Whether one calls the negative anti-morals of modern culture morality is just a semantic question. I do call this negative morality because I don't know how else to describe it. Of course patriarchy is required in any positive moral system.
Incels of modern culture deserve no sympathy
Modern culture is the cause of incel. So if you remain in modern culture, then you deserve no sympathy. Whine all you want, then suffer and die. I don't care. But if you are a non-moron, then reject modern culture and solve incel by looking abroad.
[An answer to the question, "what exactly is wrong with being a slut?"]
Well, sluts are bad for men, women, and children. Did I miss anything? Oh yes, sluts destroy civilization.
Sluts are bad for men because they only have sex with the "top" men. Most men have much less sex in a slut culture than in a monogamous culture where every man gets a woman.
In a slut culture, men are trained to behave in whatever way attracts women. Sluts are attracted to jerks, so men are trained to be jerks. So the quality of men declines in a slut culture.
In a slut culture, men constantly hit on women. This causes women to become hostile, rude, and obnoxious. Because men are desperate and will take anything, women lose any motivation to care about their appearance. So sluts become ugly hostile creatures.
As sluts age, they lose their ability to attract the "top" men, but still reject all other men. So they become spinsters. So now, not only are they ugly and hostile, but they are also miserable.
In a slut culture, illegitimacy rates go way up. Children are raised without fathers. This usually makes for a less happy childhood. So children are less happy in a slut culture.
In the book "Sex and Culture", Unwin showed that civilization depends on female chastity and that a civilized culture cannot survive more than three generations of sluts without collapsing. We can see this process before our eyes.
Any more questions?
Women who dress provocatively are showing worst inconsideration of men. They are selfishly feeding their ego at men's expense. Not only do they cause discomfort to men, but they cause men to lower their own morals because men will naturally pursue women when provoked and will go into an immoral mode to do this. Men's behavior is entirely different in a men-only environment versus when women are present, and the best moral behavior of men comes out only when women are not present.
Women, by nature, do not understand this and do not want to understand this. So giving women the power to vote over men is a recipe for disaster. I am for equality, but by this I mean separate equality. Women should rule/preach to women, never to men. And ideally men should only rule other men. The sexes should be kept separate outside the family as much as possible in order to promote general morality. And by this, I don't just mean sexual morality, I mean don't steal and don't kill. There is no doubt in my mind that the theft of the public treasury by the bankers of the western world is a direct result of feminism.
Modern culture is degenerating into ignorant morons. I also have no interest in interacting with members of modern culture. I suggest you find a sane alternative (religion) to modern culture.
What Tucker and honest conservatives don't understand is that politicians can never be counted on to lead a country. Throughout history, politicians and businessmen have always been scum. Only religious leaders can guide a society. They do this by giving the masses sound values. Then in a functional democracy, the masses vote out politicians who are too bad. So politicians behave reasonably only for fear of being voted out of office. Without sound religion, all of this breaks down as we see in America.
In Defense of Feminism
Here I will defend feminism, but not for the typical reasons. In order to understand this post, you must understand these two previous posts of mine:
Human Evolution where I explain why women in feminist cultures are attracted to stupid immoral men.
The Rise and Fall of Christian Culture where I explain how American Christianity failed in the 1800s, meaning lost the ability to impose morality.
In the "Human Evolution" post I explained that women simply choose the type of man who is evolutionarily optimal in the current environment. Let me take this one step further. Probably the most important thing for a woman is which men she has sex with, because this will determine the future success of her genes. Because this is so important, one can reasonably assume that a significant part of a woman's brain is dedicated to this issue. This means that women can intuitively determine which men are genetically "good" much better than men can using analytical reasoning. In other words, men have no right to doubt women's mating choices in terms of genetic suitability. When a woman says that a man is "hot", she is unquestionably correct that he is a good genetic choice in her current environment. And when a woman says that a man is a (genetic) loser, she is also unquestionably correct in her current environment.
One of the worst things that can happen to a woman is mating with a genetically unsuitable man. A woman can only have a limited number of children, so who she chooses to be the father of those children is critical. Mating with an unsuitable man is almost like the loss of a child because that child's genetic future is bleak. The word to express this tragedy is "rape". Men badly misunderstand rape because we interpret it from a male perspective. We think that the critical element is violence. This is because for men, violence is a huge risk for our genetic future since many men are killed through violence. But for women, this simply isn't the case. Violence plays a much smaller role in the genetic success of women. So now let's consider a woman in modern culture. If a violent thug forces this woman to have sex with him, is this rape? No it isn't because the violent thug is well suited genetically for modern culture. So there is no issue of mating with a genetically unsuitable man. Now let's consider the case of this woman being seduced into sex by a nice guy who studied seduction techniques. This clearly is rape since nice guys are genetically unsuitable for modern culture. Whether the sex was violently forced or voluntary is irrelevant, all that matters is the quality of the man's genes. In modern culture, any sex with a nice guy is rape regardless of the circumstances because nice guys have unsuitable genes for modern culture.
Throughout history, women have depended on society to protect them including protecting them from rape. Men in society have always played a role in protecting women from mating with unsuitable men. But of course it is ultimately up to women to decide what types of men are unsuitable. In an effective patriarchal society where promiscuity is heavily punished, intelligent moral men are optimal and stupid immoral men are unsuitable. In such a society, women expect society to protect them from stupid immoral men. And similarly, in modern culture where stupid immoral men are optimal and intelligent moral men are unsuitable, women expect society to protect them from intelligent moral men. In both cases, the motive is exactly the same, to protect women from rape, namely sex with unsuitable men. This is why modern society is currently implementing all these strange sexual consent laws. These laws are very well designed to protect women from intelligent moral men.
At this point it should be clear why feminism makes sense for women in modern culture. All feminism is really about is allowing women in modern culture to mate with genetically good men and avoid mating with genetically bad men. Why should women be prevented from this? But now let's move away from women's perspective and consider what is best for humanity.
The optimal society is a moral patriarchal society. In such a society, promiscuity (outside of prostitution) is strictly limited. Women are expected to virgins at marriage. Adultery (sex with another man's wife) is severely punished with the guilty being removed from the gene pool one way or another. Seducing virgins is also punished. In such a society, moral men are the optimal mating choice for women. So women in this society will be attracted to moral men and will consider immoral men to be losers. There is absolutely no chance of feminism occurring in such a society because women there simply wouldn't want it.
Now let's consider what happens when such an optimal society starts to break down. What happens is that for some reason society loses its ability to enforce sexual morality. This means that promiscuity and adultery become a viable evolutionary strategy for men. Women realize this, and these immoral men become exciting for women. And so the evolutionary decay of the society begins.
Feminism is the natural expression of women's changing mating preference in a decaying society. But let's imagine that we could magically eliminate feminism. Would this be better for humanity? I believe that what this would look like is America almost permanently stuck in the 1950s. As I explained in "The Rise and Fall of Christian Culture", American culture began to break down in the 1800s when religion went from encouraging people to follow Jesus's moral teaching to simply having a personal relationship with Jesus. With such a change, it was inevitable that society would lose focus on the core issues of sexual morality, and lose the ability of effective enforcement. In the 1950s, America retained the facade of a moral culture, but underneath society was breaking down. Women clearly expressed sexual excitement for "bad boys" in movies. And I am certain that this must have corresponded to a rising adultery rate. Without feminism, the facade could have remained intact for centuries, with moral men continuing to find wives but these wives cheating on them and having illegitimate children with immoral men. The genetic breakdown of society would have been much slower, but the ultimate result would have been the same. So instead of taking decades for society to call apart, it would have taken centuries. Which is preferable? I think it is preferable for a morally broken society to fall apart as quickly as possible so that it can be replaced by something else. Feminism doesn't change the end result, it only speeds it up. And so I support feminism.
What about the poor suffering moral men in modern culture who can't get women? One can read the complaints of these men all over the internet. If you suggest options to these men like using a prostitute or looking abroad, they will tell you that they want validation. Any moral man who wants validation from a woman in modern culture is simply a moron who deserves to suffer and die without reproducing. Unlike feminists, he hasn't slightest understanding of evolution. The only sound evolutionary strategy for moral men is to join together to form moral patriarchal societies. Such societies are evolutionarily superior to modern culture. When modern culture has decayed sufficiently, a good moral patriarchal culture should attack modern culture and slaughter all of its men for the genetic good of humanity.
If a woman from the modern culture calls a moral man a loser, the correct response is "I would be a loser if I were a member of your culture, but I am not. My culture is superior to your culture and my culture will eventually destroy your culture." Intelligent moral men must reject modern culture and find an alternative. And from the perspective of an alternative culture, we can recognize feminism as a good thing that is helping to destroy our enemy, namely modern culture.
(Submitter's note: Emphasis added)
In the case of modern western culture, I think rape is far too leniant. If I had the power to do so, I would follow Moses's advice in Numbers 31:15-18 for modern culture.
“Have you let every female live?” he asked them. “Yet they are the ones who, at Balaam’s advice, incited the Israelites to unfaithfulness against Yehovah in the Peor incident, so that the plague came against the Yehovah’s community. So now, kill all the male children and kill every woman who has had sexual relations with a man, but keep alive for yourselves all the young females who have not had sexual relations.
This would be the ideal solution to the depravity of modern western culture.
In the election between President Tweet and Kamala Stalin, I will vote for President Tweet. I hadn't planned on voting, but the selection of Kamala Stalin changed my mind. The main interest of Zionist President Tweet is supporting Israel, while the main interest of Kamala Stalin would be sending her opponents to the gulags. Given this choice, I will reluctantly vote for President Tweet.
Jerusalem is dominated by Orthodox Jews with a large Muslim minority. Both of these cultures are patriarchal and anti-feminist. For example, in Jerusalem, there are many sex-segregated buses where men sit in front and women sit in the back. This is enforced by Orthodox Jews who, rightly, believe in segregating the sexes. My family rode on one of these buses and it was very pleasant. How is this enforced? Read how a stupid American bitch was beaten for failing to comply. Go Orthodox Jews!
I will answer this from an Old Testament perspective which quite far from modern Christianity. The plagues of Egypt in the book of Exodus were simply terrorism. Depending on whether or not you read it literally, this was terrorism by God or by Moses in the name of God. Either way, terrorism is clearly endorsed, as I believe it should be when it is the most effective tool against an evil empire.
Today modern Western culture is pure evil, as evil as any culture cursed by God in the Old Testament. It deserves to be completely wiped out. Terrorism against the West would be justified if it was effective. My main criticism against modern terrorism is that it really isn't effective unless it is associated with clear obtainable goals, and that isn't the case with the terrorism we see today. I don't care about about those who die since they are members of an evil culture. I just think the terrorism is pointless and the energy would be better spent building up positive religious movements.
I think the Vice story was pretty good and accurate.
And yes, I think Judaism is doing its best to provoke another holocaust just as it provoked the last one. My parents were in Hungary when Hitler rose to power and from what they describe, Weimar Germany was much like America today. As in Weimar Germany, Judaism today is aligned with the scum of the earth - liberals and bankers. When the people get fed up with the abuse, they eventually revolt. Unfortunately the fine distinction between jews (an ethnic group) and judaism gets lost in such a revolt. While (Talmudic) Judaism deserves to be wiped off the face of the earth, jews as an ethnic group should not be held responsible for the crimes of Judaism. My ancestors, who were jewish but not involved in judaism, paid the price for this in the last holocaust. Decent jews should make this distinction clear and publicly renounce Judaism. Maybe then another holocaust can be avoided.
I am an atheist of Jewish decent with no connection to Judaism. I just read the Old Testament (Holman Christian Standard Bible translation), which I guess you call the Torah. I loved the book, it is my favorite book now. But now I have a question about what I read.
The second half of the Old Testament is mostly about the fall of Israel to Babylon. This was certainly a holocaust. When I compare it to the recent (WW2) holocaust, I see them as very similar. My question is why Jews view them so differently?
The reason for the first holocaust was that Israel had become corrupt. Israel had absorbed the false beliefs of the surrounding cultures, and had lost all moral integrity. As a result, Israel was punished. This was in fact a good thing because Israel needed to be purified. A corrupt culture should be destroyed and one can hope that the remnant will become good. The Bible says that both the righteous and the wicked were punished in this holocaust, and this is inevitable when there is such violence.
I see the recent holocaust as being more or less the same story. The Jews absorbed and participated in the Liberal culture of Europe. Liberalism is no better than worshipping Baal. The vast majority of the Jews in Europe had absorbed Liberalism, just as most Jews before the fall to Babylon worshipped Baal. The Wiemar Republic was a particularly liberal society which incorporated many Jews. The liberal Jews lost all morality and were/are basically corrupt. The Nazis played the same role that Babylon had played in the earlier holocaust.
The main difference between these two holocausts in my mind is that modern Jews have misunderstood the recent holocaust. They portray themselves as victims without accepting any responsibility for their participation in Liberalism. While I bring up the issue of why there is this difference mostly for curiosity, there is a practical point here. If Jews don't learn the right lesson, then history will repeat itself soon and there will be yet another holocaust. I would prefer that that be avoided.
If I ruled America, I would exterminate everyone who doesn't attend a sex-segregated religious service. That would wipe out about 95% of the population, and would leave traditional Anabaptists, practicing Muslims, and Orthodox Jews. I wouldn't want the Orthodox Jews in my country, so I would give them a few eastern states to form their own nation and I would exile the rest of them there. That would leave traditional Anabaptists and practicing Muslims, a decent population.
Then I would repeal the 14th, 19th, and 26th amendments of the constitution and I would add these amendments:
States have the right to secede.
The right to vote is limited to men at least 21 years old who own their primary residence and have no debt.
Congress shall make no law limiting liability.
Congress shall make no law regarding marriage, divorce, or sexual activity.
Then I would step down.
Then you have the wrong target. All members of modern culture deserve to die, both men and women. Women from sane cultures are fine.
(muricunt)
modernism and liberalism ruined us
if it wasnt for these stupid marxist ideals, we would be living in a society like it was 500-1000 year ago. Most of us wouldve been married by now arranged by our parents and we would not be alone. There would be no stacies. Every woman would be submissive and know her place.
i wish there was a way to go back in time
(fschmidt)
The ideal was 100-500 years ago. Before that was the Middle Ages which was almost as degenerate as current times (in Europe).
(MarcLepinePBUH)
We will return to patriarchy or it'll be the end of humanity. This shit is not sustainable. Depressing part is we probably won't be around to see it.
(muricunt)
Also people did not care about looks back in the day. Even the most ugliest inbred person was able to find a partner..
Yes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, especially when people try to impose their good intentions on others. Liberal Judaism is pure evil, as is the rest of modern liberal culture.
So what, Chronicles was probably written by the liar Ezra and serves as an example of "fake news" to be contrasted with Kings. The purpose of the Old Testament is to teach you how to think. I follow the Old Testament.
It is true that some TAC [The Atheist Cult] members contribute to society in some ways. Not all of them are vicious lesbian feminists spending all day on Tumblr. However, the damage they do is much greater than the benefit they give.
I think some people will have to be killed in a collapse because hardcore TAC members will never want to give up. They will probably take arms and defend the current paradigm. But most TAC members will just choose to adapt to a new culture. These people are usually cowards anyway. In all probability, not many people will have to be killed.
,,,
I already said, I don't think many people will have to die. Just the most hardcore TAC members. All this won't happen for at least 50 years. fschmidt says it won't happen until the end of this century... That's probable too. The first signs of this is the process in which illegitimacy rates will are going through the roof, people become more and more immoral and decent men (and some women) have to look for wives/husbands outside of Western world.
It's impossible to predict in which country will this happen first and how it will all develop but it's already a certainty. The West is going bankrupt.
[Comment under "1960's DRUM activists talk about capitalist racism"]
This video is an excellent illustration of why I support capitalism. If the morons who spoke in this video ran an economy, they would run it into the ground. The beginning of the end, politically, for America was when suffrage was extended to men without property. A proper electorate was what America originally had, namely only men with property (assets) and without debt. Such an electorate has the intelligence to prevent the upper 1% from robbing the economy. But the average man is a moron and has no business having a say in politics or economics. And of course women shouldn't vote. Honest capitalism is the best system mankind has seen, but it is no longer practiced today.
It is true that in some instances, men do abuse women and children. But this is the exception, not the rule. I oppose abuse generally and support laws against abuse. But I certainly do not want to give women the power to abuse men by giving them the vote because women have no instinct to restrain their abuse of men.
[After all, there are a lot studies about the rapist striving for the humiliation of the victim and demonstrating his or her power over the victim.]
This is simply liberal feminist propaganda. Feminist cannot except the truth that rape is quite simply about filling a biological need. Feminists much prefer this myth which is designed to demonize rapists.
On a quote of fschmidt wanting to disenfranchise the poor
The fact that people such as these are promoting censitary suffrage is one of the main reasons I hate liberals.
Leftists traditionally wanted to use the government to help the working class. Democrats hate the working class. Democrats want to use the government to protect big business. Many Leftists supported various kinds of individual freedom like freedom of speech. Democrats hate free speech and freedom of any kind. They are authoritarians. Leftists have usually been anti-war. Democrats are pro-war. There is no political word that I can think of to describe the democrats. They are simply pure evil tyrannical scum.
Actually the welfare state had a dysgenic effect on American blacks. My opinion is that blacks weren't inferior until the liberals used the welfare state to encourage higher birthrates in stupid blacks. So liberals made American blacks genetically inferior.
All people living in Western countries are feasting on the dead carcass of the Enlightenment. Modern culture has no more claim to the riches that were produced by the Enlightenment than Muslims do. So the Muslims have every right to plunder Western countries and to take their women.
The most shocking thing about this presidential election is how unprepared conservatives are for a Biden victory. Today's Democratic Party combines with worst aspects of communism and nazism. Democrats are as hostile to small business as communists and as racist as nazis. And they are as intolerant of individual freedom as both. If Democrats take over the government, America will soon resemble the USSR and Nazi Germany. So anyone who values freedom should be thinking about where to flee to if Biden wins.
I haven't done any actual research on where to move, but if Biden wins, the first thing I will do is to visit the Lake Chapala area in Mexico. It has a large expat community and is conveniently located an hour south of Guadalajara, so it seems like a place worth checking out. Mexico is one of the few countries that doesn't have any travel restrictions based on Covid lies.
Before I gave up on voting, I voted libertarian. I do not think people should have the right to harm each other. My libertarian solution to enforcing modesty of dress in women would be to only make rape illegal if it is unprovoked based on local community standards. Voting itself isn't really a right as much as a privilege that should be reserved for intelligent men.
(Submitted for irony)
Woe to those who call bad good and good bad -- Isaiah 5:20
There is nothing wrong with women voting as long as they don't vote with men. In other words, separate but equal is fine where women vote on laws and government for women and men do the same for men. But when the sexes are combined, women will vote for unlimited license and to enslave men, and men who naturally suck up to women will support them, and this coalition destroys society.
As Thomas Jefferson said:
"Were our State a pure democracy, . . . there would yet be excluded from their deliberations, women, who, to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue, could not mix promiscuously in the public meetings of men."
You are clearly a modern moron. There is no hatred of women in [a rant by caamib that the OP praises as "required reading". Excerpts here]. The hatred is of modern Western culture, and is well deserved since modern Western culture is pure evil.
If only female humans were as productive as female bees.
[Most female bees are sterile workers, though.]
Though? That's far preferable to Western females who do little useful work and reproduce with the worst men. I wish most Western females were sterile.
Feminism is definitely not a hate-movement against all sexuality. Feminism is a slut-power movement. The goal of sluts is to have sex with the most immoral men they can find. So sex between all women and immoral men is strongly supported by feminism. There are two reasons for the concept of female sex offenses. One is to give lip service to the idea of equality. The other is that sex between a woman and a man who isn't immoral is considered a crime by feminists. So sex with an underage male is a sex offense to feminists because this male hasn't yet had the chance to prove his immorality. Still, there is no question that female sex offenses get much lighter punishments than male sex offenses.
I don't understand the point of condemning his [Elliot Rodger's] actions. I mean, I don't approve but I am not particularly against the death of Americans.
Yes, men in modern culture are just as bad as women. All members of modern culture are evil.
[–]Parasites-Must-Die
I don't mind killing, not at all.
[–]fschmidt
Good
Modern culture is evil. If you don't agree with this, let me save you some time and suggest that you stop reading here. This post discusses alternatives to modern culture on the assumption that you reject modern culture because it is evil. What are the alternatives to modern culture? Before discussing alternatives that I think can work, I will discuss alternatives that don't work.
Politics doesn't work. Moral people are an insignificant minority in all nations today. And never in history has a nation been made moral through politics. Politics is useful in a society formed by moral people. In such a society, politics can help implement the will of these moral people. This is how America worked before it became evil. But in an evil society, politics is just a contest for power, nothing more.
Modern Christianity doesn't work. Modern Christianity is all faith and no works, which means no morality. The main practical difference between a modern Christian and an atheist is that the modern Christian violates the third commandment while the atheist doesn't, making the atheist slightly less sinful than the modern Christian. I discussed in detail what went wrong with modern Christianity in The Rise and Fall of Christian Culture.
Modern Catholicism doesn't work. To a large degree, what went wrong with Protestantism has infected Catholicism. The current Pope is a total disaster. But Catholicism was essentially doomed by the Second Vatican Council which fully gave in to modern culture.
White nationalism doesn't work. No racial movement in history has succeeded without religious backing. White nationalists who want success should copy the most successful racial movement, namely Judaism. This means that white nationalists need to pick a religion for their movement. Until they do so, they are a hopeless bunch.
That completes the important options that don't work. Now let's consider options that work. History shows that all good cultures are supported by a good religion. How can one judge if a religion is good and strong enough to resist modern culture? One superficial way to judge that I have found to be very effective is just to ask whether men and women sit separately during religious service. Religions that have maintained this separation have shown that they are strong enough to resist modern culture
Orthodox Judaism works well if you are a racist jew. I am jewish but not racist, so Judaism doesn't work for me. For non-jewish racists, Orthodox Judaism is a model well worth copying.
Orthodox Christianity may work in some conditions. Mainstream Orthodox Christianity does not work in the West because it is too weak of a religion to withstand modern culture. This can be seen by the fact that the sexes are mixed in service. Historically, Orthodox Christianity has always partnered with a government that supports it, so this seems to be the condition in which it works. Currently, the obvious candidate is Orthodox Christianity in Russia where it has government backing. I haven't been to Russia, so I can't say for sure how well this works, but I think this is an option well worth investigating for Christians.
True Orthodox Christianity is a variant of Orthodox Christianity that looks interesting and may actually work in the West. But it is small and its future is uncertain. Here is a very good set of videos explaining the idea.
Conservative Mennonism is an excellent alternative for Christians. All of traditional Anabaptism is sound, but the conservative Mennonites seem to have found the optimal balance. They don't reject all modern technology as Old Order Anabaptists do (like the Amish), but they still do a good job keeping modern culture out. They are serious Christians, serious about following Jesus's teachings. The book Brethren Thinking written by an unconventional Old Order Anabaptist provides a highly intelligent introduction to Anabaptist thinking. The book An Introduction to Old Order and Conservative Mennonite Groups provides a good overview of the Mennonite variants. I specifically recommend the Mennonite groups classified as "Ultra-Conservatives" on page 162 of this book. You can find a Mennonite church near you using this map. If you have any more questions about Mennonites, you can ask on this Mennonite forum.
Islam is an alternative worth investigating. While Islam has issues today, it has worked well in the past. And it still at least upholds basic moral traditions. I believe that Islam is the religion that is most likely to have a reformation and become the next successful culture. But to judge Islam for yourself, you should visit your local mosque and read the Quran.
Mikraite is the alternative that I have chosen. None of the above options work for me because I am not a jewish racist and not Christian. So I worked with some like-minded people to form a moral religion based on the Old Testament. You can read more in What is a Mikraite?.
In primitive societies, sick people go to a witch doctor who jumps up and down. Then when the person recovers (as usually happens) the witch doctor takes credit and so the respect and admiration for witch doctors is sustained among the moronic population.
Essentially the same process is now happening with the coronavirus at a national level. The national witch doctors advise the leaders to impose senseless restrictions on the population. Then when the coronavirus naturally passes, the witch doctors give credit to the senseless restrictions.
The one exception to this is China. I suspect that the original coronavirus was virulent and mutated fairly rapidly. The Chinese response was to focus quarantine on those with symptoms. This meant that those with the coronavirus but without symptoms were allowed to spread the less virulent variations of the coronavirus. By doing this, China bred the coronavirus to be about as virulent as the flu. So China effectively solved the problem of the virus, but not the problem of the collective insanity of modern culture.
Most numbers thrown around are meaningless because there is no accounting of people who had the coronavirus but had no symptoms. The only country that I know of that has real numbers is Iceland which reports a 0.3% death rate which is in the range of the flu. So the coronavirus should basically be thought of as a bad flu. Like any new virus, it starts with exponential growth in a new population but then levels off as herd immunity is reached. Extrapolating from the numbers during the initial exponential phase makes no sense.
I view the coronavirus as a gift from God, essentially God giving depraved modern culture the rope to hang itself. The collective insanity of modern culture should finally cause the long overdue financial collapse that modern culture deserves. And that is a very good thing because it will reduce the attractiveness of modern culture and allow alternatives to grow.
My concern for level of pain of rape would be greater if it weren't for the fact that most American women deserve to raped because they oppose prostitution as a sexual outlet for men. Since they deserve to raped, I cannot concern myself with the pain rape causes them.
God avoids GitHub. GitHub and all projects using Git are the property of Satan.
Our modern culture is a declining culture much like the Late Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, but with one difference. We have very effective birth control. This adds one other evolutionary factor to the mix. Since our society financially punishes successful men who have children with many women by imposing child support on them, such men who have intelligence and are responsible will tend to use birth control. Women who are intelligent and want to control the number of children they have will also use birth control. It will tend to be the stupid and irresponsible who don't use birth control. The evolutionary benefit of this should be obvious. So not only is our society evolving towards immorality like former declining empires, we are also evolving towards stupidity and irresponsibility. The more feminist a culture is, the faster this evolutionary process is occurring since feminism promotes all aspects that contribute to evolutionary decay including promiscuity, alimony and child support laws, and birth control. This is why one sees that women in feminist societies find moral men to be boring and intelligent and responsible men to be nerds. Women in feminist societies find immoral, stupid, irresponsible men to be the most sexually exciting. And in a sense they are correct because in such a society this is the type of man who is the most evolutionarily successful.
Why Jews are not human
In my humble opinion, Jews do not qualify as human. The reason for this is simple. The Jewish race (including both Ashkenazi and Sephardic) does not make any sense from an evolutionary perspective. The Jewish race has never survived on its own. ALL other races are capable of providing themselves basic survival needs. Australian Aboriginals, who are considered the least intelligent race of men, are capable of passing their seed onto subsequent generations, continuing the genetic bloodline, and ultimately surviving indefinitely lest killed off by a dominant race, struck by an asteroid, or by plague or famine. They could never achieve anything close to a modern civilization on their own, but they could survive.
Jews, on the other hand, have never been hunters and gatherers, nor have they ever been farmers (with VERY FEW exceptions). They have always survived as clever deceivers by swindling the fruits of the labors of other races. Gentile races till the soil, Jews enjoy the spoil.
Not only have they never provided their own food, but they have always depended on other races for protection. Modern Israel would have nothing without western backing. Every time they get in a ground fight with Hezbollah they come back with their tails between their legs. They win wars by using superpowers as their vassals and by superior technology of the IDF forces over rival forces.
If all gentile races were to suddenly disappear from Earth one night, Jews would go extinct soon thereafter. They would have no other race to leech from any longer, and so they would individually turn against each other in attempt to leech from other members of their own race. In a matter of years, they would completely kill each other off and go extinct.
This is not something that can be said about any other race. Gentile races are human races that organically spawned from the Earth and evolved over millennia of migration, climate change, and other factors that contribute to natural selection. How is it possible that the Jewish race came to be, if it is not self sufficient, and is not subject to the same Darwinian tests that Mother Nature has placed on all gentile races?
(fschmidt replies:)
Thank you for the complement. I have always considered humans to be a rather repulsive species and I am embarrassed to be associated with them.
(Comment on "Femoids do not even think or have brains at all.")
Most men are the same. Not more than 1% of men can think.
I have some bad news for you all, I have reproduced. I have been happily married for 19 years to a former Levi's model from Mexico. I have never been divorced. We have two children, a girl age 11 and a boy age 14. Since I was financially successful in business, I no longer need to work for a living and now have the time to homeschool my kids. I currently divide my time between my current business, which I run from home, and homeschooling. I teach my kids to think for themselves and not accept any beliefs without skepticism.
I have been to Europe. I spent 6 months traveling around the world with my wife, about half of which was in Europe. My parents are from Hungary and they also have a European perspective. I have a good understanding of European history and culture, and the mistaken assumption of Horsefeathers is that prostitution is banned in America because of the puritanical and Victorian values that America got from England. But New Zealand has these same influences and has some of the world's most liberal prostitution laws.
I am not ugly and have never been out of shape. I was rejected by American women because I am a decent person. American women, being the scum of the earth, naturally reject decent men.
One of my frustrations with the internet is that people hide behind pseudonyms and are all talk and no action. My user name, fschmidt, is short for my real name, Franklin Schmidt. I live in El Paso, Texas. On the love-shy forum, I encourage men to stop complaining and to take action to improve their situation. Those of you here who would like to beat the shit out of me should come to El Paso and give it a shot. I would be more than happy to arrange a meeting in El Paso with anyone here. I can be reached at fschmidt@gmail.com .
(GGG/Coconut/Marjan Siklic abandons his idea where governments apparently assign women to incels)
Two things have recently happened that have opened my eyes
1.discussion on Cracked
2. I started sharing my ideas on domestic forums and basically got the same kind of obnoxious, retarded replies I get everywhere else
Franklin, a commentator on my blog, more widely known under a nickname fschmidt is right. A sick culture will never understand incel. It was stupid from me to believe in this cause. From now on I will no longer blog or post about the program anywhere else as it is a utopia. My pages on the program or even questions commentators here asked will be deleted (of course, those commentators will not be banned or censored in any other way). I have recently read all of Franklin’s material and I found out that he was right all along.
During my blogging and posting on other sites, mostly reddit I have encountered thousands of negative comments and barely a dozen positive ones. Common sense would dictate that it means that people would never implement this program. I could understand that much, but hoped that the mentality will change. Once I realized that it won’t and that the new generations will become even more and more irrational and idiotic I have decided to drop my previous cause.
But it really isn’t as easy as “some people disagreed with me and now I think basically everybody is scum”. I have thought about my life a lot and something snapped. All the events in my life found their true meaning. All the times I’ve been mistreated and abused now make sense.
The fact that a large majority of people are against my former idea isn’t the main reason why there is no point in even writing about it, let alone fighting for it. It is not so for this very strong argument could be countered by a notion that a growing number of incels might bring about the creation of such program one day. This is actually somewhat of a possibility but now I’ve become somebody who doesn’t think this would be a good idea.
A growing number of incels won’t be helped by my program for one basic reason- almost everybody in the modern culture is scum. So, while this scum can be incel and might even want this program for their own sake I don’t see anything good in letting scum breed. A counterargument to that might be that the modern culture makes a large number of decent men incel but I don’t see how they would get real help as decent men today are in very small numbers and will almost certainly not find a decent woman through the program, as the crux of the program isn’t about incel women joining but paying noncel women to join (which is necessitated by a huge disbalance between the number of male and female incels). Yes, decent women are somewhat likely to be incel but women who are scum aren’t. So there would be no substantial help.
One day, not that far from now, modern culture will collapse under the weight of its own evil and banality. Once a moral culture takes its place incel will no longer exist or only people who will be incels are those who deserve to be incel. It is currently the other way around. Most of those who deserve to be incel are very successful at finding partners and most decent people are incel.
My blog will now be about incel, love-shyness, anti-feminism, modern culture (which is an evil and psychopathic one), looking for women abroad and everything else that might be interesting to me and readers of this blog. Will my blog became just another MRA/manosphere blog? I don’t think so and will try to not make it so. I think I can offer some unique perspectives as somebody who had been 100 percent incel for most of his life and has experiences most people will never have. I have taken my own red pill but of a quite different nuance.
As for myself, upon realizing all this I had immediately decided to abandon most of my friends and no longer visit my shrink. All they did was feed me modernist bullshit. I will try to get to a country outside of femisphere but it’s probably not gonna happen as I am poor and have shitty major (history) so I’ll probably end up offing myself.
The idea that religion depends on belief comes from Christianity. Many religions don't focus on belief.
Wars are actually a positive force. Wars are what allows good cultures to replace bad cultures. Without war, humanity would have never progressed.
The walking brainstems who pass for people today certainly can't be blamed for anything. They are the product of modern culture, not the cause of it. We need to look back to people with brains for the cause.
Boomers were intelligent and well-intentioned but they were ignorant of religion and history and they had inherited a dysfunctional political system that included women's suffrage. Because their ignorance, it was inevitable that all their conclusions would be wrong. So they can't be blamed. Who caused the destruction of education and the political system?
The Third Great Awakening produced the first social justice warriors of western culture. These lunatics promoted women's suffrage and attacked prostitution and evolution. Prostitution is needed to protect female chastity and attacking evolution undermined the eugenics movement which was needed to prevent dysgenic decay. They were also complicit with the destruction of traditional western education as promoted by evil intellectuals. The full effect of this horrible movement can be seen in the 1920s. What caused all this? This was the result of modern Christianity which is an evil perversion of traditional Christianity. So I can't really blame these people, the blame lies with modern Christianity itself.
Where did modern Christianity come from? It came from the Second Great Awakening. A key player was Charles Finney as I described here. This movement killed the Enlightenment and made Christianity an enemy of science. It also destroyed the traditional historical understanding of Christianity and encouraged religious ignorance. So here is where the blame really lies. But there remains the question of what allowed such a horrible change to happen to Christianity in the first place.
So now I will extend the blame to Luther. The key good figures in the Reformation are Zwingli and Calvin. Luther was the bad guy and almost everything he said was bad. In particular his idea that we are all consecrated priests through Baptism meant that ignoramuses like Finney who lacked any serious religious education could be taken seriously. For more on the Reformation I recommend reading A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts With Introductions.
Cultures depend on their founding religion. Western culture depended on the Reformation which effectively died with the Second Great Awakening. At that point, it was only a matter of time before the culture would degenerate into the collection evil morons that it is today.
Murder? Killing is only murder when one kills a member of one's own culture. Modern Western culture is not my culture, so I do not consider killing its members to be murder. The Bible makes this point very clearly in the story about the Midianites in Numbers 25 and Numbers 31:1-18.
Hi Eivind, I hope you liked "Sex and Culture". I scanned it and made it available on the internet.
Regarding the "Emancipation of Women", it is important to realize that this is only fully possible with government intervention or in a state of pure anarchy. The reason is simple. Women generally do not want to be responsible for supporting themselves and their children. They want men to help them with this. Most men are willing to do this in exchange for the woman's sexual fidelity. So in a libertarian society, female chastity and stable marriage would be the norm. An oppressive government frees (emancipates) women from having to make such a commitment by having absurd labor laws and divorce laws that favor women and effectively force men to provide for women. A state of pure anarchy is basically governance by thugs. In this case, the biggest bullies rob from other men and then women exchange sexual favors with these bullies in exchange for support. This is basically the state of nature in primitive tribes.
[Commenting on "How do Christians, Jews, Muslims, & Mormons worship a God that has committed the worst atrocities in history"]
Most people are scum. I love a god who wipes out scum.
(Gods perception of scum, is that a bit like Pol pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung.)
No. Hitler perceived scum based on race. The rest, communists, perceived scum based on economic class. These are wrong. God perceived scum based on based on culture. This is right.