From Kings Wiki, masculinity and nationalism
Jump to: navigation, search

L. Ron Hubbard and Objective Processes[edit]

Has anyone ever thought about doing what are called objective processes? (They're originally described in, perhaps at least, four books by L. Ron Hubbard: Creation of Human Ability and Tech Volumes III, IV and V. I think the objective processes are also described in Scientology, A Handbook for Use, Volume 2; The Procedures & Professional Application, 1992, by L. Kin.) Here's also a bit more information on Dr. Hubbard by the same author of the pot-holed article on objective processes. -- 02:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Initiatory activities can be very beneficial in getting all the junk out of our minds planted there over the years by television, stern admonitions in childhood, or whatever. (Although Colin Wilson wrote a fascinating book called Mind Parasites, a personal favorite, the emphasis was less on the mechanism by which our minds are enslaved and more about what it's like to be free and why it might be important.) The scientology "vocabulary" of "clearing" and "thetans" and such can be helpful, but it can also be limiting. Ultimately, I find it unnecessary to make the extraneous metaphysical assumptions that scientology leans on. That said, scientologists have come up with or popularized some possibly useful activities, and I can see the possible value in the act of reaching and withdrawing as described. Conchis (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Just so you know, the two websites contain sixth veil content; and the sixth veil of the Nine Veils concerns aliens, among other things. -- 10:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Nasty women and free speech[edit]

I was just reading this article.. some Hillary supporters feel like they can't express themselves publicly, because people will think they're "nasty women."

I live in Trump country (a rural area) but until recently worked in Hillary country (corporate America). The sharp contrast is kinda startling, actually. In the morning, If I drive through my neighborhood, there are giant Trump signs everywhere, and no Hillary signs. I get the feeling that if someone put up a Hillary sign, maybe they'd fear ostracism or vandalism.

When I commute into the business districts of the suburbs, though, there are Hillary bumper stickers everywhere, and no Trump bumper stickers. It would probably be a bad career move to have a Trump sticker on your car, because you'd be outing yourself to your co-workers as (what they regard as) a bigot or misogynist or whatever. I usually had one of the longest commutes, so I probably lived deeper in Trump country than any of my co-workers.

I used to bring up Trump in conversations at the workplace, and one of my co-workers would shut down the conversation and say that she couldn't even stand to hear him mentioned in a humorous way, because he tears down people who aren't like him (women, blacks, etc.) If there were any Trump supporters at that workplace, they had to be closet Trump supporters.

I think what made this election so divisive is that it's a fight over political correctness. In the corporate world, you're not welcome unless you're willing to be politically correct, because HR requires it. Your company could get sued if they allowed you to go around making the kinds of comments that Trump makes.

At the same time, Trump fans tend to look at male Hillary supporters as being low-testosterone sissies, like Pajama Boy. And of course the female Hillary supporters are "nasty women." So on both sides, there's reason not to speak one's mind. Jean Valjean (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Let us observe the hamster sort out this double standard[edit]

Jean Valjean (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Difference ways in which being nice can wreck your life[edit]

One kind of niceness is when you martyr yourself for a worthy cause, like when you jump on a grenade to save your buddies, when you could've ducked for cover instead and let them die. Or there's the kind of nice guy who plants a tree that will never bear fruit in his lifetime. It's sometimes argued that if we didn't have that kind of "nice guy," our civilization wouldn't exist.

There are extreme and less extreme examples of martyrdom. In the most extreme cases, you actually die or completely destroy your life. In less extreme cases, you (and maybe your family too) simply suffer inconvenience. It's sometimes argued that the more extreme kinds of martyrdom are actually less effective, because you don't survive to make the most of your sacrifice. For example, if you get burned at the stake, you can't lead a movement anymore.

Other times, it's argued that unless you make the ultimate sacrifice, it doesn't end up counting for much because nobody will care or even notice unless you show an unusual level of commitment, and give your all for what you believe in. For example, who cares about the guy who wins the Bronze Star or Silver Star for his bravery? But people notice the guy who wins the Congressional Medal of Honor.

There may also be worthy causes, but ineffective martyrdom for them. For example, the guy who tries to jump on a grenade, but ends up dying along with his whole squad rather than being able to save them in time. Maybe he is still held up as an inspiring example of heroism, even though he didn't succeed in what he was trying to do. But what if no one ever hears of it? Was it pointless?

Then there are situations where you do the right thing, it's ineffective, AND you don't get credit for it, at least not in your time; or maybe you even get denounced for it.

Then there's the kind of niceness in which you martyr yourself for an unworthy cause. An example would be if you get one-itis for an undeserving woman, and allow yourself to be cucked because you want to be a nice guy and play Captain Save a Ho. Another example would be when you vote for Hillary Clinton because you want to white knight for Serge Kovaleski.

Much of our movement is about getting people to stop martyring themselves for unworthy people and causes. However, we don't necessarily have anything against martyrdom for worthy people and causes. It's up to the individual. Jean Valjean (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Historical Inevitability???[edit]

It strikes me that liberals in the U.S. only recently seemed to believe in the historical inevitability of their cause, and this was the whole thing behind the current year meme. It's like the march of progress was ever forward toward their egalitarian future.

Now, there's one little tiny setback for them (in the grand scheme of things) with Trump Shi Huang Di and they freak, march, and block highways. If they really believed all that historical inevitability doctrine, I imagine they would just be like "Meh. It happens. We'll regroup and crush them in 2020." Conchis (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

How can anyone get bent out of shape about Hillary losing? They should have been protesting after Bernie lost the primary. But if they're going to protest, they should have a clear goal of electoral reform in mind.
Anyway, maybe they're just putting their dissent on the record, so that when the historically inevitable happens, they can brag about being a part of it. Jean Valjean (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks like genuine distress to me. My wife supported Trump all the way and she doesn't normally get into Facebook political arguments, but she had to shut it off because all her connections were freaking out and hating on Trump supporters. People are absolutely hysterical. But I think Jake Bradford called it on Twitter: Eight years ago liberals were happy/hopeful; four years ago, angry/bullying; this year, hopeless/depressed. Now the bottom dropped out, so next year, ?
I suspect that online and even offline cliques have become so fragmented because people can just shut anyone they don't like out, and as a result they were genuinely shocked that not everyone thinks like them. Conchis (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, even in the manosphere a lot of people had gotten demoralized about Trump's prospects in August, October, etc. as the mainstream media reported that Trump's campaign was imploding. We were listening to our opponents, but they weren't listening to us.
I had expected that Trump was going to lose one of the big four states (Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, or Pennsylvania), resulting in the election being called for Hillary pretty early in the evening, but I was pleasantly surprised when he won by a pretty comfortable margin, so that I could go to bed already knowing that the election result would be in his favor.
Virginia I had figured could go either way. It was a little nervewracking to see both Florida and Virginia tilting toward Hillary, suggesting that maybe that was a wrap, till the Florida panhandle votes came in. Jean Valjean (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
This is why I suspect that the average intelligence of any intellectual minority is higher than the average of the mainstream. (Clearly there will be distributions, I'm only talking about the average.) The intellectual minority member generally has to understand the arguments of the mainstream as well as the arguments of their own niche interest. This holds for Nazis, communists, capitalists, etc. It takes a certain minimum brainpower to hold "extreme" or unusual views. The majority can passively accept what they're told. The minority must make an active effort unless they have very unusual situations.
I've been interested in people with "extreme" views for many years and have hung out with many different shades. I've generally found them to be more thoughtful than average regardless of the cut of their jib. My conclusion agrees with Nietzsche: "Power makes stupid." In the 1980s the Christian fundies and 700-club types were the primary object of this unfortunate law. In the 2010s, it is SJWs and feminists, of course. If nationalists or neomasculinists somehow seized political power and started a cultural reset through movies, music, etc., I expect (sadly) the same would happen to them after a few decades. How's that for melancholy? Conchis (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The leaders of political and cultural minorities, especially unpopular, persecuted, minorities, also have to expend extra mental effort on figuring out how to keep their morale up and counter the constant attacks they get hit with. A lot of these leaders are narcissists who are at least partly fueled by the importance they're able to have as a big fish in a small pond. For example, David Koresh may have been less politically powerful than Bill Clinton, but he probably had more devoted (and less opportunistic) followers, and more opportunities to bang virginal teen girls without putting his career at risk. By the way, if I'd been Bill, at the second debate] I would've probably been smirking at those accusers Trump brought.
By the way, with regard to Heath — there are a couple insidious aspects of CPS. First, the court proceedings and documents are usually under seal (supposedly for privacy reasons), so the public can't see how shaky the evidence is. Second, you're automatically considered selfish if you don't bend over and do whatever the social workers want you to do, which usually includes keeping your mouth shut rather than objecting to how they treat you.
Usually (and especially in a case like Heath's, where the guy has some unorthodox behavior and beliefs), they want the parent to undergo psychological evaluation, which leads to a bunch of diagnoses and treatment recommendations. The judge can then use that "expert opinion" as the basis for terminating parental rights, not only with regard to those kids but any future kids he has. Legally, when there's a conflict between expert opinion and lofty principles like free speech, the expert's opinion tends to trump everything, when the proceedings are by judge rather than by jury. The expert can say, "Sure, he has a right to free speech, but the stuff he's saying shows he has a mental illness that needs to be treated before he can safely be around his kids." Jean Valjean (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
If the guy had anything real to pin on him, I'm sure the journalists would have put it front and center. But I didn't see anything of substance at all in my brief look. I don't doubt a word of what you say about CPS and social workers. Conchis (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
He has a habit of getting with white trash chicks who end up making accusations of domestic violence against him (and then sometimes reconciling with him and recanting). Those kinds of allegations are a classic weapon for women (especially women who don't have enough money to hire a divorce lawyer) to use in trying to wrest custody of the kids (and sometimes property, too) away after a breakup. It costs the plaintiff nothing to file for a restraining order, and the evidentiary standard tends to be very low. In the case of reports made to CPS, the cops, social workers, prosecutor, etc. will take care of investigating and pressing charges. But that system isn't intended as a substitute for divorce and custody proceedings, and often just results in the kids being put in foster care. Jean Valjean (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

German federal election, 2017[edit]

Is anyone else looking forward to the German federal election, 2017? It's going to be a bloodbath! (Rubs hands together) But first, the French presidential election, 2017! Jean Valjean (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget the Austrian election next month. We need Hofer to get in, then Le Pen and Petry. Fokker (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah.. I definitely see the dominoes falling. First Duterte, then Brexit, then Trump, and now these... I added this thread to the sidebar. Is there a more active thread about Hofer? Jean Valjean (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Brainwashing to be gay or transgender[edit]

I saw this scorpion post:

Have fun in your libertarian paradise that inevitably degrades into a complete shithole of debauchery and vice because you reject the idea of imposing societal norms and standards. I'm sure your son will thank you when he is being brainwashed in school to believe that engaging in anal sex with another man is a harmless and normal past time, and your daughter will no doubt be enriched from being told by society that having dozens of sexual partners and multiple abortions in her twenties is no big deal. Or maybe your son winds up believing he's actually a girl, and your daughter mutilates herself with dozens of tattoos and piercings. Hey, they're not hurting anyone, right? It's all good. The fact that Western society thrived when cultural norms were much more conservative and is completely disintegrating in front of our eyes in today's environment of "anything goes" (aka libertarian) social acceptance seems to be completely lost on you.

I think we can influence gays to be closeted or not, and maybe we can influence whether bisexual guys mess around with the same sex, but I doubt we can change anyone's orientation. I suspect that gender is the same way; I had a friend from church who revealed to me a few years ago that he was a closet cross-dresser all that time, who only now has started publicly going out in drag. His culture (living in a small town in the 1990s) told him not to do it, but he did it anyway.

Therefore, gender seems like an orientation too. There have even been cases where babies had ambiguous genitalia (or there were conjoined twins who had to share one penis), and therefore the doctors decided to turn a boy into a girl, but later the child decided on his own to be a boy. In fact, that seems to be almost always what happens in those cases. All their life, they're told that they're girls, but biology wins in the end.

As for girls getting tattoos and piercings, I really don't understand what that's about. I wonder sometimes about sluts, as it seems like there are some girls who just really want to ride a lot of different dicks, while others don't feel the need to. Should we just let the sluts openly be sluts (and wear slutty clothing that will announce their sluttiness to the world), rather than trying to pressure them to dress conservatively and marry a man, if they're ultimately going to end up cheating on him with the pool boy because it's simply in their nature to be slutty?

In the manosphere, it's often advised that men hold off on getting married till they're in their 30s. Whom are they gonna bang in the meantime, if not sluts? Of course, these sluts are not gonna be marriage material after riding the carousel, but maybe they weren't gonna be marriage material anyway. See Roosh's comments here. The only problem is, most sluts will probably eventually become single moms. But who knows; since unmarried women remain the property of their fathers, maybe the kid's grandfather can serve as a father figure, if he's around. Jean Valjean (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Off-the-wall idea incubation[edit]

Where's a good forum for off-the-wall idea incubation? Someplace where you can challenge assumptions and say, "What if we took these ideas in THIS direction?" Jean Valjean (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Job hunting[edit]

Lately I haven't been applying to any jobs.. I just get tired of this weird game, of going into job interviews where they're simultaneously trying to bust you and not bust you. So many candidates are flawed, that they don't really want to know about any flaws that aren't important to your performance (since then they'd have to screen you out), but on the other hand they want to catch any major flaws.

Many if not most resumes contain lies (for example, almost everyone has been fired at some point, but you can't say you've been fired, if you want to get hired anywhere else), and they know that, yet they don't necessarily want to bust you for it if you're able to do the job. At the same time, if you're gonna lie, you gotta be plausible about it, and tell the CORRECT lie. The truth would be simpler, yet in some cases you can't tell the truth.

I just dislike hypocrisy, but I guess there's no avoiding it. I could change careers, but I don't really know where to start, so I guess I better start lying, even though I don't get a particularly high response rate when I apply.. guess I gotta do it anyway, though.. Jean Valjean (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This meme about gay marriage[edit]

15000704 10157628077295567 1505944688509915288 o.jpg

The gay marriage crowd has their own stuff that they're intolerant about, so I can't really feel all that sorry for them. Jean Valjean (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I know a lesbian who is freaking hard. I have to admit a malevolent amusement. There is a fairly long chain of events between "electing Trump" and "any harm whatsoever befalling a single hair on the rainbow-colored head or fairy wings of any gay person." But there are many groups that identify as victims. In the manosphere, our MRA brothers serve this function. As with any group that spends the majority of their time bemoaning what "they" are doing to "us." But in the case of gays, nothing has even been done to them yet. All this epic freaking over a distant possibility... Conchis (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You will never look at Black Friday the same again[edit]

From DeviantArt (which I suspect has at least some spineless people):

Has anyone ever shopped on Black Friday or on the days before or after it? Has anyone ever abstained from such "shopping"?

Regardless of the answer, you, the reader, may want to read this warning by Dylan Charles; then you may decide for yourself if it changes or reinforces your view towards Black Friday and your attitude towards those who "celebrate" it or refuse to have any part of it.

If you want--and feel guided to do so, pray in the Name of Yah'shua the Messiah to renounce all involvement in Black Friday sales, possibly with this sample prayer:

"Father in Heaven, in the Name of the Lord Yah'shua the Messiah, I come before your throne, and I renounce all involvement in Black Friday sales, in Yah'shua's name.
I renounce, break, crush, destroy and sever every soul tie, hook, link, connection, attachment and device from myself to the egregores associated with Black Friday and from those egregores back to myself, in Yah'shua's name.
Father and the Holy Spirit, if there is any thing that I need to be aware about concerning Black Friday, please show me what it is and how I should do anything about it, in Yah'shua's name I pray, omein."

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Black Friday is to be a part of the planned world culture of the dark oligarchs.

Speaking of the world, has the Black Friday virus spread to your country or not? How did the populace of your area react to the announcement of Black Friday, if any? (For example, if you come from, say, Chile or Uruguay, don't hesitate to tell us here.) -- 15:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

What is the advantage of being the head of the household?[edit]

I was in church today and listening to them talk about God's plan for marriage. They were saying that it's the husband's responsibility to be head of the family, but at the same time, he and his wife are equals, and he has to do what's going to make her happy. If he abuses her, or doesn't provide for the family, then she's entitled to leave.

I thought, "If they're equals, then what makes him qualified to be head of the household? Usually if you're going to be a leader, it's because you're superior in some way to those who are working for you." My other thought was, "What is the advantage of being head of the family? It sounds like it involves a lot of responsibility without any benefits."

They didn't talk about this, but there's also a huge loophole in the marital contract (as interpreted by supposedly traditional churches), in that you're entitled to divorce your spouse and remarry, if they cheat on you. What's to keep your wife from cheating just to provoke you to divorce her, so she can get with someone else? The only way to eliminate that loophole is to punish adultery with death (Leviticus 20:10). Raymond Kertezc (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring this. I just have no response. Conchis (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about this post anyway. But, ironically enough, being Red Pill makes it harder for me to go to church than when I was merely agnostic.
I just see so many ways in which even the more traditional churches have been influenced by feminism. For example, I had a pastor who attracted controversy for having just a few rules about what men and women were supposed to do. For example, the women had to wear skirts (Deuteronomy 22:5) and head coverings (1 Corinthians 11:6). But overall, he said many unbiblical things. For example, he said that rape was the worst crime anyone could possibly commit, because it was torture. The Bible does not make a big deal about rape (unless the victim is married, in which case it's adultery); it just says that the rapist should marry his victim.
The pastor also encouraged the girls in the church to go to college (e.g. by financially supporting their education, or arranging to have a good word put in for them so that they could get scholarships), even though some of them were already in their mid-20s and still unmarried. When a girl in the church did find a man and start fornicating with him (and neglecting her studies to the point that she ended up on academic probation), the pastor didn't instruct them to get married, even though according to the Bible, they should've. The guy she was fucking was at least attending the church, but I guess the pastor thought he wasn't Christian enough, because he kept getting busted for badmouthing the pastor behind his back.
The pastor eventually told her that if she continued to have a relationship with that guy, she would no longer be in good standing with the church. The Bible says you shouldn't be unequally yoked, but on the other hand, it also says it's better to marry than to burn, and that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife. The pastor gave an instruction that when that girl eventually did get married, she wouldn't be allowed to wear a white wedding dress; but there's no Biblical command about that, so he was once again incorporating a secular tradition into our practice. Yeah, it's great for a woman to be a virgin when she gets married, but the Bible's solution if a bride isn't a virgin, is that she marry the guy who took her virginity.
Pastors run into a lot of opposition just for saying that women aren't supposed to be pastors, but rules like that only apply within the church anyway. To say that girls shouldn't go to college would be to challenge the economic foundations of the lives people are used to living. There are usually a lot of working class families in any given church who are used to the idea that their kids are going to be upwardly mobile and make it into the middle class; and therefore they usually want their girls to go to college. Jean Valjean (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Historically, the church is pretty accustomed to making concessions to local traditions. The Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, for example, was pretty lax with Germanic folk traditions permitting sex before marriage. Most Protestants have always been more purist about such things. It's funny because my Lutheran family was always wary of those "strict" Catholic party-poopers. We were the ones with the strong Puritan streak. I kind of like Catholics' two-tiered system: one standard for the ascetically-inclined and one for "the rest." But none of it really matters much to me at all except insofar is to shapes the views of the people who buy into it. Conchis (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
It's weird how people have been predicting the decline of religion and marriage for a really long time, yet those institutions still continue. I hear guys complain, "Marriage 2.0 doesn't offer men any benefits! It just imposes liabilities." How wrong they are! The benefit of marriage is that it helps persuade a chick who's close to the wall, to settle down with you for life rather than dumping you and leaving you no other option but to find a fresh young 18-year-old with which to replace her. Marriage 2.0 is a beautiful institution that begins with an ultimatum ("Marry me, or we're through") and continues with many more ultimatums ("Do what I say, or I'll divorce you"). If you pass all the tests, maybe you even get to grow old with her, although of course it's not guaranteed, since of course there's always the opportunity that you'll get abusive and controlling (which sometimes can be defined as "too beta for her tastes"), especially after you either (1) manifest the traits that attracted her to you in the first place, which she has now decided aren't that great after all; or (2) refuse to change in the ways that she had been anticipating you would change. Jean Valjean (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Some ways in which our free speech rights are really not all that robust[edit]

There are a few ways in which our free speech rights are really not all that robust.

We all know that anything you say or write on the Internet is fair game for someone to doxx you to your employer over, and try to get you fired. That's not as big a deal, though, because usually there are plenty of other employers out there. You may even get a better job after you get fired for your opinions. What is a big deal is when the state punishes you for your speech.

It's true that, in most cases, the state can't throw you in jail solely because of what you say. But there are cases in which they can use your words against you.

First of all, if you're accused or convicted of any kind of crime, especially at the federal level, everything they can find out about you and your life is fair game for a pretrial services or probation officer to use against you in the bail hearing or the sentencing phase. It doesn't have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you said what they're accusing you of saying; it just has to be proven by clear and convincing evidence (at the pretrial stage) or by a preponderance of the evidence (at the sentencing phase). Hearsay is admissible in these proceedings, and in fact will probably be much of what they're working off of.

At the sentencing phase, they will prepare a presentence investigation report based on whatever interviews and documents they think could be relevant to your risk of re-offending. Stuff that you told a family member about your views, they may tell your probation officer when questioned, perhaps because the officer told them he just wants to know as much as possible so he can help you. Stuff that you may have said in confidence to, say, a psychiatrist, that was recorded in therapy notes, is subject to being subpoenaed, and if you don't cooperate in getting those documents to the probation officer, you could be accused of failing to accept responsibility, and receive a harsher sentence.

Of course, anything you say when the judge asks if you want to address the court, can be used against you as well. So if you take that opportunity to say that the law is unjust and you've done nothing morally wrong and don't deserve to be punished, that can be used as a justification for a harsher sentence (even though you could be making an argument about what you consider mitigating factors). Just like during the pretrial or presentence investigations, anything you say in allocution that could be construed as evidence that you're at elevated risk of re-offending is fair game to be used against you.

So, if you want to be able to speak freely about your dissident opinions, you have to be law-abiding now, and continue to be law-abiding in the future. That may not seem like a big deal, but it's something that criminals who don't have dissident opinions don't need to worry about as much. Also, many forms of activism involve some form of lawbreaking (i.e. civil disobedience), so this becomes an issue in those cases.

Family court is another place where you can be punished for your opinions. It happens routinely these days that in CPS cases, where perhaps you haven't even been accused of neglecting or abusing your kid, but they just think you're at risk of doing so in the future, they will use social media and other Internet postings as evidence. You might have marked the post friends-only; it doesn't matter, it only takes one frenemy on your friends list to take a screenshot and give that evidence to CPS. You can then be put on the stand against your will and questioned under oath about whether you made that post. If the post is deemed by the court to reflect poorly on your fitness to be a parent, it might be used as a basis for taking your kids away, even if the opinions expressed in your post are of the type that you'd be constitutionally allowed to make without being thrown in jail.

So basically, if you have kids or expect that you may have kids in the future, you have to be careful what you say, that might someday be used against you in family court.

There probably are other examples, but these are the two that I've encountered in my own life. Jean Valjean (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

In the trial of Mersault in Camus's novel The Stranger, the prosecutor uses Mersault's completely unrelated indifference at his mother's funeral to "prove" to the jury he is a monster worthy of death. That was based in Algeria (or France, I can't remember), so I assume the rest of the world is no stranger to what you describe. Mersault is honest to a fault, beyond what society is willing to tolerate. He doesn't even feel the need to pretend. They even leave him an open out if he will at least pretend to accept Christ and he doesn't. He'd rather die than lie.
Come to think of it, you might really enjoy that book. And it's not long or hard to understand. Camus writes very cleary.
But honestly, if polite society knew most of my views I'd be hated and almost certainly persecuted somehow, too. It has been speculated, with some justification, that a true sage cannot live in society, and it relates to this very issue: he is completely honest and must therefore go live alone. Conchis (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Either that, or the guy who for unrelated reasons can't live in society, ends up becoming a sage because he has nothing else to do, and no limits on his freedom. Jean Valjean (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter's tactics[edit]

For the moment, I don't necessarily believe the media's angle, or the manosphere's either, on the recent Chicago beating, or whatever it was, by four teens, until I see the evidence for myself. Everyone is trying to use it for propaganda, so we can expect the news to be slanted in a misleading way.

But I was just thinking, BLM should've stuck with targeting cops, because it's not going to end well when they target civilians. Despite all this "thin blue line" stuff, the average person doesn't feel a lot of solidarity with the cops. Due to laws such as the pot laws that have caused millions of people to have unpleasant interactions with the police, people may even think, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" when cops die. (Even though we rely on cops for a lot of services, a lot of our protection we provide ourselves through guns, safes, Lo-Jack, private security, avoiding walking into dark alleys, etc. without involving the cops.)

I think the state should lower the penalties for targeting cops, because when cops are treated as a specially protected class, it just encourages people to target civilians. Now, though, civilians are being protected by hate crime laws from politically-motivated violence, so I guess that begins to level the playing field. Jean Valjean (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

There are no consequences for targeting whites. Whites will do what they have always done and go on with their business. Blacks can do whatever they want to whites and the survivors will be in the newspapers forgiving the perp. No black has to look over their shoulder and check to see if whites are around before spouting off (at least, not outside the bible belt). A lot of big talk about "muh guns" is just a lot of talk and has been for generations now. Is there a six-pack in the fridge? Do I have three hundred channels? Am I white? If I can answer yes to all three, I'm good. I'll just shake my head when I'm around other whites and complain about what "they" are doing to "us," and hope that my boss or wife doesn't overhear. Conchis (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention, that all this hatred towards white people may have reduced certain men, women and children to manipulatable shells of their former selves, therefore degrading the spiritual condition of such men, women and children. (Justin Deschamps, in one of his interpretations of the Gaia Portal posts, backs up what Quintus Curtius says.)

At this point, what continuing need does a woman have for a husband?[edit]

Suppose a woman has a college degree and a professional job, and has already crossed "wedding" and "kids" off her bucket list. She knows that if she gets divorced, there will probably be another Captain Save-a-Ho (if she wants one) who is willing to step up and say, "These kids deserve a father," but in the meantime, she can collect child support off of her current man without needing to continue living with him or putting out for him. She can just live in that house and fuck random guys from the bar whenever it pleases her.

So, why shouldn't she do that? What is the benefit to living with her husband? Yeah, two incomes makes it easier to afford a house, car, etc., but she can have part of his income anyway after they divorce, and her basic needs are taken care of by her own income anyway. The average beta male has also become so feminized that he doesn't even offer the masculine energy that women like to have around them to complement their own femininity (which she doesn't have anyway, because she's been masculinized by her upbringing and culture).

The more the sexes become androgynized, the less they need each other. The less the sexes specialize, the more they become jacks of all trades (e.g. both of them becoming mediocre cooks and mediocre breadwinners) without being really good at anything. A wife is supposed to say, "Wow, this guy is really muscular, good at fixing stuff around the house, and all-around manly," etc. and the husband is supposed to say, "Wow, my wife has really long hair, cooks well, and is very feminine." The differences between the sexes are supposed to produce a sense of the exotic that is alluring, as they celebrate what they don't have in common.

I hear these stories on the radio of guys who proclaim to their social network, "SHE SAID YES!" I'm like, "What is the big deal? How can a woman respect you, after you struck that kind of deal with her? Donald Trump would never make the deal that you made. He would never expose himself to that much liability with that little upside."

I would almost say, "What is the point of having kids with a woman who has no incentive to stay and raise them with you," except that if you get a foreign bride, she probably actually will stick around. Jean Valjean (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Suppose she doesn't have a college degree or a professional job. Conchis (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Then welfare and/or whoredom substitutes. Indigent women have a lot of resources to fall back on, and there's always their bodies, if they look halfway decent and can give a good blowjob. Jean Valjean (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"From a man's perspective, what's the point of having kids if the mother can leave with them at any time and still make him pay child support?"[edit]

Asked on Quora. The answer given was, "Some men are confident that they can select life partners and conduct their relationships in such a way as to make that risk minimal. Some of us even conduct ourselves in a way that our partner desires to stay with us."

Wow! So simple. Why didn't I think of that?

Now I wonder, is this guy blue pill and talking about treating your wife respectfully, or is he red pill and talking about gaming your wife?

Another response: "The point of having children is the relationship you will have with them. Not with the mother." Uh, yeah, but the whole point of the question is that the mother can leave with the kids. If she weren't able to leave with the kids, she would probably stick around.

Vannette writes, "If you and your wife split up, and you want primary custody of your children, you can ask for that. If she won't agree, you can fight for it in court, and you can win. [2] Of course, your case will be strongest if you have spent lots of time directly caring for your children — as much as or more than their mother. [3] But if your main contribution during the marriage was money, and her main contribution during the marriage was time, then that state of affairs will probably continue after divorce. From an American man's informed perspective, then, the point of having kids is the joy of having kids. If you are a good parent, you can have them for all their lives."

So basically, working to support the family doesn't count as being a "good parent". The father is supposed to be a lazy ass who sits around and lets his wife support the family while he spends time with the kids, so that he can be counted as the one who has the strongest relationship with them. Jean Valjean (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The guy's probably blue pill but stated his answer that in a way that has a red pill interpretation. You can always use the Power and Control Wheel as a guide to keep her under your thumb. Apparently those methods are so successful that they had to be published and exposed like an esoteric secret teaching of mental domination. Conchis (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Where's the manipulation wheel, for women? Jean Valjean (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
There is none. :-P Conchis (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

So basically, family courts HATE beta providers[edit]

Beta providers seem to be considered the scum of the earth by family courts. Even welfare dads get treated better, because they (theoretically) spend more time with their kids and therefore it's assumed they have a stronger bond with them. The welfare dad doesn't have to pay any child support, and may even receive child support.

I guess it's also assumed that the welfare dad must be a really lovable guy to have attracted a woman to want to fuck him even though he's a broke nigga, while the beta provider, on the other hand, was being some kind of entitled 50s-style patriarchal man who thought he could just buy control over the family, and probably exploited the poor, defenseless woman who was economically compelled to marry him in order to avoid starvation. The welfare dad, on the other hand, was at least equally poor, so therefore he couldn't have exploited her.

The fact that the beta provider had any money shows he must be a real shitbag, a true capitalist piece of trash who needs to be taken down a peg. Apparently, for him, all that was important in life was money, because he chose to spend 40+ hours a week working, while his wife heroically sacrificed her career prospects (or was coerced by him into doing so) in order to stay home with the kids. Well now it's time for the playing field to be leveled; he'll finally get what's coming to him for all that abuse he's been heaping upon her! Jean Valjean (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's put the blue-haired feminists in charge[edit]

I keep seeing comments like, "since the system is still majority run by men..." as a reason why women still have the problems they do, like earning 79 cents on the dollar or whatever.

I propose, let's have a social experiment in which, for 200 years (long enough for the last remaining patriarchs to die out, and for a new generation to be raised in an environment completely dominated by blue-haired feminists), only blue-haired feminists will be allowed to parent kids, or own property, or serve the state in any capacity (whether as legislators, or judges, or teachers, or cops, or clerical workers at the bottom of some obscure bureaucratic hierarchy). The highest positions at every company, especially major media corporations, will be required by law to be filled by blue-haired feminists. All children will be taken away at birth and given to blue-haired feminists to raise. Having heterosexual sex with blue-haired feminists will be a criminal offense, and any blue-haired feminist who is discovered to have had consensual sex with a man will automatically be kicked out of the ruling class, so that there will be no way that anyone can claim that these blue-haired feminists are being influenced by the patriarchy.

After 200 years, we'll assess how well the blue-haired feminists have been able to run the world, compared to those nations that were run by patriarchs. Jean Valjean (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Women who deny the agency and manipulative ability of women are the female version of the Denying 'Innocent' One archetype among men. They pretend that things could have never been different because patriarchy and exploitation. The manipulative ability of women is legendary and documented in ancient sources including the Bible. Even today red pill men get caught in their webs. Conchis (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Men are also suckers, though. How did we get this far without evolving better countermeasures against getting manipulated by women? Jean Valjean (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Is the AoC directed at alpha, or beta, men?[edit]

The AoC, like other feminist inventions, is probably intended to control and punish betas rather than alphas.

Alphas will continue banging underage girls, and in fact, the age of consent doesn't prevent them from doing so, as long as the alpha himself is also a minor. The AoC did not stop Levi Johnston from banging and impregnating Bristol Palin, for example.

Betas, on the other hand, don't become financially stable till they reach adulthood. While they're minors, they have neither alpha fux nor beta bux to offer girls, so they have to remain celibate, except in those cases where they have a high school sweetheart who is willing to wait for them.

Now that girls are considered to own themselves (rather than being property of their fathers), the idea behind the AoC is that girls need to mature until they reach a point where they are able to sell their pussy for what it's worth, rather than giving it away for free. Of course, girls, upon reaching adulthood, will end up giving their pussy away to alphas anyway as they ride the carousel, until they hit the wall and sell their pussy to a beta.

All the AoC accomplishes, then, is keeping the betas away from girls long enough for those girls to have a chance to ride the carousel before settling down with a beta. Betas are the least likely to break a girl's heart, because all they want is a lifelong relationship, so the AoC is not about preventing girls from being pumped and dumped, or about keeping girls' hearts from being broken. The betas weren't going to do that anyway.

The AoC is definitely no longer about preserving a girl's marriageability, because no one gives a shit about that anymore, since there are so many Captain Save-a-Ho's willing to have pity on a girl who's ridden the carousel and been damaged by alpha widowhood and maybe even had some kids already. Jean Valjean (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"Women’s March Against Trump Goes Global: 600 Marches in 57 Countries"[edit]

So I came across this, and already I'm guessing it's organized by the parasitic rulers of this world.

One thing to add to the "wait and see file": "Black Magick Discovered to Have a Role in the Epidemic of Hatred towards People of Certain Races" could be next. 19:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Off topic but there's this subreddit. 21:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

List of movies that encourage...?[edit]

Since there is the List of songs that encourage beta behavior, why never a List of films that encourage beta behavior (such as Disney's W.A.L.L.E. or something spelled like that)? The same goes for a list of films that encourage support for feminism, women voters, et cetera, such as the Ghandi-like film Iron-Jawed Angels, which I watched about most of in high school. To me, at the time, the movie was gut-wrenching with prison brutality towards the American suffragettes; but now, looking back at it, I think it employs the same underhanded methods, that are deployed to get the populace to blindly accept such things as anal sex (in the case of the 3D animated film Madagascar) and pedophilia (such as in that one episode from Adventure Time)—without complaint or dissent or hesitation or even questions. -- 08:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

As the Relfes say, "they" don't want you to question, "they" don't want you to reason, and above all, "they" don't want you to pray. -- 13:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
To end this post of suggestions on a somewhat positive note, how about a List of films that encourage alpha behavior? -- 08:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The stereotype of losers who live in their mom's basement and can't get laid[edit]

It's weird that we always get hit with that stereotype, rather than the stereotype of men who actually did bang the woman they fell in love with, and then got dumped and became bitter. Jean Valjean (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The Gregorian Calendar or the 13 Moon Calendar?[edit]

A brief explanation for the title: When I first came across the website, I was brought to tears by what they had to say, not just about the Gregorian calendar, but also the 13 moon/month and 28 day calendar (plus the "Day out of Time", as they call it, which takes place on the Gregorian 25th of July) as well.

Since the global oligarchs forced the world to use the Gregorian calendar, and since they use the dark occultist Season of Sacrifice to keep the darkness, chaos and suffering going on in the world, what would happen if the 13 moon/month and 28 day calendar were brought back to the world populace? I'm betting that the modern day black magic rituals that are false flag attacks would lose their demonic power.

Therefore, it won't hurt to sample the 13 moon calendar in your life. -- 03:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Korean shop owner puts black woman in a chokehold[edit]

If the incident were to tell us something, it's that not even non-white shop owners are safe from protests of African-Americans. -- 07:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, an instance of black on black violence. Must be a blue moon out tonight. Jean Valjean (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Gold's Gym[edit]

Having moved to Idaho, I had my father drive me to Gold's Gym so we could have my tour there, and to get their business cards.

After visiting their website, I would like to learn more about Gold's Gym. What's their reputation like? Can the gym be trusted? I only want to improve my grip strength, among other things.

Thanks for answering. -- 17:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Now, after reading Nine Reasons Why You Should Say No To Fitness Gyms, I feel like there should be a List of Fitness Gyms to Avoid. I might not be surprised if Gold's Gym is included. -- 18:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Every gym is a bit different, and it's down to your needs. Not simplistic formulas like "public gyms suck don't use them" (though many do). You could buy what you need, but some people don't have the space or they move or travel a lot. The main problem people have with gyms if you look at online comments seems to be contracts and billing policies. But you also have to be sure they'll let you do what you want to. So if you want to deadlift but they don't allow it, then you're screwed. So make sure the terms are acceptable and if you like it go for it. If you need a trainer, that's a much more significant choice than a gym. Conchis (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Did Jet Set Radio (and its Sequel) just predict East Asia's Racial Future?[edit]

I have a hunch, that the video game Jet Set Radio and its sequel, Jet Set Radio Future, predicted the future racial demographics of Japan or at least East Asia in general. Corey Savage's newest article, especially the Korean movie posters seen therein, looks and feels like a confirmation. -- 12:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Doctor accused of genital mutilation on girls[edit]

If this first-of-its-kind prosecution means anything, could it be peak third-world prestige? Pro-FGM riots, anyone? -- 06:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)