Our Decaying Society Has Created The Age Of Unreason

I discovered ROK while working in Thailand and, upon returning to the San Francisco Bay Area during the semester break, I discovered that changes in my way of thinking had rendered my hometown an alien abyss.

My mother is a feminist but can’t explain why. My brother is marrying a feminist teacher who takes public transportation and gets home later than him, so he does all the cooking in addition to paying the mortgage. Now I have a brother-in-law who is a Women’s Rights lawyer, and my uncle told me, “Some things are better left unsaid,” when I brought up the problems with feminism.

One friend is living with a single mother with three kids from three different dads, of which he is the second. Another friend got a DUI and a DV charge a week before when his girlfriend called the cops during a spat in the car.

Yet, even after spending a night in jail, he all but covered his ears while shouting, “I don’t care!” when I mentioned that taking the red pill would give him knowledge about the nature of women so he could prevent this situation from happening again.

Sounds like I’m ghetto trash, right? No, that’s just it. I’m an upper-middle class, private-schooled kid who enjoyed ski boats, dirt bikes, horseback riding, and European vacations. I say this not to brag, but rather to let you know how deep the rot really is.

We are truly living in the Age Of Unreason.

How did this come to be?

Couple not talking

Traditionally, men and women inhabited different spheres with different specializations and realms of influence. Men did business primarily with other men, went to men’s clubs where they spoke freely with other men, and women let them do it because they had their own sphere and enough sense to know that this practice was necessary for a healthy society.

The core principle at work here is that when men have a conversation with other men, all topics are fair game, logic and reason take precedence over feelings, and anyone too soft to handle the conversation needs to get lost.

The industrial revolution happened because men were:

1. Open to hearing information that clashed with their current beliefs.

2.  Willing to change their beliefs based on that information.

3.  Able to create and implement solutions with that new knowledge.

How about now? Be honest. How many men do you know who operate at this level?

The slave effect


One of the key practices of slavery was to torture or kill the alpha males in front of the women to scare the heck out of them and show them who’s boss. Then you tell the women that they are the moral enforcers, and if they don’t maintain order, there will be more killings, possibly even them and their children.

Once this pattern is established, you give the women a few perks to establish them as the privileged class, ensuring that the cycle perpetuates itself.

This is what is happening in our current social order. Men are emasculated and bossed around by women, who act as moral enforcers for the state because they get perks like assets and children after divorce, preferential treatment at schools, affirmative action, constant pats on the back by the media, etc.

Women will work against their own interests out of self-preservation if men are not around to guide them. Imagine three concentric circles; children in the center, women in the second circle, and men on the outside. In a healthy society, this is how the layers of security are ordered. Helpless children are protected by women, who in turn are protected and guided by men.

In a slave society, the outer two circles are reversed and misery ensues. Which begs the question, why do women need men’s guidance?

It’s a man’s world

the boss

As mentioned above, the innovations that created almost all of our technology were created by men who were open to hearing new ideas, could change their beliefs based on new information, and implement that information in their line of work.

We may call this the scientific method, logic, or not being beholden to feelings, but the result is the same. By and large, men are more capable of talking about and resolving problems than women. After all, how many women understand how things work? Public policy is being dictated by sensitive creatures who do not understand the system they are trying to fix.

Many of the problems in our new social order arise from women insisting on taking part in every aspect of society, and that men must cater to their feelings. This is what flips the outer two circles and turns society into a slave fest. Feelings trump reason instead of the other way around.

It’s a sad conclusion to make, but it seems that our ancestors were right: tough decisions that affect the whole of society must be made without the presence of women. After all, if a conversation about solving black crime gets stopped two sentences in with cries of racism, that problem can never be adequately addressed.

It is commonly understood that free speech was created to protect us from government tyranny. But we are now experiencing a secondary intention of our founding fathers: free speech protects us from women. The first amendment gives men the ability to say, “Sorry, honey. I can say that, actually. It’s right there in the constitution.”

In all my travels, I have never seen a culture where women do not try to act as the gatekeepers of what is acceptable to do or say. In a healthy society, women do this in moderation, and men are still able to have the difficult but necessary conversations without their presence. Without this ability, we are sitting ducks in front of a firing squad of government totalitarianism.



We on ROK commonly make lists of people such as feminists, white knights, and manginas as deluded groups who attack our civil liberties. I propose a word to label them all as one category: Weaklings.

After all, it perfectly describes what they are: people too weak to comprehend reality or make wise decisions. These are the people who would be dead if not for modern medicine and low infant mortality. And they know it.

That’s why they run to the government like schoolyard tattletales. They can’t defend themselves or their ideas on their own, so they seek the protection of their beloved father figure, not realizing that he is the slave master who is keeping them down.


In this day and age, finding a fellow man who can discuss ideas without letting his emotions get in the way is worth his weight in gold. Learn from my mistake so you don’t make it yourself. Don’t waste your time trying to convert anyone to the red pill who is not:

1. Open to hearing information that clashes with their current beliefs.

2. Willing to change their beliefs based on that information.

3. Able to create and implement solutions with that new knowledge.

This way you can separate the weak from the strong. In the Age of Unreason, there are many ways to waste your time. Don’t waste it dealing with Weaklings.

Read More: Feminism Comes Full Circle Into Embracing Aristotle’s “Natural Slavery”

271 thoughts on “Our Decaying Society Has Created The Age Of Unreason”

  1. There is something that we all must understand and it is something I was told for a long time as a child, ” He who does not hear must feel.” To some extent many of us who have made it to the ‘red’ have gone through this message, either consciously or unconsciously. The manginas and white knights who have changed their tunes, even the feminists who have changed their tune since reading this site, have been forced to feel something to get to where this information makes sense to them. One can speak on the amoral behavior of any group, until they see an example that hits home to them. Then it must hit a relative. Then a cousin. Then a brother. And finally it must hit them. To get a truth, you have to be hit in such a way that recognizing you will die if you don’t accept this truth, is your only way of going forward as a rational male. This is just how humans are built. Otherwise, with our habits for being led, we’d be no different to the rodents known as lemmings. Be thankful for that.

  2. Men are susceptible to emotional feels, too. SJWs wouldn’t exist otherwise. However, only men are able to overcome it. There has always been this struggle to overcome emotions, which is why all great philosophers stress reason and logic, because it doesn’t come automatically and must be cultivated. We live in a society that shames virtue. We must demand it of our fellow men, out of the sight of gov’t and women, if we want to return to a sane society. Excellent article.

    1. it is a struggle, but it’s worth it.
      i can recommend reading material from psychopaths, namely the blogs psychopathicwritings.com and psychopathic awareness, also browse through facebook profiles of psychopaths.
      although it is sometimes discomforting, i mostly end up feeling all kinds of irrationality fall off of me. truly liberating. i would envy these folks if it wasn’t pointless.

    2. Yes. All of Aristotle! Hegel too, especially Science of Logic. It’s not “cultivated” externally. It can be cultivated from one’s self. And not “everyone” has a self that can cultivate.

    3. SJWs only exist because of funding. From the likes of Goldman Sachs. Its a culture war against opponents to ‘the tribe’. Although they have pretty much stitched up things so bad, that society has already collapsed – it is only now held up by fake fiat worthless toilet paper currency.

  3. In this day and age, finding a fellow man who can discuss ideas without letting his emotions get in the way is worth his weight in gold.

    True. We have to be careful who we discuss what with. We really are living in a world that’s controlled by a cult (i.e. feminism). Under a cult, questioning is discouraged and usually leads to hostility, ostracism, or violence at worst. In a society that actually allows “free thought” there is no need to censor ideas. Bad ideas will die of natural causes, simply because they are bad ideas and are unable to withstand the weight of rational scrutiny. The only ideas that have ever required censorship are good ideas that hurt the status quo.

    1. ironically, from my experience, people don’t even react that badly when confronted with an unpopular opinion. often, they are glad that they are not alone with their thoughts and ideas. the problem seems to me to be more the fear that is spread, making people believe they will not be accepted – while it is not really what happens. so you end up being careful around people, hiding yourself, out of a fear that is not justified.
      my dad grew up in soviet controlled czech and he told me that everybody disliked the system, but nobody dared to openly say it. i think that is a problem with us, too. media makes us believe that most people disagree with us, but it may simply be a lie.
      “you are alone in this, creep.” no, you are not. you may just be made believe you are. make healthy people believe something is wrong with them and they will self-censor.

      1. It’s mainly comedians who do this too – combined with your reasons and the truism “Many a true word spoken in jest”, they can be much more than mere funny men.

      2. I’ve been thinking the same, I’ve noticed more and more people with similar views to me when if I looked at the mainstream media I would think i’m one of the few who thinks the way I do. The media want to ostracize and shame people of don’t have PC views.

    2. I would say more like totalitarianism or tyranny. The state would not incarcerate you, but the public will crucify you.

      1. A lot of the time, the ‘public’ is just a wealthy, manipulative and wicked minded minority.
        I remember an old book saying that a guy got crucified on the cross for daring to question banking usury..

    3. No, the cult is Satanic/Luciferian Zionism. They run the world via banks and staged conflicts.
      Next up: economic collapse and another staged war (gotta kill off those pesky western populations and whites).

    4. I watched an interview of Milo Yianopolis and the most interesting thing in the clip was he said “Protectors of free speech will always face opposition from both the left and the right.”
      What he meant was… Both slaves and masters just wish free-speech would die off… Free-speech is frightening to those who would rather believe lies as well as those who need to suppress the truth.
      Those who fight for free-speech are a small minority that everyone, generation to generation, will always see as off the wall whackjobs. But it is their very struggle that maintains Western civilization and freedom whatsoever.

  4. just challenged an old friend of mine about his opinion on drugs. he is a scientologist now and i met him at a public presentation of their “say no to drugs” campaign. i asked him if he has ever taken any of the drugs but alcohol. he said no. i asked him if the other scientologist have. he said no.
    i got to hear lots of anecdotes of people who ended up junkies and regretted it and whatnot. about the opposite of my experience with reasonable people. he brought up the metaphor that he doesn’t need to jump from a bridge to know it’s deadly when he has seen others do it.
    these guys just all read the same information or whatever from some internal authority and believe in it. “well, you can’t question everything. you gotta have trust.”
    just from this experience, i can identify a few factors that favor irrationality:
    1. valuing theory / models over reality. in other words: everything you don’t know first hand must be treated as fantasy until proven. no theory, however convincing, is worth a dime until it can predict reality.
    2. the illusion of knowledge through authority. people tell you how to judge things, how the world works. all theory, but all the sense of security you get. then they say: “if you try this and that, it will change who you are and you don’t want that. you may even go insane.” ironically, it is true. confronting yourself with anything in life carries the possibility of changing you fundamentally. a lot of slave mindset today is simply based on people who have been warned from something, yet never get to know what it is because they are strongly attached to their group identity of being “right” and not “creepy” or whatever. i mean, just imagine some evil person “brainwashing” you. in other words: convincing you. you would lose who you are.
    3. no basic integrity and framework of thinking. in fact, this may be the most fundamental problem. recently, i almost thought i was going insane while contemplating a few things. the reason was simply that i had no basic framework of thought. which would now be, roughly: reality. everything that i can touch and feel and do is real. everything i imagine, remember or project into the feature is not real and can be fake. based on this lack of a framework is a fundamental fear of confronting yourself with other knowledge because you secretly know that you can be easily persuaded into believing anything. being inside a group that shares your beliefs gives you a false sense of integrity.
    4. metaphors treated as truths. this relates to number 1. just because you can think of a plausibly sounding metaphor, that doesn’t mean anything. jumping from a bridge is not the same as taking a drug; there is no logical connection between the two. metaphors are a comparison, not a proof of any kind of relation. think of bohr’s model of the atom. there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that electrons fly around the atom core like planets around the sun. yet he created the model like that. while it may make some good predictions, it is not the same. many scientists say: oh, oh, but isn’t it weird that the world in the small functions different than in the big? but what exactly made them assume that the world in the small would resemble the world in the big? stop thinking in metaphors and look at each thing for what it is, then you will have no wrong expectations.

    1. Your comment is article worthy on its own. I agree with most of your points & the way it was presented.

    2. interesting comment – confessions of an opium eater or otherwise.
      “valuing theory over reality. in other words: everything you don’t know first hand must be treated as fantasy until proven”
      However reasonable we are, I’m inclined to believe that by and large very few people will challenge the reality they are presented with (whether by their parents, peers or by the MSM) unless there is some kind of loss of trust – what you might call a critical relationship issue. When people have crises – emotional, familial, work etc, they often (but by no means always) become epistemological crises (Alistair MacIntyre). Drugs may well facilitate or even cause such a reckoning with reality but within the manosphere I’d say in the first instance the loss of trust, the source of questioning is usually disillusionment with or alienation from our current significant relationships, whether with family or women, and then with ‘the system’ that adminsters them ( ie we experience the evil of feminism as it impacts is in the social world rather than intellectually in the first instance)
      The evil demon / brainwashing scenario is as old as Descartes at least (how do I know anything is real?). Theories are just theories, and you’re right I think for the most part to try to work your way up from the facts that you can see, hear and touch, to rely ultimately upon the evidence of your own ‘eyes’ that is, but at some point such a radical self-reliance may well become difficult to bear – societies are built and broken on trust, and however epistemologically radical we may need to be, the bigger picture may be that we can’t be totally self-reliant. For the moment all we know is that what we are told by and large is at best so many half-truths, or at worst a bunch of outright lies; we know that women, even at their best are self-interested and inclined to deceive themselves and others according to how they feel and aspire. Self-reliance must obviously start with oneself, but in the first instance the trust that needs to be re-made must begin amongst ourselves, amongst men, not least because we have been made to doubt and question ourselves and our intrinsic value. Once we have negotiated this, in the microcosm or the macrocosm, I imagine it will be easier to think about the rest of the world

      1. well, as long as the system works for you, there’s no need to think. it’s the moment you realize you are not getting what you want out of it. my initial wish when i found the manosphere was really only to replace the dysfunctional system with a better one.
        now i am slowly realizing that it is much more economical in the long run to build my own belief system and way of thinking. to have absolute self-reliant confidence. even here, between the lines, there is lots of moralizing and there are many christians among the commenters for instance.
        regarding your last paragraph: it sounds like rationalization. let me explain. just because i needily think that there simply must be a way to blindly trust any truth from others, it doesn’t mean that it is so.
        no, i am not saying that one should sit down and do nothing until some kind of absolute truth is discovered. of course you need to make decisions. what i am saying, though, is: anything you don’t know absolutely for sure has to be treated strictly and rigorously as a theory, nothing more. you can make decisions based on those theories, but you should – for the sake of your sanity – not hold any pride in them.
        think about it. what do you do every day? if you are like most people, for all you know the world could simply not exist. they wouldn’t notice. they would know that a world exists simply from being told at school. a world government could be faked for them and they could be controlled out of a tv studio that makes up everything but the places they frequent – think truman show.
        some of the most rational material i stumbled over until today is objectivism. but even that has it’s weaknesses, rooted probably in the author’s emotionality. ayn rand was absolutely red pill, though. her sex scenes always resemble rape.
        as noted elsewhere in this discussion, my mind feels very at home with psychopaths, too. you really gotta throw aside the emotions and morals, though.

        1. My beliefs are broadly Christian but I assure you I don’t moralise and the point I was making had nothing to do with religion as far I’m aware. MacIntyre may be interested in ‘virtue ethics’, but his point is about epistemology, about what it means to have the kind of crisis of faith / trust or whatever you want to call it that leads you to question what you’ve always taken for granted: a situation most of here will have experienced in one form or another. MacIntyre uses the example of Hamlet to illustrate his point. Hamlet starts losing his mind, doubting everything around him, everything he’s been told, when he starts to suspect those around him of betrayal (effectively his mother’s betrayal of his dead father) i.e. the circumstances in which we start to question fundamental realities is likely to be one where those we thought we could trust seem suddenly less trustworthy. The bit about needing to re-build trust has nothing to do with moralising and everything to do with human psychology, of what it is we need to function healthily as human beings. It really isn’t about believing any particular set of beliefs, but of realising the conditions of being able to exist harmoniously and working to create them. If for instance you want a woman, red pill tells you she’s going to be a flawed human being, but for purely pragmatic reasons – e.g. you don’t want to die of a stress related coronary – you’re going to have to find some way of for trusting her on a practical basis.
          The reality is questioning everything all the time is not only hard work, but inhumanly hard work and psychologically unhealthily. Everybody should have a healthy scepticism about things (doesn’t everyone here?) but when you say “anything you don’t know absolutely for sure has to be treated strictly and rigorously as a theory” that’s fine as long as you mean by it that you should regard theories about the world as flexible and provisional. Certainty isn’t something anyone enjoys without self-deceit in my opinion. I hold with Socrates on the issue.
          As for psychopaths, emotions and morals, I’ll have to read the link. Personally having worked in mental health / psychology I think its a concept / diagnosis that has been advanced in an increasingly anti-male way, a way for feminists to ‘psycho-pathologise’ competitive male behaviour . That may depend on the variety , just make sure you don’t end up defining yourself as feminists would like you to be defined.

        2. that’s fine as long as you mean by it that you should regard theories about the world as flexible and provisional

          i do not see the difference between your sentence and mine, other than that your wording is softer. you may wrongly assume from my wording that i mean to live in constant paranoia and stress; i do not. actually, focusing on simpler reality makes me very much calm and serene. it is work, yes, but it is like a featherweight compared to the stress of making sense of … nonsense.
          interesting point about hamlet. a year ago, i would not have been able to empathize with it. these stories just fail to convey the point, because as a reader, you always have a frame of reference – the frame the author sets. the figure itself, though, is lost to it’s own wits.
          a friend recommended “shutter island” to me. from today’s perspective, it has a bit too much clues during the build-up, but it extremely well illustrates how it feels to lose one’s mind.
          what i meant with moralizing are the limits of the people. at some point, there’s always a limit – which is not logical. psychopaths completely lack that, it’s biological. i see your point about the “diagnosis” and i agree, but it refers to what is called sociopath. a psychopath has a different brain and does not feel guilt and remorse – or very lightly so – and much less fear. psychopaths openly discuss rape, murder, going to prison, putting a cock in a crying babies mouth, skinning a cat. they have complete disregard for what others think of them. it’s not that they are damaged – they simply don’t feel any overwhelming negative emotions in that association. that makes them very rational people and also great manipulators and leaders. people are afraid of these qualities and fail to see how much they could learn from them.
          somebody once mentioned that some personae in the self-improvement scene are psychopaths. makes sense to me. a psychopath will intuitively appeal to your free will and mean well, yet possibly fail to understand what it means to have to fight all these stupid emotions. that’s why all that motivational talk may have to be taken with a grain of salt.

        3. shutter island was a nice piece of gothic, particularly the setting, but as a representation of losing ones mind I didn’t feel it rang true, but I accept that you feel differently. Re. moralizing, yes, there are limits, but usually that’s with regard to doing rather than discussing. Ultimately after you come to accept the world’s a pretty shitty place where nasty things happen the novelty of such things wears off. I appreciate psychopaths may be be logical rather than emotional about such things but if that really is a biological reality rather than something that’s been socialised are you really so sure that’s what the guys on that site really are. Brain science is always that accurate, and while that kind of psychopaths might really have some missing empathy modules, remember the brain is profoundly plastic, most functions can be re-routed in some shape or form. I don’t have time to check up on the matter but I was under the impression most discussion about psychopathy in the clinical and popular literature wasn’t strictly about people with confirmed cognitive / neurological deficits even if I accept that there is a distinction to be made between psychopathy and socipathy. Your books on psycopath’s in the work place will be based entirely on symptology, or traits for instance. While there may certainly be advantages to being coldly logical and pracical – I imagine the solution you mention would sort of solve the crying baby scenario – but the disadvantages is that beyond manipulative calculations you wouldn’t have the advantages of empathy – something which in many ways is a more likely to – cynically advantage you – I mean look how women use that skills to their advantage, and mostly without being labelled manipulators. Again having disregard for what others think of you has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages being that you’re going to suffer excessive inhibition, the disadvantages probably being the same (i.e. disinhibition) but also perhaps the ability to really factor in the looking glass self – i.e. the feedback we get from other people. I’d say its finding some balance between the two is most adaptive – if less obviously madcap fun, but each to their own.
          I’d have to say though I don’t think a great manipulator would be idea of a great leader. Most of the best leaders have had a strong sense of empathy however ruthless they have been…….please don’t start listing contrary examples though its too late

        4. i encourage you to read the blog i posted to have a basis for that discussion. e.g. there are various shades of grey, a psychopath may well have empathy, but be more easily able to shut it off or ignore it.
          i do not subscribe to the symptomological classification – i think it’s a bunch of bullshit mostly. i am referring to brain scans made on those that i call psychopaths. reduced activity in the amygdala.
          they would not need a strong sense of empathy – they would need to be able to fake it and be dominant. when people think of “manipulation”, they think of some creep who looks evil, but that’s not what manipulation is, is it? it wouldn’t work if it was like that. to be manipulated into doing something means to really want to do it.

        5. I will check out the blog – psychopathy is interesting, but I’d say for the most part it was disadvantage rather than any kind of boon. I accept that there will be some psychopaths who have deficits in the amygdala or wherever, but remember the brain activity may reflect use or lack of use of particular pathways. Were probably not talking about a Phineas Fogg scenario where a chunk of brain is missing so as to effect behaviour. If you’ve got low activity in your amygdala work on your amygdala. Sounds like one of those bodybuilding articles by Jefe: Seven simple exercises for a rippling amygdala that will drive the girls crazy

        6. haha, like the last sentence.
          well, i will not disregard the possibility that one’s thinking habits will influence such a pattern, but i will warn you not to use neuroplasticity as a proof of some kind of mental egalitarianism where anyone can make his brain into anything he wants. although we are here entering the field of theory – if you have read interesting research in that regard, feel free to share.
          the amygdala has been researched mainly due to it’s role in fear. a low-functioning amygdala means lowered emotional response, likewise less fear. fyi, there is also research suggesting that kids with fathers tend to develop different neural structures.
          yes, there are disadvantages, but those probably mainly consist in not being able to understand the emotionality of people, which ends up being more of an intellectual problem. anyway, build your own opinion; i’ll be glad to continue the discussion then.

        7. cheers I’ll check it out
          “there is also research suggesting that kids with fathers tend to develop different neural structures.” – that rings a bell- would probably make for a good article
          re. neuroplasticity – err. Lucy? Cutting edge research with Scarlett Johansenn.

  5. I can’t say how many times I’ve been written up by women for saying something they found inappropriate. Rather than confront me right there and then, they prefer to tell a higher authority to get me in trouble. The message is loud and clear, mess with me I’ll get you fired. That’s our strong independent woman in a nutshell. This article explains it all quite well.

    1. exactly my experience. too cowardly to do anything but kindly smile at you, but then you hear stories about yourself from your boss. it’s kinda funny, actually, if your boss has balls.

    2. That’s happened to me a few times too at places I’ve worked. Women never confront you on the spot if you say something that hurts their feeeeelings, they run straight to a higher up to get you in trouble.

  6. Somebody else said it, but feminism is like a cult. Its a secular religion. You might not be able to talk “reason” to male family members who have locked themselves into the mindset. They have to fuck up their lives so badly they want to change.
    Feminism encourages beta males to give up all that is uniquely masculine under the false premise that if beta males do so they will have more options at sex with women. But the reality is it makes them more beta and less attractive to women, resulting in beta males having fewer social options and making them more vulnerable to being used as pawns.

    1. Somebody else said it, but feminism is like a cult. Its a secular religion.
      Same thing with extreme environmentalism.

        1. Is this Wheel of Fortune? I’d like to buy a “U” and an “A”. Let’s through a “D” in between that Ju_aism.

        2. But its racist and we can’t mention that they own all the banks and what their books really say. What about questioning the holocaust and the fact that they murdered 100 million whites in the USSR alone in the same way the Palestinians are about to be wiped out today. Its okay to show TV shows where whites, muslims and all sorts of other folk are the terrorists. But you’ll never watch an episode of ‘Homeland’ or anything else where Saul says:
          ‘Oy vey – I admit it. It was me. I killed them’.

        3. Death Cult I believe.
          Spirituality is present in all other religions. And perhaps the Torah only.

        4. I am thoroughly convinced Democracy is the only way to go or the only direction we can go, that is of course, if, we have a virtuous “dem”. Without virtue, you can only have tyranny, which is where we are now.

        5. Democracy is by no means an ideology or ” – ism”. Confusing the two is like the media and masses confusing and then conflating “progressivism” and “liberalism”.

        6. well, mike, who defines that?
          people who identify something as ideology (separate from their own), call it an -ism. usually with a negative connotation.
          i wonder, though, if somebody doesn’t want people to think his own project is a cult, he wouldn’t call it -ism, would he? did ron hubbard call his sect scientologism?
          who is the final judge and what central authority decides if something is called an -ism?
          as you see, the name assigned to a thing doesn’t change the nature of a thing. it is merely a popular judgment and can not serve as any basis for any statement.

        7. Tom,
          You ask the right questions. But, one of the best answers that I have contemplated involves -isms/ideologies necessitating “blind faith” from its followers(read Nietzsche, Heart of Darkness, Blood Meridian and Faust to name a few).
          Yes, of course, modern day charismatic “leaders” build cults. However, in a democracy citizens “know” virtue and who to elect.

        8. mike,
          i don’t share your idealism. after all i have learned about my own mind, i cannot believe in a society that would have the chance of running well without a hierarchy.
          i think democracy worked fine due to religion. back then, “right” had a meaning. it was a standard that people – even if naively – believed in and it was something that people agreed over.
          today, the word has lost it’s meaning and people argue over what’s right. everybody says that “right” is simply what they want.
          without the irrational shackles of religious belief and a unified value system, i don’t think that democracy is possible.

        9. regarding the blind faith – tell me a set of beliefs that does not rely on some kind of premise that has ultimately no logical roots.
          thanks for the book recommendations.

        10. Virtue is part of our intuition, our self or “soul” (metaphorically speaking in the Socratic sense). However, – ism or ideology is something created or cooked up by something or someone else. Hence, we must bow down to it, pray to it, or keep it on our lips in order to attach ourselves to it or become it, because unlike “virtue”, – ism or ideology is separate from our self and the weak need to affix their self to it to become what they think is whole.

        11. Jung in his last interviews speaks of being a non-believer, not in what we regard an atomistically atheist, but in terms of “knowing”, bowing down to nothing external to his self.

        12. well, if virtue is part of our self, it is subjective and prone to be disagreed upon. after all, why would you assume that each person’s intuition is equal. it’s completely illogical. even if i was convinced that i have found my god, i could not possibly know if it was the right god for anyone else.
          even if virtue was the same for everybody, everybody would have a different idea about how to interpret this intuition. i myself like to fight my intuitions, because they turn out to be bad very often.
          if may feel like something natural to you if you have enjoyed a proper parenting where a father would associate the word virtue with certain modes of behavior. later, your brain would just pop up the right behaviors in the right situations and you would call it intuition.
          that’s why virtue (that word doesn’t mean anything, really) would need to be agreed upon.

        13. We all inherent something during our formidable years: do we accept or fight what we have inherited? This is why I still read James Joyce. He illustrates all this.

        14. Tom,
          You have done what I find to be a “fine” job underscoring the failures of intellectually egalitarianism.

        15. Addressing your initial question and tying it into the greater, whole: the masculine has a great impact on its influence of the youth. When male is “bad” as it is now, we see the rise of cults and ideology. This is exhibited in the writings of Plato and the decline of Athens into Tyranny.

        16. i do not. i am simply stating that our selfs – our organisms – are part of a much larger system and that there is a constant mutual influence. even if you say it’s genetic – that is also a result of a mutation based on laws of the physical universe.

        17. i say we do both. we accept what we feel to not have to fight wrong expectations or predictions of our own emotional reactions. but we then nonetheless cognitively choose to act differently, thus with time reconditioning ourselves.
          that is, we do not “fight” that inheritance through stress or demanding from ourselves not to think these things, but by simply disobeying so often until our brain decides that these old patterns of thinking don’t make sense anymore.

        18. I don’t have faith or assume Physical Science has any answers: I am not kin with those that favor and use the language of Physical Science. I like to use Science, not vice versa, therefore I think we are going to be at a stalemate at this point. I enjoy the conversation.

        19. i still miss a coherent definition of ideology and cults.
          believing in the “masculine” is also an irrational belief, because being “masculine” is only one way to interpret and act on the emotions that a male body provides you with, as evidenced by all those betas out there. look at indigenous tribes, where the men – by civilization standards – often seem to have a very nervous body language. i think it is because there is less need for intra-gender competition in a small community. no one-night-stands there.
          i think there’s only one rational tenet that one can assume rather safely: that one has needs and wants to get them satisfied. if one gets that without competition or hardship, one will intuitively choose that, only to fail later. so the beautiful model type man in his 20s will never learn game and have enough hotties; but he may well fall much deeper afterward.
          “masculinity” is a great way to condition yourself to be strong and resilient, but i don’t see how it would by any logical deduction be “natural” or “right”. think of it, the words “natural” and “right” don’t really mean anything, anyway.
          that said, i would describe your observation through what i already noted: the downfall of an overarching value system in religion. seeking for guidance, but divided by interests, people scatter into subcultures that may well be called cults. these cults then fight over power. so it’s masculinity vs. feminism now.

        20. oh, i don’t care about the naming convention really. when i say physical science, i do so probably because i am referring to theories like gravitation, forces, quantum mechanics, which are usually associated with the word “physics”. what’s your beef with physical science?

        21. Tom,
          Science is a piece of technology, as well, there is no “good” or “bad” when dealing with Science. I like to think I make my own “good” decisions. Yes, I’ve read alot of the Ancients, Dostoevsky, and Conrad… We have created Science, and now we are to live according to it?

        22. Tom,
          I would argue “masculine” & “feminine” are literally as opposed as apples and oranges, and knowing the difference between the two is inherent to our natures. A punch is as different as a soothing back rub, not mattering what we “believe”. The same goes with pleasure/pain, hot/ cold, happy/sad, satiated/unsatiated.

        23. science does give you nothing in the way of making “right” decisions. that’s usually the boulevard magazines’ interpretation of science, like: evolution wants you to do this and that.
          neither does logic.
          neither science nor reason can provide guidance if you don’t decide for a desired outcome. without desired outcome – or direction – no decision can be made.
          i don’t think that any action can be in itself “right” and must be evaluated against the goal. as i implied earlier, “right” is just a word and has no inherent meaning until we hear it used in context.

        24. if knowing the difference is inherent, how come that men all around the world don’t know it when not taught?
          well, there are people that feel no pain or have all kinds of affective anomalies. there are gay people! that’s evolution’s way of reaching the best adapted state through random aberrations. unfortunately, evolution has a way of shitting on the moral judgment we ascribe to certain traits. the more i think about it, the less i think that any kind of “normal” really exists.
          of course, most people feel pain, it’s useful. but they still can decide how to act on it. you can avoid it or you can go to the gym and indulge in it.
          although gender differences are statistically inherent, i do not think that masculinity is. masculinity, like reason, is a method that elevates you. but not all men get to evolve or adopt this method. some may not want to, some may not be able to, some may not even consider it. partly genetic, partly background. e.g. when you grow up around weaklings, you may think it is simply “right” to be a weakling, as i did most of my life.

        25. tyranny is inescapable.
          while you choose your tyrant, with feels of virtue, tell us all more how the only direction is directionless that has a direction.

      1. Zionism is..
        Racism (read the Talmud)

        1. Oh yeah, now that they have turned a straight white male athlete (Jenner) into a tranny via the brainwashing they do (he doesn’t blink much in the interview, other tell tale clues); look forward to bestiality and necrophilia becoming socially normative (arguably pedophilia is normative in the west these days)

        2. Their next strategy will be a polyamorous society. They’ve been attacking marriage for a long time now, and it will only get worse. The idea here is that if men and women live separate lives, they have to buy separate houses, separate refrigerators, separate everything, which means more consumer spending to push the limping American economy along. See the book Sex at Dawn, to see what Leftoids have in mind. They want to create a world where the country is filled with bastard children, in order to force feed us the “necessity” of a Socialist state (i.e. welfare state).

        3. “They want to create a world where the country is filled with bastard children”
          It takes a village to raise Lefty children, because the women (like chimps) sleep around so much, that no man can be sure they are or are not the father.
          “So why do females call? Townsend thinks that one of their motives is to sow confusion. When they mate with high-ranking partners, other dominant males are usually nearby and the female’s calls advertises her availability to these alternative partners. That’s not just about getting as much sex as possible; their actions stop any single male from monopolising their attentions, and makes it more difficult for males to tell who fathered which youngster.
          “It pays a females to sow doubt about the identity of a baby’s father. If males are completely sure that a particular baby isn’t theirs, there’s a good chance they will try and kill it. Infanticide is a surprisingly common danger for primates, and it’s in the interest of the females to prevent it. They do it by making sex calls regardless of where they are in their menstrual cycle and by mating with a number of different males. This strategy works particularly well if the female’s partners are all high-ranking, as they can provide solid protection against the infanticidal tendencies of more subordinate males.”
          Their final goal would be Brave New World where children are “hatched” without fathers and mothers altogether.

        4. Disagree on pedophilia, although those stories sicken me so I tend to avoid reading them. (Also most people labeled pedophiles are actually oenophiles). But I think there is relatively little evidence of people being attracted to children. What there is, is a good bit of inappropriate sexualization of younger people (think Miley Cyrus, teachers having sex with their students etc) while at the same time the state and the society shame older men getting with younger women.
          Throughout history, men would often marry women at the age of 13-17. Age of consent in America is typically 16-18 in the USA, and any man marrying a woman more than 5 years or so his junior gets social shaming for it. I am reading a book about Napoleon Bonaparte now (200th anniversary of Waterloo) and his mother married at 14. If anything we are seeing the natural tendency to marry at a younger age being twisted and shaped by our society and institutions where often young women I meet tell me they don’t want to marry until age 30 or so, so they can develop their career.

        5. I misread this at first. Polygamous society (plural marriage) is one thing, polyamourous on the other hand…. basically everyone is either fuckbuddies or nothing at all. that’s throwing a grenade down the chute of human civilization.

      2. Thing about environmentalists is, even if some are batshit crazy, even if some of the things they say are grossly exaggerated, even if they straight up lie some of the time, I don’t mind. Why? Because, for the most part, their heart’s in the right place. They are trying to do something good with their lives. Yes, there are some who just like to smoke weed and play guitar around a bonfire, but there are off-shoots in every single group on earth.
        Now, the same cannot be said for feminists. For the most part they are fighting against things that make them insecure. i.e. fearful. They are toxic by nature. They aren’t marching to celebrate Miss Universe, no, they march to celebrate Miss Piggy. And if you think about that, you realise that they are not pro women, they’re pro not-being-left-behind.

        1. environmentalists attach undue, misranked, and misattributed importance to irrelevant grains of enviro-sand, with the necessary accompanying willful incompleteness, all for the purposes of petty self advancement.
          feminists attach undue, misranked, and misattributed importance to irrelevant grains of femi-sand, with the necessary accompanying willful incompleteness, again, all for the purposes of petty self advancement.
          fantasists believe in the undue importance of their fantasy, not because of any kernel of sand, but because it’s their vehicle of self importance; their vehicle of declaration that X should get more; their vehicle declaring that they should get more.
          all fanatics/fantasists are like that. by definition. do not inject your humbleness before reality into their words. they are not humble. they place fantasy above fact, specifically their fantasy, and this is not because of heart.

        2. Alright, but let’s pretend, just for argument’s sake, you’re wrong about both feminists and environmentalists; what’s the worst case scenario in both cases?
          Regarding feminists . . . uh, nothing. There is no rape culture, it’s all balls. And anyway, rape is number one female fantasy, so there’s no real fallout if it turns out the whole world is misogynistic.
          Regarding environmentalists . . . uh, we all die. Just today I saw that the extinction rate this last century is 100 times higher than it should be. Also bees are dying like the plague, and without bees we have no pollination and the chain breaks. Less insects, less birds, less vegetation. We go full Mad Max.
          So, from my perspective, fuck your doubt. Be smug all you like, but unless you’ve done some research yourself, rather than relying on false science reports (which are paid for by companies like Haliburton; however you spell it), no one should listen to a word you say.

        3. doubt? smug? research? science? haliburton? bees? pollination?
          let’s try again.
          if, then. now test. if the conclusion is nonsensical, you must discard.
          now repeat. if opposite, then opposite. now test. if the conclusion is nonsensical, you must discard.
          confabulation is when both “sides” are discarded. because there was no “side”. the conclusion is chosen first, with attribution chosen second, both of which are highly selected, all as a means to achieve the predetermined ends: ranking. a ranking of self, not reality. fantasy misranks, misattributes, and thusly misconcludes, all in the opposite order, while feigning otherwise. it’s existence can be discovered as its ends are neither applicably right, nor applicably wrong. this is not an accident; rather it’s all a status game. and all still fantasy.
          you must discard.

        4. I find your reply hard to read. Were you drunk? Serious question. Look, I’m anti capitalism, pro environment. I’d prefer to see parks than concrete. I’d prefer to breath clean air than polluted. I prefer to have an abundance of fish and coral reefs around me when I go diving. If you’re, like, “fuck that,” then fuck off, we have nothing to say to each other. All I know is, living in a city, as I am, I fucking hate it and get away to the beach any chance I can, and if the environmentalists are fighting for beaches not cities, then I’m on their side, regardless of any and every single false survey stating that, “Man has zero impact on the environment.” Think long term, do you want your grandchildren to be surrounded by shit or parks, ’cause, at the end of the day, those are the two choices. Fuck the economy, fuck capitalism, fuck jews, and fuck you.

        5. Environmentalists (which include a few top scientists like Dr. Pianka) are just as nutty as the feminists and may be even worse. They believe the whole overpopulation myth and want to wipe out most, if not all, of humanity. Heart in right place, my ass.

        6. Do you want to live in a heavily populated society? I don’t. I’m in Asia right now and heading anywhere by foot or car is a fucking headache. I’m pro eugenics. Only let the top 10% breed. Fuck the rest. Of course, I’m in the genetic top 10% so it’s easy for me to have this stance (Hitler would have fucking loved me) but, hey, doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

        7. You can fit the entire human population in the state of Texas which enough land for each person. I’m not worried about heavy population which can actually be solved if we removed political issues.
          And just for laughs, what makes you think you’re in the top 10%?

        8. If that were truly the case you would be looking for ways to get out of this rock. Environmentalist and their ilk are just unwitting stooges that further the NWO agenda. If someone has to go, they should go first, after all they consume more resources.

        9. Climate change is nothing new. The early middle ages were hotter than now, (why do you think the Vikings called that piece of land Greenland?, back then it was green). Besides, the greatest type of pollution is the chemical one (precisely the most likely culprit behind the current extinctions) and no environmentalist wants to raise awareness about it go figures

        10. “Only let the top 10% breed. Fuck the rest.” In a sense I agree with you, the problem however is who makes the decision, and what the agenda is…. So we can’t do that, I guess..

        11. I didn’t mention climate change. That’s just one cause that has a lot of conflicting information out there. But having witnessed the yellow fog a couple of times when it got blown in from China, yeah, there’s no way that that’s a good thing for anybody.
          There are other environmental factors: over fishing is one. The Japanese hunt whales and dolphins because they believe they’re eating too many of their fish. And yet, if you look at satellite images of fishing boats at night about 90% of them are near Japan. Ironic fuckers.
          Another factor is deforestation: impossible to disprove, just look at satellite images of the Amazon. Now you may say, fuck the Amazon, it’s just a few trees. Well, tick forward 100 years. Trees are important because they provide oxygen. This is kindergarten stuff, but highlights just how flawed the belief is that humans AREN’T destroying the environment, or having an impact.

        12. internally discordant. laments wants that cannot be afforded. and with righteous justice, injects opposing fictions never spoken in order to return to fantasy.
          to hold on to fantasies of paradise ensures there will be none, especially for you. stop being childish.
          wake up.

        13. Another factor is deforestation: impossible to disprove, just look at satellite images of the Amazon. Now you may say, fuck the Amazon, it’s just a few trees.

          I don´t disregard the importance of the rainforests, however no environmentalist movement has proposed a coherent logical solution to this. For example, how can be an ethanol conversion useful or beneficial when that would create more incentives to cut down the trees and grow more GMO toxic corn and other specific produce in order to produce ethanol, to supposedly reduce emissions disregarding the ecological and economical damage (chain reaction that will decrease the arable land dedicated to food production thus causing a rise in the food production costs nationwide first and then worldwide.
          Or how about advocating the substitution of meat with soy? A produce that, in high doses is toxic to humans, especially males due to its content in antinutrients and phytoestrogens. Moreover the impact of increasing the production of soy, in the rainforests is as bad or just worse than deforestation for urban development purposes, since the rate of destruction is even faster, let alone the pollution as a result of the arrival of GMO spores in the environment, making virtually impossible the harvest of untainted soy in the farms nearby (let alone the pollution with glysophate and other chemicals, of the underground water reservoirs and the land) .
          When the environmentalists embrace reason for a change, something useful can be done.

      3. I guess, man, but our environment is actually and visibly fucked. Can you go out there and find some people on the fringe who think we should go back to living like the Amish? Sure, but no one seriously thinks that is going to happen and seriously advocates for that. But even the Amish seem pretty happy, and give their kids the chance to leave, which they rarely do.
        If some environmentalists “aim high” in a quest to push us towards having clean air and water, that doesn’t really bother me. And you know what? When environmentalists succeed, we get cleaner air and cleaner water. Even if it comes at some other societal cost, that doesn’t seem terrible to me. But contrast that with feminism. There is nothing gained with feminism.
        It’s kind of like some people on here who aim for the literal ball and chain around a woman’s ankle–we don’t want that but lets start pushing things towards more of a natural balance in sex roles.

        1. Did everyone miss where I wrote “extreme” before “environmentalism”? I’m all for having clean air and clean water, but the folks I mean are the Steward Brand types who are so ‘guilty’ (like white liberals about racism) that they think we should all have to live in grass shacks on a riverbank with no indoor plumbing or internet so they don’t have to ‘feel bad’ about the environment.

        2. If environmentalist like you and the rest of their ilk were interested in the environment, space travel should be their first priority. GMOs and nuclear fallout as a result of WWIII are much worse than gas emissions.

          If some environmentalists “aim high” in a quest to push us towards having clean air and water, that doesn’t really bother me. And you know what? When environmentalists succeed, we get cleaner air and cleaner water.

          One way or another, there will be less people in 2100 than today. All trends point to that and it will not be pretty.

    2. A tactic that’s been laid out that I find works quite well when arguing with feminists is: talk logic and wait for them to make a false statement. Attack that false statement with logic. They will divert. Go back to that point. They will divert. Go back to that point. Eventually they will say something along the lines of, “Why are you wasting your time saying the same mysoginistic crap to me over and over like you’re a virgin loser sitting in their mother’s basement?” And you reply, “To make an example of you. You notice, people, that the feminist was unable to accept her false logic and reverted to name calling? Well, that’s a common tactic they use. Don’t get emotional, just keep plugging away at the same point and watch them make a fool of themselves.” And from then on only reply to the feminist by addressing the audience. That shit drives them crazy. And it works every single time.

        1. Uh, maybe you could go through my discuss, but I’ve had a few usernames, don’t know if there’s an example there. But the format is exactly as I described.
          Here’s a super-condensed example:
          Her: Men are dumb.
          Me: Why are the smartest people in history men?
          Her: Education restrictions. Sexism.
          Me: No, there were female scientists and mathematicians. The highest IQ’s are held by men like Einstein, Hawking, Newton, etc.
          Her: Sexism and [insert slander]
          Me: Explain how IQ tests are sexist?
          Her: [insert slander]
          Me: Answer REPEAT
          Her: [more slander]
          Me: You notice, audience, how she blah, blah, blah.
          Her: [slander]
          Me: See how she’s now reverting to the good old small penis jibe. This is a common tactic.

        2. I don’t understand why you guys still get into a logical argument with women.
          If I catch myself having a logical argument with someone….I always check the gender I am interacting with.If its a woman….I just reframe the convo into something else since I know there is nothing fruitful coming out of it.
          I’d rather use that time to do something productive.Remember women are masters at wasting a man’s time and resources.

        3. Most all women speak hamster gibberish to some degree or another. The so called educated feminists with BS degrees have a little more acrobatic tounges. They’ve mastered more words and if they were on a debate team, then you know they can wiggle that tongue like a demon. I try to bait argue, turning the heat up just to see her try to wiggle her tongue faster. I stare at that wiggling tongue and get closer for kino. Throw sex roles or positions into the ‘debate’ and then I reach into my pants to straighten my horse while retorting without skipping a word. Keep the IOI laser like to where she can’t even hear a jumbo jet above, she only hears you and smells your breath mints in her face.

        4. Actually the highest I.Q belongs to a woman who answers questions in a magazine, people with the highest I.Qs are not geniuses, they lack creativity and quirkiness. Also please don’t compare Derpkins or any modern pop-scientist with Einstein or other true geniuses of the past.

        5. if they were on a debate team, then you know they can wiggle that tongue like a demon
          You mean like this?

        6. Einstein was creative and quirky. So there goes your argument. And if you know anything of Hawkings, he has a quirky sense of humour. So, again, there goes your argument.

        7. I didn’t insult Einstein, quite the opposite, learn to read please. Hawking may be funny but he’s a moron who philosophises stupid shit and he’s pretentious as fuck , , even his science is a bunch of conjectures, he’s only famous and overrated because of his ALS

        8. You said intelligent people aren’t quirky or funny. That’s not a statement anyone could defend because it’s a blanket statement; one that, besides not being true at all, is easily to refute. How many successful comedians do you think there are who have a low IQ? I can only think of the dudes from Jackass off the top of my head, but that further proves my point, since they’re equivalent to, “Ow, My Balls” from Idiocracy.

        9. “he’s only famous and overrated because of his ALS”
          Hawking’s radiation was a major breakthrough… Interesting how you’re twisting the truth.

        10. Are you a fucking woman? By quirkiness I clearly meant an eccentric personality, and I didn’t say a 80 I.Q fucker can be a genius, I said that people with the very highest I.Qs (200+) are not geniuses, and that’s a fact. Einstein’s I.Q is presumed 160, that’s not near the highest of I.Qs, yet he was more brilliant than anyone nowadays with 200+. A valid explanation is I.Q calculates your think inside the box ability, since the questions in the test obviously require that, but you need to be a good out of the box thinker too. Obviously you need a decent inside the box thinking too or you would be stupid in another way. These correlations between super high I.Qs or Intelligence and lack of genius are explained by an I.Q society founder Paul Cooijmans, google him.

        11. My bad then, I guess Hawking is famous because shit conjectures lacking true evidence are considered good by the crap Academia of today because they’re so deep in shit trying to explain the universe that they’re taking the MWI seriously, all of which has its roots on poor philosophical thinking, which may be why minds in the past were greater, they were well read philosophicaly and not autists making a deity out of science. “Philosophy is dead” said Derpkins, well I have to agree, but not because it hasnt walked with science but because it allowed science to have ontological and metaphysical authority.

        12. there are always historical anomalies, IQ = 100% totally real, corr. highly to beauty and RT, but statistically, there are always outliers
          it’s applied after the fact to achievements made in their life given the circumstances of the period, I dislike it too but for a ranking system it’s practical

        13. So what? what does the shit he discovered serve anyway? he can’t ride on one success, besides that, he’s a conjecture machine who is trapped in his crippled body, formulating fantasies IN YOUR HEAD is no equal to reason, you people just jerk off to “FIENCFE”

      1. All the weaklings argue like this. This includes, feminists, women, manginas, white kinghts, homosexuals, transgenders, and basically anyone who keenly embraces their “feminine side”. That’s where the problem lies. If one argue from his/her “feminine side” he/she will over argue with emotion, not logic.

        1. But you do understand you’re arguing with overgrown children? Try approaching them from a reasonable standpoint where you try to have an intellectual discussion and it’ll just revert into you having to deal with mud-slinging. If you use the “speak-to-the-audience” tactic it shuts them up because you’re no longer feeding them by replying directly.

      2. Why bother?
        Disrupt their ill-logic with the same kinds of sound bites that they offer you.
        Such as, “You need the state to be your Beta Bitch because you’re not really all that strong and empowered — the truth is that you hate men and you want any man who can’t wet your coin slot to be your bitch, even if you just want their tax money.”
        I don’t negotiate with terrorists, and I don’t negotiate with feminists.
        Same. Fucking. Thing.

        1. Why bother? Uh, if you’re bored and feel like making a woman feel stupid. I mean, why not? Can’t be working on productive stuff 24/7.

      3. But how can you make any concrete statements about anything. I remember the last time I talked to you, you stated that the bible was bs and evolution could be replaced in the future when science finds a better explanation . So why argue with a feminist when they could be right and you wrong. I mean when they find a better explanation in the future of course. Becuase according to your god, science says your wrong.

        1. Man, bible cunts are the same as feminists, they just hold onto beliefs regardless of facts. If you don’t believe in evolution (or, more precisely, take the Bible at face value) then you are, by definition, stupid. And there’s no fixing stupid people (as you, yourself, prove). If I engage one of your types it’s because I KNOW FOR A FACT I am right and you are wrong beforehand, and it’s fun sometimes being on the side that cannot lose. There is literally no comeback to me stating you’re an idiot if you believe in the bible since the bible has been proven to be full of shit by people much smarter than myself. But, even then, yeah it’s so unbelievably easy to pull apart that I’m amazed cunts like you exist in an era where we have the internet.

        2. No you have no facts, my friend. Why are females supposed to be subservient to males becuase according to science your wrong. Males are not needed hence to the fact that there are no species where the male carrys eggs and sperm there’s only females that reproduce asexauly. So I ask you how do you prove that the female is for the male and not the other way around, according to science. Since the bible is a fairytale and science is fact, well your own facts betray you.

        3. ” If you don’t believe in evolution…then you are, by definition, stupid”
          If you DO believe in Evolution…you are just as stupid.
          Evolution is a religious belief taught to us in government schools…to get us to believe everything that “science” tells us (tobacco is not harmful, you will die without vaccines, fluoride is good for you, GMO is good for you, etc.)
          There is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF EVOLUTION…unless, of course, you have a time machine.
          Organized government science now is no different than organized government religion in the Middle Ages.

        4. The theory of evolution for man can’t be fully proven by the half ape missing link ‘Lucy’. Just ‘Lucy’ isn’t enough. You would have to uncover thousands of ‘Lucy’ offshoots and derivatives to demonstrate the entire progression of the evolution to prove it. With only an odd aberration like ‘Lucy’, evolution remains quite theoretical and faith based.
          Civilizations made astounding advances in short time, in fact VERY short time spans. All the evidence stacked up suggests that man was actually seeded or ‘placed’ here on Earth and ‘given’ architectural plans to follow.
          Take the Rh negative blood trait. No ape, monkey or primate has Rh negative blood. In fact, no animal native to this planet has the trait. Nowhere can it be found except in modern man. The trait isn’t from here, or it’s not ‘from the neighborhood’ as they say.

        5. LOL. So, no evolution. Okay, so the earth is 3000 years old, we rode on the back of dinosaurs. Oh yeah, and Adam and Eve had two sons, one killed the other then . . . the whole world gets populated. No, nothing wrong with that logic. Bloody talking snakes. Face it, you’re holding onto a fairy tale.

        6. Of course I have facts, just open the Bible and the fucking thing contradicts itself and is riddled with holes. Ever heard that earth is the center of the universe and, in fact, the sun revolves around the earth and not the other way round. Or how about God fucking up when giving the original 10 commandments (after having made everything perfectly in 6 days) and having to revise the list in the new testament. Oh, and God made hell, you know, satan too, since he made everything. Oh, and how many people did Satan kill in the Bible? Zero. God? A couple of billion. Talk about an anti-hero. Oh, and Judas was the favourite desciple (if you read the gospel of Judas). Oh and every fucking miracle that Jesus performed being done first by Dionysus, who had a goats head (he was actually an offshoot of an Egyptian god, hence the goats head). Yeah, that’s right, your fucking bible originated in fucking Egypt.
          But, hey, these are just facts. Pay no attention, just keep believing in your fucking fairy tale.

        7. With God All things are possible. The Evolutionist thinks they have their bases covered throughout the Age of the Earth, but what about before the Earth? And before that? and before that? and before Existence…By what Means did Existence Suddenly Appear? The Big Bang!… But what Caused that if the Big Bang was the Case? Science is not with out Fault, in some ways it can be like Fairy Tales too, sometime the Science Community will latch on to theories that in a couple yrs time become disproven and everyone has a laugh about how could they have been so Gullible, But the Bible has Stayed Concrete in it’s Truths, because it’s the Unwavering Word of God.

        8. Evolution /= tobacco is good
          Just because both things come from “science” doesn’t mean science is evil. Failed attempt at logic.

        9. I’ve just ripped into your Bible in a way you cannot rip into science books . . . and yet you still maintain the stance that it’s the Holy grail of knowledge. Do you get embarrassed when you look into the mirror and state, without a hint of sarcasm, that you’re a Christian and God loves you? I know I would. Maybe not 300 years ago, but with the knowledge we currently have at our fingertips, I’d be downright ashamed to still believe in a fable that is so easily ripped apart.

        10. An Atheist resorting to outright lies and strawmen to debate issues he clearly didn’t inquire about nor does he understand, how surprising. Over 90% of what you value in science was created by Christian men. Even the Scientific method you lionize (but in reality despise) came from Christian men who knew there had to be an objective truth.
          Without objective truth, everything is fair game and nothing can ever really be known, hence in medicine at least 50% of ALL research is BS http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1/fulltext?rss%3Dyes
          If medicine is in that state, what can be expected from other sciences in which discoveries arising from experimental results are not expected (biology, evolutionary theory, “social sciences”). It seems only engineering is trustworthy for now and only because an engineer has to make the thing work in the real world.
          If you are going to attack Christianity (the core of Western Civ) at least be informed.

        11. “Bible cunts?”
          I’ve found that Christian girls are much nicer than your ordinary, run of the mill chicks you find today. At least they believe the man is king of his castle and want to protect the family structure.
          Those are 2 things that feminists want to destroy.

        12. Bestow that Knowledge on me then, about what came before the Big Bang, and what Commenced it , and No I don’t Feel Embarrassment or Shame For Jesus My lord and Savior. Is it Embarrassing when the Religion of Science has no Answer to What Preceded Existence , but Christianity does?

        13. You keep talking of the bible go look at a textbook on evolution.It implies the women was here first and eventually man would be extinct . I was saying that according to modern day science the women evolved firsts and roughly a couple thousand years later the man evolved. You said science is the way well science doesn’t back up your thoery that a women should serve a man and it never will. Your fairytale turned on you adress that first before you slander the bible.

        14. The bible doesn’t come from eygpt, all the Egyptian religions are women centered. Catholicism is to so are most evangelicals today. They pray to marry the mother of Jesus. But actually read the bible not with expectations, pray God reveals it to you because if you. The man Is the crown of creAtion and we came first and the women was built of of us, to serve us and isn’t supposed to usurp authority over a man and is supposed to dress modestly. Know evolution comes in which Darwin didn’t invent he read the Kabbalah and ripped it off look that up. And all the sudden left isn’t left its subject to be right over time. And you actually believe that nonsense that the truth shifts and evolves and we came from Lucy sounds mighty close to lucifer. And it all ties In to the Kabbalah a book that says lucifer is good abd Jehovah is bad . Go actually read then come back and open your mouth, how is it I know more of this than you?

        15. Read up if you don’t believe me. Pythagoras went to Egypt for around 30 years (think it was 33) and came back with a bunch of science and knowledge of their religion. Ah, fuck it, zero point continuing this story, you’ll ignore it because you have “faith” your bible isn’t just a regurgitated version of an Egyptian tale (Osiris), which was regurgitated into a Pagan tale (Dionysus), and 500 years later gets regurgitated into a Christian tale (Jesus). Even if Dionysus was born on the 25th December, turned water into wine, died on a cross and resurrected 3 days later.

        16. That is such a false statement I’m gonna have to call you up on it. “Is it Embarrassing when the Religion of Science has no Answer to What Preceded Existence , but Christianity does?”
          Okay, let’s put aside any LOL’s for a second. Here is the entire knowledge of everything before everything according to the Bible, wait for it, “First there was nothing.” Note: I may be paraphrasing, but the essence of that unbelievably insightful nugget of wisdom and knowledge is intact.
          Secondly, are you seriously going to sit there and say you have PROOF beyond all doubt that you know what pre-existed everything because a book, a single book, said so? Man, I’d love to be as childish in my beliefs as you.
          What religious folk like you cannot understand is that you can be spiritual while still denouncing that book of yours as just a collection of fables used to guide societies of old, akin to law today. And you do not have to be certain of how something works to be able to denounce flawed theories. E.g. The sun comes up every morning because an invisible man pulls it up for us. THAT theory we can denounce pretty safely without knowing that the world is a sphere, rotating in space, orbiting the sun. And the same goes for your creationism theory. To believe that would mean believing that two people can populate the earth without rampant incest and birth defects occurring.

        17. Ha, I actually agree with you there, as long as they’re non-biblical in the bedroom.
          I don’t have a problem with nice girls, as long as they don’t force their beliefs down my throat. Trouble is, after a few months I’ll have got them hooked on sex, drugs and sex, which is why I don’t go for them; I’m an asshole, just not that bigger asshole.

        18. I have heard this before but it’s flawed. Pythagoras started the mystery schools but they are female centered the Pythagorean thoerum has deaper implications than just math. Dionysus does not parallel jesus at all, why did he die for himself, jesus died for the sins of the world, and conquered death while doing it. Did dionsyus do that. He got ripped apart by Titans. And you assume incorrectly that jesus was born on the 25th of December, just because a bunch of so called christians Do, they are wrong. Saturnalia is a holiday about the sun dying and three months later being reborn on Easter. That is incorrect also. If jesus was Tammuz why is he mentioned in the bible Ezekiel 8:14-15 and then he brought me to the door of the lords house which was toward the north,and there sat there women weaping for Tammuz 8:15 then he said unto me, hast thou seen this o man? Turn to yet again and though shalt see greater abominations than these. Now why if jesus is a ripoff of Tammuz aka Dionysus is he saying its an abomination. Then does it agian in another book Jeremiah 10:2-3 thus saith the lord, learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.10:3 for the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.10:4 they deck it with silver abd with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers ,that it move not. So it covers the celestial movements also and the Christmas tree. If you watch the stars you would believe it’s all the same. But the bible sets a clear distinction Between Tammuz Dionysus and him or else the bible would say the opposite wouldn’t it? But you still didn’t adress my first qeustion about evolution not backing up the patriarchy.

        19. I didn’t assume incorrectly, that Jesus was born on the 25th, read up on this, and more. I didn’t read what you wrote after because it was a block of text. Paragraph next time.
          Actually, don’t, you’re not able to think critically if you’re still christian today (or Jew or whatever religion), so you’re not going to stop, think critically about what I wrote, absorb it and see if, indeed, I may have a point, then either go on with your life, believing in God, or don’t. But having the arrogant stance you currently do will not help you one iota.
          And I’m saying this as someone who tried to read the bible and give the whole thing a go, always felt there were too many holes in the stories (or they were straight up bullshit), researched whether it, indeed, is bullshit, made a logical conclusion based on all the evidence provided and said, fuck that book.

        20. What I learned from reading the bible is it is a mirror. This is the honest truth I used to be an atheist. When you read the bible you see things about yourself flaws, holes and you don’t like it so they call it bs and quit. The bible is the word of God and it reveals your flaws and short comings. But when you repent you start to see God himself his quirks and mannerisms and you become more like him. He puts it in a parable so those who don’t want to see don’t and those who do they get it.

        21. Actually Genesis Chapter 1: In the Beginning God Created the Heaven and the Earth: …So there wasn’t Nothing, there was God, and then He created the Heaven and the Earth.
          So you have no Explanation for why everything Exists, You just explain your Opinions on Christianity.

        22. What’s your problem with religion, Floyd? Were you molested by a priest or rabbi and now making out some mission to debunk religion?If you believe that we evolved,cool. If you think that God had a hand in it?cool. Stop shoving your beliefs down everyone’s throats. Neither one can adequately prove something without referrng to the other.

        23. The Bible is the true Word of God. Anything that goes against the Bible is a lie from Satan. He knows that he’s going to Hell so he tries to drag as many people with him as he can. He does this with Evolution, Humanism, Atheism, and all Pagan religions. Stay vigilant my friend.

        24. Thank you Friend, Stay Vigilant as well! All Men Can Be Redeemed and Saved through Accepting Jesus Christ, if the Atheist or Humanist or Evolutionist or Anyone, Accepts Jesus as their Savior Than they Too can be Saved! Their Sins Bought with the Blood Sacrifice Of Jesus Christ! God Bless!

        25. FALSE PARADIGM.
          You are falling into a false paradigm created by government psychologists…one that is no different than Democrat vs. Republican.
          It is the classic divide-and-conquer strategy.
          You either must be a Creationist or a Darwinist.
          You do not know how old the earth is.
          I do not know how old the earth is.
          Charles Darwin does not know how old the earth is…neither does Bill Nye the Science Guy.
          NOBODY KNOWS:
          1. How old the earth is.
          2. How it was created.
          And nobody can ever know. Period.
          Unless you develop a time machine or the Creator shows himself…we will never know.
          Any ideas on these matters are just fairy tales.

        26. No.
          I did not say “science” itself is evil. What I said is that the organized government mind control paradigm that they tell us is “science” is rarely true science. And I gave some examples of it.
          I am an engineer. I believe in the proven laws of science. I don’t believe in unprovable theories such as Evolution (the Church of Darwin), the Big Bang, Global Warming (the Church of Gore), etc.
          These are just government forms of mind control.
          There is no true conflict between “religion” and “science”.
          The conflict is between government and the minds of the people.
          The Catholic Church was the government of its time. It opposed Galileo and Copernicus. Just like governments oppose true science when it cuts into their control and tax revenues. (Tobacco, Global Warming, etc.)
          I apologize if anything I wrote does not conform to the rules of high school debate teams.

        27. Scientific theories are NOT facts. (Darwinism, etc.)
          Provable demonstrable repeatable scientific LAWS are facts…though with more information they can be proven to not be 100% true all of the time as the technology of measurement and observation develops.
          Darwinism is just a creation story…no different than the the Bible.

      4. hahaha!!
        That’s what I do
        One time, a girl was attracted to me because I did exactly what you mentionned to her 🙂

    3. ‘the tribe’ are going to be successful in killing of the western men, especially the white man. In under 10 years. Godlessness abounds in modern western society, so it will fall; same gameplan used to takedown previous civilizatons by the same people.
      They now have subverted all western nations and google is rigged with its results = no more free speech/uncensored sites on internet. Just lots of half truths, disinfo and controlled opposition. Comments are rigged as is the voting.

      1. What ‘the tribe’ would fail to realize is that China is banking on the influx of western men in relation to a coming invasion.

        1. How much longer do you foresee we, as in the present day US, have until the real shit goes down? (invasion, sudden economic collapse, etc.) Before this year I was thinking it would take at least 50 more years but with all the anti- Russia and China media rhetoric being pushed around in 2015, I’m thinking that time might be getting pushed closer and closer.

        2. You may be right. I don’t think it would be worth fighting for a country that treats men like third class citizens.

      1. Yes it is. It’s no secret that men choose women on the basis of beauty. This leaves ugly girls nowhere. At some point in time, one of these ugly women said, “why don’t men choose women for their intelligence and personality!”, and thus feminism was born.
        Feminism just makes ugly girls feel good about themselves. It’s no coincidence that most feminists are ugly.

        1. “At some point in time, one of these ugly women said, “why don’t men choose women for their intelligence and personality!”, and thus feminism was born.”
          Well they all act the same regardless of how they look, so why not have something pleasing to look at?

  7. From a young age I realized I was surrounded by pathetic pussies, women and men, who are far too sensitive and eat the emotional media narrative like the pile of shit it is. It’s too bad, but having guy friends who have taken the red pill as well is a blessing. My brother is fairly alpha, but he prefers to ignore the decayed world around him in order to maintain his sanity. Sometimes that’s what people choose, ignorance is bliss.

    1. and even that sanity is an illusion. it is the pre-packed colorful product called “sanity”. inside this package is: everything that other people say it is.

      1. the social theory of knowledge is where truth becomeswhat the propaganda says, if it is said loud enough and repeatedly.
        aka indoctrination.

        1. it’s true. the funny thing is that i have been hearing this kind of talk all my life, but never felt it’s significance. i never realized what a big problem it really is.

  8. Ever watch the movie the wave in school? Near the end of the movie anyone who wouldn’t join “the club” was assaulted, berated, and outcast. In today’s world, if you disagree publicly with the degeneracy that is gay marriage, feminism, etc. you lose your job and are shamed into oblivion. It’s pathetic that we can no longer express ideas in an open environment. There’s no other way to reveal hidden truths about our world and advance our society.

      1. Whoa. Really important comment. +1000000000000000
        i do remember a relatively freer time and am nearing 35. But younger generations have it bad having never known.

        1. when i think about it, all it takes is for me to believe that the free environment doesn’t exist. when that is the case, i could just as well live in one, but never know it.
          there was one time in my life where i felt like being in such an environment. it was when i spent 4 weeks with my rather red pill dad back in 2013. like a weight being lifted off my shoulders. from that point on, i felt like life is all about having a dad who is honest with you and teaches you to go out into a world of deception.
          a whole civilization that feels like the time i spent with my dad? freedom of thought and lightness of truth? i would murder for that.

        2. I’m 50. I remember Archie Bunker. I remember seeing actors smoke and drink on TV. People expressed themselves in public. If you were offended by something you kept your mouth shut because there was something wrong with you, not the person saying it. Now you can’t voice or express any idea that isn’t preapproved by the ninnies and bed wetters. The minority of people with closed minds and no sense of humor now rule all discussions. It’s sad really. You can only talk freely in private or anonymously anymore.

        3. there’s possibly nothing greater than enjoying an evening among a group of non-pussified men. it may have been normalcy once, but in my life it is something of a rare jewel. politically incorrect jokes, foul language, smart ideas, disagreement, shouting at each other. love it.
          if i ever become anything close to a respectable fighter, i want to open up a martial arts gym only for men. i’ve found nothing like it on the internet in germany and it would be such a great thing.

    1. we live in a totalitarian society now. Those who say otherwise are asleep.
      People need to WTFU

      1. Yes but people say we still have free speech because the government doesn’t directly arrest people for Thought Crime. What they don’t understand is communist countries often used Thought Vigilantes as a proxy. Maybe your neighbor finds out about your anti-feminist ROK posts and prints a copy for your wife. Maybe your employer finds an un-PC Charleston shooting rant of yours and fires you (this has happened).
        America’s de jure speech rights will most likely remain but your de facto speech freedoms have eroded substantially in the last 15 years.

        1. Whoa… good point… I can’t say fuck all in the places I work or I’d lose my job. No question about it.

  9. Great article. A number of points in there help explain the periodic flood of troll comments by manginas & extremist feminist types on the more uncompromising articles on the site. That & their ‘feels’ based argument style. Then they drop off like dead flies after the regulars or mods tear them apart or as is usually the case, a more cerebral bunch of articles appear at the top of the feed.

  10. Women are fucking stupid, they will gladly vote away the freedoms our forefathers fought for in return for goddamn free birth control, abortions, divorce courts, campuses and government giving women temporary privileges. They have no ability to see the big picture.
    It was so easy for Obama to pander for the female vote….’empower’ them by giving them free shit and putting them in bullshit figurehead roles.
    Hell Toyota tried to finally put a woman in charge of a division and she couldn’t help but do something stupid right away.

    1. Most modern women aren’t willing to go through that ‘Hero’s Quest’ journey of self discovery & truly acquiring greatness. Sounds like too much hard work. And of course, it is. Many men will fail that too..at first. But there’s a greater likelihood for an enlightened man to complete that journey.
      The modern woman prefers the illusion of greatness & competence conferred by dubious authority who see her as nothing more than Useful Idiot material.
      I’ll qualify my point by also stating that the very few competent women I worked with were worth their position & excellent.

    2. The women of the past were stupid. The votes are now 100% rigged, as are the choices and the candidates.
      We now live in a falsified reality.

    3. “Hell Toyota tried to finally put a woman in charge of a division and she couldn’t help but do something stupid right away.”
      But, but, but she’s a victim of the invisible patriarchy don’tcha know?

  11. Nice article, that last paragraph really means a lot to me. I know far to many people whom I told information about the red pill and made no strides to change. I’m going to now implement those three steps to ensure I don’t help out any of these “weaklings”.

    1. “made no strides to change”
      Don’t do it. They’ll not only reject it, they’ll ostracize you in the process… Just sit on the side and smile..

    2. As the old proverbial saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”

    3. Yes. Please don’t help the weak. Already I’ve noticed way too many players on the block. I used to have easy pickings, now the other guys have stepped up their game. Then again, men are logical, if we go out and fail and notice other guys not failing we’ll adjust and correct until we hit the mark . . . or at least, those that aren’t too weak to handle failure, will.

  12. SF is infamous as feminist / gay hive mind culture. Its embedded in the hippie movement of the 60s and 70s which produced great music but not much else. The current there is too strong to swim against. Stay in thailand and bang a different cutie every month. If you marry one bring her back to small town where she will be less exposed to the toxic western culture.

  13. “I propose a word to label them all as one category: Weaklings.”
    There’s nothing wrong with that, but I’m going to stick with “rabbit.” The metaphor more completely describes them in ways that weakling does not and includes weakling within it.

      1. Read Alice again with your red pill awareness. These are the people who lived down the rabbit hole (and through the looking glass).

        1. The movies are scrubbed and worthless. You must read the books. It might pay to find a copy of Martin Gardner’s annotated edition (a decent library will have it).

  14. I think the time has come to talk about white crime too without ignorance. Even going to Fox news, has all white criminals on the front page, starting with criminal who killed in the church to escaped convicts

  15. The problem with modern times is Marxist hyper-rationality and the death of metaphysics. For example, people these days don’t comprehend deeper meanings in things; whether we give them those deeper meanings or if you believe they were given by a Creator, it doesn’t matter. The symbol of a wild boar, for example, will look like simply a wild boar to the average plebeian. To someone who understands metaphysics, the wild boar is a symbol of masculinity and war.

  16. “how many women understand how things work”
    women know how social manipulation works. If you know that you don’t necessarily need to know how anything else works
    Re. the Willie Lynch speech I’ve just checked it out and it seems there are some doubts about the authenticity of the speech. That’s a shame because I believe it is very much the correct analysis. This is certainly what seems to be happening, but if that’s so, this speech really isn’t the smoking gun. Probably better to simply focus on the documented marxist imperative to destroy the ‘patriarchal’ family as a bulwark to the bougeois institutions and a rival source of power to the state. The slave owners we have today, are more subtle. They work on the souls before they work on the bodies

    1. “They work on the souls before they work on the bodies”
      The entire function of government schools from their outset. The founders (a strange bedfellowship of wealthy industrialists, religious fundamentalists and social progressives) were not shy about writing their intent.

    2. “women know how social manipulation works.”
      Is that even true though? If they didn’t have a magical happy hole between their legs would they really be more clever than men at manipulating others? An open question.

      1. their magical happy holes – lol – make manipulation a natural part of selling sex, and I think a woman who understands that power (instinctively or because she’s been taught the art of witchery from her mother etc) has got the foundation level for a masters degree in curling people around her little finger. I think its a different game with male machiavellis. Chess as opposed to seduction / mean girl power games

  17. “Sounds like I’m ghetto trash, right? No, that’s just it. I’m an upper-middle class, private-schooled kid who enjoyed ski boats, dirt bikes, horseback riding, and European vacations. I say this not to brag, but rather to let you know how deep the rot really is.”
    This added nothing good to your article.

    1. Disagree. It added that the people that surrounded him and nurtured his upbringing were, we can assume, educated and intelligent (or at least not, “Wassup my nigga? level). And since the article’s dealing with illogical thoughts/beliefs/thinking, it cemented that this is fucking weird, so many people are brainwashed so easily.

      1. It seemed totally out of context to me. Being into dirtbikes and European vacations? That’s evidence of superior intelligence? Sorry, but it actually sounds kind of stupid.

        1. He was trying to get across he came from privilege, that he wasn’t born in a trailer. That his parents more than likely weren’t meth heads who lacked the capacity to think clearly. Don’t know why you’re arguing that it’s irrelevant, or that it detracted from the article . . . besides, maybe that you’re a bit jelly. That’s about the only logic I can find. And, yes, I came from a similar background, though my Dad and uncles have always been red pill. From the age of about 8 I was told to fuck as many girls as I can and not get married.

        2. Ah, the key words–you came from a similar background–and you were taught that you were better than the kids who had less money. You weren’t. And your mom was more likely to be hooked on dope–the prescription kind–than a working class mom.
          The sad thing is that this is so hard for you to grasp. If anything, working class people are “smarter” when it comes to most of the issues discussed here than the vast majority of privileged airheads who sat through four years of higher indoctrination.

        3. No, dipshit, it isn’t hard for me to grasp the fallacy of believing that book-education is “better” than street education. Pick music, for instance. Say you’re brought up on hip-hop and I’m brought up on classical. Does that mean your education is worse . . . or different?
          And, I was never taught I’m better than poor people (actually, I wasn’t born to a rich family, just not a poor one), I was taught, indirectly, that I should be glad I wasn’t born poor – you can argue it’s the same thing, but I’m just pointing out the reality of non-poor, non-black circles.
          Now, before you reply to me with a straight up dumb comment, take a second to reflect on my stance: Upper-class, middle-class, lower-class, doesn’t matter, no circle will provide automatic inoculation to feminism, white knighting and all that brainwashing.
          P.S. 145 IQ, fyi. Only mention since you were trying to insult my intelligence; literally.

        4. So the “trailer ” bit hit a nerve? Working class people tend to remain that way– came from their myself– due to their bad decisions and personal habits. Let go of your class consciousness.. its a false construct and its getting in your way.

        5. It didn’t come across as superior to me, just irrelevant and confusing. When he said “sounds like I’m ghettho trash” I was thinking HUH? I lost you buddy, I was relating to the author, and if I had to pin it in anything would have guessed you were white middle class American. There was nothing in the article which made the author sound ghettho.

        6. In fact, working class men tend to have fewer delusions when it comes to dealing with women. I THINK what this guy was trying to say was that a privileged kid like him–someone who liked dirtbikes and European vacations–is less likely to be surrounded by men who are being driven into the ground by their women. This is so off the mark it’s shocking. The false construct is that “education” equals intelligence when it comes to the battle of the sexes. It does not.
          Any more questions?

        7. Wow, really struck a nerve there, eh? Good. You needed a little wakeup, cake eater. When it comes to dealing with women, street smarts is INFINITELY better than contemporary book education.
          You’re welcome.

        8. What are you even fucking on about? I’m serious. Are you dyslexic or drunk? When did I say street smarts were worse than contemporary book education when picking up girls (or, life, in general)? Huh?
          You got a vagina? Again, I’m serious, ’cause your logic is lacking.

  18. We already know the system is against us. I think we should focus more on what we can do to protect ourselves against the system.

    1. They are across the hall from the National Gender Studies association, all tied together by the Yellow Brick Road.

        1. Exactly! Screw those tears and pain ridden eyes from her associates. She needed that BDSM treatment from the monkeys. The witch only wanted to liberate her from her childish desire of “home”.

        2. Just drawing the parity of the witch and feminism today. In no uncertain terms, all the crazies (monkeys) are out.

        3. Crazy damned gynofascist monkeys.
          Why can’t they just go home in the morning anyway?

    2. Anything that a man has worked long and hard on that has turned into a success, its at this point that women want what this man has for as little effort as possible. For example they want to be soldiers but don’t want to do “real” active service, they want to be in a mans club but want to change what men have done there for decades, they want the same prize money in tennis but don’t want to play the five sets men have to – get the picture that’s what these lawyers do.

  19. Sadly I feel the same about my own family.
    They are lost to me. Very hard to find any redpill allies in the Kingdom of Norway.

  20. The question is, who will have the balls to become the villain today to be the hero of tomorrow?
    Who shall abandon the irrational hedonism and build a better future? If not the last dregs of men, then who?

    1. good point. being the normal man of yesterday is being the villain of today.
      instead of yearning for pride, a man today must prepare for humiliation.
      but i wonder if that could ever be different. pride makes a man very manipulatable. the more i think about it, the more i am certain that those who are called proud men are those who must not care a bit about it.

      1. A villain is what everybody loves to be. Actors enjoy playing villains. Everybody yearns to be able to not give a flying fig and do what they desire. To be cunning, calculating with a cool head. I never looked up to heros as a kid -or even had childhood heros, for that matter.
        In my villainous attitudes (and predilection to wear 3-piece suits), I have never experienced humiliation, because I never allow it. When I am hailed as being exceptional I do not care. I am merely keeping with the expectations I have for myself.
        A villainous attitude is accepted by society, but it creates someone who is uncontrollable, and not a consumer. Why else would they be banning the Jaguar Villain commercials?

        1. keeping with your own expectations is a good point. i am still in the phase of cutting off expectations that i feel others have. maybe the negative emotions fade away after that. but a cool and cunning mind wouldn’t care about it; a confident man is not so by always feeling good, but by not letting his emotions taint his judgment – as well as that is possible.
          for me, it was always the mistake of yearning for that feeling of not caring. whenever i felt anything like fear, i would simply capitulate and say ‘i am not yet there’. while not caring is simply an act that is independent of your feeling that can be trained.
          society (whatever that is) accepts villains in a tv, not in reality. i think the appeal lies in the self-reliance and the judgment; villain is merely the judgment of the 95% sheep who don’t dare to confront the fear of facing a reality in which no one tells them what to do and how to live a safe life.

        2. Society does accept villains in a manner. Most CEOs would test positive for sociopathic tendencies, and why else would women prefer “bad boys”? They’re interesting, and honest with themselves and don’t put people on a pedestal.
          By many, I am considered evil and villainous, but it is something I take as a compliment, because have you seen what passes for “justice” in this era? Yeesh.
          Everybody feels fear, you’ll never get rid of it. But it is what you do with that fear that matters. Will you allow it to control you, or will you face it head on? There’s always a way out of a situation, if you work hard enough.
          Its taken me years to get to such a point. I used to think I was some sort of monster, that women deserved better. Now I realize that most women don’t deserve to even know me.

  21. I’ve learned finding men in this day and age who can reason without following their emotions, even when the assertions may go against their own selfish interest, but are able to reason according to principle and not emotion, are very rare indeed. One of those few friends I have found that can do this sent me a quote the other day. I think it is applicable.
    “True friendship multiplies the good in life and divides its evils. Strive to have friends, for life without friends is like life on a desert island… to find one real friend in a lifetime is good fortune; to keep him is a blessing.”
    -Baltasar Gracian

  22. I’m on vacation right now in Palestine, I’ll be here for 2 months. It’s actually a breath of fresh air to see women knowing their role as women, without any complaining of the patriarchy. There is zero feminism here, no such thing as SJWs, no one knows what tumblr or elite daily is.

    1. Just don’t get tempted by the mirage of unicorns over there and come back wifed up again hehe…

      1. Ah, a small fuck you for making me click on “elite daily”… way to ruin fathers day. I had never heard of that shit before. Top story:
        48 things I want to thank my single dad for
        “For believing me when I said I needed to go on birth control for “medical” reasons”
        “For forcing me to never settle”
        “For paying my lab test bills and never once questioning WTF they are for”
        “For showing me the way I deserve to be treated”
        “For not making me pay the $500 phone bill when I didn’t know I was roaming”
        “For not treating me differently because I’m a girl”
        “For giving me confidence” (lol wow)
        Me, me, me, me, me.
        Way to take the one day when we’re supposed to honor and respect the men who built the entire society you leech off of and make it all about you you narcicistic cunt!

  23. We on ROK commonly make lists of people such as feminists, white knights, and manginas as deluded groups who attack our civil liberties. I propose a word to label them all as one category: Weaklings.
    I like it. I like it a lot.

  24. We are brought up from a very young age to be a bunch of pussies. Your introduction of your friends and family does not surprise me.

  25. Really good article. It’s gotten to the point in my life that I don’t even enjoy hanging around with a lot of my best friends because we can’t have the same great conversations we used to have when they were single. Their woman is always close by to scrutinize their opinions. I know that these guys agree with my ideas, or are at least interested in hearing them, but it’s damn near impossible to get away from the wife for long enough to discuss any of it. The gentlemens club most definitely needs to make a comeback, and culture needs to change enough to give these guys the freedom to go there.

    1. I’m sure most of your friends would chime in and shoot the breeze, but they’re all walking on landmines. Their women really don’t have the power they think they do. All they can do is make threats and browbeat for what they want and to get their way. Each time you acquiesce to them, it spoils them a little more. It takes a village of red pill men all doing their part to keep each individual woman from straying, to keep them capped and yoked. Sounds hard line like it wouldn’t work for day game, heh. But the real game begins when you begin spinning the plates of a clan patriarch, molding your sons and teaching them the way.

  26. We often talk about the end game of feminists on this site and turning women into men is definitely one. In Australia a feminist utopia I’ve noticed 2 recent things. Women not shaving their armpit hair is now a fasion trend, a morning show host recently criticized women taking naked selfies and came under heavy fire for being sexist and a ugly spinster posted a naked pic of herself saying women sending naked selfies is fun and there’s nothing wrong with it and anyone says they can’t is sexist and it went viral. Another thing is that every woman I know that stays in shape and hits the gym get shamed heavily for being skinny. Basically feminists want all women to be fat, masculine sluts and any woman who doesn’t want to be those 3 things is seen as a traitor and giving into the patriarchy. They are just as against femininity in women as they masculinity in men.

    1. Feminism is about women controlling other women. And anything the feminazis hate more is a happy woman in a healthy relationship with a man. It exposes their lies without even saying a word.

        1. Which why they go to great lengths to destroy honorable, reputable and healthy woman. The feminist can only thrive in a toxic environment. Its competition but not healthy competition.

    2. “Basically feminists want all women to be fat, masculine sluts”
      Reminds me of the Aussie girls I met backpacking in Europe. Their cackling filled up the entire bar. When I went over for a friendly chat they couldn’t even hold a normal conversation. What a mess.

      1. Yep that’s how it is, I don’t want to paint all Aussie girls with same brush because Aussie girls can be fun and pretty chilled but they do represent all the worse qualities in women if you want a relationship.

  27. Mr Will, two things:
    1. Is it possible for you to link me to the historical source about the slavery thing? Most of my history sources don’t say much and I would appreciate more wisdom.
    2. Calling the feminist malea weaklings may be a “politically correct” thing. I don’t mean to disparage you, only that it appears politically correct to me. I prefer to call them TRAITORS and DOGS. Because that’s what they are, at least, in my eyes.
    Thank you for this article. It’s really great when intellectual articles appear on ROK.

  28. In comparing how you gained your red pill experience mine was when I worked in a solicitors (lawyer) office one of about half a dozen men in a pool of 90 women of all ages I saw 10 times more women get their marching orders than men mainly for what they perceived are their rights in taking excessive sick leave. In that office I learnt about the young women’s hierarchy “the top dog” was followed and obeyed even when she caused them all to get thrown out the door. I learnt about the modern young womans promiscuity and how it should be celebrated, I saw badly behaving women everyday and pathetically spineless men allowing it to happen. It was at that job I first told a woman who I wouldn’t let have her own way “who cares” when she threatened not to have anything more to do with me if I continued to say No. It was at that job I “blasted” a spineless man who failed to put a stop to one the young women continually behaving badly. It was at that job I first walked out on an “8” because I realised she was no more than a lazy tantrum throwing liar – she threw a 3 month tantrum after.
    That was 2002 since then the number of men who are slowly awakening to what is really going on around them is increasing now we need to work on change.

  29. Guys i don’t know if you’ve been noticing on Facebook (if you have an account) that a picture of a 5 year old boy wearing girly pink/red shoes. His mom sees it as his “own expression” and the comments, about 80% of them cheer for his “unique expression”. Those who said that was wrong for a boy to wear shoes made for women, got about 100 replies telling them how ignorant they are. This tells me that society is 100% fucked to no words to describe. I remember some time ago on Facebook I’ve read an article about a boy got suspended from school because he kissed a girls handsaw it as harassment. Now in days, a boy wearing girly shoes is “his own unique expression and personality” as normal. But a boy that shows masculine behavior, faces the consequences.

    1. I saw that picture….his mom and women like her are the reason there are so many weak phaggots today.

        1. They think it’s cute and celebrate each other. Poor kid doesn’t know any better and later in life learns that wearing pink tights is ok. These stupid cunts that do this kind of shit don’t realize that they themselves would NEVER marry a guy that does this sort of shit, but they’ll do it to their own sons and make them the least desirable guys on the planet. Then they teach their sons to be nice to girls and the girls would be chasing after you. We know the truth.
          I swear. Sometimes I think women were from another universe.

    2. This is another reason successful societies don’t put women in charge: They’re natural born followers. It takes courage to go against 100+ comments celebrating a child’s “gender fluidity”. You’re opening yourself to criticism and maybe even real world repercussions. What woman would be courageous enough to do that? Very few. They just go with the crowd.

      1. I’m sure the PC zombie bots are somehow steered to the non PC or RP comments. How can all the brain dead mob find time to pour through the entire net and find every non PC comment? ‘See something say something’ seems to be their MO. Bottom feeder sjw’s think it is their daily requirement to spread a little cultural marxism or to help swamp a red pill comment. Bots or bot spammers and trolls flag anything non PC and the nest of idiots is alerted. It is totalitarian thought policing to the extreme.

  30. “..people too weak to comprehend reality or make wise decisions. These are the people who would be dead if not for modern medicine and low infant mortality. And they know it.”
    Know they don’t. They are not even aware of it. If an EMP strike occurred in the US, most of these turds will be dead in a week and even if you wanted to help, you cannot.
    I thought 9/11 would be a wake up call, and G-d bless those who donned a uniform despite the perpetual drum beat of “doom” from media and the left, but most of America, and the West, fled to deeper fields of denial. As I recall from an unknown quote, “The Marines (and the rest of the military) fought the war. The rest of America went to the mall.”

  31. Fight feminism with it’s own game. Call them sexist, racist, ageist. Women respect complaining. Show you’re defending little girls everywhere. Then humiliate their beta defenders and the rest of the betas will follow you. Betas don’t think, they follow the strongest man in the room. It’s not a debate anymore, it’s a battle.

  32. Sound advice. I had some mangina whining at me because I was talking down to sex workers at a strip club the other day. Bad people don’t deserve my respect. Respect from me is something you earn.

  33. We definitely should not be “asking” women and weak males for permission to reestablish men’s dominance in society for the purpose of reestablishing the conditions that lead to a better society, rather than decadence and devolution.
    We can put the message out there, but if someone demonstrates lower intelligence, lower rationality, higher risk adverseness, etc., we should not waste time on them. The problem starts with democracy, a system created when only property-owning Protestant white males could vote. The effectiveness of democracy has gradually broken down as voting rights have expanded over the centuries. Needing the approval of the weak makes us weak, and weakness is causing our destruction. All the non-Western civilizations know it — Chinese and the Muslim world, in particular — and they are watching and waiting for us to fall. Without exception, our women will stop being “feminists” at that moment, but it will be too late to save them from the constant rape, sexual slavery, and torment. And we men will be castrated or executed. We in the West have already forgotten who these Asians are, and what they do, even though it’s only been 100 years since the Turks were doing it.

  34. Great article my friend!
    You are on the right track and you did ask a good question.
    “How did this come to be?”
    To answer this, we just have to look back one or two generations.
    After world war 2 the US was to top nation in the world with lots of money.
    REAL money, money earned and saved. Others, like the war-torn european nations came to the US to borrow. Third world nations like china did too. The income in the US was the best (or very close to the top) in the world. One income would allow a family with dad, mom and 2 children to live a decent middle-class life. ONE income. Dad would work, mom would cook and take care of the house.
    Then something happened. Something that has happened before. To other great nations in the history of the world. Like the british empire. Like the Louis XIV french all the way back to the roman empire.
    This thing has a name and it is called lazy-mother-fucking-decadence.
    It did not happen overnight. It happened slowly. Like a poison. A poison of the mind. At first the young post-war generation was pampered more than was good for them. Fucked up their mind. Those hippy scum wanted to change things. Make it easier for them. Have them work less. Lazyfuckers all of them.
    They got what they wanted. And things started to get worse. Day by day. The next generation was even MORE decadent. Wanted all the money right now. No hard work, no savings – givemegivemegiveme fucking NOW!
    And it got worse. Day by day.
    What once was a nation of producers, became a horde of consumers.
    What once was a land of savers became the big creditcard junkydom.
    What once was proud and free, became enslaved.
    Enslaved not by war. Enslaved by own free will. Sold into slavery by their grand parents and parents. Indebted to the eyeballs. He who is in debt is no free man, he is a slave.
    Today if you live in the west you are beeing owned. You belong to your goverment. Your are an asset, a collateral and you have to perform because your life has already been spent. Your income already been taxed in advance and spent.
    Thats why we have all these laws to protect children, your own body, what you can do and what you must do. It is because you do not belong to yourself anymore – you have debt to work off. Your own and the goverment debt. Pensions for the elderly and the goverment guys. YOU are the horse; if you know animal farm that is.
    Thats why women have been put to work. To increase the taxable income. More taxable income = higher debt. yeah.
    I love that slave women example. It hits the nail on the head. Thats why we have feminism. Thats what modern courts are for – the torture and maim the alphas in front of the women and sheeple. Modern age version of an old strategy. Still works well.
    Nothing you can do about it. Do not even try. Wasted time. What you CAN do is get on the other side of the fence. You dont have to be a sheep.

  35. >After all, if a conversation about solving black crime gets stopped two sentences in with cries of racism, that problem can never be adequately addressed.
    I wanted to tackle this. Simple solution. Put incentives in play to put black fathers back in the home. Problem fixes itself within one generation.

  36. If you want to hear dangerous, society-destroying unreason masquerading as logic, listening to left-wing legal lectures at law schools is a place to do it.
    Of course, you’ll want to blow your brains out afterwards, but hey….

    1. my friend is an associate at a top 40 law firm.
      I was blown away at all the websites at top law firms is a bunch of ‘diversity’ bullshit showing how many women and queers they have at their firms.
      it’s like, who gives a fuck? If Im looking for an attorney I could give a fuck how ‘diverse’ they are, its a serious business and they turn it into fag sjw central

      1. Agreed, but the problem with law is that, the more you get into it, the more you realize it’s not logic.
        Look, in physics, the speed of light is constant. That’s what all tests and theory show. The only time that idea would change would be if tests and theory somehow came along that showed that the speed of light is not constant.
        Same thing in math. 1+1=2. Unless some theory comes along to show that 1+1=something else, or that you can’t add them, or something, 1+1 will equal 2.
        Not so in law. In law, because the judges are political animals, and because the DAs are political animals, and usually the defense attorneys are political animals, an argument that is perfectly logical and correct will lose because the judge is an affirmative action appointee, or the DA and the judge collude, or the judge doesn’t like your Perfect White Defendant.
        One only has to look at the “logic” and “philosophy” of any left-wing judge of the 20th Century to see that they have no logic to begin with.
        That legal logic doesn’t exist is one of the sadder things to learn as a lawyer.

  37. This is an excellent article with great insight. I’d just like to say though that even if the weaklings think they’ll get “equality” and a “better world” under their ridiculous laws, it never works out the way they want. The communists promised to make the sexes equal, the classes equal, and everyone else equal too and look what happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BwYW16wbLw
    They starved to death millions of Ukrainians, shot all the Intelligentsia (don’t need doctors getting in the way of equality), and then the Communist soldiers fighting for “freedom” and “equality” raped 2 million German women.
    At least the Nazis were open about being anti-Semitic, these leftists will lie to you, say they just want a better world, and then they will turn on themselves like a pack of wolves.
    Feminists and SJWs have no idea what their leaders would do to them if it became expedient to throw them to the curb.

  38. Feminism is just Marxism wearing a dress. I hear old Karl used to wear one in the whorehouse where he blew and screwed that little fag Engels and got to have his name on Das Kapital.
    Anyone who believes in equality just hates White people. What’s equal about living in a mud hut eating monkeys and fruit bats enriched with Ebola, moron?
    White men built the Civilization you need to live. Without us you have the lifespan of a fruit fly with cancer. Those clowns who believe the carrying capacity of the Earth is half a billion are fantasizing if they think that many people could live without the benefits of Western Civilization.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *