Youtube comments of Viktor\x27 vonthe Rhaefnhyrst, I (@Viktor_vonthe_Rhaefnhyrst).
-
4600
-
1500
-
645
-
558
-
538
-
455
-
446
-
437
-
429
-
411
-
386
-
378
-
348
-
I was looking back on all my high school, middle school, and college "friendships" with women (I've since rejected the notion men and women even CAN be friends) and realized that I was a beta orbiter who would basically listen to their drama and shit for hours on end in the hope they'd be gracious enough to return the time and attention I expended with affection, respect me, and maybe even love me...how foolish and naive I was. I've since instituted boundaries with ALL females, my mother inclusive. Just the other day, she started ranting to me when she came to visit and in response, I took out my cell in front of her, set a 10 minute alarm, and told her, "Give me the highlights and summary play-by-plays; when this BEEPS, I'm dropping convo and going for a walk." She was taken aback but, for the first time since I could remember, actually condensed all of what she wanted to talk about into 8 min and 27 seconds of speech.
When she was done, she stood up and gave me kind of a passive aggressive, "Kay, you got your highlights. Happy?" I ignored the the ire and smiled, "Yup, now I'm going on a walk. Thanks for the extra minute. Love you and we'll discuss what we'd like to do for your time here when I get back." Then I BOOPed her on the nose and walked out without a second thought; it felt so damn good and I don't know why I didn't do it sooner...well, I do (because they make you fear a cut off of communication but, that's just them trying to convince us THEY'RE the prizes).
340
-
319
-
317
-
302
-
286
-
285
-
277
-
261
-
259
-
216
-
211
-
204
-
198
-
180
-
170
-
No such thing as a "free" woman; if she's not under the influence of a man she respects and submits to, she's under equal authority of boss and friend group. There's no such thing as individuals but, if a gender DID have them, it wouldn't be women. So, why would I as a man who's worked his arse off to provide comfort, shelter, protection, skills, and a husband fit and styled enough to boast about devote myself to a creature that is unwilling to depend on me, with a foot in my pad and a foot out the door, who's owned by her manager and friends?
154
-
151
-
142
-
140
-
133
-
128
-
126
-
119
-
113
-
108
-
105
-
104
-
103
-
103
-
101
-
100
-
@jutsu1
Wrong, you can protest as a conscientious objector and you can refuse to shoulder a rifle, drive a truck, filter water, etc. You may end up fined and detained, potentially even put in a penal battalion but, you don't have to go anywhere you don't want to if you value the choice not to over personal comfort, freedom, and your life.
Don't buy into their illusions; if you stand your ground and refuse to be a part of war, other than shoot or imprison you, there's not much they can do.
97
-
92
-
90
-
86
-
83
-
82
-
82
-
79
-
78
-
78
-
77
-
76
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
72
-
72
-
70
-
69
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
65
-
64
-
63
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
I, too, am a citizen of the American Union of States and am praying for the success of the Russian Federation. Even in the days of the Soviet Union, it did not pose a direct threat and only became one after our government--in league with the "defense" contractors who grew accustomed to lucrative federal contracts--began demonizing the superpower to keep up in fear and ever eager to surrender more of our boys, freedom, and men to feed the international war machine. The American Empire must die so that the American People, our people, can live not as slaves to an expanding debt and prospective conscripts to drafting machinations of the State, but as men and women who can foster families in relative peace, liberty, economic security, and what's left of American identity.
42
-
41
-
00:21 I learned this through my first therapist, who was a not-too-bad looking 50-something DSW but, prior thereto and the fall-induced spinal compression that ended her jumping days, was also a cheerleader for a here-unnamed university. Several sessions in we're discussing my long-term goals (by this time I'd dipped my toes in the RedPill pool) and she broaches relationships. I tell her, "I'm not interested until I can become a beast capable of attracting an 18 y.o. virgin." To this, she responds, "Older women have needs, too." AND WINKED!
This same therapist also gave me my first (and last) cigarette, ostensibly to help convince me never to adopt her habits (which she was stunning despite), while telling me, "We don't to tell anyone; it'll be our little secret." She'd also had unpaid therapy sessions with me at cafes and insisted upon "returns to nature" wherein she'd hike with me and take an occasional hit from her little bong, sometimes offering me some. I started covertly asking around and discovered through mutually associated third parties that she did NONE of that with other clients; kept it STRICTLY professional with them.
The final kicker was when I--a former missionary for my church who found himself solicited by a loose-albeit-lurid girl in my college congregation for "marital practice" whose temptation was great--informed this therapist and her reply was, "As long as you feel comfortable. Might not even be a bad idea to practice for the practice." God this woman had a wicked grin but, she had PREVIOUSLY said that she, too, was Christian. That was the last session but, she calls me every so often with invitations for lunch or "just getting out and doing something".
Older women are indeed horny.
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
Being called a Knot Sea is a badge of honor, and I always confound and disarm my detractors by smiling and saying "Thank you" when accused of it. I don't affirm them by saying "Yes" or anything like that, because I am an American and American demands organic, home-grown solutions and organizations to solve American problems and promote American people...but I appreciate the comparison, because of what the Knot Seas tried to achieve for the German People.
You can argue they were mean, and idiosyncratic, and destroyed their country with war, but let's be honest, whether under a Leader or a Kaiser, the Ewe-Day-Oh-Capitalist West and Ewe-Day-Oh-Bolshevik East would've found an excuse to invade and crush the German people REGARDLESS of who led them if he were great and defied them. War is an extension of politics by other means, and a strong Germany was never going to be an acceptable political situation for either of them; Poland was just an excuse to go to war.
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
My first three dates are generally (1st) a walk in the park AND/OR hike in the mountains, (2nd) a swim at the local reservoir (in spring & summer) or community center (in fall & winter), and (3rd) rock-climbing up the canyon (spring & summer) or at my gym (fall & winter). The first tests if they're low-maintenance, the second their confidence while letting me "survey the goods", and the last if they can trust me with their lives. After those three, THEN we can talk restaurants but, for every restaurant meal I pay for, they make me dinner (whose materials I still buy). They pick the recipe, give me an ingredient list, and I supply the resources. If they're unwilling to follow this early stage dating arrangement, I drop them.
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
Another reason phenomena like racism, discrimination, and prejudice are not only NOT evil, but evolutionary traits we developed for our own good. Given that man evolved as a tribal species, we naturally and justly draw distinctions when we encounter those who are different, be it in language, culture, behavior, OR skin tone, dimension, and physiognomy. Now, that doesn't mean we have to kill one another over resources but, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH PREFERRING TO BE AROUND YOUR OWN KIND AND DISTRUSTING OUTSIDERS!
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
Color is ALWAYS going to divide us, just like religion, culture, ethnicity, and political persuasion always will. It's just a matter of whether or not one of those other ideologies grants us a stronger, shared moral paradigm. Racism is as human as forming tribes and building nations; it's part of us, inseparable and evolutionarily developed but, we can CHOOSE to elevate ANOTHER basis for unity over it so long as prosperity prevails...like American identity. As a demelaninated person, I can't welcome Kanye but, as a patriot, I CAN call him a fellow citizen.
Abandon your naivety, brother.; it only serves the globalists.
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
That's why you don't marry them AND lawfare-proof yourself so that if she doesn't act right, you show her the door, and she only leaves with what she came in with, leaving the kids and your resources behind with you.
If you make that all clear BEFOREHAND, she'll be FAR more amenable than a gal with The State that you entered a three-way polyamorous marriage with. That, and if she tries to argue with you, you remind her that (1) you told her exactly what she was getting into from the start, (2) she chose you and those conditions anyway, and (3) she's welcome to leave at ANY time for ANY reason and try rebuild everything she build with you with another guy who IS willing to put up with her nonsense.
She reserves the right to leave at any time for any reason, you reserve the right to withdraw commitment and privileges and retain the kids and assets. Require that she, her family, and friends sign some NDAs, then her a few other things, and they can't even gossip about you negatively after, lest you crush them in court.
24
-
@theguybehindyou4762
The main military does, the FFL is drawn specifically from NON-French men who are looking to get citizenship though, as an American, I can keep mine (which I will). The basic idea was to have an international force of de facto mercenaries who the French government could train as expendable killers then sick them on exterior threats without fear of the French public being up in arms when body bags started rolling in. A lot of people want to get out of 2nd and 3rd world nations or just want the chance to fight a war and the Legion preps them as cannon fodder.
Because they recruit from a pool of desperate, uncivilized brutes, they're training is especially hard, perhaps the hardest of any conventional military force in the West. The instructors are permitted to humiliate, abuse, and beat the candidates in the hope of trimming the selection down to only the most determined to stay. Even desertion is subtly encouraged, because that means one less weak link in the chain. Also, because it is so cruel and savage, and because the Legion has autonomous decision making, they have no women.
Even if they did, given the barbaric nature of the men they train, those women would not survive or willing endure boot. They'd be graped, ravaged, and sent screaming for momma...and that's exactly how a military force should be. They're in the business of winning bloody fights, not padding a diversity portfolio.
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
Reporter: "Do you want the people of Gaza to be unhappy?"
Ewes: "No."
Also Ewes: "But we like the benefits of expansionist colonialism and will stand by our people and State no matter their crimes, thereby profiting from Gazan suffering."
That's applicable to most people relative to their societies; it's the self-righteous dishonesty that upsets me. If these Ewes went full Draka and said, "We will do whatever we have to to advance our own interests, we will push no narratives, we are out to dominate and conquer, and we accept it will make us no friends and that we'll have blood on our hands, and we can live with that," then I'd give them a standing ovation for brutal honesty and grit.
Problem is, they do it with MY taxes, expect MY countrymen and I to fight and die combating THEIR enemies, and they claim that "God wills it" because "[they're] His Chosen People".
Unacceptable.
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
If you think about it, democracy actually promotes and shields tyranny. In openly oligarchical (stratocracies, merchantile city-states run by councils, aristocracies, etc.) and autocratic states (tribal chieftains, dictatorships, and monarchies), the lower classes/castes are more or less cognizant of who constitutes the ruling class. When those states inevitably cycle and the dominant majority of the ruling class/caste is unable to adapt to changing social circumstances or challenges and/or grow complacent, stagnant, or tyrannical, an emerging ruling class/caste can rise to threaten it and use the lower classes/castes to help it supplant the old ruling class/caste to become the new Elite. In democracy however, no such conscious relationship of mutual awareness exists, because the ALLEGED ruling class/caste (like legislators, judges, governmental executives, bureaucrats, etc.) are, in reality, ANOTHER lower class/caste in hock to a perhaps suspected but wholly UNofficial ruling class/caste that puppets it from the shadows.
Democracies enable tyranny by diverting attention away from the ultimate ruling class/caste which REALLY runs things so we're focused on the political circus of the narratively-affirmed ruling class/caste or one another, as their supposed electorate. This frees said ultimate ruling class/caste from most accountability and without the fear that they might meet the same fate as King Louis XVI, they feel free to act with wanton disregard for our needs as their serfs. Sure, it slows them down because they need public sentiment to be controlled and maneuvered to affirm the decisions we think we make for ourselves but, that also means we become more corrupted so they can assure us that their corruption never seems like a byproduct of the system and not its source.
In short, democracy is worse for EVERYONE.
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
If you don't have any kids and are willing to risk the financial ramifications, I'd be considering divorce were I in your shoes. At the very least, I'd close any joint accounts and cut off any privileges beyond the necessities of life as you determine it then give her the silent treatment. Furthermore, I'd suggest you start finding and spending time with female friends, and openly confessing how much more attention and kindness they're yielding within earshot of your wife. She needs to be reminded that you don't need her; that the relationship is only possible because you TOLERATE her and that there's the possibility you might stop.
You'll catch hell for it, no doubt, but if you refuse to give in and just keep ignoring her and not getting into arguments (which she'll win), she's going to have to contemplate losing you. I've never been married but, such steps have worked in my relationships and they might work in yours. I don't know but, don't just "suck it up"; you're the patriarch of the household, the protector, and the provider. You're better than that, sir, and she should be made to realize it.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
@alexanderivkin7086
Peterson is admittedly more of an emotionally-prone, effeminate man but, that doesn't necessarily make him weak and countless good and strong men can be weakened by excess prescriptions by doctors and he's managed to recover so, you're being rather unfair in that assessment. Just because he doesn't represent your conceptualization of a strong, invincible Übermensch, that doesn't mean he's "weak".
His daughter is as described though, and THAT does reflect poorly on him as a father. Nevertheless, your description sounds like a character assassination designed to poison the well and he has a lot to offer. That said, I think you're throwing the metaphorical baby out with the proverbial bathwater.
Anyway, we'll probably continue to disagree and I think you're incorrect to denounce him as "weak" and "drug addict[ed]" but, I'm fairly sure that's you being genuinely concerned for other men and the sources from whence they derive their wisdom and advice so, however wrong you may be, the criticality is coming from a benevolent place and I thank you for being your brothers' keeper.
Hope you and your family are able to have a Merry Christmas and that this coming year proves challenging, productive, and transformational and that you have the strength from within and without to overcome your faults and grow stronger. Take care, man!
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
Everyone is the subject of either an oligarchy or monarchy, covert or overt. If you're in an allegedly "democratic", "parliamentary", or "constitutionally republican" state, remember that referendums and direct votes are dictated by a people whose thought is largely determined or heavily influenced by academic indoctrination, Elite-owned media, or Elite-integrated celebrity opinion AND/OR representatives who're bought and paid for by private interests (many foreign) who underwrite and fund their campaigns and lobbyists LONG before they reach the ballot to be voted on, again, by the easily swayed masses.
You ARE a subject; you just haven't awoken to your serfdom...and that is the power of so-called "democracies", the diffusion of responsibility to supposedly representative officials whose election, if poor in performance, is blamed on the People and done so at regular enough intervals that no one ever rebels because, well, "I'll just vote differently next time!"
Does it ever change and are The People ever satisfied? Nah, same shit, different politician. If that hasn't made you wonder, you'll probably never accept the unpleasant reality of government.
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
If they need to be told a truth, they're already too far gone for us to help them. That's why I stopped explaining why I was breaking up with gals when I did so; originally I'd sit them down and go through a long list of things I'd noted over the course of our relationship and how they could improve for the next guy...and they'd proceed to deny, deflect, gaslight me ("That never happened!"), and then I realized it was pointless and, if nothing else, I was telling them red flags they'd rather camouflage than fix, potentially hurting other future men.
Your authority and will in the relationship alone must be enough, "Why are you spanking me for joking about your schlang size at the Christimas party?" "Are you going to take your spanks or not?" If they say "No", that's it, they are unwilling to be punished for disrespecting you, and they have chosen to leave your relationship. If they say "Yes" then you discipline them and, if they're penitent, they stop.
Gals don't need the truth and they can't handle the truth; they just need to either accept we're in charge and trust us to lead them, OR they need to find another man to deal with their shlt.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
@cariopuppetmaster
If you cannot substantiate your argument then YOU are not serious. You made a claim, articulate it. This ISN'T your family and I'm not your father; you cannot simply walk in, drop a declaration like an unwanted child, then refuse to explain it, ma'am.
Can you or can you not actually tell me why my perspective is a naturalistic fallacy? I understand what that term means: an informal logical fallacy which argues that if something is 'natural' it must be good. Nevertheless, my observation is a sociologically demonstrable phenomenon that university studies have proven to be present in infants from the moment they can distinguish pigmentation and physiognomy and, if you want, I can provide links thereto. History has buttressed my observation, all I'm asking you to do is make your accusation stick.
You think you can do that, little girl? Say something to the effect of, "I assert this because of reasons A, B, and C." It is that simple. You think you can put on your big girl booties and manage that?
13
-
They gotta close rank and outcompete one another's expectations; this was the perfect example of self-sabotaging peer pressure and XX possession-by-groupthink. Guys can use their unique experiences and reasoning to contemplate their own personal envisionment of what they want and need from a partner and while some do float with the current, the majority have enough identity to assert their desires independent of the group...but these things CAN'T!
They don't want to be perceived as "settling", because that undermines the Guy Know Cent Rick intimacy cartel's monopoly or be seen as a "Pick-ME!" (whom they regard as traitresses and ostracize). Furthermore, they have to suggest themselves higher than the others by raising their standards. So, when one or two pops a balloon, they automatically price themselves out of the market.
This is why we had brothers, fathers, villiage elders, and professional match makers thoroughly assess value; pair them with an at level or higher suitors in a carefully scrutinized pool of candidates; then narrowed it down and merged family dynasties.
They couldn't be trusted with choice because an unregulated XX groupthink, shameless wear-out frenzy, and emotional impulsivity made it impossible for them to choose well and wisely as a simultaneously atomized and collective-fad-consumed agent of self-destruction pursuing toxic acceptance and fleeting thrills in flagrant disregard for long-term, familial objectives and community common good.
No wonder they've never been more miserable; we empowered them to demonstrate they cannot hold power.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@aphrodite7194
Hate and love are two sides of the same coin. You cannot love something without hating forces that would corrupt, destroy, or steal it from you. Can you love a man without hating other, beautiful non-familial women in his life who'd like to be the sole beneficiary of his resources and mothers of his children? "Without a deadly hate for that which threatens what one loves, love is but the catchphrase of hippies, [kw-ears], and liberals." -George Lincoln Rockwell
If you love your society, you will hate economic opportunists who take advantage of government charity to move in and colonize it to transform it into something after their own sociopolitical, religious, and cultural image. If you love children, you will hate those who seek to corrupt and "use" them, like gays, tranzformers, and "boy-lovers". If you love your God, you'll actively work to counteract conflicting religions who seek to influence politics and society to adopt their principles at the expense of yours, hating those religions in the process.
You cannot truly love without hating. It is what it is, sweetheart.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Truthfully, I keep a little black book of material like females do but, I rarely, if ever, use it when such effeminate strategy is used against me. It's empowering to have dirt on people, even if you never use it. I'm reminded of a quote from Stevie Goldberg's Schindler's List, however apocryphal, "They fear us because we have the power to kill arbitrarily. A man commits a crime; he should know better. We have him killed and we feel pretty good about it. Or, we kill him ourselves, and we feel even better. That's not POWER though, that's justice. It's different than power. Power is when we have every justification to kill...and we DON'T."
He goes on to speak of an Emperor who exerted such power, "That's what the Emperor said. A man stole something and he's brought in before the Emperor and he throws himself down on the ground. He BEGS for mercy; he KNOWS he's going to die...and the Emperor PARDONS him. This worthless man? He lets him go."
"That is power. THAT...is power."
Females only have the power we grant them. They can have the influence to destroy our lives or be granted the authority to inflict legal persecution but, they'll never have power over us because have no restraint or reason, only corrupted justice.
11
-
11
-
11
-
I added some flourish and call it "The Balance for the Yet Unborn", (if YouTube lets it post)
Women are born 'round the top of the mountain's peak,
Men are born 'round the hollows of the valley's depths,
Man is judged on how high he climbs: skill, resource, status,
Woman is judged on how far she falls: beauty, youth, virtue,
Women have much to loose by frivolous waste and untamed appetite,
Men have much to gain by disciplined progress and willful purpose,
Masculinity is built through longsuffering, sacrifice, blood, and veil'ed tear,
Femininity is preserved via innocence, temperance, birth, and hearth'ed flame,
She is not the same as you nor I,
We are not the same as her nor them,
We, greater, cast the hardened spear,
They, lesser, keep and fill the fragile glass,
Unequal complements, we lead, they follow,
This is the way, the Ancients' Way, and not some other,
If kept, it keeps us, the chalice unchiped, th'obsidian chiseled,
If left, the Gods of the Copybook Headings, with terror and slaughter, return!
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
As a religious man who wants nothing more than to start a family with maximal probability of producing well-adjusted, successful children who'll carry my convictions into the future and transcend my mistakes and those of our generation, it's hard to find a girl I can have this family with. You know how difficult it is to find a decently attractive, physically/nutritionally disciplined, genuine virgin between 18-22 who has strong Christian values that came from a good family, who has an amazing relationship with her parents, who wants to homeschool at least 3+ children? Furthermore, you know how difficult it is to find one without an overinflated ego worsened by social media validation that know how to hold a long, insightful, and genuine conversation and have a sense of humor? One who has a trustworthy friend-group that won't labor to bring her down and undermine me?
Hard as HELL! Nevertheless, I'm not settling for a modern female. It's better to live alone than live with a broad and wish you were.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Maybe peace isn't what we need; maybe we need 8ful fury. You know the only time an organism knows peace? The equilibrium it spends its life struggling and failing to achieve with any meaningful permanence? When it's dead...
We are at war, aesthetically, ideologically, religiously, culturally, biologically, and existentially...and we've been at war since conception and shall be long after expiration.
When has striving to be in a state where we didn't have to strive ever availed us of the cruel indifference of reality or protected us from forces aligned against us? Never. There is no peace or hope of it; there is only war, and until we wake up and begin fighting for our sides, we will continue to LOSE it!
We're expanding or contracting, conquering or being conquered, improving or stagnating. Peace is fantasy, contentment cancer, and while battlelines may stablize, it is ultimately going come down to "us" or "them"...I don't know about the rest of you, but I choose US! Who's with me!?
[EDIT] CLARIFICATION: The term "8ful" is used in lieu of another word that sounds like which I cannot employ lest YT remove my comment.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@Fact-fiend_1000ASMR.
Agreed, and that's typically an element of feudal monarchies, which I favor, where kings have their royal courts of trusted men whom they devolve responsibility to appoint mid-level noblemen who then, in turn, appoint local aristocrats and so on. But, that's something that governance shares with charity. The shorter the distance between giver and receiver, the more gratitude and goodly shame (for having to rely on it, thereby motivating them to better themselves and emerge from poverty to not be a burden) of the recipient, and the more heartfelt and willing the joy of the donor...which is why inner city people don't care what they squander just as we're indifferent to our current leaders and their claims to legitimacy. Why bother caring? It's a monolithic and soulless institution obsessed with power and micromanagement of our existence, callous to our particular needs and circumstances.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@ElfRightsActivist
I wish. Most looked surprised, a colleague of mine made a frantic throat-swiping gesture, as in "shut the hell up, Vik!" and my female colleagues looked to have faces of disgust and anger. One of them started talking shit on me with the donor I started arguing with in the first place and proceeded to call me "sexist" and "racist", to which I replied, "And...?"
It was a shit show but, I figured I'd kept my clap shut for long enough and determined, "This asshole started it and opened the conversation so, I'll say my piece and let the cards fall where they may."
Nah, if they'd clapped, it might've been the greatest day of my life though, one of the older guys who I previously learned was a conductor for Union Pacific, did give a "This guy may be right" kind of nod. That, at least, was gratifying.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Think I'll just socialize around locally for prospective fathers in law at hardware stores, hunting clubs, farming coops, the gym, gun stores, and VFWs. Family will come up in conversation, I'll screen for pretty daughters who haven't gone to college yet, emphasize friendships/mentorships with the fathers of the best looking ones, make introductions, and see if I can attract one before they get damaged. Even if I don't get married, I meet and make friends with good men and mentors.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
The moment I realized marriages were, in reality, polyandrous relationships between you, the gal, and The State as the de facto "second man" who she can turn to to hurt and squeeze you at any time for any reason, on the basis of her feelings...I lost any desire to be part of one.
No marriage; no cohabitation; no LTRs without her signing NDAs, Parenting Agreements, Consent in Perpetuity Forms, etc.; no having another child with her until she Waives Maternal Rights to the first or last one in a manner that can't be overturned; and so on.
Unless you can assure she only has TWO major choices—WHEN to join and IF/WHEN to leave, withOUT your kids, reputation, and resources—in the union and those two choices ONLY.
Have it on your terms or not at all.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@MyContinent
Well, legally I can't force them to remain but, unless they do and follow the rules, they'll be cut out of the inheritance, cut off from my aid, and I won't endorse them to any of their prospective husbands. I won't disown them unless I know they did something horrid, like cheating on a guy or getting a "P. Parenthood Procedure" but, my love is conditional and they will get less of it if they fail to meet the standards I raise them with.
I believe that if you love your kids, discipline them, establish boundaries, set expectations, and hold them to them, they will probably turn out okay but, I won't give a penny to someone who's living a lifestyle with which I'm dissonant. I won't abide modernity in my house or enable it from afar. On that, there shall be NO COMPROMISE.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Cats DON'T bond with humans the way dogs do because they're NOT dogs. That doesn't mean the connection is any less meaningful. As a point of fact, it's MORE meaningful, because while we've succeeded in miniaturizing cats, they are NOT actually domesticated. Dogs, who ARE domesticated, are demonstrably less well off WITHOUT human interaction. We've bred them to serve roles at our behest for so long that they are aimless and shorter-lived without us. It is a master-slave relationship, albeit a benevolent one. Cats however, when they choose to be vulnerable around us, share our company, groom us, fetch us prey, and scent mark us, are showing us that they consider us EQUALS as part of a glaring or clowder (their form of a tribe).
That is why they rub up against us, to intermingle our sweat, oils, and dead skin (our pheromone and olfactory identifiers) with their own fur and secretions to create something uniting us by distinct, chemical commonality...also why they are pissed and/or eager to rub against us MORE when they smell other animals, especially other felines, on our skin. To be loved by a cat is a privilege and bestowal of trust and the closest thing they have to honor. To be loved by a dog is expected, because that dog is evolutionarily dependent on humans. Cats though? They can leave and never come back if they so choose or keep a distance and warily exploit our charity.
When an independent cat elects of its own calculating will to associate with us, it is granted.
When a dependent dog is affectionate to us, it's a love born of biological servitude; because we euthanized the dogs who didn't love us or serve a purpose.
They're NOT the same and that's OKAY!
7
-
7
-
7
-
@dastokene30og
I worked for the same amount of time at a security post and was just fired this week because I pissed off a female colleague new to our installation that my boss bent over backwards for. Other vague reasons were listed, along with "attitude", because I wrote down every reason he gave and tried to get to the details of it, none of which he supplied. At one point he called me defensive but, when you're threatening someone who's getting fired, who ISN'T defensive?
Anyway, the guy he brought in to replace me quit the same day, citing, "I don't want to have to work with [this woman]" and two other of my colleagues are going to leave soon, too, one transferring locations and the other outright going to another security company that pays better.
All of this because that gal asked me something and I gave her a "shrekxist reply". I feel you, brother.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@Kananaboo
More the latter I've picked up from my own observations, experience, and consumption of content by Curtis Yarvin and a bunch of other creators who see through the idealism and political theater applied to our lives. I guess if there's a genre you'd like to explore that has informed my reasoning, it'd be "Elite Theory".
Plus, it just makes sense: how can an entire electorate really govern anything other than a general revolt when pushed to the breaking point? We've all got such needlessly complicated and increasingly distressing lives so we can't all afford to be constitutional scholars, sociologists, amateur politicians, news and social media pundits, informational analysts, etc. Sooner or later, there's one man or a small group of people that have to make decisions and if they come from the ruling class (as they almost certainly will), they will look at us as a writhing rabble of discordant voices and say, "I and my ilk will maintain power because the population can't be trusted to."
History and reason demonstrate that we're a hierarchical species who depend on a comparatively tiny subset of our population to keep civilization running because most of us don't really care. We may want to, we may even fight to but, we have to go to work, bear children, decompress from the all the stress, and that doesn't allow for mass consciousness and political action.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@ornu01
Existentialist, Hard Sci-fi: Blindsight by Peter Watts
Cosmic Horror Crossover: The Jennifer Morgue and Laundry Files series by Charles Stross.
The first explores transhumanism, human consciousness, our relation to and position in The Unknown of space, and it has a really cool expeditionary captain who Neill Blomkamp (director of District 9 and Zygote) is hoping to focus in on in an independent film about Man's relationship to a naturally evolved predator which...is originally why I picked up the book in the first place given my affinity for the premier monster of gothic horror.
The second are two series by a British polymath who integrated his love for theoretical physics, quantum mechanics, geometry, and general mathematics into esoteric thrillers about brilliant but bureaucratically beset people fighting to keep the multiversal forces of cosmic terror and those who'd invoke them from tearing into our reality from their own Platonic dimensions at bay. Currently re-reading The Atrocity Archives but, being a linear chronolophile, I recommend beginning with his first short stories then going up from there as there is a SHITLOAD of mathematical and occult ideas he references. The series are basically his loveletter to Lovecraft and while it may occasionally seem slapstick or casual in citing him, it always returns to the core of cosmic dread that kept me up at night as a teen.
You may like them, you may not but, do give them a try and have yourself a wonderful day. Take care!👍
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
This guy and his community are exogenous. If he accepts a total My Gray Schun moratorium, his people produce more than they consume, exist in peaceable homostasis, back the British majority, and aid us...then they're symbiotes and tolerable. Anything less, however, is Pair Huh Syt Hism.
I am glad he is against this issue, but we can not rely on outsiders to take our isle back or have any more of them. The Empire is gone, and we have to consolidate, regroup, then repatriate any potential problem groups who've come among us...otherwise this'll go on forever.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Just rewatched Infinity Pool and noticed that after his second reincarnation, when James is shot and taken in by a Li Tolqan family, the 13 year old culturally charged with preserving his family's honor by killing his father's murder, James, spies on and smiles at him. I suspect the Li Tolqan faith is very different from Christianity and forgiveness-based religions; that they put a great deal of emphasis on revenge and the satiation of their vindictiveness. When that boy observed the double of his father's killer, his faith was rewarded as was his delight that said outsider, as promised by here-unseen religious functionaries, was now trapped in an unending cycle of deprivation, depravity, and despair as his soul was torn and degraded with every successive incarnation.
"Holy shit! It's worked! The gods have favored me and this bastard is getting what he deserves." That's basically what his face conveyed. I cannot even begin to imagine the dark hatred that it must take to wish that upon another human being but, it's present in Li Tolqans and quite possibly a source of sustenance to one or more of their deities. Hell, maybe they worship Nyarlathotep or some Lovecraftian fiend from beyond space and time whose reverence among other tribes survives in the umbral and accursed corners of earth and was once more widespread before more civilized peoples with more compassionate gods extinguished them like the cankerous-hearted cultists they are.
Little wonder we see but a fraction of their culture; the world would be forced to shun and perhaps even dismember their society were such a eldritch revelation to come to light...their Christian and Muslim neighbors in the Mediterranean would certainly not tolerate the existence of such pagan traditions.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@quesopasso
Unquestionably, larger enterprises with greater labor pools, more economy of scale, and more talent consolidation & specialization definitely provide increased flexibility (were I unable to come into work or my boss was sick, the business would be heavily affected for the day), bigger paychecks/more bonuses (with more profit to go around), and more career opportunities. To be on-board with a smaller business, you definitely have to be more community-minded and idealistic, at least in today's economy.
A century ago, most businesses WERE small businesses or self-employed men and that worked, because people were generally more likely to cluster together in small towns and communities they felt kinship with, instead of chasing money and consumerism. Ownership was widespread and national cohesion was high.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
This is partly why nobles shouldn't marry commoners, particularly those who've made ladies of the night out of themselves. Other nobles are already accustomed to power, wealth, prestige, and the duties inherent therein; it isn't a fantacy, it is either a privilege or a gilded cage. Furthermore, noble women are acutely aware of the importance of purity and how much attentions theirs (or lack thereof) will be given by commoner and nobleman alike, and they're generally closer to their respective church, so they're obliged to remain purer as both example to their people and leverage point for future noble unions to strengthen their realm.
Diana had NONE of that; she belonged to the streets, was Marilyn in the sheets, and wanted to be royal without comprehending the weight of the Crown. Likewise, I condemn Charles, he should have known better and clearly wasn't thinking with the head atop his shoulders.
5
-
5
-
5
-
Dangerousness isn't necessarily a bad thing--though, it's always portrayed as such by our gynocentric, emasculated Western culture who seeks to uphold harmlessness and weakness as "strengths"--nor is the notion of prejudice/discrimination (of which racism is a variant). I argue that BOTH are essential to protect both unitary human beings and collective groups. Take, for instance, those who hunt paedophiles. Obviously, a civil society MUST maintain order but, when that order fails, dangerous men who are prejudiced against those of a MAP (Minor Attracted Person) persuasion seeking to exercise to their --xual persuasion at the expense of our little ones, then both that capacity for violence, if not forceful apprehension, AND discrimination are inherent GOODS.
On the Leftist side of things, some might espouse the same thing for "punching Nazis". Punching is a form a physical violence, enabled only when one is dangerous, and National Socialists (or, more precisely, their idiot, modern day roleplayers) are openly discriminated against as members of an ideological and sociopolitical school of thought. Exacting force against these elements of our society wouldn't be possible without justifying discrimination and being dangerous.
Prejudice and the capacity for violence are tools. They can be used to protect what you love or hurt those you hate. It's just a matter of target, intensity, and rationale.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@ghosttheprogram6973
Same boat; I wouldn't say he's the best thing since sliced-bread but, I started watching his lectures and reading his books a few years back and, in lieu of the religion I grew up with, his thought provided just enough motivation and stop-gap purposefulness to keep me above water during some dark periods of my life.
Again, he doesn't know everything and as he emerges into the online and political arenas, some of his gaffes have made that abundantly clear but, if nothing else, he seems like he genuinely loves everyone and wants the to live the most meaningful lives they can manage within his classically liberal frame of reference.
Personally, I don't mind that he tears up during some of his exchanges; he seems to be staring into the abyss and has the weight of a lot of lost and drifting men and boys on his shoulders...in a world where men and the Patriarchy are nothing but evil and we should apparently aspire to be rainbow-haired, overweight, estrogen-supplementing Redditors who hate ourselves for our genitals, race, and political persuasion.
Seems like a really good, insightful, and honest man and that's a rare thing to see in the lime-light these days...
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Traditional Catholic "'til death do ye part" marriages and LDS "Eternal Families" are really the only valid marital models I see working, the one because it's only able to be annulled in relative cases of infertility (Lack of Form, i.e. cannot produce children) and infidelity (Fraud/Misrepresentation, i.e. one or both spouses concealed fornication and unfaithful behavior pre-marriage, thereby meaning that you married a false perception of the person, not the person themselves so no union existed in the first place) and the other on similar grounds but, with eternal expectation.
In both churches, you need high clerical authorization to dissolve a union; you cannot simply walk away from your vows and, so long as people are properly vetting their future spouses and establishing clear, patriarchal boundaries, I think that's best.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Honestly, I think Germany should've just told the former Soviet states that they'd be taking a whole swathe of agricultural lands previously operated as "collective farms" to be settled by German veterans similar to the Junkers' plans for the proposed "United Baltic Dutchy" and some other industrial and raw resource concessions as the conquers BUT, that the Slavs would retain cultural, economic, and political autonomy over their cities and privately owned farms with the caveat that Germans assume military command to deter any possible Soviet resurgence as well as handling foreign policy for both Slavic and Germanic protection. Essentially, the Germans should've said, "You can be starving slaves under Stalin OR well-fed and protected serfs under Germany as semi-autonomous protectorates. With Stalin, you've no future but, at least with us, you can have families, live fulfilling lives, and worship in peace under the governance of your own blood and NEVER be conscripted again. Neither future is perfect but, at least under us, you'll be able to live as yourselves."
In the end, if they'd done that, they'd still be in power and the former Soviets who'd fought with them would have no grand expectations to be quashed and made frustrations. Honesty is generally the best policy.
5
-
Hell, I ignore them in the streets. I'll stare straight ahead as though they're not even there. My favorite though is when they're with guys; as I'm passing them, I'll make eye contact with the guy, smile, and greet him, "Good morning/day/afternoon/evening, sir." then return to staring straight ahead, blinking as I turn my head so my gaze never crosses the girl. The guys are usually cordial or even pleased to be greeted and sometimes, the gals'll remark, "Why didn't he say anything to me?" 'Cause I don't waste my good will on witches, fool!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@RexNicolaus
What was/is your branch, division, brigade, battalion, company, platoon, squad, fireteam, position, rank, MOS, theater of operation, durations of service, and the sum of bodies you've stacked, tough guy?
4
-
Though only connected with this Tomb through funerary association, everyone here should see the 2009 film Taking Chance. It follows real Marine Lt. Col. Michael Strobl (played by Kevin Bacon) as he escorts the body of fallen veteran LCpl Chance Phelps back home to his family after having paid the ultimate price for service and fraternity in the First Battle of Fallujah, Iraq.
While it possesses no action, I feel it engenders the sacred reverence servicemen, and indeed many conscientious citizens along the way, regard their fallen brothers. Male readers of this suggestion are duly advised to steel themselves if viewing in the company of females, friends, or colleagues as it may well prove a tear-jerking, potentially sobbing, experience.
Regardless of the economic and geopolitical agendas pushed by financial, industrial, academic, and globalist Elite who've bought and sold our elected politicians long before they've reached their ballots, the efforts and dedication of all combat servicemen should be honored and the souls thereof mourned for having laid the ultimate sacrifice upon what they considered the altar of liberty and national defense.
Any nation who dishonors and/or takes for granted its defenders' blood and belief is deserving of neither the security they provide nor the nobility they instill.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@stipostipo2051
All that legal, scientific, and technical progress would not be possible were it not for Christianity and the countless monasteries devoted to comprehending natural law, and they'd begun work in astronomy, mathematics, chemistry, and horticulture centuries before the Enlightenment claimed the fruits of religious men for itself. My field of choice, genetics, is only possible because of an Augustinian monk named Gregor Mendel.
I won't disagree regarding the cultural significance of the Enlightenment though; it set in motion the excesses of indulgence, self-worshipping individualism, nihilism, and scientism we see today. "Progress" advanced but, it cost us Western unity, community, and sanity in the process.
Transgenderism, feminism, Marxism, National Socialism, egalitarianism, intersectionality, environmentalism, and all of their victims are only possible because your "Enlightenment" fractured the moral paradigms upon which our current civilization was built so, I guess if you're a fan of division and destruction, it was indeed a great and wonderful thing.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@HighlanderNorth1
Incorrect. You're mistaking corporatocracy with corporatism. Furthermore, leftists are, by nature, internationalists at odds with nationalism and majoritarianism, both key aspects of fascism.
They are economically interventionalist and totalitarian, for sure but, that doesn't make them any more fascistic than Stalin enforcing the Warsaw Pact or the Chinese Communist Party owning stakes in Chinese firms makes them fascist.
If you replaced "fascist" with "totalitarian", you'd be right in your irony but, as it is, all fascism is totalitarian but, not all totalitarians are fascist.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@chrisreynolds6143
No, it wasn't but, using bullets is FAR more efficient than trying to suffocate people. That was the argument I was making, not that the German expenditure of munitions on enemies of the state was expedient during the war...it wasn't. Honestly, the SS made things substantially harder for the Wehrmacht and the war-effort by justifying the reasoning everyday Slavs used in joining partisan groups.
Honestly, the Prussian attitude towards employing annexed people as serfs on large agrarian states was far more practical and humane; you can't make serfs out of corpses and, prejudiced though they were, had they had their way, there'd be FAR less resistance to German occuaption. Hell, given the depredations of Soviets in the Baltic states and The Ukraine, the Germans were hailed as liberating conquerors by the local populace...before the SS set to work, that is.
They were useful as a political apparatus in the Reich itself but, amongst foreigners, they did nothing but sew adversity and enmity the undermanned Reich could just not afford.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
While every war, perhaps, in partcular, WWII (so fresh in our collective consciousness), has a myriad of remarkable stories both heart-warming and tear-wrenching...why is it that Hollywood is so keen to push the narrative primarily on just one affected minority: Jews? Just about everyone suffered in that war and even if you distill it down to the "victims of National Socialism", you've got the Slavs, Poles, Czechs, Nords, Dutch, French, Gypsies, and that's just nationalities/European ethnicities, not including Free Masons, Catholic Clergymen, Jehovah's Witnesses, and countless other dissident groups or those classified as such by the National Socialist State.
Why are Jews given so much screen time and why so much screen time NOW, at this moment in history where their pseudo-fascist ethnostate (Israel) is genociding Palestinians simultaneous to developing their deserted lands for Jewish settlement in the name of routing Islamism with absolute impunity?
IDK, am I a fascist or anti-Semite for wondering about why they feel the need to hog the victimhood and perpetually remind us of how much the world has wronged them?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Gals have always "gone to work", they just used to work primarily for their husbands or patriarchs in clans. The 1950's where they are pampered housesitters was actually corrosivd because it allowed them to be passive exploiters of men while being deprived of supplementary (but secondary) inclusion in the family's economic output.
The problem isn't that they are working, but that they are working OUTSIDE the family and under men other than their husbands. This splits attention, doubles stress, exhausts them from being 100% devoted moms and wives, neglects the kids, home, and community as a consequence, devalues male labor, but above all, subjects a gal to MULTIPLE men, the more resource-rich and influential of which (their bosses) being capable of inspiring doubt in usefulness of the husband while tempting affairs.
If gals were gardening, crafting, helping out around the farm/homestead, aiding homeschooling and homeschooling their own (which saves on tutoring cost), etc. to aid the family without outshining the man as primary breadwinner, they'd be HAPPIER because they'd be involved and valued. Also, they wouldn't have idle hands, which often do the devil's work.
They just gotta be working for their men, not some office manager who'll divide them from their families.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@RexNicolaus
I had a really comprehensive and de-escalating explanation lined up and YT prevented me from posting it. Long story short, I didn't intend to sound like some fearless Overman and I have a problem with not backing down during arguments, no matter how trivial, and needing to have the last word.
I imagine we got off on the wrong foot and are probably more alike than dissimilar. I'm willing to clean the slate and start over, answering your concerns as objectively and magnanimously as I can manage, if you're willing to listen.
The limitations of the internet divide what a cold one, some chips & dip, and a game of pool might otherwise bring together. I let you get the better of me, got embroiled in an argument neither of us needed, and let it come to petty insults but I'm done, I'm imperfect, I'd rather have beer with you and hammer out our differences then carry on like high school girls. Do you feel the same?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MegaSpideyman
Because it suggests that solution to the lack of good people in the United States is to import them from abroad, instead of changing the culture and institutions to facilitate the home-grown development of better men. It looks outward, instead of inward, and is the same existentially suicidal attitude held by self-loathing White Liberals who believe that Americans descendant from the settlers and conquerors that made America should reproduce lest while gradually replacing them with Hispanic, African, and Asian migrants.
It is harder, yes, to critically examine good people then push for social engineering schemes to promote the fostering thereof domestically but, it at least ensures the change comes from within and that it's organic to American culture and demography.
Furthermore, hospitable as his sentiment sounds, it would be, if enacted, damaging to Britain because the acting of bringing these guys over here would deprive their own people and nation of their influence and bloodlines. That's one of the many factors that have negatively affirmed stagnation in much of the third world and even portions of Europe. Imagine if Nikola Tesla had remained in Serbia and found patronage from its aristocrats to develop his scientific theories; would that not've helped put Serbia on the map and pull it from the depths of empirical darkness? How many intelligent and productive self-employed/businessmen have emigrated from Africa and Asia to become part of the "American Dream" who might've otherwise changed and improved their own peoples and nations for the better?
In providing the "American Dream" to the world, we've given people a path of least resistance to follow that robs their homelands of their talent and dedication. We've been stealing greatness from the world and it's been costing us the capacity to develop it on our own.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Kananaboo
If I am being honest, limiting the internet to libraries, academic institutions, and men who've had self-reportedly fulfilling careers, paid taxes consistently, avoided welfare, pumped out 3+ kids with the same woman who's remained loyal to him, raised them to maturity, then served in the armed forces sounds sane to me. Those are the requirements I consider essential for Heinleinian-esque citizenship and I think only citizens should have televisions and personal computers. The rest can listen to the radio, read the papers, consume literature, and talk to one another in churches, diners, taverns, Mason lodges, gun ranges, parks, and other places of assembly and socialization.
As a species and as a person with internet addiction that used to be an avid reader, I think unlimited access to the web has been disastrous and, like any drug, we really can't handle it on our own. If you need it, get it in schools or libraries or become a stellar subject of the realm to the point where you're granted the capacity to become a prospective nobleman (if chosen). By that point, you've earned the indulgence and can probably handle it responsibly.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@randomuser3481
The Holocaust did indeed happen but, almost everything you've said about the camps is nonsensical exaggeration and the census numbers are illegitimate. As for SS testimonies, most of them were extracted after beatings and harsh interrogation. No court today would accept confessions obtained through torture and threat.
I can accept the SS reprisals and mass killings along the Eastern Front; that's beyond dispute but, the occurrences in the camps are debatable. There is no way they could've, given the resource limitations and technology of the time, killed and disposed of that many people nor has the ash and bone fragments--ovens don't entirely destroy people, you need to grind the heat-cracked bones into dust--remains missing.
There is no evidence that millions went into the camps only to go up in smoke and the hundreds of thousands who DID die in them died as an unfortunate BIPRODUCT of desperate war production, unavoidable starvation, inescapable disease, and understandable exposure. No doubt some were just arbitrarily murdered by individual camp guards and administrators but, the so-called "systematic murder" employing Zyklon-B is total BS. They had the chemical and they had the gas chambers but, both were wholly insufficient to suffocate human beings and were employed for the delousing of clothing, bedding, and other materials that harbor disease-carrying insects.
I am NOT a Holocaust denier (it happened as an unfortunate though unavoidable exigency of war and war conditions) BUT...I AM a doubter of the exaggerated narrative regarding the gassing AND the inflated statistics submitted by minorities who have everything to gain by besmirching and reviling the German people.
It is what it is.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@potsmkr87
It's a common sentiment I once had and that I don't begrudge you for holding but, when you come to grasp a deeper understanding of history, of the rise and fall of civilizations, you realize that individualism always immediately precedes disaster. I doubt I can convince you but, I can't recommend Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West and Julius Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World enough.
They've come to conclusions I only realized during my evolutionary psychology and anthropology courses. We evolved as a collectivistic species, descending from the troops of chimps and apes that preceded us and even America, in all of its fervor for "freedom" and "democracy", is a collective not unlike the tribes that kept our ancestors alive where individual men and women would've perished in the wilderness but, I digress and drone on.
Thank you, at least, for disagreeing reasonably and standing for your values. These comment sections are full of either the gullible cardmen who fold and concur at the slightest provocation or stubborn argumentarians rearing for a fight with little heed for nuance. I'm pleased you were neither.
Have a lovely day, sir. Take care and do check out those books if expanding your horizons is of interest philosophically. I enjoyed this exchange.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Got trained and have already fashioned silver rings with ruby center stones that just need fittings and engravings. That being said, I'm NOT proposing. If she's "passed the interview" and is fit to be my helpmeet (unions are not for secular authorities to make, regulate, and break), I'll have my ring delivered via courier with a note. "You know my purpose, mission, & course. The honor of joining me and being protected, provided for, and presided over by me is yours, if you but kneel, ask the privilege, and put it on my finger. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕲𝖔𝖘𝖕𝖊𝖑 𝖔𝖋 𝕾𝖙. 𝕷𝖚𝖐𝖊, 𝕮𝖍. 1: 𝖛𝖘. 42
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
America would've been better off with a king, preferably under either a semi-constitutional monarch or an absolute monarchy. People forget that the king isn't the ONLY Elite in an authoritarian state, but he does stand to lose the most by siding against his subjects with the oligarchs that constitute the Merchant, Warrior, Bureaucrat, and Priest Classes who all vie, consciously or not, for dominance and his throne.
Furthermore, a monarch necessitates a strong cultural authority to affirm his claim, like that of a central church, without whom he cannot be anointed and consecrated king; historically, a strong church and a strong crown tended to compete for public respect and loyalty as much as they cooperated in propping one another up, distributing effective power and giving one popular advantage over the other in the event of tyrany on either account.
Thus, Church and Crown checked one another and held eachother accountible where none else could, thus uniting Warrior and Priest while coopting Bureaucrat and scrutinizing Merchant.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dimitri6171
Supposedly, over 10 million died in the Holocaust, including gypsies, Freemasons, homosexuals, pedos (today, the Left calls them "M.A.P.s"), Slavs, Poles, etc. and yet...the only ones who get any attention are the Jews, as though none of the rest matter and can be scoffed at as an unimportant rounding excess in the grand total...don't you find that weird? No one gives a sh|t about the victims unless they're "God's Chosen People"...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
00:00 I remember feeling just like this guy in high school when I was a devoted Mormon and legitimately believed in everything, then heard about a friend of mine named Chrissy (beautiful, smart, president of the robotics club, fellow member) spending the night at a bad boy's house.
I didn't want to believe anything had happened, so I invited her to join me with a group of other high schoolers doing vicarious temple ordinances at the Salt Lake Temple, this beautiful monument and holy site dating back to the 19th century where we believed we could, if we kept our personal covenants with God and remained spiritually clean (relatively, like not yanking it to internet smut or having an affair), we'd be able stand in the place of those who were already dead to perform sacred rituals they didn't have the chance to in life so that they could have the chance to accept salvation in the next life.
Anyway, back then, back when I believed, that religious work meant a lot to me and I know I avoided it when I felt guilty about sinning, like lying to my mom about my grades or making out with the girl next door (for Mormons, ANYTHING that inspires "passionate" feelings is a violation of the Law of Chastity, which I can respect more than the Catholic notion that it's just penetration). So, I asked if she wanted to go with us to help out those who went before and needed our help.
She waffled and prevaricated and made excuses and this gnawing feeling of sorrow started creeping into my heart, until I just came out and asked her if it was because she'd slept with the guy who house she'd stayed at. "That's none of your business." Those five words drove a cold knife through my heart and twisted it.
Back then, I really believed gals were sugar, spice, and everything nice and that our religion meant something to those who claimed to adhere to its teachings and sacred customs. I felt heartbreak then like I never have since, and I didn't even like her that way. I just wanted to believe she and the gals of our church were worth fighting and sacrificing all the sins that my brethren and I gave up for. They weren't...and sore experience has since taught me that no gal is really capable of genuine piety, even my own mom, who just thinks highly of my Chad departed dad who is "eternally married" to and doesn't want to lose being with forever.
They really will abandon all high and abstract concepts for the right man, even nuns, who give everything for a spiritual marriage to Christ, the Man who's the Son of Man.
Don't romanticize any of them; there are no American Fher Ginz.
[EDIT] Just edited it to see if the comment stuck; YT often claim mine were made as they summarily delete them.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@talknight2
I know, and I'm talking about only doing that with well-raised, religiously devoted virgins (presumably young ones who have a dowry of youth to pay) that are committed to the future husband they haven't met yet. If I am confident the girl I'm dating is most probably like that then I have no problem if she dates other men and "wanders", because she's looking for the future, God-fearing and strong husband who'll be expected to lead her and their family to whom she'll be a loyal, dedicated helpmeet and mother to his children...and if she DIDN'T date around, platonically, in the search thereof, how could she ever be confident she made the right decision if she chose ME?
If females are sleeping around or have slept around however, I'm indifferent to the wandering because they're not worthy of my money, energy, attention, and time. It's evident to me that we're talking about two entirely different sets of females. The ones I date I don't expect to commit to me immediately because I know they're, most likely, NOT fucking other men so thus, there's no need to "mate guard" and if they peruse many prospective patriarchs and find me to be the best of them all, I'm gratified. Personally, I want to know I'm the best a girl thinks she can achieve because I don't want to worry about her doubting her initial choice when the marriage inevitably points of tension.
You have to convince yourself not to compel commitment because you have the average "woman" in mind, and that's okay because, brother, you can have all the sch-luh'ts you want; I've no intention of competing in THAT market.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@deborafernandes1026
You previously replied, "Yes, why?" and this is the response I would have posted had you not shied back and deleted that reply, silly girl.
I defer you to your man and/or husband because they have dominion over you and it's not my place to trespass their jurisdiction of authority and muck about their property. That being said, go and inqure, "Why can't two distinct beings with entirely different experiences of the world and way of doing things who grew up under two unique and likely conflicting communication systems (themselves most probably disjointed products of even more diverse systems coming together [i.e. grandparents' communication systems clashing, ad infinitum backwards in time, ad nauseum]) drive a car or steer a ship simultaneously and be perfectly accepting of the other person's decisions?"
Furthermore, ask them, "What are the chances of two perfectly balanced and and rational men, let alone a man AND woman, entering a relationship and being completely 50/50 in their propensity for dominance and submission so that no one 'partner' is more dominant than the other and absolutely NO manipulation occurs?"
Then, ask them, "As men, who would be more proficient at and likely prone to emotionally manipulating the other in a relationship, subtly saying things to shame or reward the other party into gradually changing or using 'shit tests' to push boundaries and incrementally get the other person accustomed to doing things that would have initially evoked denial and/or reprimand but still confuse, discomfort, disgust, and/or annoy them? The man or the woman? What's been your experience?"
Add, "Do you want to share decision making power with a person like that or would it just be easier and less time consuming to say, 'I'm going to protect, provide, and preside and you can accept that or find another man who will'?"
That's your assignment. Your immediate betters know you and how to navigate your fragile, female ego better than I as a stranger can and only they know how to properly condescend and simplify answers in a way you'll understand. You have your marching orders, girl, and are thus dismissed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ChallengeIdeas
Inspiring insecurity to keep them from being complacent is only of the oldest tricks in the book, as well as being able to walk away from a relationship when the girl becomes, through her own decisions, unattractive to you. That is a man's greatest power over those unfit for his attention.
That said, you talk like someone who doesn't understand women...and how influential, for better or worse, their friends can prove. Just sayin'.
Maybe I need to work on presentation and delivery, given how verbose and blunt I can be but, even if that makes me seem an asshole, it hasn't stopped me from having had LTRs and in all, save one, being the one breaking them off.
I know my value and what I'll tolerate from women, do you?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Their lives were more than just warfare and it is important we remember this human side of our ancestors." Mate, organized discipline, pain, suffering, conquest, slaughter, enslavement, triumph, and defeat are just as human as unitary liberty, pleasure, prosperity, growth, family rearing, self-actualization, societal milestones, and times of hardship. War is a part of us every bit as much as the collective refractory periods in between them; to struggle together is human because we're animals in a cruel world and it's the only reason we've gotten this far...and it's as natural to us as it is other animals from ants to orangutans.
The bloody work of the legions is something to be proud of, not shamed and apologized for like that. This illusory "peace" we prize is a modern delusion and that's coming apart at the seems.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Call this controversial but, I'm of the belief that if any nation, including those like Apartheid South Africa, the Jucheist People's Republic of North Korea, Shiite Fundamentalist Iran, and the now ruined Baathist Iraq, are entitled to pursue WMD development programs every bit as much as the lording superpowers like the J'hu-deo Capitalist United States, the Marxist Soviet Union-cum-Russian Federation, and Communist China. If people have the right to bear arms (as I believe they should) in self-defense and to create some parity with more powerful entities or groups seeking to impose their will on the unitary person, then nations as groups of peoples united in common culture, should have equal right to protect themselves both during war and from interwar hegemony by larger powers.
How else can nations truly be sovereign and do right by their peoples, for their peoples, and of their peoples' will unless they are sufficiently armed to push back against the military power of bigger countries or alliances? Are they to subsist beneath the thumb of greater powers as puppets, vassals, or client states with no dignity or pride? If Israel can develop CBRN weaponry, ANYONE ELSE CAN!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RexNicolaus
I make $45 an hour building boilers to keep industry turning, residents from freezing, and I can have these rants out in between work, on breaks, and during days off.
Without guys like me, huge swathes of North America would be uninhabitable without resorting to clear cutting forests to feed inefficient hearth fires. That's how I contribute to society, and if I want to have petty arguments with guys like you in the YouTube comments section during my free time, that's my business.
What do YOU do to serve your people and nation, "Viking"? You raid costal villages for loot, provisions, and robota?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@abhinavchauhan7864
Ideally, a man is not a partner who compromises with the woman that chose him and his direction in the interdependence and child rearing marriage is for. A partner suggests equality, but women cannot be equal to men because they aren't men.
It is his job to be the provider, protector, and patriarch and by compromising with his wife, he demonstrates that he's not in charge, despite bearing the brunt of responsibility and authority in the family; that's called a slave.
The moment a woman accepts marriage to a man, that is the LAST free choice she gets, save the choice to walk away, because she surrendered all other choices when she chose a man to lead her. This implicit element to male-female relationships is critical to their stability and women will NOT respect you if you cede ground because that shows your inability to lead.
This man is an idiot. Either they're having sex or he's having sex but, unless she's willing to divorce him, she's signed away the right to say "NO". That's all there is to it.
2
-
2
-
@rosiemackenzie5976
I have standards in conversing with people with separate approaches for males and females, befitting their distinction as genders. While I often assume maleness in those whom I engage--given that most YouTubers, both content creators and consumers are statistically likely to be male--when it is evident I'm dealing with a FEmale, I'm compelled, by the standards I keep, to interact accordingly.
You are either in a man's charge (in a relationship or, if single, the responsibility of your father) or you're what I term "adrift", an orphan without patriarch or male better. Given you're most likely in a man's charge, beyond my ability to ascertain your relationship and redirect you to him and explain my need to, I cannot continue to hold dialogue.
In essence, you're not mine to fraternize with. I will, from time to time, shame, admonish, or praise females without the presence of their men but, this is ultimately out of respect to those men or a reminder of their need to better train their lessers.
So, until you answer my questions, I am not at liberty to indulge you, child. Far be it from me to tread another man's territory or interfere with his property.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ComicGladiator
I've accepted everyone will die sooner or later, be it from disease, or age, or atomic fire and that my time is better spent focusing on personal, family, and local issues which I CAN impact than international affairs like climate change and nuclear proliferation which I more or less CAN'T impact; if you want to lose sleep at night over the Pakistani politics and wring your hands in the moral righteousness of the leaders you think you choose should intervene at the cost of our financial security and the lives of young men willing to fight and die while you grandstand in the comfort of your cozy home...that's your self-exchausting prerogative. I think EVERY nation has a right to counterbalance the global order to secure its own population from geopolitical meddling, economic domination, and cultural dissolution.
Who are you to tell the North Koreans they should let foreign companies exploit their people, that foreign governments should pressure their policy, and that foreigners should ethnically, culturally, religiously, and philosophically colonize and change them to suit their own image?
You go tell a North Korean that consumerism is glorious as people work jobs they hate to buy shit they don't need as their cultural souls are fed into profit making machines, that they can trust America to lead them better than their own people and world market to have their interests at heart, you lucre-hearted supremacist!
And yes, next big players like the United States, China, the European "Union", and the Russian Federation, India IS geographically and influentially SMALLER though, I admit, they are growing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JG-vz1jh
I speak with men every day, both in person and online; if I didn't address you as one, it's because you weren't speaking as one. Talk as a gal, and you'll be regarded as a gal.
Now, I reiterate, renounce, or prove the accusation you made in your first reply and apologize for the lie. I don't forget slights, and unlike the Christians that your people simultaneously pander to and exploit, I rarely forgive.
Do you want to advance this conversation with me and to do as you've asked? Do as I ask. It's called reciprocity and is conducted by equals...so until the Heir of David, your Messiah, "comes to reign over the earth and appoint you as my benevolent overseer," that's how you'll treat me or you'll have to find someone else to talk to.
[EDIT] Replaced a poor synonym with a more accurate substitute
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I enjoy your analyses but damn, the fact that you can't comprehend the traditional enormity of the Pharaoh's role in Egyptian society (ergo, the manifestation of divinity on earth) that'd make such a flagrant regicide and deicide so cruelty-worthy; that you'd pedestalize the breeding impulse masked by a romantic conception of love that's only existed since the middle ages as an inherent "good" and condemn any restriction thereon as "evil"; and that you'd put the majority of the responsibility on Imhotep for continuing a love-affair CONTRARY to the customs of the time and IN CONTRADICTION WITH your own apparent enthrallment to modernist, liberal egalitarianism INSTEAD OF admitting an equal responsibility shared by Anck-su-namun ('cause women are agents, not objects, and she could've put an end to their relationship at ANY time) tells me a lot about your character and presentist outlook.
The Pharaoh's a controlling d'ck, what his successors did to Imhotep was unfair, love is the most important thing ever, and it's all the dude's fault even though it takes two to tango. Anubis' ass, man; what short-sighted, biased take...
I thank you for taking the time to examine this antagonist and his story but, holy sh't do you have some historical myopia and pervasive, mind-consuming sociopolitics... 😦
2
-
2
-
@Fourchin
Did you say anything controversial that might've tripped YouTube censorship mechanisms, like using the shiftless, criminal minority word or questioning disproportionate Jewish representation in powerful circles? You may have posted it but, I'm not seeing it and, as a man, I'm not in the habit of reporting comments that hurt my feelies so, whatever happened, it didn't come through.
Also, you wait a few days before following up comments. Like most people, I have a job and life outside the internet and I can't always respond to you NOW!NOW!NOW!!! so, chill the hell down and stop 'sperging. Even if I had seen your supposed first reply, I may've waited a while before getting back to you so I could focus on important shit, under whose purview you DON'T fall.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rudolfszekernyes2419
What facts? What advice? I expressed an opinion, you responded with your own and and said, "You're going to end up alone." Advice is detailed, corrective information predicated on genuine concern for the well-being of another and people who want that for others don't start of suggesting you're an idiot who's going to essentially die alone.
When did you ever ask me for further explanation and see if you could determine how I came to my opinion? When did you show interest in me as those with a genuine desire to help do for those they're advising?
You came in with an opposing opinion, essentially wished a shitty future upon me for not sharing yours, backtracked when I started questioning back, tried to gaslight me into thinking I had a mental disorder without knowing me, claimed you had a wife, refused to prove it, and now you're pretending to be a saint who just wanted to help while simultaneously matching my insults with insults without displaying the slightest degree of magnanimity. I'm immature but, at least I admit that and don't pretend to have a wife and act as an adult while matching the pettiness of a 20-something loser.
So, I reiterate, "What facts? What advice?" I've laid bare my inadequacies and ultimate status as a guy who let a spout in a comment section spiral out of control, are you going to produce established reasoning and proscriptions of a caring adult you pretended to extend me previously?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@grinningchicken
In that we are agreed; and thus God gave Adam and his sons dominion over Eve and her daughters, for Man's acquiescence to Woman diminishes him and their their ultimate fall while Woman's usurpation of Man deprives her of the security and joy of submission as Man eschews his duty to protect, provide, and preside over families.
When women choose to submit to the domination of men they've come to respect and desire, they and those men BOTH are elevated and freed to magnify the roles their natures decide. Otherwise, no one succeeds save the Adversary, who is both the greatest misogynist AND misandrist, being the Father of Lies and Master of Misanthropy in his quest to drag as many into darkness and misery as he so can manage before the last vestiges of his power are neutralized.
Feminism, from the beginning, has been a Luciferian endeavor to upset the natural order that simply IS which God, in His wisdom and omniscience, gave us rules and guidance that we might live in harmony with and not disharmony against. It has always been evil, for it is caustic to patriarchy and patriarchy was gifted Man by God that we might govern ourselves in His likeness with sufficient order and attention to look from soil to sky and learn how we might return to Him.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@QwadLuzr
Studies conducted among US convicts indicate that they are LESS LIKELY to burglarize a home when its residents are present. When further asked if fear of being shot had anything to do with it, over 70% confirmed that such anxiety was a prime factor in robbing targets when unoccupied. Contrariwise, burglars in the UK are said to PREFER having residents home, because not only are they largely defenseless but, their wallets, phones, watches, and jewelry can also be fenced so, there's MORE to take.
Home invasions and crimes of assault are also DISPROPORTIONATELY more likely to happen in liberal-controlled, urban areas with stricter gun laws, higher concentration of criminal migrants, etc.
If this is the hill you want to die on, so be it but, firearms were reported by the CDC to DETER at least 500,000 crimes a year, far outweighing firearm use in crime and even accidental discharges. Maybe it's best you get your own house in order (mass grapes, gr00ming, acid attacks, knife/machete assaults, etc.) before jeering at OUR perceived problems.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@referencedbyrace
Of course they're in on it together; the Elite of any group ALWAYS collude to retain power and no group is without an Elite. Except, perhaps, in very local elections where everyone in the community knows and trusts everyone else, thereby negating the machinations of those who'd seek to corrupt officials (and even then, corruption is inevitable), almost every politician is bought and paid for by private interests, both domestic and foreign, before they ever reach the ballot.
Democracies? Republics? They're all facades for stabilizing power. If people think their vote counts, that they have influence, they're not going to rebel against the State because, as they see it, they're responsible for poor decisions because, supposedly, they voted in those politicians and because "it's alright, I'll just vote them out next time!"
"Representative" governments just put a veil between the commoners and the aristocrats, meaning problems will rarely be solved unless said solutions also benefit the aristocrats because, they can always find new pawns and the pawns are always blamed. Before the Enlightenment, when we thought somehow that the common man not only had the mind, but the will to share the responsibility of rule, there were just Lords and Kings who'd lose their heads as a lesson to the next guy on the throne when things got bad OR...a rival Elite would arise and convince the people to side with him, over the existing power structure, which we actually saw a sliver of with Trump.
From the inception of our species, there've only been Monarchies where a singular, strong patriarch is able to command a court of loyal servants whom he feels he can trust with delegated power where said Monarch sets the agenda and incurs ALL responsibility if it fails OR...oligarchies, where groups of powerful men squabble amongst themselves for power and are generally far less effective at ruling than if a singular will reigned. Every government has been a derivation of the two, if not openly, then practically, and ours is no exception. It's vacillated between the two depending upon the strength of the executive but, has largely remained oligarchical, with exceptions like Washington, Lincoln, and FDR.
If the executive is assertive and the courts and congress are occupied by subservient allies, the president becomes de facto king.
Almost everything they told us in school about American politics was an idealistic lie and personally, I'd rather just have our executive rule openly so we'd know who to behead when things went south.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
All HR powers need to be devolved to the lowest level of management, whose functionaries will be empowered to submit job postings, screen candidates, hire, supervise, and, if necessary, fire at their own discretion in a specialized manner. They can be given diverse training regimens on their nascent responsibilities, taught research methodologies, receive mentoring from proven managers who've climbed the ranks, and, of course, receive greater compensation and autonomy pursuant to being super bosses who take no shlt.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joe3USA
You're entitled to your beliefs but, there's nothing wrong, so long as that hatred does not boil over into murderous evolutionary action, with hating traits or attributes of a another group if said distrust and loathing is of observable negative qualities that stand poised to harm you or those you love.
Every unit (I decline the use of the word "individual", because individuals do not exist) of a race deserves potential exception status if a stereotype is in place and they defy it BUT...stereotypes are observable patterns founded in the brains natural pattern recognition and if you recognize something in another race that appears disproportionately applicable to said race, making it distinguishable from others, then why refuse the mind's instinct to protect itself and the group to which its phenotypes are associated?
If the shoe fits, it fits. I realize you and most people, myself inclusive at one time, have been institutionally brainwashed to hate the idea of hate but, we wouldn't have it as an emotion if it did not serve a purpose and indeed, without hate for qualities or groups that pose a threat (perceived or otherwise) to what you value, you cannot protect said objects of value.
"Without a lethal hatred for that which threatens what you love, love is but a catchphrase of hippies, kw-ears, and cowards." -George Lincoln Rockwell
That said, I content that everyone IS racist to a varying degree because it's such an obvious exterior characteristic which grants social gravitation that it'd be impossible to ignore BUT...just because you have, on the one hand, an experience and/or evidence supported hatred of another group given their collective actions...that doesn't mean you can't find a shared love to counterbalance it on the other.
Take, for instance, the Armed Forces. Early on in training, EVERYONE gravitates towards cliques of similarity on the basis of (1st) race/ethnicity (the most apparent difference), then (2nd) their place of origin (ergo, culture), and (3rd) religion or lifestyle. If you can find a close circle of friends encompassing all three, even better.
As training progresses however, and disparate groups are made to cooperate in order to achieve a superordinate goal (i.e. not getting smoked by the D.I. and being able to overcome their shared suffering), they develop bonds ADDITIONAL TO their tribal defaults. These defaults may fade but, they never disappear. Nevertheless, because those men now have more in common given their experience and later combat adversity, the transracial/ethnic/religious/etc. bond of NATIONAL unity prevails in almost all of them.
Ask not how you can crush your prejudices, friend; ask how you can create connections to supersede them. There's nothing wrong with racism so long as it's counterbalanced with civic/national identity and all parties are working to keep their baser natures at bay.
Suffer no delusion though, there's no eliminating instinct but, we can live in peace by working with others to overcome things without whom success'd be impossible.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
_____If you're going to make dinner the first date, I recommend getting in the habit of routinely going to dinner by yourself at places you'd like to take girls the first time. This familiarity makes eating at such places comfortable AND it gives you the confidence that comes from knowing that the date isn't for her, it's for you; that she has the honor of being along for the ride; and that you can walk away at any time knowing it's just another dinner appointment and not some exceptional event you're desperate to see succeed.
In line with this habit, show up early enough to get your food ordered and have it brought before she even arrives, that way, if things sour, you can at least enjoy it in peace and focus on gauging her reactions when you converse and ask questions. Lastly, by already having ordered and perhaps even consumed your food, you're in a good position to walk away and ask the waiter to split the check if you feel you've been foodie-d or you're unimpressed with your date as early as you want and (if she's entitled) before she racks up too big a bill on her end.
Overall, this is also contributes to an image of a well-prepared man who ends things early on his terms because he has other places to be, people to meet, and things to do. At first, (if you're not that kind of guy yet) make it a matter of acting mentally preoccupied by other things and frequently checking your watch (and since I wear vests and carry a pocket watch, it's extra time looking Peaky Blinderish). It sends the message that, while you're amused to have her company, you also have a life full of things that take greater priority and women respect men who DON'T put them first more than men who want to put them on a pedestal and sacrifice as much time as possible to be with them.
That's my two cents but, I generally make my first dates at pools to screen out fat and fakeup dependent chicks while evaluating the girls' physical discipline and showing off my own; I generally don't do dinner until the second or third date.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bikerz3857
"Brainwashed"? Maybe but, the fact of the matter is that men with something to believe in and die for are arguably more motivated and willing to endure hellish conditions then, if I might assume, staunch individualist skeptics like yourself. What hill are you willing to die on beyond your own immediate self-interest and belief? I'd wager there isn't one but, men like US Marines and 3rd Reich SS Sturmtruppen had those deeply ingrained convictions and it enabled them to do unthinkable things, for better or worse, that a rabble assortment of individualist skeptics all pulling their own way and failing to follow directions could never hope to achieve. They were united by a common, unwavering faith in their collective and in their mass purpose.
A military, in particular shocktroops who face terrible odds and the knowledge they'll have to die for tactical objectives, requires discipline, selflessness, fanatical dauntlessness, and unquestioning obedience or it all falls apart. Some men can certainly compartmentalize their duties and their own thoughts but, this is a talent of a privileged, intellectual few. For the most part, man is a social animal dependent on the groupthink to gauge and refine his own thoughts and actions and that's just how it is; military branches like the USMC and Waffen-SS recognize this and regiment and program the men who CHOSE to join them accordingly.
It is what it is but, if I were in the thick of battle had had to chose between a pair of men, one SS and one Marine, to cover my ass and fight with me OR you and your enlightened best friend, I'd choose them over you two in a heartbeat. Self-stylized midwits like yourself get people killed and know neither the value of loyalty nor camaraderie because you believe in nothing but yourselves, lest you "get caught up in a cult or brainwashed". That dubiousness robs you of your capacity to throw everything behind something and you can't hold back in war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I like that our Elites are switching up strategies through their Republican proxies, but we have to remember, they controlled the Democrats, too; whatever "benefits" we appear to be getting, still play into their plans and may, in fact, be a smokescreen to cover other infringements and exploitation.
Also, we have no idea if they will keep the lofty promises that Trump, their man, has made. This may all be talk with no follow-up, said to quiet our fears, placate our dissent, and bide time until the news cycle moves on and we forget or get distracted by something else.
Look into Elite Theory and remember that this circus exists for our entertainment and appeasement, not our involvement and upliftment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@redemptionhappens7725
You're right on the first account, off on the second. I am indeed a petty person but, unlike the wife's feminist friend, I legitimately WANT his family to succeed and him to be the captain of his ship. It can be argued that my patriarchal perspective as to how a family and marriage should be run are incorrect and, that debate can certainly be had but, when I offer advice, it is out of the genuine hope that he not permit corruption to putrefy and fester, killing his family and our society, as I have seen in so many countless families before.
I will ruthlessly crush any existential threat that stands poised to harm my family and, perhaps, that makes me a Catonian asshole who takes things too seriously and is hard to get along with but, I am that way because it works. I advise others as such because I believe it will work for them as it did for our forefathers ad infinitum praeteritum and as it can again ad infinitum futurum.
I'm not Christian but, there is one tenet I do believe they go right: we are our brothers' keepers. Would you not stop at nothing to see your fellow men command the respect and stability of their dependents? I won't. The only maliciousness is towards deliberately single women and the plague they play human continuity and societal sanity. I do indeed hate them, their influence, and the lives they've corrupted like you would not believe...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MegaMURRAY123
What proof and/or reasoning do you possess to believe he isn't? Mind you, I don't even believe in democracy so I don't care if Trump wins or not but, I don't see how an idiot could manage to build a multi-billion dollar real estate empire. As a smart person (because you can't authoritatively call others stupid without being in a position to look down on them), why haven't you managed something equal to, if not greater, than Trump's accomplishments? If, somehow, you have...why are you wasting time arguing with others in YouTube comment sections? I mean, I'm a loser who has little life outside the internet so that's why I'm here but, if you're so smart, and thereby better than Trump, what's your excuse?
1
-
1
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Mossad did this as a psychop to drum up support for a particular action; it's evident the only lives they value are those of the unborn members of their "Chosen" group in the future when they dominate all the world.
Anyrhing and everything is bent toward gratifying that long-term goal, no matter the pettiness or sacrifice. Were it not for them turning that drive on us, it'd almost be admirable.
No though...only THEY are and their pet Mine Ore It Teaz are permitted ethnocultural self-determination and open group preference, the rest of us have to be alienated, isolated, self-effacing individualists who allegedly rise and fall according to our own merit and accept them as the Manager Raess who knows best and would NEVER, deliberately or subconsciously, advance THEIR OWN in nepotistic self-promotion.
When they ban together, it's God's Will and just them trying to survive; when WE start noticing patterns and suing for our groups' interests though, that Mid 20th Century Germany all over again and we're all LITERALLY MEIGOLF SCHMITTLER!
If they didn't have double-standards, they wouldn't have any at all...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Islam literally translates to "Submission", and as the men thereof submit to God, the women beneath their umbrage of protection, providership, and patriarchy, their lessers, are expected to submit to them. If Arab men aren't dating you, it's because they're looking for actual women who are willing to raise virtuous daughters and strong sons, not courtesans who'll raise daughters like them and sons who lack the self-respect to marry their betters who chose the tribe and God over petty, individual whims. I'd ravage such a "woman" but, I'd be MAD to marry one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dkosmari
The missionaries I host may be but, I, sir, belong to no Church, and treating them foully isn't doing you any favors. You want me to accept your message? Convince me. You're as bad the other fellow, and definitionally speaking, ALL Christian churches are cults centered around Jesus Christ.
Sorry to break it to you, but I'm not some African villager or a naive, pacific islander who'll take your conviction as testament to your truthfulness alone. You haven't even established the Holy Trinity as the basis of Christianity nor laid down any context. And, like the last fellow, you haven't even had the decency to understand me as a person and ask basic questions.
You're coming off as a presumptive asshole and while you may not care to convert me and leave me for the damning predations of Lucifer, Mormon missionaries, at the very least, grant me the courtesy of introductory conversation and appearing to care.
Little wonder they're growing demographically and you're shrinking; you're a shit evangelist. So, you going to reach out to a fellow human being, lost and and wandering, or are you going to shove it down my throat like a Jehova's Witness?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As an SF operator, you of all people should know the military (particularly SOF) attracts psycho- and socio-paths. Statistically, they're attracted to positions of power, hence their gravitation toward law, law enforcement, medicine, politics, corporate leadership, and groups like yours who are able to end human life with State sanction. There's nothing wrong with that; we need such people to do what we cannot.
I bet you "dead checked" your fair share of downed enemy combatants to save on paperwork and POW retrieval and frankly, I don't blame you. Everyone should be able to enjoy their career; especially soldiers. Were it in my power, I'd grant you all the rights of conquest Rome gave her legionaries. So long as the people at the receiving end of your fury, fun, and lust are non-Americans, why not?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AUDuBs
What imaginary women are you talking about? If a woman is good and raised to be traditional, she will seek out opportunities and get married and there are few men who would turn such a valuable woman down. If she's not married, she hasn't sought to be married, and thus she's not traditional. She might have to settle, sure, as there are few, if any, real men left but...if a woman wants marriage and is genuinely traditional, she gets it.
Otherwise, she's probably so selective and picky that she might as well be a modern woman and therefore NOT traditional. Also, if she's traditional, she comes from a good heterosexual family and her father, mother, brothers, sisters, traditional friends, and even religious community are ALSO on the lookout for worthy bachelors to recommend to her so, she's no searching alone.
Therefore: there are no genuinely traditional women who are single after 30. You're full of shit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@boobah5643
National Socialism and Fascism are distinct ideologies with some similarities as yes, while fascism is descendent from Marxism, National Socialist German essentially operated like the Soviet Union with the illusion of some private ownership--not really private if the party only permits Nazi-affiliated business owners and micromanages the economy through a mountains-worth of party regulation overseen by millions of State civil servicemen--and the substitution of the "Aryan Race" for "The Prolateriat"
WHEREAS fascism primarily gravitates toward economic corporatism, placing the power of regulation and setting of industrial standards to corporations (federations of small, medium, and big businesses in a particular field of production that acted a body, mobilizing independently managed/administered but nationally led enterprises to fulfilling a balance of industrial agendas meant to further and enrich all component enterprises WITH some central goals of the State wherein the State acts as a tripartite arbiter between business leaders and labor), thereby limiting the State to a partner and shareholder but NOT the ultimate directing power of commercial concerns.
They both share desires for Autarky, nationalism, greater collective synergy toward economic and political goals, anti-democratic elitism, militarism, the cultivation of a political religiosity that turns the nation-state from a secondary abstraction into a spiritual entity to which all citizens can claim belonging and devotion, and both can be called totalitarian BUT...ultimately Nazism is a pragmatic, German reflection of Stalinism that seeks the spiritual collectivization of all people instead of tediously having to have governmental apparatchiks and bureaucrats run everything (i.e. you don't have to nationalize everything if everyone is on the same political page) BUT fascism grants greater autonomy to industrial sectors and enables breathing room for families, businesses, and unitary persons who may or may not adhere to the established national objectives but, are free to their nuanced and varied perspectives and methodologies so long as minimal patriotic participation and tax demands are met.
One can live as a non-zealot under fascism but, Nazism demands total commitment on all levels and is far less understanding of malcompliance and divergent thought/operation. Also, fascism is less racialist because it views convinced citizenship and national unity as more critical than absolute racial homogeneity. Understandably, if it can get both, all the better but, there were many Jews, Freemasons, and peoples from all ethnicities comprising the Italian nation and all were accepted in the Party until Hitler occupied Italy.
Any majority from any nation can live comfortably under a fascist regime because all fascist regimes have been tailored to the majoritarian culture and spirit of their respective nation. In this sense, fascism is highly diverse and organic and while all regimes thereof share similarities, it is not a one sized fits all ideology.
By contrast, National Socialism is inflexible and truly only viable for a German population, seeking to subvert anything outside that culture and even race so as to eventually homogenize all occupied nations. It is "class conflict" made racial and thus, Race-Marxism.
1
-
@Alpha Momentum
When I saw that you'd named yourself "Alpha Momentum", you immediately lost all credibility, and only women and amateur debaters seek to poison the well of their opposition so as to close the case on anything said following their denouncing remarks.
I'm blown away by your meatheadedness and while I could comprehend it, I try to avoid empathizing with those beneath my contempt. Are you ignorant of the value that psychopathy, in moderation, grants human tribes? Only someone so hopelessly inundated with liberal and modernist delusions of equality, fairness, and democracy would speak as you do.
I'll pray for you... perhaps the Almighty will actually answer me back; I've pondered aloud the porcine goad-ability of humans for some time, why so many are so quick to be bewitched by bullsh|t, driven to and fro as though by their own will and not the swineherd prodding their flabby asses, 'til at last they're dragged squealing to the bloody block and Delapore's blades. Maybe...just maybe, he'll let me know why most males are like you, and not men. You think He'll answer?
[EDIT] Syntactical correction
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeberger3441
Having served and discussed the matter with many servicemen, the presence of females in the military is an inherent burden to an institution dependent on hierarchy, fraternity, and measured sacrifice. They bring down standards, destroy camaraderie, distract male colleagues, f'ck their way into undeserved promotions, spread STIs, make false accusations when it suits them, generate unnecessary drama, bring in the complexity of battlefield pregnancy, and overall erode the espirt de corps.
Men fight and die that females don't have to and their insistence on gynoforming the military to suit their need to prove themselves equals defeats both the point of serving while making the act thereof one of carefully guarded words as one walks on eggshells to avoid reprimandations from SHARP.
You have no f'cking idea the hell they've caused me and others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@savannahnickel1041
How cute, you used the tired "projection" argument, denied the reality of sociological statistics on the basis of individuality, tried so hard not to misgender me by using "their", AND projected her own bitterness on me in a bid to look virtuous. That's four lies in three poorly typed sentences and, if I were as dim as your male friends and whatever excuse for a father that raised or (more probably) didn't raise you, that gaslight might actually be effective.
Tsk tsk, this is why teen girls shouldn't have electronics. My heart goes out to you, sweetie; I know the world is hard and reality isn't what you want your indoctrination, feelings, and "lived experience" to reflect but, it just is what is, hon. Run along and complain to the internet for validation, pumpkin; I'm sure that'll make you feel better and "seen".
1
-
1
-
@savannahnickel1041
How cute, you used the tired "projection" argument, denied the reality of sociological statistics on the basis of individuality, tried so hard not to misgender me by using "their", AND projected her own bitterness on me in a bid to look virtuous. That's four lies in three poorly typed sentences and, if I were as dim as your male friends and whatever excuse for a father that raised or (more probably) didn't raise you, that gaslight might actually be effective.
Tsk tsk, this is why teen girls shouldn't have electronics. My heart goes out to you, sweetie; I know the world is hard and reality isn't what you want your indoctrination, feelings, and "lived experience" to reflect but, it just is what is, hon. Run along and complain to the internet for validation, pumpkin; I'm sure that'll make you feel better and "seen".
1
-
1
-
@ParticularlyChar
Why are you trying to gaslight him into believing he's some kind, from your implications, misogynist? Also, why is it that women like you are silent when their sisters say things like "K[r]ill All Men" and #BelieveAllWomen but, the moment a guy fires back to either defend himself and men and/or go on the defensive, y'all throw your arms up and demand "peace and love"? Where was that passion when we were being belittled, berated, and, by your definitions, "bullied"?
You all will close rank and stand by one another when one is threatened, even if she's in the wrong, but either say nothing or insist on shutting down the conversation when we are or decide to reciprocate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ParticularlyChar
Pretending to wish me well to look like you're leaving as the one with the moral high ground is one of the oldest tricks in the book, girl, and this man ain't buying it, particularly since you've tried to gaslight me, project your own negativity, and now expect me to back down and apologize because you're trying for the softer approach. Also, since you don't know me and can't get anything out of me, there's actually no reason for you to be nice, is there?
You're walking proof of the aphorism, "Men insult one another and believe the opposite, women compliment others and mean the opposite."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The notion that if you're Antisemitic, you must also, therefore, be Anti-Christian is absurd. Yes, Jesus was born into ancient Judaism, itself already at that time a Rabbinical departure from pre-Babylonian Judaism as taught in the Torah--essentially just the Old Testament, which is largely ignored in favor of heretical Talmudic traditions taught by Rabbis--but, Christianity holds that the Jews had turned their back on not only the original truths that God taught, but that Jesus had transcended the imperfect faith of his childhood to observe a higher, purer message from which those limited truths were derived, in essence returning to the source instead of man's imperfect schema thereof. Having done that and taught that, the Jews and their increasingly-heretical, aristocratic (Sadducees) and fanatical, self-absorbed (Pharisees) religiopolitical leaders rejected him for calling them to account and crucified him for that.
That being said, Jesus' Jewishness was an incidental and unescapable condition of his birth but, it didn't define Him or His ultimate message because He was accountable to the God and Truth that predated and transcended the Fruitless Fig Tree which was corrupted Israel. This myth is perpetuated by Jews and their unwitting confederates in power, influence, and finance as "Judeo-Christianity" so as to tie, in the minds of Western Christians (especially ones in the electoral constituencies that continually validate the politicians who devalue those Christians' currency and sacrifice their lives in the defense of both literal and global Israel, the fates of Judaism and Christianity.
It's a parasitic relationship that only benefits Jews at the expense of Christians. In Israel itself (a highly undemocratic Jewish ethnostate), Christians are forbidden from proselyting and are commonly abused and spit upon with disrespect equal to, if not greater than, the derision Jews pay the Muslims whose land they've only recently sequestered or outright colonized that'd been there for millennia.
Believing in and following Christ is inherently Counter-Semitic because Jews (most of whom follow Talmudic and Kabbalic, NOT Biblical, traditions) are by their very nature, in conflict with the God they've shunned and blasphemed in favor of the erroneous convictions of their fathers. Heck, most Jews hate Jesus as a figure, regarding him as a heretic rebel and his mother as a dishonest harlot who made up fanciful stories to hide her shame. In the Talmud, it's said that Jesus is burning in boiling excrement in the bowels of Hell for that heresy.
Israel and the Jews are not our friends nor our brothers in Christ, they're our detractors and despisers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RexNicolaus
Dude...everyone's afraid of something; hornets scare the ever loving shlt out of me and they LOVE to make nests in the pipes and amid piles of plating in the supply yard behind our shop. I literally send the apprentices to bring bring in components because the thought of one getting in my jumper and biting and stinging the hell out of me keeps me up at night sometimes. In that sense, I am a K Oww Ard.
No man can be strong and fearless in every endeavor all the time. Most are afraid of spiders; I cup them in my hands and let them out in my rose garden so they can eat the bugs. The thought of THAT scares most people, but there are also a lot of guys who are so callous to flying things that they can run at a hornet's nest with a blow torch, get bitten and stung, then take a smoke break and shoot the breeze like NOTHING HAPPENED...and they josh me constantly, imitating a girlish squeal I made YEARS ago when a fly got in my EarPro before I put it on. The buzzing against the side of my head sent me out of my seat and into a workbench like a Jack-in-the-Box.
I'm not fearless, and if I came off that way, it was unintentional. You came at me, I thought, "Not going to let him frame this situation and impose his dialect!" and came after you in turn. THAT is another shortcoming of mine: I can't back down from an argument and I gotta have the last word. It's gotten me fired before.
I'm not a Nietschean Übermensch or a chivalric knight; I just aspire to face existential threats and call out acquiescence like I think they would. That's really all that separates me from most guys: I try, and often stumble, pursuing an idyllic vision of manhood.
1
-
@RexNicolaus
I had it out with another guy the other day, it felt like a repeat, I went on the offensive thinking you were the same kind of miscreant. It was reactive and immature on my part; I felt your approach an impuning of my honor, and I took it personally. It was beneath me and I did it anyway...I still got a long ways to go. Still too proud to apologize.
I was 35F in the Army Intelligence Corps. but, they promised me I'd get to be a Special Forces (had a 99 ASVAB and 103 DLAB) but, I couldn't hack the run time and injured my knee, which set me back every subsequent cycle when I tried to pass Rangers School...my PT scores just plummeted exponentially the more I pushed it. After the eighth recycle, I had to face the reality that I'd probably never be an SF operator.
I think did a decent job as an analyst and abstractly accepted my role (a place for every man and every man in his place) but, from childhood, I wanted to be in the figurative shlt and fight alongside great men like I did in video games, read in books, watched in movies. In the back of my mind, I wanted to be like Sergeant First Class Randy Shughart and Master Sergeant Gary Gordon from Black Hawk Down, the guys who landed with just each other and no air support who died defending the 2nd crash site and CWO Michael Durrant.
My job was mostly cognitive, though, with little risk save the occasional mortar bombardment. Unable to go SF, knee too crap for infantry, I felt trapped as a paper pusher. I was denied the privilege of risking everything in the pursuit of victory or defeat with Kameraden worth dying for. It STILL tears at my insides, and thrown out of Afghanistan was the final insult.
From a purely material standpoint, it was like we put in DECADES of work for NOTHING! Every serviceman we lost, every dollar we spent, every boy-handling ANA officer we had to shake hands with, every promise we made to our collaborators, every ancient edifice we demolished...all for nothing; the worst retreat since Saigon, even including Beruit and Benghazi. Mothers literally threw their babies over our security fence in the hope we'd take them...and we couldn't. They died on the tarmac in Afghan sun while we borded our planes and left with our tail between our legs. I'd left years earlier, but the sensation of responsibility is a collective feeling. I contributed to that mess, gave years of my life to it, then watched it all burn on CNN.
I won't tell you who I served with, when, or where, but that defeat rests partly on me, so when people question my honor, my Ihn Fear He Ore It Tea Complex kicks in, and I fight back...terribly, but I can't help it. I was a paperpusher who accomplished nothing, and now I read Evola and German philosophers, make boilers, and write essays for some substacks I won't name, and argue pointlessly for a better world I couldn't build.
That answer you question?
1
-
@RexNicolaus
I had it out with another guy the other day, it felt like a repeat, I went on the offensive thinking you were the same kind of miscreant. It was reactive and immature on my part; I felt your approach an impuning of my honor, and I took it personally. It was beneath me and I did it anyway...I still got a long ways to go. Still too proud to apologize.
I was 35F in the Army Intelligence Corps. but, they promised me I'd get to be a Special Forces (had a 99 ASVAB and 103 DLAB) but, I couldn't hack the run time and injured my knee, which set me back every subsequent cycle when I tried to pass Rangers School...my PT scores just plummeted exponentially the more I pushed it. After the eighth recycle, I had to face the reality that I'd probably never be an SF operator.
I think did a decent job as an analyst and abstractly accepted my role (a place for every man and every man in his place) but, from childhood, I wanted to be in the figurative shlt and fight alongside great men like I did in video games, read in books, watched in movies. In the back of my mind, I wanted to be like Sergeant First Class Randy Shughart and Master Sergeant Gary Gordon from Black Hawk Down, the guys who landed with just each other and no air support who died defending the 2nd crash site and CWO Michael Durrant.
My job was mostly cognitive, though, with little risk, save the occasional mortar bombardment. Unable to go SF, knee too wrecked for infantry, I felt trapped as a paperpusher. I was denied the privilege of risking everything in the pursuit of victory or defeat with Kameraden worth dying for. It STILL tears at my insides, and thrown out of Afghanistan was the final insult.
From a purely material standpoint, it was like we put in DECADES of work for NOTHING! Every serviceman we lost, every dollar we spent, every boy-enjoying ANA officer we had to shake hands with, every promise we made to our collaborators, every ancient edifice we demolished...all for nothing; the worst retreat since Saigon, even including Beruit and Benghazi. Mothers literally threw their infants over our security fences in the hope we'd take them...and we couldn't. They dyed on the tarmac in Afghan sun while we boarded our planes and left with our tail between our legs. I'd gotten out years earlier, but the sensation of responsibility is a collective millstone we all carry. I contributed to that mess, gave years of my life to it, then watched it all burn on CNN.
I won't tell you who I served with, when, or where, but that defeat rests partly on me, so when people question my honor, my Ihn Fear He Ore It Tea Complex kicks in, and I fight back...terribly, but I can't help it. I was an office flunky in OCPs who accomplished nothing, and now I read Evola and German philosophers, make boilers, and write essays for some substacks I won't name, and argue pointlessly for a better world I couldn't build.
That answer you question?
1
-
@RexNicolaus
I was a 35F in Army Intel and spent a lot of time in Afghanistan pushing papers and attempting to recycle through Ranger School with a deteriorating knee who didn't even physically qualify for the Infantry by the end because of the strain and, plus all my work went up in smoke when we retreated, and has left me a very sour former uniformed office flunky That's all you're getting from me.
I've not been doxxed yet (Ambrose isn't my name, and I'm not an attorney [inside joke w/ brother]), but I don't intend to start now. All you or anyone else needs to know is that I didn't get to serve alongside Kameraden worth taking a bullet for in dangerous environs and ended up filing reports and making sense of HUMINT and Air Force info for the remainder of my contract. All of that work was for nothing, we lost everything, I feel I bear partial responsibility, and I wasn't given a noble death for my efforts when so many better men than I bought the farm when it should've been me.
Now I make boilers, read Evola, Nietzche, and Jünger, and argue pointlessly because the pain my knee emanates in winter exceeds my capacity to grit and bear it, preventing me from enjoying anything outside. I can bench press, chin up, and a few other things, but mostly I work then sit around online because other than reading, writing, painting (I'm no Bob Ross), and typing essays for some substacks I won't name, this is all I can do without hurting the joint that cost me a future in the Special Forces.
Philosophizing is as close to being a warrior I will probably ever become, and Amor Fati be damned, I'm still irate about it.
Does that answer your inquiry?
1
-
@RexNicolaus
I'm at my wits end, YT has censored a dissertations' worth of replies.
35M, US Army Human Intelligence, served active 2017-2020, spent a lot of time in Afghanistan, multiple attempts at SF Selection, but I wrecked my knee and now walk with a cane at 28. 99 ASVAB, 103 Initial DLAB, 130 IQ (independent test, I was curious), had a lot of potential and wanted to be an 18D Medical Sargeant for the "Green Berets".
I lay around reading or typing when not working because my leg aches incessantly, and I need my liver, so I won't and can't afford to medicate, not replacing it either (this is Fate's lesson in humility; that and watching all my prior muscle mass atrophy from disuse).
I wanted to be a warrior, I fought for the privilege, I lost, now I argue. Does that answer your question?
1
-
@polderrican
Further evidence that intelligence is neither wisdom nor discernment; I took him at face value, assuming he had no other agenda, and wanted only to discuss warriors and experience.
It didn't occur to me that it might've been interference to discredit previously discussed concepts by rhetorically "poisoning the well" and calling me out for something else, which in lesser minds, would've invalidated what I had affirmed with others. I don't know if your speculation is true but...that I didn't stop to think about his motives beyond superficial vindictiveness, shows how blind even the "brilliant" can be.
And if intellect was everything, I'd probably have explored something else and found myself making a lot more and having an even bigger influence on the world, instead of falling on the mercy of a relative willing to give me job in his shop. I'd like you to be wrong, because I just broke down and confessed my personal defeat to someone and he may not've even cared, just wanting to deride my observations on the world.
Why are we so quick to want to trust people once we feel we wronged them, even though that's immaterial to their character? It doesn't make any rational sense, especially in a world like this; I should've known better.
I feel so foolish but, whether you're right or wrong, you gave me pause to re-evaluate how I converse with others online and that is a lesson I'll be grateful for. Even made a note in my phone attributing the cautionary conclusion to "Polderrican from Amsterdam's [That Term], Under [seandelap8587 OP]" with date and time.
Thank you for spurring contemplation on my part; I hope you and your family have a wonderful Thanksgiving.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@polderrican
Yeahhhhhh, this may or may not be my ninth YT account; they used to just outright ban you back in the day for saying "problematic" things, and I may or may not've had multiple Gmails and burner phones so I could open new Google accounts (there may still be a limit on that). That is actually a positive sign though, and I haven't even been 24 hour banned in weeks.
If the volume of offenders is so great that they have to scale back censorship and moral policing lest they lose users and premium accounts, you know the tide is turning and the Overton Window is shifting but then, maybe the premium I pay is why they haven't booted on this account yet; can't slaughter the cow they've yet milk to give, but I digress again.
You probably DID see my comments; then again, there are a lot of paranoid people who likely know too much for their own good; being in HUMINT didn't help. I had to do some unsettling and questionable things to people who just wanted their way of life back and us out in the name of "justice, democracy, and freedom" but, I did what I did, it can't be undone, and I signed on for all of it. You lose any moral high-ground and the right to regret and feel sorry for yourself for having done it the moment you sign; read Christopher Marlowe's "Doctor Faustus".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@testudohorsfieldii7052
Because if it stagnates humanity and generates massive division and societal dysfunction then it's regressive, not progressive. Women were given "equality" they did not earn, they femiform workplaces and institutions to suit their comfort zones, emasculate men in the process, create conflict between them and the women who're demanding they chance, and then they gaslight you into thinking you're crazy for observing the negative change.
Unless you want self-destruction, there's nothing progressive about emancipating women. Furthermore, they've never been MORE miserable than now, at the height of their power so, even if, somehow, you could call their "progress" progress, what's the point if it just makes them hate life and themselves?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mhoovair89
How? I recognize the disproportionate influence Jews exercise in the West, I'm just not paranoid to the point where I attribute EVERYTHING to their conspiracy. They're not the only people capable of political intrigue, corruption, tyranny, and stupidity...hell, the father of our nation, George Washington, gave up the chance to bless our dear Columbia with the strong, consecrated leadership of a dynasty of American monarchs.
The man was an idiot who damned this nation to control by an invisible oligarchy concealed by the veneer of "constitutional republicanism" but, I don't think he was Jewish or influenced thereby...unless you want to tie in the Freemasons...then we've got a whole'nother argument to have. Sometimes, you leaders are just petty or unthinking assholes who can harm their people all on their own. Jews don't have a monopoly on oppression.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Richard.HistoryLit
To an extent but, I'd rather work within our biological firmware than foolishly attempt to crush it with ideology delusions like inclusivity and egalitarianism. Most modern thought is built off the naive notions of Enlightenment thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who not only believed that everyone was inherently good, but that we're all born as clean slates (tabula rasa) and neither one of those is true because evolution is only concerned with whomever is fit enough to survive--therefore the survivors of any struggle are the most moral (had the Axis won WWII, nobody would be able to dispute the measures taken to seize victory and the genocides would be written off as cruel but unavoidable casualties in the evolutionary grappling of ethnic blood groups--and people have millions of years, if not HUNDREDS of millions of years worth of instinctual subroutines preprogrammed.
The more we live in harmony with our nature, the more mentally sane we will be given that different areas of our brain won't be gripped by unconscious or even cognizant contradiction. Racism is a natural outgrowth of our tribal in-group preferences and I think it can be exercised, in moderation, without necessarily having to invoke racial warfare.
I never argued we return to savagery, only that we subjugate progress to the limits of human instinct. For instance, preventing the migration of peoples, an artificial phenomenon prompted by political agenda. As human beings, we can consciously stomach our disgust for outsiders and let them settle amongst us without having done anything to deserve their chance to colonize our lands but, when multiple cultures coexist and vie for dominance while maintaining incompatible moral paradigms, that goodwill will crumble and we doom future generations to either a necessitated sacrifice of their identity so that everyone can form into a new homogenized group that's decimated the vibrant diversity of its constituent parts to remain coherent OR we doom them to civil war.
All of that can be avoided if people simply remain where they are, letting things settle as they have, for better or worse. In keeping with this conviction, I will never leave the state and nation to which I was born, even if some of my ancestors chose to leave their homelands and come here to produce me. Eventually someone has to say "Enough, Godsdammit! We're settled! We're fighting for this! We won't be a burden to any other people! We will content ourselves with this earth and die here as we have lived here!"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Supporters of democracy and republicanism must ALWAYS quash popularism, for the true war is not the open conflict of democratic and anti-democratic politicians, but the hidden battle of oligarchs against autocrats. You see, democracy and republicanism are just skinsuits for second-rate aristocracies, because if you can buy or blackmail politicians, control media, control big tech (who manufacture voting machines), control academia, control government bureaucracies, etc...then you control the people, who believe themselves in control.
Populism is a threat to this, for while a majority cannot do anything by itself, it CAN dethrone the oligarchs of the current ruling class and institute what essentially amounts to a king, who can wield unilateral authority to bring about a new aristocracy loyal to his vision and enshrine a new church or restore an old one to consecrate his rule.
In the end, we either have the open rule of a monarch we can always deprive of his head as a lesson to his heir OR we have the illusion of choice which, in actuality, is just the deluded affirmation of whatever the Elites want.
Personally, I'd rather have a king.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Human relationships have always been transactional, and when someone refuses to uphold their end of the bargain, it is unfair to the other who is compelled by culture and law to remain with a willful neglector. Thus, marriage is a burden, especially for men, who are naturally polygynous.
I won't be forced to shelter, feed, protect, lead, and comfort someone who could betray me at any time for any reason and use the state to turn me out of my home, take my transportation, seize my kids, and garnish my wages...and I won't blame my brothers for "duty" in a society that gives them nothing for their servitude.
The only way this'll get better is if men can have a relationship on their terms with as many or as few gals as they can handle where all parties can enter or leave at their own discretion WITHOUT taking his kids and his property. If you make men that guarantee, they will have families...but not now, not with our current system.
No self-respecting man enters a legally binding love triangle between himself, a gal, and the government...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ethanmaloney7377
Just teach him to find transcendent meaning which grants him purpose and be uncompromising on his boundaries. Worse comes to worse, he can always grind out a good career, invest and save, and contract a surrogate to raise you grandkids as a single father. That's what I'm doing; I'll never have an LTR that could be legally construed as a marriage or put whomever I'm with in a position to be accredited as my dependent.
Exclusive Surrogacy Contracts, Unilateral NDAs, Day Care Agreements, Consent in Perpetuity Forms, Parental Rights Waiver, Domestic Discipline Emotional/Verbal/Physical Harm Liability Waivers, Declaration of Total Independence on Her Part, Acknowledgement of Sleeping in a Guesthouse Owned by Someone Other Than Myself (Non-Cohabitation), etc...all signed on camera in the presence of their lawyer with them vocally forsaking all future claim to any of the contractual invalidation reasoning and reaffirmed ANNUALLY, also on camera and with a lawyer present.
My future consort will only have the power to make TWO major decisions: (A) Accepting those terms so she can be privileged to bear MY children and be a part of my life, and (B) Choosing to leave without alimony, child support, custody, or anything beyond the personal property she entered the union with (including any "gifts" I provided her, which will be retained or sued for if she takes them).
That is all I'll permit her and if she doesn't like it, she can find another man who'll put up with her. That's how callous and self-serving I have to be as a man to survive in this world without being taken advantage of...and it's probably what your sons will have to be, too. Romantic love is an alluring trap that evaporates the moment whomever they're with think they can get a better deal while retaining your sons' benefits; watch Chasing the Dragon by Paul Elam with them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donj9287
I can respect that embrace of oblivion though, it is not the path I hope to walk. Personally, I desire a grand legacy with each generation passing wealth, wisdom, and shares to an ancestral home with an attached investment trust and legal overseer to ensure it's taken care of and expanded over time with the original structure and its facets preserved that all future progeny can come to in unity of purpose.
It's humble beginnings shall be myself but, I hope to be remembered as the Willful Ancestor to a fearsome bloodline of warrior-aristocrats modeled after the Prussian/Imperial German Junkers. By learning to control and direct my life then others, I can apply those lessons to my children and make clear that they may only unlock their inheritance and my fullness of respect upon the provable conveyance those lessons to my grandchilren, and so on and so forth.
That's just my dream though, and it will no doubt be far more stressful than your simple and individuated hopes. Would that I could share your dream but, like my fathers before me, I feel the crushing burden of continuity and improvement. How could I not? They slaved, fought, and struggled so that I may exist...I must endeavor to pay it forward with interest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@basicbeatch
As befitting a probable Satanist, you've got it all backwards. Women are more inherently self-serving (as they must be, from an evolutionary standpoint, and generally focus on their offspring); men are the sacrificial half who generally work endlessly with little gratitude or spousal loyalty because if we don't, all of civilization comes undone and economies collapse; women are at liberty to grieve because they are permitted to be vulnerable, whereas men, who shoulder the burden of leadership and dependability, must maintain a strong front so as not to fracture the mythical/legendary archetypes upon which the hopes of women and children depend.
At least, that is how it USED TO BE, before guys led by their need to be validated and gratified by women, like yourself, made the mistake of listening to them and completely reversed the situation, turning women into shoddy men and men into spineless women...while still insisting that tradition and the critique of tradition exist now and simultaneously and must be opposed.
I've met hornets' nests that are more tolerable than you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Call this controversial but, I'm of the belief that if any nation, including those like Apartheid South Africa, the Jucheist People's Republic of North Korea, Shiite Fundamentalist Iran, and the now ruined Baathist Iraq, are entitled to pursue WMD development programs every bit as much as the lording superpowers like the J'hu-deo Capitalist United States, the Marxist Soviet Union-cum-Russian Federation, and Communist China. If people have the right to bear arms (as I believe they should) in self-defense and to create some parity with more powerful entities or groups seeking to impose their will on the unitary person, then nations as groups of peoples united in common culture, should have equal right to protect themselves both during war and from interwar hegemony by larger powers.
How else can nations truly be sovereign and do right by their peoples, for their peoples, and of their peoples' will unless they are sufficiently armed to push back against the military power of bigger countries or alliances? Are they to subsist beneath the thumb of greater powers as puppets, vassals, or client states with no dignity or pride? If Israel can develop CBRN weaponry, ANYONE ELSE CAN!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rudrakanya
Nancy Friday is a feminist arguing that men, the Patriarchy, perpetuated this idea that if you fail to manifest maternal love for children, you fail at being a woman, and that this equation of good maternalism to good womanhood is a sinister form of control. Of course, it's bullshit, because gender roles weren't assigned by men, but configured by hundreds of thousands of years of fine-tuned human evolution that created the dichotomous differences between male and female personality as well as the sexual dimorphism that makes men strong and women reproductive incubators.
It's a BS quote, that's why @JOHN THEHUMANIST posted it, for us to observe the folly of female thinking (or, non-thinking, since they've been taught to see everything as some kind of power struggle spanning a couple thousand years instead of looking at the biological reality behind it).
At the end of the day though, she's wrong because, if a woman cannot be a good mother, she's not a good woman; that is literally the critical purpose for which she evolved, just as men evolved to protect and provide for them by doing all the hunting, the warring, the working, and the dying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slashbash1347
Nevertheless, YOU'RE the parent, meaning, so long as they're loved, clothed, taught, and fed... YOU determine their responsibilities, within reason.
I'm sorry it sounds like your parents were juveniles who dumped shit on you but, a parent can make that choice, within reason, if they want to. I won't have my kids dictate to me what I will do as a parent and how much work I'll give them and that's that; it is what it is.
If I want my kids to march 20 miles a day with a rucksack of not-to-burdensome a load given their size, I will damn well have them do it. Such is the sovereignty of the home, comprende?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You can be devoted to your children or you can be devoted to your career but, you cannot be 100% dedicated to both. There are only 24 hours in a day and at least a third of that is dedicated to eating, sleeping, and excreting. Then cut out the several hours you need for yourself, including exercise, bathing, entertainment, reading, meditation, etc. After that, there's not much left, especially if you have at least three kids (two to replace yourself and your husband and one as a backup). If you're a career woman, you either neglect those kids or let strangers raise them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Just behave yourself." Says the guy who is coasting on the fumes of post-Christian liberalism whose secular precepts have religious roots and whose capacity for unfaith is only possible because Christianity held Islam at bay? That's rich.
Be it theist or atheist, all general morality believed by most people is derived from a system of dogma built on assumed axioms that are just accepted as indisputably true. Most don't have the will or desire to spend their lives searching for answers; they want certainty, order, belonging, and common cause for cooperative existence, so they can just crack on with struggling to exist.
You know what we call the group-accumulated and logically-synchronized system of dogma reinforced by archetypal myths, legends, discussions, practical principles, and moral prescriptions for how one ought to live in pursuance of a priority? Religion. It doesn't need gods (Marxism, Gnat Shun Hall So Shall Izm, Scientism, American Exceptionalism, Zeye Hon Izm, Individualism, etc.), but its prime focus will always occupy the spot of one; it doesn't need churches, but there will always be places of unacknowledged worship like national monuments, universities, laboratories, one's home, public squares; it doesn't need priests, but it'll always have clerics like university professors, party leaders, scientists, patriots, organizers, influencers; it doesn't need a devil but will always have demonized figures it reviles as anathema like capitalists, tiny hats, believers, American Indians, other nationalists, collectivists; and so on.
1
-
1
-
@jeremyashford2115
I think racism is a naturally ingrained tribal response that's demonstrably present in newborn infants who haven't the capacity to absorb abstract concepts from their parents or community yet show marked discomfort around people who look different from themselves. That being said, I believe it a different prejudice from the city-rural divide, which has existed to some degree since cities were first founded in the Middle East.
I suspect it a product of subconsciously acknowledged specialization on the part of metropolitans; who rely on a very specific niche in the economy that generally precludes the development of other, more survivalistic skills whereas farmers, having to be so much more self-sufficient, foster a generalized skill-set as well as the simultaneous community yet independence those in cities (towns and villages excluded), by nature of population immensity, CAN'T have. Sure, urbanites have a degree of anonymity (hence the development of minority populations and moral deviancy) but, without genuine private property and privacy while simultaneously lacking the capacity to form close bonds with a Dunbar's Number of people, we metro-dwellers don't feel like people...more like tools for the powerful, serfs in a kingdom of concrete and glass.
So what are we to do but tell ourselves that it's worth it to be where we are because, "at least we're smarter and more cultured than those stupid, redneckish country bumpkins". This hate, as opposed to survivalistic racial prejudice, is fabricated to help us cope with the reality that we'd rather be in nature with the farmers than here but, that we doubt that'd ever happen because we're just not hardy and generally developed.
If you can't get to the greener grass on the other side, it makes life easier to hate it as something beneath you.
1
-
1
-
I'm glad the Taliban were able to get their country back from the imperial ambitions of Western powers. I've seen what my countrymen have done with freedom, democracy, and female empowerment and honestly, difficult as life might seem without them, the Afghans are better off. If the tables were reversed and they came here to deteriorate our traditions of "freedom", "democracy", and "education", with Sharia Law, Caliphate, and imposed female illiteracy while degrading our religions and bombing those that resisted, we'd do the same. Good for them!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's all one massive shlttest...and we've been failing by regarding them as we would one another as men. They say they want things, we give it to them, they resent and inflict suffering on us for it. Deep down, they've been hoping we push back, put them in their place, and tell them how things are going to be...and we forgot that, because we so badly wanted to think better of them.
This gal says she's disgusted, but I bet if her boyfriend said, "I bought the skin because I like it and you resent it because you're a tubster; you can accept that this is what I prefer and maybe hop on a Treadmaster, OR you can leave...but I'm tired of apologizing and putting up with your childish crap and it ends here," she would secretly respect him more for it.
We need to do what we want and not give a toss how they feel...and that's what they subconsciously want, for us to be strong, unapologetic, willful men who push back, say "No", and have the confidence to be the leaders they can't be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Vichy France gets a bad rap, as does the National Socialist's controversial delousing program in the camps. The Third Republic, in its immoral worship of naive notions like democracy, individualism, and equality, paved the way for an immoral society that facilitated the destruction of the French family and the murder of its children. It was as bad, if not worse, than Weimar Germany. Today, we see the maturing fruits of its debauchery as foreign hordes fester like cancers, internationalists sell out French workers, and the State forces cuckoldry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cobusvanderlinde6871
Marines and Soldiers are both infantrymen of the Corps and Army respectively. If you want an overarching term under which they both'd fall, it'd be "servicemen". Oz is right about the Marines falling under the purview of the Navy but, that's the Department of the Navy, not the branch.
The Marine Corps is its own distinct branch, always has been, probably always will be; to call a Marine a "seaman" is insulting because, while seamen are disciplined in their own right, they're more generally comparable to technicians whose technical roles act in the service of something requiring many seamen, like running a sub or an aircraft carrier.
A Marine however, though tasked with operating in conjunction with a fireteam, squad, platoon, company, and so on, is capable of inflicting death on his own. He is, with occasional exceptions, NOT an operator of machinery but a highly dangerous killer...one who's earned the title of Marine by enduring the hell of the Crucible, setting him apart from his brothers by his fanatical devotion and willingness to come as close to a warrior as anyone hailing from a consumerist Babylon of a Western nation can come...excepting the varying Special Forces both within and without the Corps. It'd be like comparing a police officer to an IT guy or a sword to a ball bearing in a propeller engine. Plus, there's the whole death-cult mentality no other branch possesses.
Seamen come together to make grand machines end the lives of our enemies, Marines can already end life on their own as distinct units but, just happen to be more effective when grouped together.
That's the fundamental difference and why conflating a Marine with a seaman is insulting and you're liable to get your lights knocked out if you ever do so to a Marine's face.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A successful woman is one who's consciously preserved her virtue, youth, and fertility in the advancement of her bloodline by shunning pre-uxorial intimacy; eating with healthy temperance and avoiding substances; and marrying a strong, successful, [And Row Cent Rick Allee] [Pay Tree Arc All] man who's earned the respect of her father and community that then proceeds to have and raise many children according to his vision, the one she affirmed in her choice to be his consort, in a balanced way that assures their repetition of her and his joint parental achievement pursuant to the continuity, enrichment, and advancement of a disciplined dynasty.
It doesn't matter if goes down as a great civil rights leader, a talented musician, a ruthless CEO, a famous politician, or the physicist that cracks fusion. None of that really matters because it can all be done in equal regard, if not better, by men and men cannot bear children or nurture them in their early years as a mom can, nor can they present those children the exemplary archetype of a successful woman...so a woman prioritizing ANYTHING but that essential, biological privilege is not successful, she's a failure, because she had ONE job, endowed to do so by evolution with hundreds of millions of years of fine-tuned instinct, and she rejected it for cross-dressing fantasy. She put it on the back burner for the chance to play as though she were a man.
That's what a successful woman is, and so few of them today can be counted as such, and their "liberation" has made them no happier for it, quite the contrary, as a matter of fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wcookiv
That's what faith, hobbies, meditation, community service, the gym, MMA practice, and a wife are for. I don't have the last one yet as I figure I have to be the best man possible before being able to ask for a decent woman who'll be a dedicated mom to my children and homeschool them while simultaneously sharing my values and belief in discipline and perptual self-improvement so...going to be a while before I re-enter the dating market but, the rest keeps me sane.
Gotta be self-employed though, almost don't have enough fingers for the amount of times I was fired or encouraged to leave after I said something true but insensitive and did battle with HR...not gonna lie, if I were a Godless serial killer...well, them, drug dealers, and abortionists but, I digress.
We do live in an infuriating world but, hate, anger, and disgust are powerful motivators. Before I let myself go a little (which I'm working on), it was what got me into martial sports and CrossFit after I discovered my ex was cheating on me with a now-former friend. ALL human emotions are useful, properly applied.
Don't limit your potential because you fear you'd live in discontent; discontent drives you to fix things while contentedness breeds complacency and stagnation.
I may suffer more than you but, suffering can be defeating or driving. I choose go make it the latter.
You and you kin have a lovely Christmas, and may you find opportunity for growth and lasting joy in the coming year, friend. Hopefully what I said can come to mean something; being a reactionary ain't so bad...think of it like being an underdog, a Byronic hero set against the world and entropy. It can be romantic if you frame it the right way. 😁
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BillyBob-wq9fl
Indeed. When you call training procedures excessive, you demonstrate individual judgment above and contrary to time-tested multigenerational wisdom of prior-proven and -inducted personnel who are trying to prepare you for Hell AND an inability to accept the difficulty essential to preparing men to fight, suffer, and, if need be, dye (YT Censorship) as ordered. The military should have no room for individualists and Week-willed disposition.
If it were the private sector, it'd be different, even as a lesser facet of existential struggle, but it's not, it's SOF; training standards have already plummeted as it is without guys like him naysaying necessities, softened such as they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On the matter of adultery in Catholic marriages, that alone is insufficient reason to annul a union (because Catholics don't divorce). However, if a wife (or husband) has put forth that she is pure, virginal, and had no men before you and it turns out she lied and entered the union under false pretenses that'd conceal or give rise to the lustful desire to stray (misrepresentation), that could demonstrate to a Church tribunal that there was NO unity on that spouse's part during the ceremony and thus, the couple was never truly wed.
Don't quote me, I'm not a doctor of divinity or a priest but, if you're a diligent Catholic husband prior to tying the knot and you establish a record of her attesting to being the virtuous kind of woman with no history to inspire adultery that is confirmed by her and she THEN cheats, it looks like you have grounds for annulment because you married a non-existent, deceptively-projected schema of what you THOUGHT your wife was but, in actuality, WASN'T and NOT the real sl,uh't underneath...and if you married an idea and not a person, the person isn't your wife and the whole thing was a fantasy orchestrated by the Devil and a willing (conscious or otherwise) participant in hIS machinations against God, Church, and man.
We'll see how Knowles feels if or when his dearly beloved betrays him. Personally, I hope she doesn't because that's a damned petty thing to wish upon another man. If however, she's a sl,uh't who's concealed a past from him and/or is unfaithful, it is my ardent prayer she is exposed and that he has the strength to amputate her from his family like the gangrenous limb she may well (but is yet unsuspected or confirmed) be.
Every MAN should meet with a divorce attorney (or several, money permitting) BEFORE even proposing marriage twice (once alone and again with his fiance), get a prenupt signed in a manner to refute any claim of coercion or linguistic misunderstanding (see A Divorce Attorney's Thoughts On Love and Marriage-James Sexton by Soft White Underbelly), and conduct a thorough background investigation of her, her family, and her friends that includes a polygraph test. If you're getting married, especially if it is a life-long (Catholic) or eternal (Mormon)...you should know EVERYTHING about the other person.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This was a good speech but, it made it all the more clear to me why we need either more male teachers or kids homeschooled by mothers supported by strong husbands. Women conflate respect and politeness and while most humans are entitled to the later, their willful ignorance leads them to burdensome expectations about what they deserve from men when men view the two with distinction. Respect is earned, always, because humanity is naturally hierarchical and men understand their place therein and how to ascend or fall. To boot, they fail to see the value in bullying if it is addressed by the emotional and combative strengthening of the victims.
Women, ever desirous to put themselves and others on the most even playing field possible, are social interventionalists that see kids getting bullied and react by persecuting the bully, which only builds further resentment while making the child dependent on the administrative aid of higher ups that serves to create managerially-dependent human beings unwilling to fight for their own place in life. This is especially harmful for boys, who women treat wrongfully treat like girls in the thought that men and women are equals, that are effective emasculated by their interposition.
As a boy, I was bullied on the bus as a first grader by a sixth, who was then directly confronted by my fed-up mother that climbed aboard herself to denounce his predations when it stopped by my home. Relieved though I was to have that pressure removed, it was internally and socially devastating, as I was then known and knew myself as a boy who had to have his mommy fight his battles for him. Would that I'd been born to a strong father who would've stepped in and sent me to learn self-defense and stand up for my personhood so that I, independent of authorities that may not always be there to fight my battles on my behalf, might've resolved it myself or died trying.
This effeminate effect on society is killing us as surely as the administration of schools is. Boys are not girls and children will eventually become adults and have to stand on their own feet; women need to get the f*ck out of the way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deepfriedlettuce.
Predatory mutualism, in jest (I don't actually know why a mountain lion is leading a buck through the dark). In this attempt at a joke, I suggested that the Mountain Lion (a nocturnal predator) was leading the deer (a diurnal herbivore that's generally prey to predators like the mountain lion) through the dark to find some does (female deers) which the buck could mount and breed, thereby producing fawns (child-equivalent deer with greater quantities of energy rich fat, like piglets and calves which people eat) by the next spring.
Fawns are smaller and weaker and thus, prime prey for wild cats like Mountain Lions which can separate them from their parents, hunt them down, and consume them with fewer issues than'd be had taking on nimble does or horn-crowned bucks.
The joke is, the buck thinks the mountain lion is being nice for leading it to females when, in reality, the mountain lion is thinking ahead and helping the buck reproduce as a feline form of unspoken animal husbandry. It'd be like if you were lost in the forest at night and a werewolf--which you might fear'd normally rip you shreds and dine on your viscera and muscles--happens upon you and proceeds to lead you to a bunch of horny cheerleaders dancing around a fire with spirits in hand and mischief on the mind. You'd be thinking, "AWESOME! Not only will I live but, I get to bang all these bodacious babes!" The werewolf then proceeds, years later, to feast on all the children born to your sordid fun, thinking in the moment, "This idiot thinks I'm being kind but, I just can't wait to devour the next generation of stupid humans."
It was my attempt at black humor, centered on morbid misunderstanding but, now that I've laid its meaning bare, it's no longer funny. You have your explanation but, it came at grave cost...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I was going to join the Marines and really wanted to serve but, they're crawling with jizz-hawkers, blood-plug-poppers, and gender-swappers. The recruiting center I initially applied to was run by a b|tch on a power trip and, when I was doing training with the other "poolies" who were slated to join on the night of Jan 6th, 2021, we were called to assembly and she said that everything was going to be alright, the "rebellion [would] be crushed", and that, if necessary, we'd be called to defend America from all enemies "both foreign and domestic." I left.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@carrie4558
It doesn't stop there. In my training modules, they asked me not only to clap my trap and NOT offend someone (i.e. "Thou Shalt Not"), they actually instructed us, as employees, to "engage with [the Alphabet Mob] people; learn of their history and struggle; and become allies (i.e. 'Thou SHALT!')"
It wasn't enough for me to just keep quiet and expect to leave my --xual exploits at home in my bedroom where they belong and keep to my own business, I AM EXPECTED to go out of my way to ask them about theirs and to SYMPATHIZE with it, as though bringing up who you like to f*ck and your sociopolitical fight to get other people to accept it somehow HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH plasmapheresis and the art of enriching a bunch of multinational, monopolizing Spaniards across the ocean.
A business exists to make money and employees exist to help it achieve that. I could rationalize any number of management's schemes to build a "corporate culture" from Hawaiian shirt Friday to the fricking potlucks every month where we're all obliged to cook something for all 50-odd people at our branch. It builds employee cohesion, it breaks down formalistic barriers between classes, it makes us more likely to stomach overtime and being on-call for when people don't show up.
All of that I can understand because if your employees aren't damned miserable, they're more likely to work harder to make you more money but, "ally[ship]"?! How does me knowing where you put your genitals on a daily basis and your "feelings" and "identity" help me to help the boss make more money?
Big business is nucking futs!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Then don't get legally married and don't cohabitate so she can't claim you are de facto married; I'm basically going get my future consort accredited as a maid, cook, surrogate, personal assistant, and child-care worker who'll sleep in a guesthouse legally owned by my mom or uncle that gets all support from her father, who I'll indirectly reimburse in a legally-deniable manner. If she wants me and my babies, she'll have to sign a Parental Rights Waiver, a Parenting Agreement if that falls through, an ironclad NDA that keeps all interactions private, a Consent in Perpetuity Agreement, and so forth.
It will be expensive and require a great deal of legal preparation but, I think you can have a union and have kids, so long as contingencies are in place that she can never claim you supported her and that the kids are 100% yours. She can never go by the title of wife or have any cause to be declared one by the courts.
Consult an attorney to hammer out the details; he's legally obliged to keep your intentions secret. If you can find a woman willing to accept those terms, she probably really does love you.
1
-
Then don't get legally married and don't cohabitate so she can't claim you are de facto married; I'm basically going get my future consort accredited as a maid, cook, surrogate, personal assistant, and child-care worker who'll sleep in a guesthouse legally owned by my mom or uncle that gets all support from her father, who I'll indirectly reimburse in a legally-deniable manner. If she wants me and my babies, she'll have to sign a Parental Rights Waiver, a Parenting Agreement if that falls through, an ironclad NDA that keeps all interactions private, a Consent in Perpetuity Agreement, and so forth.
It will be expensive and require a great deal of legal preparation but, I think you can have a union and have kids, so long as contingencies are in place that she can never claim you supported her and that the kids are 100% yours. She can never go by the title of wife or have any cause to be declared one by the courts.
Consult an attorney to hammer out the details; he's legally obliged to keep your intentions secret. If you can find a woman willing to accept those terms, she probably really does love you.
1
-
@keinlieb3818
There are at least SEVEN reasons gals can pull to get judges (33-75% female nationwide, not including the Bay'tuh male judges) to void or invalidate prenuptial agreements. Those compacts aren't worth the paper they're printed on; if I have a consort at all, she'll be a legally-certified surrogate who's signed an NDA, a Parental Rights Waiver, a Day Care Agreement, an Exclusivity Agreement, etc. (all signed in an ironclad manner, on tape, with her family and attorneys present) that sleeps in a separate guesthouse legally owned by someone I trust so she can't claim cohabitation that I can exclude and fire at my discretion who insurance and living needs are officially covered by her father or a male family member that I unofficially reimburse, that cash being documented as generohs fees for another service rendered.
On paper, she will not be dependent on me in any way and will be, essentially, a live-in employee who's consented to extracurricular intimacy who I've given a ring to to preserve her honor in the community.
At most, I will call her consort but, never EVER could she get a court to esteem her as "wife". If no gal wants to agree to that, I get an actual surrogate and raise kids as a single father upon retirement. We are beyond compromising with these things.
1
-
@keinlieb3818
There are at least SEVEN reasons gals can pull to get judges (33-75% XX nationwide, not including the B'hey Tuh XY judges) to void or invalidate prenuptial agreements. Those compacts aren't worth the paper they're printed on; if I have a consort at all, she'll be a legally-certified surrogate who's signed an NDA, a Parental Rights Waiver, a Day Care Agreement, an Exclusivity Agreement, etc. (all signed in an ironclad manner, on tape, with her family and attorneys present) that sleeps in a separate guesthouse legally owned by someone I trust so she can't claim cohabitation that I can exclude and fire at my discretion who insurance and living needs are officially covered by her father or a male family member that I unofficially reimburse, that cash being documented as generohs fees for another service rendered.
On paper, she will not be dependent on me in any way and will be, essentially, a live-in employee who's consented to extracurricular intimacy who I've given a ring to to preserve her honor in the community.
At most, I will call her consort, but never EVER could she get a court to esteem her as "wife". If no gal wants to agree to that, I get an actual surrogate and raise kids as a single father upon retirement. We are beyond compromising with them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All gals are Proz Tea Tootz, these gals are just being open and honest about the transactional nature of relationships. That forwardness angers their fellow gals, who (1) look bad, (2) lose control on their shrekx cartel (i.e. compelling men to do more for them, like lifelong or long-term commitment for access to intimacy), and (3) resent guys for being happy. It also represents most guys, who (A) want to hold onto their romantic conception of gals as pure and perfect angels, not schlang-sleeves for hire, (B) want to be validated as Why T Knights for "protecting" said gals, and (C) envy the shameless guys who don't have to put up with jumpint through relational hoops by gals to get the occasional poke.
These gals are the reality, and no one likes facing reality. Also, they probably wouldn't be there if they'd had strong fathers and virtuous moms, which globalist capitalist Japan has discarded for maximal corporate profits and to keep salaries down by oversaturating the workforce with gals. If men weren't overworked they'd have a surplus of time to father their kids, and if gals weren't treated like men, they could be dedicated mothers.
This outcome was as inevitable as it is raw.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Altair-El-Haddad
Indeed, the only gals worth marrying are ones who (A) genuinely believe you are the best they could ever hope for at their peak, (B) have a low to no body count, and (C) are "ride-or-[dye]" for whomever they marry. If they're holding something back, that demonstrates they're not confident in their decision, they suspect they could do better (hence the lack of attachment), and that they might've invested themselves in a guy in the past who DIDN'T respect them, showing they have a history of poor choice in men.
Only guys can afford to be the detached ones in relationships, and all my prior girlfriends LOVED me for it. If a gal is detached, there's no point in having her around. Might as well hire a "professional", a maid, a cook, a surrogate, and a child care worker.
1
-
@donotletthebeeswin
Reality undoubtedly sounds creepy to those brainwashed by romanticism; the purpose of human relations is to produce and rear offspring in a manner that gives them a greater chance of success than their parents had, hopefully with greater advantage than others' children, for the sake of perpetuating one's genetics, dominating, and contributing to one's tribe in a manner that elevates it, thereby increasing one's gene-group's collective chances of survival, prosperity, and domination.
That sounds horrible, base, and brutal...but that's what all organisms are, particularly the pro-social and eu-social ones who are at constant war with one another and other species, competing for limited resources, territory, and the spoils of conquest.
You only believe otherwise because you were taught to by people either too Dee Loo Dead to see us for the animals they are OR those cunning enough to convince you to abandon the struggle so THEIR kind could succeed at your expense. Shalom and Salem al-lekum.
You think it creepy because you've been shamed and "educated" into thinking it so by people who don't like our side of humanity (XY) and who don't like our ethnic groups (Europeans and anyone who resembles them). Take control of your own relationships as a man and make them work to serve YOURSELF, like the CEO of your own life for your own sake and that of people like you...if you're not serving yourself and those you value, you're serving THEM.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@noahjohnson935
I don't know everything but, I've spoken with Germans who remembered the war and the exaggeration or outright fabrication of crimes that were never committed. If we're going to go by eye-witness accounts, ALL accounts are equally valid and it can be argued that the "victims" have every bit an incentive to lie as the "victimizers". You know how much money is in Holocaust reparation? You know how much social clout and validation you can generate for yourself by claiming an increasingly atrocious account of things that besmirch people you hate?
But no, we're not allowed to question; they're beyond reproach and anyone who suggests otherwise MUST be a Nazi...deserving of the kind of hate and disgust that caricatures of Nazis displayed for people on the basis of their Jewishness. Of course, the ironic hypocrisy of that blind, preprogrammed response is lost on you. Your educators didn't teach you to think critically and ask question; they taught you the dogma:
"The Holocaust happened! ALL NAZIS are irredeemably vile and evil! Anyone who questions the narrative is a dishonest anti-Semite! Anyone who suggests that the Nazis were humans capable of nuance is, himself, a Nazi! Jews are always the victims and never the perpetrators; they can do no wrong and we should all be kissing their asses and feeling guilt for being European and therefore, indirectly or directly, contributing to the fantastical slaughter we cannot question by action or inaction!"
Hope you have a nice day spreading propaganda, mommy's little collaborationist...cause, let's be honest, you were clearly raised by a single mother too insufferable to retain your daddy and I pity your handicapped lot in life. It is what it is. 🤷🏻♂
[EDIT] Fixed improper conjugation and added exemplary quotation italicization plus concluding sympathies
1
-
1
-
1
-
@randomuser3481
Having people incidentally starve to death (when you can barely feed your own citizens) or die of disease (when you can barely treat your own soldiers) while frantically working them like dogs to push out as much ammunition and war materials as you can to avoid the defeat of your people is NOT the same as deliberately killing them or starving them to death.
Did the SS and the Wehrmacht massacre some people along the Eastern Front? Sure. Were the National Socialists insane enough to deliberately murder their workforce when they couldn't spare a single body and their future was on the line? I doubt it. If there was systematic death, it was a biproduct of production, just as it had been with annexed French and Flanders-Wallonians; that is NOT genocide...it's unavoidable negligence and industrial attrition. Now, PURPOSEFULLY taking the grain of a people (including the seeds they'd use to plant future crops) right before winter and preventing them emigrating, now THAT is genocide...in this case, of The Ukrainian people by the Soviet Union and MILLIONS did there.
What you're describing however, is largely a fantasy deliberately exaggerated by the Soviet Union (vengeful for its losses), the Allies (eager to besmirch their fallen enemy), and the supposed victims (who trumpet their sacrosanct status today to avoid scrutiny for their own crimes, like the systematic murder and dehousing of Palestinians). History is written by the victors and caricatured by entertainers; maybe if you did your own research instead of swallowing everything taught you in public school and inflated by Steven Spielberg, you'd actually have an accurate view of reality as it was and is.
1
-
@vinteb7987
1) National Socialist hopes for "world domination" is a caricatured myth perpetuated to justify the Allied war effort and justify existential fear of that ideology. Even if that's what every German wanted, they couldn't have possibly managed it. You were publicly educated and have watched too many alternate history films and shows; Germany wanted Eastern Europe, that's the best they could've hoped for.
(2) While there were indeed many killings by the Waffen-SS on both the Western and Eastern front, there is no credible evidence for "systematic murder". Yes, the Einsatzgruppen-SS ran camps and yes, these camps possessed both gas chambers and crematoria but, the chambers were for fumigating clothing and bedding to lessen the spread of lice, ticks, and other disease-faring parasites among the internees and lacked the capacity to kill people on a mass scale.
Furthermore, the logistics of gassing and burning bodies in the quantities purported, by Jews (who've every incentive to besmirch the National Socialists), were impossible. In their quest to shore up the Reich defense industry, the Reichsbahn railways were starved of much needed maintenance and German coal could not get to industrial centers for steel processing. The "Coal Crisis" was horrible and in order to cremate bodies in the quantities most people've been taught, you need industrial coke...which not only couldn't have gotten to the camps but, was also proven not to be stockpiled in them.
The "Holocaust" makes no logistical nor mathematical sense. Did people die due to the cruelty of guards, exhaustion and overwork, disease, and starvation? Sure, but that's a BIPRODUCT of desperate, forced labor industry aiming to compete with the United States and Soviet production. The only thing systematic about the camp system was resource deficiencies and when you can barely feed your own people and military, the enemies of the State in camps are going to be at the bottom of the priority list.
Face it, the Reich was propagandized into cartoonish oblivion to justify the conscription and deaths of Allied men and the Holocaust is little more than an ahistoric exaggeration of war-time conditions during total war conditions between opponents who view one another and their populations as existential threats to themselves. Most National Socialists were not the evil villains that Jewish movie producers like Spielberg conveyed them to be and the "system of death" is a deception that's been repeated ad nauseam to the point where people who've never conducted their own research believe it like we used to believe in geocentrism and miasma theory.
You were lied to, I was lied to, we ALL were lied to to protect the political and financial realities of war and its profitable nature in enriching politicians and their business backers at the expense of everyday men and women. You can accept reality as it is or you can cope by buying into the crap they spouted to sell war bonds; either way, history is against you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisreynolds6143
They did indeed use gas vans that relied on carbon monoxide...and carbon monoxide sucked at suffocating people in a timely and efficient manner while costing them a fortune on petrol, it was almost as ineffectual as Zyklon-B.
The most efficient way to kill people in mass, as demonstrated by the Soviets during the Katyn Massacre, is to shoot them in the back of their heads with multiple lines and executioners. Even with the gas vans, men with rifles had to come in after and often shoot those who they thought dead; nothing's sure like a bullet.
Throwing bodies into pits with lye away from population centers was the most efficient, albeit time dependent, means of taking care of the remnants afterwards. The National Socialists didn't have natural gas to cleanly burn bodies; diesel sucked; and coked-coal just wasn't available. To boot, the crematoria were not equipped to burn that many bodies and in that quick succession. The bricks used to absorb, contain, and reflect heat back into the furnace actually degrade quickly, even with modern crematoria and those employed by the SS would've had to be routinely broken down, remortared, and rebuilt with such frequency as to make it impossible to have incinerated as many bodies they were alleged to have burned.
There's so much about the established narrative that makes no sense unless you're trying to paint the human beings responsible as absolute inhuman monsters that just got off killing people and caricature them into cartoonish villainy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Locke350
Still learning how to build my computer, just trying to get precisely the right graphics card is a BITCH! I don't doubt that it's easy to some but, it's proving a real challenge for me. People though? Holy shit, I sit down with complete strangers and after five minutes they're telling me about their existential crisis, their failing marriages, deep-seated feelings of inadequacy, getting touched by their extended family as kids, etc. Used to think that's how forward EVERYONE was with everyone else but, turns out, I am just easy to talk to...IRL that is, I'm a real asshole online but, point is, that's kinda my niche.
I'm going to stick with what I'm good at: listening and seeking to point out cognitive distortions so they can work on themselves and get their lives together.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Free and fair elections"? When have those ever existed? A ruling class of oligarchical elites rules what the electorate is taught through media (which they own); electoral candidates through campaign contributions, media emphasis, and, if necessary, outright extortion and/or assassination, ensuring that almost every politician is compromised BEFORE they reach the ballot; they own the companies making the voting machines; they own the Big Tech that filters our information and buries "problematic" searches and websites; they own the private banks that control companies' hiring practices and composition through the selective granting of credit (i.e. accept Dee Ee Aye/BRIDGE or you'll never get a lone again); they control academia through grants and donations, the same academia which tells us how to think and edits history while certifying those who get degrees, particularly the ladies in HR departments who routinely purge the corporate sector of anyone outside the Overton Window.
Free and fair elections are just a clever ruse designed to keep the Ruling Class in power indirectly while being wholly unaccountable, because who do you blame when things go wrong? Yourself as a voter, your Torry or Labour or Democratic or Republican neighbor, or the politicians, who they puppet and can buy replacements for. The corruption is unimpeachable because the corrupt are never directly confronted. That's what democracy is and why it results in tyranny through dictatorship, because eventually, the people are so done with their "freely and fairly" elected officials, they'll throw their weight behind up-and-coming ruling classes and Caesars.
Democracy doesn't work and doesn't last, never has and never will, because humans are instinctively hierarchical and the Elite always remain the elite. The best we can hope for are open oligarchies and autocracies where the powerful at least know that we know who they are...and what will happen if they push us too far. Absolute power means absolute blame and absolute comeuppance. That's more transparent and integruous than any democratic system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rudolfszekernyes2419
You claiming to be married given your juvenile behavior is just as outrageous as me suggesting I can attract an 18 year old as a 40 year old, perhaps more so. You see, I'm only in my twenties and thus have about two decades to develop my social skills, advance my career, stack cash, become an outstanding member of my community, and be in a position to efficiently sift through women until I find one who shares my values, whose father respects me and my accomplishments, and who's eager to get started on forming a family. I have that time to become better than I am now...
...but you, you're nothing more than the childish contradictions in this comment section and you're claiming to already be married! Me? I can change and get to a point where I don't have to waste my time arguing back and forth in the YouTube comments section but...here you are, doing just that, claiming that you're simultaneously someone attractive and industrious enough to provide for, protect, and preside over an implicitly loyal wife...while manifesting behavior that no such man would because such a man would have BETTER things to do so.
Maybe I'm pathetic but you know what, I'm not as pathetic as the pathetic co-arguer claiming to be the kind of guy above this petty sh|t. Your participation in this exchange is all the proof I need that you're completely full of sh|t! 🤣
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheCornucopiaProject-bd5jk
Besides, isn't it better to have 300 rounds of ammunition and something to fire it than to not having anything and rely on "going under the radar"? How "invisible" will you be when starving gangs go door to door looking for food, fuel, slaves, munitions, and other resources? Sure, by defending yourself, you paint a target on your back but, if they're systematically raiding everyone and everything, unless you've built a secret bunker or house, they'll find you eventually, and you'll be both unarmed and visible.
I don't see the logic in your evasive strategy; it sounds like coping with unarmed vulnerability.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If California was more like the Third Reich, I'd gladly move THERE. They may've been economically inefficient and bureaucracy prone but, they were BASED regarding women, natural order, hierarchies, the LBTV mob, the drug-addicted and/or mentally-afflicted horde the liberals have dubbed "the homeless", and gypsies. I'm convinced they would've made better masters than the likes of Gavin Newsom. You see, for all of its faults, fascists actually spiritually REVERE, NOT resent, their homelands. The Dems can't say the same...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Reminds me of a quote from Band of Brothers attributed to Ronald Spiers, "The only hope you have is to accept the fact that you're already dead. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll be able to function as a soldier is supposed to function: without mercy, without compassion, without remorse. All war depends upon it."
This guy seems to've taken it to heart. He could've been shot approaching the house, he could've been discovered and shot just before throwing the bomb, and he could've been killed by explosion. Nonetheless, he approached, he armed, and he tossed. I think he knew he'd probably have died and weighed that against the possibility of success, and deemed it a price worth paying.
Wish we knew his name so we might honor him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@potsmkr87
That which start private becomes public. No one lives in a vacuum and everything we do as unitary human beings affects human beings as a collective. Take drugs, for instance. Many say, "What's the harm in doing coke?" Thing is, once you get hooked everything else fades away and that addiction becomes you, disrupting you capacity to work, to provide for those you love, to be a friend, and then you become a burden on the state as you turn to crime to sustain the addiction when you loose your job for testing positive. What once was private has now become a PUBLIC concern as taxpayers and loved ones are forced to pay for the response, treatment, rehabilitation, and detainment of those that've become their addictions.
You can't compartmentalize things you do from the rest of us. Every action is a droplet in the pond and thus, every action has a ripple. Igtv has had a tumultuous affect on the water's surface and it is endangering EVERYONE. They've got to go or assimilate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The solution is simple, but hard, and no one has the stones to take it. Depriorize national GDP, freeze immigration, halt emigration, remove ♀️ from office and power, given ♂️ total control over their relationships and families, disperse industry across the countryside so people can work AND NOT live in cities, reinvigorate State Shintoism and devolve defense down to local, neo- Samurai, restore Emperor to power as semi-constitutional (if not absolutist) executive, watch men realize they can be men of honor under warrior patrons once more and live simple lives in the countryside while tolerating ZERO crap from now disempowered and economically-dependent gals, prosper beneath the mandate of heaven.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shelbyspeaks3287
Theologically?
I identify most with Russian Orthodoxy but, I am actively searching for the "true Church" so, regardless of preferences, I'm institutionless though I denounce Nondenominationalism and most forms of Protestantism. My brother's Catholic and I attend regular mass with him (without taking the Eucharist) and I wish I could believe in that but, the Vatican II reformations and Rome's flirtation with globalism, egalitarianism, Protestant-esque "Synodism", modernism, feminism, anti-traditionalism, and the LGBTPedo+ movement puts me on edge. I guess "I don't know" is the most honest answer so, an Orthodox Agnostic?
Civically?
I guess you could call me Columbian or an Americanist, given I grew up in a rightist, patriotic family that revered the Constitution, Declaration, and Federalist Papers as almost divine texts set for by men inspired by God to create an exceptional nation. Even if I don't necessarily believe the current government and social order are good, I still hold their original iterations in reverence and believe there's something special and worth preserving in it.
That said, you could call me a patriot and nationalist (I don't believe in surrendering sovereignty to global organizations like the UN, the WHO, etc.) but, I also favor the Yarvinian view of monarchism and think Washington should've accepted kingship and that the post-colonial government should've created a "state spirituality" which constituted an agreement on commonly held tenets by all major churches so that a pro-theist institution encompassing both religion and American revolutionary spirit could consecrate him as some like a President for Life and "Guardian of the Republic" so...I'm not really a conservative
about it all.
Politically?
Somewhere between staunch Rightism centered upon an accountable monarch and Third Positionism. Some have called me a Perennialist and, not without truth, as I do favor the writings of René Guénon and Julius Evola but, I draw inspiration from many sources aligned, if not outright contradicting them including but, not limited to: Charles Lindbergh (American Nationalist), Giovanni Gentile (Italian Fascist), Émile Pouget (French Syndicalist), G. K. Chesterton (English Subsidiaritist), Ezra Pound (American Poet), H.P. Lovecraft (Cosmicist), George Lincoln Rockwell (American National Socialist), Patrick Buchanan (Paleoconservative and Catholic Traditionalist), Oswald Spengler (Prussian Traditionalist), Graf Otto von Bismark (Prussianist, Hohenzollern Monarchist), Carl Jung (Psychoanalyst and Theologian), etc.
In short, it's complicated.
[EDIT] Misspell
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anyone with any sense knows that there are no true "democracies" or "republics", and there probably never were. There are monarchies and then there are oligarchies, nothing more, nothing less. Before almost any legislative candidate makes it to the ballots, they must campaign and network, which is almost impossible without the Elite be they political, economic, or social/celebrity. These interests buy their support long before they can be voted upon so, regardless of who We The People elect, it's the Elites that own them.
Personally, I'd rather just have naked aristocrats and a king we could all rise up against and dethrone if they fail to follow their noblesse oblige as the people have done in most countries since time immemorial before the moral deprivations of the Enlightenment. You cannot truly hold leaders accountable though, when everyone slaves under the delusion that "we voted for them" and that "we can just vote them out next term". Corruption is rarely prosecuted, sentences are short, and consequences are non-existent but...when the people can guillotine their leadership for failure...that's generally when crap gets done.
Monarchy and aristocracy are not perfect but, they've civilization extant since we left the trees and its clear this facade menagerie can't continue.
1
-
1
-
Ever since I was a boy, I wanted to be a medic in the US Marines (it wasn't until later that I realized they had "Corpsmen", who were actually USN personnel assigned to Marine platoons but, I didn't care). I was going to at 17 and get my HS diploma early, accepting it in dress blues but, was advised to wait by veterans who wanted it to be a VERY well-thought-out decision, and my parents, who wanted me to serve a proselyting mission as an Elder in our church (Mormons). I waited and did my ecclesiastical duty but, by the time I returned to serve in 2017, that dream had soured.
Why become a warrior who'd be deprived of 2nd Amendment liberties by his country for the psychological damage endured in the wars he fought, ostensibly to protect, at the hands of the government who put him in those situations? What fraternity was there in a Corps. filled with men whose childhood shrektual trauma had twisted their attraction, and activist women who resented my gender for existing while happily trick-turning their way up the command hierarchy? What good would I really be doing, forcing Iraqi and Afghani tribesmen to abandon the traditions of their fathers so they could be homogenized into corporate consumers and "Global Citizens"? What glory was left when you could no longer seize land to farm, war-brides to marry, or even trophies from slain enemies? Other than a faulty G.I. Bill, less freedom, and a lifetime of mental and medical problems...what did I actually get from serving in the Corps.
War used to be a transcendent clash of dominance between tribes, fought by warrior-aristocrats who were granted much for their sacrifice if they survived, where men could bond without fear of getting pumped by their fellow dudes or reported for making a joke by gals who had no business being there. The Cult of Victory and the honor of triumph used to mean something! The citizenship won by decades of hardship was rewarded! Now? It's a joke. Only mercenaries are honest with themselves and I wish them the best in their reveries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Going to a public university and employing public funding should demand the following pledge from applicants:
(1st) I will undergo military training in a branch of my choosing and stand in reserve should national need arise.
(2nd) I will endeavor to find a spouse and have at least three children to replace ourselves and the esteemed dead.
(3rd) I will remain stateside, repaying my grants to the nation that birthed me, until such time as that debt is paid.
If you are unwilling to form families, work jobs in, pay taxes to, and potentially die in defense of the nation that enabled your education at your volition, you are wholly undeserving of its academic support. If you don't like it, attend a private college but, know the State won't give a penny in support.
Such a demand on the national studentry would ferret out the anti-familial, anti-natalist, anti-patriotic, and anti-American parasites in our midst.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sammyvh11
Speak for yourself, as a 6'1" guy, I admit to pitying them, but I reason that if they still persist in the genepool, they and their bloodline has compensated by alternative means like charisma, humor, drive, ingenuity, etc. If I see them having success among both their peers and the gals, my respect for them is GREATER than it would be for a guy like myself, because we have an in-born advantage and, thus we don't have to grow as much and can more easily succumb to complacency. So, I'm all for short guys, and if the bombs fall and we're all forced underground, their lower caloric needs and tighter stature means they'll be PERFECT for spelunking and catching cavern prey; my height is an evolutionary DISADVANTAGE if things keep going the way we are, as it was for the dinosaurs.😊
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ironic, because in all of my previous jobs with a sizeable female workforce, they'd basically taken over the break rooms and most of the guys and I went out to lunch or ate in our own cars to avoid them though, even then, sometimes we'd share numbers and get a group call going. It's the only way to assure peace, hang out, and converse honestly without hearing from HR.
Hilariously though, at my last job (plasma banking), the gals went to HR ANYWAY because they felt excluded. They may not say anything or care to discuss anything in male circles but, they sure as hell will fight tooth and claw to worm their way. Exclusively male spaces are, apparently, "insensitive" and "misogynistic" though, that hasn't stopped them from making their own bars, gyms, companies (remember that bridge that failed?), clubs, housing complexes, etc.
I don't work there anymore, and neither do most my former male colleagues, and they've been struggling to find replacements ever since, as even gals tend to hire on then request transfer or outright quit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Maybe I don't know anything as an outsider but, Zionism seems like a natural political manifestation of Talmudic Judaism. "Everything within God's Chosen People, nothing outside God's Chosen People, nothing against God's Chosen People."
In that sense, it's totally understandable, as a purely tribal instinct to advance and preserve your group at the expense of all others. Thay may not seem "spiritual" but, it's the human impulse there is, just wrapped up in denial, moral Sue Peer He Ore It Tea, elitist exploitation, and academic deception.
1
-
1
-
@bno5357
As a man, to you a woman, the best thing YOU can do to make things easier for us, so that we, as men, can do things like sustain industry and protect you from men of other cultures who aren't as considerate, is to remain off social media, leave politics to us, and either (A) be 100% honest about your shrektual past with men you'd like to date and not withhold intimacy from them (if you're NOT a Vuh Her Jinn) OR remain one until you enter a child-bearing LTR with one and remain faithful to that man.
That's really all we ask for: don't bother us while we're trying to build and maintain the civilization whose comforts you enjoy and either be pure or, that failing, put out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DrCruel
The National Socialists were inspired by the United States and British eugenicists long before we "dealt" with them. We never resolved it within ourselves because men are not inherently rational and are incapable of being wholly such. Humans will always be racist with egalitarianism constituting a "luxury ideal" only superficially worn until the infinite growth and prosperity promised by global capitalist economics and so-called democracy collapses.
We evolved as a tribal species and preference for an in-group (i.e. love for those like oneself) and discrimination against an out-group (i.e. a distrust for those unlike oneself) is part of that evolutionary psychology. The West, as it purports to be today, is a historical anomaly incongruous to our nature. The only way to be rid of racism is to make everyone the same, to completely break all religious, cultural, and biological distinctions until humanity is one, browned and compliant homogenous mass of people of a singular identity controlled by a one world government. Unless you're willing to become an identity-less serf in such a system, under an organization like the United Nations or the World Economic Forum, you will be different from others and conflict and competition ALWAYS arise from distinct groups who have differing interests.
Defeating the Reich didn't sort out racism, it just caped Germanic racialism. You want to trounce all socialists and like your country supposedly did racism but, it will always fall back on racism unless you desert nationalism and kind of unique claim to heritage and assimilate into a globalist humanity. You're fighting a battle that cannot be won without fundamentally engineering mankind into a mass of indistinct NPCs and even then, with differing locations and conditions that caused humans to evolve races in the first place, how could you make it last?
You're spinning your wheels, my capitalist friend. Racism didn't die with the Nazis because it's a human quality, no more erasable than our need to eat and our drive to reproduce. For the time being, you can try to convince yourself that you're above such things but, that'll last only so long as your comfortable, carefree lifestyle does. When food shortages emerge and order flees, you'll be right back to square one, as all Utopians inevitably are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@litpath3633
I admire your faith and do believe EVERYONE is bettered by a common moral paradigm and shared convinction in a higher power than themselves but, until my investigations combine reason and spiritual insight to convince me of the Triune Christian God, I cannot see Him as anything more than an incredibly useful abstract. Personally, I believe in blood and struggle and my forays into natural philosophy and human nature reveal the restless conflict that defines both.
That being said, I really want to believe in a God, a Heaven, and eternal joy and peace but, experience demonstrates only competitive bloodshed between beasts, microbes, and men one could only call "war". Everything out there is fighting tooth and nail for survival and while mutualism does exist, it doesn't change the fact that existence is suffering and a ceaseless fight to survive. As I see it, peace is a lie humans had to dream up as a comfort but, in practice, it's just a refractory period between battles of varying natures.
Maybe I'm wrong though; it certainly would be nice to have hope, hoping hope's true don't make it so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That intrusion scenario happened to a family I knew in Germany. They had an electic fence run off an internal generator (because Skinnies had cut the powerlines before), attack dogs, bars on windows and doors, and personal firearms. That night, the Skinnies used copper wire to connect parts of the fence and short out the generator; they threw a rug over the razor ribbon; they'd poisoned the dogs with tainted meat; and the family didn't know they'd entered the compound until a cabel they'd tethered to a truck outside the gate was used to tear the front door off its hinges. Six guys barged in to be confronted by a mother, a teen son, and a teen girl all holding automatic weapons (which were illegal, but necessary).
Luckily, the guys left and this Afrikaner family didn't have to fire, because if they had, the police would've arrested THEM and the clans of the dead intruders would've placed a blood price on their heads. So, even if they'd eliminated the threat, they'd be slaughtered in prison with those NOT detained hunted down like dogs.
When this family called the cops, the police on other end heard their accent and put them on hold indefinitely. The BEST you can hope for is that your deterrence measures are enough to have you left alone, because if you fight back, they'll ruin you for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@College email noone
I've always wanted to be a soldier for reasons too plethoric to enumerate here. That being said, in a world where militaries have become the mercenary forces of special interests and global collusions, only the FFL is honest enough to admit it. Furthermore, they only permit men to serve and are considered the most hardy and old school conventional corps in the world.
Many liberal media outlets have called them a bastion of xenophobia, sexism, racism, misogyny, toxic masculinity, bigotry, bullying, and so forth. Several have even gone so far as to call them a "death cult" and to this day, they maintain brutal hazing rituals and initiations that'd be permitted in no other Western armed force. They actively beat recruits within an inch of their lives for failing to uphold discipline and while training deaths are not everyday occurrences, they're far from uncommon.
Growing up, I thought it'd be cool to test my mettle and find the limits, then go beyond them. The Legion is a crucible of suffering with an unparalleled esprit de corps and, if they have me, and I survive my term, it'll no doubt be the greatest thing I ever achieve. I don't care that it IS in service to the French government, at least it'll be among brothers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CantoniaCustoms
There is such a thing as Christofascism or "Clerical Fascism". The Nation is above all in terms of mortal life but, that does not mean it is the end-all, be-all of everything. In fact, it is thanks, in large part, to Mussolini that Vatican City became politically independent and enabled to run its policy affairs according to the will of the Pope so that it would bow to no sovereign.
Tradition, purity, order, and authority are all very much compatible to Christianity and, it could be argued, essential in either monarchical or authoritarian regimes to suppressing the influence of Satan in society. After all, a so-called "free society" is one open to the perversions of The Adversary. Fascism is anything but open.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blabbergasted4380
Personally, I think we should run education, structurally, like the Germans do. They don't stuff all their kids' heads full of general subjects because they recognize that they're neither all smart enough to justify university attendance nor motivated enough to remain in university.
Consequently, only the most evidently motivated and intelligent kids go to university. Those beneath them go to various applied sciences schools or vocational institutes because a nation full of useless university degrees is an inefficient one.
Here's the cool part, those NOT going to university choose their vocations early in our equivalent to middle school. They're given a list of open positions that they qualify for and are motivated enough to earn. The government and business coordinate closely to assure that there's never, if possible, too many people of one particular trade on the market. Everyone has a place and there is a place for everyone; you may not like it but, that's predicated on your performance and cognitive ability.
They pick a trade that is almost guaranteed to have a job spot opening then spend half their time at school get questions answered on theoreticals (because the kids teach themselves at home through homework and reserve school time for clarifying what they didn't understand or getting details their individual research was unable to procure) and half their time at a local business or under a tradesman as an apprentice.
By the time they graduate, they have economically relevant skills, professional connections, and job lined up. Unemployment is extremely low and few, if any, are left out in the cold. The downside is a lack of freedom to get the schooling you want if you're not that smart or productive.
Anyone who doesn't want to participate in our version doesn't have to but, they also don't get the support and connections the State would otherwise provide them so, if they're homeschooled, their parents better know what they're doing and teach them with equal-to-or-greater-than proficiency than public educators.
Furthermore, I think we should separate schools by gender so boys can focus and have an un-intruded-upon fraternity and girls the same among themselves. Additional, all boys schools should be run like military academies with uniforms, strict codes of conduct, drills, rank hierarchies, the works and that certified veterans should be running both the boys AND the girls' schools.
Patriarchal, prussian-esque, corporatist triage education for the masses, total freedom to rise or fall to the exceptional families who want to teach their own.
1
-
@jordanmatthew6315
I favor semi-arranged marriages. If she meets men my age (because it takes time to become accomplished) or exceptional men hers during the course of her post-secondary days, she notifies me and gives them my contact info. I then wait for said guys to take the initiative to reach out to me to talk. Those who don't are instantly rejected; either they didn't have the courage to meet me ([k'ow'hard'z]) or they had ill intentions.
The rest I sit down and we shoot the breeze before I pick their brains and see if they're going anywhere and have potential. If they're not and seem unwilling to start, I kick to the curb. Those who aren't at this time but seem to want to, I discuss goals with and tell them that if they show progress I can confirm, I'll reconsider at a later date because I know what it's like to be listless and if I can turn my life around, they can, too. Plus it's added motivation.
Those with potential can then be vetted, explored, and added to the pool of active suitors/potential husbands after I have a heartwarming sit-down, break out the photo albums, and walk them through my daughter's life so that by the time they leave my office, they understand how much I care for her and what I'm willing to do to protect her as well as what's expected of them. For those who decline to continue, I see on their way and for those interested, I let them court my daughter. Behind everything, I check their credit histories, criminal records, social media, etc. and vet them through their past that way and interviews with families and friends.
If both they and my girls follow the rules, the process continues until only the most accomplished and principled man who my daughter loves remains and I provide the dowry. If my girls break the rules, they're out. If the men betray my trust, they're out.
It's our jobs as fathers to ensure our girls are in good hands and, if we believe they are, to befriend and mentor their husbands to be while reaching out to their families who we've already come to have high expectations of.
1
-
@jordanmatthew6315
I favor semi-arranged marriages. If she meets men my age (because it takes time to become accomplished) or exceptional men hers during the course of her post-secondary days, she notifies me and gives them my contact info. I then wait for said guys to take the initiative to reach out to me to talk. Those who don't are instantly rejected; either they didn't have the courage to meet me or they had ill intentions.
The rest I sit down and we shoot the breeze before I pick their brains and see if they're going anywhere and have potential. If they're not and seem unwilling to start, I eject. Those who aren't at this time but seem to want to, I discuss goals with and tell them that if they show progress I can confirm, I'll reconsider at a later date because I know what it's like to be listless and if I can turn my life around, they can, too. Plus it's added motivation.
Those with potential can then be vetted, explored, and added to the pool of active suitors/potential husbands after I have a heartwarming sit-down, break out the photo albums, and walk them through my daughter's life so that by the time they leave my office, they understand how much I care for her and what I'm willing to do to protect her as well as what's expected of them. For those who decline to continue, I see on their way and for those interested, I let them court my daughter. Behind everything, I check their credit histories, criminal records, social media, etc. and vet them through their past that way and interviews with families and friends.
If both they and my girls follow the rules, the process continues until only the most accomplished and principled man who my daughter loves remains and I provide the dowry. If my girls break the rules, they're out. If the men betray my trust, they're out.
It's our jobs as fathers to ensure our girls are in good hands and, if we believe they are, to befriend and mentor their husbands to be while reaching out to their families who we've already come to have high expectations of.
1
-
@MyContinent
Well, legally I can't force them to remain but, unless they do and follow the rules, they'll be cut out of the inheritance, cut off from my aid, and I won't endorse them to any of their prospective husbands. I won't disown them unless I know they did something horrid, like cheating on a guy or getting a "Planned Parenthood Procedure" but, my love is conditional and they will get less of it if they fail to meet the standards I raise them with.
I believe that if you love your kids, discipline them, establish boundaries, set expectations, and hold them to them, they will probably turn out okay but, I won't give a penny to someone who's living a lifestyle with which I'm dissonant. I won't abide modernity in my house or enable it from afar. On that, there shall be NO COMPROMISE.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I can see the appeal but, I'm preferential to India Eisley; she's got that neotenous overflow from her youth in her childish cheeks and Burtonian eyes but, the simultaneous sharp jaw angle, defined nose and orbits, and overall behavior lend a certain dark and elf-like mischief that sort of puts you on edge. Whereas Mia Goth embodies "psycho imbred", Eisley captures "sinister child mentally beyond her years". I recommend The Curse of Sleeping Beauty, Adolescence, Look Away and, if you want to see her real debut, Underworld: Awakening though, the lattermost is more B-movie guilty pleasure than anything else if you enjoyed the prior entries in that series.
[EDIT] Nevermind The Curse of Sleeping Beauty, I recommended it without having seen it and, other than a few scenes, it's a god-awful film written by an idiot intent on throwing in a bunch of occult ideas without making anything of them. I wasted two hours of my life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I set firm time limits and expectations with my high school and college GFs after growing tired of being their emotional handkerchief, "I've had a long day, you have 15 minutes of my undivided attention to summarize your drama and gripes. Then, I'll disclose whatever I think about it and we'll move on. If that's not enough for you, talk to your mom, sisters, or friends (who were all gals, because I stopped dating gals with guy friends). They can empathize more than I ever could and I am not Inspextor Gadget."
If you can establish boundaries and enforce them through stuff like cutting off contact if they fail to respect it or being physically present but mentally checked out, they adapt to you and the relationship stays in YOUR frame.
She's there to provide you what your family, friends, mentors, and colleagues cannot and vice versa; it's a waste of both parties' time to do stuff together that can and should be delegated to more appropriate third parties. I'm not a shrink, a priest, a gossip gal, etc. I can't be her everything and it's not healthy for anyone that I should try. I can't give that and I don't need the added stress of having to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you're planning on messing around for 20 years then using a Suh Kher for retirement after breeding with another dude, you don't deserve that out.
If a girl grows up well, with a strong father, preserves her virtue, stays fit, learns domestic skills that can help her support a man (thereby enabling him to focus on work, self-improvement, and building his legacy), and she courts around looking for a dude that'll support her whom she finds attractive with the help of her father and community, that's another matter.
The latter still intends to use a guy as a retirement, but she's spent a good deal of her life BEING WORTHY of that investment, and that's a major problem with modern parents: an inability to take a long view when raising kids.
Boys must be raised to be minimally competent maximally competitive PRODUCERS who are the primary makers of themselves, their networks, and their wealth.
Girls must be raised knowing that they're THE PRODUCT of their Father, the producer, to be, in a sense, sold to another producer, who is the REAL prize.
If fathers asked, "How can I raise my daughter to be attractive to a strong, successful man who'll give her and their children the best protection, provisions, and Pay Tree Hark He?" and made that his mission, gals would be raised A LOT better, and in the end, they'll be a lot happier than if they're raised to, "You know, like, be totally, like, happy and empowered and stuff."
Their happiness has to be a byproduct of getting them to where they need to be, not where they say they want to be. Fathers know what's best for them and have to act paternally for their ultimate benefit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gradius12
Neither the "freedom" you've been conditioned to champion nor the democracy you've been indoctrinated to worship are worth fighting for and are, in fact, being employed in concert to weaken Western nations and mask the oligarchs at its now-cancerous heart. For millennia, democracy was reviled for the insanity it is and, like a b|tch in heat, you jump on anyone bold enough to question it.
You might as well be a cultist, and an ignorant one at that who thinks the corrupt, failed-actor gangster running The Ukraine is any better than Putin as he jails his political opponents and sends several generations of men into Russian killzones like lambs to the slaughter. A dear friend and college colleague of mine, Oleksii Demitrikov, fled that failed state as soon as he was able and for as much as he hates the Russians (Marxist-impelled Holodomor and all), he hates his own government even more.
You know little of this geopolitical struggle and less of those corporate and political interests in Washington and Brussels who're content to supply Zelenskyy with enough ammunition to keep his cannon fodder flowing as his personal fortune soars. You know little because you only care enough to parrot whatever tripe your media sources vocalize and only because you want to signal to yourself and others that you're a "good person".
You sicken me, almost as much as the Russian Federation but, at least they're man enough to employ force and shed blood in pursuit of their agendas...instead of passive-aggressively casting uninformed opinions on social media sections like an incensed teenage girl.
Sad...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I get a wehrmacht-style undercut every two weeks (short to bare on hard-parted side and back, long hair on top that drapes over the short, meshed hair on the other side) and I've always gotten compliments or asked if I was in the Marines or Army, which I always take as a compliment. Last week, after a fresh cut, I was taking the light rail and a smarmy, black-haired, bearded banker-type with a fragile frame whose ethnicity I shan't speculate on gave me a hard stare and called me, "Fascist pig." "Thank you, Rabbi," with a bemused grin, was my reply. He just gawked at my shamelessness, muttered a curse under his breath, then moved down the car to another seat, where he proceeded to tell others I was a "Hitlerite"--I do wear all black, am half-German, and had that haircut, so, I MUST'VE been--in a seeming effort to get me lynched. I just smiled back and gave little waves as people looked from him to me.
He wasn't correct, strictly speaking, about my politics but, I found his moral outrage and ad hominems particularly invigorating. I'm a late millennial (28) but, I find being called that or "far-right" to be a badge of honor I wear proudly. To be an enemy of the liberal democratic Zeitgeist is to be rebel for sanity and thorn in the Little Hat's tribe; I find both reassuring.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Met a soldier in the US Army the other day and we had a conversation. Early 30's, incredibly fit, very handsome, etc. so I ask if he's got a family, wife and kids, and so on. He responds, "Nah, not my thing." When I asked what he had in place of one, his "life mission" or raison d'être, was, he replied, "I want to set up a security business." Cool, I thought to myself, he's going to help create jobs. He then added, "So I can fund a humanitarian mission in Africa or Asia." That's not a patriot who cares for his own; that's a delusional globalist in denial.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ivanivanovichrasputin3098
You'd be surprised but, it ultimately depends, I suppose, on how you ask. I carry these cool little business cards I had embossed with my family crest and motto along with a number to a burner phone (never give a girl your real phone # unless you've really gotten to know her) that're blank on the back. I write the location of the pool, a date and time, a duration w/ possibly after activity like "will swim from 1800-1830, maybe quick bite to eat after", then "modest swimwear preferred" because frankly, I don't bikinis any differently than underwear.
I say, "Hi, name's Rhaefnhyrst," only friends and family call me by my fore or nick names, "I noticed you around and think you're interesting." I then extend the card and say, "Info's on the card." Some decline it but, most don't and, after they take it, I smile, nod, and say, "You have a nice day, Miss. Maybe I'll see you later." then I depart.
It probably works better than you'd think and if they can't make it, they always have my card to schedule something else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All citizens found protesting Ill Lee Gaul My Grantz should be apprehended and interrogated on camera then asked, "Do you stand for the 'rights' of criminal exogens?
"Do you understand that by standing by them at the expense of your own country and countrymen, you promote the xenoforming of American sociopolitical discourse, American economics, and American culture to reflect the failed lands they had a part in ruining and fled from?
"Having stood against the aforementioned political thought, economics, and culture of your homeland for these outsiders, are you willing and brave enough to share their fate as their 'brother' or 'sister' and 'comrade' in the 'universal identity' you misguidedly ascribed to both your countrymen AND said outsiders?"
If they say "No", or anything like unto it to any of them, they'll be compelled to look at the camera and admit, "I am an enemy to my people, nation, and their shared future who lacks the courage to stand for the people I claim to represent and stand by them in accepting the consequences of my betrayal and fraternization with this country's adversaries." Then they'll be released, publicly branded [week], and that video will be circulated online for all to see.
If they say "Yes," to the last question or remain silent, they will be commended for their courage to stand for their convictions and others then promptly stripped of their citizenship and exiled with their deported and repatriated "friends".
If you cannot stand for the body and favor pathogens, you will join them in their expulsion OR be known as a feckless suspect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Curious, I'm not committed to a consort yet but, I was thinking of making a professionally scarified and tattooed emblem depicting her name followed by, Konzort und Exklusive Zuchterinchen der, followed by my name, my family crest, and our motto as a prerequisite for my commitment.
Now, many will laugh and say, "No self-respecting girl will do that," but a "ride-or-[dye]" gal shall. Now that I know it's been employed to great success by cultists; I'm even more excited by the prospect. If she wants my children, protection, provisioning, and Pay Tree Are Key; the willingness to have herself branded, of her own accord, as mine, shall be a condition. If not, she can find another guy who's content for her to run around unmarked and unaccountable.
What an ingenious idea--a possession sigil on the pubis mons marking a girl as taken--and another enterprising man came to it, too. Will marvels never cease?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@enricofriske1696
@enricofriske1696
Every man wants to but, therein lies the problem with cohabitation and legal marriage, if she's NOT, there is little he can do about it without risking familial destruction and potentially a lifetime of financial servitude. I may have kids in the future but, unlike THIS guy, I will NEVER give my consort the legal whiphand.
As I see it, gals have TWO major choices in a union, (A) the Pay Tree Are Kuh they pledge loyalty to, and (B) to leave without the kids, property, or a single cent to try their luck elsewhere. I'm consulting a lawyer now about how to make this possible and I have a rough plan in place.
For me, it's a family on my absolute terms or single fatherhood through surrogacy. You can't compromise with them. If the girls I court don't like it, they can find another man who'll be their beta.
1
-
@enricofriske1696
Every man wants to but, therein lies the problem with cohabitation and legal marriage, if she's NOT, there is little he can do about it without risking familial destruction and potentially a lifetime of financial servitude. I may have kids in the future but, unlike THIS guy, I will NEVER give my consort the legal Wuh Ip Hand.
As I see it, gals have TWO major choices in a union, (A) the Pay Tree Are Kuh they pledge loyalty to, and (B) to leave without the kids, property, or a single cent to try their luck elsewhere. I'm consulting a lawyer now about how to make this possible and I have a rough plan in place.
For me, it's a family on my absolute terms or single fatherhood through surrogacy. You can't compromise with them. If the girls I court don't like it, they can find another man who'll be their Bay Tuh.
1
-
@enricofriske1696
Every man wants to but, therein lies the problem with cohabitation and legal marriage, if she's NOT, there is little he can do about it without risking familial destruction and potentially a lifetime of financial servitude. I may have kids in the future but, unlike THIS guy, I will NEVER give my consort the legal Wuh Ip Hand.
As I see it, gals have TWO major choices in a union, (A) the Pay Tree Are Kuh they pledge loyalty to, and (B) to leave without the kids, property, or a single cent to try their luck elsewhere. I'm consulting a lawyer now about how to make this possible and I have a rough plan in place.
For me, it's a family on my absolute terms or single fatherhood through surrogacy. You can't compromise with them. If the girls I court don't like it, they can find another man who'll be their thrall.
1
-
@enricofriske1696
Every man wants to but, therein lies the problem with cohabitation and legal marriage, if she's NOT, there is little he can do about it without risking familial destruction and potentially a lifetime of financial Sir Vih Tood. I may have kids in the future but, unlike THIS guy, I will NEVER give my consort the legal Wuh Ip Hand.
As I see it, gals have TWO major choices in a union, (A) the Pay Tree Are Kuh they pledge loyalty to, and (B) to leave without the kids, property, or a single cent to try their luck elsewhere. I'm consulting a lawyer now about how to make this possible and I have a rough plan in place.
For me, it's a family on my absolute terms or single fatherhood through surrogacy. You can't compromise with them. If the girls I court don't like it, they can find another man who'll be their thrall.
1
-
Every man wants to but, therein lies the problem with cohabitation and legal marriage, if she's NOT, there is little he can do about it without risking familial destruction and potentially a lifetime of financial servitude. I may have kids in the future but, unlike THIS guy, I will NEVER give my consort the legal Wuh Ip Hand.
As I see it, gals have TWO major choices in a union, (A) the Pay Tree Are Kuh they pledge loyalty to, and (B) to leave without the kids, property, or a single cent to try their luck elsewhere. I'm consulting a lawyer now about how to make this possible and I have a rough plan in place.
For me, it's a family on my absolute terms or single fatherhood through surrogacy. You can't compromise with them. If the girls I court don't like it, they can find another man who'll be their Bay Tuh.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sakhmeov
A Chauvinist would recognize that a woman's place (this isn't a woman, it's a female, and a less than human one at that) is NEITHER in the public sphere NOR in politics but, at home, tending the hearth, nursing a baby, teaching the kids the curriculum her husband gave her, and preparing a meal for her man's return. I don't blame you as I, too, was born in a gynocentric world and being led by your balls after poon is a HARD habit to break but, you'd best get on it, lad.
Never accept a female in any kind of male sphere, this one inclusive. Now go pick up something heavy and put it down repeatedly, you're stinking of estrogen.
1
-
1
-
@andylewis7360
No, you can't, simply an opportunist. War for profit's sake is never acceptable, especially when foreign competition can be curbed through import tariffs. As for the quality of American automobiles, it doesn't matter; insofar as I'm concerned, as little money as possible should be circulated abroad. If we can produce it, we should be producing it, regardless of cost or customer complaint.
That, of course, is a political stance contrary to the conveniences of globalization. I don't give a shit though; we're too interdependent on foreign producers and while they may be better, the American worker and our industrial self-sufficiency come first. If you want to get a nice car from overseas, get your circumcision and fuck off to Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Perhaps, after the debauched "democratic" (let's face it, there's only oligarchy and autocracy) society falls and we're re-established in a more patriarchal order, we should compel young girls to visit loud, dirty, and dangerous places of male work as a "scared-straight" shock therapy to encourage workforce aversion early on before they get ideas ultimately unfulfilling for their lives. In addition to fear and disgust, it can ALSO be a lesson in gratitude towards their fathers, uncles, cousins, and brothers, "who'll toil in the risk that they might live in the roses".
He'll, there should be enforced holidays like St. Valentine's Day where boys prepare signs for their desks stating their desired or an assigned career and the girls must research the adversity of those fields then write thank you notes to them for doing what girls were never meant to so they can focus on having children.
Boys, in turn, can right pre-emptive letters of thanks to girls for preserving their youth, innocence, and purity in respect to their future husbands.
Regardless, we gotta start young just as our enemies are. Maybe not full Hitler Youth and League of German Girls stuff, per say but, participation in pro-evolutionary gender roles and tradition kids groups ought to be mandatory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beliber6681
Personally, I think it depends on where that relationship is at. Currently, I'm courting six different girls. Five of them are casual with usually no more than one date a week and I rarely text them more than twice that; just collecting data, vetting both pasts and friends/family, forming a psych profile, etc. One of them is what I consider semi-serious, meaning that we're not yet intimate but, we have amazing chemistry and both enjoy spending time with one another. I usually date her twice a week but, still, I don't reach out more than once every other day.
As I see it, if you're living life right, it's industrious and largely occupied with friends, family, personal hobbies, reflection and self-development, and then courtship where possible for limited times so as to "keep a distance that makes the heart grow fonder" and not disrupt the productivity and drive that attracts girls in the first place. Treating my time exclusively and doling it out sparingly (usually no more than one to two hours per girl per day with occasional exceptions) makes it more valuable, and I include texts in that privilege.
I'm able to do this because I can type at over 100 wpm and I enjoy the online interaction but, with girls, I ALWAYS favor too little over too much contact. After all, if I am constantly texting them, that suggests I have nothing better to do, that I'm not busy accumulating resources, developing myself, and courting their competition and that makes them do a double take, "Do I really want to be hanging with this guy? He's so clingy?"
Being too available has never worked out for me so, I don't advise it with others UNLESS you're courting someone exclusively because you genuinely feel they're union material, and even then...absence makes the heart grow fonder.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember, remember, the "men" of September,
The Muslims, airplanes, and plot!
I know of no reason, why the Elite's treason, should ever be forgot...
Twelve years ago, a group of Muslim fanatics, with the aid of the US Shadow Government, convinced a nation to die in the deserts, that their profits and political powers might be expanded at the cost of young American men and a debt that'll come due sooner or later, for which we ALL must pay...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Women have to work, they just don't have to work in an industry under a hierarchy of men and around potential usurpers to your throne and bitter careerist women. Your domain IS their industry. Housework, meals, intimacy, and childcare are their service industries. Gardening, canning, and filling your pantry are their industrial production. Their strength is their genuine and enthusiastic capacity to serve you so you can serve yourself FIRST as the economic engine, protector, and spiritual patriarch of the household which THEN serves THEM and your children. Hell, if you feel generous, give her some of the profits generated by the surpluses of her activity which YOU'VE enabled as an incentivizing allowance. If they genuinely love and are grateful to you, they'll be happy to get THAT MUCH.
You're her lord, she's your serf, she and your children are your subjects; her "pampering" and "privilege" is her capacity to be a part of that and carry YOUR genes in the children you have together and to be willfully bound to a man who loves her through strong leadership, reliable providership, transcendent patriarchy, purpose in aforementioned industry, and firm discipline if she warrants it.
To Hell with the "1950's" housewife! Those bored women bred the Boomers and the female fanatics of the Marxist [Shrektual] revolution. If you're not willing to work a woman hard for your mutual benefit, you're a servant and will be father to the worst kind of monsters: soft boiz and entitled gals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I, too, want to believe Trump is real. Problem is, the only reason he won the first time is because they didn't expect the Peasants to vote for him and couldn't risk delegitimizing the democratic façade by outright removing him and even then, they controlled the Whitehouse staff, Pentagon, Congress, and Federal Bureaucracy.
That won't make that mistake again and it's clear Trump has reversed course on multiple positions in favor of the Elite's agendas, like immigration, inflation, Making America Great Again instead of Israel, 8 Speech, Prenatal In Fan Tih Cyde, etc.
If Trump could make a difference, we wouldn't be permitted to vote for him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1