Youtube comments of Viktor\x27 vonthe Rhaefnhyrst, I (@Viktor_vonthe_Rhaefnhyrst).

  1. 4600
  2. 1500
  3. 645
  4. 558
  5. 538
  6. 455
  7. 446
  8. 437
  9. 429
  10. 411
  11. 386
  12. 378
  13. 348
  14. 340
  15. 319
  16. 317
  17. 302
  18. 286
  19. 285
  20. 277
  21. 261
  22. 259
  23. 216
  24. 211
  25. 204
  26. 198
  27. 180
  28. 170
  29. 154
  30. 151
  31. 142
  32. 140
  33. 133
  34. 128
  35. 126
  36. 119
  37. 113
  38. 108
  39. 105
  40. 104
  41. 103
  42. 103
  43. 101
  44. 100
  45. 97
  46. 92
  47. 90
  48. 86
  49. 83
  50. 82
  51. 82
  52. 79
  53. 78
  54. 78
  55. 77
  56. 76
  57. 75
  58. 74
  59. 74
  60. 72
  61. 72
  62. 70
  63. 69
  64. 67
  65. 67
  66. 67
  67. 66
  68. 65
  69. 64
  70. 63
  71. 61
  72. 60
  73. 60
  74. 60
  75. 59
  76. 58
  77. 57
  78. 56
  79. 56
  80. 56
  81. 55
  82. 53
  83. 53
  84. 52
  85. 52
  86. 49
  87. 49
  88. 49
  89. 46
  90. 45
  91. 44
  92. 44
  93. 44
  94. 44
  95. 43
  96. 42
  97. 42
  98. 41
  99. 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
  100. 40
  101. 40
  102. 40
  103. 40
  104. 40
  105. 40
  106. 40
  107. 39
  108. 39
  109. 39
  110. 39
  111. 39
  112. 38
  113. 38
  114. 38
  115. 38
  116. 38
  117. 37
  118. 37
  119. 36
  120. 36
  121. 36
  122. 35
  123. 34
  124. 34
  125. 34
  126. 34
  127. 33
  128. 32
  129. 32
  130. 32
  131. 32
  132. 31
  133. 31
  134. 31
  135. 31
  136. 31
  137. 31
  138. 31
  139. 31
  140. 30
  141. 30
  142. 29
  143. 29
  144. 29
  145. 29
  146. 28
  147. 28
  148. 28
  149. 27
  150. 27
  151. 27
  152. 27
  153. 26
  154. 26
  155. 26
  156. 26
  157. 26
  158. 25
  159. 25
  160. 25
  161. 25
  162. 25
  163. 25
  164. 25
  165. 25
  166. 25
  167. 24
  168. 24
  169. 24
  170. 24
  171. 24
  172. 24
  173. 24
  174. 24
  175. 23
  176. 23
  177. 23
  178. 22
  179. 22
  180. 22
  181. 22
  182. 22
  183. 21
  184. 21
  185. 21
  186. 21
  187. 21
  188. 21
  189. 21
  190. 20
  191. 20
  192. 20
  193. 20
  194. 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
  195. 20
  196. 20
  197. 20
  198. 19
  199. 19
  200. 19
  201. 19
  202. 19
  203. 19
  204. 18
  205. 18
  206. 18
  207. 18
  208. 18
  209. 18
  210. 17
  211. 17
  212. 17
  213. 17
  214. 17
  215. 17
  216. 17
  217. 17
  218. 17
  219. 17
  220. 17
  221. 17
  222. 17
  223. 17
  224. 17
  225. 16
  226. 16
  227. 16
  228. 16
  229. 16
  230. 16
  231. 16
  232. 16
  233. 16
  234. 16
  235. 16
  236. 15
  237. 15
  238. 15
  239. 15
  240. 15
  241. 15
  242. 15
  243. 15
  244. 15
  245. 15
  246. 15
  247. 15
  248. 15
  249. 15
  250. 15
  251. 14
  252. 14
  253. 14
  254. 14
  255. 14
  256. 14
  257. 14
  258. 14
  259. 14
  260. 14
  261. 14
  262. 14
  263. 14
  264. 14
  265. 13
  266. 13
  267. 13
  268. 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
  269. 13
  270. 13
  271. 13
  272. 12
  273. 12
  274. 12
  275. 12
  276. 12
  277. 12
  278. 12
  279. 12
  280. 12
  281. 12
  282. 12
  283. 12
  284. 12
  285. 12
  286. 12
  287. 12
  288. 12
  289. 12
  290. 12
  291. 12
  292. 11
  293. 11
  294. 11
  295. 11
  296. 11
  297. 11
  298. 11
  299. 11
  300. 11
  301. 11
  302. 11
  303. 11
  304. 11
  305. 11
  306. 11
  307. 11
  308. 11
  309. 11
  310. 11
  311. 11
  312. 10
  313. 10
  314. 10
  315. 10
  316. 10
  317. 10
  318. 10
  319. 10
  320. 10
  321. 10
  322. 10
  323. 10
  324. 10
  325. 10
  326. 10
  327. 10
  328. 10
  329. 10
  330. 10
  331. 10
  332. 10
  333. 10
  334. 10
  335. 10
  336. 10
  337. 9
  338. 9
  339. 9
  340. 9
  341. 9
  342. 9
  343. 9
  344. 9
  345. 9
  346. 9
  347. 9
  348. 9
  349. 9
  350. 9
  351. 9
  352. 9
  353. 9
  354. 9
  355. 9
  356. 9
  357. 9
  358. 9
  359. 9
  360. 9
  361. 9
  362. 9
  363. 9
  364. 9
  365. 9
  366. 9
  367. 9
  368. 9
  369. 9
  370. 8
  371. 8
  372. 8
  373. 8
  374. 8
  375. 8
  376. 8
  377. 8
  378. 8
  379. 8
  380. 8
  381. 8
  382. 8
  383. 8
  384. 8
  385. 8
  386. 8
  387. 8
  388. 8
  389. 8
  390. 8
  391. 8
  392. 8
  393. 8
  394. 8
  395. 8
  396. 8
  397. 8
  398. 8
  399. 8
  400. 8
  401. 8
  402. 8
  403. 8
  404. 8
  405. 8
  406. 8
  407. 8
  408. 8
  409. 8
  410. 7
  411. 7
  412. 7
  413. 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
  414. 7
  415. 7
  416. 7
  417. 7
  418. 7
  419. 7
  420. 7
  421. 7
  422. 7
  423. 7
  424. 7
  425. 7
  426. 7
  427. 7
  428. 7
  429. 7
  430. 7
  431. 7
  432. 7
  433. 7
  434. 7
  435. 7
  436. 7
  437. 7
  438. 7
  439. 7
  440. 7
  441. 7
  442. 7
  443. 7
  444. 7
  445. 7
  446. 7
  447. 7
  448. 7
  449. 7
  450. 7
  451. 7
  452. 7
  453. 7
  454. 7
  455. 7
  456. 7
  457. 7
  458. 7
  459. 7
  460. 7
  461. 7
  462. 7
  463. 7
  464. 6
  465. 6
  466. 6
  467. 6
  468. 6
  469. 6
  470. 6
  471. 6
  472. 6
  473. 6
  474. 6
  475. 6
  476. 6
  477. 6
  478. 6
  479. 6
  480. 6
  481. 6
  482. 6
  483. 6
  484. 6
  485. 6
  486. 6
  487. 6
  488. 6
  489. 6
  490. 6
  491. 6
  492. 6
  493. 6
  494. 6
  495. 6
  496. 6
  497. 6
  498. 6
  499. 6
  500. 6
  501. 6
  502. 6
  503.  @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
  504. 6
  505. 6
  506. 6
  507. 6
  508. 6
  509. 6
  510. 6
  511. 6
  512. 6
  513. 6
  514. 6
  515. 6
  516. 6
  517. 6
  518. 6
  519. 6
  520. 6
  521. 6
  522. 6
  523. 6
  524. 6
  525. 6
  526. 6
  527. 6
  528. 6
  529. 6
  530. 6
  531. 6
  532. 5
  533. 5
  534. 5
  535. 5
  536. 5
  537. 5
  538. 5
  539. 5
  540. 5
  541. 5
  542. 5
  543. 5
  544. 5
  545. 5
  546. 5
  547. 5
  548. 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
  549. 5
  550. 5
  551. 5
  552. 5
  553. 5
  554. 5
  555. 5
  556. 5
  557. 5
  558. 5
  559. 5
  560. 5
  561. 5
  562. 5
  563. 5
  564. 5
  565. 5
  566. 5
  567. 5
  568. 5
  569. 5
  570. 5
  571. 5
  572. 5
  573. 5
  574. 5
  575. 5
  576. 5
  577. 5
  578. 5
  579. 5
  580. 5
  581. 5
  582. 5
  583. 5
  584. 5
  585. 5
  586. 5
  587. 5
  588. 5
  589. 5
  590. 5
  591. 5
  592. 5
  593. 5
  594. 5
  595. 5
  596. 5
  597. 5
  598. 5
  599. 5
  600. 5
  601. 5
  602. 5
  603. 5
  604. 5
  605. 5
  606. 5
  607. 5
  608. 5
  609. 5
  610. 5
  611. 5
  612. 5
  613. 5
  614. 5
  615. 5
  616. 5
  617. 5
  618. 5
  619. 5
  620. 5
  621. 5
  622. 5
  623. 5
  624. 4
  625. 4
  626. 4
  627. 4
  628. 4
  629. 4
  630. 4
  631. 4
  632. 4
  633. 4
  634. 4
  635. 4
  636. 4
  637. 4
  638. 4
  639. 4
  640. 4
  641. 4
  642. 4
  643. 4
  644. 4
  645. 4
  646. 4
  647. 4
  648. 4
  649. 4
  650. 4
  651. 4
  652. 4
  653. 4
  654. 4
  655. 4
  656. 4
  657. 4
  658. 4
  659. 4
  660. 4
  661. 4
  662. 4
  663. 4
  664. 4
  665. 4
  666. 4
  667. 4
  668. 4
  669. 4
  670. 4
  671. 4
  672. 4
  673. 4
  674. 4
  675. 4
  676. 4
  677. 4
  678. 4
  679. 4
  680. 4
  681. 4
  682. 4
  683. 4
  684. 4
  685. 4
  686. 4
  687. 4
  688. 4
  689. 4
  690. 4
  691. 4
  692. 4
  693. 4
  694. 4
  695. 4
  696. 4
  697. 4
  698. 4
  699. 4
  700. 4
  701. 4
  702. 4
  703. 4
  704. 4
  705. 4
  706. 4
  707. 4
  708. 4
  709. 4
  710. 4
  711. 4
  712. 4
  713. 4
  714. 4
  715. 4
  716. 4
  717. 4
  718. 4
  719. 4
  720. 4
  721. 4
  722. 4
  723. 4
  724. 4
  725. 4
  726. 4
  727. 4
  728. 4
  729. 4
  730. 4
  731. 4
  732. 4
  733. 4
  734. 4
  735. 4
  736. 4
  737. 4
  738. 4
  739. 4
  740. 4
  741. 4
  742. 4
  743. 4
  744. 4
  745. 4
  746. 4
  747. 4
  748. 4
  749. 4
  750. 4
  751. 4
  752. 4
  753. 4
  754. 4
  755. 4
  756. 4
  757. 4
  758. 4
  759. 3
  760. 3
  761. 3
  762. 3
  763. 3
  764. 3
  765. 3
  766. 3
  767. 3
  768. 3
  769. 3
  770. 3
  771. 3
  772. 3
  773. 3
  774. 3
  775. 3
  776. 3
  777. 3
  778. 3
  779. 3
  780. 3
  781. 3
  782. 3
  783. 3
  784. 3
  785. 3
  786. 3
  787. 3
  788. 3
  789. 3
  790. 3
  791. 3
  792. 3
  793. 3
  794. 3
  795. 3
  796. 3
  797. 3
  798. 3
  799. 3
  800. 3
  801. 3
  802. 3
  803. 3
  804. 3
  805. 3
  806. 3
  807. 3
  808. 3
  809. 3
  810. 3
  811. 3
  812. 3
  813. 3
  814. 3
  815. 3
  816. 3
  817. 3
  818. 3
  819. 3
  820. 3
  821. 3
  822. 3
  823. 3
  824. 3
  825. 3
  826. 3
  827.  @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
  828. 3
  829. 3
  830. 3
  831. 3
  832. 3
  833. 3
  834. 3
  835. 3
  836. 3
  837. 3
  838. 3
  839. 3
  840. 3
  841. 3
  842. 3
  843. 3
  844. 3
  845. 3
  846. 3
  847. 3
  848. 3
  849. 3
  850. 3
  851. 3
  852. 3
  853. 3
  854. 3
  855. 3
  856. 3
  857. 3
  858. 3
  859. 3
  860. 3
  861. 3
  862. 3
  863. 3
  864. 3
  865. 3
  866.  @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
  867. 3
  868. 3
  869. 3
  870. 3
  871. 3
  872. 3
  873. 3
  874. 3
  875. 3
  876. 3
  877. 3
  878. 3
  879. 3
  880. 3
  881. 3
  882. 3
  883. 3
  884. 3
  885. 3
  886. 3
  887. 3
  888. 3
  889. 3
  890. 3
  891. 3
  892. 3
  893. 3
  894. 3
  895. 3
  896. 3
  897. 3
  898. 3
  899. 3
  900. 3
  901. 3
  902. 3
  903. 3
  904. 3
  905. 3
  906. 3
  907. 3
  908. 3
  909. 3
  910. 3
  911. 3
  912. 3
  913. 3
  914. 3
  915. 3
  916. 3
  917. 3
  918. 3
  919. 3
  920. 3
  921. 3
  922. 3
  923. 3
  924. 3
  925. 3
  926. 3
  927. 3
  928. 3
  929. 3
  930. 3
  931. 3
  932. 3
  933. 3
  934. 3
  935. 3
  936. 3
  937. 3
  938. 3
  939. 3
  940. 3
  941. 3
  942. 3
  943. 3
  944. 3
  945. 3
  946. 3
  947. 3
  948. 3
  949. 3
  950. 3
  951. 3
  952. 3
  953. 3
  954. 3
  955. 3
  956. 3
  957. 3
  958. 3
  959. 3
  960. 3
  961. 3
  962. 3
  963. 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
  964. 3
  965. 2
  966. 2
  967. 2
  968. 2
  969. 2
  970. 2
  971. 2
  972. 2
  973. 2
  974.  @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
  975. 2
  976. 2
  977. 2
  978. 2
  979. 2
  980.  @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
  981. 2
  982. 2
  983. 2
  984. 2
  985. 2
  986. 2
  987. 2
  988. 2
  989. 2
  990. 2
  991. 2
  992. 2
  993. 2
  994. 2
  995. 2
  996. 2
  997. 2
  998. 2
  999. 2
  1000. 2
  1001. 2
  1002. 2
  1003. 2
  1004. 2
  1005. 2
  1006. 2
  1007. 2
  1008. 2
  1009. 2
  1010. 2
  1011. 2
  1012. 2
  1013. 2
  1014. 2
  1015. 2
  1016. 2
  1017. 2
  1018. 2
  1019. 2
  1020. 2
  1021. 2
  1022. 2
  1023. 2
  1024. 2
  1025. 2
  1026. 2
  1027. 2
  1028. 2
  1029. 2
  1030. 2
  1031. 2
  1032. 2
  1033. 2
  1034. 2
  1035. 2
  1036. 2
  1037. 2
  1038. 2
  1039. 2
  1040. 2
  1041. 2
  1042. 2
  1043. 2
  1044. 2
  1045. 2
  1046. 2
  1047. 2
  1048. 2
  1049. 2
  1050. 2
  1051. 2
  1052. 2
  1053. 2
  1054. 2
  1055. 2
  1056. 2
  1057. 2
  1058. 2
  1059. 2
  1060. 2
  1061. 2
  1062. 2
  1063. 2
  1064. 2
  1065. 2
  1066. 2
  1067. 2
  1068. 2
  1069. 2
  1070. 2
  1071. 2
  1072. 2
  1073. 2
  1074. 2
  1075. 2
  1076. 2
  1077. 2
  1078. 2
  1079. 2
  1080. 2
  1081. 2
  1082. 2
  1083. 2
  1084. 2
  1085. 2
  1086. 2
  1087. 2
  1088. 2
  1089. 2
  1090. 2
  1091. 2
  1092. 2
  1093. 2
  1094. 2
  1095. 2
  1096. 2
  1097. 2
  1098. 2
  1099. 2
  1100. 2
  1101. 2
  1102. 2
  1103. 2
  1104. 2
  1105. 2
  1106. 2
  1107. 2
  1108. 2
  1109. 2
  1110. 2
  1111. 2
  1112. 2
  1113. 2
  1114. 2
  1115. 2
  1116. 2
  1117. 2
  1118. 2
  1119. 2
  1120. 2
  1121. 2
  1122.  @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
  1123. 2
  1124. 2
  1125. 2
  1126. 2
  1127. 2
  1128. 2
  1129. 2
  1130. 2
  1131. 2
  1132. 2
  1133. 2
  1134. 2
  1135. 2
  1136. 2
  1137. 2
  1138. 2
  1139. 2
  1140. 2
  1141. 2
  1142. 2
  1143. 2
  1144. 2
  1145. 2
  1146. 2
  1147. 2
  1148. 2
  1149. 2
  1150. 2
  1151. 2
  1152. 2
  1153. 2
  1154. 2
  1155. 2
  1156. 2
  1157. 2
  1158. 2
  1159. 2
  1160. 2
  1161. 2
  1162. 2
  1163. 2
  1164. 2
  1165. 2
  1166. 2
  1167. 2
  1168. 2
  1169. 2
  1170. 2
  1171. 2
  1172. 2
  1173. 2
  1174. 2
  1175. 2
  1176. 2
  1177. 2
  1178. 2
  1179. 2
  1180. 2
  1181. 2
  1182. 2
  1183. 2
  1184. 2
  1185. 2
  1186. 2
  1187. 2
  1188. 2
  1189. 2
  1190. 2
  1191. 2
  1192. 2
  1193. 2
  1194. 2
  1195. 2
  1196. 2
  1197. 2
  1198. 2
  1199. 2
  1200. 2
  1201. 2
  1202. 2
  1203. 2
  1204. 2
  1205. 2
  1206. 2
  1207. 2
  1208. 2
  1209. 2
  1210. 2
  1211. 2
  1212. 2
  1213. 2
  1214. 2
  1215. 2
  1216. 2
  1217. 2
  1218. 2
  1219. 2
  1220. 2
  1221. 2
  1222. 2
  1223. 2
  1224. 2
  1225. 2
  1226. 2
  1227. 2
  1228. 2
  1229. 2
  1230. 2
  1231. 2
  1232. 2
  1233. 2
  1234. 2
  1235. 2
  1236. 2
  1237. 2
  1238. 2
  1239. 2
  1240. 2
  1241. 2
  1242. 2
  1243. 2
  1244. 2
  1245. 2
  1246. 2
  1247. 2
  1248. 2
  1249. 2
  1250. 2
  1251. 2
  1252. 2
  1253. 2
  1254. 2
  1255. 2
  1256. 2
  1257. 2
  1258. 2
  1259. 2
  1260. 2
  1261. 2
  1262. 2
  1263. 2
  1264. 2
  1265. 2
  1266. 2
  1267. 2
  1268. 2
  1269. 2
  1270. 2
  1271. 2
  1272. 2
  1273. 2
  1274. 2
  1275. 2
  1276. 2
  1277. 2
  1278. 2
  1279. 2
  1280. 2
  1281. 2
  1282. 2
  1283. 2
  1284. 2
  1285. 2
  1286. 2
  1287. 2
  1288. 2
  1289. 2
  1290. 2
  1291. 2
  1292. 2
  1293. 2
  1294. 2
  1295.  @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
  1296. 2
  1297. 2
  1298. 2
  1299. 2
  1300. 2
  1301. 2
  1302. 2
  1303. 2
  1304. 2
  1305. 2
  1306. 2
  1307. 2
  1308. 2
  1309. 2
  1310. 2
  1311. 2
  1312. 2
  1313. 2
  1314. 2
  1315. 2
  1316. 2
  1317. 2
  1318. 2
  1319. 2
  1320. 2
  1321. 2
  1322. 2
  1323. 2
  1324. 2
  1325. 2
  1326. 2
  1327. 2
  1328. 2
  1329. 2
  1330. 2
  1331. 2
  1332. 2
  1333. 2
  1334. 2
  1335. 2
  1336. 2
  1337. 2
  1338. 2
  1339. 2
  1340. 2
  1341. 2
  1342. 2
  1343. 2
  1344. 2
  1345. 2
  1346. 2
  1347. 2
  1348. 2
  1349. 2
  1350. 2
  1351. 2
  1352. 2
  1353. 2
  1354.  @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
  1355. 2
  1356. 2
  1357. 2
  1358. 2
  1359. 2
  1360. 2
  1361. 2
  1362. 2
  1363. 2
  1364. 2
  1365. 2
  1366. 2
  1367. 2
  1368. 2
  1369. 2
  1370. 2
  1371. 2
  1372. 2
  1373. _____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
  1374. 2
  1375. 2
  1376. 2
  1377. 2
  1378. 2
  1379. 2
  1380. 2
  1381. 2
  1382. 2
  1383. 2
  1384. 2
  1385. 2
  1386. 2
  1387. 2
  1388. 2
  1389. 2
  1390. 2
  1391. 2
  1392. 2
  1393. 2
  1394. 2
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401.  @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
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627.  @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
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 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
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735.  @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
  1736.  @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
  1737.  @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
  1738.  @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
  1739. 1
  1740.  @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
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836.  @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
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. ​ @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
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. 1
  1899. 1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. 1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965. 1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004. 1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. 1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024. 1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030. 1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036. 1
  2037. 1
  2038. 1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. Vet her debt, past, family, and friendgroups; require she undergo STI, hymen, and polygraph tests; don't get legally married; don't let her sleep at your home; have someone else legally own her apartment or guesthouse; be an acknowledged pauper whose resources go to a family trust; make presence of any accounts on her part a deal-breaker for relationship; have accounts she can use at your discretion and then your own separate ones; make her sign a patriarchal Parenting Agreement in line with your vision and principles as well as an NDA in the presence of her and your attorney while confessing non-coercion and voluntary submission and total renunciation of entitlements on camera; arrange for joint rainy day investment fund (in case of separation) with her father to supply her minimal survival and life-restart needs that he matches 50% as alternative to alimony but which he gets dividends from so long as the relationship lasts so as to disincentivize subversion on his and his wife's part and take post-relation welfare out of her and State's hands; track her car and clone her devices (volunteer "burden" of providing comm. services); conduct routine audits and PI tailings when necessary; have her manage domestic responsibilities under watchful eye of hidden cameras; establish schedules and activity calendar to keep her preoccupied and fit in your absence (treat her like a father would an adolescent daughter); get her a loom and painting supplies for creative outlets; require her homeschooling your kids when they come around; ask questions and listen to them carefully about their days with mommy; never blindly trust and always be willing to walk away as both matter of self-respect and example to your children. You're the master of your domain; she's just privileged to be along for the ride and if she doesn't like it, she can find another man willing to be a "partner", because you're a superior, not an equal, and your patriarchy is enthusiastically embraced as absolute or not given at all.
    1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062. 1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. 1
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. 1
  2082. 1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085. 1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090. 1
  2091. 1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. 1
  2095. 1
  2096. 1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131. 1
  2132. "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
  2133. 1
  2134.  @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
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156. 1
  2157. 1
  2158. 1
  2159. 1
  2160.  @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
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 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
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185. 1
  2186. 1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189.  @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
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. 1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213. 1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225. 1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235. 1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. 1
  2263. 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
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 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
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270.  @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
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281.  @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
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. 1
  2327. 1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. ​ @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
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357.  @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
  2358. ​ @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
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362.  @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
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. 1
  2378. 1
  2379. 1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384. 1
  2385. 1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. 1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395. 1
  2396. 1
  2397. 1
  2398. 1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401. 1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407. 1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. 1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423. 1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430. 1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434. "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
  2435. 1
  2436. 1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. 1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. 1
  2446. 1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. 1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. 1
  2457. 1
  2458. 1
  2459. 1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. 1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. 1
  2468. 1
  2469. 1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. 1
  2473. 1
  2474. 1
  2475. 1
  2476. 1
  2477. 1
  2478. 1
  2479. 1
  2480. 1
  2481. 1
  2482. 1
  2483. 1
  2484. 1
  2485. 1
  2486. 1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496. 1
  2497. 1
  2498. 1
  2499. 1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504. 1
  2505. 1
  2506. 1
  2507. 1
  2508. 1
  2509. 1
  2510. 1
  2511. 1
  2512. 1
  2513. 1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1
  2517. 1
  2518. 1
  2519. 1
  2520. 1
  2521. 1
  2522. 1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. 1
  2526. 1
  2527. 1
  2528. 1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1
  2533. 1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539.  @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
  2540. 1
  2541. 1
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. 1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. 1
  2564. 1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568. 1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. 1
  2578. 1
  2579. 1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583. 1
  2584. 1
  2585. 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
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589. 1
  2590. 1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594. 1
  2595. 1
  2596. 1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. 1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. 1
  2609. 1
  2610. 1
  2611. 1
  2612. 1
  2613. 1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. 1
  2617. 1
  2618. 1
  2619. 1
  2620. 1
  2621. 1
  2622. 1
  2623. 1
  2624. 1
  2625. 1
  2626. 1
  2627. 1
  2628. 1
  2629. 1
  2630. 1
  2631. 1
  2632. 1
  2633. 1
  2634. 1
  2635. 1
  2636. 1
  2637. 1
  2638. 1
  2639. 1
  2640. 1
  2641. 1
  2642. 1
  2643. 1
  2644. 1
  2645. 1
  2646. 1
  2647. 1
  2648. 1
  2649. 1
  2650. 1
  2651. 1
  2652. 1
  2653. 1
  2654. 1
  2655. 1
  2656. 1
  2657. 1
  2658. 1
  2659. 1
  2660. 1
  2661. 1
  2662. 1
  2663. 1
  2664. 1
  2665. 1
  2666. 1
  2667. 1
  2668. 1
  2669. 1
  2670. 1
  2671. 1
  2672. 1
  2673. 1
  2674. 1
  2675. 1
  2676. 1
  2677. 1
  2678. 1
  2679. 1
  2680. 1
  2681. 1
  2682. 1
  2683. 1
  2684. 1
  2685. 1
  2686. 1
  2687. 1
  2688.  @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
  2689. 1
  2690. 1
  2691. 1
  2692. 1
  2693. 1
  2694. 1
  2695. 1
  2696. 1
  2697. 1
  2698. 1
  2699. 1
  2700. 1
  2701. 1
  2702. 1
  2703. 1
  2704. 1
  2705. 1
  2706. 1
  2707. 1
  2708. 1
  2709. 1
  2710. 1
  2711. 1
  2712. 1
  2713. 1
  2714. 1
  2715. 1
  2716. 1
  2717. 1
  2718. 1
  2719. 1
  2720. 1
  2721. 1
  2722. 1
  2723. 1
  2724. 1
  2725. 1
  2726. 1
  2727. 1
  2728. 1
  2729. 1
  2730. 1
  2731. 1
  2732. 1
  2733. 1
  2734. 1
  2735. 1
  2736. 1
  2737. 1
  2738. 1
  2739. 1
  2740. 1
  2741. 1
  2742. 1
  2743. 1
  2744. 1
  2745. 1
  2746. 1
  2747. 1
  2748. 1
  2749. 1
  2750. 1
  2751. 1
  2752. 1
  2753. 1
  2754. 1
  2755. 1
  2756. 1
  2757. 1
  2758. 1
  2759. 1
  2760. 1
  2761. 1
  2762. 1
  2763. 1
  2764. 1
  2765. 1
  2766. 1
  2767. 1
  2768. 1
  2769. 1
  2770. 1
  2771. 1
  2772. 1
  2773. 1
  2774. 1
  2775. 1
  2776. 1
  2777. 1
  2778. 1
  2779. 1
  2780. 1
  2781. 1
  2782. 1
  2783. 1
  2784. 1
  2785. 1
  2786. 1
  2787. 1
  2788. 1
  2789. 1
  2790. 1
  2791. 1
  2792. 1
  2793. 1
  2794. 1
  2795. 1
  2796. 1
  2797. 1
  2798. 1
  2799. 1
  2800. 1
  2801. 1
  2802. 1
  2803. 1
  2804. 1
  2805. 1
  2806. 1
  2807. 1
  2808. ​ @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
  2809. ​ @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
  2810.  @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
  2811. 1
  2812. 1
  2813. 1
  2814. 1
  2815. 1
  2816. 1
  2817. 1
  2818. 1
  2819. 1
  2820. 1
  2821. 1
  2822. 1
  2823. 1
  2824. 1
  2825. 1
  2826. 1
  2827. 1
  2828. 1
  2829. 1
  2830. 1
  2831. 1
  2832. 1
  2833. 1
  2834. 1
  2835. 1
  2836. 1
  2837. 1
  2838. 1
  2839. 1
  2840. 1
  2841. 1
  2842. 1
  2843. 1
  2844. 1
  2845. 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
  2846. 1
  2847. 1
  2848. 1
  2849. 1
  2850. 1
  2851.  @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
  2852. 1
  2853. 1
  2854. 1
  2855. 1
  2856. 1
  2857. 1
  2858. 1
  2859. 1
  2860. 1
  2861. 1
  2862. 1
  2863. 1
  2864. 1
  2865. 1
  2866. 1
  2867. 1
  2868. 1
  2869. 1
  2870. 1
  2871. 1
  2872. 1
  2873. 1
  2874. 1
  2875. 1
  2876. 1
  2877. 1
  2878. 1
  2879. 1
  2880. 1
  2881. 1
  2882. 1
  2883. 1
  2884. 1
  2885. 1
  2886. 1
  2887. 1
  2888. 1
  2889. 1
  2890. 1
  2891. 1
  2892. 1
  2893. 1
  2894. 1
  2895. 1
  2896. 1
  2897. 1
  2898. 1
  2899. 1
  2900. 1
  2901. 1
  2902. 1
  2903. 1
  2904. 1
  2905. 1
  2906. 1
  2907. 1
  2908. 1
  2909. 1
  2910. 1
  2911. 1
  2912. 1
  2913. 1
  2914. 1
  2915. 1
  2916. 1
  2917. 1
  2918. 1
  2919. 1
  2920. 1
  2921. 1
  2922. 1
  2923. 1
  2924. 1
  2925. 1
  2926. 1
  2927. 1
  2928. 1
  2929. 1
  2930. 1
  2931. 1
  2932. 1
  2933. 1
  2934. 1
  2935. 1
  2936. 1
  2937. 1
  2938. 1
  2939. 1
  2940. 1
  2941. 1
  2942. 1
  2943. 1
  2944. 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
  2945. 1
  2946. 1
  2947. 1
  2948. 1
  2949. 1
  2950. 1
  2951. 1
  2952. 1
  2953. 1
  2954. 1
  2955. 1
  2956. 1
  2957. 1
  2958. 1
  2959. 1
  2960. 1
  2961. 1
  2962. 1
  2963. 1
  2964. 1
  2965. 1
  2966. 1
  2967. 1
  2968. 1
  2969. 1
  2970. 1
  2971. 1
  2972. 1
  2973. 1
  2974. 1
  2975. 1
  2976. 1
  2977. 1
  2978. 1
  2979. 1
  2980. 1
  2981. 1
  2982. 1
  2983. 1
  2984. 1
  2985. 1
  2986. 1
  2987. 1
  2988. 1
  2989. 1
  2990. 1
  2991. 1
  2992. 1
  2993. 1
  2994. 1
  2995. 1
  2996. 1
  2997. 1
  2998. 1
  2999. 1
  3000. 1
  3001. 1
  3002. 1
  3003. 1
  3004. 1
  3005. 1
  3006. 1
  3007. 1
  3008. 1
  3009. 1
  3010. 1
  3011. 1
  3012. 1
  3013. 1
  3014. 1
  3015. 1
  3016. 1
  3017. 1
  3018. 1
  3019. 1
  3020. 1
  3021. 1
  3022.  @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
  3023. 1
  3024. 1
  3025. 1
  3026. 1
  3027. 1
  3028. 1
  3029. 1
  3030. 1
  3031. 1
  3032. 1
  3033. 1
  3034. 1
  3035. 1
  3036. 1
  3037. 1
  3038. 1
  3039. 1
  3040. 1
  3041. 1
  3042. 1
  3043. 1
  3044. 1
  3045. 1
  3046. 1
  3047. 1
  3048. 1
  3049. 1
  3050. 1
  3051. 1
  3052. 1
  3053. 1
  3054. 1
  3055. 1
  3056. 1
  3057. 1
  3058. 1
  3059. 1
  3060. 1
  3061. 1
  3062. 1
  3063. 1
  3064. 1
  3065. 1
  3066. 1
  3067. 1
  3068. 1
  3069. 1
  3070. 1
  3071. 1
  3072. 1
  3073. 1
  3074. 1
  3075. 1
  3076. 1
  3077. 1
  3078. 1
  3079. 1
  3080. 1
  3081. 1
  3082. 1
  3083. 1
  3084. 1
  3085. 1