4 Colossal Lies That Men Have Been Told Since Birth

Men who live in modern Western liberal democracies under the influence of third wave feminism have a distorted view of reality. The analogy of “taking the red pill” is used to refer to the moment of truth where a man realizes and acknowledges these lies and distortions, which are aimed to control his actions, and makes a decision to reject them despite their popularity and near universal acknowledgement.

Thanks to ROK and the neomasculinity movement, we can share truths and observations about women, self, and society, waking up disillusioned men more rapidly and in greater numbers. Here we will examine a number of lies that men are told from an early age:

1. Men And Women Are Equal

1977flyer

From pushing women out of the home and into the workplace, to women sporting masculine hair, clothing, and language, to quotas designed to increase female jobs at the expense of men, we are told that men and women are equally interchangeable in the workforce. The US military recently went from having zero female generals to 69 (pun intended?). And starting January 2016, all military jobs will be open to women. But look at these profiles of women selected by the army:

army-profiles

Would any of these women make suitable wife material? One can only assume these are the most attractive and successful chosen by the government to portray here.

Do we want all jobs staffed by all groups? Should dwarves and midgets be eligible for firefighting jobs, or should they be encouraged to pursue a vocation that they have a natural interest or inclination in? Despite the US military stirring up problems around the world, the planet is actually a rather peaceful and stable place today, but imagine fighting Hitler’s top generals with a team of women. Which side would you bet on? Of course, the focus here is always on lifting up and encouraging women to take men’s jobs, never the opposite.

2. Gender Is Nonbinary And Fluid

gender

After Dr. John Money created the idea of gender, we are at the point today where Facebook offers up to 71 options for describing one’s gender (the fact that most of them are simply rearranging words or using synonyms should make it obvious that this is a joke). We are told that we must ignore our eyes and not assume what pronouns we should used when speaking to a person. While some new words have been invented by SJWs like ze, ey, and tey, their hamsters have not processed how one is supposed to align 71 different genders to only 5 or 6 pronouns for those genders.

Science defines two sexes: the XX chromosome and the XY chromosome. The only other possible combination, YY, (technically XYY since the X chromosome will always be present) is a rare genetic defect where the man (yes, still a man) will have a higher likelihood learning disability and lower mental faculties. But even this does not create a third gender—the person is always a man. There are rare cases of intersex or hermaphrodites, or people born with birth defects that do not have functioning sexual organs, but they are merely lacking something to make them a full man or woman, and are not a distinct third group. There are only two sexes: male and female.

The goal of all this is to eliminate any sort of patriarchy, because while any binary group can have certain roles ascribed to it, there can be no such organization if instead of two main categories humans are separated into a diverse group of 71, which lack any true defining characteristics and can even change on a day to day basis.

Of course, many of these behaviors, (can we say 71 gendered “multiple personality disorder”?) are textbook examples of mental illness, and indeed Dr. Paul McHugh, Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry and former psychiatrist in chief for Johns Hopkins, has stated that transgenderism is a mental disorder, sex change is biologically impossible, and “policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by not treating transgender confusions … as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.”

This is important because it was Johns Hopkins, under Dr. John Money’s clinic in the 70s, who pioneered the ideas of gender and performed groundbreaking surgeries and treatments in sex operations, until “at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs,” said Dr. McHugh. The goal is destruction of male power and influence, and the removal of any remaining vestiges of the “patriarchy.”

3. Democracy Is Great

kirk-jpg-66

Most politicians can’t get through a talk without praising the idea of how wonderful democracy is. This is never explained or quantified, but merely stated or implied as a certain fact. However, democracy is basically an experiment that allowed a more liberal government, but failed to provide enough protections against social change, greed, financial mismanagement, and war. Suffice it to say that the wave of democracies which have swept across most nations over the past 100 years have failed to produce a better society.

But let’s examine this further. If democracy is indeed so great, isn’t there something wrong with a country of 320 million where only 36.3% of “eligible voters” (a group that itself excludes large groups of Americans) turned out to vote in the last election? If democracy is so good that we must spend trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives to ensure people who don’t have or want it, get it, aren’t we failing at a fundamental level when the vast majority of Americans are not participating in this democracy?

Nowhere else do we abdicate power and responsibility to the simple will of the masses (masses who would support things like slavery, genocide, drug use, war, debt forgiveness, taxation, etc.). Schools are taught by educated (appointed) teachers with training and skill in teaching methods, public speaking, and knowledge in their subject area, not by a popular vote of the students or their parents. Companies are run by (appointed) executives and bosses, many of whom would NEVER win a popularity contest if leadership was selected by a democratic vote. Churches are run by (appointed) pastors, who have knowledge in their religion’s holy text, public speaking skills, a background in philosophy, and often humor, not by a common vote of parishioners. They impart lessons from their religion’s core values, and not merely those which the churchgoers want to hear about (otherwise every lesson would be about forgiveness and how everyone is going to heaven).

Families were in the past non-democratically lead primarily by the man, or at least by the two parents, who make the important decisions for the household, not by putting things up to a vote to the entire family. Outside a few social organizations and charitable bodies, where do we use the principle of democracy in life to accomplish anything? Democracy has never been proven to produce good ideas or results, but is being used because it is a tool to remove power and influence from men.

4. Women Are Precious Little Snowflakes

spice

Even while women have redefined themselves as butch, buzz cut wearing, cursing, tattooed, pierced, masculine, empowered career drones who can slut around as much as they want until they decide to settle down with a nice guy, they have somehow been able to retain this idea that they are the gentler sex. This is despite evidence that they are the more violent physical aggressors in domestic disputes, and certainly the more emotionally manipulative. According to them, they must be wined and dined and pleased and catered to at all times, they are better parents, they would make better leaders, and they should be courted and spoiled the way our grandfathers would treat a lady.

Although remember, they are not responsible for their actions and if they drink alcohol that they legally buy at a bar, a place that exists as a location where single men and women can go to meet each other and grease the wheels for sexual interaction. This can now be equated to violently raping her if she is unhappy afterwards.

goe

Men are the more romantic sex, writing practically all love poems, songs, art, coming up with a constant supply of jokes and entertainment to keep the girl laughing and happy and entertained, funding her large appetite for food and drink, are less likely to divorce her after marriage (30% man initiated vs 70% female initiated). Anecdotally, the husband failing to pay the bills and uphold his masculine duties is a lot more rare than the woman who withholds sex and ignores her household duties. There is an abundance of evidence that men are more loving, caring, empathetic, romantic, and emotional than women.

I can count on my pinky finger the number of times a woman has done something romantic or creative for me, and that was in high school. I don’t imagine that any of my exes ever think about me. Women have an ability to completely forget past emotions and shared experiences, or more likely they were never that close to you in the first place. And yet so many betas fall into the trap of continuing to be the nice guy because of the lie they are told that women are sweet, innocent, chaste, and pure and must be honored and respected and forgiven.

These men will play the nice guy for years if not decades, be cuckolded, be divorced raped, and pay for alimony and child support for decades.  The end result of this lie is increased hypergamy and destruction of the male-led family unit, combined with financial funding of a woman’s childish lifestyle.

Conclusion

Obviously, men are told a variety of lies in the West. Men, in their good nature, are manipulated and their emotions used against them in order to create a society that subverts the natural order. The first step toward understanding is to observe and acknowledge these lies. Many men, frustrated with their interactions with western women, find great resonance with the truths taught here at ROK. As men study and learn game, and see its effects, they begin to see the lies that have been fomented about the sexes. As we acknowledge these false statements for the lies that they are, we spread awareness and attempt to return society to the path of a cohesive, developing civilization.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Read More: This Accidental Experiment Shows The Superiority Of Patriarchy

498 thoughts on “4 Colossal Lies That Men Have Been Told Since Birth”

  1. Two Things:
    1. As far as #4 is concerned:
    “Feminine virtue is nothing but a convenient masculine invention.”
    Ninon de L’Enclos (a woman)
    I think we men writing poetry about what we hope women are has helped foster the belief that women are “sweet”. The first person to explain to me how cutthroat and disgusting a lot of women truly are was (go figure), another woman.
    2.
    Even while women have redefined themselves as butch, buzz cut wearing,
    cursing, tattooed, pierced, masculine, empowered career drones who can
    slut around as much as they want until they decide to settle down with a
    nice guy, they have somehow been able to retain this idea that they are
    the gentler sex. This is despite evidence that they are the more
    violent physical aggressors in domestic disputes, and certainly the more
    emotionally manipulative

    I think real human life can be better understood by observing a pride of lions.
    The male lion has two functions:
    1. To have sex with multiple lionesses and sire more cubs,
    2. Protects his pride from other rogue beta males/enemies.
    The females are notable more violent because they not only hunt prey and fight amongst themselves, but they also work to fight off other potential mates for the male.
    There is nothing gentle about that at all.

    1. “The male lion has two functions:
      1. To have sex with multiple lionesses and sire more cubs,
      2. Protects his pride from other rogue beta males/enemies.”
      Not just his pride, more so his territory, which usually has more than one pride.
      And a thing to note, lions form coalitions with their brothers, cousins or even unrelated males if they don’t have brothers.
      Then they live, hunt, fight and die like brothers, in probably the closest relationships I’ve noticed on males, including us humans.
      “The females are notable more violent because they not only hunt prey and fight amongst themselves, but they also work to fight off other potential mates for the male.
      There is nothing gentle about that at all.”
      True.
      And something important, you often see that people say lionesses hunt *for* the males. Wrong. They hunt for themselves and for the cubs, the males have to take it by force because the lionesses don’t give a damn about the needs of the males.
      That’s why coalitions of male lions hunt for themselves, and they do it very well. And not just that, they allow the cubs to eat with them, chasing the females away. They now the lionesses would eat first and leave the cubs to eat later…

      1. Your response is very interesting, I actually had no idea of the things you pointed out. It’s amazing how the FI twists everything to its advantage, even basic truths about animals totally unrelated to human beings. I’ll need to research this further, you’ve sparked my curiosity.

        1. Indeed, I thought the same until the time I sit down and started to really read and learn about it.
          And sometimes, reading ROK’s posts there is so much I can relate to lions.
          Brotherhood, the dominant frame, the Zero fucks given, putting bitches in their place, fatherhood, the life of walking, patrolling, fighting with the brothers, etc.
          I’m glad you found it interesting.

      2. Nice in dept knowledge of lions.
        Well judging by your avatar I shouldn’t be surprised lol.
        However, I find that interesting that the males even has to fight his own females for food. I guess things suck in the animal kingdom too.

        1. Jaja yeah, thanks.
          And it’s the same for every lion. When it’s food time, everyone for himself. And the males push their way in, no one “lets” them eat, something I relate to what we as men have to do.
          Being nice with women gives us nothing, asking please even less. That’s something I had to learn by force and I’m sure many others had to as well, that’s why so clear examples of this in the wild I think they’re useful for us.

  2. Thank you for calling out the myth of democracy. At least in monarchies, rulers are trained from birth to be leaders, not just politically but in language, decorum, classical education, even militarily. In democracy we elect peanut farmers and movie stars to run the country. The continuous turnover results in government for government’s sake. And yes: voters are idiots, most of them anyway.

    1. The continuous turnover results in government for government’s sake.

      I’d argue the opposite. Only in the presidency do we have turnover. Since we have no term limits for Congress and most judges serve for life, we have very little turnover.
      But the result is what you describe, government for the sake of those in the government. These people will be shielded from the negative consequences of the laws and rulings that they make.
      Even most kings knew that if they really fucked things up they’d have tons of irate subjects burning down the castle to remove them. Congress and the courts don’t have this check, and it is why term limits for both these branches are so sorely needed.

      1. Or even if there was a large churn in the elected representatives, the vast majority of the actual power is vested in the unelected bureaucrats. You could change Congressmen as often as one changes diapers on a baby and it would have zero impact on the unelected bureaucracy that actually runs things.

        1. Point. Term limits should apply further down the line in executive branch agencies as well. For example, no FBI director should be serving for 50 years.

        2. Good point, and in my voting model that we’re discussing in the other thread, I’d actually have people vote for bureaucrats, who would in turn vote for the president and serve as his advisers. This would be filtered through the lens of competence. So, if you’re a garbage man, you don’t get to vote for the Secretary of HHS or NASA. Only doctors and scientists get to vote for those people (assuming they are citizens who can pass civics and competences tests in these fields – degrees can be worthless). Then, the elected bureaucrats can vote for the president, and become the adviser to whomever is elected. Time to impose some accountability onto the bureaucracy.

        3. That’s one of several beefs I have with our government. Americans for the most part are so focused on who the next president is going to be, but fail to take into consideration who the president’s secretaries are going to be. In fact I’ve yet to see anyone ask a presidential candidate who they will select to run the various federal departments.
          Many naively believe that these secretaries have little to no power. But most of the time a stroke of pen from these people has an impact on the average person’s life.

        4. Lol. Congress is like the American Idol show. A constant turnover of lip singers and parrots. They sound damn good some of them but it’s a shame what popular talent/art has come to, how we’re fed the constant stream of uonoriginal copycat stooges. There isn’t a patent or original thought or dictate that comes out of congress, nor is there an original note or lyric that comes out of the Idol show winner’s mouth. At least the three ‘electors’ all show their faces to us when they choose the winners of the Idol contest.

      2. There may not be much turnover in practice, because the fat fucks in power tend to stay in power, but they tend to start fundraising for the next election literally one month after they take office.

        1. I just got a flyer in the mail from a local congressmen and it says nothing about this congressman, it’s just an attack piece on Obama and how awful he is. Basically, I don’t like Obama so vote for me. I wanted to call him up and say “Uh, you realize Obama is a lame duck with less than a year left in office right?” I’ve heard of negative attack pieces, but attacking someone you’re not even running against and who is already leaving office and you can’t do anything about it? Huh?

        2. A senator spends 4 hours per day fundraising. He needs $10,000 a day just to get reelected. They even closed the U.S. Senate Dining Room because all the senators were going out for lunches, every day, with donors.
          It’s insane.

        1. If anything it means that the minimum age for such offices needs to be raised in addition to term limits being imposed. The current minimum of 25 for the US House is far too low considering that a person who is still on his parents’ insurance could legally serve as a representative. I figure 25 years old back in the Founding Fathers’ days meant someone at the very least had a day job and had some understanding of adult responsibilities.

        2. Aren’t most 25 year olds statistically still living with their parents? 25 made sense as a minimum age at one point. But a modern 25 year old is the equivalent of a 12 year old a couple generations back. I say this because I know my grandfather at 13 was far more mature than your typical millennial 25 year old.

        3. ….And the world has changed a great deal since then. The millennials are not to be blamed for the current situation. Lack of jobs. Sky high cost of living. The technological age. The ones I know are tolerant, compassionate and serious about their work.

        4. At 25 my great grandfather already fought the Japs for 3 years, had several children, and ran a business. At 25 I’m just now getting my shit together.

    2. I understand your point, but just a few details:
      We have had one actor.
      One peanut farmer (seven farmers total including the first five Presidents, not a bad track record considering).
      11 soldiers (4 made General) and 4 sailors.
      Two Professors (arguably the worst Presidents in history: Wilson and Obama). LBJ and Cleveland were teachers as well.
      But we have had 23 Presidents (of the 44) whose previous occupation was that of lawyer, the singularly most detested profession in the US, yet we the People keep electing their ilk to political office.

      1. “Yet we the people keep electing their ilk into office”. It’s hard not to when you can either vote for lawyer 1, lawyer 2 or lawyer 3.
        At least this time around, Americans may see some variety in Dr Ben Carson and Trump.
        Here in Aus, as you say, all our leaders have been lawyers (someone please correct me if I’m wrong; except for Clive Palmer. He’s just a dumbass and despite having his own Party, not a leader).

        1. Nickname for the aussie PM. His name is Turnbull, but he stabbed our elected PM in the back and took his place. Hence, Turncoat.

        2. That’s the nature of politics, voter dissatisfaction rises faster, leaders get turned over more quickly.

      2. You assume we actually elected them. Castro always had elections in Cuba(seriously). Its good to keep up appearances.

      3. “But we have had 23 Presidents”….why must you assume the Internet, English, Democracy, this article and Skankism is only in America? I live in a Country that is Democratic, has the Internet, speaks English with proper spelling and is full of skanks and bluepill SJWs. Myopic America, brutal before the Internet is slowly getting better but has a large way to go. Sorry for the Rant.

        1. Would’ve thought it apparent that the comment I was responding to in context was alluding to American elections by referencing peanut farmer and actor…oh well.

    3. Any people are served well by their leaders only when their fate and their leaders fate are the same. The biggest and perhaps final mistake any republic makes is to allow people to vote simply because they are citizens. Voting must remain a sacred trust and special privilege bound to the amount of effort one puts into the maintenance of their republic. One however aught not make the assumption that monarchies by virtue of being a monarchy can prevent the culture from becoming degenerate rather than a virtuous monarch is required for preventing his culture from degenerating. I hypothesize that the roots of our current degeneracy can be found with the Magna Carta. What power does the monarch have if he may not discipline his subjects, however discipline with out temperance on the monarchs behalf necessitated the creation of the Magna Carta.

    4. “In democracy we elect peanut farmers and movie stars to run the country.”
      While I agree with your point, this in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Good leadership, including political leadership, can potentially be found in any profession. Many of the most notable political figures throughout history came from very humble backgrounds.

    5. “Thank you for calling out the myth of democracy”
      I’m not certain if Democracy is the problem, or if it is the corruption issue. Switzerland is a better functioning democratic system that the USA.

    6. In a monarchy, everybody knows the name of the “king” and where he lives. When he gets out of hand, you can hang him, along with his family.
      In a democracy, everybody gets to hide in a booth and vote for someone else’s money or the ruination of their lives (albeit indirectly) by enactment of damaging policies and even wars from their leaders. The person standing right next to you right now might vote to send you off to die or get your legs blown off or your eyes blown out of your head in a battlefield, or vote for more of your money while they sit around, or criminalize your life where you must choose to comply or end up in a rape cage.
      Resist what they voted for, and even after some fanfare and “warnings”, if you are at a point of barring a door, there will be guns pointed at you.
      Monarchy was better. Royalty never has as much power as our schools, our brainwashing centers that indoctrinate people SO THEY VOTE CERTAIN WAYS, tell us of some “dark ages”. Gee, the very system that relies on people being stupid so they vote a certain way pushing lies that democracy is some kind of paradise and without it, some king will be riding on your back and fuck your girlfriend.
      It’s time to break down the lies, and democracy is the greatest scam every perpetrated on the human race, ever.
      https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/02/bionic-mosquito/decentralization-hidden-in-the-darkages/

      1. According to this work of research, AMERICA IS STILL A COLONY OF THE BRITISH CROWN. – http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/united_states_british_colony.htm
        I’ve studied it, looked at the research and haven’t found any holes. The reason why most of the Presidents of the United States have been Liawyers is because it is through legal trickery that the British maintained control while giving the illusion that the War of Independence was won by Americans.
        Was the British right over America ever surrendered and signed under seal by the Crown?

        1. Yep, for many years, I have believed that the USA is still, albeit conspicuously, under the Crown. For the most part, it means dick-fist and has little influence over the day-to-day lives of over 300 million American citizens, but it makes one wonder whether or not our Republic gained any sovereignty from Britain at all?

        2. Millions of Americans gave there lives for independence and it means “Dick fist” that they were tricked into thinking they won?

        3. Hmmm, that’s weird. I thought I was agreeing to your OP. Let me clarify: whether or not the United States gained full independence from GB is likely not given much thought by the average American in the 21st century. We (or they) tend to think we are either too far removed from 1776, and 1812, for that matter. Then again, I am sure there is a segment of the population that didn’t know that such wars occurred, or why. The bowdlerization of history, coupled with immigration, will see to that.

        4. Well, majority of settlers and founders of USA were from Great Britain.
          Great Britain is their motherland, land of their ancestors.

        5. That’s true but that’s not the point.
          The war was meant to cut ties from the British Kingdom once and for all and be free from their rule.

        6. Listen, Max.
          You might not give a shit being an average American yourself (or not) but you are not the audience whom I seek to enlighten. You seem to know full well of what I speak of only with the intent of keeping this information bottled up or under wraps, or at the very least, have become demoralized to the point where it’s believed hope, truth and righteousness will not prevail again.
          True history will remain readily available so long as the Internet prevails with its infinite freedoms of expression. And with it, the truth will ever shine through no matter how much disinformative trash, deceitful machinations, or slanderous witch hunts is piled on top of it. Borders have closed forever shut to mass immigration in the US because of the genocidal, raging rape mobs engulfing Europe. Trump will make sure of it.
          But even if more Band-Aids are created and applied to these solutions, it will be the incurable arrogance of those trying to stop the bleeding that will lead to the inevitable. It’s time to reset the clock. Take a ride on the scales of justice. And let the cards fall where they may.

        7. America also known as the “Virginia Company”. This is why all birth certificates are stocks and our lives are assets controlled by the federal reserve (Rockefeller’s) who are the goyim servants of the English crown’s financial backer – the Rothchilds (who also finance the Vatican).
          Furthermore, this is why we have such a jacobian sensibility with cuckservatives willing to bend ass backwards for the rothchild Israel (not the true Israel which the lord and savior Yeshua will return) The Royal family was and is known by their true family name (not the windsors, but a Jewish name); they descend from the tribe of Dan, the flag with the red dragon, which may or may not be Apollyon described in revelations. Also note the Union Jack or union jac(ob).

        8. Your level of lunacy is rivaled only by Jade Helm, moon shot truthers, and the flat Earth crew.
          If you really want to understand the 66 books that comprise the Protestant bible, I suggest you do as I did:
          Learn Hebrew/Aramaic, and Koine Greek, get copies of the original manuscripts, and find out what was really meant.
          Conclusion?
          The mythology of ALL Abrahamic religions is a sad legacy that has inculcated humans into believing fairy tales.

        9. Did you really have to read it in greek and aramaic to reject it?
          What was the key thing that changed your mind?

        10. The short answer is “of course not”.
          40 years ago, When I started doing the historical research, reading in the original languages, and reading the 66 books each through many times, I found the hard evidence of murder, rape, slavery, abuse, deception, and patriarchy being justified.
          I found a collection of ancient stories that were arbitrarily declared by 3rd and 4th century church people to be “the immutable and absolute truth for all humans in all times”
          I realized that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam were incredibly oppressive, patriarchal, and immoral mythologies, in spite of some of the positive things they have each purported to teach.
          Read and consider these verses objectively, and remember that each of these according to orthodox evangelicals are immutable truth that every human is forced to agree with and believe are relevant to their own lives.
          Murdering pregnant women, children, and babies
          1 Samuel 15:3
          Taking virgins in war and raping them
          Judges 21:10-24
          Condoning and excusing slavery
          Ephesians 6:5
          Beating a slave to death is punishable, but beating them within an inch of death, is somehow evidence of a compassionate god.
          Exodus 21:20
          All human females must be utterly subservient to men. This is evidence of nothing but the misogyny and prejudice of a supremely bigoted Pharisee like Paul of Tarsus
          Ephesians 5:22.
          Homosexuals deserve death
          Romans 1:32

        11. Horribly harsh verses,
          sometimes there are mitigating cultural factors,
          an eye for an eye was to limit revenge, not enforce it,
          on homos; Ezekiel 16:49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
          On raping war slaves, this was highly cultural, bible law put limits on it,
          11and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, 12then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13″She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife,
          14″It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her
          this is a significantly higher status than was cultural at the time,

        12. Pastors, preachers, priests, and apologists have been justifying, prevaricating, and excusing “cultural factors” and mitigating circumstances about the bible for millenia
          None of it can possibly be called scientific proof of the existence of any god, or provide a reason for 21st century humans to believe religion has relevance.
          Humans as a species are terribly primitive, unevolved, and lack critical thinking, intelligence, and a consciousness of our universe and planet.
          80% of us still base our lives around the fairy tale of an old man in the sky and ancient books filled with mythology, and this is still causing wars, murder, abuse, terrorism, hatred, and retribution.
          My prediction is that it will be a thousand years before we can throw off the shackles, stupidity and ignorant darkness of the prison which is religion

        13. Maybe the logical alternative is to prey on others in a darwinistic manner.
          There’s no use being sentimental about some atoms swirling around.

      2. Voting works at the lowest level, at the dinner table. What’s for dinner is too important to not vote on. At higher levels, things become too important to allow a whim or vote to dictate. Votes, like dinners and picnics can be bought, but the iron rule of a patriarch or high leader supercedes money. The true leaders laugh at money. Money is girly but power and rule is manly. Girls adore having money to buy bling and girly pipe dreams. Men with power and vision are the engine of all civilization. I just want rid of any sumboogers that try to define me as cattle on their farm. The British Monarchy is no longer a respecter of the common patriarch. I think the cuckolded house of windsor has outlived their stay and shows signs of inbreeding (Charles with the floppy ears). A real king would have a slew of concubines and wives openly, not a bunch of skeletons in the closet and a henpecking mother who approves one single post wall (Camilla) bridge partner for her son. How emasculating.

        1. Money and power tend to go hand in hand. I can’t think of any leaders with true power who didn’t have access to cash.

        2. Will and Harry are Apache pilots. Harry is also a commando with combat experience. Charles and his brother were military officers who reached command rank.

        3. Does voting even work at the dinner table? Most parents seem to serve with advice and consent at best, but still make the choice.

        4. That’s bullshit. They were pulled OUT of combat situations and were put through the system as an education. Wtf ELSE is the younger one going to do ? Their dad couldn’t even keep a commoner in line for the sake of his royal fucking family. Their mom got turned out and was an international fame whoring fucking wreck. Fuck them. They make all whites people look bad, ESPECIALLY in the ME.

        1. I’m from a country that has been a monarchy for 85 years and became a republic 70 years ago, I’m talking about Italy. With the monarchy we had a head of state that was neutral and trained to run a country since birth, now the parlament has to elect a head of state every 7 years, unlike the kings those republican presidents weren’t born to rule the country and that means that most of them have already a past career in politics, some of them are ex members of the communist party, some other of the fascist one, in any case they don’t guarantee neutrality, they continue to support their political beliefs, our two last heads of state were liberal, the result is that they let the berlusconi government fall in order replace it with a leftist government, that was 5 years ago, now we have the third consecutive leftist government that hadn’t been elected by anyone, whenever one falls the head of state replaces it with another one that shares the same liberal belies of the previous one and that continues its refugee friendly and pro-european union program, all this without considering elections, a King is objective, he works for the country, not for a party. In a republic parties are way too powerfull, they form governments and its members in the parlament elect the head of state, by doing both these things they literally have unlimited power. A King instead can’t be bribed, he doesn’t care if commies and nazis like him or not, he’s going to rule anyway without the need to accomodate anyone in order to get more consent.Besides, monarchy saved italy from dictatorship, hitler managed to become prime minister and later head of state of germany, by doing that he achieved unlimited power, Mussolini became prime minister but could never become head of state as he wasn’t member of the royal family, the king is the only one that is allowed to abolish the parliament, so for the entire 23 years of fascist rule the italian government was able to approve or refuse mussolini’s laws, reducing his power by doing so, german soldiers were faithful to hitler, if he says he wants to keep fighing even after russians entered berlin they will keep fighting, italian soldiers were faithfull to the king, if the king gets tired of war they just stop fighting regardless mussolini’s opinion on the matter. Fascism was a very good social and political system for italy and it should have lasted longer, but its heritage includes two horrible elements, the first one is antifascist people that the regime unfortunately hasn’t been able to eradicate, and the second one is this shitty republic that replaced our perfectly efficient constitutional monarchy, to everyone coming from a monarchist country: as much as you hate your king or queen, NEVER replace it with a republic, not even in exchange of a blowjob by sasha grey

        2. Yes, I live in a Monarchy now, and if I say anything apart from how much I love the King, I’m likely to disappear one night.

        3. I had a long talk with an Iranian who said life under the Shah was great and far better than democracy, because a politician is like hired help, they are in it for what they can get.
          I like the fact that the Queen of england is nominally head of Australia, because one day the governor general might again sack incompetent government.
          I’d hate for our largely dickhed prime ministers to be able to call themselves presidents.

      3. Uhh no a monarchy would torture and kill you multiple times over before you can find anyone to help you overthrow the king. The fear the commoners have of the monarchy is greater than we have of democratic leaders. If this was a monarchy lots of people’s heads would of rolled from what they say about Obama and his family on the internet. Or be left to rot in a torture chamber.

        1. Thats a load of communist bullshit refuted by history. Monarchy has a clear record of being better than democracy. Democracy is a slow boiling. Monarchy is an occasional bad leader.

      4. I’m not really into working my entire life for a king though is the problem… A properly running democracy can only exist within small communities though to be fair.

      5. Even in the time of kings there were Banksters. Nathan Rothschild said (1777-1836): “I care not what puppet is placed on
        the throne of England to rule the Empire. The man who controls
        Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire and I control the
        British money supply.” His residence in Europe is supposed to be bigger than the kings residences as well. In England the city of London(an area within London) was constantly at odds with the King..supposedly they were the true controllers.

      6. The question is how the hell do we restore that. I think we have been blessed with an answer in King Donald the Great, and Crown Prince Donald II, and theres even a Donald III. Ive heard Eric would make a better leader however. A king probably should be able to designate an alternate successor to the eldest male.

    7. Politicians have short time horizons to get everything they can get for themselves. Monarchs are thinking about their life time and the life time of their children, their children’s children and so on. The Monarch is better served with a long term plan. However that often falls apart once a spoiled short sided generation takes over. That is it decays to the natural state of an elected politician.
      A monarch who believes in the individual rights and liberties of people is probably the best system there has been thus far. But it doesn’t last and neither does democracy or republics for that matter. Of course the later two can have much longer decays, but the wrong monarch can take things for the worst very quickly.

      1. I think that you’re looking for a philosopher king. Monarchies are essentially greedy sissies who rule by fear. Or, at least that’s what they eventually all become.

        1. There were various monarchies in history that respected people’s individual rights. Usually because that generated the most tax revenue at the lowest costs. A monarchy is one generic form of government that can be anything in that regard. So can a democracy or republic.
          I would choose a monarchy where I had my rights over a democracy where I did not.

      2. We haven’t seen the best system yet, direct democracy where we debate issues online, pass a questionnaire to prove we understand them, then individually vote, and if there’s an uninteneded consequence, we revote it.

        1. Direct democracy becomes tyranny of the majority. When the majority benefits at the expense of the minority change is impossible to bring about. The idea was that representatives and constitutions would stop that. Of course that didn’t work out either.

        2. Without writing a whole book on it, it should be reas easy to prevent that tyranny, constitution rule number 1, you have to explain how my actions pollute your river before you can inhibit my freedoms, and I have every opportunity to keep my piss out of your river, rather than being told not to piss,
          aaannd, if someone wants to have sex wi goats, and / or play loud metal all night, a place has to be made for them, with the only proviso is that the goat is consenting,
          So that if someone wanted to live under sharia law, everyone who agrees to live in the B & D club with them has to be consenting, and be allowed to de consent, if they decide they can’t control their gayness for example.
          aand, If there are 10 million seals next to my city of 5 million, I can eat 2 seals.

        3. I can make cheap widgets for everyone if I pollute the river. Widgets are popular. Most everyone votes for cheap widgets and the river is polluted. You’re a farmer and the polluted river ruins your crops by poisoning your land in the spring floods. Too bad for you.

    8. We are a republic, that is a big fucking mistake thinking we are a democracy.
      Section 4: Obligations of the United States
      The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

      1. That’s a “Federal Democratic Republic”, or at least that’s what I was taught in school. Perhaps over the 45 years since, I haven’t been keeping up, so perhaps it’s just “All Fucked Up” right now. And will continue to be…………

    9. TBH, Jimmy Carter wasn’t a bad president though, he was just in a really shitty, shitty, situation. In fact, I would say he is much better than the Lawyer, Obama.

    10. The peanut farmer was one of the most decent, moral, upstanding men to be elected president. Can’t say as much for the actor.

    11. In democracy an elected idiot can set up a disastrous policy which would impact generations and he will never pay for it. There is no responsibility, no mechanism to punish those that take bad decisions. The idiots will just blame the previous government or borrow money to give free benefits that will expire after the next election.

    12. “At least in monarchies, rulers are trained from birth to be leaders, not just politically but in language, decorum, classical education, even militarily.” Yeah – and some are inbred simpletons. And at least Clemenza was loyal and never forgot the cannolis.

    13. Our government got captured once we installed the Federal Reserve, ever since then there has been a small group of devious, wealthy men to manipulate everything. Who owns the Fed? We don’t know its secret. How much assets do they have? 2-3 Trillion dollars. Its part of the gov right? Nope. They have the ability to inflate or deflate our currency causing bubbles and bursting them(we are close to a bubble the size of the former one that became the great recession). The Federal Reserve Act was put into place Dec 22 1913. Who passes laws at Christmas time? People who know what they are passing would be resisted by the majority of congress. Woodrow Wilson who signed the Act into law admitted on his death bed that he had ruined his country. END THE FED. Look up Andrew Jackson’s battleith the second central bank of the US. They tried to have him assassinated, but he succeeded in eliminating the bank and the https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3b452a2d45da80ed2cf052b2b72a494b9fad25c4fb0634fe08c36a138f91edc2.jpg debt of the US. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5c509b115217949ec925e9d225688a70eb78a55c80ed66c939c856ff9e3129a4.jpg s

    14. Hopefully, we just had our last presidential election. Hail God-Emperor Trump. Seriously. Or bring back only white men with property get to vote.

    15. I despised Carter, but your disqualification of him was disgusting.
      Farming is one of the healthiest and most demanding vocations imaginable. Whether it is “peanut” farming or tobacco farming, is irrelevant. By mocking Pres Carter for his vocation, you betrayed your own lazy ignorance.
      Next, you disqualified Pres Reagan for his acting vocation. I assume you disparage him because actors are trained to mimic emotions, and not because acting is an intensely stressful and demanding art. If so, then may I point out that not a few sentences earlier you praised monarch families because the people are “trained from birth” in the role. Which presumably means they would also be trianed to deceive the public.
      You have shown yourself to be incinsistent and thoughtless. The truth is democracy is wasted on you, as is anything given to those who speak without thinking.

      1. Correction: it CAN happen, but it would be deemed a crime. For example, lynching is no doubt democratic but obviously criminal.

        1. Lynching isn’t “democracy”, it’s Ochlocracy. If it were democratic, it would involve the lynched being put in jail, and then the town as a collective would vote on how they shall be punished…

      2. Then explain why huge proportions of my money are taken away and redistributed for the benefit of certain “protected classes”
        They’ve done a pretty bang-up job of stealing my money for themselves it seems

      3. From Oxford:
        Democracy: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives
        Republic: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
        I don’t see how these are separate systems what so ever.

        1. Under those definitions, there is no difference, I grant you.
          A republic recognises minority rights under law (a constitution) whereas a democracy, in its purest form, simply recognises the majority.

  3. Democracy – spot on. The idea that a janitor should have the same voice as a neurosurgeon on healthy policy, or that a fry cook should have the same voice on fiscal policy as an economist is retarded.
    I’m not quite ready for a return to monarchy yet. I’d favor a go at limited Democracy first, with the primary change being restricted voting rights. First item on the agenda – if you have no skin in the game as a net taxpayer, you have no fucking vote. Also, if you cannot pass a basic civics test, no vote. If you are not a citizen, no vote. Even then, you are only allowed to vote on issues where you can demonstrate some competency in the issue – eliminate people’s ability to vote for someone “cool” over someone competent. Only exceptions are war and taxes.
    If that fails, I’d accept monarchy. It’s much easier to kill a king than exterminate an entire hive of parasites.

    1. I’m not quite ready for a return to monarchy yet. I’d favor a go at
      limited Democracy first, with the primary change being restricted voting
      rights.

      So basically the original Constitutional Republic model? Me too.
      And agree with all of your tests. Heinlein proposed that each potential voter be required to solve a random quadratic equation before being allowed to vote, the test administered at the poll. Sounds perfect to me, at least for math competency.

      1. Your reasoning, as usual, is sound…however, you fail to take into account where this leads by not adding the element of the world we live in. Restricted democracy would wind up being no white, heterosexual males. You would have to suck a cock at the poll. They will just hold the votes during the fag pride parade.
        If you have a dog and don’t train it properly it will grow wild and ill tempered and bite people. The solution, with a dog like this, is not to try to train it the way you would have in its infancy. It is to put it down before it hurts you or others, get a new dog and this time be a more responsible dog owner.
        The ship is sinking baby. Monarchy, oligarchy, a nice democracy….one with martial law…for a generation or two…either that or let it all sink into the shit and hope and pray for a new founding father to start the long and arduous process of raising it back up.

        1. Well technically, before we could implement my system, it would require the most heavily armed segment of American society to hold a revolution.
          As chance would have it, that segment is white straight males. Go figure.

        2. Even armed, gonna need a big army.
          The Nat Guard also has guns and they are controlled by the people who bring you yes means yes, divorce laws and welfare.
          Not saying it isn’t possible, but it is going to be ugly.
          In the end, if war comes to town….google will decide which side they are and then unleash their robot army.

        3. 110+ million gun owners.
          1.47 million members of all of the U.S. armed forces combined.
          They wear uniforms, we don’t. They have military training, so do the majority of gun owners.
          A large segment of the military comes from the sons of the Right, who themselves are right wing (at least organically).
          Do the math.

        4. You are right…just pointing out how ugly it is going to get. It is an extreme action. Even fully committed people are going to need to really come to terms with the fact that they will need to kill quite a few of their fellow countrymen. I don’t care how right you are and how committed you are, if shooting a 19 year old national guardsmen and killing him for following orders comes easy to someone then they are just as bad as anything we have.
          I am not saying that doing it for self preservation or even national preservation is not a worthwhile and just cause…just the it is a very hard road to travel morally.

        5. Knowing a large number of military men, even younger ones, I have my doubts that there will be many of them left on the government’s side if push comes to shove. And they’ll bring us their nice ATV’s, tanks, helos and other equipment as well.

        6. If we’re to have a similar revolution in Europe it will mean rousing a handful of farmers and inner city gangstas, because nobody else has any guns. Which leaves us with a democracy that hates us

        7. Come that kind of time, I suspect that it will be a general time of revolt across the entire West. If the composition of Europe scares you, you can always vault over to the newly re-established American republic.

        8. I remember a conversation years ago where my wife and I were discussing what military men would be obligated to do if there was indeed a revolution. I was making the point that our soldiers’ primary purpose (at least originally) was to defend the citizens of the USA and the Constitution. She leaned the same way but called one of her friends whose husband was in the Army. We asked him what he’d do in this hypothetical and he said he’d follow whatever orders the President (Obama) gave. At the point I implied he was a fool and a traitor and left the conversation.

        9. You’ll always find those kinds, no doubt. Consider that during the Chinese uprising at Tinennmen that there were entire units of armor that were defecting to the side of the students.

        10. I hope you are right. A lot of them, I believe, especially younger ones are proud to serve and serve the will.
          My one and only point is that there will be blood shed (to one degree or another) and it isn’t just going to be difficult but ought to be difficult

        11. I’d point out that these types who are loyal to ideas and their community, not a person or the chain of command, are fewer and fewer in today’s generation of millenials. They are mere robots following orders.
          Like the bystander in the video of that Indian girl from yesterday’s article where she stood there for a minute observing until stating “Hey! That’s destruction of property!” as if she couldn’t make a judgement call on the girl’s sick behavior until she had observed a specific violation of the penal code.
          I agree there were lots of independent thinkers in the past in the military, but our society today is producing a whole lot of automaton drones, and remember that these are now being lead by the 69 female generals. I haven’t followed closely the details of the Oregon standoff, but I’m betting the murder of that guy shot by the feds could have been prevented. But they are taught that anyone with certain beliefs (including those espoused above) are the enemy and what do we do with enemies? We exterminate them willy nilly from drones if we have any suspicions they may be dangerous.

        12. I think people overstate the military’s willingness to put down such a rebellion. What differentiates us from many other places is that our military is not organized along tribal, ethnic or territorial lines, and it is volunteer only.
          When your army is made up of separate units, where each unit is filled with conscripts drawn form a unique geographic area from a particular tribe and is basically homogeneous, it is easy to sick that unit on some segment of the populace that is different from them.
          Our military is not like that – the units are made up of people from all over and from all walks of life and all races, ethnicities, etc… This is vastly different than most other armies are organized, and even our own military was not organized this way until relatively recently. In the civil war, you could send military units into NCY to kill thousands of civilians and put down the draft riots because the Units sent in didn’t view the Irish rioters as human. If you tell modern units to attack their own civilians, they will likely tell you to fuck off and desert, taking their weapons with them.
          FYI – I served as an combat arms officer in the USMC, and my personal views and observations, and conversations with fellow Marines are what lead me to this conclusion. Not saying this position is infallible, just pointing out that there are a lot of guys like me who command troops, and would simply refuse to follow orders like this.

        13. Agree. The other argument is “what are your guns going to do against tanks?” Assuming that the tank driver isn’t going to desert and take his tank with him when he’s told to kill his neighbors, people forget that the little man in the tank has to get out to pee sometime.
          Besides, illiterate peasants in Iraq and Afghanistan have given us a pretty good go at it for the past decade and a half with not much more than small arms and homemade explosive devices. The issue is very much in doubt if it comes down to this.

        14. I’d like to think this is true. I visited Nicaragua last year and toured their revolutionary museum in Leon. A few blocks away I visited a torture prison. Nicaragua is a VERY small country geographically and demographically, and it really shocked me how these national soldiers would torture, rape, and kill their own people, innocent men, women, and children, when told to by their national government. My idealistic side wants to think you are right, but my realistic side tells me that there is a level of human sickness that we would see come out (also consider the Milgram experiment).

        15. I agree with you on human nature. And I agree that this complicates it, but some of this is rooted in societal differences. In most of the world, life means shit. It has no value. We have been developing along a different path for a long time. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t change, particularly with our retarded immigration policies, but I don’t think we’re there yet.
          But don’t forget, the majority of the military doesn’t have to desert for there to be a big problem for any authoritarian. If only one out of every ten guys refuses to follow orders, you have a huge fucking problem on your hands. If those guys disappear with their weapons and equipment, well, as a commander, I would feel a lot less confident about going house to house to impose some arbitrary fiat.

        16. My guess is that you are right for the most part…but this horrible sweeping tide, if notihng else, has great powers of brain washing and even without that you won’t get all. Again, I am simply saying that we shouldn’t nonchalantly discuss an actual civilian uprising without realizing the massive catastrophe that will follow in its wake. To run off like children and think hooorah to war is to dismiss the terrible impact that this will have on the country. Now….that terrible impact may well be worth it…I don’t know, I am no revolutionary, but to think that it won’t cause a fuss is insane.

        17. Since the current President is a constitutional lawyer, it should be an interesting debate between him and the joint chiefs.

        18. Agree completely. I’m not looking forward to it, and hope it doesn’t come to that. But, if it does, I don’t think people should back down because they automatically assume revolutionaries couldn’t prevail. As I mentioned in another response, if only 1 out of every ten people in the military refused to follow these orders, deserted and took their weapons and equipment with them, the authoritarians would have a huge problem on their hands. And if I was still serving, I sure as shit wouldn’t want to be leading patrols house to house to try to round people up in such an environment.

        19. “and it really shocked me how these national soldiers would torture, rape, and kill their own people, innocent men, women, and children, when told to by their national government” I saw evidence of the exact same practices in Chile too, that’s why, I’ve always a problem with men who can justify these atrocities by parroting out the line that they’re just following orders. The fact, that many of these military men enjoyed greatly the violence and sadism of what they were doing, doesn’t make the following orders line credible. In such cases there’s no other option but to describe these people as corrupt and evil, and, this dark murk that occludes our nature can easily find expression in the hands of weak men who think they’re strong and righteous because they’re the ones holding a gun.

        20. Obama is not exactly the constitutional scholar he is portrayed to be. He taught “Constitutional Law III: Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process; Voting Rights and the Democratic Process; and Current Issues in Racism and the Law.” Basically he taught a niche of Con Law law that covered the community organizing he did (and given his fundamental disconnect from the rest of the constitution, he probably taught this poorly).
          Regardless, he did not teach Con Law I – which typically covers separation of powers. And that’s his big fucking problem – he doesn’t understand it.

        21. That’s very similar to a point that I have made with others in the past. The cost of an F-16? One silenced .22 LR in the middle of the night. Cheap.

        22. Let’s also not forget that F-16s, M1A1s, etc… don’t just magically appear. They are manufactured, along with all their repair parts, in factories all across the country, where I’m willing to bet a lot of people aren’t going to work to help kill their own families. You don’t have to “kill” a tank, you need to score a mobility kill. Immobilize it, prevent repair parts from reaching it, surround it, wait till the occupants need to piss, run out of food and water, or get bored and leave – no more tank problem.
          Any revolution that is smart would immediately move to seize all of these types of production facilities for exactly this purpose. Unlike revolutions in other places where plenty of other outside actors can supply the same arms that both sides are using, our army largely cannot be supplied with arms from outside because we hold all of our weapons as proprietary internally, and we manufacture them here, and in a lot of cases, only here. Perhaps we could ask foreign militaries to return units we have previously sold them, but I’m willing to bet that under these circumstances, the reply might be “fuck off.”
          The army and air force won’t roll for long once their vehicles and planes are disabled, and they have no way to get more.

        23. Because he had no other direction in his life. These are the people that join the military in my experience. I’ve known several.
          One wanted to be a marine. Was fixated on it from an early age. His reasons I could believe were righteous.
          But the rest joined because they didn’t really have anything else in mind. And it pays so might as well

        24. Maybe, but I think they have been de-militarized. In other words, the weapons systems have likely been rendered inoperable. So you can drive a tank around, but it won’t shoot anything anymore.
          However, most people don’t know it, but it’s perfectly legal to own all types of machine guns, as well as noise suppressors, special optics, etc…. You have to get them through a class three dealer, but you can legally own a .50 cal machine gun.
          The thing with tanks/planes, etc… is that generally they are developed under a government requirement, and the government owns the design. The government thus restricts the manufacturer from selling outside the government (there are also concerns with transfers of sensitive technology outside the US). That’s why you can’t buy a functioning tank if you had the money. It’s not illegal, they just aren’t sold. When new equipment is phased in, the government will often try to offload the older stuff it has, but it will disarm it before selling it to you.

        25. Logistics; supply lines, supply producers, lines of communication, lines of transport, all of these things are fragile and not impossible to disrupt from outside. From inside they are nearly child’s play (I don’t mean that in a way to minimize the actual gravity of the situation).
          Track hit, immobilized tank. Aileron or elevator damage with an IDE or even a souped up home made “model” rocket kit that explodes, immobilized $50 million dollar jet fighter. Power line cuts across multiple counties, diverted military and local police to deal with the contingency, opening up other areas of opportunity for the opposition. Insurgency basics 101 for real life.
          It’s pretty clear, quite quickly, who the actual military vets are and aren’t on an internet thread. Your post speaks of some actual tactical thinking about the scenarios that rise above the theoretical.
          I do enjoy the ignorance of the Left when it comes to this kind of thing. When they start in on “you and your pop guns!” I know that they are tactically and strategically illiterate and have never once humped a ruck in their lifetime.

        26. “sickness” or just plain old survival instinct?
          If given the opportunity to be on the winning team, I’m pretty sure most people can rationalize pretty much anything.
          I don’t think our culture the way it is right now is breeding true national/ideological pride in the general citizenship, why would the military be any different?

        27. Oh yes. And as you mention, the other real thing about all of this disruption is not just the immobilization of equipment, but that it draws combat troops away from the fight to protect their supply lines. The military is only so big, and it can’t be everywhere. The more logistics targets you can attack, the more combat power you draw away from the targets you actually want to hit. This also has the advantage of preventing them from massing any combat power against you in these places. It’s much easier to put together enough guys to overrun the platoon guarding the Boeing plant than it is to defeat an RCT that is dug in with interlocking fires and planned fire support on call. Why in the fuck would I try to fight the latter battle as an insurgent when I can almost certainly continue to set up the former battle as many times as I need to?

        28. The whole “let the ship sink” think doesn’t really make sense. Systems/Institutions don’t just magically disappear. Either we will a) go into a long, miserable, civil war/revolution, or have a quick coup (either though violence or elections), and then redue the whole government form constitution up. And as Ghost of Jefferson is suggesting, we should go though the first one if we can BY ALL COSTS. And of course, what he is suggesting is going to require AT LEAST, a short period of Martial Law without proper representation, so don’t act like any democratic system wont work because liberals will hijack it.

        29. “Agree. The other argument is “what are your guns going to do against tanks?” Assuming that the tank driver isn’t going to desert and take his tank with him when he’s told to kill his neighbors, people forget that the little man in the tank has to get out to pee sometime.” Exactly. How else do the afgani’s do it lol?

        30. Considering the amount of US vets who have served in combat and trained in insurection/ counter insurection I find it laughable whenever a democrat starts squaking about tyranaical BS. Our people are inside the arms room and have keys to the motor pool. I personally know cops who laugh at the idea of “confiscation.” “Blue flu” would be an epedemic. If more Americans would trust government, they would buy less guns. Unfortunately US government has revealed that it is not trustwothy.

        31. And literate American guerillas/ partasans with experience would bring a would be marxist government to it’s knees in a week.

        32. I have no doubt you are right. But let the ship sink I simply mean to hyperbolize the fact that I don’t care what happens to the world. I don’t want to destroy it, save it or really do anything to it but soak up resources and find ways to enjoy it until I am done. I am not a hero….

        33. How will they fly bombers that can’t fly? How will they nuke civilians when their nuke officers have deserted and the nukes haven’t been maintained?
          If I was a nuke officer, why would I fire a nuke at a target near the people I care about?
          What you talk about just isn’t likely to happen with out military. But even if it did, would that be a reason to STOP fighting? Fuck no.

        34. Nuke ms aren’t as effective as you think, that’s cold war propaganda. What you mean are M.O.A.B.’s(Google it)

        35. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You seem to be unable to comprehend the miserableness of war. So what happens during a war when you get hit by stray artillery? Or a battle is in your neighborhood? Or you get an infection in your foot and the hospitals are destroyed? You should really start thinking things in your life though more.

        36. True but some guys would nuke people as long it ain’t their friends or family. If the threat of a nuke doesn’t deter someone, I guess there will be a lot of dead. Many Nukes are missiles, they could nuke all the major rebel centers at once at the command center, but these places would turn into wastelands.

        37. Im betting on the fact that it ain’t going to happen. Loads of people will talk talk talk and I will not give a shit.
          I honestly am indifferent to your revolution. It’s simply a war of words.

        38. I’m not convinced that soldiers and police would be hesitant to put down a justified rebellion. From my observation, soldiers and cops are brainwashed pawns, Pavlovian trained to pull triggers on command without a second thought. Let’s not kid ourselves here-for most of the 20th century soldiers have voluntarily risked and ruined their lives to fight nation-building wars commanded by a Zionist elite, all in the name of catchy words like “patriotism” and a cheap gold medals. I truly believe that if a revolution were to occur, we’d at least be fighting a portion of the standing military. All it really takes is a few rah-rah speeches and the soldiers will be brainwashed into firing onto the threat to the “nation” If soldiers were actually the anti-government revolution types, they wouldn’t be pulling triggers for Barack Obama.

        39. Do you at least believe we’d have to fire on our military? The cynic in me wins out, as you can see from my above comment to NemesisEnforcer. I don’t believe that the 1.47 million soldiers who are Pavlovian trained to follow orders from the federal government will suddenly put their guns down and allow an armed insurrection to overthrow their boss.

        40. Some will fight. Most won’t. It doesn’t matter. There are around 300 million weapons in the hands of roughly 150 million people in this country. That’s that largest standing Army the world has ever seen. There won’t be enough bullets and bombs to kill them all. That’s the beauty of the second amendment.

        41. They shot that guy like a dog in the street, that was a murder. They put it on tv and laughed about it too. You make a point, I’d just say that people are not all equal and the automatons have a problem, they can’t function without a lot of support. They are very vulnerable once the veneer of invincibility is worn down by reality. If it drags on, they’ll loose their fighting spirit.

      2. You and I have exchanged other ideas on governmental reform before. I seem to recall that we are both also in favor of term limits, and repeal of the seventeenth amendment.
        Ultimately, so long as my second amendment rights are construed as absolute and inalienable, I wouldn’t even mind a monarchy if it really came down to it. I’m happy to take my chances with the king’s men, so long as I have a reasonable chance at putting them in their place.

      3. As well as having a moniker of intelligence, I think that business owners, property owners etc should be allowed a vote; only those people who have a stake in the country should have a say how a country is run.

      4. Sheeeeeit, have your voter applicant connect a male USB (stick or power connector) into a female USB socket in fewer than three tries. That’ll be fun to watch!

      5. We need some very big changes to our constitutional system though. First, if two thirds of congress can change the constitution, 75% of congress should be able to overrule the supreme court.
        Second, get rid of First Past the post system for the House of reps. Move to one these or a combination of these systems:


        and the President should be elected though this system:

        (the senate would go back to the original system where the state legislator chooses or alternatively just at the discrepancy how the state decides)
        Third, all the executive power the president has acquired over the years that isn’t constitutional should be given a prime minister (chosen by president, but can be voted out by president.)
        Finally, their needs to be a way for the president to dissolve congress and have an automatic election so we get out of all the gridlock.

    2. “Democracy” (it wasn’t really democracy) worked in the USA when voting was considered a sacred privilege instead of a natural right. Our constitutional republic, coupled with the limited voting privileges it initially afforded, was about as ideal of a form of government as one could have.
      Voting should never have been referred to as a right in the 15th amendment.

      1. “Was about as ideal of a form of government as one could have.”
        Agree, but I would still make some tweaks – term limits and additional voting restrictions among them.
        I would also eliminate the commerce and funding clauses, or at the very least tweak them to make sure that they cannot be construed to give the federal government the absolute power it now enjoys.
        Finally, sovereign immunity for government officials needs to be seriously curtailed.
        And to show I’m not a complete asshole, I’m willing to amend the tax clause to abolish the possibility of an income tax, but allow a sales tax (I would prefer the “Fair Tax” model). Obviously, this makes virtually everyone eligible to vote again as a net tax payer, but see my previous points about competence, understanding of government, citizenship, etc…

        1. If you had a *truly* limited government, like what the Articles of Confederation wanted, I could be ok with a democracy. When the government only has the power to pave asphalt roads, run jails and prisons, and pick up the garbage, I don’t mind the majority ruling over these decisions (No! We want trash pickup on Thursdays dammit!)

    3. +1 on competence.
      Voters should be required to take an IQ test, and nobody with an IQ under 100 should be allowed to vote.

    4. “First item on the agenda – if you have no skin in the game as a net taxpayer, you have no fÜcking vote.” What happens if you have an unemployment crisis because so many manufacturing jobs moved to other countries? All the people who are affected don’t get a vote?
      “Also, if you cannot pass a basic civics test, no vote. If you are not a citizen, no vote. Even then, you are only allowed to vote on issues where you can demonstrate some competency in the issue – eliminate people’s ability to vote for someone “cool” over someone competent. ” Agreed!
      I think we should move to a compromise system between a all powerful and powerless King/Duke/Prince/Emperor/Tsar/Caesar/Emire/Grand Duke//Monarch (man, I just love listing all those titles lol). Basically it would work like a semi-presidential system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-presidential_system), but with one of the above rather than a president…

    5. I’d say just the civics test is reasonable, we’re not looking for a snobocracy are we ? In a fully functioning society the “lowest” garbage collectors or whatever still deserve a vote. Without all of the artificial survival the bottom is comprised of hard working people. In OUR society the lowest are the people who don’t fucking work at all, they simply Hoover money out of the system. Welfare, professional baby mamma ? No vote. Garbage man, fuck it the guy deserves to vote. Oftentimes, the people that are actually at the ground level have the best view (within their limited sphere of perception that is).

  4. It’s increasingly difficult not to dream of that happy day when technology finally makes women unnecessary for the few tasks that men currently cannot do unassisted (mostly related to reproduction), and they can be sent to the glue factory along with their precious ponies, another beast of burden male ingenuity has rendered obsolete.
    You’ll know we’ve turned the corner when research begins in earnest on the artificial uterus. When men gain full control of when their sons are born and how they are raised, women will no longer have power over men at all even as manipulative mothers. And that will be the end of womankind.

  5. I see that many alt-righters have a romantic view of monarchy, no doubt fantasizing about themselves in the top job, but the reality is a culture with barely accountable old-boy-network imbeciles (most likely not including you) lording it over the military and bureaucracy. Ask the UK circa the American Revolutionary War or Crimean War what a good job generals appointed from the leisure classes will do. Ask Egypt, Spain, France, England, or China about how monarchy deters rule by women.
    Democracy is fine, but it should be limited to politically literate male heads of household as the Framers intended. In such a system, we would get nothing more or less than the politicians we ask for, but “we” would exclude those without a responsible man’s head and a familial investment in the future.

    1. Democracy blows. A Constitutional Republic is what you’re referring to. I’m not being pedantic here, terms and words matter, and we have to stop using the mish-mash ambiguous language of the Left. We are not and were never intended to be a “Democracy”, the Founders railed against “Democracy” heartily.
      Second point: Everything you say about the *recent* kings in history is true. That is the form of feudal Kings that came from the French mimicking the Roman Emperors. Prior to the French going loopy, the Germanic people generally followed a much more organic form of Kings (cynig/koenig) where the office was not hereditary, and the entire village had to gather and approve of the new “King” who himself did not have absolute power and had to have quite a few skills that excelled above most men. It was also a period of vassalage, which is interesting (although I’m not certain if we could do that again). For example, take a look at Anglo-Saxon cynigs prior to the Battle of Hastings. These tribes were far freer as individuals than most of us “free” people are today, and freer by far than the Roman Mimicking French system of Monarchy.

      1. All excellent points. I’d also add I don’t know of a king in history who taxed even his serfs as highly as the “free citizens of the USA” are taxed today.

      2. I miss my Roman Mimicking French system of Monarchy. We used to be the center of the world with it.

        1. I mean no disrespect to the French (yes, I am American, so how weird is that right?), but Hastings was almost entirely driven by luck. While the French (well, Normans who were just barely not Vikings any longer, truth be told) had horse cavalry maneuverability as well as great archers, they lacked the strength and commitment of the home team, and horse felling power of the Saxon great axes. The Saxons were, unfortunately, in a state of constant warfare when the turn of that century came upon them, and not just army-to-army, but also constant raids and nearly three or four competing tribes within one small space. Had the viking raids been just a bit less frequent, and had the Norwegian military not invaded just moments before up north and killed some great men, I suspect Harold would have readily routed William.
          This is all armchair quarterbacking of course. A win is a win, end of the day.
          The point I’m coming back around to however is that the Roman model of Monarchy, which the French adopted, was based on the Caesar as Dictator model established by Romans after the fall of the Republic. The Saxon and general Germanic cynig was far more, for lack of a better word, democratic in practice. The last vestige of that kind of leadership model occurred with the age of the European pirates and how their captain was elected and held accountable.

        2. Joseph de Maistre wrote that “there is no a priori political system” and that one system can function with one race and completely screw up with an other one.
          That’s what I was pointing out.
          I do agree with you that the saxon system you’re describing would be the best for anglo-saxons people.
          I’ll just defend our own system if you don’t mind.
          I think an elective system is not for the French.
          If you look at our recent history you’ll conclude that we’re essentialy closeted monarchists, since our only kind of stable version of the republic, the 5th one, which is already crumbling, was created by a reader of Plato and Charles Maurras : Charles De Gaulle, a self-repressed monarchist if there is one. The thing was created in order to give as much power as possible to the President, thus avoiding the parlementary mess.
          And it still doesn’t work.
          Our old system wasn’t perfect but when you think how long it lasted in comparison with our republics.
          Anyway, with the shits hitting the fans soon people are going to throw ideologies out of windows and hang to what is strong and stable, hence my hope that we will soon be going back to our roots.

    2. I like your synopsis on what Democracy in America should mean. It’s interesting, that Democracy as was practiced in Periclean Athens was not an open plebiscite of all the citizens which left wing scholars often make out. In fact large swaths of the populace were excluded from public life and voting, like women, citizens with poor characters and low intelligence etc, in fact by modern standards it would be denounced as “elitist”.
      However, perhaps this is the way it should be, we practice elitism in our sports teams, having only the fittest and strongest players on out teams- we would rightfully say that allowing the egalitarian equality agenda on the playing field with fat and out of shape players would be the end of any sport. Additionally, in the sciences and arts we also nod to a form of rightful elitism that allows the best and brightest to develop their talents, We need to revert to a form of Democracy that similarly is elitist where unashamedly strong, intelligent men with beliefs and values can take the reins of power once more.

      1. Aye, correct, Democracy actually stems from “District Rule” not “mob rule” or “rule of the people” as it’s become today, The word demos was not “all people” originally but rather comes from demotic aka “District”. In effect it was little different than the original conception of Federalism (or even their view of Confederacy) as posited by the American Founding Fathers. The districts (States) held more power than the central government (Federal government).

        1. It’s truly amazing how unfamiliar the general populace are with the founding principles of Democracy, and not just in the classical sense as derived from Athenian society, but even relating back to the American Founding Fathers.

        1. Hmm, not exactly as he wasn’t a democratic as such, but, it’s a close enough approximation. Interestingly, he maintained that men shouldn’t become rulers and leaders until at least 35 years of age and he did include women a role (albeit limited in scope) in public decision making within his ideal republic.

        2. Also stated (I’m approximating) that men shouldn’t get married until at least 35 and the best age for women was 19.

        3. Although, Plato took the idea of public leadership for his ideal male rulers so seriously that I think he advised them against becoming married as it would distract them from their primary role and duty, and also, perhaps the meddling of their wives through their husbands into the affairs of State.

    3. Also another thing I want to point out, was a great article by Anglin, were talked about how only 7% of Russians care about democracy.
      http://www.dailystormer.com/global-outrage-only-7-of-russians-care-about-democracy/
      He explained that people there do not care for democracy because Putin actually channels the will of the people, he does what the people want him to do. He is a populist, like Donald Trump. And that’s a good thing.
      Meanwhile, in Europe, for all the talk about democracy, no one can vote themselves out of multiculturalism. 95% of Brits don’t want it, but they still push it. Germans don’t want refugees, but they are still brought there.
      What we have in Europe and US is not a democracy, it’s a dictatorship by progressives, where you have very little say. They don’t believe in the will of the people, rather in some abstract vision of multiculturalism. All talk about democracy is just a charade.
      That is the best argument against democracy ever. Despite all of the hate, Putin represents the will of the people better than all those democracies in Europe. And people still wonder why Hitler was so popular compared to Weimar Germany.
      TL:DR What we have in the west is not a democracy, it’s marxism masquareding as democracy
      “Marxism will march hands in hands with democracy, until the goals of marxism cannot be achieved by democracy, then the charade will be over, and people will realize it was always a lie”
      Mein Kampf

  6. I’d also add to this list the misguided belief that a university education somehow makes you more intelligent and erudite than others. Certainly when you encounter today’s crop of students and you engage them in debate you realize after only a short period of time how sluggish and atrophied their minds have become through the meat grinder of modern, mass third level education.

    1. I spoke to a girl this last summer, in the last semester of college before she graduates, who had no clue what a “shepherd” was. Never heard the word. When I explained it, she asked “Does that pay well?” as if it were still a normal profession.
      That’s the value of higher education in a nutshell, right there.

      1. That’s actually both sad and embarrassing. You wonder how her educators can continue to practice their trade with a good conscience when they produce these results.

        1. Drug Lords- that’s a good metaphor for these educators- drugging their students minds while drawing down a handsome salary- we’re foolish to believe these people have a conscience, that world’s gone.

      2. You watch out, the Sherpherds Union will be on your ass. As their slogan says, “Watch Your BAHHHHHHHHCK”

      3. Saw a news feature last night with some middle-aged men and women who couldn’t recognise Jeb Bush, Santorum, and Rubio.

        1. Given Jeb’s! low approval rating, it’s a wonder that anybody knows what he looks like, actually.

        1. I don’t know what beans on toast is. I assume it’s just a piece of toast with beans on it. Well now I know why I never knew what it is, because it sounds horrid.

        2. Its a basic meal of your description that English kids of my generation could make at a young age for a snack.

    2. I can attest to this having just graduated from a 4 year . I have a degree in a stem field but I barely had to study to get it. Most of the rest were simple multiple choice were you could guess the right answer . Papers were never read, if you got the word count you got a B . I honestly had a much harder time at the community college I went to before I transferred.

      1. The whole system is being standardized to meet the average common denominator because of the inclusion of meeting quotas for minorities (blacks) and women who’ve less of an aptitude for STEM subjects. This has the effect of making the entire system counter-productive and deficient for the standards of outside industry, especially first rate research work that demands excellence and innovation. This is yet another symptom of what the equality mantra has produced, namely, a weaker and inferior country that’s no longer the world’s leader in industrial terms.
        Also, you might notice the use of psychometric tests in organisations more and more, and, again their use ensures candidates are chosen that are good at being average and mediocre as these tests do not asses a person’s ability to think and question, which of course requires knowledge, which is ultimately power and that’s the last thing Uncle Sam wants its citizens to have.

        1. They aren’t just less aptitude for STEM, they are less aptitude for all academics. Can you name a famous female director? How about Painter or Sculpture? How about Philosopher (feminists don’t count lol).

        2. With the exception of Iris Murdoch and Simone Weil (and both were more mystically inclined religious thinkers) who were really essayists, no, hardly any across the Arts and Philosophy.

      2. You think that’s bad, try graduate school. Graduate school is a walk in the park. Almost every class I took, you were graded in “teams”, and as long as you stumbled your way through a “presentation” you got at least a B.
        I don’t remember studying at all and I think I got an A in every single class but one. The amount of material I learned could have been accomplished in 6 weeks of visiting the public library. And the value of much of that knowledge is questionable anyway.
        I can only imagine getting a PhD is even easier. You do have to write one really long ass dissertation paper, but there’s very little learning involved.
        What I don’t get is how the US is still competitive with this system. I just don’t get it. Italy has an education system akin to the Buddhists where everything is verbal, ie you are challenged by your elders and must explain and answer a question or logical conundrum posed to you. There’s no way you can guess your way out of that. That’s the ancient Aristotelian method, and it creates thinkers.

        1. After I get out of the military I’m going to get a masters just for the hell of it . I hope in my field it isn’t like that. I also never studied once for a test , everything was curved and I felt like I was surrounded by morons

        2. PhD is only good basically for teaching (I would actually enjoy this but look at the headlines and the American university environment is toxic) or for research in certain fields (boring or nonexistent in many fields). It’s kind of like saying why didn’t you become an astronaut? Well, I just took a different career path. Sure, it could be a blast but getting a PhD ties you down into one specific career path, and typically only one or two employers per city. I think it might be a fun thing to do nearing retirement, but as of now I’m not going down that route.
          Some college professors can make decent incomes, but ironically where the best teachers are needed (high school) when minds are still developing and being molded, and you have an opportunity to change the future, the pay is lousy.

    3. As an IT instructor of 20 years, for experienced technicians, I can confirm that the most intelligent customers were the ones who were self trained. My concrete experiences made me change my mind about higher education over the years.,

    4. “Is there any point in public debate in a society where millions have been taught what to think, not how to think”- Peter Hitchens.

  7. You point out the looks and athleticism of the “models” used by the Army. But I think you miss the point! Their imminent failure in combat, followed by death is really a force of nature correcting itself against feminism. BY weeding out the weak who should not breed. Sadly, they are not doing us any favors in combat. But genetically, economically, and demographically…they’re doing their country a GREAT service!!!! LOL

    1. The problem is that their incompetence and inability to do *real* combat at the level of men will get other men, men in their own units and “team”, killed.

  8. It all comes down to the “Humans are a blank state” type of thinking that originated during the Enlightment.
    No, humans aren’t equal and will never be. It’s not the job of the government to equalize people to create this illusion.
    Once you accept that humans are not equal, everything makes sense. Men performing better than women, some minorities performing better than others. Otherwise, if they are equal you have to pretend it must be some kind of opression that is responsible for their underperformance.
    That’s the essence of the red pill.
    To destroy SJW you must destroy the foundation of Enlightment, yes, even moderate liberalism is still cancer.
    For example : “People are not equal in nature, but should be equal under law”, usually translates into women should have the right to vote, even if they are not equal to men. But why ? If they cannot take on the same responsibilities(serving in the army, doing shitty jobs) they should not have the same privilleges.
    Denial of nature is what got us here:

    Sex Denialism Is At The Root Of Our Cultural Decline


    Destroy the religion of equality. Accept that humanity is a biological construct and harmony will come back. Once you accept the constrained vision of humanity, homogenous, sexually conservative and hierarchical societies will make sense.
    https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/democracy-and-the-intellectuals/
    Great article, destroys the arguments for democracy, but the part about “noble savages” and blank slate is especially interesting.
    Either way, you can avoid nature, but you can’t avoid the consequences of avoiding nature. This blue pill paradigm will die off as soon as our resources dry up, which they inevitably will.

    (Great video, shows how resources determine the social paradigm, from Patriarchy to Matriarchy and back. From red pill masculinity to blue pill misandry)
    https://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/is-modernity-anti-white/
    Also great article, explains why modernity is anti male and anti white.

    1. I don’t think “blank slate” as originally conceived meant equality. It meant, at least at inception, that we are not born with instincts and have thus to learn things as we progress in life. It did not guarantee that each individual would learn things equally as well as other individuals.
      How it’s used today of course is ludicrous, but then, so is everything else that the Left has twisted and destroyed.

      1. Yes, but to be honest it’s still wrong.
        There is a great book about it. Certain anthropologists with liberal leanings have tried to manipulate research to point out that there are societies on earth that are matriarchies, peaceful, etc. But it turned out to be a big lie. Not only was that not true, the only successful civilizations ever were patriarchies.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
        It turns out without organized societies human turn into savages, not peaceful hippies.
        Not only that, even in term of the nature vs nurture type of debate, great knowledge was acummulated and we know that it’s a lie as well.
        According to HBD research, there are many qualities a person can have, from introverteness to violence, etc.
        Well none of them are 0% voluntary(a.k.a blank state). Not only that, but genetics account form more than 75% of these traits.
        https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/more-behavioral-genetic-facts/ (one of the good articles on the subject)
        So yes, genetical determinism is a thing.
        Nurture matters very little. As long as a child is well fed, grows in a safe environment and has 2 straight non abusive parents, there is little one can do to influence his character.
        TL:DR Genetical determinism is real

      2. Also, it’s not so much that humans are equal, but that they are CAPABLE of being equal. In other words, if you teach a pigmy from birth he can become the next Einstein, that is of course a lie.
        IQ and other predicting factors are mostly biological and cannot be changed much by “nurturing”.
        Blank state is wrong, genetic determinism is real.
        Great video that explains how IQ is a great predictor of life outcomes, and that it’s mostly genetic.

  9. The Great European empires (Prussian, Austrian, etc.) are rarely mentioned but provided great societies with schools and hospitals along side the Catholic Church. People would demand to be led by a royal family. England once was led by a non-English speaking king, who did quite well.

    1. But their greatest king, and the only one entitled with that adjective “Great” was Aelfred the Great, who spoke and wrote his native Wessex Saxon dialect with great fluency.
      Just a side note that had nothing really at all to do with your point, heh.

    1. Fuck that noise. I say hit women preemptively. From what I can tell being single and having a good track record, they love being choked and slapped in the face.

        1. yup. ask isn’t even the word. They will beg for it and if you don’t give it to them they will find someone who will.

  10. Brilliant piece! Alas, this cancer has spread everywhere, not just in the Western world. I live in South East Europe, and I gotta tell you folks: it fucking sucks. Young boys are basically raised to became spineless beta schlubs. And you know what’s the biggest lie ever told to men? “Girls/women are angels, under no circumstance should you slap her.” I shit you not. When I was a kid, people used to tell me all the time: “You should be nice to all girls, you should treat her as a princess and shit like that.” Hell, every book I read was about some simpering beta male jumping through hoops just to prove himself to a chick. It was always about her, always. You might think that being raised in a former Communist country is alpha as fuck, but it’s not. Needless to say, all this feminist propaganda fucked me up. I grew up to become an insecure, shy and socially awkward guy. High school was pure hell. No, I wasn’t picked on or anything, but I constantly felt like shit for not being able to find a girlfriend. Now I know why. The author is right when he says that, generally speaking, men are caring, empathetic and romantic, qualities which females clearly lack. Girls/women are the coldest creatures in the entire fucking universe. They know nothing of loyalty, gratitude or empathy. I’ve been fed some of the biggest lies ever, and I have yet to pick up all the parts. It’s been a rough ride but I never gave in to pressure and all the shit, never will. I want to thank all the authors here on ROK and everyone who has contributed in the comment sections. From now on I will treat women like garbage, to inflict on them the same pain I had to go through my teen and college years. Call me a psycho, I could give a shit. I will take the high road.

  11. Insightful article, although I have to disagree with the point on democracy. The Founding Fathers of the US never intended to create a true democracy. Rather, their model of government was republican government (note the small “r”), where the passions of the masses are filtered by their elected representatives in government. Originally, the Electoral College that votes the President was chosen by the states, and then they were supposed to cast the actual votes. Voting in state elections at the time was also restricted pretty much to white male landowners. Both the Founding Fathers and the ancient Greeks feared the “demos” or rule by the mob. The Founding Fathers considered their ideal government to be that of the early Roman Republic, when each male citizen had a civic duty to fight for the Republic and participate in politics. The Republic unfortunately degenerated into the mass slavery and demagoguery of the Empire. History repeats itself.

    1. Whatever the founders intended, it resulted in the system we have today. If a “limited” voting system inevitably leads to mob rule in as little as 200 years, an *incredibly* short time in the grand scheme of things, then it was a bad idea. I don’t blame them for trying; indeed it was an awesome experiment and that is how civilization learns and develops. But it was ultimately a failure and should not be repeated again.

      1. Their system failed because there were no safeguards in place against politicians distorting the original intent. Everything they wrote was pretty clear and easily understandable by the common man, hell there are more words in a Toyota Owner’s Manual than in the Constitution (or articles of Confederation). I suspect that the Amendment process should have been tightened up considerably and that the word “shall not infringe” and “make no law” have strong, even death sentence, level penalties ascribed to them against politicians. I’d also say that a major flaw was not allocating a mandatory sunset law on all bills, with a higher “vote to keep” it ratio than to pass it originally, but maybe that’s just me (Hell, I’m all for instituting a House of Repeals, for goodness sake).
        Without incentives to not change the entire meaning of this form of government, it changes. That was their mistake. The rest, pretty much was awesomesauce.

        1. Re: the death sentence, Kings would execute people in their own inner circle fairly commonly, for treason. (Sir Thomas More comes to mind, and there is a truly superb portrayal in the recent PBS Wolf Hall that I highly recommend). It is a practice that needs to be reinstituted (paging James Clapper?)

        2. When the SCOTUS granted themselves the power to interpret the Constitution, it essentially rendered the document meaningless. Good lawyers can find ambiguities in almost anything.

        3. I agree. They should have been hauled out of their vaunted chambers, keel hauled, hanged, burned then the ashes stomped into the mud. They literally performed a judicial coup d’etat.

        4. “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”

        5. I agree to a point, but in truth, the Judiciary would always have to interpret the Constitution if you were going to try to enforce your rights against the government. A potential fix might be for the constitution to have a set of rules of interpretation, the way that modern contracts do. Back then, the Founders assumed, wrongly, that the common sense meanings of things to them would endure. “Progressive” judges seize on the change in understanding and usage of words over time to reinterpret words and concepts through a modern lens since nothing constrains it.
          For example, the term “militia” meant something different in the 1700’s than it does today, but today the public has twisted this to mean either some group of whack jobs living in the woods, or the military – neither of which is a correct representation of what the Founders believed. A court’s, and the government’s, power could be severely constrained if the constitution had simply included a clause that said something along the lines of “all words in this document are to be construed according to their common meaning and understanding at the time of drafting.” (could probably be better worded, just typing while I think).

      2. The Founding Fathers also did not have any historical basis for predicting what would happen. They were used to dealing with absolute monarchs, not self-serving career politicians and bureaucrats who would enhance their own wealth at the expense of the electorate.
        I would imagine that if someone brought out a crystal ball and the Founding Fathers would have had some idea of what would happen, they’d have framed things a lot differently.

        If a “limited” voting system inevitably leads to mob rule in as little as 200 years, an *incredibly* short time in the grand scheme of things, then it was a bad idea.

        It didn’t even take that long for things to go “off the rails” the way the Founding Fathers envisioned. Things like gerrymandering and judicial review were well into place even not that long after the Constitution was ratified.

        1. I give the founders full credit for trying something new and unique. This is the scientific method put to work: Propose an idea or hypothesis, try it, observe the results. I credit them for trying something new, and it did give us an awesome country for a while. Now it’s up to the next generation to build on the strengths and witnesses observed in this experiment, and create something new and better somewhere else on the globe.

        2. I do agree that with everything the Founding Fathers did know, that they came up with the best possible system at the time.

  12. Lie #5. America was founded on the Christian principles of the Christian founding fathers.
    While many of America’s founding fathers were devout Christians, a significant number of people like George Washington, Robert Paine, John Sullivan, John Hancock, James McHenry, John Glover, Henry Knox, Jacob Broom, John Fitzgerald, Richard Montgomery, Gunning Bedford, Daniel Carroll, William Whipple, John Dickson, and Benjamin Franklin, among others were all Masons with connections to Egyptian and astrological belief systems.
    Some of the founding fathers who were Masons went on to do great work in promoting the Bible and Christian values. Conversely, others may have understood and embraced Masonry’s universal-ism.
    Masonry is not Christian; nor is it Mohammedan nor Jewish nor to be classified by the name of any other sect. The Lodge is a universal melting pot of religions and mystical concepts i.e. the world today. The idea of Human Equality (Brotherhood) and Internationalism (Globalism) are the brain children of the Lodge.
    Freemasonry is still significant in the sense that today’s interfaith movement has its roots firmly planted in the soil of the Lodge. Moreover, Freemasonry has been a tangible and influential force within this country’s societal makeup since the beginning, especially at leadership levels.
    Even the Boston Tea party and the American Revolution have tight historical connections with the Lodge. The entire city of Washington DC, including large sections of its street lay out, is liberally laced with the fingerprints of Freemasonry and astrological symbolism. Moreover, Washington Monument, the tallest structure in the capital city, is an openly recognized Masonic edifice, with a meaning directly connected to ancient Egyptian belief systems.
    But what about Thomas Jefferson? Jefferson was religious, but his version of Christianity was centered on a different version of “deism” than is normally associated with orthodox Christianity. He wrote his own bible – miracle-less, and with Jesus still in the tomb.
    All of these issues, plus others, are cause for serious concern regarding the historical foundation of America.

  13. I know people who knew the late Marvin Minsky. This ultimate Jewish brainiac nerd, whom Isaac Asimov, no slouch himself in Jewish nerdiness, called one of the most intelligent men he knew, had a wife and a family, like a regular guy; and despite going bald early in life.
    Yet a similar man now starting out in life would probably wind up as an incel, like all those 40 year old virgins in Silicon Valley, because by today’s standards women would consider his intelligence and nerdishness a deal breaker, not to mention his physical appearance.

    1. Women say they want a sweet, caring, intelligent and romantic guy, but they always go for the opposite type of guy. Talk about hypocrisy. Never pay attention to what women say, see what they do instead.

      1. It’s important to appreciate that they’re not “lying”, they simply believe both truths. That’s what allows her to think one thing and respond to another, to straddle two apparently contradictory realities. Thus, she will fuck the dude the. Call her boyfriend for a ride in the morning. She kissed him hello too.

    2. With the exception of Jewish women it seems that the majority of women have absolutely no interest in their husband’s intellectual and spiritual life, but, I think this is a blessing. Besides very intelligent and creative guys and, not just the nerdy types, are saved from women domination syndrome through their natural intelligence and curiosity in matters way beyond the average women’s interests and insights.

    3. “40 year old virgins in Silicon Valley” I really doubt that. Women have statistically been shown to crave power and money more than looks. (it’s because they can then use that power and money to gain manipulative control over others)

      1. Right, but if they can do that without fucking… That’s power. These guys ultimately create resentment in their women.

  14. Men and women are equal? Hmm, walk past any building site, who’s doing at the heavy lifting and dangerous work? You’ve got it. When you make this point to a feminism that always back track and say “Well, of course, but building sites are very sexist environments that discriminate against women”…..BS…as (a) Women don’t have the strength and “know-how” to make and fix buildings (b) Women don’t function well in teams and (c) If you had an all female team on a building site the building would either never be completed or would collapse/sink after a few weeks.

    1. You guys always talk about that, but what was in the constitution that actually safeguards from demagogues (not “demos”)?

        1. No where are women barred from voting in the constitution. In fact, many states had already let women vote before that amendment.

  15. You know what’s fucking annoying? If the equality of the sexes myth persists, people a hundred years from now will read pieces of history like those fuckin female soldier biographies and think wow, these women really kicked some ass.
    No. No they didn’t. They were the first women to be GIVEN “x” position in the military. That is their one and only accomplishment. Literally the only notable thing they ever did.
    Really makes me wonder about all the “first woman to do/be x” stuff throughout history

    1. Amelia Earhart, she basically sat in the back of the plane while her male pilots flew for her.
      Marie Curie, she did real work and contributed to society, but her husband Pierre, for some odd reason (feminism) get’s absolutely no credit in modern textbooks. (they both jointly got the Nobel price in physics in 1903 btw).
      Every famous female singer (Madonna, t swift, Katy Perry, etc.)has or had male agents, producers, co-musicians, song writers, lyricists, who really did all of the important work. They were just gifted in the voice or promoted very well.
      Just look at this list: http://www.biographyonline.net/people/famous/100-women.html
      How many of these women really made any contributions to society?

    2. Nope female soldiers have a bad rep and our decedents would laugh at our incompetence to deal with these problems

  16. On a dating profile I said I was looking for an XX female. They deleted this because it was against their terms and conditions….!

      1. (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

        I was NOT ready for that song!Posted by Durtey on Sunday, September 27, 2015

  17. I’m going to take issue with your point about democracy. Pure democracy is a HUGE problem but democracy with limits placed on government power does have many merits. And the model I am using is not the Constitution for the Constitution fails in two specific ways: 1) it gives too much power to the national government and this allows for government to undermine the rights of states which are the guardians of individual freedom; 2) the Constitution is an attempt to impose a central governing authority across a vast and diverse nation with no respect for regional differences (federalism is a myth and always has been in spite of what we were taught in school).
    If you are to remember anything I’ve communicated in what I’ve written then remember this: The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence have nothing in common. And when I say Constitution, I mean the general body of that document not the Bill of Rights. Remember, the general body of the Constitution was formed by people who opposed the addition of a Bill of Rights.

  18. This deserves a follow-up:
    Will Ammon Bundy’s Oregon Uprising Herald A Revolt Against The U.S. Government?

    Will Ammon Bundy’s Oregon Uprising Herald A Revolt Against The U.S. Government?


    I think we can say, “No.”
    What a ridiculous protest. The U.S. Government does a lot of bad things, but locking up desert and wilderness land in the Western states doesn’t cause much harm as such. The land can’t go anywhere, and it can revert to private ownership some day. You can reverse this a lot more easily than you can reverse the consequences of our immigration clusterfuck.
    As for this Lavoy Finicum character who apparently reached for a pistol while resisting arrest – what a dumbass thing to do. I heard him on an interview earlier this month on John & Ken’s radio show on KFI in Los Angeles, and he didn’t strike me as sophisticated or intelligent. In fact, he reminds me of a lot of other white rural Arizonans I know from living near Prescott. They seem like basically decent people, and they can handle wrangling horses and cows competently; but they don’t have any business LARPing as political philosophers or revolutionists against tyranny.
    The Oregon fiasco also shows what a huge scam the survivalist industry has going for it. These companies frighten unworldly, mostly rural whites with propaganda about economic collapse, martial law, FEMA camps and similar fantasies so that they can sell these rubes survival equipment & supplies that they can’t afford and will probably never have to use.

    1. The Bundy et al are not too bright, but the cause they were fighting for (the Hammonds’ judicial kidnapping) is legit. The BLM wants the Hammonds’ land, and got them railroaded on a BS “terrorism” charge for burning grass in the middle of nowhere.
      They set a backfire to stop a fire that was threatening their ranch (something the BLM does all the time). It worked. The local authorities arrested them initially, but then decided there was no case.
      5 years later, the feds decided to charge them with terrorism, and managed to get them convicted using some shady tactics. They were sentenced to 12 months and 3 months, served their sentences, and went home.
      The feds then appealed and got them sentenced to 5 years each. For burning grass. In the middle of nowhere. If the Bundys were going to make a stand, it should have been with the Hammonds, though. Once the Hammonds turned themselves in, it was a lost cause.

    2. “Oregon fiasco also shows what a huge scam the survivalist industry has going for it. These companies frighten unworldly, mostly rural whites with propaganda about economic collapse, martial law, FEMA camps and similar fantasies so that they can sell these rubes survival equipment & supplies that they can’t afford and will probably never have to use.”
      Yeah, and Fox News isn’t exactly helping either.

  19. “but imagine fighting Hitler’s top generals with a team of women.”
    Ask the Soviets how that worked out for them…

    1. Did the soviets really send their tanks out to fight manned by females? Were they that short of bodies or were the Russian women that hungry for payback? I have heard of the harshness of German warfare on the Russian people. Ironic, given that Russians and Germans both have the very same physical traits the Nazi’s are reported to have been so keen about specifically blond hair, blue eyes and fair complexion with blood in the face.

      1. I once read somewhere that Russia once preferred female snipers. I can’t remember if it was for World War II though. They did have one successful sniper (I believe she went by the name Lyudmila) but even she died in an artillery attack.

        1. I have often puzzled over the central European states penchant for invading Russia and never have I read or heard an adequate justification for such behavior or the rational behind it. In abstract it is almost like Russia is the masculine archetype working hard for self-sufficient peaceful co-exsitance with his fellow humans while France and Germany along with the Anglo-American power base is the greedy self serving female that is after the poor fellows hard earned goods. Determined she is to take what she has not labored for. Suddenly I find myself feeling very unsettled.

        2. My mother’s father is a proud son of Russia. Hard working and smart working and perhaps the last bastion of real masculinity in the world. Have you heard about the megalithic structures and strange metal structures in the Siberian wilderness?

        3. Stop. There are many patriarchal societies in the world. Most of the middle east, Africa and China. Europe is not the entire world.

        4. I take it you consider Russia a European society, or at the very least an extension of Europe. I do not in addition our genes ultimately determine where our hearts find a home. I am Russian and Sephardic so I resonate with those groups. If your DNA is from another group and you want to seek to build upon that patriarchy because your heart is there then I salute you friend. Peace is the hardest situation to create and human kind is tribalistic at the level of its DNA. That said after watching that video my genes were positively humming. It is not something I can help, being proud of my tribe. In this I think is why the American ideal is one that must take place over many many consecutive generations and look, it is already coming apart at the seams due to mismanagement and gyno-centrism. So humanities best hope for peace through genetic mixing is not even going to get off the ground as it has been swallowed whole by profiteering and liberal insanity. Our women and children rule over us, get the hell out while you still can.

    2. Germany fought Russian men almost exclusively. Women were snipers and arty support, and generally little else and ONLY after the city had been razed by Germans and they were fighting for their lives.
      Women are awful warriors. I was a warrior, I saw what happens when you put real women in real situations that require warriors – they fail. Every. Fucking. Time. If she “succeeds” it’s because there were twelve or more men behind her picking up her shit for her.

      1. Saw exaclty that Iraq. Women in uniform are pure dead weight. They make it harder on the men next to them as they have to pick up her slack.

  20. Many men are manginas and have sold out their own kind. Gorbatschew, in one of his interviews said that before making an important decision, he always consulted with his wife. Well, we all know how that ended…

  21. I am beginning to wonder if the most ancient stories of (if memory serves) the Dogon people of Africa relating humanities original state and the cause of its change in fact has merit and potentially be true. In the story the Earth was veiled in a perpetual mist and overcast creating a very stable and verdant climate. Mankind was hermaphroditic and enjoyed incredible psychic powers as well as complete harmony with all our fellow creatures. One day huge cubic craft descended through the clouds and after the clouds dissipated a race of reptilian beings came out from the cubes. They told human kind that they wanted peace and in order to help human beings they bade our ancestors to go into one of two caves. One cave glowed with a green light and the other glowed with a red light. After our ancestors emerged from the cave they had diverged into male or female and had lost the ability to psychically connect with the life around them. After this changed it is also related in the story that the reptilians laughed and then returned to their cubes and left. It is a very ancient story and has been related by these African people. Interesting to say the least.

      1. Coast to Coast AM if memory serves, it has been a very long time ago but it was on one of those types of radio shows like Art Bell used to do. It is the kind of thing you either consider or you reject out of hand though so I am not sure why a source would matter. I am fairly certain it was a Coast to Coast show though with John B Wells if a remember.

  22. 1. Your country gives a shit about you. 2. We are a nation of laws. 3. All are equal before the law. 4. Perjury is a serious crime. 5. Police can be trusted. 6. Your lawyer is on your side. These are the supposed truths taught to me in grammar school that my trip through the birth canal of the gynocentric legal sausage grinder proved to be lies of cosmic proportions. God bless the Red Pill. It has set me free.

      1. You are sadly mistaken, my friend. Cops, with their guns, are the enforcement mechanism of the Blue Pill World. If you challenge the dictates of the BPW with Red Pill concepts of individual freedom, equality before the law, etc., cops will always obey the hand that feeds them and crush you like a bug. Cops are the antithesis of the Red Pill.

        1. I speak from personal experience regarding cops lack of accountability, disdain for the truth, and the ease that they commit perjury with the blessing of judges and prosecutors. Also, every defense attorney will tell you to never ever speak with cops because by law they are allowed to lie to you. The Red Pill is about truth. Cops are about lies. Ask your question to the hundreds wrongly sentenced to death row by lying cops that have been exonerated by the Innocence Project. You, my friend, are either a LEO or woefully naive.

        2. Before I continue on with you, please answer the following questions. (1) Are you a LEO? (2) Give me some details of your personal experience as a defendant in the criminal justice system.

        3. Thanks for the honest reply. I will assume that you currently think like I once did. I believed in the system and my country. My trip through the legal sausage grinder involved a false DV charge by my lying, adulterous, money laundering wife and her cop friends. I discovered the system is about everything but the truth. In fact, the system bends over backwards to assure embarrassing truths and facts never see the light of day. The system is all about making business for itself and protecting its members – cops, judges, and all lawyers. People commenting on the criminal justice system without ever having been the guest of honor in a courtroom are like a virgin commenting about sex because they had sex-ed in high school. They really have no idea what they are talking about. I hope and pray that you never acquire the knowledge to speak factually about cops. Such an education is very painful and expensive to obtain. This is why I suggest you refrain from blindly supporting cops. You don’t know the facts, you are supporting the myth. Cheers.

        4. It was the cops, period. Her female cop friend was the arresting officer. When some of their “evidence” was discovered by the DA to have been gathered illegally the chief of police helped concoct the cover story. And don’t get me started about the lies the cops told on the stand. You appear to be firmly in the cop/system trusting tradcon group. I pity you. When they come for you one day don’t cry for help because by then there will be no one left to help you. Just ask the Jews and Gypsies of the late 1930’s. Ciao, our conversation is over.

  23. “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
    ― Benjamin Franklin

  24. If people think gender is a construct and it’s fluid, then why don’t we watch a man and a woman fight.

  25. Great article, but I think you could have elaborated on the gender thing. As any SJW will tell you, sex and gender refer to different things. Most SJWs will agree that there are only two sexes, male and female, which are primary sex characteristics. Gender is determined by secondary sex characteristics, and that’s where the waters become muddy because S.S.C. are “social constructs” or merely the subjective feelings of someone. For instance, a female might have short hair and unshaved body and these two male S.S.C. would be enough for this female to be the gender “man”. She might also identify as a man but like I said that’s just a subjective feeling that may or may not have any basis in reality.
    That being said, gender theorists have to ignore a whole lot about human biology for their hypothesis (which they treat like a theory because it’s social “science”…) because most secondary sex characteristics are also defined by biology. Almost everything can be boiled down to the reproductive dynamics between humans. Why is it women and not men who wear lipstick? Because women’s lip mimick their labia and it increases their chances of reproducing if they enhance that, which is already very alluring to men. Why is it women that are gold-diggers? Because it’s in their instinct to seek ressources to raise healthy offsprings. Why is it women that enjoy fashion? Because they can enhance their own SMV and tell poor men apart from rich men because only the rich men will be able to afford that Hugo Boss suit and that Rolex watch. If that dynamic didn’t exist, men would be wearing what is fonctionnal, not what is good looking and expensive.
    On that note, I just stumbled on something even crazier. This woman has been living like a cat for the last 20 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWeBunPiIzo

    1. Interesting re: lipstick and the labia. I have always wondered why in humans it is the female who is brightly colored and flashy to attract a mate where in most animals it is the male (the female is the drab, ugly grey bird while the male is the colorful peacock)

      1. As a layman, I would say it boils down to the way sexual dimorphism manifests in each species. I would argue that in both species, the female is the one choosing her partner and not the other way around and the way males manage to be chosen is by competing with other males.
        The evolutionnary strategy for male peacocks was to evolve visual cues that would catch the attention of the female and, most importantly, the males fight amongst each others to decide who is the stronger specimen, therefore the most suited for reproduction. The females choose those.
        In humans, the sexual dimorphism is much less obvious. Apart from genitalia, males and females are pretty much the same, especially if you go back to the times when humans were still very much hirsute. Males had to find another way to compete between themselves and catch the attention of the females. Competition for ressources was the answer. Males evolved bigger brains and bigger muscle mass than the females because they are the one who need to compete, whether it’s in a law firm or with their fists in a dirty cave, to get ressources. As a counterpart, males seek signs of heatlh and fertility in females. Ultimately, females chooses the males they are going to mate with because they are the limiting factor in reproduction and the process puts their survival at a greater risk therefore they have to choose a high value male who will be able to provide from them.
        TL;DR: males and females aren’t that different from the outside, bigger brains and muscle means more ressources, more ressources means more access to high value females because females aren’t able to get them by themselves especially when they are pregnant or raising a child and they need those ressources they can only get from high value men to raise healthy offsprings. Peacocks can’t compete for ressources so the males rely on looks and brute strength.

    1. Sounds like you’re going to the wrong gym.
      There are fatties in my gym, but they are few compared to the lithe gazelle types I see there. And frankly I encourage the fatties to keep attending, because the result will be another lithe gazelle if they continue to go to the gym and exercise and eat right. It’s win win for everybody.

      1. No they join for 6 weeks and drop out and say they were born fat, and they are replaced by an unlimited supply of other females like them. It never gets better, it gets worse year after year, to the point where they are all like that now.

        1. Most of the time, yes, agreed. I call them the Two Week Terrors at the gym. January 2nd is day one and fourteen days later you never see them again.
          But…
          That one or two that stick around (sometimes only one, sometimes none, but sometimes one…) and make gains have my respect.

  26. Only 3 of the 4 are correct.
    Gender Is Nonbinary And Fluid isn’t something men have been taught growing up.
    And besides, you were also taught Santa Claus was real, so if you still
    believe in these 4 things in the article past puberty you’re retarded.
    1) Anyone can see there are fundamental differences between men and women.
    2) If you have a penis you’re male, if you have a vagina you’re female. If you have a combination or a lack of either, you’re an abnormality. Simple as that.
    3) Democracy has failed utterly as a concept, any schoolboy worth his salt knows this.
    4) You can’t be viewed as equal, and in the same breath excuse someone’s behavior based on gender.

      1. No he wasn’t German. He was Greek from Anatolia. That isn’t “santa” anyways because real Saint Nick is long dead.

    1. “If you have a combination or a lack of either, you’re an abnormality” typically those people can be pushed over into one or the other category pretty easily.

    1. Sex is binary. You’re either a male or a female. If you’re something else genetically, you’re abnormal and likely suffering from a very bad type of genetic disease or birth defect (YYX, XXX, etc)
      Gender is a word that has always been used to describe nouns in many Indo-European languages, insofar as it is required to match the nouns to the proper adjectives of the same gender. The feminists snatched “gender” from out of nowhere, applied different terms to it, and substituted it for “Sex” around the late 1970’s or so. If you look at any standard form from prior to the 1990’s it always asks “Sex” not “Gender”.
      It was a verbal hoodwink, kind of like what they did with the word “Liberal” in the 1920’s.

      1. I’m going to ask you again. Could you please write an article for ROK with all these language details? Thanks.

        1. I’d love to see an article on language written by someone. I would volunteer but I have another idea in the works..

  27. Number 1. I would say the only sustainable relationship one could have with a women in uniform is with some one else in uniform. I honestly wish I would have never gotten married, with that said if I had to do it all over again and get married it would be to another service member. All of the nasty one sided regulations go out the window with duel service member marriages. Also you have some one actually understands that life. Additionally her pay will always be equal to that of yours, in some cases she may be posted in more advantageous duty stations meaning you are less likely to get completely fucked over. I am in the Marines though as I have said before on these boards, we still have a fairly conservative view of women and as a senior leader I work with mine if they are dual service member households.

  28. Re: pronouns
    I bristled the first time I heard the gender-neutral pronoun “ze” (instead of “he” or “she”).
    Then I realized that it’s not such a big deal. I speak Spanish, and that language doesn’t have words for “his” or “her” — it only uses the gender-neutral possessive pronoun “su”.

    1. What do you mean spanish has no pronouns for gender? El? Ella? “Yo trabajé con Maria. Ella tiene ojos azules.” I worked with Mary. She has blue eyes.

      1. Read my comment again. Yes, Spanish has gender specific personal subject and object pronouns, just like English, but it doesn’t have gender-specific POSSESSIVE pronouns. “His” and “her” = “su”.

        1. Your comment very obviously implied that Spanish is gender neutral. It is extremely not. Every word has a gender to it. You can’t get a more binary language

        2. No, beefhambone, not every word in Spanish has a gender to it. That was my entire fucking point.
          “Su” is a POSSESSIVE pronoun that is used to show either a man or a woman possessing something. “Su familia” can mean either “his family” or “her family”. Listen to Spanish speakers when they speak English (my current girlfriend is from Barcelona) and you hear them tripping over this all the time because gender specificity doesn’t exist in this tiny corner of their language.
          What the SJWs are suggesting in “ze” is already being done in Spanish, and 200 million very horny macho Latin guys who’ve never set eyes upon an SJW, and wouldn’t know what the hell to make of one if they did, are quite happy using it.
          Did you understand that? Or should I write it in fucking Spanish next time?

        3. Sorry guys…I replied too quickly before reading the thread regarding Spanish gender pronouns and whatnot. Carry on.
          Oh, and thanks beefhambone, for the hair-splitting exhibition. I rather enjoyed it…outstanding!!

    2. Its not a big deal its a HUGE deal. We don’t change he English language because a very small group of people are triggered and, moreover, are basing this change on bullshit.

      1. That was my first reaction too. But as I said, Spanish and other languages do this, and the practice removes the horrible “his/her” dilemma (we don’t know which one to use when speaking about a hypothetical person).
        Try to forget that the SJWs are pushing the change. Look at it on its own merits.

        1. But will Spanish remove the words “ello” y “ella” to keep pace with the SJW gender-neutralizing BS?

  29. Joining the service was the best thing to open my eyes to the real world. I witnessed a lot of cheating among both males and females. I witnessed female service members completely suck at their jobs and still get promoted. Best of all though…I traveled. I found out how un-Disney like the world really is. We Americans are sold many lies, other than those listed here.

  30. My red pill awakening in relation to females was when I went balls deep in a young Australian college girl only an hour after meeting her in a bar. She had her bf pick her up the next morning. It was the beginning of my awakening.

    1. You mean an awakening to how sex is fun, for both genders, and that it’s OK for a woman to have a one night stand with a person she’s only known for an hour, just like you? You met her, and only knowing her for an hour, YOU fucked her brains out. You wanted that and so did she. You WANTED her to have sex with you, as evidenced by you actually fucking her. Now that you actually got to fuck her – you seem surprised? – you’re basically saying she’s a whore who shattered your preconceived notions of what a good woman was? Like you didn’t know that there were women who might cheat on their boyfriends with random men, knowing them for only an hour, just as a man might cheat on his girlfriend? And then you’re using your own experience to imply the behavior of a majority of women?
      Only a turd would have sex with a woman only an hour after meeting her and then turn around and use that fact to insinuate that she’s a slut.
      Do you not realize how fucking stupid that is? You sound like you don’t even like or appreciate women. I almost find it odd that you enjoy having sex with them, and that’s not a gay joke. It’s just strange – you’re perfectly willing to have sex with this woman for your own gratification, and yet you denigrate her for participating in the very thing you wanted from her! It makes no sense!

    1. actually I think most women are cats trapped in a female body. It’s just the stoopid gender crap that needs abolition through extreme prejudice

        1. Personally I prefer dogs. However, I do like the sense of apathy and indifference that cats show towards stuff in general, like what I show towards the presidential election.

        2. I agree, but you don’t see cats dying their hair bright red or bitching about their situation in life. Nor do they talk about the rape culture they suffer from (although I hear the local strays going off like mating hurts).

        3. And cats will scratch you in the face if you try to dress them in sweaters. And instead of bitching, they just go and kill birds and pick fights with animals. Like owls. Now THAT there is fucking alpha my friend.

        4. I wonder, with the owl’s large forward-facing eyes, that the cat didn’t howl and hiss because he/she thought the owl was another cat. You gotta admit, some owls appear vaguely feline, and cats have poor detail vision (unless it’s dark)

    2. We are two sexes, not genders.??? What about Caitlyn Jenner ?? & Conchita Wurst ?? & half the population of Kalifornia ??

      1. Yup, genetic testing makes that clear. And what about them? Does being mentally ill not need treatment? Hormones and reassignment surgeries have not resolved the primary issue; ask a trained professional.
        I can hardly wait to see the so-called “species reassignment” surgery this one in Norway will want at the expense of the taxpayers. The illness is just beginning to gain steam.

        1. I can hardly wait to see the so-called “species reassignment” surgery ?? No need, have a look around you all the pigs which didn’t have a “species reassignment” surgery??
          Some of those pigs speak English, some don’t ??

      2. Caitlyn Jenner is really just a mentally ill man named Bruce that dresses like a woman and calls himself Caitlyn. He will always be Bruce to me….just a deranged old emasculated man that now dresses like a woman.

  31. I think americans would have a great chance of winning the revolution. Who do you think would Russia and China support with weapons and money? 😉

  32. Ah, #2. the Baskin Robins approach to sex! #4. Also keep in mind that just because a girl is chaste and pure, sexually speaking, doesn’t mean she’s necessarily going to be sweet and innocent in her attitude. Virginity isn’t everything, a man doesn’t always have to touch a girl to turn her cold and bitter towards men, and just like anyone else, some virgins are mentally ill or just bitchy. Rarer doesn’t always mean better. That being said, this world you speak of in which “men are more loving, caring, empathetic, romantic, and emotional than women”, is a very strange concept to me. Whether that’s because I as a woman pedastalize my own sex or have acquired a wrongly prejudiced view of men (through personal experience, media brainwashing, or just looking at things wrong), because you as men pedastalize your own sex or have acquired a wrongly prejudiced view of women (through personal experience, media brainwashing, or just looking at things wrong), or because I in fact am living in a different but parallel universe from the one most ROK writers live in, I do not know.

  33. Always the Monarchy vs Democracy Debate, I’d rather have a say in My Government, even if it was a small say, then having no say at all.

    1. We had Monarchy ?? We have Democracy ?? We had Fascism ??We had Communism ? Nothing work ?? We didn’t have yet Anarchy ?? Let us try it ?? Maybe it will work…
      BTW I don’t mean Bakunin Anarchy, but Kropotkin Anarchy…

        1. Get on google, PDF Kropotkin ” Mutual aid, a factor of evolution” This will enlighten you on Kropotkin Anarchism & then you can google, Bakunin & be enlighten by his idea ?? Bakunin dogma is actually used today by neo-Trotskyist or you can call them neo-con, I would say that ISIS/DAESH is a islamic Bakunism ???In a nutshell Bakunin only appeal to the darker side oh humanism, as opposite to Kropotkin…

        1. Read.. Kropotkin “Mutual aid a factor of evolution” Free PDF download on google.. This will give you an idea ??
          BTW book can be obtained at Forgotten Books site….

  34. Democracy: If I work Hard Enough, and Commit Myself, I could Become the Next President and Leader.
    Monarchy: Unless i’m Lucky enough to be Pushed Out of a Royal Pair Of Legs I can not be The king/Leader.
    .
    Democracy: I can Vote for the Candidate I like.
    Monarchy: I Hope the King who gets Pushed out From Between Royal Legs Is going to be a Decent Ruler.
    .
    Democracy: Sure this President Sucks, but Luckily he Has a Term Limit.
    Monarchy: Yes the King Is terrible, we Got him for Life.
    .

        1. By the look of your rant I am not sure you would understand. It involves God, it involves believing in strong nation and army, also very controlled economy, no corporations and lot less “freedoms”. No homosexuals. No transgenders. Strong families and hard work.

        2. Ok, well In America, A lot of people Believe in God, A lot of People want the Nation to be Strong, and Military Strong as well, the Economy is Basically Free minus unnecessary Government Regulation and America has More Freedoms than Most of the world. I agree there is a Homosexual Problem with Homo Propaganda, and The Family Unit is under attack by Feminism, but Luckily in America we have Elections because of Democracy, and Hopefully when Obama leaves, we’ll Elect Trump.

        3. you have a two party system. God is just a phrase for Americans and something that is mentioned in every speech but nothing more. Economy is multinational companies that drive people to believe expensive shit and yachts are more important than having big a family and lot of kids. Freedom is the reason why shit hit the fan. All this worldwide rainbow propaganda is connected to that- so called freedom. Doesn’t matter who you elect. Election does not change people. People will still be obsessed by horrible music and idiotic technology which serves no purpose. I am not sure you people realize how deep is the hole you’re in. And I don’t hate you. I pray for your souls.

        4. you are going to hate me for saying this but you need someone like Putin. A Person who would enter a congress with a firing squad. Person who is impervious to pressure of big business and money. Media forces people out of work if they even SAY something remotely homophobic or racist in your country. It is like a dog that gets beaten with newspapers if he chews his owners slipper. It has come to pass that communist countries now have healthier sociological environment than you. This is unthinkable. You need a gardener. A brutal gardener. I do not think Trump will be up to the task. He is a businessman. Business is jews playground. They always win.

    1. yup.. Just a small quote for you to ponder on “democracy”??
      It is enough that the people know there was an election.
      The people who cast the votes decide nothing.
      The people who count the votes decide everything.
      Joseph Stalin

    2. I used to believe in all that freedom and voting stuff too. I wonder if you are younger than me (30s). Wait until you actually believe in some candidate and get jaded by him. The truth is you or I cannot become president. No one who is not from an elite family will become president. Look at the current crop of Bush vs. Clinton vs. Trump who inherited more money than everyone on ROK combined will see in their lifetime.
      The chances, historically, of the next king being pushed out from a royal crotch, after decades of schooling, education, training in logic and reason and compassion and leadership and his country’s history and furthering his own legacy, and being God’s Own Representative here on earth (not that I believe that, but it is a big title to live up to) being a decent leader versus hoping that one out of the two schmucks that the Dems or Repubs stick you with will be a good ruler, well it’s no contest.
      I get you on term limits, but how much has actually changed in the US? Supposedly Obama is some hard core extremist leftist commie but when you break it down he has only mimicked the worst policies of the W administration, and doubled down on them. Obama care is simply an expansion of the prescription drug plan that W implemented. And there are many more examples.
      I am at heart a libertarian and this sounds odd because I doubt many libertarians could stomach the idea of submitting to a king. BUT, if you understand that REALISTICALLY you are going to live under some type of government that limits your rights and rules over you, then a monarchy is one of the better systems.

      1. To submit to a King’s authority is a powerful commitment of body and soul for any man to make. You should never submit the most precious gifts you posses as a man until you determine the value of that which you sacrifice your life for. Rarely is a King’s soul any nobler than that of the common man’s soul.

        1. In theory it sounds awful to submit to another human like this. However, in practice, typically submitting to a king required less of a financial, personal, and moral commitment than submitting to the leviathan crypto-state that the “free” modern democracies are.

        2. I haven’t thought about the idea of submission in this way for a long while. The idea is so antithetical and repellent to the modern democratic mindset that believes it’s sovereign and free, which it ins’t of course, that even a conservative rarely entertains the notion these days. . However, even though I tend to value very highly my independence and personal sovereign, I would nevertheless loyally commit, perhaps even submit, and forfeit these values for a leader or king whom I believed was worthy of such an act of negation on my part. I suspect in this world, I’ll never encounter one who’ll make this impression so strongly upon me, but, it’s nevertheless a possibility no matter how remote, that one day I might make.

        3. I’m an individualist, perhaps an atomist, and a Nietzian even if I can’t spell it. I don’t like the idea of submitting or being under anyone or any institution. However, if there *IS* any value to certain institutions like religion (used to control moral behavior and regulate access to sex and families) or nationalism (used to create group cohesiveness so that individuals can cooperate and accomplish more than they could individually) then I see the monarch as simply the symbol for all this the same way a flag is.
          It’s a really fucking stupid idea to think that a colored cloth is worth dying or risking your life over. And yet the flag is used all the time to generate these emotions of justice and comeraderie and goodness and virtue and to inspire people to do selfless things like risk their life when logic would clearly dictate not to. Even such minor things as placing your hand over your heart, the source of life, and pledging your support and allegiance to it (isn’t that a bit odd?!) before you watch a sports game, makes you a bit more likely to send in your taxes every April. And it keeps the state in power. As Napoleon said “A solider will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon.”
          To me, religion has value, even if I don’t believe in the supernatural. And a king has value as a uniting symbol of his people. You know all those battles where guys disregard their better judgement, yell “For The King!” and charge at the enemy? I see the king as simply a personified symbol of the nation, the community, the people, however you want to put it. Humans love to anthropomorphize. A king is simply the human embodiment of God / nation / unity. A king is a symbol of his people. When you think of it that way, I see a king as not only necessary, but deserving of respect and alliegiance, at least for modern society in the 21st century. Perhaps AI or some other advancements will change human behavior, but for now it really is time for a Return Of Kings.

        4. Good comment.
          “And yet the flag is used all the time to generate these emotions of justice and comeraderie and goodness and virtue and to inspire people to do selfless things like risk their life when logic would clearly dictate not to” The flag and the national anthem do indeed generate those patriotic emotions or perhaps once did to be more accurate. I do wonder if that sense resonates as strongly as it once did, people are not only skeptical but often just down right cynical about their Nations in these times. Some of these reactions are justified by the actions of our recent leaders, while in addition, the left amplifies these feelings of disenchantment about their Nations by portraying the root cause of all evil in the world on the doorsteps of the WASP in No. 10 or who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and of course the rest of us who vote for them.
          However, skeptics, cynics and leftist feminists miss (maybe deliberately) the point about the flag and anthem which are essentially emblems of a Nation’s Spirit. It’s not about the actual politicians’ and leaders’ behaviors and morals who’ve often woefully fallen far short of what the Spirit of a Nation expects from them, and, this is no reason to reject what you say rightfully describe as the symbolic notion of the King/Monarch or Spirit of a Nation which should never to abandoned.
          This is the mistake that many make and its exploited ruthlessly by people with globalist agendas who want to see every Nation State dismembered in the name of unfettered capitalism, trade, and consumerism where people take on the character of anonymous ciphers that can be manipulated from the cradle to the grave. Patriotism is one of the last stubborn bulwarks against this plan and perhaps the King should become the symbolic representation for a set of values that stand opposed to such tyranny.

  35. Women may forget. BUT psychoes will remember. 25 years ago, I jumped on a plane and fled France to Japan to get away from psycho frog woman. Five years ago, she sent me an email to get back in touch. Found me in my work email.
    Told her I was happy and did not want to have contact with her.
    For me, the last straw after five years of hell raising was blisters on my feet. We were at the beach. She drove. Early in the morning when it was cool, I left my sandals in the car and walked 300 yards to the beach. By noon the pavement was scorching hot. So I asked her to pull the car around so I would not burn my feet. She refused as I needed to be made to remember not to forget my sandals. Punishment would correct me !
    I said ok, but on the way back to the car, I was thinking up shit to do. So I secretly took a plane to Japan as work was easy to find then. Sent the bitch a post card letting her know I was gone. Booked ass, as we said in the 70’s and 80’s.
    Was in Japan for 8 years. Met a cool beautiful wife, and came back with language skills, down payment on a house and an M.A.,
    I just had to get away from Frog Woman who was pulling me down. Emasculating hell raising every day, Not many such bitches exist on the planet.
    Really !!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Cool story bruh.. but you shouldn’t have replied to her email. Now crazy bitch knows where you work.
      I had a similar experience.. said “nah-nah-nah-nah Good Bye” to a particularly batty wench. Several years later she sends me a letter — an actual hand written letter, mind, not an email — asking how I was “going”. She must have looked up my new address in the goddamn phone book. I didn’t reply, and I had myself de-listed the following year. Several years later again, she sends me a Facebook invite. Again, I didn’t reply, and I went in and hid all my personal details. Thankfully that was the end of it.. so far.
      My point is, there’s a reason women see the “hell hath no fury” thing as a virtue.

  36. “There is an abundance of evidence that men are more loving, caring, empathetic, romantic, and emotional than women.”
    This.

    1. “And in heaven men shall become unto perfection like those angels who are wives unto themselves” (Coptic Gnostic Text)

  37. I’ve been reading ROK for about a year, and this is probably one of the best articles I’ve seen on it. Especially the 4th point.
    Keep up the great work, everyone!

  38. There is also the XXX syndrome called ” Superfemale”, they are heavily handicaped with exagerated female traits and deep retardation but still…

  39. 1 and 4 contradict each other. But no matter, just choose which lie is more convenient depending on your argument. Every women is just as strong and tough as men when it comes to admission to the military, police and fire dept. But then they are always the helpless weak victim of a much stronger male in every domestic violence incident.
    The left like to tell us corporations are driven by pure greed. But then they must put aside their greed just to discriminate against women. Every SJW argument contains a contradiction of another argument.

  40. I loathe the “Sugar and spice” rhyme, because its second half says that boys are made of “worms and snails and puppy dog tails.”
    Strange, how much women as a group hate boys.

    1. Perspective is everything.
      Sugar fattens.
      Spice, a garnish for food that can be taken or left.
      Everything nice? They couldn’t come up with anything else so they used an arbitrary subjective thing!
      Worms, create good soil to grow food in.
      Snails are an embodiment of perseverence. They spend all day, risking getting run over or stepped on to cross a street.
      Puppy dog tails: A wagging tail of a dog is a sure sign that a dog is happy to see you. A dog that will be loyal to his dying day which is far more than can be said for women.
      I’ll take the latter, please!

  41. #3 should be, “That we’re living in a Democracy”. The original Athenian democratic process involved every free-born adult male getting together on a hillside and voting on each important matter. And every voice literally did count.
    The political process we’re living under today is as far removed from “democracy” as we can imagine.

  42. Men are the more romantic sex, writing practically all love poems,
    songs, art, coming up with a constant supply of jokes and entertainment
    to keep the girl laughing and happy and entertained, funding her large
    appetite for food and drink, are less likely to divorce her after
    marriage (30% man initiated vs 70% female initiated). Anecdotally, the
    husband failing to pay the bills and uphold his masculine duties is a
    lot more rare than the woman who withholds sex and ignores her household
    duties. There is an abundance of evidence that men are more loving,
    caring, empathetic, romantic, and emotional than women.

    I have been saying this for AGES.
    MEN are the only ones that can love.
    Women cannot LOVE.

  43. Awesome article. Which made me think of something related: you know how, in the MSM, we are brainwashed into hating Muslims and/or Islam? Well at least Muslims still have patriarchy in their countries. From what I watched and read, their marriages seem to last forever, for the most part. And I’m talking about regular Muslims here– from countries like Jordan, Lebanon, pre-war Syria & Iraq, etc.
    If I were living there, I wouldn’t want democracy anyways, and I’d be actually fine with dictators like Assad and Saddam. Why? So that my sons (and the sons of my sons) wouldn’t have to go through the same BS that men in the West have to go through with women.

    1. Exactly. As an atheist I initially opposed Islam, but seeing how the left has destroyed my civilization I will welcome all muslims. Much better than the current cesspool. What a pity I’ll have to believe in God, though.

      1. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Christianity in the west has become so pussified that likely the only way patriarchy will return is through a merciless but strong religion like Islam.

      2. Be careful in saying you will welcome them “all.” There are some truly insane sick criminals in that group (hint: the ones the US supports, funds and trains).
        But yeah, I can definitely respect their ability to use social rules to keep the patriarchy running and control immorality. And I have to wonder if the violent, crazy ones are being trained, funded, and glorified in order to wipe out the patriarchal society these countries have. The Arabic nations were mostly allies of the west prior to the Great War.

      3. I don’t think we have to welcome all muslims– after all, their broads turn into entitled cunts when they are raised here thanks to MSM and feminist propaganda. And you’re free to believe in what you want to believe.
        However, we should just acknowledge the fact that men have it easier over there just because they have no feminist propaganda and MSM that spreads degenerate values, etc. To me, having to live under that is WORSE than living under a dictatorship. At least, under these dictatorships, your daughters won’t turn into slutty cunts and your wife will be loyal to you most of the time. Your sons won’t have any problems finding a suitable, chaste wife either.

        1. The fluoride, the psychotropics and the cunt media will quickly level Islam. The western control grid is too scientific. Nothing can withstand the grid save a natural disaster of biblical proportions. In the end, as usual, all Islam will bring to the table is more permanent browning of Europe and the west. The racially semitic fake Jews obviously aren’t shy of walking toe to toe and co opting Islam to do just that. The fake ‘Israelites’ came from the Orient originally. Another long term ploy to infiltrate and rule the West with a ‘margin’ tribe. The yellow cup floweth over. What will the pan asian borg think up next. It is known the Chinese have always had a 5000 year plan. That’s a long time to create a new tribe or even make a new race.

  44. there’s one colossal lie in this article:
    Goebbels never said “if you tell a lie big enough…” etc. This particular quote is fake.
    The original mention of “big lie” is from Hitler’s Mein Kampf where he accused Jews of using this tactics.
    In 1941 Goebbels paraphrased it in an article where he accused the British of using “the big lie”.
    As you can see, none of them advocated the “big lie” – they ACCUSED their enemies of using it. Whether Goebbels practiced this tactics himself is a different question – but in his words he actually was against it.

  45. “This is important because it was Johns Hopkins, under Dr. John Money’s clinic in the 70s, who pioneered the ideas of gender and performed groundbreaking surgeries and treatments in sex operations” Why does ROK obsess over Dr. Money? He was horrible, but he didn’t really innovate any stuff, it was this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld
    and this guy:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Biber
    I am just wondering, but what is with all the Jewish feminists and anti-traditionalists?

    1. first, the author mixed things up of course: it was John Money under Johns Hopkins clinic – and not the other way round.
      Hirschfeld was European and died in 1935. Biber wasn’t a pioneer, Money started before him. Money is mostly notorious because of the David Reimer’s scandal and his views on pedophilia. that’s why Money gives much more material to write about in context of the current state of society than the other two.

      1. “Hirschfeld was European and died in 1935. ” So what? He still organized the first “successful” “sex change”.
        Money never really did anything important. He didn’t develop any surgeries, or ways to make “trans-women” any more “female”. All he did was molest children. His surgeries weren’t “groundbreaking”.

        1. That is pretty much irrelevant. People had already been doing sex reassignment surgeries. Also he didn’t only work on tranny’s. he also worked on inter-sex (people with birth defects) people and as everyone on ROK knows, David.

  46. Real democracy was based on the random draw of the offices of the state. It was made that way to make sure rich people did not have more representations then they are proportionally. These officers was under 1 mandate and it was not possible to reapply. This was made to prevent corruption.
    YOU MUST LISTEN to this video to understand was is really democracy. Right now we are in an elective aristocracy :

    He talks a lot about the masculine virtues that came with it at that time

    1. The problem is people see the US as a democracy, but it’s supposed to be a republic. “And to the democracy, for which it stands…?” No, “and to the republic, for which it stands..”
      We are supposed to have the rule of law, not the rule of the mob.

      1. Your are right. Their no more democracy anywhere. At one point Island has decider do rewrite their constitutions with the help of the internet users around the world. But sadly they want back rapidly to leader system and forget about random draw…

  47. Just out of curiosity, Max Roscoe (the author), by lumping in “drug use” with slavery and genocide, are you suggesting that the war on drugs is great and should be continued? Again, just want to get your opinion on this.

    1. exactly. funny the article starts with “Stop the lies” – while war on drugs is just another “colossal lie”. (not to diminish other aspects of the article of course)

    1. &………….. Then we have the Feminazis telling us that” WE are all equal”” & this is woman empowerment ??LOL !

  48. I just recently swallowed the red pill(trying to absorb it as fast as I can take it all in) , and frankly looking back at how I was before makes me ashamed. This article sums it up fairly well. This business of 71 different gender options on facebook is really beyond the pale. Whatever happened to the theory in Psychology that treated all this gay/trans/whatever clap trap as a behavioral disorder?

    1. Don’t feel too ashamed bro. Just feel ashamed enough to ever want to go back. I was right there with you and yet it took me decades to get past the “Spearhead, Dalrock, Roosh et al are hate sites.”
      It took me years to get to the point where I decided IDGAF about what women think. If you did it in a matter of weeks/months/days then you converted a lot quicker than I.
      Even now the blue pill dye soaked so deep into my mind that some of it continues to leak out from time to time.

      1. Thanks George ,
        The part of all this I’m struggling with is how to view strength in women that you love , and admire like your mother or your sister. They certainly are far removed from the feminist cunt I was with for the last 3 years(who liked to proclaim how strong and independent she was , but never paid for anything in the relationship in that 3 years while I struggled financially)

        1. That’s easy bro. If she ain’t you’re mother, sister, daughter or some other extremely close blood relation then you will best assume that she is one of them.
          Come to think of it, the more you study the articles of the manosphere the more you will come to identify elements of a woman’s nature even in your own loved ones.
          I have to admit that once I identified the issues of woman’s nature it helped me to make a lot more sense of my own.
          Things like hypergamy, dread, friend zoning… And lots more. Hmm! maybe I should write an article on what I have learned that has helped me.
          Thinking more about your own I’m sure that you will find that the more you know about the red pill the more attributes you will identify in your women. Don’t be disappointed when you find them (and you will). Instead be excited that you are beginning to understand women the way they should be understood.
          Then go reading up on how you can turn this knowledge to your benefit. Read “Zenpriest” by Zed the Ender as a primer.

      2. George old man you really do need to wash your mouth out with soap! Such language as IDGAF is not befitting a gentleman, is it? At the very least you should apologize to the ladies. Then maybe some deep soul searching would be called for. Why are you so ANGRY toward women? Sort your own soul out and then maybe you will be free?

        1. Oh please mate, you’re the arbiter of what a real man is? You’ve been spending too much time reading the Male Shaming Catalogue and obviously not enough time studying the true nature of women.
          You obviously have sexist attitudes toward women given that you feel that you have to speak on behalf ladies demanding an apology rather than letting them come to the discussion to make their own request.
          If you truly think I’m angry towards women then you’ve got some stupidity management issues to deal with before you can continue this conversation.

        2. George
          When I first had this site recommended to me I believed it contained intelligent comment.
          Unfortunately that does not always appear so.
          I would suggest you look in the mirror brother, rather than thrashing about.
          You make far too many assumptions for a man that could be thought to be a little more intelligent than some.
          Just accept you stuffed up, the evidence was supplied by yourself and is undeniably there for all to see.
          However tomorrow is a new day, so enjoy it.

        3. No problems Mr White Knight. You go defend those ladies and get back to me with how many of them will regard you as more than a disposable male. I suspect that the answer will be a nice round number.

        4. It is interesting Paul that you obviously have little regard for the experiences of men such as the man I was communicating with.
          What have you done or said to encourage this bloke and let him know that he is OK? From what I can see you have not read a single word of his experience which strongly suggests that you care nothing about men. Your only interest is in appealing to your harem back at your church because they’re the ones who line your pockets.
          You are engaging with me outside the realm of ADvindicate which means that the general community can see how severely Social Justice Warriors have infected the Seventh Day Adventist Church. A Church Minister like you should know better than to flaunt your moral superiority to the general community because that is what Social Justice Warriors like you are really good at doing.
          It is men like you who are driving men away from the church. Take a look at your own church this coming weekend and especially at the under thirties and note the paucity of men that you will most likely find. Then ask yourself why this might be so. Believe it or not you will find the answers if you take the time to read some of the articles on this site.

        5. Dear George
          We may not agree and rightly so at times with others opinions, however how we respond to that difference is rather significant.
          This is both privately and in the public, as how we respond to others suggests what principles guide our lives.
          This is a consideration for all of us irrespective of our different belief systems.
          However if one has a brain tumor, a lobotomy or similar there might be more understanding of one’s poor manners.
          As said before, stop thrashing around with your false assumptions and various accusations.
          Just be honest, we all have our turn of putting foot in mouth. This has been yours.
          Accept the facts with grace and be a man about it.
          A little humility is refreshing from all of us.
          Paul

        6. So now you’re accusing me of working on false assumptions. Allright then. Go ahead and identify them. Lets discuss those.

  49. Please be careful when making generalizations such as this:
    .” And yet so many betas fall into the trap of continuing to be the nice guy because of the lie they are told that women are sweet, innocent, chaste, and pure and must be honored and respected and forgiven.”
    As a traditional, anti-feminist, Christian woman, I am raising my daughter to exemplify those virtues.
    When she becomes a woman, will there be any Alpha males who will recognize her worth as a potential wife, and treat her respectfully? Or by that time, will they all assume that she is just another worthless woman to use, because her virtue must be a lie?

  50. Good to see so many people recognize the folly that is democracy
    Democracy is by its very nature a tool of egalitarianism

  51. there’s an anti-feminist book i’ve seen here on ROK, written by awoman in the 1970s, (i believe) can someone pls tell me the name of the book and author
    thanks!

  52. Extraordinary article.I agree 100 percent! I would only add that the quote shown by Goebbels was actually him saying that the Jews use the big lie.And I think you’ll find they were behind these changes in the West via Hollywood/media/publishing/advertising firms which they own almst totally.

  53. Voting works when the masses are allowed to vote on specific issues and those issues are presented honestly(as the Swiss do).Our democracy doesn’t work because the Jew media/finance decide who is qualified to run and receive airtime.Also our elections last so long so that only the wealthy can fund candidates and own them.An honest system would have short elections that are state funded and with the ability of the voter to recall those elected at any time.

  54. NZ/Aus are trying to stop ROK meetup. Trying to stop freedom of speech etc, these lies have to stop, is there an end to this misery? These lies are EVERYWHERE you go, shops, news, tv, even sports. Can the lies stop so we can have some peace and enjoy life? I want to escape. How can I? RoK please help!

  55. I was in the military for twenty years. I never once, in any country, met “men” who were so insecure. Your problem isn’t women.

    1. So instead of taking on the article itself, you come in and sneer at the people who post here. Great thinking, chief. Really drives your point home. Whatever point you have I mean.

  56. “I can count on my pinky finger the number of times a woman has done something romantic or creative for me, and that was in high school. I don’t imagine that any of my exes ever think about me. ”
    That’s OK, little buddy. You’ll show them. You’ll show them all, someday.

  57. You wanna witness emasculation on intelctual level, checkout Quora and see “guys” degrading themselves on how they comment on women empowerment BS.

  58. Love the Goebbels quote, kind of lights up where your origins lie, philosophically : authoritarian, demonising, hate-filled, primitive. Probe onto a comet and you still sat admiring your abs. Good grief

    1. Might want to look into:
      1. Who Goebbels was talking about in that quote.
      2. Who’s behind Cultural Marxism/ the Frankfurt School/ the lies cited above.
      Just sayin’

  59. If Ted Cruz (or his American-born colleague Marco Rubio) gets the nomination we can be sure that there won’t ever be a prayer of the truth behind these lies ever being exposed in the mainstream. If Trump gets elected, there will be at least a prayer of the natural (male-dominated) order returning to America.

  60. This is why you should convert to Islam, the whole lot of you, because we reject all these ridiculous lies as well. Plus you don’t have to give your wife any of your assets upon divorce except the agreed upon amount at the time of the contract.

  61. I discovered this website because of the overtly sensationalized media coverage of the Australian govn’t publicly cow tailing to militant feminists. Whenever a feeding frenzy appears these days, I try to sift through the emotional crap to find the actual heart of the matter. This site is the most refreshing collection of opinion pieces I’ve enjoyed in quite some time! This article is engaging, and worthy of further thought. I certainly don’t hold every facet up as gospel truth. but I am also not shy of a good conversation, nor of walking away from one with a clean handshake and different perspectives. Thank you to the author for a clearly articulated, intelligent piece! Bravo.

    1. You’re proof of the concept that any publicity +ve or -ve is good publicity. Maybe a few more Australian will get to read this site and take the red pill.

  62. What does Monarchy/Democracy have to do with this article? Here’s a tip on how to get women to be interested in you: STOP HATING THEM!

  63. Russian women are western women in every aspect- they are just as hard to date and expect the same preferential treatment as any western women. Gentlemen, if you want to date and marry a Russian woman, DON’T go to Russia- you’ll be sorely disappointed .

  64. What about the lie that materialism and obtaining sex will lead to happiness? That owning things and winning in a competitive economy are fulfilling pursuits?

  65. This is the single dumbest thing I’ve ever seen and read in my life 😂 thanks for verifying the fragility of masculinity and making truly good men look bad. 😂 I can’t even fathom the stupid here.

  66. “As we acknowledge these false statements for the lies that they are, we spread awareness and attempt to return society to the path of a cohesive, developing civilization.” BAHAHA. I laugh in your face at your ridiculous ideology.

  67. I don’t know what kind of women you hang out with, but where I come from, women shoulder a pretty hefty burden of work inside and outside the home, help their husbands acquire higher education and property, and aren’t treated like “special snowflakes.” We often remain in contact with men from our past because they were first and foremost, friends as well as romantic partners. As far as types of government including democracy, none are perfect. Human nature is corrupt where power is involved – those who thirst for it manage to exploit the masses. It’s up to all of us to figure out what the lies are and try to fight the matrix to the best of our ability.

  68. Just wanna say that:
    “A brave all-female fighting force waging war in Iraq has become the worst fear of the murderous fanatics of ISIS.
    As well as the threat posed by the women’s bravery and skill on the battlefield, the militants are terrified that dying at the hands of a female will stop them from reaching heaven.”
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/angels-death-isis-savages-fear-6275913
    You can try boys, but you can no longer stop us.

    1. lel we are not dumb muslim blinded by ignorance. a bear is stronger than a man a yet a man with an assault riffle can kill him in less than 20 second.
      if a woman use a gun she can obviously kill a man. but the difference with us and foolish muslim is that it will not stop us from ruthlmessly destroy women, and trust me you do not know how vicious and wicked the human males mind can be.
      be happy men have been condescending with women since the night of time and allow you to use this weakness angainst them, because the day they look at you like a foe to destroy you will know true hell.

  69. I would genuinely love to see any actual research to support the numerous unfounded claims you make in this article. Any truly educated individual will be able to provide a myriad of peer-reviewed scholarly articles to back up such outrageous claims. Otherwise, any scientist or scholar will agree, you are representing mere opinion as fact. Your “conclusions” also rely on a substantial pile of assumptions with absolutely no founding. To anyone who subscribes to this type of dumbfounding idiocy: Please take the time to obtain some education. I would personally recommend anthropology, or any basic physical science which will teach you to think critically. Otherwise, all you’re doing is mindlessly seeking out those who will support your preconceived notions. In otherwords, you’re being a dumbfuck.

  70. Hahahahahahaha. Ha.
    Oh, man. Has The Onion heard of you?
    Or angry 13 year olds!! I bet you’re HUGE in the middle schools! Have fun with that.

  71. What in the….??? Was the author of this article concussed at the time of writting? I’m not even sure where to begin. I feel like the best advice I could pass along to this guy is to maybe give his education a second try; right from the beginning. I don’t see a single concept approached here without a glaring betrayal of the fact that it is a complete mystery to him. The missing building blocks of thought and knowledge that would be neccessary to even attempt any form of debate here are just far too numerous.
    I will say this: he is somewhat literate, and I see no math errors. That’s something for an educator to work with!

  72. I can think of some other big lies, which women frequently tell men:
    1) You’re the best I ever had.
    2) It’s a cold sore.
    3) I’ll pay you back the money you loaned me.

      1. 5) you are the only man in my life a.t.m
        Reality is: every woman is a attentionwhore more or less. She has orbiters for sure.

  73. You should stop telling men and women how to be, my sex is man, but i have no gender, if i want to wear “girl” clothes i will as if i want to wear “man” and of course i will put on some make up if i want to. As for transgender, thats not mental problem, its and hormonal one. I would like to see the one who write this article on a body that dosen´t feeel that it belonws to him.

  74. So what I’m getting out of this is you’re hurt. Aww, poor baby got hurt by some mean women. You guys are all like some crazy basement conspiracy theorists. You seem crazier than Mulder. At least he didn’t take his hurt and twist it as ‘all women are bad.’ That’s a Cramps song, by the way. Seems fitting.

    1. and what the problem what thinking all women are bad? you are supposed to be strong and independent, is it not?
      you should not care what the beings you need as much as a fish need a bicycle think.

  75. What the hell are you guys talking about?? Politics? Getting burned in high school? Women are not sugar & spice? Pick a fucken topic! Whatever genius wrote this sounds so pathetic, he’s probably got a vagina. This entire article & what its supposed to represent can be summed up in paragraph #…? I don’t fucken remember. It had to do with this whiney prick getting dumped in highschool. That’s when these little nuggets of wisdom were planted, and eventually grew into this fucktard babble bullshit. You’ve been carring around this chip on your shoulder because some girl realized how inferior you were more than a decade ago?? Just face the fact that she wanted a man. A real man. You were probably one of those soft types in highschool. The kind that writes poetry and likes to sketch pictures of strangers you see on the street. You’re soft. You’re weak. But now that you’ve got this platform from which you can spew this nonsense, you’re Mr. Tough Guy. Fuck women, fuck democracy, fuck midgets (?)! You were, are, and always will be a dickless loser. Oh, and good job on quoting Joseph Goebbels. You are officially douche of the year.
    Hugs & Kisses,
    Monica 💝

  76. Lmfao, I WISH I could forget last emotions to deal with shithead ex boyfriends. If no one did any thing romantic for you it’s likely because you don’t deserve it and treat women like pigs. Who would WANT to romanitise someone like you?

    1. women are trash and deserve to be treated like such, it’s the only way inferior life form like you could find peace anyway.

  77. Just reading the ” so- called lies ” men have been taught since birth. I do agree there are jobs women shouldn’t, or even can’t do. I wouldn’t want to fight Hitler with an army of women, either. Let’s be realistic.
    But, Roosh V, you’re saying it was OK to oppress women for centuries, even currently in many countries, but heaven forbid we don’t treat men like gold at all times. It’s easy for you to say that, because you’re not a women. Your story would be different, otherwise. And what makes u think treating women like garbage and attempting to order them around is natural in the first place?? Did it ever occur to u that maybe its pay back time? Men treated women like dirt for years. Its called Karma. Now Eastern men just have to learn the Western way of how to treat a women, (and how we handle u men if u need it. Lol Been there and done that.) Women gave birth to all of u! So learn some respect for the female species and quit being so selfish! Your mother’s would be ashamed.
    A lot of men in the East need a good kick in the ass!
    Quit bringing your garbage to North America! I’m fucking sick of it!

    1. Muslims say “women are incapable of making sensible life decisions for themselves, that is why they must always be the property of a man”. I sort of agree with them.

    2. men don’t need females good treatment, we only need you out of our money our space and our blood sons. we don’t want to be responsible of your lives take care of your own shit and stay in your side.

    3. Too late, you want to be equal? Each and every one of you should register for the draft when you turn 17 JUST LIKE MEN.

  78. What the hell are you guys talking about?? Politics? Getting burned in high school? Women are not sugar & spice? Pick a fucken topic! Whatever genius wrote this sounds so pathetic, he’s probably got a vagina. This entire article & what its supposed to represent can be summed up in paragraph #…? I don’t fucken remember. It had to do with this whiney prick getting dumped in highschool. That’s when these little nuggets of wisdom were planted, and eventually grew into this fucktard babble bullshit. You’ve been carring around this chip on your shoulder because some girl realized how inferior you were more than a decade ago?? Just face the fact that she wanted a man. A real man. You were probably one of those soft types in highschool. The kind that writes poetry and likes to sketch pictures of strangers you see on the street. You’re soft. You’re weak. But now that you’ve got this platform from which you can spew this nonsense, you’re Mr. Tough Guy. Fuck women, fuck democracy, fuck midgets (?)! You were, are, and always will be a dickless loser. Oh, and good job on quoting Joseph Goebbels. You are officially douche of the year.
    Hugs & Kisses,
    Monica 💝

  79. I agree with the central theme though. It SHOULD be legal to rape women. Especially….on private property! I believe it though because I believe that if a woman wants to take a man’s place, then she should be able to take a beating like a man. You see I am also sick and tired of men saying this outlandish lie, that women are delicate and should be treated differently from men. To me that’s BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT! Rape…….is a way of toughening up women. Rape……is a way of getting them to fight like men( EXACTLY WHAT THE UNIVERSE HAVE ORDERED!!!! THEM TO DO!!!!!) & last but not least, rape is a way to force a woman to take on that masculine personality. These women in the west, go around thinking that they are entitled to protection by men. REALITY CHECK!!!! PROTECTION IS A PRIVILEGE!!!!! NOT A RIGHT!!!!!! WOMEN GO AROUND HERE!!!! IN THE WEST THINKING THEY ARE TOO CUTE AND PRETTY TO FIGHT!!!! WOMEN ARE ALWAYS THE ONES WHO START FIGHTS!! BY SPREADING FALSE RUMORS ABOUT PEOPLE!!! OR BY TRYING TO GET MEN TO FIGHT OTHER PEOPLE!! ALL BECAUSE THEY DON’T LIKE THE WAY THAT THEY LOOK!!!! AND I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THIS IS A TRAVESTY!!! THAT MEN ARE PROTECTING SUCH WOMEN IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! These women will learn that they can’t beat the universe. They can’t join the universe. All they can do….is do…..what the universe tell them to do. & if they want to step in a man’s place…..then they should be forced to fight like men, and take punishment in a fight just like men. & WHEN THE UNIVERSE ORDER THESE WOMEN TO FIGHT!!!!!! THEY WILL ASK!!!!! HOW HARD!!!!!

  80. Crazy and interesting article, Would you guys say that US democracy is more like a republic to represent and help the wealthy? If so, than what should we do? Should we get rich and powerful so that we can change things to what we want? What do you guys think?

  81. The US is a democratic republic, NOT a democracy. That’s one reason for its longevity. Real democracies AND monarchies tend to be unstable, with power being seized from one group by another.
    The issue of criticizing “democracy” for low turnout is odd because there are democratic republics with much higher turnouts.
    Your analysis of gender-related issues is incomparably superior to your political analysis.

  82. The ONLY problem with democracy – and I mean the ONLY problem – is universal suffrage. Once you give the vote to everybody, including the FSA, you inevitably go downhill. The US originally gave the vote only to men who owned a certain amount of property – that is, people who had ‘skin in the game’. Such people would never start voting themselves ‘other people’s money’, because they knew that money was coming from their own pockets. De Tocqueville warned Americans about this before the middle of the 19th century, but his warnings were ignored.

  83. Colossal lie: Women don’t care about your looks; they care about your “personality”. That’s probably been THE most destructive lie for most men.

  84. Agreed.
    I’m not a Nazi apologist but like my history: Goebbels did not say that (the big lie quote). It’s a warning About the Big Lie from Mein Kampf. Nazis were truth obsesssed (as they saw truth). Goebbels maintained propaganda had to be true. The Nazis prided themselves on a bloodless democratic ‘coup’ based in truth. They said flat out they would abolish democracy once they had enough democratically obtained power. That was a dangerous (politically) but truthful stance.
    Anyway. Accuracy re: Goebbels aside, point made and well taken.

  85. The U.S. was designed as a limited democracy. Once Senators became popularly elected they were effectively meaningless as a check on centralized power. The States lost their power. Gotta roll that amendment back.

  86. This article is so horrible because it is so true. Something like this should be required reading by every young man in the USA. It actually saddens me that it’s so dead-on accurate, but knowing this is important so that a Man can realize he needs to make his OWN decisions and not follow the blind herd.

  87. Most women, not all, but an awful lot want one thing from a man – MONEY. As soon as he ceases to be a walking ATM out he goes. I have witnessed this many times. Never let a woman you are interested in know you have a dime to your name – if she sticks around, chances are she’s a winner. If she turns on her heels and runs – good riddance.

    1. I agree with the first two sentences, BUT I always let the woman think I’m loaded, guarantees a shag every time. Who the hell cares if she sticks around, once is generally enough.