hmmmmm...sorta like society, eh?

(And to be fair I never watched the show. I ended up reading an article on it that some MGTOW youtube channel had posted)

Utterly brutal. Exact replica of the modern society.

I would take down the other men at night and have all the womens to myself

You must be a gymcel but I'm going to ask anyway
Realistically, how many women could you beat up at once?

Reason I ask is because if you kill all the Chads the women are not just going to let you fuck them willingly. They are going to revolt against you. Could you win against 10 women at once?

I'd probably gather a few based brocels and brutally murder chads, then rape the bitches (actually I think they'd just simply accept me submissively). I've seen this behavior among chimps btw.

nah man they would. Women are submissive. If even men act this way among alpha males despite clearly being able to kill him once let alone women who are naturally designed to avoid conflict.

Ill get a sharpened stick and start jabbing the ugly ones and the stronger women first. Then when they see i mean business theyll give up

Damn I didn't know you were a High-IQcel as well
you've thought about this scenario before lol

In a situation like this, are we assuming the same intellect or intellect inverse to looks?

In that case I think what you said above holds true for a few weeks/ months, but then the smartest normies and incels would start their own group, and go find a separate part of the island, and they would just cope there. They'd figure out more efficient ways to get food and other essential shit, meanwhile chad would fuck 7-8 foids a day, but eventually he'd get screwed cos he won't have evolved. Some Becky's would take the hint and move in with the normies (betabux) and eventually Stacy might go tell chad to bully the normies and incels to give them shit, but by this time you'd have a group of 20 high IQ normies incels made one 'state' 5 chads and medium IQ normies in another, so the 5 chads won't be able to do shit to the incels, it's quite likely incels will develop weapons too, so then chad dies out, but presumably they already impregnated the Stacies .

Incel state might send their highest T normies to go kill weakened/ dehydrated chad (ngl I knew a slayer who didn't know u can't drink seawater), and take the Stacies, and then they will kill chads spawn.

Fucking based prediction. This way they could emerge as winners without even rapemaxing. Even the simps in the group would support it.

Mike King #conspiracy tomatobubble.com

The allegations that "America's dad" (barf!) is a degenerate, sex-crazed, scumbag serial rapist are not new. Bill Cosby's criminal drug 'em & rape 'em routine has been played out on unsuspecting, naïve women for decades. But the combination of his fame, his liberal pedigree, and, most of all, his protective pigmentation have allowed him to get away with these dastardly deeds, both in the legal system as well as in the media's "court of public opinion".

The real question here is, why now? Why, all of a sudden, has the piranha press been so mercilessly unleashed upon 'Dr. Huxtable'? Has Cosby pissed someone off? Could it be that the very same Zionist warmongers who took away Obongo's Democrat Senate and pulled his controlled approval rating down into the low 40's, are sending Cosby's pal Obongo a 'Sicilian message' along the lines of, "Hey swartsa-buy! Look how easily we just destroyed the most beloved Black man in America." It is also interesting to note that yesterday's front page of the New York Slimes carried a tax evasion story about the previously untouchable and Obongo-connected Al Sharpton. What is going on here?

Cosby adores the homosexual pervert Obongo so much, he even took to the Sunday Morning talk shows to defend him.

Even amidst the "get Cosby" campaign, there remains the proverbial '800-pound gorilla in the living room' that no one seems to want to talk about. (No, not Mr. Moochelle Obongo!) Pardon your humble reporter here for having the impertinence to notice that all of Cosby's known accusers, to date, have been White women. May we ask; is there something more than just lustful "horniness" driving Cosby's sociopathic behavior? Could it be that "America's dad" derives a perverse satisfaction from debasing and degrading "the White man's woman"?

Eldridge Cleaver was a "civil rights activist" and convicted rapist who became an early leader of the Black Panther Party. While in prison, he wrote Soul on Ice (1968). In the book's most controversial passages, Cleaver freely acknowledges committing acts of rape, stating that he initially raped black women in the ghetto "for practice" and then embarked on the serial rape of white women. He described these crimes as politically inspired, motivated by a genuine conviction that the rape of white women was "an insurrectionary act".

Was Cosby's serial raping of naïve younger White women a manifestation of Cleaver's own psychotic desire to degrade 'Whitey'? You know it was! But don't expect Sulzberger to even touch that issue with a 10-foot pole. For you see, it is people like Sulzberger who have brainwashed, agitated and instigated men like Cleaver and Cosby to prey upon the naive White females of America and Europe. Of course, serial rapists and their victims, come in all colors and ethnicities. We understand that. But this particular form of rape clearly has a racial component to it that needs to be understood, especially by young White girls.

various incels #sexist reddit.com

(NutNotBusted)

While you have difficults to even have one girlfriend, there are people who have multiple side chicks and cheat on their wifes

(Alia_Harkonnen)
Women allow themselves to be cheated on cause they are cucks by nature. In fact it only makes them more attracted to a male knowing other women want him

(YEME7H)
Women love to stamp their presence with chad in front of other femoids. Yet they are oblivious to the fact that it only makes chad more desirable to femoids.

(RemoveRoastbeef)
Sexual freedom and the abolishment of monogamy is to blame as always.

(ilieknothing)
Females only like Chad and form harems around Chad

(Dingus_Incel)
I've met some of them. They lead the most ridiculous lives. One guy who was about 20 I knew was fucking younger women, older women(up to their 40's), blacks, whites, latinas, and women in relationships. He was rude and abusive to his "main bitch" (his words not mine) and was constantly hooking up with girls online. Another one had about 5-6 fuck buddies he would routinely see. Both got "paid" by some of the women they were with. Usually they'd get free food, gas money, and stuff like that.

Bev Jo #fundie bevjoradicallesbian.wordpress.com

The propaganda is that being pregnant is natural and even needed, not just by humans, but by other animals. Some women even force their pets to get pregnant because they think it’s good for them, though for many species, this means being raped. Many female animals are left scarred and injured, and some die as they fight to defend themselves from being raped. In zoos, when they want a species to reproduce, they often shackle the female to be raped because some will fight to the death against the rapists. Being pregnant also sucks the life force from the mother animal. Female bodies respond as though it’s a parasitic invasion and try to kill the fetus. And many women still become permanently disabled or die from pregnancy and childbirth, which is rarely publicized.

The TAO #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Recent events have forced my hand to put this on GLP.

The different timelines for this physical reality are rapidly merging into two time streams manifesting in the Western world. The international cabal dominated by Western elites are working the US and Middle East political and socio-economic systems to bring about their idea of an End Time Scenario.

Certain forces are maneuvering for Hillary Clinton to get elected as the president of the US in November 2016 to achieve Scenario One. To the outside world and off world civilizations, the US ( by its military, economic power and human diversity ) represents our present human reality . With Hillary elected to to " toothless tiger position as POTUS ", she will be deemed to be the " head of this human civilization " ( of course she will not in real terms )...she will be the WOMAN figurehead chief of this world. To hardcore Islamists, Conservative Christians and Jews, THIS IS A NO NO....IT WILL HERALD THE END OF THE WORLD. WHEN A FEMALE HEADS HUMAN CIVILIZATION, ARMAGEDDON ensues and the end of the world is nigh. Jesus will return to start a new kingdom, ahhh....the Second Coming.

Conservative forces in the US , the Jewish and Islamic world are working to this scenario. It is counter-intuitive, but the Conservatives/Haredis/Islamists all work to achieve this to herald the Second Coming of Christ, the Moshiach, Imam Mahdi. They are working the socio-political-economic and all other fronts to accomplish this goal...A GLOBAL RESET post " biblical type " Armageddon.

The second Time Stream Scenario involves other forces of the " powers that be " working towards Jeb Bush as the next POTUS. The possible election of Jeb Bush will set forth a scrambling for power, wealth and influence where unbridled greed and base human desire rules, leading to chaos and anarchy. The POTUS may be sacrificed to precipate rules and measures to ensure total control and domination. Martial law and draconian
Enforcement rules will be applied to achieve a continuance of control and domination at ALL COSTS. All attempts are made to prevent a GLOBAL RESET.

The Second Scenario will involve such blatant,, unconcionable and overt display of human depravity that many people will awaken to spiritual yearnings for evolvement which will frighten the powers to be to institute draconian methods to maintain control and domination. Awaken humans will attempt to maintain Mother Earth and Human Integrity. Revolution and mass disobedience lead to total anarchy and chaos which may cause the powers to be to unleash their secret weapons of annihilation. The attempted use of their secret super weapons may see the intervention of our off world Guardians who can only act as a last resort. They will iniate GLOBAL RESET with our concurrence.

These 2 major timelines predominate current events. The wild cards are the Oriental civilizations. If the Oriental civilizations can shake off the shackles of control and domination on the psyche, they can precipitate a third Time Stream for a harmonious soft landing. The shaking of the shackles involve the Chinese abandoning their pursuit of unbridled greed brought by Western influence and return to the Tao.

The Indians must abandon the clingings to " Glorious Aryan " roots and return to their Gondwanaland qualities. It may seem humiliating but they have move from their Aryan centric culture to the more Tamilian-Gondwana
Traditions. The Japanese, Koreans, Mongolians and South East Asians must embrace their Central Asian-Lemurian past they shared with the Chinese, Indians and Polynesians. The Chinese - Lemurian connection stems from Central Asian wing of the Lemurian civilization.

The wild card Time Stream of the Orientals will entail a soft landing of return to harmony with Naure, Mother Earth and the Cosmos. There will still be a GLOBAL RESET, but one will human freewill and knowledge. A knowing that we need to evolve out of base values and clinging to the physicality of 3D possessions.

Looking at China and the neighboring countries plunging deep into western type industrialization, greedy economics and social developments, the Wild Card Time Stream seem unlikely. The Western cabal's foray into Tibet and Xinjiang causes further closing of Chinese minds and attempts to drive the Chinese into greater Draconic measures, all which will satisfy the powers that be's attempts to prevent harmonious human evolution stemming from the Orient.

However I do know of latent Oriental growth of spirituality amongst the educated. However this is undermined by the underground Catholic churches, Falun Gong groups and lunatic spiritual mainstream Buddhist/Taoist religious groups all founded by the powers that be to sidetrack and derail this fledgling spiritual bloom. What we can hope that this " latent spirituality " remains latent to erupt into the " satori " moment of GLOBAL RESET.

As it is, the whole Western dominated world is racing along the first 2 Time Streams. By September 27, 2014 during the Lunar eclipse of the Chinese/Oriental Harvest Moon we will know whether the first 2 Time Stream Scenarios are inevitable. If the Cosmic Guardian Forces are able to awaken " satori-cally " the latent cosmo-human values when Mother Earth SHIELDS THE MOON's PSYCHO - MAGNETIC ray influence on humankind, and the Sun-Christ influence takes hold for the short period of SATORI AWAKENING, then will be heading for the Wild Card Scenario whereby a kind of " Ascension " occurs...Humankind achieves the CRITICAL MASS for harmonious RESET, Mother Earth safely increase Her frequency to match a 5 D REALITY FOR HUMANKIND. The powers that be and their patron, the abrahamic god, the demiurge, will be sent for Cosmic Recycling .

The Wild Card Scenario will also stream into 2016 and early 2017 when the Cosmic Guardians will complete their initial assistance of humankind to the new reality.

The first 2 scenarios will also end in a harsh Global Reset by early 2017. Mother Earth's consciousness will leave this physical 3D shell of Hers. Her Sentience will move to the 5D reality where her 5D physicality will nurture deserving beings who are ready for 5D experience.

Once Mother Earth Sentience leaves the 3D physical shell it cannot support life as it is now, humans not ready for ascension will perish to he spiritually reloated to other 3 D planets able to sustain 3 D reality. For present earth humankind it will be a very harsh RESET, but a whole new paradigm of learning.

Timelines. Time Streams. Our choice. Our freewill!

diogenes #sexist incels.co

[Blackpill] [Sciencepill] [Evolutionpill] Why women prefer Chad

It's very simple.

Men are designed to impregnate as many females as possible. We are all men here and if we had the chance we would fuck every hot woman walking past us in the streets. We would breed them all. It is evident as we are designed ready to spread our seed every 5-10 minutes or so, and some men have no refractory period at all. In the past the strong Chad could easily overpower women and rape them, but that wasn't necessary as the women naturally flocked to him. But when it was necessary to rape a female from another tribe he could easily do so and the woman would be stuck with his child.

But women have to spend 9 months pregnant. Women in the past (default state of humanity) didn't have access to maternity and childbirth assistance. They would more often than not die, as they were a big fat slow-moving target, or simply died during childbirth. Thus they wanted to make sure to at least carry Chad's seed to term, even if she dies her genes live on in Chad's son. She obviously did not want to carry an incel's seed to childbirth to then die and have an incel born.

Just like in our other ape cousins (we humans are apes as well) as well as other species, the Chad alpha males control harems and gets exclusive rights to breed with all females, keeping the incel virgin beta males from breeding. Likewise did our ancient human ancestors do. The Chad alpha male(s) would have privileged breeding and sex rights, meanwhile the beta males would be lucky to get pity sex if anything.

Women (and men) are still like this today. Because even if we are living in concrete jungles, you can't go against nature, buddy boyo.

jptrigen #fundie sodahead.com

When it comes to sexual orientation, abortion, and childhood sexual exploration, the left demands to arbitrate the rules. The problem for the rest of America is that if one dares express an opinion alien to the guidelines set forth by the left or risks imposing moral standards via a chosen lifestyle, liberals focus like a laser on obliterating the offender.

That’s exactly what Josh Duggar of 19 Kids and Counting is living through right now.

Seems that when Josh was a 14-year-old boy, he admitted that he “inexcusably” fondled five girls in their sleep, two of whom were his younger sisters. Riddled with remorse, Josh confessed to his parents what he’d done, and Michelle and Jim Bob chose to handle it by sending him away for a while and then reporting it to the authorities. Charges were not filed.

No one disagrees that a child molesting a child, let alone a sibling, is inappropriate and harmful behavior, but then again, in today’s society, boys fondling girls and even boys fondling boys are common occurrences.

Insincerity enters the debate via those who ordinarily consider underage sex part of normal human development. After all, it was the government agency Health and Human Services that acknowledged sex-play among kids to be part of what they call small children behaving like “Sexual Beings.”

For Josh Duggar, 12 years after the fact, it’s different.

In his case, the group that normally encourages all manner of sexual experimentation is calling for the father of four’s head on a sexual-predator spike. Sorry to have to be the bearer of bad tidings, but if every individual casting a stone was to have the curtain drawn back on his or her antics during puberty, there’d be a whole lot of scribbling in the sand.

Josh lived in a cloistered, homeschooled family environment, but if the eldest Duggar were in an Arkansas public school system and decided to get busy with a girlfriend in the back of someone’s pickup truck, the ones criticizing him now would have surely provided the lad with a condom-on-a-cucumber tutorial. And if need be, had clumsy Josh failed to use the government-issued condom correctly, if given the go-ahead by a judge, some school administrator would gladly have shuttled the object of Josh’s affection to an abortion clinic, with her parents none the wiser.

Speaking of Arkansas, don’t the Duggars hail from the same state as a former president who, as far as we know, never fondled his alleged half-sister Sharon Lee Blythe but was accused by several women of rape, molestation, exposing himself, and preying upon White House interns?

Yet many of Josh’s critics adore America’s infamous saxophone-playing pervert, because letting someone like Bill get away with using a cigar as a sex toy must somehow subdue the sex-induced self-reproach liberals apparently feel.

For Josh, admitting his indiscretions and actually changing his behavior underscores the message that although our weak carnal natures tend toward wanton depravity, and despite attesting faith in Christ, no one is exempt from the need for God’s forgiveness.

Secular liberals can’t have that!


Unlike those who attempt to assuage the guilt of abortion by downgrading babies to fetal tissue, Duggar did not make excuses for his indefensible behavior. He confessed, and he is now willing to suffer the consequences.

Duggar critics argue that Josh’s victims are injured for life and will never recover from the trauma. Hopefully, with time and counseling, that will not be the case.

However, this concern is mouthed by the very people who largely agree with exposing kindergarteners to homosexual marriage, installing safe-school czars who attend conferences that teach unnatural gay sex techniques to schoolchildren, and excusing ex-presidents for frequenting pedophile vacation destinations.

Isn’t it liberals who believe that teaching masturbation is more important than American history? And now America is supposed to believe that those who sexualize five-year-olds from the second they enter school are suddenly wringing their hands with concern for the girls horny Josh infringed upon?

Moreover, when they’re not demanding that a 27-year-old a man be branded a child predator for engaging in inappropriate hormone-induced sexual activity when he was 14, lefties spend their time egging on a sex-obsessed writer/actress who, after being raised by an artist father renowned for depicting distorted female genitalia, described in her memoir perusing her little sister’s privates for hidden pebbles.

The serious nature of child molestation cannot and should not be dismissed. It’s just hard to buy all the liberal outrage, because many of those censuring Josh Duggar are fans of slaughtering 4,000 babies a day, and when it comes to hurting children, these same people are unconcerned about the message it sends kids when cult heroes are made of men transitioning from penis to vagina.

Savagesusie #fundie freerepublic.com

They are one and the same. Both are irrational, vile behaviors and irrational ideology which uses others as a means to an end and is a collective, group-(non)-think, ideology where Truth (God/reality) and reason never exist.

That homosexuals “love” the people whom they desire to sodomize is the Big Lie. It is lust and desire to dominate (control). It is a perverted, warped vile desire (intrinsically disordered) which is caused because of child abuse and child neglect. All behaviors/desires are learned and habituated and trauma in childhood can really warp a child. Children in muslim cultures are severely traumatized, as are sexually abused children and those whom have no loving father figure or an evil mother.

Chastity Bono was raped by a lesbian as a child, as was Milk, Hays, Spacey, Milo, etc. etc. -—all behaviors are learned and habituated in childhood or perverted and warped because of neglect and abuse. The parent who allows the abuse to happen, loses all trust and the anger in a child will make them reject reality, Truth (God), etc. They hate and ability to “love” is warped completely. It is easy to emasculate little boys.

Warping children can be as simple as making little boys hate their fathers which is common for socialist (welfare) “mothers”. That natural need to connect to a male role model for little boys is severely warped and will lead to warped relationship with all males, as it is for girls who have no loving male role model (father). Destroying the Natural family was crucial to the Cultural Marxists who took over our institutions by the 50s—to collapse culture and destroy the virtue in children—so they will be warped.

The fixation in the puerile stage of latency is pure narcissism which is what homosexuality is—a fixation so that true love (selflessness) will not likely occur (the love of “the Other”—true diversity).

Islam is irrational, also, and sodomy is fine in islam, esp. with children. It is a homosexual culture and harems of boys are not abnormal. For procreation, they never allow the irrational concept of “homosexual” “marriage” since males learn to hate women anyhow, and visa versa, which is what homosexuality is all about—immaturity—the inability to love the Other.

Homosexuals love the Same which is always a fixation in latency. All little girls should prefer to play with girls and boys with boys. It is part of normal sexual identity formation which will lead to maturity if no trauma occurs (sex “ed” or rape or lack of loving role models of male and female).

Sex Ed now teaches little boys that they are homosexual in latency if they prefer boys over girls which warps their sexual identity.....as does ALL hyper sexualization of children. Sex Ed was a Lukacs/Adorno creation to destroy the Christian worldview in little children and fixate them in the latency stage and make them totally irrational, dumb, and immature (fixated in latency).

Immaturity is rampant in our culture now, because of the publik skool system which traps children in dependency and group (non) think for 12 years so maturity can never happen (thinking for self). Just programmed “bots” are what the evil, unconstitutional system pumps out.

Ted Cruz #conspiracy thinkprogress.org

President Obama is planning to use Special Forces to impose martial law in Texas and will hold political prisoners in abandoned Wal-Mart buildings, according to a group of concerned Texans. This internet-fueled conspiracy theory may sound too ridiculous to actually believe, but Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is pandering to those who distrust the government, telling them he will ask the Pentagon for answers.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said last week he is ordering the Texas State Guard to monitor Jade Helm 15, a Navy SEAL/Green Beret joint war simulation which will take place across seven states beginning this summer. The conspiracy theoriests say Obama is actually planning to use the exercise to put political prisoners into FEMA camps in the closed Wal-Marts by transporting them in train cars that already have been prepared with shackles.
But instead of dismissing the idea as a fringe conspiracy theory, Republican presidential candidate Cruz told Bloomberg he needed more questions to be answered.

“My office has reached out to the Pentagon to inquire about this exercise,” the Texas senator said. “We are assured it is a military training exercise. I have no reason to doubt those assurances, but I understand the reason for concern and uncertainty, because when the federal government has not demonstrated itself to be trustworthy in this administration, the natural consequence is that many citizens don’t trust what it is saying.”

He went on to add that for six years, the federal government has been “disrespecting the liberty of the citizens,” which produces fear and distrust. “You know, I understand a lot of the concerns raised by a lot of citizens about Jade Helm,” he said. “It’s a question I’m getting a lot.”

Another 2016 candidate, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), also said in a radio interview that he would look into the theory.

seekerofwisdom23 #sexist reddit.com

I love IncelReddit. I'm not an incel, but there are only a few places that understand women like you guys do.

Man, normies are such fucking tards. How can someone be so deluded not to realize that the average woman gets 100-1000x + as much sexual advances as the average guy does? YOU CAN TEST THIS YOURSELF RIGHT NOW ON TINDER OR ANY DATING SITE, you fucking idiots. It's proven by repeatable experimentation, FUCK. Not over exaggerating here, literally 100-1000x + as many messages or matches.

Now imagine if you were an incel, i.e, facially ugly/super short etc, really think you're going to be able to pick up? I don't deny the possibility that being really funny or personality etc you can get famous or you can pick up a chick maybe, but how the fuck can you expect someone to just magically foster an awesome funny personality? Their anxiety caused from years of bullying etc and not getting laid (males get seriously frustrated if they can't get laid because of strong hormones) is just going to disappear? You guys are fucking retarded.

I remember being age 12-15 and being horny as fuck and not being able to get women even tho chads already were, it was frustrating and depressing. Women literally disregard and bully any beta male while sucking up to chads/badboys. Anyway, even tho I got laid at 16 and everything was easier from there, those years still impress upon my mind heavily, it's like if you starved for years.

I'm not incel at all, actually my other favorite reddit group is MGTOW, because there they talk about the true nature of women also (I don't like the red pill cause they alter themselves to suit women's insanity) I've been in long term relationships and know what women are really like and the anti-male legal system, etc. So the good side is if you incels can trust me a bit when I say women really aren't worth it, and can ruin your life regardless of who you are, ultimately it's better to stay away from women in the modern world. But you didn't even get the chance to learn that so I see how it's not really logical to ask you to simply forget that you're incels. I'd react super badly if I was a virgin for sure.

But god damn normies are so fucking deluded it blows my mind. I think one of the reasons they come to incel reddits is because they recognize the truth of what incels are saying somewhere inside they have also been rejected countless times and know they can't get what they see others getting.

Also, I suggest turning toward philosophy, reading, learning, meditation, etc, and hope you guys don't turn toward suicidal thoughts. Life is important if you rise above vain culture imo.

Anyway, I'm happy to debate any stupid as fuck normie, I'll crush you without a single insult or rude comment like I'm using here, with pure facts, with repeatable experiments, with evidence, with logic, with statistics, and you can embarrass yourselves trying if you want.

P.S, your insults won't affect me even a tiny bit, I find pretty much everything normies say either shockingly stupid or incredibly funny. Also really into buddhism and meditation, has a lot to do with liberation from egotism(which is at the root of taking personal offence), but that's not relevant here, just want to let you know you can't emotionally hurt this person that disagrees with you and I'll respond logically, embarrassing your stupidity, for every backwards comment you make, as I know that drives normies mad.

Mike78 #transphobia #conspiracy reddit.com

Something terrifying is going on in Porn: Attack of the Killer Man-Jaws

"You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember, all I'm offering is the truth – nothing more.”

How do you subdue a powerful nation?

By invading from the inside out. By effeminizing the men. By loading their bodies with hormone disrupting drugs and chemicals, reversing the gender roles of their parents with liberalism and feminism, by pushing transgender and homosexual agendas in school, television and social media to shame healthy masculinity and condemn heterosexual normalcy. Everything you see happening around you today.

But there's another, far more insidious way that no one picked upon until now. Oh yes.

Fuck up their sexuality with porn. Inundate them with the most vile perverse shit imaginable: men fucking other men. But not just gay porn. Oh no- that would be too obvious and would cause a heterosexual male to turn off the computer and vomit. Trick them. Deceive them by dressing other men up in makeup, giving them fake breasts and fake asses and fake vaginas, plastic surgery and hormone replacement therapy and have even the men fucking them believe they are women. Sound impossible?

This is the fucked up truth of the Reality we live in.

That's right. the overwhelming majority of "female" porn stars are actually **trannies**. Men born with penises who had their dicks chopped off, fake vaginas stitched together, given estrogen at a young age and every operation imaginable to try to make them appear as women. But they aren't women. They are men dressed as women, and when people watch this perverse shit it FUCKS THEM UP.

Something very terrifying has been going on for many years in the porn industry and no one noticed it until now. After all- "HOW" you might say. How can trannies be having sex with other men and yet appear as real women with tits, asses and everything? Don't the men notice? It's really quite simple.

Lube. It's porn, people. They use tons of lube all the time and the actors will not be able to notice the lack of natural female lubrication. Hormone replacement therapy and SRS at a young age to prevent scarring of the fake vaginas and overtly male characteristics from showing. Brazilian buttlifts and other body fat displacement procedures to give the appearance of wide hips, rib removal for narrow waists, injections for big asses. Breast enhancement. Tons and tons of makeup. Plastic surgery.

Here's the kicker though: there are some male traits you *simply can't remove*. Look for these ALWAYS: wide shoulders, MAN JAWS, sloping back forehead, pronounced brow ridge, ring finger longer than index, long spindly arms, lack of a Q angle of the femur, "adonis belt" created by male hip structure, high cheek bones. When you actually study the physical anatomy of these porn "actresses", it becomes readily apparent that they are in fact biological males.

EXHIBIT A: Asa Akira https://s15.postimg.cc/80n721dmj/akira.png

LOOK AT THAT MAN JAW! Good god, how do ANY of you think this is a woman?!?! Look at the high cheek bones. This is a TRANNY! Look at his skin up close! https://s15.postimg.cc/g659084gb/makeskin.png That's MALE SKIN. He looks TOTALLY like a thai lady-boy in that pic. Can you see it? I hope you can fucking see that guy is a dude.

Exhibit B: Phoenix Marie https://s15.postimg.cc/3rigzw58b/phoenix_marie.png

HOLY FUCK! JUST FUCKING LOOK AT HIM!! If you can't see that that is a MAN with makeup on something is seriously wrong with you.

Exhibit C: Aletta Ocean https://s15.postimg.cc/h8ffir7u3/aletta.jpg

A pig with makeup on is still a pig! Notice the protruding male brow ridge, the sloping male forehead and the strong male jaw this guy has.

Exhibit D: Stoya https://s15.postimg.cc/nm4im050b/stoya.jpg

Holy crap! Look at that male face! The jaw, the brow ridge, the high cheek bones! THAT IS A DUDE. PERIOD. *That is just a straight up dude with long hair and makeup on*

So how many of you have been jerking off to these trannies your entire life without realizing they were men? I've never seen these before and only happened to stumble upon them by looking through a list of "the most beautiful porn stars" (isn't that fucking ironic? Basically a slap in the face). AT LEAST ONE OF YOU FUCKERS READING THIS HAS BEEN JERKING OFF TO MEN FUCKING OTHER MEN. YOU'VE BEEN LUSTING AFTER DUDES IN MAKEUP! WAKE UP!!!

This is only a tiny tiny sample of the hidden trannies pervading the porn industry. Make no mistake- ALL famous porn actresses are trannies! You simple can't climb the pyramid to fame and fortune without forwarding their sick agenda. That's right- Pamela Anderson, Jenna Jameson, all those big names are 100% trannies. Men with fake tits and makeup.

Open your eyes. Women don't have man-jaws. Even ugly women at least are still WOMEN. These AREN'T WOMEN. See the male features. SEE THEM. These are MEN sucking off and getting fucked by other MEN. NO they are not "hot". NO they are not "sexy". THEY ARE MEN WITH MAKEUP ON AND ITS DISGUSTING!

As if there wasn't enough reason to stay the fuck away from porn as it is? SMH

Kevin Martin #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

3. FOSSIL RECORD

Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Now, 130 years and billions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of one "connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest graduated steps."

Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation. Let's take a look at Archeopteryx, a fossil that some evolutionists claim to be transitional between reptile and bird.

Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.

(The following six points are quoted from Luther Sunderland's book, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he gathered from Hitching's book.)

1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's.

In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.

One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.

2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.

However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.

3. It had teeth.

Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.

4. It had a shallow breastbone.

Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.

Recent examination of Archeopteryx's feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today's flying birds.

5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's.

This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.

6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.

This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.

This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.

This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, "It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived."

And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.

In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"

Just think of it! Here is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever and he knows of absolutely NO transitional fossils. So convincing I believe this quote to be that it will sum up this discussion on fossil evidence.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

It is horrifying what has happened to America. Illegal immigrants have intentionally been brought into the country, allowed to stay, and have had millions of anchor babies (children of illegals born in the U.S., which gives them all the rights of Americans). Illegal aliens (and that is what they are) get free (or dirt cheap) food, medical, insurance, school, college, cars, et cetera. U.S. citizens DON'T qualify for any freebies!!! I love all people and the issue is not about race. IF YOU ARE AN ILLEGAL ALIEN, I LOVE YOU IN THE LORD, IT'S NOTHING PERSONAL. I'd want to get out of Mexico too if I were you, to come to America! I thought the U.S murder rate was high in 2012, at 14,827 victims; but then I read about Mexico, where 26,037 people were murdered for the year 2012!!! That's almost TWICE as bad as the U.S.! As a natural-born American citizen, I cannot wait until God punishes the criminals behind the treason and deliberate overthrow of America's sovereignty. Without borders there is no country, and that's the whole idea. The Illuminati have been planning this for a long time.

'The issue is that I am an American, and this used to be my country, and I don't want strangers illegally sneaking into my country; and then my corrupt government forces me to pay their bills in the form of over-taxation and reckless debt-spending. If I had my way, they'd all be kicked out!!! Only immigrants who came here LEGALLY would be allowed to remain. No one ought to be allowed to immigrate to the United States who cannot speak acceptable English, and have a skill to offer. That is how it was in the early 20th century, when many Irish, Italian and European immigrants came to America. They were skilled workers and brought many good things to our culture; such as, bakers, cooks, sausage makers, craftsmen, tailors and cheese makers. America has lost her backbone. Brother Lester Roloff is right... America was great when she was good, and she was good when she had great churches!!!

Our treasonous leaders have sold us out, allowing U.S. corporations to fire Americans, and move tens-of-millions of high-paying manufacturing careers overseas to foreign soil. I heard Peter Schiff (bragging that he is in the 1% wealthiest group of CEO's) blaming the government, but not Wall Street. What a deceiver! Wall Street is Washington!!! Please read, “Why The Heresy Of Zionism Is So Dangerous To Christians!” The government is definitely to blame, but the corporations practically ARE the government today. Nations don't rule the world, corporations do! The leaders of the largest U.S. corporations are nearly all members of Luciferian secret societies, Council On Foreign Relations, Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg, et cetera. America's biggest companies own more capital than most of the world's countries!!! U.S. corporations couldn't operate on foreign soil without complicity from the U.S. government. As the holy Bible teaches, the love of money is the root of all evil (1st Timothy 6:10).

Please read this socking article titled, Taylor Swift And Satanism. I couldn't believe this video snapshot when I saw it. Taylor Swift has been portrayed by the ungodly media as a good girl, innocent, sweet and the kind of girl every parent wants their daughter to become. But take a look at the sensual, disgusting, filthy, lewd sex act, that Taylor is doing in the video. THIS IS THE UGLY TRUTH!!! This is what they want your girls doing. Luciferians are at the top of the satanic pyramid I mentioned earlier, and they own and control the music industry (including Contemporary Christian Music). They control the banks and Wall Street. Luciferians preside over Zionism, Freemasonry, the Roman Catholic Church and every form of evil imaginable!!! For an excellent crash course on the subject, I highly recommend reading Commander William Guy Carr's (1895-1959) awesome book titled, “Satan: Prince Of This World.”

Just think how truly great America could be if money weren't always an issue, because of greed, endless government regulations and fear of lawsuits. Young ladies would all learn to cook delicious meals, how to prepare and preserve foods, and make all sorts of pastries and breads. Young ladies would learn how to embroider hats, make their own fashioned clothing, use a sewing machine proficiently, knit hats and scarves, croqueting, gardening, and how to write poetry. Young people would learn the skills of motherhood and fatherhood. They'd all learn first-aid skills and caring for the wounded. From the earliest age, young people would be taught to live for others and respect life. All children would be privileged to learn the Word of God (i.e., the holy Bible) in school. Every subject taught would center around God in creation, which is the reality. None of these things are taught in satanic government (public) schools, because Satan wants your child to fail, to grow up to be a factory worker, pregnant out of wedlock and all messed up morally, a causality at age 20, a foolish idiot, never amounting to anything for God. This is America today, sad to say.

Atavisionary #sexist atavisionary.com

Women have a much stronger preference for security and safety than men, and vote that way. They like social safety nets and related things because of an instinctual fear that they may end up as single mothers and in poverty. There is also a component of “cat-lady syndrome” to this where women more often suffer from excessive altruistic desire without having access to enough wisdom to do so in a sustainable or pragmatic manner. They also tend to pay a lot less in taxes, so they don’t have to worry about that particular harm as much. The result is that this creates an unaffordable social entitlement structure and it creates very bad incentives for family dissolution. Every western country currently has massive amounts of debt thanks to excessively generous social welfare benefits. The only partial exceptions to this occurs when there is a substantial cache of natural resources which can be used to supplement insufficient taxes. The entitlement bubbles get more extreme and more ready to pop every year.

Women’s suffrage was certainly a massive mistake. I wouldn’t say, however, that women’s suffrage is the root of the problem. Suffrage of any form is the root of the problem. Women’s suffrage merely served as an accelerative catalyst. Men can and will also vote themselves free stuff if given the opportunity, but a greater proportion of that population has more to lose from increased taxation so the overall rate of entitlement related government degeneration is significantly slower. Yet Cthulhu still swims left. Let’s not also forget that it was men who voted and decided to grant women’s suffrage in the first place. And universal male suffrage was a result of granting only propertied men suffrage. Once the franchise is given on a partial basis it is basically inevitable that it will be gradually and continually expanded to include less and less suited populations until the strain is so high and unsupportable there is a collapse and/or balkanization. Typically this is goaded forth by cynical politicians who (usually rightly) believe they will be more secure in their power thanks to the newly introduced voting population being much more in favor of them. Even today, a major motivation for unlimited immigration is the cynical understanding by current democrats that their political positions are more secure when they elect a new electorate. This is actually a recipe for disaster, however, because at some point legacy Americans are going to, and currently are coming to the realization that they have no interest in being told what and how to do things by alien ethnic groups. Hence the waning support for universal suffrage democracy. Open civil war is not at all unlikely if the current trends continue. The desire for self determination has been both strong and consistent throughout history.

In my book, smart and sexy, I have literally hundreds of citations from scientific papers going over the biologically based differences in intelligence and psychology between men and women. In short, intelligence is substantially an X chromosome linked trait and many intelligence boosting (and lowering) genes are recessive. The result, which is easily viewable in IQ test data, is that males are substantially more variable than females. On one end, this means you have many more mentally handicapped males. On the other, you have many more very intelligent males. Since intelligence is necessary for competence in essentially every occupation that exists, including in government, you are going to have far more males competent and suited to the highest level positions than females.

You could say that probabilistically speaking, there are going to be some number of suitable women and on that basis argue that even if we can accept that there will always be a smaller absolute number of women, we should still leave the doors open for the exceptions that come about. There are a couple of problems with this. First, a population requires a certain minimum birth rate to stay stable. It has been estimated that this rate is approximately 2.1 children per woman. Encouraging women to prioritize anything above motherhood is thus detrimental to the society as a whole and should not be generally tolerated. Allowing exceptions means allowing the existence of poor role-models for the average girl. Careerism in women also seems to be harmful to the women themselves. Despite all the “advances” made by feminism in the last 100 years or so, women are more unhappy than they have ever been and a huge number are now on anti-depressants and other psychiatric medications. A large number of women are completely ignorant of the biological foundations of their fertility and its rapid decline after the age of 30. Many women who wanted to be mothers thus now find themselves unable to have children because they wasted their time pursuing unfulfilling careers instead of arranging for their families during the optimum window. It is quite sad actually to see some of these lonely, old, cat-lady spinsters. A realistic understanding and teaching could have prevented the vast majority of these cases. Instead we have a growing class of middle aged or older women who have an iredeemable life regret and thus are rendered completely miserable.

http://atavisionary.com/it-just-didnt-happen/

http://atavisionary.com/career-women-are-dysgenic/

Then lastly for this interview, workforce and employment statistics strongly indicate that even very intellectually talented women have a strong tendency to leave the workforce early or only work part-time. In general, women don’t actually want to work the same long hours that men do and this can be very detrimental for important jobs that society needs to be filled. For example, part (obviously not the only part) of the problem with our medical system being so expensive is a relative shortage of doctors. Well, this doctor shortage is largely a result of pushing women into medicine combined with their much greater rate of leaving the workforce.

Rev. Ronald E. Williams #fundie #sexist fbbc.com

[From "Working Mothers"]

Families are under tremendous pressure today from many quarters. Because the institution of the home was created by God, we can logically expect Satan to oppose and frustrate its success however he can. Satan is well aware that strong, stable homes are the progenitors of strong, stable children who will leave their home to reproduce the same vital faith in Christ and godly character in which they were trained. Such soldiers of the cross do not just accidentally appear on the scene. They are the normal, expected fruit of godly, well-ordered families where each family member has been obedient to his or her God-given responsibilities.

Bitter Tears

I have met numerous gray-headed folks who have been agonizing over their wayward children. Some have asked prayer for a son who is incarcerated for his crimes, others have children who are on their second, third, or fourth marriage. Most are not a regular part of a fundamental, separatist church. Parents weep bitter tears as they see their rebellious sons and daughters spurn their faith in Christ and accept the shallow, sensual values of the age in which we live. Their agony is exacerbated when grandchildren are born for they know they will be a worse child of hell than their parents as they quickly adopt the hedonistic, rebellious, self-centered lifestyle of their mother and father.

Almost everyone of these broken hearted parents has related to me that they made serious mistakes in parenting and if they had it to do over, they would radically alter how they raised their families.

[...]

Frustrations of the Working Mother

Because most women have a natural "nesting" drive deep within their breast, being in the work place is a constant source of frustration for her. She knows her children need their mother full-time. She knows she cannot do justice to a marriage, house and children as a homemaker and to a job at the same time. How can she clean and make her house beautiful when she is too tired to do these things after her 40 hours a week in the work place? How can she effectively kiss away little tears, care for a fevered brow, bandage a scraped knee, give spiritual counsel, character training, and consistent, timely discipline when she only sees her children in small segments of time allowed by her job? How can she cook, sew, clean, and plan for her family when she is down at the office and caught in rush hour traffic? How can she properly respond to her husband and meet his needs when she is overly tired, tense, frustrated over her situation and even resentful?

The Demands of a Homemaker

When Paul wrote the phrase "keeper at home" in Titus 2:5, it came from two words: "home" and "work." The godly woman is not only home where she belongs and desires to be, she is working! She is not stretched out on the sofa watching soaps and popping chocolates into her mouth. There will not be cobwebs in her house that are life-threatening, dust balls as big as rodents, green hairy stuff growing in her refrigerator, or piles of unwashed clothing, dishes, and unmended clothes like Mt. Everest! Being a wife, mother, and homemaker is a full-time, creative, demanding, fulfilling and tiring job.

Count the Cost!

Mom, what have you gained even if you obtain nice clothes, an expensive car, beautiful house, material possessions, prestige, notoriety, and even authority on the job while your children are strangers to you. How can you enjoy the "good life" when your presence at home would have prevented all the wrong friends your children now refuse to relinquish. How can you have peace within when a mother's supervision would have prevented experimentation with drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and even immorality? Position, authority, salary, fringe benefits and a host of other job-related "blessings" pale in significance if your marriage is in serious trouble and there seem to be barriers between you and your husband because of tight schedules, rare intimate communication, and because your fulfillment has come from outside your home.

Small wonder many children and young people forge such strong loyalties to peers even though they are an adverse influence on them. In the absence of a full-time mother, a child will naturally seek guidance, companionship and fulfillment from another source. Loyalties that should have been cemented with his parents and family are instead farmed out to evil-charactered peers readily provided by a Satanically dominated world.

Mom, your husband needs you, another woman should not be meeting his needs. Your children need you, not a surrogate hireling. You cannot be replaced by another. God has called you to be a "keeper at home", not to stunt your creativity or imprison you in an unfulfilling, demeaning role, but because you have been called to the high and noble office of a homemaker; a responsibility with unmeasureable rewards, heavy demands, great fulfillment, and inestimable blessing for you, your husband, and your children.

Andye Murphy #quack #magick gaia.com

Six Ways to Awaken Third Eye
Through decalcification and activation, reclaim your path to ecstatic bliss and union with source:

Avoid Fluoride
Pay close attention to the water in your life: tap water is a source of fluoride, which contributes to pineal gland calcification. Fluoridated toothpaste is another prominent source of fluoride in modern diets, as are inorganic produce and artificial drinks made with impure water. Consider adding water filters to your sink and shower faucets.

Supplement Your Diet
The list of supplements that support and detoxify the third eye is long and includes raw cacao, goji berries, garlic, lemons, watermelon, bananas, honey, coconut oil, hemp seeds, cilantro, seaweed, honey, chlorella, spirulina, blue-green algae, raw apple cider vinegar, zeolite, ginseng, borax, Vitamin D3, bentonite clay and chlorophyll are all ingredients that aide purification of the pineal gland.

Use Essentials Oils
Many essential oils stimulate the pineal gland and facilitate states of spiritual awareness, including lavender, sandalwood, frankincense, parsley and pine. Essential oils may be inhaled directly, added to body oil, burned in a diffuser and added to bathwater.

Sungaze
The sun is a great source of power. Gaze gently at the sun during the first few minutes of sunrise and last few minutes of sunset to boost your pineal gland.

Meditate and Chant
Meditation activates the pineal gland through intention: consider visualizing the decalcification of the pineal gland, as its sacred nature is illuminated and directly connected to source. Chanting causes the tetrahedron bone in the nose to resonate, which causes stimulation of the pineal gland. Considering chanting “Om,” also known as the sound of the universe, 108 times each day.

Collaborate With Crystals
Crystals are influential allies in the quest to awaken the third eye. Use crystals and gemstones in the purple, indigo and violet color palette. This color palette serves to awaken, balance, align and nurture the third eye. Try amethyst, purple sapphire, purple violet tourmaline, rhodonite and sodalite. Place the crystal or gemstone between and slightly above the brow during meditation.

incelwarrior9 and lonelydude567 #sexist reddit.com

(OP by incelwarrior9)
You can never be safe as a man

Girls had and will always have higher sex market value than men. They are desired by both men and women which not only gives them more options but also guarantess that they will never run out of potential partners.

Men, on the other hand, are not nearly as fuckable as women. The average man is practically invisible and possibly repulsive to the average woman. At first glance, most men are literally NOTHING. Unlike women, most men are not capable of causing instant arousal to the opposite sex. They have to use social skills, status and extrovertism in order to get a woman's attention.

Even if somenone has a girlfriend there is always a chance she will leave him and he will be left alone. Unless he was prepeared for this and established connections and proximity with other females he will struggle to get a new gal. His ex, on the other hand, has a harem of potential partners and orbitters to boost her ego.

In conclusion, you can never be happy as a guy. Unless you are MM tier there is always a possibility that you will end up alone at one point for an indefinite amount of time. With this in mind, it's impossible to enjoy any relationship with a woman since you know that it can easily fall apart and getting sex again won't be nearly as easy for you as it will be for your ex.

(lonelydude567)
Yep. Sub 8= beta fate

(incelwarrior9)
that's nature. men are disposable and women are queens just like a bee hive. there is nothing we can do about that

(lonelydude567)
Nope. Eggs are way more valuable than sperm.

(incelwarrior9)
and who makes eggs?

Phyllis Chesler #fundie meforum.org

<table>

It's become fashionable to draw comparisons between the popular television adaptation of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale and Donald Trump's America.

It's become fashionable to draw comparisons between the popular television adaptation of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale and Donald Trump's America.

Margaret Atwood, whose work I have long admired, is now being hailed as a prophet. It is quite the phenomenon. According to the pundits, Atwood's 1985 work, The Handmaid's Tale, which Mary McCarthy once savaged, and the recently-published 2019 sequel, The Testaments, are dystopias which aptly describe the contemporary climate change crisis, toxic environments, the rise in infertility, and the enslavement of women in Trump's America.

Is this all Atwood is writing about? Do the increasing restrictions on abortion in America parallel the extreme misogyny of Gilead, the theocratic state in Atwood's saga? Is the unjust separation of mothers and children, a la Trump on the southern border, what Atwood has foretold? Every review and interview with Atwood that I could find strongly insists that this is the case.

Michelle Goldberg, in the New York Times, attributes the current popularity of The Handmaid's Tale to Trump's ascendancy. She writes: "It's hardly surprising that in 2016 the book resonated—particularly women—stunned that a brazen misogynist, given to fascist rhetoric and backed by religious fundamentalists was taking power."

<table>

Gilead-inspired handmaid outfits have become popular at anti-Trump rallies as far away as Poland.

Gilead-inspired handmaid outfits have become popular at anti-Trump rallies as far away as Poland.

... At the anti-Trump pro-women's rights marches around the country, some feminist protesters dressed like Handmaids in billowing, shapeless red dresses, their facial identities obscured by large, white Victorian-era bonnets, carrying signs that read: "Make Margaret Atwood fiction again" and "The Handmaid's Tale is not an instruction manual."

They have a point. Abortion rights are being steadily challenged and nearly eviscerated in the formerly slave-owning American states. Right-to-life lawyers insist that the protection of unborn children without any gestational markers is the law of the land. We now have free states and slave states in terms of access to high quality, insurance-funded abortions. Pregnant, drug-addicted women are being jailed for child abuse.

<table>

Gilead most reflects what is happening not in America, but in most Islamic countries.

Gilead most reflects what is happening not in America, but in most Islamic countries.

However ... [t]here's another contemporary parallel that also gets scant attention. Gilead's system of pseudo-theocratic totalitarian control in both her novels and in the MGM/Hulu versions does not accurately reflect what is happening in America today; it mirrors what is happening in most Islamic countries, a fact that Atwood and her admirers are too politically correct to notice.

Obscuring one's individual identity, masking one's face, sequestering women at home, may have been true of many previous cultures and regimes. However, in this day forced niqabs (face veils) and burqas (head, face, and body bags) are mainly realities for women in Muslim countries and communities in the West. In Iran in July, three women were sentenced to a total of 55 years between them for protesting against the veil.

<table>

In July 2019, an Iranian court sentenced Yasaman Aryani (left), Monireh Arabshahi (center), and Mojgan Keshavarz to a total of 55 years in prison for protesting against the veil.

In July 2019, an Iranian court sentenced Yasaman Aryani (left), Monireh Arabshahi (center), and Mojgan Keshavarz to a total of 55 years in prison for protesting against the veil.

In The Handmaid's Tale Atwood does mention Islam twice (to exonerate Muslims as the suspected mass murderers of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Oval Office in Gilead (p.174) and again in a reference to the "obsession with harems" on the part of allegedly Orientalist Western painters who did not understand that they were painting "boredom" (p.69). Atwood's quintessential Bad Guys are Caucasian, Bible-thumping, right wing, conservative, American Christians.

Where else but in the Islamic world do we see forced face veiling, forced child marriage, women confined to the home, polygamy (a "wife" and a "handmaid" under the same roof), male guardians and minders, cattle prod shocking, whipping, hand amputations, stoning, crazed vigilante mobs stomping and tearing people apart, and tortured corpses publicly displayed on city walls or hanging from cranes in order to terrify the populace? Or the torture murder of homosexuals? This is how Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, the Islamic Republics of Iran and Afghanistan, the tyrants of Somalia and Saudi Arabia, interpret, correctly or incorrectly, Sharia law.

How could all the reviewers not see what I so clearly see? Perhaps here's how.

I once lived in a harem in Afghanistan—a harem simply means the "women's quarters." It is forbidden territory to all men who are not relatives. If you can't leave without permission or without a male escort, you are in a harem and living in purdah.

<table>

"I once lived in a harem ... the property of a polygamous Afghan family."

"I once lived in a harem ... the property of a polygamous Afghan family."

After a 30-month courtship, I married the glamorous, wealthy, very Westernized, foreign student whom I first met at college when I was 18. We never once discussed religion. Not a word about Islam. He had not prepared me for what life would be like in his country, even temporarily. For example, he had never even mentioned that his father had three wives and 21 children, that most Afghan women still wore burqas or heavy hijab, that I would be pressured to convert to Islam, and would have to live with my mother-in-law.

When we landed in Kabul, officials smoothly removed my American passport—which I never saw again. Suddenly, I was the citizen of no country and had no rights. I had become the property of a polygamous Afghan family. I was not allowed out without a male escort, a male driver, and a female relative as my chaperones.

This marriage had transported me back to the 10th Century and trapped me there without a passport back to the future.

I experienced what it was like to live with people who were permanently afraid of what other people might think—even more so than in Small Mind Town, USA.

<table>

Read more about the author's captivity in Afghanistan in her acclaimed 2013 book.

Read more about the author's captivity in Afghanistan in her acclaimed 2013 book.

I was terrified when I first saw women wearing ghostly burqas—ambulatory body bags, sensory deprivation isolation chambers—huddled together literally at the back of the bus. My Afghan family laughed at my over-reaction, which was considered abnormal, not their practice of burying women alive.

My dreamer-of-a husband kept assuring me that the dreadful burqa and my captivity would both soon pass. He lived to see this dream come true for about 15 years for the middle classes until it was shattered again, perhaps forever.

Many Afghan women have mothers-in-law who beat them and treat them as despised servants. Mine never hit me or ordered me to cook or clean, but she tried to convert me to Islam every single day and tried to kill me by telling the servants to stop boiling my water and washing my fruits and vegetables. I got deathly ill.

Poor woman, she was a deserted and much maligned first wife. She feared me, envied me, hated me—as a woman, an infidel, a Jew, an American, and mainly, as a "love match," something considered too dangerously Western. Afghan mothers-in-law do collaborate in or even perpetrate the honor/horror killings of their daughters and daughters-in-law. So do rural India-based Hindu mothers and mothers-in-law, Muslim mothers and mothers-in-law world-wide, and Sikhs, to a lesser extent.

I got out of the wild, wild East and I moved on. But I never forgot the way it was. I always understood that as imperfect as America and the West might be, it was still a much better place for women than the Islamic world. Forever after, I understood that barbaric customs are indigenous, not caused by foreign intervention; and that, like the West, Islam was also an imperial and colonial power, owned slaves, and engaged in gender and religious apartheid.

I owe Afghanistan a great deal for teaching me this. Perhaps my radical Western feminism was forged long ago in pampered purdah in Kabul.

Islamic or Islamist totalitarianism today and as I knew it nearly 60 years ago in Kabul is the more obvious face of Gilead than the one imagined by Atwood more than 30 years ago.

Like the handmaids and domestics in Gilead, the captive population in Orwell's 1984 is monitored around the clock through "telescreens" that can view every room, each person. The telescreens broadcast Big Brother's orders and conduct daily "hate" sessions. People are always anxious and paranoid; everyone has permanent enemies.

Today, Orwell's Thought Police sound a lot like the Afghan Taliban or like Iran's or Saudi Arabia's Virtue­ and-Vice squads, who arrest men and women for the smallest sign of "individuality" or difference, and who harass and arrest women for showing a single strand of hair, or a glimpse of ankle. Here's Khaled Hosseini's fictional description of life in Afghanistan under the Soviets in The Kite Runner:

You couldn't trust anyone in Kabul anymore—for a fee or under threat, people told on each other, neighbor on neighbor, child on parent, brother on brother, servant on master, friend on friend...the rafiqs, the [Afghan] comrades, were everywhere and they'd split Kabul into two groups: those who eavesdropped and those who didn't...A casual remark to the tailor while getting fitted for a suit might land you in the dungeons of Poleh-charkhi...Even at the dinner table, in the privacy of their own home, people had to speak in a calculated manner—the rafiqs were in the classrooms too; they'd taught children to spy on their parents, what to listen for, whom to tell.

And here he is describing Afghanistan in the Taliban era:

In Kabul, fear is everywhere, in the streets, in the stadiums, in the markets, it is a part of our lives here...the savages who rule our watan [country] don't care about human decency. The other day, I accompanied Farzanajan to the bazaar to buy some potatoes and naan. She asked the vendor how much the potatoes cost, but he did not hear her, I think he had a deaf ear. So she asked louder and suddenly a young Talib ran over and hit her on the thighs with his wooden stick. He struck her so hard she fell down. He was screaming at her and cursing and saying the Ministry of Vice and Virtue does not allow women to speak loudly. She had a large purple bruise on her leg for days...If I fought, that dog would have surely put a bullet in me, and gladly!

Hosseini's descriptions are right out of 1984 or The Handmaid's Tale.

Two memoirs set in Iran, Azar Nafisi's best-selling Reading Lolita in Tehran and Roya Hakakian's Journey from the Land of No, describe the savage curtailment of private life and thought—and of life itself—by radical Islamists.

<table>

Two compelling accounts of life for women in Iran's Islamic Republic.

Two compelling accounts of life for women in Iran's Islamic Republic.

According to Nafisi, Khomeini's goon squads closed news­papers and universities and arrested, tortured, and executed beloved teachers, prominent artists, intellectuals, and activists, including feminists, and thousands of other innocent and productive Muslims. The squads constantly harassed women on the street and at work. If a woman failed the dress-code standards even slightly, or by accident, she risked being arrested, probably raped, probably executed.

In Journey from the Land of No, Roya Hakakian describes the in­describable "Mrs. Moghadam," the newly-installed head of the Jewish girls' high school. Mrs. Moghadam tyrannizes, terrifies, and shames the Jewish girls. She tries to convert them to Islam. However, her true passion is more Talibanesque. She informs the innocent girls that, although they do not know it, they are "diabolical," "abominable," "loathsome," "lethal," capable of "drowning everything in eternal dark­ness," capable of bringing the "apocalypse" by showing a single strand of hair. To Hakakian's credit, she presents a rather dangerous turn of events as a dark comedy.

Mrs. Moghadam is definitely an Aunt Lydia, the lead female tormentor of the Handmaids, right out of Gilead, circa 1985.

<table>

Many Western feminists mistakenly see the face veil and head scarf as symbols of anti-racism.

Many Western feminists mistakenly see the face veil and head scarf as symbols of anti-racism.

As Muslim women are being tortured, honor-murdered by their families, or stoned to death, sometimes for refusing to wear the veil, many Western multiculturally and politically correct post-colonial feminists are deconstructing and wearing the face veil and the head scarf as symbols of anti-racism and as a form of respect when they visit Muslim countries. Such feminists are also silencing and demonizing all other views in academic journals, in the media, and on feminist internet groups.

I've written about this many times. Therefore, while I know that violence against women still remains a burning issue in the West, I agree with Allison Pearson's recent article in The Spectator: "The appalling vanity of Western Feminists who think Margaret Atwood writes about them."

Atwood depicts an all-female power structure in which the handmaids are kept in line by cruel female "Aunts," led by Aunt Lydia, who casually apply cattle prods and tasers, who blame them as evil sluts, punish them with group condemnation, bouts of solitary confinement, exile them to the "Colonies" to die cleaning up toxic waste, etc. Such behavior seems to contradict feminist views of women as morally superior to men and as more compassionate and intuitive.

<table>

Aunt Lydia (left) and the al-Khansa Brigade of ISIS

Aunt Lydia (left) and the al-Khansa Brigade of ISIS

Like men, women are human beings and as such are as close to the apes as to the angels. Women are also aggressive, cruel, competitive, envious, sometimes lethally so, but mainly toward other women. I would not want to be at the mercy of a female prison guard—or a female concentration camp guard—in the West. But let's not forget the Wives of ISIS—the all-femaleal-Khansaa Brigade who whipped, beat, and mutilated the breasts of girls and women when their heavy black burqas slipped. Displaced ISIS women continue their anti-woman reign of terror.

Misogynist thinking and actions exist in America today but not only among right-wing conservatives. It is also flourishing among our media and academic elites. Such thinking is flying high under the banner of "free speech," "multi-cultural relativism," "anti-racism," and "political correctness." Dare to question this elite's right to silence and shame those who challenge their views—i.e., that the West is always to blame, that jihadists are freedom-fighters, that the Islamic face veil is a free choice or a religious commandment, that polygamy encourages sisterhood, that Islam is a race, not a religious and political ideology—and, as I've noted many times, one is attacked as a racist, an Islamophobe, and a conservative, and swiftly demonized and de-platformed.

While MGM/Hulu's TV series is dramatically compelling, part soap opera, part horror movie, part Warrior Queen fantasy, the series is radically different from Atwood's 1985 novel. For example, Atwood's narrator, Ofglen, is not an increasingly daring, crazed, female assassin, as Elizabeth Moss brilliantly plays her. She is hardly heroic at all; under totalitarianism, heroism, collective or individual, is quickly ferreted out and destroyed. It exists but is rare.

Contemporary viewers are hungry for multi-racial characters, interracial and same-sex couples, "badass" women. Hulu gives them to us. Hulu's Canada is a multi-racial, politically correct refuge for Gilead's escapees; same-sex couples and feminists are government leaders. This is not true in the novel. On the contrary, in her 1985 Epilogue, Atwood has Canada rounding up and returning all Gilead escapees.

<table>

Media and academic elites are playing partisan politics with Atwood's original vision.

Media and academic elites are playing partisan politics with Atwood's original vision.

Atwood the divine novelist is absolutely entitled to depict whatever she wishes. But the current crop of reviewers as well as the filmmakers are playing partisan politics with her original vision and are refusing to see other and larger global dangers contained in her work.

Women's freedom and women's lives worldwide are under the most profound siege. To focus solely on the United States or on the Caucasian, Judeo-Christian West is diversionary. It scapegoats one country, one culture, for the far greater crimes of other countries and cultures.

Phyllis Chesler, a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, is an emerita professor of psychology and women's studies and the author of eighteen books, including Women and Madness, Woman's Inhumanity to Woman, An American Bride in Kabul, and A Politically Incorrect Feminist.

Notes:

[1]Commercial surrogacy has been outlawed in India, Thailand, parts of Mexico, Malaysia, and South Africa, as well as in many European countries including Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, and the UK. Hence, the campaign to legalize commercial surrogacy in America has gathered momentum.

[2] Contemporary surrogacy has now become a way of slicing and dicing biological motherhood into three parts: an egg donor, who undergoes painful and dangerous IVF procedures; a "gestational" mother who faces all the risks of pregnancy, childbirth, and potentially negative and lifelong medical and psychiatric consequences; and an adoptive mother or father. This vivisection of motherhood makes it impossible for a birthmother to win custody for any reason.

Old Man Montgomery #fundie oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com

[=Authors Note: For the sake of trimming, some of the Bible verses in the original page have been removed=]

From the website of ‘johnshore.com’

These were published and dated December 16, 2010. I have only recently become aware of this ‘movement’ via Facebook. (One never knows what one will find there.) These are referred to as the “Sixteen Tenets of ‘unfundamentalist Christians’ , known also or previously known as ‘ThruWay Christians’. Being the old-fashioned, hard-nosed Bible thumper that I am, I disagree with some facets of this and the conclusions of the entirety.

Of course I have reasons and those reasons are published below. Just for convenience, I numbered the statements, replacing what appeared in my copy as a paragraph ‘dot’.

Just for the record, as the article was dated December 16, 2010, it is entirely possible Mr. Shore has completely changed his mind and recanted this whole document. On the other hand, I just checked Mr. Shore’s last blog entry and he’s still pitching the “UnFund” theme.

Caution: If the reader is not a Christian believer, much of this discussion will seem pointless. Feel free to read on, but if you’re confused, don’t worry, it happens to lots of folks.

Here beings the tenets:

1. Jesus Christ was God incarnate. He performed miracles; as a means of providing for the irrevocable reconciliation of humankind to God he sacrificed himself on the cross; he rose from the dead; he left behind for the benefit of all people the totality of himself in the form of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

So far, I’m in agreement. Jesus is God incarnate; the ‘Son’ who is God Himself. Jesus was executed and killed (no alternatives) on a Roman cross under Roman law. Jesus’ death was the final sacrifice needed to atone for the sin of all people who appeal to Him for forgiveness. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day showing Himself to be God and giving a promise to all of an Eternal life in Heaven with Him. He sent the Third Person of the Godhead, the ‘Holy Spirit’ to believers after His ascension.

2. Christ and Christianity are meant to be understood, appreciated, and experienced as galvanizing inspirations for living a life of love, compassion, fairness, peace, and humility. Period.

Now we’re disagreeing. The primary purpose and function of Christianity is to repair the breach between God and mankind due to mankind’s rebellion and disobedience. Being forgiven by Jesus and redeemed by His sacrifice, mankind can have a direct and proper relationship with God. The qualities of love, compassion, fairness, peace and humility are by-products of that proper relationship, not the primary aim.

Am I splitting hairs here? Not as much as one might think; the matter becomes clearer as we proceed.

3. The Bible is a collection of a great many separate documents written by different people in different languages over thousands of years. Properly understanding both the letter and spirit of the Bible necessarily entails taking into account the historical and cultural contexts that so greatly inform so much of its text. The size, density, history and complexity of the Bible render unfeasible the idea that not one of its words reflects more man’s will than God’s. The spirit of God is inerrant; people—even those impassioned by the conviction that God is speaking directly to or through them—are not.

The one starts out well and descends into heresy. The Bible was written over a period of approximately 1500 years. The Books of Moses, the Torah – sometimes Pentateuch, was written in the period between the Exodus from Egypt, around 1400 B. C. to the time of the Babylonian Captivity, around 600 to 530 B. C. (give or take a decade or so.) The book of Revelation, written by John the Apostle was written around 90 A. D. The rest was written somewhere in between, with the possible exception of Job. Job was one of the earliest sections written and may predate Moses. The Bible was assuredly written by at least forty different authors. (For instance, the books of Judges, Kings and Chronicles were written over periods of time and one author could not have written them all; they require accounts from events several hundred years apart. The Torah was more than likely written by a number of scribes with Moses or a later, Babylonian scholar as ‘editor’ and having final input. Genesis is obviously based on oral traditions of the Israelite nation.) The books reflect social conventions and cultural coloring of the times involved.

However, it is the message of Almighty God to humanity. No matter how much a human can foul up, the integrity of the message is based on God’s ability to ensure His message is properly passed on. No human can foul up or outright lie good enough to defeat God’s purpose. So as much as mankind wrote the words on paper (papyrus or whatever), the ‘Word’ (Greek ‘logos’, meaning idea, identity or concept) is that of God. As such, it is inerrant in message.

The idea of the Bible being ‘written by man and therefore possibly distorted’ is an old heresy. It was argued about in the earliest councils trying to settle on the ‘Bible’ and is the basis for several cults who claim to be Christian, but rely on teachings of extra Biblical origin. The heresy also finds much favor among those who wish to discredit any one particular facet of Christian doctrine. Under any version, the idea the Bible isn’t correct means either God really doesn’t care about the message or God is incapable of protecting His own plan. Christians cannot in good faith (no pun intended) accept either alternative.

4. Anyone seeking to mix church and state has failed to understand the nature and proper role of either. Belief that all people are created equal and are deserving of equal protection under the law is foundational to all modern democratic nations. To incorporate the inherently exclusionary imperatives of a particular religion into the determinedly inclusive system of democracy would be to undermine the very spirit of democracy by pushing it toward a theocracy.

This is a pretty silly statement and is highly ignorant of history. The ‘foundational’ belief of people being created equal and deserving equal protection under law is uniquely derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is not found in Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any of the other ‘religions’ of the world. It is Christianity that fostered Democracy, not Democracy that fostered Christianity.

Additionally, it was Christian believers and supporters who founded the United States as a nation with no state religion. The United States was not founded as a ‘Christian nation’, but was indeed begun as a ‘nation of Christians’. To pretend otherwise is to ignore history and to invite serious question as to the point of the discussion. One must also note that all movements to ‘remove’ the influence of Christianity from the United States and civil laws result in the promotion of either Secular Humanism or Islam.

There are no moral vacuums.

5. It’s not possible to read Paul’s New Testament writings and remain unmoved by his open heart, intellectual prowess, and staggering bravery. And yet Paul (who, after all, spent years zealously persecuting and having executed untold numbers of Christians) must remain to us a mortal man. More than reasonable, it is incumbent upon those who claim to seek the deepest knowledge of Christ to subject the words of Paul to the same kinds of objective analysis we would the words of any man daring to describe the qualities, purposes, and desires of God.

This is a gentle, lofty and seemingly reasonable attempt to undermine the message presented by God through Paul the Apostle. What this statement does is deny the Divine inspiration and authorship of the Bible as a whole. It returns to the fore in a moment with more of the ‘villify Paul’ agenda.

6. With regards to the written identity of God, the pronoun “he” is a necessity of the English language, not an actual anatomical designation. God is neither male nor female; God contains all of both.

Again, agreement. In Hebrew, just as in English, the male pronoun unless specifically intended refers to both male and female. Jesus says (John 4:23 and 24)“But a time is coming – and now is here – when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers. God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Also one notes in Genesis (chapter one, verses 26 and 27)
“Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.

So, both male and female were (still are, more or less, being distorted from the original model by mankind’s disobedience) created in God’s image; which manifestly means not a physical image, but a mental and spiritual image.

7. The Biblical scholarship supporting the idea that Paul never wrote a word proscribing natural homosexuality is at least as credible and persuasive as the scholarship (if not typical Bible translations) claiming that he did. Any person who uses the words of Paul in the New Testament to “prove” that homosexuality is a sin against God has either never themselves researched the matter, or has simply chosen to believe one set of equal proofs over another. Though laziness is easily enough understood, we remain mystified as to why anyone who purports to follow Jesus would choose to condemn an entire population over choosing to obey Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself.

Here’s the follow up to point 5. Once Paul is ‘questionable’, the condemnation of homosexuality can be dismissed as a personal quirk, or possibly an outright error on the part of Christianity (on the whole).

Here’s the premise of the tenet: Paul either really didn’t mean what he wrote about the practice of homosexuality despite what is clearly written in the original Greek manuscripts and all subsequent translations of the Bible, or Paul was mistaken and therefore not inspired by God. What an amazing statement.

Either God inspired and authored the Bible or not. If one chooses to deny God’s inspiration in part, then the whole becomes suspect. If God was lax in allowing Paul to write and publish errors, then what of the rest of the Bible is trustworthy? Conversely, if God did in fact inspire and author the Bible, then Paul’s writing is equally trustworthy.

Leviticus 18
This entire section (several chapters) deals with sexual sins and prohibitions. In part (I have inserted whole paragraphs to present an in context view):
19 You must not approach a woman in her menstrual impurity to have sexual intercourse with her. 20 You must not have sexual intercourse with the wife of your fellow citizen to become unclean with her. 21 You must not give any of your children as an offering to Molech, so that you do not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord! 22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act. 23 You must not have sexual intercourse with any animal to become defiled with it, and a woman must not stand before an animal to have sexual intercourse with it; it is a perversion.
Leviticus 20
9 “‘If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death. He has cursed his
father and mother; his blood guilt is on himself. 10 If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 11 If a man has sexual intercourse with his father’s wife, he has exposed his father’s nakedness. Both of them must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 12 If a man has sexual intercourse with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. They have committed perversion; their blood guilt is on themselves. 13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 14 If a man has sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother, it is lewdness. Both he and they must be burned to death, so there is no lewdness in your midst. 15 If a man has sexual intercourse with any animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal to have sexual intercourse with it, you must kill the woman, and the animal must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

These two passages are from the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. One can argue these are part of the Jewish or Mosaic Law and are therefore obsolete; in that case, general adultery, incest and bestiality are also permitted along with homosexual conduct. Or is that the point?

First Timothy 1 (written by that suspect Paul fellow)

8 But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, 9 realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. 11 This accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me.

There is a note on the phrase ‘practicing homosexuals’ in verse 10 from the NET Bible: “…this term… ??se?????t?? states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. µa?a???…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ??se?????t?? in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with µa?a???, the passive male partner” (cf. 1 Cor 6:9). Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation…”

First Corinthians 6 (also written by that questionable Paul)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This last passage strikes me an illuminating. Homosexuals are included in a list of sin categories which include heterosexual sexual sinners, idolaters, adulterers (distinct from ‘sexually immoral heterosexuals), thieves, greedy, drunkards, verbally abusive and swindlers. The phrase ‘verbally abusive’ is rather interesting. The NIV translates it as ‘slanderers’; I think ‘gossips’ might easily fit into the meaning. At any rate, people who say nasty things about others are lumped in with murderers, thieves and the sexually immoral (of any type).

The last verse in the paragraph implies a change of life in those reading the letter. “Some of you … lived… But you were washed… sanctified… justified…” So they were not just forgiven and allowed to continue; they changed their values and life-styles. The same implication applies to the sexually impure; they don’t do that sort of thing anymore; they avoid that sort of thing; they are ashamed of and denounce their own past behavior.

Therefore, the Old Testament writings prohibited homosexual conduct as does the writings of Paul, therefore the New Testament. The words used really do mean homosexual conduct and not just the generic ‘sexual misconduct’.

I’m really curious about the ‘equal scholarship’ which demonstrates what the Bible says isn’t what it means. I’d like to examine the line of thought and arguments.

The statement “…Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself” is incorrect and sloppy scholarship.

Matthew 22:
35 And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked him a question to test him: 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 Jesus 44 said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

This tenet goes past ‘unfundamentalism’ and is squarely non-Christian.

8. It is much more reasonable—and certainly more compassionate—to hold that throughout history God chose to introduce himself in different ways into different cultural streams than it is to believe that there is only one correct way to understand and worship God, and that the punishment for anyone who chooses any but that way is to spend all of eternity having the living flesh seared off of his or her bones.

More reasonable? By who’s standard? As a Christian, the only viewpoint that counts is God’s viewpoint. That ‘viewpoint’ is expressed in the Bible, which is – as noted prior – God’s message to humanity.

More compassionate? To whom? Not to mention under what definition of ‘compassion’? I find no compassion in patting someone in error on the head and say comforting words while allowing them to remain in error at the risk of Eternal Death.

So let’s go along with the idea of God introducing Himself into different cultural streams in different ways. Why would introduce Himself in a totally different manner if He’s the same, Eternal God? For instance, in the sub-continent which is now India, why would God decide not to be the Eternal God of Creation of the Jewish people, but instead be represented by a pantheon of conflicting gods which change over time? Why would Almighty God manifest Himself as the volcano god, demanding virgin sacrifices? Would God happily change Himself into the Great Green Arkleseizure of Viltvodle VI?

Is He still God? Is He bored and just experimenting? Can He not remember who He is, from epoch to epoch?

The idea appeals to the ‘open-minded’ who have no ideas about who God is, or what He should be or do. The concept flies in the face of the ultimate creator of the Universe and all things that exist, who is Eternal and changeless, who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. In other words, God.

Again, not just ‘unfundamentalist’, but not very good thinking and doctrinally non Christian.

9. “No one comes to the Father except through me” does not mean that in the afterlife only Christians can get into heaven. It means that Jesus/God decides who does and doesn’t make it in.

From this one is forced to believe Jesus will not judge between those who accept Him and those who don’t, but instead will judge by ad hoc rules of ‘good behavior’. I say ‘ad hoc’ because no such rules are outlined in the Bible.

All that stuff about believing in the Son and relying on Him in tenet 1 are out the window, then? It is good deeds that really make the difference?

This heresy is remarkably old as well. It predates Christianity, in fact.

Jesus mentioned this concept in Matthew Seven, starting with verse 15:
15 “Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’
24 “Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, but it did not collapse because it had been founded on rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, and it collapsed; it was utterly destroyed!”
So then, what about “… the one who does the will of my Father in heaven…”? John 15, starting with verse nine makes it clear:
9 “Just as the Father has loved me, I have also loved you; remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain in his love. 11 I have told you these things so that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be complete.”

Nowhere in the Bible, nowhere in the quotations of Jesus, nowhere in the letters of the various apostles and elders in Jerusalem is any such doctrine mentioned or taught. In one setting (John 10:14-18), Jesus says,
14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me – 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father – and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me – because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”

Verse 16 is often used to ‘prove’ the heresy of various versions of God and or Jesus running about in human history, showing up in various forms and guises. One fellow seriously suggested it could indicate the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Actually, the statement simply indicates non-Jewish people were included. That’s all.

I personally don’t have any problem with extra-terrestrial life, or any of them being in Heaven. But it will be on the basis of an individual relationship with Jesus Christ.

I am also firmly convinced all the inhabitants of planet Earth will have adequate notice of the person and Deity of Jesus Christ. God is not the sort of being who looks for tiny excuses and ‘foot-faults’ to disqualify anyone from Heaven.

10. The question of whether or not hell is real is properly subsumed by the truth that a moment spent worrying if you’ll be with God in the afterlife is an opportunity missed to be with God in this life.

I agree. There is no point of wondering, let alone worrying, if Hell is real. Jesus talks about it too much to be in doubt. It isn’t pleasant, but it’s there. One is obliged to take note and do something to avoid residence.

11. God’s will and intention is to forgive and teach us, not to judge and punish us.

That is true, but only to a qualified extent. Jesus came to Earth as a mortal man to tell us what to do to avoid Eternal punishment and die in our place to pay the price for our sin. Obviously, God the Father was in on this plan as was the Holy Spirit.

God really does not want anyone to spend Eternity in Hell. However, since all mankind is in the default position of being in rebellion against God, mankind is by default condemned to Eternal Hell.

The words of Jesus in John, chapter three:
16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. 19 Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. 21 But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.
God is loving and concerned. God is simultaneously honest and just. God is God and that means – in a long list of other things – He will always conduct Himself as God and be true to His own nature.

There are also a number of references warning that when Jesus returns – ‘The Second Coming’ – He will in fact judge all people according to their alliances.

12. The only person who should be actively endeavoring to convert non-Christians into Christians is God. Jesus does not need our help drawing people towards him. He does need, or could certainly use, our help in making sure that people know that they are, just as they are, loved.

This statement directly contradicts the command of Jesus.

Matthew 28:16-20
16 So the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age

Acts 1
6 So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him, “Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He told them, “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” 9 After he had said this, while they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight.

First Peter 3
15 But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. (“Hope” here meaning the expectation of Eternal life with God.)

So in this statement again, the concept is not ‘un-fundamentalist’ but ‘un-Christian’.

13. Getting a divorce is painful, and if at all possible should certainly be avoided. But ultimately the act in and of itself is not immoral.

This statement flatly contradicts Jesus’ teaching on the subject.

Matthew 5
31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19
3 Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the beginning it was not this way. 9 Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better not to marry!”11 He said to them, “Not everyone can accept this statement, except those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who were that way from birth, and some who were made eunuchs by others, and some who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this should accept it.”

So yes, Jesus said divorce is an immoral act, save for the cause of adultery. Even then, the divorced man or woman is limited in options.

14. God does not want any woman “submitting” to anyone.

Another direct contradiction of Biblical teaching.

Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, 23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body. 24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her 26 to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, 27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Colossians 3
18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

Oh, wait! That’s that questionable Paul again! Since Paul is so very questionable, we can ignore much of his writings – especially the parts about moral conduct, sexual misconduct and general carryings-on.

First Peter 3
1 In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands. Then, even if some are disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word by the way you live, 2 when they see your pure and reverent conduct… like Sarah who obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You become her children when you do what is good and have no fear in doing so. 7 Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as the weaker partners and show them honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinder your prayers.

That’s the summation of Peter the Apostle. He agrees with Paul the suspect.

15. There were no dinosaurs on Noah’s ark; Jesus didn’t have a pet stegosaurus. An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.

Whooop! Whooop! Whooop! Strawman Alert!
So, just where do we find claims of dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? Which gospel contains the story of Jesus and His pet stegosaurus? What kind of hairball ploy is this?

Okay, “An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.” That part is reasonable enough. However, this isn’t a matter of doctrinal distinction; it’s a matter of textual examination.

Dinosaurs on the Ark? Sheesh.

16. The single most telling indicator of a person’s moral character has nothing to do with how they define or worship God, and everything to do with how they treat others.

So, a relationship with God isn’t important; what is important is ‘good deeds’.

Actually, this is a deceptive argument; somewhat strawman in nature. I’ll agree one’s ‘moral character’ is not always dependent on how one defines or worships God. However, one’s moral character has nothing to do with one’s Eternal estate, being in a proper relationship with God and spending Eternity with God in Heaven.

One can be a rotten skunk and be bound for Heaven, or a very decent, clean, honest and honorable person going to Hell.

I know for a fact that my moral character was – for that matter ‘is’ – not always as good and shining as it ought to be. After becoming a Christian, I have sinned grievously, often and cheerfully. But my eternal destination is already secure and in Jesus’ care. As far as God is concerned in Judgment, I am as pure as Jesus.

Which is not to say I’m content in my life that way, or at peace with God. I found I was a jittery, angry, depressed, unsettled maniac; at least some combination of two or three of those. I can hide it well, but it’s there and I am very aware of it.

What happens is this: God works on me to make me into who – the type of person – He wants me to be, fit for Heaven in Eternity.

To conclude:

“Un-fundamentalists” accept the Deity, Sacrifice, Resurrection and Redemptive nature and power of Jesus Christ. However, they also believe God has appeared in other forms and guises, seemingly revealing other versions of Himself. So Jesus really isn’t uniquely God at all.

“Un-fundamentalists” deny the Divinely Inspired nature of the Bible, strip Paul’s writing of authority and accept homosexual misconduct – and by inference, heterosexual misconduct – as both normal and moral.

“Un-fundamentalists” claim the goal of Christianity is to live a good life; ‘good’ being defined by not offending anyone, getting along with all and ignoring Biblical principles if adherence would cause a row.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe Christians should not vote in accordance with Biblical principles. Nor should laws follow the long held traditions of either Judaism or Christianity.

“Un-fundamentalists” do not assume responsibility for evangelism; in fact, evangelism is discouraged.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe God never criticizes or judges human conduct. They believe there is no Hell. After all, God isn’t going to punish anyone for anything anyway.

All things considered, “Un-fundamentalist Christian” is not a properly descriptive phrase. Citing the serious theological and doctrinal differences between this cult and mainstream Christianity, I would suggest perhaps “Nearly Christian” would be a better description. Since the first tenet does recognize Jesus as God, perhaps “Barely Christian” would do.

Now, I know some bright soul is going to jump on me with the Biblical injunction of “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. The statement comes in Matthew 7, starting with the beginning of the chapter. The whole paragraph reads as follows:

1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. 3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.

This whole speech is addressed at being judgmental of other people in regard to their fitness or standing before God. I am not ‘judging’ any person, but a set of beliefs and how they measure up to Christianity, I am not violating any injunction. Indeed, I am following a warning given by John the Revelator in First John 4:

1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world.

So I am testing this ‘spirit’, this claim of revelation of God. I find interesting that tenet 1 claims to recognize Jesus as the Son of God in the Flesh, and then denies Jesus’ Deity in most of the subsequent tenets.

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com

[Categorical BS. I'm a blatantly feminist (GASP) conservatively dressed intj woman and I still get more male attention than I can handle. I've mentioned this before on here, but if you need others to pretend to be weak in order to allow you to feel powerful, then what you need is psychological help, not a girlfriend]


This is what feminists says all the time, 'heard this response millions times.
But men like women this way, it's not because we're scared, weak or something. It's our natural dominance/male ego that don't want to be "challenged" (like that would happen with an other "man").

If women want men or her husband to "feel" good, acting feminine is definetely the solution. The longer marriages are the ones where women are traditional.

Men have to "conquer" to have sex with women (and only want that from women), so it's logic that they go to "submissive/weak/fragile" women (Like a war strategy). It incousciously means that their chances to reproduce are higher.

There are also the motherhood qualities that are feminine (caring, nurtiuring, sensitive etc.. )

Women pretending to be men are the ones who need psychological help (aka feminists). But you can't, so now feminists try to turn men into females. Your "gender equity" obsession has no limit.


[I also think that in matters such as rape, women are indeed victims (as are some men) and rape prevention is a feminist issue.]

If rape victimes are also men, why is it a "feminist" issue ? It seems to be about man-hating (99% rapists are men).

["no, her skirt doesn't mean she wanted to get raped"]

If feminists care about women safety, feminists should also say to women that dressing in a certain way can lead to problems.


[We already talked about it at length, so let me summarize : 1, the clothes a woman wear doesn't "lead" her to getting raped, 2, even if it did, it wouldn't mean women have to change something but that men should change their mentality (just because her clothes were sexy doesn't mean she wants sex or that you are entitled to sex), 3, it's a problem if victims are discredited because of the clothes they wore at the time of the rape. I won't go into more details. Read the topic about the slut pride again if you want to.]


Really ? What's the point of dressing sexy then ? Men won't change, yes we want sex 24/7/365 and we have to go for it. It's part of Nature. I think women got it now. You can't shake fresh meat in front of hungry dogs, and then cry because a dog ate your hand.
Not it's not, I think it's good argument. I can't let the door of my house open all night, and then blame people that robbed it. There are certain dangers in our society, you can avoid them or provoke them.


[I find this degrading and insulting to men. As a civilised man, I have self-control and decency which prevents me from acting like a wild animal. How is it that you, yourself, are not in jail for sexual assault by now?]


Because I behave in a civilized manner most of the time. But asking men to stop wanting to have (forceful) sex with provocative women, or hoping that rape will disappear completely tomorrow is useless.


[If you rape a woman because of her clothes, the truth is that you didn't do it because you got so horny you couldn't stop yourself. You did it because you though that because she was clothed that way, she wanted sex, or couldn't refuse sex. It's not biological, it's sociological.]


It's both. If a man is "not" horny and see a woman dressed like a slut, he won't care.


[So he was horny before and just happened to see a convenient victim ?]


Yes, so ? I'm just saying that women have responsabilities in the way they dress. You can't put it all on men and just say to women dress like sluts if you want.

[yes you can. Adults are either responsible for their own actions or they're not.]


Women are also responsible when dressing like sluts.

[
By saying that a woman is responsible for the actions of men around her, just by dressing a certain way, you are saying that men should be treated the same as young children and the mentally handicapped when it comes to the subject of rape: incapable of rational self-determination.]


No, if you go to a shitty neigborhood, with all your expensive clothes, you're are provoking danger. It doesn't mean robbers aren't responsible, but you can attract even more danger by your actions.


[If you start justifying rape that way and restricting the way woman's wear, where does it end ? You'll find people who tell you veils are necessary because hair are too sexual, and then other people who think even hands or ankles are sexual so all women need to be dressed in integral veils. I say, you can control your penis.]


Showing all your legs, most of your boobs is universally seen as sexual. Women know it. And when showing it, they definetely want to (or they, at least, accept) men to have "horny" thoughts. Horny thoughs can lead men to rape.


[Also, do you suppose women have no sexual needs ? If I see a beautiful man without a shirt on, and I threaten him with a gun to rape him, is it his fault ? Or is that scenario impossible because men can't get raped ?]


Women can rape men (when they have weapons), but rarely do. Men (that are physically stronger) can do it more easily. So, it's so rare that there's no need for men to do anything. And when women rape, it's most of the time for other reasons than sexual attraction.


[There's a difference between saying "be cautious, don't go there alone at night" and saying "be cautious, never wear a short skirt".]

Women could reveal her body only to her boyfriend.


[But by definition it is not her choice to be robbed, assaulted or raped - it was somebody else's, and that person bears the entire fault.]


I never said women dressing like sluts were making "the choice to be raped" or that it's natural that men could rape them in that situation. But, in some situations, women have a (moral) responsibility.

And women dressing sluts are sexualizing themselves, and making them appear as sex objects. Why would a feminist defend the right for women to "dress like sluts", is this how they want women to appear ?


[It is not the woman's fault if she was raped, any more than if you were to go to the gym locker room and got raped by another guy, it would be your fault. Everyone is responsible for his or her actions.]

Not comparable. When a woman is dressing like a slut, is drunk, and/or barely conscious when going outta a nightclub, she's putting herself in a situation that could lead to rape. I never said this is how most rapes occurs, but this is also a reality.

WeRe Bank #conspiracy #crackpot #mammon werebank.co.uk

As we approach Spring 2017, ReMovement, in association with WeRe Bank, is proud to introduce “The Lazarus Taxon”. Simply put this means the reintroduction of an idea, within a genetic lineage, which was thought to be extinct BUT then “mysteriously” Re-Occurs, is Re-Born or is Re-Instated – seemingly back from the dead, so to say!

“The criminal and unlawful position held by The European Central Bank has been terminated as of immediate effect. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York,The Exchange Stabilization Fund, The Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements have all been stood down too. WeRe Bank has assumed the ReSponsibility for the ReStoration of the peoples Sovereign Money supply back to them, and for freeing world populations from debt slavery and become The Central Banks Central Bank. It has ReTurned the money supply back to the people. It introduces several important steps from January 2017 – QEP – Quantitive Easing for the People, TARP2 – Toxic Asset RePurchase for the People, and the introduction of a fully spendable world/planetary monetary unit called the ReSDR – A RePlacement of the IMF’s intended One World Currency.”

“WeRe Bank is acting under Divine Spiritual Mandate. It is now issuing the PlanetRe Sovereign Unit of Money– (PReSUM) – to prevent you from suffering undue distress, harm and financial trauma throughout the imminent financial, currency market collapse and demonetization saga, engineered for you by the banking cartels and globalist elites, scheduled to take place sometime between 2018/2020, though it could be triggered sooner.”


WeRe Bank offers four injunctions for members to now adopt as we move forward and they are enunciated simply as follows:

– LET’S OUTLAW FINANCIAL SLAVERY-

Under the banner headline of:

“Aren’t you fed up with the constant hassle of never having enough of anything left at the end of every month?”

“Aren’t you “tired of being tired” due to too much work, zero hours contracts, not enough time, constant threats, coercion, duress, bullying  and the use of force, harassment and intimidation to extract money from you by the greedy privateer corporations, police authorities, speed camera and parking agencies, taxation authorities, local councils, bailiffs, debt collection agencies and Court Enforcement Officers and HMRC or IRS?”

“Are you not “fed up to the back-teeth” with the constant lies of politicians and governmental “juiced in” politicians assuring you that there “just isn’t any more money for the public services, the NHS, the roads, schools, students, or you and your family” when there sure as hell seems to be no shortage for “them and theirs” and their HS2 vanity projects?”

Well, if you ARE fed up with all this – we have some very good news for you!

The WeRe Bank “lawful and legal tender” account provides you with

ASSURED DEBT ERADICATION

on all your “falsely attached” “PUBLIC SIDE LEDGER LIABILITIES” including but not limited to:

CAR LOANS

FUEL PAYMENTS

ROAD TAX

BANK LOANS

MORTGAGE REPAYMENTS

BANKRUPTCY SETTLEMENTS

MORTGAGE ARREARS

CREDIT AGREEMENTS

CREDIT CARD RE-PAYMENTS

STUDENT LOANS

CREDIT CARD ARREARS

COUNCIL TAX

TV LICENCE

H.M.R.C – VAT, TVA, MWST, PAYE, SA, FINES

COURT FINES – ANY DEMAND FOR PAYMENT FROM H.M. Courts & Tribunals

SHERIFF OR BAILIFF ORDERS/WARRANTS FOR MONETARY ORDERS

SPEEDING FINES, PARKING TICKETS – ANY POLICE ENFORCEMENT ORDERS

VEHICLE, TRACTOR, MACHINERY CREDIT REPAYMENTS

PROBATE DEBTS – FAMILY ESTATE

UTILITIES – GAS, WATER, ELECTRIC, TELECOMS

WeRe Bank offers not only non-scrip, monetary unit of account or cheque book money but hopefully,as from Summer 2017, scrip as well as a card payment facility. It is, a provider  of finality of settlement under common law on the spot of time for all private, PUBLIC and commercial transactions.

WeRe Bank does NOT recognise as an OBLIGATION the PUBLIC side of any liability created against you since in 1931 in the United Kingdom, 1933 in the United States of America and globally from 22 July 1944 – when all global inhabitants and sovereign beings had the ability to pay in lawful money taken from them by various bankster invasions based on the way that the money supply had been used historically.

From this point on you were FORCED from the private side to THE PUBLIC SIDE OF THE ACCOUNT and made to accept a fiat currency created by criminal banksters using Fractional Reserve Lending, usurious practices, deception, guile and trickery to steal the energy wealth from you.

You were convinced to accept worthless money, the CENTRAL BANKERS PROMISSORY NOTE for the promise/lie of further wealth somewhere, somehow and at some time in the future in return for going without in the moment of now.

SECURITY

WeRe Bank has infinite energy supply based on access to the Universal Supply of Energy [USE]

WeRe Bank will accept a promissory note from you to help you begin to understand the simplicity of a system of monetary exchange whereby you can trade energy (your own freely and independently given) for goods and services. In effect all that WeRe bank does is allow you to become your OWN BANKER in return for a membership fee to ReMovement. It is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY THAT YOU JOIN WITH US TO DO IT, though you may ask: “Well, why don’t I just do it then myself?”

The reason you MUST JOIN through us is that on your own you will be scooped up and destroyed by the forces reigned against you – after all STRENGTH IS UNITY AND UNITY IS STRENGTH.

By exposing the trickery, deceit and lies which have been sold to you – as a star/shetar

So   ZIONIST BANKERS = PHANTOM ENERGY SUPPLY VAMPIRES = GOVERNMENT = CORPORATIONS AND MILITARY = MILITARY – MASONS – MONARCHY – MAYHEM – MONEY – M PEOPLE – MURDER

There is natural law and there is corporate law. There is private law and there is Administrative Law. The trick is here – which jurisdiction do they have you in? For example do you know what the word “ground” means? You talk of buying a piece of “ground” or having “feet on the ground” or entering in Germany, Austria and France your land or property real estate into or onto the “Ground Book” (Grund Buch). Well, ground is “land under water!” as in to “run aground in a ship. So the next time you hear someone talking of “ground rent” etc then you know you are firmly under water and NOT on the Land you thought!

There is the International Law of The Sea and The National Law of The Land. All of us have been tricked into performing under “spurious contractual laws” via The Laws of The Sea, Maritime Law and Admiralty Law – These are war powers acts and are for pirates.

Your natural state of being-ness is of man/woman “on the land under common natural law.” This is a law of sovereignty. It is NOT a law of democracy or majority or mob rule – for if it was and 51% of your community decided they wanted to eat you then they could, could they not! And justify it too!

All corporations – Including for sure The Police, HM Revenue and Customs, HM Courts and Tribunals Services, The Law Society and The Government and The Local Authorities are all culpable of the following offences:

Any name written in CAPITALS CAN BE ONLY ONE OF TWO THINGS

A CORPORATION or

JOHN ADAMS R.I.P = A dead man’s (e)state

So – If anyone tries to force you off land and onto the High Seas then this is called inland piracy or “press ganging” and is a criminal offence as is “personage and “barratry!” Press-ganging is slavery and is banned by all signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 4 – With the caveat of “beware of referring to yourself as or classing yourself as a “person.”

Article 6 stipulates that: “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”.

Ergo, which also means that “if you do NOT wish to exercise said right then you can remain a “non-person!” “non-resident alien”. This means that you can opt in or opt out – the only difference is that one requires AWARENESS – the other IGNORANCE! Most people have opted in and not even realized it!”

Have you also been tricked into accepting “services” from “privateer corporations” acting under licence from The Crown (Rome) and The crown (Monarchy) via The Global Trust? If you are accepting any of the services mentioned below AND PAYING FOR THEM then the answer is almost certainly “Yes!”

This GLOBALIST TRUST operates the following services:

Postal Services via Postal Districts and Post Offices – Law of the Sea – Roads all leading from the ports to your door – implied right of access, hence Admiralty Law and Law Merchant. No taxed or non-insured cars on the roads are seized under Admiralty Law

Legal Services of the various Bar Associations  especially Court buildings – Located when possible near to canals, rivers or on streets with such names as Canal Street, Riverside Road.

Banking and Shipping Insurance Services and Standards via Banking & Insurance Associations

Domestic Police Services – In effect corporate security men

Medical and Welfare Services

Insurance Services

Defence and Treaty Alliance Services

The PlanetReServe© Currency of Choice for all free and sovereign beings budded on this planet and payable for work at Re12 per hour – ReTime = Exchangeable for food, goods and services anywhere, anytime and by anyone! The absolute priority now is for all staple food products, utilities and accommodation as well as all additional living expenses be paid for with Re. Since the beginning of 2017 there are now two identifiable monetary units within WeRe Bank – One in the ReSDR payable and receivable in £/$/€/CHF and the second is ReWork earned at Re12.00 the hour. Both are called Re. On your account they are cloured ReSDR in green and ReWork in red

It is now time, following the recent attempts to derail this most needed humanitarian project, to begin the 3rd phase of change. These phases are:

Was the introduction of a chequing facility and DEBT ERADICATION SERVICE PREDICATED UPON THE ABSOLUTE AND UNQUESTIONABLE – (IN ANY COMMERCIAL, LAWFUL OR BANKING ARENA ON THIS PLANET) – OF THE VALIDITY OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE TO ZERO DEBT – in order to show people that they WeRe the bankers themselves and it was THEY who created the money supply and not a bank. It was there also to show the nature of the extent of dishonour within the system of money supply, the collusion by the banking cartel as well as the “system of financial apartheid” levelled at anyone or thing expounding “change for the better!”

This prompted the question:

“With so many people in debt, with so many starving and with such inequity in this world – why on earth would the exponents of such as system mouth continually that it was the only system available and the “choice of the people?”

Why would anyone listen to these rogues? Why never enough for us but excess for them? Well, they continued to ReFuse to listen and so we moved onto….

Was the introduction of the LLT – Lawful and Legal Tender in order to show that with the YALTA 1, YALTA 2 and YALTA BITESIZE documents that there was no doubt at all who was paying the planetary bills and who was the “Guarantor and Surety” for all the debt incurred by rogue moneyed interests upon the planet. As expected they continued to ReFuse to listen and so that FUSE has now been lit for…

Is the introduction of The PlanetRePayment©Card as well as WeRe Bank Notes as SCRIP and the full commercial acceptability and announcement of the absolute necessity to now begin to trade in Re and ReSDR. The absolute priority now is for all staple food products, utilities and accommodation as well as all additional living expenses be paid for with Re/ReSDR.

WeRe Bank now trades in Sterling, Dollar and Euro etc on the PUBLIC SIDE of the Trust but in Re on the private sovereign side. This allows for immense flexibility.

The UNIT of MONETARY VALUE is the Re and the ReSDR.
ReSDR 1.00 is equal to 1.00 £/$/€/CHF Fiat for the purposes of the card transactions.


However, you should note that we DO NOT exchange fiat currency for ReSDR – WE TRANSMUTE IT! There is no correspondence between our accepting your fiat currency and the issuing of ReSDR. The issuance of ReSDR is TOTALLY AT OUR DISCRETION AND NOT DEPENDENT UPON OR A FUNCTION OF YOUR SUPPLYING CASH/NOTES/OR VALUE TO WeRe Bank.

As ReSDR is NOT currently recognised as a monetary unit by any of the Central Banks – it is therefore immune from taxation and financial surveillance by the “other side” – the Zionist corporatocracy and banking state cartels.

We would suggest that you place a minimum onto your card of ReSDR120.00. This will currently cost you €/£/$100.00. With 20% shop discount then this will mean at least 40% increase in spending power JUST BY CHOOSING TO SPEND IN ReSDR as opposed to Euro (€) £/$/€/CHF etc
When you ReLoad your card you will informed what the current TRANSMUTATION OFFERED RATE (TOR) is. January/February 2017 it will remain at 1:1


ReWork 12 is paid to ANYONE, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME for 1 hour of work.

Re1 = 5 minutes. It is totally “fungible”, fair, transparent, equitable and equal to and for all people!” – ReGardless.

So whether you are a doctor, dentist, mechanic, vet or engineer Re12 covers it all. Those who protest that this is, “Not enough!” then this argument can be easily countermanded by those in the regions of the world, the majority in fact, where 80% of the people on this planet exist on less than $2 per day. They will provide a very good counter argument against those in the “effluent” West who mouth: “Give us more! Give them less!”

Re has been declared a ReServe Currency Unit of Choice for all freedom seeking men, women in and associated movements worldwide. The nature of fear, control, superstition, ignorance and lack must now be brought to an end.

The Bridge Zone Project provides the PlanetRe payment mechanics of a card loaded with Re to trade planet wide. This allows you to walk the bridge to the other side where freedom awaits..

CARDS AND NOTES

LLT’s AND CHEQUES ARE SERVING THEIR PURPOSE – CONTINUE TO USE THEM CONTINUE TO TRUST IN THEM

These have served us well and accomplished exactly what was intended BUT they are soon to be supplanted with SCRIP IN FULL DENOMINATIONS of Re 3, 6, 12, 24 and 60 notes – as Lawful Tender.

The LLT Notes are already in the hands of many people on a 25 serial notebook. As the banks have refused to clear many of the notes – we now move to CLEARING OUR OWN FUNDS VIA YOUR OWN ACCOUNTS WITHOUT THE NECESSARY REFERENCE TO ANY OUTSIDE AGENCY, BANKER OR 3RD PARTY.

From henceforth, all LLT’s, notes and PlanetRePayment© Card transactions will be INSTANTLY CLEARED AND CREDITED following receipt of transaction details.

We encourage you to ensure ALL PAYEES are members to facilitate the ease of clearing.

TERMINALS – ACCESS – LAP TOP – USB

The WeRe Bank App for ReTailers is ready. By early 2017 there will be a customer/member app, also available.

We provide a list of people and businesses prepared to accept the PlanetReServe currency – The Re and ReSDR. WeRe Bank is an energy conduit – it is a method of opening up another kind or fair and transparent energy usage.

FULL TRANSPARENCY

Benefits: You take action where action can be taken

You create a form of suffrage – you vote with your energy

WeRe Bank helps you ReSolve any and every debt crisis you face.

You retain full title to all goods and property which you formerly supposedly DID NOT own!

When you join, you Re-structure the planetary energy supply – you change the junction points on the train tracks of energy theft which has been perpetrated upon you and your ancestors – and the children who will inherit this debacle.

CREATE REAL CHANGE – DO IT NOW

– WeRe BANKING ON YOU –

——————————————————————————–

The WeRe Bank TIME™ Account

from WeRe Bank©

LonelyDalek #fundie reddit.com

I think humans are flawed beings, and are still animals. We are only 1.5% away from being a chimp. So while we try to rationalize our opinions and decisions, a lot of it is driven by our instincts and biology. The basic goal of biology is self-preservation and procreation. Males’ role in the ancient nomadic life-style was that of hunters and gatherers – so men’s biology leans towards self-preservation a little more. As humans started organizing into small groups and then into societies, the definition of ‘self’ in self-preservation expanded to include everyone else that belong to the same group as them. Being self-preservation-oriented thus came to mean to guard those of their own and to destroy any threats. So men became more comfortable being in violent situations, and engaging in life-risking behaviors. The negative side of male nature, if there is one, is this: being open to violence, that we’d let a confrontation escalate to fists being thrown, because we really don’t find much of a problem with punching our differences out. The primary victims of male nature, thus, are not the other gender. It is those who’ll stand in our way to securing a safe future.

However, it is a different case when it comes to women. The primary victims of female nature ARE men. Women’s nature is procreation oriented, because it is their bodies that carry the wombs to gestate and deliver the next generation. It seeks to secure a stable inflow of resources while being incapacitated in the process of child-rearing. This makes men,the resource-procurers, the primary targets of female nature. In this paradigm of things, there is no incentive for the women to actually give a damn about the well-being of the man/men providing for her; in fact, it is in her best interest to not be attached to a single man in particular, but keep monkey-branching to a stronger, better provider.

Lionesses don’t particularly care when the male of the pride is killed by a new, younger male and then kills the cubs. They go on about like nothing’s changed. most women are not evil, they are un-empathetic to men’s plight, and heartlessly oblivious to our suffering.

So, naturally we have the odds against us, but the gynocentric westerns society turns it up several notches. Every harmful aspect of male nature are restrained and kept well-checked by the law. That’s why most men are not murderers, though many men are perfectly capable of murder. Any and every aspect of male nature that’s unsuitable for the modern civilized life have been outlawed, with severe repercussions if engaged-in.
But no such social or legal protection exists against harmful aspects of female nature- women’s tendency to take advantage of men, their actions that drive men to harm themselves and others, and the systems built over men’s corpses for the exclusive benefit of women. Combine this with the fact that women are unsympathetic towards men, and we have the perfect recipe for disaster. Women are oblivious to the harms they cause, and any voice trying to educate them are muffled and marginalized, and women are encouraged to engage in their careless ways by the society, of course, at the expense of men. So, no, I don’t hate women…. they are just completely, and irredeemably unlovable.

The only logical thing for men to do is to educate themselves and each other, and stay away from women as much as possible. Find ways to discipline one’s sexual neediness- through practices like martial arts, meditation or things like working out that’ll leave you too tired to be horny. But what ever you do- do not touch a female with a (your) ten-foot pole.

Mike King #conspiracy tomatobubble.com

Those of you who have had some degree of understanding about the New World Order -- that fiendishly clever conspiratorial movement to slowly bring about a super-centralized one-world dictatorship -- have no doubt experienced the frustration of trying to convince family and friends that A: You are not "crazy," and B: The trans-generational monster plot to take down America is real and not even that well-concealed any more. The torment that comes with seeing the world as it really is, while the willfully blind ridicule you, is a terrible burden that we "conspiracy theorists" ™ have always had to bear, in spite of the world's stupidity and hostility. After all, "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." (Thomas Paine).

But what if one of the 20th Century's best known and most trusted news media "rock stars" was to confirm, on camera, the validity of our nutty "conspiracy theory" ™. And what if an equally famous woman, the First Lady of the United States at the time, who came damn near close to becoming our 45th President, then congratulated that same man for his honest remarks while expressing full agreement with his totalitarian world government scheme? Would the doubters still be laughing? Try using this piece on them, and let us know what kind of reaction you get.

The logo of Cronkite's CBS depicts the same all-seeing eye as the logo for the "Novus Ordo Seclorum" (New World Order for the Ages) found on the back of a $1 dollar bill.

THE SETTING

CBS propaganda had dubbed the legendary anchorman "the most trusted man in America” and the people believed it. From those early 1962 days of TV News (when there were only three networks and no cable stations) through 1981, Cronkite's carefully cultivated marketing image as a grandfatherly sage was unquestioned. In those naive pre-Internet, pre-talk radio days, "Uncle Walter's" leftist propaganda was difficult for amateurs to detect -- but it was always there.

In 1999, Cronkite, who was by then retired, appeared at a United Nations room to accept the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award from the openly pro-world government World Federalists Association. He told those assembled, including First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (watching by video feed), that he had always believed in world government but could not say so openly because of his position as CBS Anchorman.

Some excerpts, coupled with editorial analysis:

Cronkite: I am greatly honored to receive this award for two reasons: first, I believe as Norman Cousins did that the first priority of humankind in this era is to establish an effective system of world law that will assure peace with justice among the peoples of the world; second, I feel sentimental about this award and this organization because half a century ago Norman offered me a job as spokesman and Washington lobbyist for the World Federalist organization, which was then in its infancy.

Analysis: Norman Cousins was a Jewish-American journalist, author, professor and tireless activist for world government. The fact that Cousins offered young Walter a job with the World Federalists a "half century ago" confirms that Cronkite was always a Globalist-Socialist, if not a full blown "McCarthy-era" communist.

Cronkite: For many years, I did my best to report on the issues of the day in as objective a manner as possible to achieve. When I had my own strong opinions, as I often did, I tried not to communicate them to my audience.

Analysis: Nonsense! Cronkite's reporting was always heavily slanted leftward. It was harder to notice in those days because the viewing public had few alternatives to compare with.

Cronkite: Now, however, my circumstances are considerably different. I am in a position to speak my mind. And by God I'm gonna do it! (loud applause)

Analysis: You see, now that the retired old man has got nothing to lose, he can finally and completely drop his mask of "objectivity."

Cronkite: Those of us who are living today can influence the future of civilization. We can influence whether our planet will drift into chaos and violence, or whether through a monumental educational and political effort we will achieve a world of peace under a system of law ...

Analysis: A "monumental educational and political effort." -- Cronkite is talking about mass brainwashing, beginning in grade school, such as is now the case with the Global Warming ™ / Climate Chamnge ™ hoax to usher in world taxation.

Cronkite: ... where individual violators of that law are brought to justice.

Analysis: An "individual violator" is any foreign government that dares to defy the New World Order. The term "brought to justice" means that the "violator" is to be killed.

Cronkite: For how many thousands of years now have we humans been what we insist on calling "civilized"? And yet, in total contradiction, we also persist in the savage belief that we must occasionally, at least, settle our arguments by killing one another.

Analysis: Classic projection tactic. It is the warmongering "one worlders" who have, directly or indirectly, engineered just about every major conflict of the past two centuries! (Read: "Planet Rothschild")

1. "Peace...Peace ...Peace" -- the phony mantra of Globalists like Norman Cousins.

2. The "Planet Rothschild" two-volume set blows the cover off of this monster plot to turn humanity into a global bee-hive of raceless alienated tax and debt slaves.

Cronkite: While we spend much of our time and a great deal of our treasure in preparing for war, we see no comparable effort in establishing peace.

Analysis: Here is the "inside joke." -- In the Globalist code language, "peace" ™ is defined as the absence of resistance to the Globalists. When all nations finally and unconditionally surrender to the New World Order (a global EU), then and only then will the Globalists finally stop their endless bombings, sanctions, bribing, blackmailing, coups, assassinations, "color revolutions," wars, and proxy wars against the "violators" -- thus bringing about "world peace." See the trick?

Cronkite: It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. ... We Americans are going to have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That's going to be to many a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith and a lot of persuasion for them to come along with us on this necessity. ... But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen.

Analysis: Cronkite leaves no doubt. He and his ilk seek the end of America (and all nations) and the emergence of all powerful one-world-super-state to be erected behind the phony platitudinous facades of "federalism" and "democracy" ™ and "peace" ™ and "human rights" ™. And if they don't get it done "peacefully," they will have no choice but to unleash an "eventual catastrophic world conflict." (World War III)

Cronkite: Today we must develop federal structures on a global level. We need a system of enforceable world law --a democratic federal world government. ... Today the notion of unlimited national sovereignty means international anarchy. We must replace the anarchic law of force with a civilized force of law.

Translation: National sovereignty = chaos and anarchy. Nations = bad. World Government = good.

Cronkite: Ours is never going to be perfect world, nor a world without disagreement and occasional violence. But it will be a world where the majority of national leaders will consistently abide by the rule of world law, if we have our way, and those who won't will be dealt with effectively and with due process by the structures of that same world law.

Translation: Those who dare to defy our New World Order will be "dealt with" (Hussein of Iraq, Chavez of Venezuela, Qaddafi of Libya, Lil' Kim of North Korea, Assad of Syria, Putin of Russia et al.)

Cronkite: Consider... the possibility of a more representative and democratic system of decision making at the U.N. This should include both revision of the veto in the Security Council and adoption of a weighted voting system for the General Assembly. The World Federalists have endorsed Richard Hudson's Binding Triad proposal.

Analysis: By removing the veto of Security Council members (US, UK, France, China, Russia) each of the major powers will be powerless before the General Assembly's mob rule -- a mob directly controlled by the top Globalist mobsters who will have by then discarded "hit man" America like a used-up lemon.

Cronkite: George Soros, in his recent book "The Crisis of Global Capitalism," has given serious attention to this concept which would be based upon not only one-nation-one-vote but also on population and contributions to the U.N. budget.

Analysis: There it is!!! Mafia journalist Cronkite and George Soros (a "capo" of the Rothschild gang) dream of a "one-nation-one-vote" system in which hundreds of Turd World mini-gangster states get to rob the "evil rich White people" of America and Europe blind while flooding the West with their dirt-poor and criminal elements -- all done "democratically," of course. (rolling eyes sarcastically) Mind you, this was stated 20 years before the Soros-funded immigration invasion that we are witnessing today!

For nearly 40 years, the notorious billionaire George Soros has been pumping hundreds of millions of dollars in radical leftist causes, Globalist political campaigns worldwide, and world government groups. Gangsters like Soros make and promote men like Cronkite.

Cronkite: Resolutions adopted by majorities in each of these areas would be binding, enforceable law.

Analysis: "Binding, enforceable law" means that no power on earth, including the de-balled USA of the future, will ever be able to rebel against the New World Order. And that is why "liberals" are so obsessed with disarming all those millions of American "good ol' boys" who might find world government to be "a bitter pill to swallow." And you thought "gun control" was about "saving children." Ha!

Cronkite: Within the powers given to it in the Charter, the U.N. could then deal with matters of reliable financing,

Analysis: "Reliable financing" means a system of world taxation. That's what the Climate Change ™ hoax and its proposed "solution" of imposing "carbon taxes" on "wealthy nations" is really all about.

Cronkite: ... a standing U.N. peace force, development, the environment ....

Translation: Cronkite envisions a multi-ethnic global goon squad enforcing tax collection and compliance with the world system.

Cronkite: ... and human rights.

Analysis: More code language. When Globalists speak of "human right," ™, they are referring to the "rights" of their paid trouble-makers within any "violator" nation to subvert that particular government. When the target government is forced to crack down on the CIA-NGO backed agitators, saboteurs, terrorists and subversives, the Globalist media, led by the New York Slimes, will immediately accuse that nation of "human rights violations" and call for sanctions, bombing, war etc.

Cronkite: As with the American rejection of the League of Nations after World War I, our failure to live up to our obligations to the U.N. is led by a handful of willful senators who choose to pursue their narrow, selfish political objectives at the cost of our nation's conscience. They pander to and are supported by the Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious right wing.

Analysis: In order to avoid the sound logical and moral arguments against One World Government, Cronkite is setting up the straw-man of the goofy televangelist Pat Robertson.

Cronkite: Their leader, Pat Robertson, ....

Analysis: I didn't know that Pat Robertson was "our leader," -- did "youse guys" (New Jerseyese for the plural of you) know that?

Cronkite: ... has written that we should have a world government but only when the messiah arrives. "Attempts for world order before that time must be work of the Devil." -- Well, join me, I am glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan.

Analysis: Given the freaky fascination with the occult that many of these elites have been known to dabble in, Cronkite's shout-out to Satan might very well have been literal. Indeed, Cronkite was, for many years, the voice of Molech the Owl for the creepy-as-all-heck "Cremation of Care" ceremony at the secretive annual gatherings at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California. (here).

Cronkite: The only way we who believe in the vision of a democratic world federal government can effectively overcome this reactionary movement is to organize a strong educational counteroffensive stretching from the most publicly visible people in all fields to the humblest individuals in every community.

Translation: We still have got a lot of brainwashing to do before the American people will accept the New World Order as a good thing.

Now, here's the kicker. After Commie Cronkite wrapped up his open call for treason and full NWO "democratic" takeover, First Lady, future US Senator, future Secretary of State and 2016 Presidential nominee Killary Rotten Clinton appeared on the big screen to congratulate "the most trusted man in America" on his treason award.

IN HER OWN WORDS

Clinton:
"Good evening and congratulations, Walter, on receiving the World Federalist Association's Global Governance Award. For more than a generation in America, it wasn't the news until Walter Cronkite told us it was the news. Every night at 6 o'clock, we listened as you explained the complex events of the day. ... You became a trusted member of my family and the families across America. For decades, you told us "the way it is," but tonight, we honor you for fighting for the way it could be. .. So thank you, Walter. Thank you for inspiring all of us to build a more peaceful and just world. We are still listening to your every word. And with your continuing leadership, we can sail across these un-navigated seas into the 21st Century, and there is no better captain that I can imagine than you."

Cronkite and Clinton --- "the most trusted man in America" and the neurotic hag who, were it not for Donald Trump, almost became "the first woman President" -- just a couple of meaningless and non-influential "conspiracy theorists" ™, eh? Believe it, there are plenty more big names who think just like them. Actually, the entire PRC (Predatory Ruling Class) is on board with the America-busting New World Order, or at least afraid of bucking "the tide of history."

Now, as much as the pro-Globalist prostitutes of the Piranha Press, Hollyweird, Corporate America (and Europe) and Academia all love Killary and Walter (who died in 2009), that's as much as they hate Trump and Putin. So why do the "great and the good" of the bought-and-paid-for pseudo-intelligentsia all hate on Trump and Putin so much? Read the quotes below, and the world situation will begin to make more sense to you.

Trump: “We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. My foreign policy will always put the interest of the American people and America security above all else. That will be the foundation of every single decision I will make.”

“America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration,”

Putin: "What is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within....I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's world. "

Putin and Trump certainly sound like "violators" who need to be "dealt with" -- eh Walter? If you still think the New World Order is just "paranoid conspiracy theory," then there is little else that can be done to enlighten you --- short of an economic calamity and/or World War III with Russia and China (which kingpin George Soros had already strongly hinted at (here)). But if you are intrigued by this subject and would like to learn more, then please have a look at "Planet Rothschild" (also linked below). Your world-view will never be the same.

Michael Sebastian #fundie returnofkings.com

Donald Trump And His Supporters Are Fighting A Rigged System

At the third debate, Donald Trump was asked if he would accept the results of the election. Trump responded that he would have to look at the process to determine if everything was done fairly before he could accept it. The media went berserk claiming that Trump was undermining democracy. But is the US system really rigged? And if it is, can Trump overcome it?

Why rig the system?

Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. Revelation 12:12

It is human nature to want to accumulate wealth. It is also human nature to want to keep what you have. One of the ways that the wealthy do that is through influencing the political process to ensure it is favorable to them. A democratic republic is particularly easy to influence. The wealthy elite can “buy” candidates through donations to them or to their superpacs. They can make voting patterns more favorable to them by changing the country’s demographics. Or they can influence voters through the supposedly unbiased news media that they control. In the US, the wealthy elite use every one of these levers to rig the system.

For example, liberal voters often favor a progressive tax system where high earners pay greater percentages than those who earn less. It sounds like a populist policy but it is not. Progressive taxation is put in place to prevent middle class people from rising into the ranks of the truly wealthy who have already accumulated their wealth and are taxed at the much lower capital gains rate. Progressive taxation keeps the rich on top and keeps the plebs down. That’s why no matter which political party is in power, we are still stuck with progressive taxation.

Everything goes well as long as both parties don’t rock the boat. But once you get a true wildcard like Trump, the system must spring into action to stop the threat to the established order. That’s what we are seeing now. The elite are using every tool in the arsenal of the rigged system to ensure Trump does not upset their gravy train. The elite sense their time is short.

ancap-biochemist #sexist reddit.com

Learning to hate women is the best thing to happen to me

Ever since embracing misogyny my life has become something I can be proud of. My career has taken off, I'm in great shape, my finances are solid, I'm more well rested, better fed, my sexual gratification became better*, I'm more focused, happier, and more philosophically grounded in reality.

. * When I was still sleeping with women (which I've made a conscious choice to never do again earlier this month, after a risky ONS) - there was a marginal increase in my enjoyment of sex. When I used to masturbate (I'm also trying the no-fap thing in addition to celibacy, since early this month) it was also more enjoyable with more misogyny.

If you would pardon a quick digression into celibacy/no-fap, then we can return to the topic of misogyny improving a man's quality of life:

So far, the sperm retention thing has had some predictable results and some unpredictable results; I feel more aggressive, focused, horny, sharp-witted, with more random erections, invasive pornographic thoughts, a push toward old habits of sexual gratification, and I've noticed I'm making a lot more eye-contact with people. I also feel less tired at certain times of the day. And I've been more productive due to a heightened mood. The desire to blow my load can be distracting, and my epididymides are giving me some blue-balls, but massaging my balls tends to help relieve the pressure (no nocturnal emissions yet). No-fap is like coffee, perhaps - it is stimulating with some drawbacks (like how coffee makes you have to piss and shit, makes you crash and jittery, etc.). The alertness and presence of mind (and dominance instinct) come with a price.

Returning to the topic of hating women - it is the best thing to have happened to me because, I think, that women are a disappointment regarding virtues. They've been sold as a panacea for all of men's ills (she will civilize you, make you food, clean your house, give you a moral foundation, massage your sore muscles, listen to your problems, blah, blah, blah). The Woman TM wonder-drug is like heroine... pretty soon you're spending all your time and money supporting a drug habit.

And, make no mistake, love is a drug. Love will blind and stupefy a man into taking a bad deal.

Think about the following; nature endowed men with a survival advantage for using their wits in a hunter-kind-of-way. Man needed to outsmart nature, but women needed to outsmart man in order for the species to persist. If man were smart he would focus on self interest and even enslave woman instead of loving her. However this is not generally the case. Generally, men fall in love with women and want to provide for her and protect her, and give her advantages. This is due to the love drugs of hormonal cocktails which bathe the brain in dopamine rewards (D1 and D2 pathways triggered by oxytocin and vasopressin).

The love-drug lowers a man's IQ to that of the woman (or lower). All that beautiful women see are idiot men. When the men leave the women they become expert hunters and survivors who have brought nature herself into submission, and cracked the very atoms which constitute the [or "a"] fabric of our material existence. Men are smart, but not around women.

Hating women has reversed that weakness which was required to continue the species.

Hating women has made me a stronger person... because, let's face it - there's a lot to hate, and women make you weak.

And I recognize the forces that I'm blaspheming; the white-knight mafia hates men who renege on their natural burden. Those mob wives, which would cuck their white-knights, want the strength of an independent man. Women love powerful men, and fuck them readily... and if a man (unburdened by women) is free to excel due to his natural advantages and without his natural inhibitions (e.g. "the asshole") then he becomes the "alpha" male - women reactively lubricate their vaginas and accelerate ovulation toward the man who has become strong thereby, and their husbands become jealous.

That jealousy is a powerful bulwark against male independence and why they will attack you; you are an affront to their gods, and have blasphemed the holy love-drug.

But...

The freedom and strength is too great of a reward not to raise a middle finger toward those cucks and tell their whores to fuck off.

My life is too great to give up. And hate (toward such an ugly thing as woman/white-knights) can be the most healthy response a man can have.

Granted, this is foreign to everything they [the blue-pills] know, and they "can't even" conceive of "assholes" such as a man who loves his life, succeeds, feels proud of his work, is happy and healthy, and yet hates women.

Don't knock it until you try (or understand) it. Give misogyny a chance (or don't - no skin off my back).

Glenn Miller #racist whty.org

White women do what white men permit. This is now, and always has been, a fact of nature and history. Today, this fact is painfully obvious to everyone with good eyesight. Our women have become whores for the world, thanks to Jewish created "popular culture" and Jewish corrupted judges, and politicians, who over the decades, have thrown out all laws designed by our forefathers to insure racial survival and the White man's authority over his women, children, country, and destiny.

The phrase Women and minorities this, and Women and minorities that, are repeated by the media, causing many of our women to believe they have more in common with colored men than with their own.

The so-called Women's Rights Movement would never have come about without the Jews. The original movers of this anti-White conspiracy were Gloria Steinem, Belia Abzug, and Betty Freidan, all Jews. Gullible White women believe these Jews have their interests at heart, but in reality, these fanatical, Aryan-hating pied-piper bitches are working to further the Jewish agenda. Weaken the White man. Divide and conquer. Divide the White man from the White woman so there will be fewer of both in the future.

As a direct consequence of Jewish mind programming, and White male cowards, our women and girls by the tens of millions have wallowed naked with sub-humans. And millions have given birth to mixed-breed offspring in scenes too nauseating to imagine without puking. These unnatural offspring grow up identifying with their colored side and hating their White parents. Mother nature gets her sweet revenge.

The White man has become so confused, guilt-ridden, and cowardly, he either applauds this traitorous behavior of his women, or pretends he doesn't notice it.

The Jews-media keeps our youth in a constant state of heat. They satanically exploit nature's strong demand upon youth to procreate. And, those who deny the intense power of this demand have simply forgotten what it's like to be young. Catering to the lowest urges of man, the Jews bring out the very worse in human nature. And any family not insulted every ten minutes by Jew television has lost their sense of decency.

Nature screams procreate! And the Jews-media screams procreate with any two legged featherless creature, regardless of race, color, brain size, or nose width.

White men, not to be outdone by their women, bed down with colored women, accelerating even more rapidly their own racial demise. The reason one doesn't see more White men and Black women together in public is because Whitey fears the Black man. Asian women are safer. Asian men don't make a fuss when seeing their women on the arms of White men. A big Jewish-promoted fad now is mail-order brides. Thick catalogues filled with photos of young third-world women offering themselves in marriage are widely publicized throughout the western world. Plane loads of lonely, horny old white men arrive daily in India, the Philippines, and South East Asia to meet their mongrel brides-to-be. And the Jews wring their hands in giddiness and delight at the success of yet another scheme to exterminate the hated White Aryan Race and make fortunes in the process from their victims. The White man finances his own destruction.

Meanwhile Whitey Joe and Jill Six-pack smoke their dope and watch MTV or the Negroes playing ball on television, their minds void of thought not put there by the Jews.

KV-n #fundie reddit.com

if you are a human male there is 80% chance you were born to be a slave or cannon fodder

Women are only attracted to the top 20% of men. Also very few men are needed to make babies - one men can knock up hundreds, even thousands of women.

In the face of the above facts a question arises, why the fuck then is the men/women ratio naturally ~1/1? The answer is simple: while very few men are needed to fuck and make babies, someone must take care of them and the women. And thats what the rest 80% men are for.

Originally they were killed off in tribe wars or enslaved to gather resources for the top ones and their offsprings. Thats the natural order and the time when studies show 17 women reproduced for every man. However, as the societies got bigger and more complex, the ruling class realized these wifeless men are quite an explosive force. Being so beta they will never rebel all by themselves, but they can rally behind another alpha who can, by promising them better future, use them to overthrow the current alpha leaders.

Somehow these men had to be calmed down at least a little, they had to have at least something to lose in a potential rebellion. Thus, around antiquity, monogamy was gradually introduced to tie the men down, give them stake in society and thus be better and more obedient servants. Sure, alphas still got more girls in their unofficial harems, the servant betas got cucked here and there and their wife treated fucking as a chore, but they were nevertheless better off than before. With the advent and spread of christianity, monogamy was to become a rather heavily enforced standard in western civilization for the next 2000 years.

However in the past 50 years we have started to again drift towards the situation when the betas are extorted via taxes while getting steaming shit in return. Again, more and more men have less and less stake in society; even if the change started slow it seems to have become exponential with the advent of online whoring. We will see how it goes this time - porn, vidya and VR have a vast sedative effect, which could mean there will be no mass rebelions or similar discontent this time. But that only makes the society a ripe target for more more masculine societies to take over, as we see today in europe.

If anyone is interested in what effect polygamy has on societies, google polygamy+criminality or similar. There are actual studies done on the topic and lets just say here that theres a good reason all the non-fucked up societies are monogamous.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

From the beginning, humans have lived in tribes, which are somewhat akin to groups of chimpanzees, cooperating to provide food, childcare, labor and dissemination of information. The family, in its varied forms, was always subordinate to the tribe, and the tribe often in conflict with other tribes. Humans have competed with each other for resources and territory from the dawn of history and before, and they have usually done so through some sort of tribal conflict. Usually, the more numerous tribe would win, because it could summon more men and defeat the other by force of numbers, but because the ideal human group is relatively small – some 50-100 individuals – summoning a larger force required relatively complex rules and strong taboos to maintain any sort of social cohesion. Hence the seeds of civilization were sown through tribal competition.

Despite the addition of all this complexity, which has enabled humans to live in mass societies, the basic tribal tendency remains part of human nature. And in a tribe, the most important component has always been the men. Without them, there is only booty, free for the taking for any group of men willing to come along and claim it. In fact, this has been the case for so long that patrilocality is the norm throughout the world. Exogamy in primitive tribes is exceedingly common, but it is usually the women who leave one group and go to another — this is reflected in our modern practice of women and children taking the husband’s surname. The men stay, because without them the group would simply be swallowed up by others.

Because the tribe has been, if not the most basic, the most important unit of human society, it is highly likely that humans evolved to maximize the success of the tribe. This would include gender roles, and probably even gender phenotypes. Human females are particularly poorly suited to hunting when compared to other species that derive a similar portion of calories from meat, so division of labor has obviously been in play since at least the emergence of modern homo sapiens. Some have suggested that this division was not so clear for neanderthals, whose women may have come along on the hunt and helped bring down large animals, but the neanderthal physique was substantially different from our own.

The point is that the tribe is mainly defined by its men, and has been throughout recorded history, which suggests that this was always the case. Evidence from primitive tribes in the modern era supports this as well. And although it’s counterintuitive, the fact that men are usually targeted while women are often spared in tribal conflict even further confirms the importance of males. If it were true that tribes cannot survive without women, the most successful tribes would have been those that systematically exterminated their enemies’ female members, which would be far easier to do in any event. But this simply did not happen.

For the biblically inclined, I’d like to point to the story of the tribe of Benjamin, a particularly warlike Israelite tribe which was nearly exterminated after some mortal offense (inhospitality) prompted the other tribes to gang up on them. The other tribes were so angry at Benjamin that after defeating their men in battle, they slaughtered all the women and children, leaving the Benjaminites a tribe of bachelors. Finally, when the other tribes felt fairly certain that the Benjaminites had learned their lesson, the men were allowed to marry women from other tribes, and ultimately the tribe was reestablished.

Now, imagine what would have happened if every single Benjaminite man was slaughtered and the women spared. The women would have been distributed as spoils of war, and Benjamin would have been no more. From the tribal survival standpoint, who is more expendable?

It would be tempting to suggest that things have changed so much that tribal consideration no longer matter, but that would be a short-sighted argument. Civilization did not develop by repudiating humans’ natural tribal sentiments, but by incorporating them into a larger organization. Military organizations, today and in the past, are broken down into manageable groups that approximate the size of a tribe. The US Army Company, the Roman Centuria (which also means tribe), the Mongol Zuut and the Germanic Hundred are all examples of this. Churches have traditionally had about a tribe’s worth of parishioners, and large corporations are organized to take this optimal group size into account as well. Despite the sophistication of contemporary society, humans are still fundamentally tribal. It’s instinctive and reflected in how we organize our lives and tasks.

Therefore, one can see modern states, and civilization in general, as a massive confederation of tribes, between which there remains a great deal of competition. However, men are arguably just as important as ever to these basic social units to which they belong. Where would our businesses, our military and our public service organizations be without their men? Law and order, commerce, infrastructure and defense would fall apart within days.

So why are men so often treated as expendable within society? It goes back to competition, i.e. your men are expendable, but ours are not. Elites have always been perfectly happy to use other people’s sons as cannon fodder, while usually protecting their own from the battlefield. At the highest levels of society, sons are preferentially educated over daughters, and then these exact same people who favor their boys take steps to ensure that less fortunate sons are prevented from competing with them. Other people’s daughters, on the other hand, are no threat to their tribe — they are a resource to be exploited. In fact, support of feminism by elites only confirms that they see other tribes’ women as chattel, or perhaps tribute — either term would suffice. When men are given as tribute, it has typically been in one of two roles: the warrior or the eunuch. Hence, they want our boys as soldiers (including police) or femme homosexuals (the modern incarnation of the eunuch); for the rest of us they have little use except as peasants, to be kept in line with punitive taxes and overwhelming force.

The argument that men are expendable because of some biological mandate is perhaps the last vestige of the pseudoscience that emerged from 19th century anthropology and plagued humanity with various wrong-headed ideologies throughout the 20th century. In reality, men have always been the most essential component of the tribe, which has characterized human social organization since the dawn of our species. The world’s oldest and most successful civilizations have learned this over time, and have survived because they incorporated this truth into their law and governing philosophy. We have to recognize that men are targeted for abuse and dispossession exactly because they are essential to the strength and health of their tribes. When we live in a mass society without any sense of common values or interests, where discord, envy and greed are the norm, it is perfectly natural that men will come under attack. If one thinks of it as an inchoate civil war, it becomes all the more clear.

[Same fundie, posted in comments]

Something like that, but I don’t think it’s an articulated effort or policy so much as normal human nature. Those in elite “tribes” instinctively favor policies that limit the choices and power of those males who are part of upstart tribes. People naturally fear rival males — we are an apex predator after all, and have little to worry about from anything else. This, I think, is at the root of androphobic policies.

Civilization has been a constant effort to channel male resource competition into constructive effort, but here in the West we are currently failing at that, and men have turned on each other. It always seems to happen eventually, which is why war is a constant.

On the positive side, I think we have a very good chance of eventual victory, because never in the history of humanity has a state exercised its power over the people with a harem. Those of us who do not give up our men will eventually take the spoils.

Various incels #sexist reddit.com

"But traps can pass" NOPE

image

(PenileFacial-Surgery)
Degenerate Fetish and Mental Illness.

Disgusting.

(manletcel)
lol, some of them think they are hot traps for real because of safe space.

(Newshieldnsword)
Yea its like the super nice sounding way of saying i just want to live in an echo chamber and id prefer the laws were like a mega dictatorship were everyone had to be smiley sparkle people all the time and if they didnt goout with me after i asked in my lil QT dress and baratone gravely smoker voice and my transmeanytector picks up a signal that its bc im TERAHNZZZ (its always that sweetie hun) they get a year in rape dungeon so when they come out they respect our painful stugglez.

(David_Creed_92)
How the fuck can any of these trannys not see they still look like men in the mirror? Hand size, bone structure, frame you cant just change that shit.

(jug2112)
The only successful traps are ones that already had a feminine build as a boy and take good medications. Dressing like one is sad and makes one look mentally ill.

(GiveUpItsOver)
I think trannies are a product of inceldom. It’s some sort of a bizarre, extreme way of acting out what they desire. This has been going on in prisons for decades.

Going prison gay in real life

In a round about way, yeah. For both prisoners and Incels the prospect of a woman (sex, affection, love, a relationship, whatever) are effectively zero. Incels can cope with tryhard copes; start lifting and career maxing now and in a few years the chance may improve. Same for prison; in a few years you’ll be released and there might be a chance.

Men who were previously straight do take on the role of a woman while in prison, albeit in a male homosexual relationship, and not just the role of a receptive partner. In prison lingo theyre known as a “sissy.”

In both sissies and trannies the person in question is not in a healthy psychosexual environment. The former is in fucking prison, while the latter is in the hypersexualised West and has been watching internet porn since before puberty.

But I’m just some guy and this is all deduction based on very little evidence. Of course no one can actually study it because being a tranny is perfectly normal...

Also, I used to work in the gay part of town in a city with a huge gay population (second per capita behind San Fransisco). The stereotypes of gay guys being attractive young men are mostly false.

You're telling me that a tall guy like this, who mogs and intimidates everyone around him, is a product or was created due to inceldom? He could slay a shit ton of foids if he wanted to, but instead turned to the Trans-side of the force.

There are also ugly virgins who don’t become trannies, and good looking men who suck dick. Neither that nor Macho Ma’am Tranny Savage dispute anything I said.

(Random_actsof_Jihad)
Them continiously crying about feminists who hate trans people shows that pussy is their end goal

(Sub-Sero)
Failed male... somewhere along the line towards the black pill they took a series of steps as a form of escapism? They became hyper-sexualized through porn and now want to be the girl. Fucking dysmorphic.

(Brokemgtow)
If theyre a chad or good looking they can just get a domme to dominate them, which is still having the female experience, without having to change into female.

These are extreme copes

(no_maps_no_plans)
At one point I thought that traps were like women but are actually dudes. That can't be further from the truth. Traps are like turbo roasties. Either narcissistic, batshit insane, attention starved, but usually all 3.

Even if you can meet a trap that actually passes, "she" already has a discord harem of betas fueling "her" worst impulses. Best to avoid at all costs.

(cannuckgamer)
Exactly, when they get this insane, it makes you wonder what happened to them either at birth or during life. A TV News Channel interviewed him about the whole incident. JFC... imagine this tall intimidating dude goes ape-shit all over you? My God, he mogs everyone. Imagine him making moves on a smaller dude? shudders and shivers with fear R.I.P.

(ABannedIncel9)

Traps are okay. Sissy men arent.

One is born that way, the other is mentally ill.

BOTH are mentally ill

If a girl is born with a dick, she has no control over it. She either acts girlish and is a "trap" or takes male hormones and is a freak of nature, a "reverse trap". I dont think their dicks even function right...

Do you hear yourself? If it's born with a dick it's a man. JFC

Some of them do pass though. I found a trap on Tumblr and she passes 100%. Here are some pics. Volcel if you wouldn't smash.

None of them pass. Makeup lighting and editing dont make you pass. Imagine how disgusting they are upclose.

Only gaycels would smash

you would have sex with her

you’re coping, extremely low virility, or gay, ironically

I 100% would not have sex with HIM. You people pushing the trannny propganda are disgusting and unironically closeted homosexual. YOU would have sex with that thing, not me. Don't push it on me. To me, it looks like a fucking freak. That frame, facial expresssion, all is telling that it's a man. You're gay. Own it. Don't fucking project it

Idk if there's been any editing done and how would make up make her hips/waist look like that? If I had showed you her pics, outside of the last one, in isolation you wouldn't suspect that it was a guy.

VolCel if you wouldn't smash.

Fuck off gaycel

(Administrative_Camel)

You guys are always whining about how being a man sucks ass and being a woman is life on tutorial mode and you're surprised to see that some enterprising males decide to try to be more like the superior sex instead of just sitting on their asses crying about how much it sucks to be a man yet doing nothing to change it?

While true, the issue is that very few men (if any) are able to be become convincing women. Most look like freaks, and I'm not sure if looking like a tranny freak is much better than being an ugly male.

Eivind Berge #fundie eivindberge.blogspot.com

The bizarre behavior exhibited by the manginas in the Men's Human Rights Movement (MHRM), found at A Voice for Men (AVfM), whereby they embrace the most absurd and hateful feminist ideals regarding sex, and even more bizarrely, apply these standards to women as well, is puzzling in the extreme. After thinking long and hard about what might possess these nincompoops to behave in such a deranged manner, and rereading the Unabomber Manifesto, I think I have figured it out. I thought for a long time that they must be some kinds of autistic freaks or something, but the explanation may be found in the far more pervasive concept of oversocialization. The buffoons at AVfM fancy themselves as rebels against feminism, but of course they are nothing of the sort. They are feminists of the more extreme kind. I hate feminists, but most of them have the decency to at least back off the most absurd manifestations of their odious worldview in practice -- for example if you were to apply their sex-hostility literally to women as well as men. The buffoons in the MHRM have no such barriers. They are loose cannons among radical feminist, who will cling desperately to feminist tenets no matter how absurd it gets in the real world.

Here is yet another example of their idiocy: Boys raped more often than girls.

Any person just a few short decades ago would laugh his ass off if you told him women can "rape" boys. An honest biologist would still laugh his ass off at such an imbecile notion, as would any halfway rational or commonsensical person. Biologists know perfectly well that because the sexual superiority of women is the prime fact of life for deep evolutionary reasons, women committing "rape" or "sexual abuse" is not a meaningful natural concept but a legal fiction you have to be oversocialized to take seriously. But the manginas in the MHRM do take it seriously, because they have been oversocialized into feminist ideology.

Thus the manginas at AVfM attempt to oversocialize their natural attraction to teenage girls away (whatever age of consent local feminist legislators decree, the manginas will unquestioningly accept and internalize in the most servile fashion), since their feminist ideology will not permit them to think any "unclean thoughts." This would merely be laughable if these clowns didn't take their bizarre oversocialization one step further and insist that underage boys who get lucky with women are actually victims. And of course they also support all the hateful feminist sex laws and abuse-industry nonsense applied to men and women alike, so they are frankly as pure evil as the scumbags in law enforcement who put feminism into practice, and must be exposed as such. There is simply no nice way to put it; they are feminist scum.

I suppose the Unabomber has correctly identified this as a leftist phenomenon. A leftist is above all else a conformist. The leftist does not think for himself; he merely absorbs the political correctness of his times, and if these ideals conflict with human nature, then human nature be damned. And in this day and age, the pinnacle of political correctness is the ideology of ubiquitous sexual "abuse" (or usually and increasingly just called "rape" regardless of the details). The more socialized you are, the more you see "rape" or "sexual abuse" everywhere, until "abuse" encapsulates all of human sexuality (and beyond -- as even an image of a baby breastfeeding can qualify). With sufficient oversocialization, it is even possible to insist on the existence of female sexual abusers with a straight face. This is the pathogenesis of the female sex-offender charade, which has caused me so much headache. Never mind that common sense, natural science and experience all tell us it is preposterous to hold women culpable for sex crimes. The oversocialized leftist mangina will insist on his internalized politically correct hogwash even if all his senses and reason as well as science contradict him. Thanks to the Unabomber for identifying the word for it. I know my ranting against the female sex-offender charade for the umpteenth time probably won't sway any of the manginas, but at least now we know what to call the phenomenon that rots their brains.

The Unabomber is brilliant in some ways, foolish in others. One way he was wrong was thinking he had to kill people in order to get his message out. With writing skills like his, there is no need for violence, at least not in the Internet age. Rather than wasting away in a supermax prison, he could have had a popular blog now if he had only waited for the rise of the Internet. It is also completely unnecessary to use violence to bring down industrial civilization, since peak oil will take care of that beautifully. Soon there will be no occasion for what the Unabomber derides as "surrogate activities," as any survivors of the imminent Malthusian catastrophe will have no choice but to struggle to stay alive by the sweat of our brows, rather than leisurely sit by as fossil fuel slaves do the work. My attitude now that I am aware of peak oil is that unless you are already incarcerated, then insurrection against the feminist establishment is largely superfluous.

As I have said before, the Men's Rights Movement has not grown. There are only 3 sex-positive MRA sites that I know of beside myself: The Anti-Feminist, Human Stupidity and Angry Harry. The rest is merely feminist oversocialization, although I suppose The Spearhead should get an honorable mention for lately at least somewhat acknowledging the insanity of feminist sex-hostility as codified in law, as well as the foolishness, if not the biological absurdity, of men trying to assume the role of victims of rape by women (Price has, however, written some embarrassingly naive articles on the female sex-offender charade in the past where he has parroted the feminist narrative in much the same way as AVfM). I have no hope that there will ever be an effective Men's Rights Movement, but we don't need it anyway, because with peak oil comes peak feminism. If the feminists and manginas want to do something enduring for their cause, they might get busy trying to figure out how to keep up mass incarceration in a low-energy world. Rather than dreaming up ways to identify more sex offenders, they ought to be seriously worried about how to even keep the sex offenders they got incarcerated long enough to serve out their sentences. John Michael Greer has got a post up about seven sustainable technologies that may be practiced in our low-energy future, and the industrial prison system is not among them. I don't see how anything like the feminist sex abuse industry can possibly exist without the abundant energy flows provided by fossil fuels. Look back to the prison population in the era before fossil fuels, and you get an idea of how many people a low-energy society is capable of imprisoning. It is no accident that mass incarceration was unheard of before the Industrial Revolution, and for most of history, incarceration wasn't even recognized as a standard punishment. (Slavery did exist, and can in theory arise again if most of the prisoners are coerced into manual agriculture, but there will be insufficient energy available to make the transition to sustainable slavery in our coming dark ages, not least because the feminists don't even realize that time is running out for reorganizing their infrastructure if that were to be accomplished). Since the prison is a cornerstone of feminist society, there is reason to rejoice even as all the things we care about and depend on are about to disintegrate. Technology has been convenient and fun, but we also see what kind of sex-hostile dystopia it leads to, which gets worse for every passing year. So perhaps peak oil is a good thing even with the extreme hardship and die-off it necessarily entails, because the alternative for men is surely prison unless you put on the charade of an oversocialized mangina.

Rabbi Yosef Berge #fundie breakingisraelnews.com

$700 Quintillion Gold Asteroid to be Mined by NASA Paving the Way for Messiah to Arrive

What I see for them is not yet, What I behold will not be soon: A star rises from Yaakov, A scepter comes forth from Yisrael; It smashes the brow of Moab, The foundation of all children of Shet.” Numbers 24:17 (The Israel Bible™)

Asteroid

When scientists announced the discovery of a “golden asteroid”, their interests were in how this could open up the field of asteroid mining. But people who look to the heavens for more spiritual rewards saw different, more Redemptive implications for the discovery.

Discovered in 1852, Psyche 16, as it is named, is relatively close, parked in orbit between Mars and Jupiter. The asteroid is exceptional in several respects. It is one of the ten most massive asteroids in the asteroid belt with an average diameter of approximately 140 miles, making it the most massive M-type (metallic) asteroid discovered to date. Psyche is so massive enough that its gravitational effect on other asteroids can be observed, which enables scientists to measure its mass. The results indicated that Psyche was incredibly dense. Unlike most other asteroids that are rocky or icy bodies, scientists think the M-type (metallic) asteroid 16 Psyche is comprised mostly of metallic iron and nickel similar to Earth’s core.

What it’s worth

Scientists at NASA are now planning a mission that will be the first stage in a program to mine the minerals of Psyche 16. Targeted to launch in August of 2022, the Psyche spacecraft would arrive at the asteroid in early 2026, orbiting for 21 months to do a complete study of the space rock. This will be NASA’s first mission to a metal planet. This may sound fantastic with the astronomical costs far outweighing the results however experts estimate the asteroid’s worth at $700 quintillion. For those who have never had a quintillion dollars, one quintillion is a one followed by 18 zeroes. To put that into perspective, it is feared that a sudden influx of such wealth could crash the global economy which is valued at a paltry $75.5 trillion.

This mission to Psyche 16 was intended as a first step in a larger initiative to mine the asteroid belt but several other missions are already underway. NASA’s OSIRIS-REx is orbiting an asteroid called Bennu, which has an estimated value of $700 million. The Japanese have sent a probe to another asteroid, Ryugu, with an estimated worth of $82.86 billion. Deep Space Industries and Planetary Resources each plan to mine the 2011 UW158 asteroid, worth up to $5.7 trillion.

Biblical interpretation

Rabbi Yosef Berger, the rabbi of King David’s Tomb on Mount Zion, was pleasantly surprised when he heard of the discovery. But his amusement turned to shock when he heard of NASA’s response which, he explained, did not relate to the asteroid’s place in the final redemption.

“The Bibles explicitly describes an astronomical phenomenon, the Star of Jacob, that will presage the Messiah,” Rabbi Berger said, citing a verse from the section of the Torah in which the non-Jewish prophet, Balaam, blessed the Children of Israel.

What I see for them is not yet, What I behold will not be soon: A star rises from Yaakov, A scepter comes forth from Yisrael; It smashes the brow of Moab, The foundation of all children of Shet. Numbers 24:17

“Jewish sources, most notably the Zohar, describe stars and other things that happen in the heavens before the Messiah comes,” Rabbi Berger said. He suggested a reason behind this, referring to the copper serpent Moses was commanded to make as a cure for anyone who was bitten by a snake in the desert.

Moshe made a copper serpent and mounted it on a standard; and when anyone was bitten by a serpent, he would look at the copper serpent and recover. Numbers 21:9

“They were not praying to the snake, but when they turned their eyes upward, they were reminded to pray to heaven,” Rabbi Berger explained. “In the end-of-days, we will all be looking up at the heavens because of these stars. Some people will only be able to see gold and silver, or their own intellect and their own glory, while others will be looking for God.”

A promise of redemption

Rabbi Berger went on to explain that according to Jewish sources, the final Geula (redemption) will mirror the Exodus from Egypt. The rabbi cited a verse from the Bible in which God described the period of slavery in Egypt, while promising that the Jews will be rewarded with great wealth for their suffering.

And He said to Avram, “Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years; but I will execute judgment on the nation they shall serve, and in the end they shall go free with great wealth. Genesis 15:14

Just as the Jews left Egypt with great wealth, precisely as God promised, the period of the final Geula will be part of that same promise and will be marked by unprecedented wealth,” Rabbi Berger told Breaking Israel News. “Some of Israel took this gift and used it to make the Golden Calf. Others used it for the Tabernacle. We are blessed to live in a period of unprecedented wealth and are being given the same choice.”

Messianic implications

The rabbi suggested that this wealth and the potential for wealth that exceeds what is currently available on earth may suggest what form the final Geula will take.

“Some people mistakenly believe that the Messiah will result from a difficult process of suffering. That is not accurate,” Rabbi Berger said. He explained that if we do not merit the Messiah, the final redemption could come in a terrifying manner characterized by horrific wars, plagues, and natural disasters. The other possibility, the rabbi explained, is that the Messiah would be incredibly pleasant.

“This is what we call achishena,” Rabbi Berger said. “If we merit it, the Messiah will come before its appointed time in a gradual, drawn-out process accented by miracles. This is the Messiah that will be accompanied by heavenly signs, perhaps even asteroids made of solid gold.”

CH #fundie heartiste.wordpress.com

Senior Management: the harem kings.
Management: the first wives.
Accounts Support: the inner circle concubines.
Sales Support: the trafficked East European sex slave.
Support Team: the royal penis washers.
Account Managers: the threesome coordinators.
Business Managers: the young dick sucking upstarts.

There you have it, the modern corporate harem, in all its flowcharted glory. Seven women per one high status man. A more illuminatingly succinct snapshot of the Western sexual market aligned with the globalizing economic market you won’t see. The only surprising thing about it is the lack of any land whales or witches among the female staff. This is Britain; you’d have to spend years scouring the countryside to find and place that many bangable women under one corporate umbrella. So you know a lot of hard work went into developing a staff that looks like a country with all its men and war pigs removed.

The other thing that’s missing from the chart: Beta males, the invisible demographic.

The four kings at the top of the Spermular Solutions organization may or may not be boffing their happily indentured servants (but if you had to bet…), however the exact dimension of their relationships with their underpantslings is irrelevant in the bigger scheme. These women are, no doubt, enthralled by the power of their male masters. They don’t need to be taking their masters’ cocks to experience the same feeling of submissive joy that a real concubine would feel. All those women are de facto harem girls, at the beck and call of their four alpha kings, gossiping and tittering amongst themselves like court mistresses to determine who is the favored girl of the moment.

This social and quasi-sexual dynamic, playing out across corporate hierarchies all over the West, pollutes the minds of women and renders them less able to appreciate the dull ministrations of the less-than-senior-management beta males that buzz about them outside the office. In the company of beta males, a de facto corporate harem girl is emotionally aloof, cocksure, unfeminine, petulant and entitled. She has felt the presence of a real modern king, a maestro of the symbol manipulation secret society, and now peasant men simply won’t do. So she lashes out at the piss bucket boys with undirected, malevolent spite, for their naive importunings fill her with disgust. Who are these nobody betas, to consult her? She has warmed the cock…les of a king’s heart! No commoner’s girl is she!

What the corporate West is becoming is a soft concubinage of a few alpha males and many attractive female HR drones whose job it is to protect the privilege of the transnational globalists by acting as a gatekeeper against infiltration by wrong-thinking elements and potentially powerful competitors. That’s the real story behind the graphic above: the total disenfranchisement of the West’s beta males. If the poor bastards can’t be disappeared the old-fashioned way, drive them out with “anti-discrimination” sophistry.

Naturally, foul feminist cunts and their bubble-headed beta male toadies immediately saw a “glass ceiling” at work in this corporate chart. For them, a workplace that is 90% female is discrimination against women if the top four positions are held by men. All the lesser men who are missing from the bottom 90% ranks are completely forgettable, nebulous specters resembling some human shape and form. Beta males? Who? What? Is that a new social media app?

I have a helpful reminder for the feminists and kingpin ruling elites waving victory signs and placards demanding further concessions from the sexless masses of men who have little left to sacrifice: When you lock out 90% of men from productive society, really bad things tend to happen in the wake of your short-sighted selfishness.

EU Times #racist eutimes.net

New Movement: Blonde Men Mass Impregnate Women

Today we are promoting and pushing the idea of forming a new movement for men, blonde men to be more exact. Blonde Men Mass Impregnate Women or BMMIW for short! This article is going to be very explicit and is only destined for adults so if you are under 18, go ahead and find something else better to do.

It’s all about the numbers boys, brunettes exceed the number of blondes both in the white and non-white world. Blonde hair is beautiful and unique but its numbers is going down rapidly as more and more couples nowadays are mixed. Blondes cannot rely on CHANCE for their survival. Something actively needs to be done about it.

Rarely you see 2 blondes hooking up together anymore in today’s sick world and this is vastly the blonde women’s fault. Mostly they are to blame as they and they only seek to date outside their group. Because of this, blonde men are left out without an option for a blonde woman so they go for brunette women but hey we have a new solution in place. This isn’t about racism and not even about race differences or whatever, it has nothing to do with race. This movement is going to be focusing only on NUMBERS.

Men have something which women do not have. If you are virile, you can impregnate countless thousands of women without loosing anything while women are LOCKED for 9 months. Women can’t do this. Mathematically they can’t more than 50 children in a lifetime even if its child after child. A man’s sperm is just like his piss. He can do it multiple times a day without any loss. Heck he is even getting something out of it: pleasure.

BASIC INSTRUCTIONS

Never reveal who you are, don’t give your real name, use a pseudonym, leave no clues as how they can find you and use a disposable pre-paid SIM card for your phone so that they don’t have your real phone number. Tell no one what you are doing but encourage other blonde men you know to do it. You are gonna learn how to become a ghost, you come, you leave your seed, you pick up your shirt and you leave. A master of disguise, a master of deception. Do not fall in love for they will slow you down. However that is very possible so if you do fall in love with a blonde woman, well marry her, reproduce yourself with her but the door must remain open, if you go on vacations, if you go on business trips by yourself and you get a chance, use it! Continue to impregnate, its cheating and its NOT cheating at the same time, its all for the nation, for your seed and your own wife’s seed as well. If she can’t see it this way she’s a fool, you are doing humanity a good thing and she has you. It not like you’re gonna break up with her for someone else, nope you’re gonna pick up your shirt and go back to your wife. Make sure you do this preferably to women from other cities, towns and maybe even countries. Use some common sense for God’s sake, be cautious. You don’t do this to your neighbors who will then point you in the streets with their fingers and ask your for child support.

Unless you are rich, don’t spend too much money in the process, you may show them that you have a lot of money as women are attracted to money like flies are attracted to shit, but don’t give them any, just buy them a beer or two. And its sexy time! No sexy time? BYE, there’s other women out there!

WHY MASS IMPREGNATION?

Is this moral? Of course not, it is deceptive and non-Christian but honestly WHO CARES at this point? Is it moral when we will all go extinct if we don’t do anything about it? Yes there’s also gonna be collateral damages. Good Christian girls which may not deserve this, blonde girls who would date and marry blonde men but you don’t know that. Due to the statistics you have to assume that all women are bad and all will marry outside of their group. The vast majority of women avoid blonde men like the plague. Its all due to the current culture we live in where the darker you are the better you are. Its the culture of the negro but you can step and shit on this culture all alone by yourself by joining this movement. Go and impregnate hundreds of women, thousands! Duty calls! They want war? They’re gonna get war! If you think this applies to you and you don’t have much success because you are a blonde, go have a tan in the sun and dye your hair black. Trick them! This movement is all about trickery and deception. The master of lies. That’s who you need to become because those sluts out there, they don’t like you pure, they don’t like you when you treat them nice. Nope they want bad boys. Our colleagues from MGTOW are 100% correct in their description of the woman. In some ways we may be a little bit similar to MGTOW but not too much. We are not for abstinence nor for sex with Asian sluts over our own sluts. If anything Asians are ugly as hell. Just remove their make-ups. A white girl without make up is gonna be 1 gazzilion trillion billion upon millions of gazzilions more beautiful than a Asian slut without makeup. Besides, we need to secure our survival and our numbers as blondes. Its just like in the animal world. You are a lion, you go out there and you impregnate all females in your path. Polygamy? Nah… its too little, for the shit we’re in right now, MASS IMPREGNATION! You impregnate them and you leave.

Spare no one! Besides its not like you beat them or something, you just make them a child for God’s sake. It just like in the animal world. The best of males compete for the females and impregnate as many as possible to make sure their seed survives. Some day you when you are old, you are gonna think about it and have a smile on your face, and others will wonder why but you will know that you are the father of hundreds of children. You are a BOSS!

You can even do this if you are married. Your wife doesn’t need to know about it. Morality go to hell, its about survival of the blonde gene and competition between blondes vs brunettes. Brunettes are already having it good, blonde women prefer them, brunette women prefer them, just about anyone prefers brunette men. Basically they don’t need to do anything actively as they are already having it good. So its time blondes have it good too.

Think of it, white countries are going down demographically like no other countries. Soon we may go extinct, all you hear is complain, complain, complain but no one comes out with a solution. Well here’s the freaking solution! This is basically what is already happening in Russia with over 50% divorce rates and guess what their demographics are finally going up in the last years. Their mistake? They marry them, they father them and then they divorce… So many single mothers in Russia… but what’s the point in marrying? Marry but keep who you marry with. Its nice to have someone to grow old with, someone to love, someone to return to after your adventures.

You get to help with the demographics, you bring more children into the world and you have fun at the same time, you are basically a freaking HERO. You are Solomon, you are Genghis Khan. What’s not to like?

WHO TO IMPREGNATE?

Just about anyone capable of carrying the blonde gene. Redheads, blondes should be your top priority but don’t miss out on brunette women as well. Blonde children can come out of them for sure. Chances are over 50%. You may even go for mixed girls like Turks, Greeks, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanians, Bulgarians, Gypsies, Indians, Iranians, etc. Creampie anyone in your path. Avoid doing it to 100% blacks and Asians as there is no point. They would need to have this happen to them and their children for over 2-3 generations in order to whiten them completely and develop blonde hair. There is simply no point. That is pure waste of time, energy and resources.

This is a famous case from Bulgaria and Greece where a Bulgarian gypsy woman gave a daughter of hers to a Greek gypsy couple, probably for money. Look at those beatutiful pure white, pure blonde and redhead children that came out of that gypsy vagina! Of course asume she’s young and beautiful, well dressed, not like that gypsy woman, old and poorly dressed. Worry not too much about STDs, not not as bad as the media wants to make you think. Its all a scare tactic to make whites go extinct. Asians, Africans have plenty of sex with plenty of women and they have plenty of children ad they don’t worry for a second about STDs. Besides if you worry about some chick, just use a compromised condom, put a needle through it, right in the middle, then unpack and use it normally. If she has any diseases, there are very very very slim chances of her diseased fluids going through your small needle hole and into your penis to infect you. Or simply avoid those you don’t trust.

Do you understand now? Don’t be a retarded racist with 1 active brain cell. Impregnate everyone in your path who is white and border-line white, as in mixed as well. It costs you nothing, you gain pleasure and you spread your seed. You spread the seed of the blondes. When you want to settle down and have to some children you actually know about and raise as your own, that’s a different story, take only a blonde wife and nothing else but for fun and mass impregnation? Everyone in your path except women of totally different races like black African and yellow Asian.

Remember you don’t sacrifice anything, you are not a woman, you do not get yourself locked for 9 months, all you do is just cum. Its like peeing but feeling pleasure while doing it at the same time, though same may feel pleasure while doing the latter as well but its a different kind of pleasure, haha.

HOW TO DO IT?

First of all don’t tell the girls that you are

So heere’s the plan boys. If you are blonde, go out, date and sleep with as many women as possible, make sure you do NOT wear a condom and make sure you release yourself inside of them. There’s plenty of tricks on how to do this. We’ve got 3 methods for you studs out there:

For starters, you can openly talk about it, ask them where they would like you to cum, this is before the sexual act itself. As surprising as this sound to some of you inexperienced men, most women fantasize about releasing your loads inside of them and not in a condom, their mouths, asses or on their breasts. This is all just Hollywood mumbo jumbo. At least 80% of all women secretly hope in their minds that you will creampie them inside their pussies and not somewhere else. Make good use of this, talk to them, make them horny, as horny as you can, then bring it up, at the culmination point “And where would you want me to cum baby?” They are gonna say “inside of me” and then you should ask them “Ohh that’s so hot, I would like that so much, and would you like to remain pregnant? I would really love that! I think that is the hottest thing in the world!” Most would answer “YES!” if they do, then start doing exactly just that. You have to use suggestive thinking, suggest to them what to do and tell them its so hot, they are gonna want to please you and they will end up doing exactly just that.

If you encounter difficulties, just trick them. Use coitus interruptus. Tell them you don’t want a condom because it kills of all the pleasure and you would rather not do it at all than do it with a condom. Tell them you have good control over your junk and you can withdraw right before you ejaculate. Trick them, ejaculate a few drops inside of them then withdraw and ejaculate the rest on their bellies or wherever. Don’t tell them that they have just been impregnated!

If they categorically refuse to have unprotected sex, say ok. Go to the bathroom or have a small needle with you, make sure you make a little hole right in the tip of the condom. It is inevitable, at least a drop will slip into her and impregnate her. When you remove the condom, do it quick and dispose of it quick so that she doesn’t notice anything strange.

CONCLUSION

Naturally some will resort to abortion but its their sin, not yours, you just did what is natural, sex for impregnation not for pleasure. You did what you are meant to do. When animals have sex they don’t use condoms and they don’t pullout right before ejaculating and they also don’t make an abortion. Humans were created with the same purpose, to have sex for multiplying not just for fun. More will keep the babies than you think, if let’s say 30% kept the babies, you did your country, your genes and your self a favor. If you impregnated 1000 women, you just brought 300 children into this world. Be proud of yourself and go find some chicks. Its all for competition and survival of the blonde seed. Its your duty!

RadFHarva #sexist reddit.com

I wonder why we call it Mother Earth and Mother Nature instead of Father Earth and Father Nature? Oops, men forgot to erase and cover that up with their lies.
This is a female planet. It is females who produce all of life. Males are irrelevant and redundant in the scheme of life. So redundant that 99% of males could be eliminated and life wouldn't skip a beat. Only a man could pretend that his one second contribution to life meant something. LOL, talk about an over-inflated ego!

In the natural world, the ratio of females to males is 70/30, not 50/50 - if males are allowed to exist at all. Common sense should tell you that if would be unnatural for males to dominate and lead and rule in the natural world - and they DON'T. It's just a lie men made up.

Bee and ant colonies, for example, are totally female. They only allow males to exist for a few weeks in the life span of a colony. Many species keep males out in the margins. Elephants are an example. Elephants are matriarchal. Most species are. Female elephants circle around the offspring and keep males out in the margins. Any male who approaches is driven back off into the margins.

The idea that the lion is the king of beasts is also laughable. Talk about a reversal! Men look at a pride tho and see a king and his harem - which gives us a clue how warped men's interpretations are. The fact is, lionesses bond for life. The lionesses pick their mate (as is done in most species), not the other way around. It doesn't matter how big, strong, or victorious over other males a lion may be, if the lionesses don't like him, they will reject him. Females decide, not males. Males are nothing more than stud puppets. Which is why lionesses only allow one adult male in a pride. To insure female control over reproduction and to protect the offspring, of course.

Our closest cousin tho is the bonobo. Bonobos share 98.4% of the same DNA as humans. Bonobos are matriarchal. If a male tries to get aggressive or crosses boundaries, the female bonobos band together and gang up on the male and put him in his place. Funny how men forget to mention that. Men would instead like you to believe that females subdue the males by having sex with them, lol, lol, lol. Wishful thinking, I guess. Men are prone to a lot of fantasy and wishful thinking.

The problem isn't learning. It's unlearning what patriarchal society has taught you in their efforts to shore up male superiority and female subjugation. Learn to see the world with new eyes.

P.S. As any scientist will tell you, human males have genetically more in common with male chimpanzees than they do with women. I saw a documentary by Jane Goodall on chimps. Chimps are patriarchal. It was astounding how alike in behavior men and male chimps are. I couldn't tell them apart. But if bonobos are our closest cousin, how can that be? Well if genetics are a clue and men have more genetically in common with male chimps, what does that tell us? Could it be that men and women aren't the same species?

Ben Garrison #conspiracy grrrgraphics.wordpress.com

image

Here is a cartoon inspired by statist thinking:
Tea Party Caveman Cartoon


It shows a stinky caveman with a club telling the viewer that he is self-sufficient. ” ‘Zog’ not need government, taxes, healthcare, socialized services, public schools, police and libraries. Zog hunt, gather and barter. Zog not need civilization!”

The cartoon is titled “Tea Party in Historical Context.’ I guess we are to have contempt for the ignorant cave man representing those who want freedom from big government. Apparently ‘Zog’ lacks the proper egalitarian instincts and love for his community the cartoonist thinks he should have. Without government, how would Zog evolve and pay his taxes, which go for important stuff we all need–such as the things he lists. This is why we especially need the income tax. But wait a minute–a lot of that income tax money goes toward paying interest on our un-payable $14 trillion debt. That means the income tax they extort from us by threat of a gun and imprisonment (how civilized!) goes directly into the pockets of elite bankers who are able to remain discreetly private. It is taxation without civilization. Oh, but they get away with it because they print and control the money. They own the money. Congress can stop them, but they own Congress. They own us.

Schools, libraries and police funding comes from property taxes. Roads come from gas taxes. Sales taxes, fees and fines pay for state and city projects. The military (they can’t account for trillions of dollars that goes missing nearly every year) gets paid by corporate and income taxes. Health care currently comes from overpriced insurance premiums or bankrupt Medicaid. Social services? All that money we send in and they get only 30 percent.

The cartoonist implies we can’t do away with the Federal Reserve. Without our masters we’d have to barter! That’d be scary–almost like anarchy! (Anarchy is what statists call it. I call it ‘freedom). Statists think we can’t go back to gold and silver that held its value over long periods of time. A return to dark, archaic ‘olden’ times with less government is abhorrent to them. Come to think of it, barter would be preferable to the Federal Reserve slave system and their thug IRS agents. They hold a much bigger club than Mr. Caveman. Don’t pay your taxes and they take your stuff. If you resist, deadly force can be used.

The Federal Reserve is owned by private bankers for their own profit and their system of money has robbed us and robbed our children’s future. Do we enjoy paying taxes that help kill innocent people in foreign countries in order to maintain the banker-rupt empire? That hardly seems ‘civilized.’

But my point is this: His cartoon suggests that ‘government’ IS ‘civilization.’ In which case, Pol Pot’s society was very civilized. So was Hitler’s…etc.

Following this logic, apparently in order to get more civilized we need bigger and more government. The bigger the better. Maybe even WORLD government which will make sure the entire Earth becomes uber-civilized. Unfortunately that’s what we are getting, but somehow getting zapped or groped at an airport isn’t making people feel more civilized. What’s actually happening is we’re becoming more domesticated. We are owned and they’re conditioning us to that fact. Our elite owners are now telling us how to live, what to think, what light bulbs we can use, how much heat we can have, what to eat, what we can say and what health care we need. And when we’re old, death panels will tell us we have outlived our usefulness and will tell us when we must die. Big government will be there at the cradle…assigning them up to the grid. Big government will decide what shall be taught. Big government will decide what jobs we shall have. Big government will watch, record and monitor us to make sure we’re not speaking out against their system. That would make us terrorists! And most of all, big government will keep its property–its people/cattle– ‘safe.’ We The tax cattle People will pay for our own enslavement, of course.

Toward the end, when we’re all so poor we can barely exist…then perhaps we’ll look like our ancient ancestor in the cartoon. But at the very least we’ll all be extremely ‘civilized’ thanks to big government.

With all this in mind, I decided to draw this cartoon as a retort. I was also inspired by an episode of Star Trek, in which naive, simple people depended on a scary tiki-like god named ‘VOL’ to solve all their problems and keep them safe. “VOL makes the grass grow…he put fruit on the trees!” And so on. The controller god in my cartoon is called “GUV.”

A final reason I drew this was due to a recent conversation I had with a friend who thought that not to support the government was somehow ‘unpatriotic.’ Wrong! True patriots believe in the Constitution and condemn the government when it abuses the people. It’s our duty to do so. People have become afraid to question the government as it tries to condition citizens into believing that less government leads to ‘anarchy.’ I guess anarchy is another word for ‘freedom.’

dailyantifeminist #sexist dailyantifeminist.wordpress.com

Women become horny for sex with men at 8 or 9, and become very horny for sex with men at 11 or 12. But men often miss on the former stage (8-9) of female horniness, and only notice the latter stage of it (11-12), because by the latter stage the women have developed the SSC needed to attract most men. (and are also hornier than at the earlier stage)

And the AOC in Delaware in 1880 was 7, because “adulthood” or lack thereof have to do with whether or not what one should have sex. This idea that sex must necessarily be tied to “adulthood” is a very modern idea, and the very sharp distinction that people in the modern age make between “children” and “adults” is traced back to the Enlightenment period; before that, the issue of child/adult was much less prominent in the public mind, as people viewed other categories — not age, which is an arbitrary notion — as really important.

bruce #fundie hecatedemeter.wordpress.com

Mobs can be orderly, and the reason that we have a representative republic instead of a democracy (as you pointed out) is because the founders deeply feared democracy as simply orderly mob rule. I might point out that income taxes were declared unconstitutional in 1894. The constitution was amended to add this, because it did not fit the founders plan. If you don’t think the income tax is confiscation at the point of a gun, try not paying it. Men from the government will eventually kick in your door, point at gun to your head and throw you in a cage. What I specifically get motivated about on this subject is people on the left singling out the 1% for hatred, blaming them for all their problems and declaring they pay no taxes. They already pay 50% of all income tax. This especially smacks of brown shirt fascist tactics to jin up hatred as a fuel for power. How is that not mob action? I agree about asset forfeiture without due process. It is wrong and unconstitutional.

I do willingly pay taxes, but still it is taking not giving. It maybe necessary theft at some level, but taking is theft. Spending someone else’s money without their consent is theft. Spending $20 trillion of an unborn generation’s wealth is theft. My primary challenge is to those who believe their calls for higher taxes on the rich are reflections of charity and virtue. Their calls reveal that their own hearts and motivations are theft not charity. Charity is a response from the heart not from fear, intimidation, coercion and force. If the numbers were small and the spending was rational these points would be moot, because few would object. It’s the greed and graft of government, it’s cronies and those who feel entitled to take from others that underlies these objections to taxes. Taxes are the fuel of this greed.

Your analysis of the 1% shows you have no idea how things work. When you reach that level of income the fact is deductions disappear. I don’t care what MSNBC and Bernie’s fantasy narratives are about tax dodges but they are crap. The 1% is who gets audited. They are watched like a hawk by the IRS. The payers often are actually small businesses like S-corps who pay taxes on net income which means income after expenses of creating the income are deducted. So if you sell a house as a builder for $200,000 but there’s $190,000 in labor and materials is your idea of fairness that he pays tax on $200,000 of net revenue or on the $10,000 of profit? It always is on the profit. Deducting cost of revenue is not hiding assets, etc. I’ve prepared a tax return for someone in the 1%; it’s part of what I do in business. Deductions vanish that lower income people can claim. AMT tax appears, new taxes that don’t apply to others in Obamacare magically appear. Don’t believe? Get a copy of Turbotax and just input dummy numbers and see what happens.

You comment about corporate taxes is incorrect. All corps pay a 35% tax. That’s 3.5 out of 10 dollars gone. Then when the corporation distributes the profit of the corp to shareholders it taxes that income a 2nd time. That money is owned by the shareholders and has already been taxed. But just by moving it from one account to another the government grabs more. This double taxation on corporate income raises the rate well over 50% in many cases. It’s higher than almost anywhere in the world and is making US corporations uncompetitive in the world economy. I know the meme’s out their about corps not paying taxes, but dig into any case cited and it’s bullshit. Give me a case, and I will show you.

Sales taxes, fees for service and tolls are optional taxes that can be avoided. They are not confiscatory in a manner like income taxes. Paying the cost of a service is much more likely to make the use of that service fit need rather than want. When costs are socialized demand goes up and supply goes down causing dislocations. When people have to pay for the cost of service they are more likely to make choices that reduce demand or raise supply. Saying such fees are harder on the poor is to suggest that I should stay poor and let daddy pay my bills instead of working harder like I have.

As far as the claim the US is not based on Christian values or is more moral than the Bible tht just seems to be a lack of understanding of history or is the result of being the child of progressive narratives of US history. The US constitution was born in the aftermath of the 1st Great Awakening that saw explosive movements in England and the colonies to deep acceptance of Christian faith. Many of the founders grew up at the feet of some of the great preachers of that time. Ben Franklin was, for instance, close friends with George Whitfield the best known of all 18th century evangelists. Whitfield was a rock star of his age. Even those who were not deep believers were knowledgeable and familiar with the concept of natural law. Perhaps the most foundational new idea of the founders was that rights came from God not man, and that government did not grant rights it protects them. That is why is says in the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law.” It presupposes the right of religion and free speech as naturally flowing from the god of nature.

Covenants are voluntary acts. The writers of the declaration were dedicating to each other their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. There is no more Biblical Christian act than to make willingly such a covenant. “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13 (most foundational words of Jesus). This all changes when you point a gun at someone and require them to do it. The first act is love the last one is theft. What a moral society does is create the environment where people willingly make such choices. The left does not accept this and believes it must force such choices. This simply leads to envy, hate and division.

1% are hoarders and not charitable? Where do you get this from? Investing is not hoarding. And the 1% are the most charitable among us. How many hospitals, museums, symphonies, food banks, etc would not exist if it were not for their charity and the charity of all else? If capitalism is not moral then what is? Socialism? So capitalism where two parties come to a mutually agreeable exchange that enriches them both is immoral but socialism where one party forcibly takes from the other is moral? In what universe? In a free market the key word is free. No one is forced in an exchange. Each party (buyer/seller) do so voluntarily. I’ve heard it even described as mutually shared altruism.

1%’ers pay 50% of all income taxes paid. The bottom 50% pay zero. So how the hell can you claim or imply that the 1% don’t pay their share? It’s the bottom 50 who don’t pay their share. They get most of the benefits and none of the cost. Most people in poverty in the US have homes with A/C, flat panel TV’s, cell phones, own cars, etc. Your narrative about the poor is something flown in from the 1930’s to inspire a new generation to once again be the power base for tyrants and thugs whose only gift is greed, graft and corruption that result from active community organizing into positions of power over willing dupes who will gladly make them rich for making all of us poorer.

Mike King #fundie tomatobubble.com

For some reason, the deliberately-injected moral and mental cancer of libtardation has always seemed to metastasize faster in the Nordic countries, particularly Scandinavian ones. This phenomenon is also observable among the American descendants of Scandinavian immigrants in places like Minnesota and Wisconsin. Our hypothesis is that the innate, perhaps even genetic, altruism and human compassion of Nordic folk renders them more vulnerable to manipulation of both the heart and mind.

Though the reason for advanced Scandinavian libtardism may not be concrete; one thing is for certain - Sweden has got to be the insanest of the Scandinavian insane asylums. And the opening few lines of this Slimes article confirm that fact.

1 & 2: Swedish school boys sometimes put on dresses in order to mock traditional gender roles. 3. The "gender-neutral" daddies of Sweden get three months of "paternity leave"(Damn! I only took one day off after my kids were born.)

Slimes: Something was wrong with the Penguins, the incoming class of toddlers at the Seafarer’s Preschool, in a wooded suburb south of Stockholm. The boys were clamorous and physical. They shouted and hit. The girls held up their arms and whimpered to be picked up.

Analysis: Oh what horrors! Boys being boys and girls being sensitive and affectionate.

Slimes: The group of 1 and 2-year-olds had, in other words, split along traditional gender lines. And at this school, that is not O.K."

Analysis: So, by imposing levels of taxation so burdensome on working fathers that 90% of new mothers must return to the work force just to keep food on the table, the gentle communists of Sweden are able to kidnap "1 and 2-year-olds" and then re-engineer out of them certain traits that God had clearly programmed into their DNA --- and that they had already been healthily manifesting.

1. (Times Caption) Elin Gerdin, 26, attended one of Sweden’s first preschools focused on gender equality. She said she gets upset when looking at photos of friends’ babies, with boys dressed in blue and girls in pink. 2. The state curriculum in the new "diverse" Sweden urges teachers -- with no input from parents -- to “counteract traditional gender roles and gender patterns”

More Marxist madness:

Slimes: Their teachers cleared the room of cars and dolls. They put the boys in charge of the play kitchen. They made the girls practice shouting “No!” Then they decided to open a proper investigation, erecting video cameras in the classroom.

Analysis: They are turning Swedish boys into Justin Trudeau-type pussies of tomorrow; and Swedish girls in the nasty Merkel-like harridans of the future.

Slimes: Science may still be divided over whether gender differences are rooted in biology or culture, ...

Analysis: Science is "divided" over "gender differences" alright -- between communist crackpots and those with common sense. As if it takes a "scientist" to discern that which is self-evident!

Slimes: ... but many of Sweden’s government-funded preschools are doing what they can to deconstruct them. State curriculum urges teachers and principals to embrace their role as social engineers, requiring them to “counteract traditional gender roles and gender patterns.”

Analysis: This is why American libtards love Sweden so much. From immigration to gun confiscation to speech restrictions to taxes to social policies, the "democratic" Marxist regime gets to do whatever the heck it bloody wants to.

Slimes: It is normal, in many Swedish preschools, for teachers to avoid referring to their students’ gender — instead of “boys and girls,” they say “friends,” or call children by name. Play is organized to prevent children from sorting themselves by gender. A gender-neutral pronoun, “hen,” was introduced in 2012 and was swiftly absorbed into mainstream Swedish culture.

Analysis: "Hen?" Good Lord! Living under 1920's Stalinism seems preferable to being a Swede these days. At least the Bolsheviks didn't turn Russian boys into little pussies.

No "he" or "she" --- or "him" or "her" --- just "hen."

1. (Times Caption) A 3-year-old at the Seafarers’ School likes wearing dresses. His mother says no one in his life has told him boys don’t dress that way. 2. Swedish milennials were already screwed-up by state-imposed libtardation. Just imagine when the pre-schoolers raised under the new genderless policy grow up! 3. I know Thor, I know.

And now, the kicker: A commissar-like "gender expert," monitors both the instructors and the children for gender-neutral purity:

Slimes: Ms. Elis Storesund is on hand to confront classroom dilemmas: When boys in the group for 3-year-olds refused to paint, or dance, and the group threatened to split along gender lines, she was brought in to unpack the problem, tinkering with the activities until she coaxed the boys back to equal participation.

Analysis: You hear that?! The moment the magnetic pull of nature interferes with the demonic social engineering, the gender commissar is called in, the "problem" is "unpacked," and the innocent little boys are "coaxed" (coerced) back into insanity.

Slimes: “When we are drawing,” said Melisa Esteka, 31, one of the teachers, “we see that the girls — they draw a lot — they draw girls with lots of makeup and long eyelashes. It’s very clear that they are girls. We ask, ‘Don’t boys have eyelashes?’ And they say, ‘We know it is not like that in real life.’ -- Ms. Esteka looked frustrated. She had set a goal for herself: To stop the children from identifying things as “for girls” or “for boys.”

Analysis: Ms. Esteka belongs in a strait-jacket -- not a pre-school.

Slimes: Swedish children spend much of their early life in government-funded preschools, which offer care at nominal cost for up to 12 hours a day starting at the age of 1.

Analysis: What a dreadful society! The Swedish government lavishly funds all-day brainwashing centers for preschoolers as well as free food and housing for violent Turd world invaders -- but grants no such assistance to the tiny minority of mothers who stay home to raise their children.

Slimes: Two schools rolled out what was called a compensatory gender strategy. Boys and girls at the preschools were separated for part of the day and coached in traits associated with the other gender. Boys massaged each other’s feet. Girls were led in barefoot walks in the snow, and told to throw open the window and scream.

Analysis: Cheese & crackers! Ya just can't make this stuff up. This sad affair is actually a satire of itself.

According to the article, some of the parents have already complained that their little daughters have suddenly become defiantly mouthy and sassy due to the pre-school exercises. We wonder: how long before some of Sweden's few remaining sane parents are themselves put under observation by a visiting gender commissar? Seriously, these self-righteous lunatics need to be euthanized before they can destroy any more children.

Though the stupid libtards of Sweden may openly embrace this perverse form of child abuse due to their own brainwash-induced insanity, there is a much higher, clearer thinking power that is pushing this "gender neutrality" upon the West for a very strategic purpose. You see, boys and girls, er, excuse me, "hen and hen" --it's very simple. To de-ball is to de-claw. And a nation of de-balled men is an obedient and passive nation that will accept anything and everything without so much as a whimper, let alone a rebellious fight. Thusly bereft (a $10 word for left without) of male physical protection and mental guidance, the "empowered" women -- also forced out of their natural roles -- soon go full retard as they deconstruct society along whatever insane and unnatural lines their hidden masters (cough cough) of The New World Order steer them to.

The Great One (that's Hitler for you newbies and normies) said it best:

"When man attempts to rebel against the iron logic of Nature, he comes into struggle with the principles to which he himself owes his existence as a man. And this attack must lead to his own doom.

Tell it, Great One, tell it!

It wasn't always like this, of course. Only decades ago, most young Swedish men were as manly as any American city tough or country good ol' boy, or any outback Aussie, or any toothless Canadian hockey player etc. So, what happened? Answer: "The Bad War" happened, that's what.

Though Sweden, despite Churchill's plotting, managed to stay out of World War II, it could not resist being sucked into the post-war political vortex of culturally decaying and rapidly uniting Globalist Europe. Yes, it always goes back to that horrible war -- the foundational event and foundational mythology which ended up, by design, enthroning deranged leftists and corruptible weaklings everywhere while birthing this sick world we exist in today. The defeat of The Great One spelled not just the cultural and racial doom of Germany, but also of Sweden -- which is why a number of foresighted Swedes had volunteered to fight for the German Waffen SS.

Oh if only those SS Swedes were here today -- in full youth, armed to teeth and turned loose to beat the bloody snot out of every last one of these insane child-abusing Marxist m-effers, and their beloved Turd World rapefugees too.


BEFORE THE DAYS OF "HEN"

Boobus Americanus 1: I read in the New York Times today that gender-neutral Swedish pre-schools make the boys dance and play in the kitchen while the girls are taught to be assertive.

Boobus Americanus 2: Well, I'm all for equality, but that seems to be a bit much.

Sugar: Ya ssee that! Even by the libtarded sstandardss of Boobuss sshit-for-brainss, the frickin' Swedess have gone full-retard.

Editor: Nordic libtards are always about 10-15 years ahead of America on the road to hell -- which means we should expect this state-mandated "hen" nonsense to arrive here about 2030, if not sooner.