Patriarchal Nationalism: The Only Societal System That Can Save The West

One of the goals of Return Of Kings is to bring back the patriarchy. Roosh already started this process with the introduction of neomasculinity last year. Neomasculinity is an indispensable foundation because until men begin to live up to their natural calling, nothing can be done to improve the society that they are a part of.

But while neomasculinity will help individual men lead better lives, it presents no easy solution for how to operate on a societal level. As long as the globalist order persists, patriarchal and masculine ideals will not be able to return. Therefore it’s time we branch out from individual self-improvement and create a realistic framework for a better society that can replace what we have now.

Roosh and I have put together such a framework. It is called patriarchal nationalism. The aim of patriarchal nationalism is to serve as an ideological base for future political action that rebuilds civilization. Here is a brief introduction to this new platform:

Immigration And Diversity

  • The identity of a nation is not only cultural but genetic.
  • White marginalization is taking place as part of a depopulation agenda that facilitates elite control. At the same time, non-whites who hold traditional and nationalist values are also enemies of the existing order.
  • Immigration must not be used as a weapon to either lower the wages of citizens or to diversify the population to make it easier to control. Immigration quotas must be low and strictly controlled.
  • Any immigration must be predicated upon complete assimilation.
  • Not all groups assimilate as easily as others. Any immigration that does take place must be from groups that will assimilate fully. Some groups or ethnicities may be banned entirely due to their incompatibility with Western society.
  • Deporting or killing legal immigrants who have fully assimilated and adhered to the national platform may lead to more harm than good.
  • Citizenship is an honor and a privilege. The law of jus soli must be rescinded.
  • The population explosion of the third world poses an existential threat to Western nations.
  • Diversity is not a virtue or something that a society should try to achieve.
  • There is an over-representation of Jews in the highest reaches of the globalist platform that can’t be explained by randomness.

Religion And Family


  • Society must be unified around Christianity. In spite of its faults and those of its leaders, Christianity is the most compatible religion and “operating system” for the Western world, and is far superior for societal stability than atheism. Other religions will be able practice freely, but not demand special prerogatives.
  • Patriarchy is the ideal social system for the family unit and society. Policy must encourage—but not authoritatively mandate—strong monogamous marriages and large families. Single motherhood should be highly discouraged.
  • Natalism must be the cornerstone of reproductive policy. Advanced technology and military strength is moot if you don’t have the people to fend off attackers or support the nation.


Western democracy has degenerated into plutocracy. If democracy is to continue, several changes need to be implemented:

  • Allow only those with “skin in the game” to vote. Namely, land-owning families (one vote per family).
  • Minimize the influence of corporations, foreign governments, unions, and wealthy individuals upon government.
  • Eliminate the revolving door between government and corporations, reform election process, re-implement constitutional safeguards so that it is much more expensive to buy everyone off.
  • Devolve more power to states and localities.

Patriarchal nationalism is theoretically compatible with other forms of government, such as aristocracy or the ultimate form of patriarchy, monarchy.



  • Gender realism: men and women are different and complementary. Absolute equality between men and women is neither possible nor desirable.
  • Race realism: each racial group has its own strengths and weaknesses. Absolute equality between different racial groups is neither possible nor desirable.
  • Although all men are equal under the law, men are not equal in other ways. Some are inherently more gifted than others. Society should not attempt to “level the playing field.”


The true dividing line between conflicting forces in today’s society is globalism versus nationalism, not liberalism versus conservatism. Does the state work for the best interests of its citizens? Or does it work to serve globalist interests? Right and left are artificial political constructs that are controlled by globalist interests. Patriarchal nationalism will sidestep this false dichotomy and get to the root of the problem facing Western societies.

The changes lifted above are obviously not going to happen overnight, but we must begin to work in this direction. Your comments are welcome as we develop patriarchal nationalism together as a community.

Read More: How Patriarchy Will Return

656 thoughts on “Patriarchal Nationalism: The Only Societal System That Can Save The West”

  1. Neomasculinity is the individual solution for men. Patriarchal nationalism is the societal solution for nations. We’ll soon have a viable and superior replacement for man and nation for the West once the current order collapses.

    1. Roosh. Seems like the only replacement comes from the threat of the Islam ideology. Being that you have thrived in the Western world…I wouldn’t be so quick to name this “replacement” as “superior”. I mean, how far would you have gotten if the current order found it essential to kill you for daring to breed with their race and not being of the same faith?

      1. Stop crying that your ideology is doomed to die. Any ideology that lowers the birthrates of natives and gives special priveleges to foreigners out of ‘compassion’ is doomed to fail. The original intent of the constitution was to have one vote per land owning family because it is incentives, not platitudes, that motivate people. Thanks to people like you, I will have to fight off an invasion, while you sit back and moralize that I am a demon for saving your grandchildren. Despicable.

    2. If we wait for complete collapse of western civilization, I fear it will be too late. Islam and degenerate culture (drug cartels, criminals, and nihilists) will not hesitate to finish us for good when we are at our weakest. Hopefully the Trumpening will create the conditions that allow masculinity, patriarchy, and nationalism to rise again.

      1. Islam/Arabic civilization, along with Russia, China and increasingly, India, now instinctively practice Patriarchal Nationalism. Brazil attempts to but I think their society is doomed thanks to structural factors…southern South America (Uruguay, Argentina, Chile) also practices Patriarchal Nationalism

        1. Nations left unadulterated and free from external influence would naturally lean towards a patriarchal society because it is inherent in man’s biological nature.

        2. There is no such thing as man’s (or woman’s) “biological nature.” We are all born as blank slates. Our personalities and “nature” are a result of our upbringing, life experiences and social interactions. Sexual preference is probably the only part of our nature that’s hardwired.

        3. There absolutely is a “biological nature” for men and women. To deny that is absurdity at its highest level! All one need do, is look around them.
          People who believe what you do and constantly try to shove that down our throats try to prove their claims thru their “experiments” that they run on children that are too young too have “learned gender behaviors”. But they always fail. Except for a small percentage, girls always pick the feminine stuff and boys the masculine stuff. Why? Because at that age, they don’t care what you think, nor who won’t like it. They just grab what they want and that’s that!
          Plus, no offense, but statements like yours prove your bias. You don’t get to say; “Everything is learned except this one thing.”, which we all know really means; “…because I don’t want that questioned.”.
          You don’t get to pick and choose what you want, because it fits your agenda. The truth is, you’re just stating what you wish were true, as if it were fact.
          But here’s some actual facts for you:
          Fact: Nature deals with far more than just sex drive.
          Fact: Some people “switch sides” as a choice, because they’re sick of the games of the opposite sex, or they just can’t get laid. I know this to be a fact by admissions.
          Fact: Women have breasts that produce milk that changes according to the baby’s current needs and are more nurturing. But since you said that sex drive is the only thing that’s not “learned”, I guess that means that only women who “learn” to be “nurturing” grow breasts, right? Hmmm… Thanks! You just explained all of those flat chested girls!
          C’mon, dude! 🙂

        4. You who thinks his walls makes him greater than the force that created him is the greatest fool of all. How can you argue that nature has no role in behavior when nature created the capacity for behavior and the forces that implement it, both intellectual and emotional? You literally stated a paradox as a physical law. Delusional at best.

        5. OK… got it. So your gayness is hardwired.
          And no such thing as a man’s or woman’s biological nature??!!
          Yikes man, what is a lib dweeb like you doing on a man-o-sphere site such as this?

        6. I think John Locke was way too idealistic, and you asserting a dead man is more intelligent than every man who has disagreed with him and acting like you have made a point is like watching a 5 year old cheat at checkers and then pretend he has won. Don’t drop names to pretend you are learned.
          Malthus is more my speed, someone who had real first hand knowlege of how cruel human beings could be.

        7. You don’t understand the effects of sex hormones such as testosterone and estrogen. Please get a University education before lecturing us.

        8. What is your degree in? LGBT studies? And hormones only influence behavior in animals governed by instinct. Nice try, though, and thanks for playing.

        9. The arrogance man has to consider itself not even an animal with certain instincts or a herd mentality, which is constantly used against individual thought as a controlling factor, does not bode well.

        10. Do you grow all your own food? Do you even know where food comes from? You are a domesticated animal living in a box, disconnected from the land. Moo, yeah you will be mooing if the food runs out hehe.

      2. The “Trumpening”? You really think The Donald is the messiah, don’t you? Still, if the horror show that is Hillary Clinton gets the Dem nomination, then I’ll vote for Trump.

        1. Get a life. You made this account simply to make fun of people who disagree with you because you are a child (in terms of thought).
          Did you vote for Obama (If you aren’t twelve)? I always love a good dose of irony.

        2. Only in 2008, because I figured the stress of the Presidency would kill an old fart like McLame and then his psychobitch running mate would become President. He should’ve picked Tom Ridge. In 2012 I voted for the Mormon (even though he was a real life Thurston Howell III) because O came out for same-sex “marriage.” Alas, the Supremes forced that down our throats, thus hammering another nail into America’s coffin.

    3. First of all, I want to say that the ideology sounds ideal. I do have some questions though (not concern trolling)
      “Deporting or killing legal immigrants who have fully assimilated and adhered to the national platform may lead to more harm than good.”
      What do you mean by “fully assimilated”? Do you, Roosh V, consider yourself “fully assimilated”? I thought non-whites/Iranians were not assimilable into germanic americans the same way the French or Russians would be, from the “Any immigration that does take place must be from groups that will assimilate fully” part; or are you implying that iranians somehow do assimilate fully? Or should exceptions be made for certain special snowflakes? I know it sounds like I’m being aggressive but it just sounds inconsistent.
      Also, are you implying that killing those legal immigrants that have assimilated “not fully” may not lead to more harm than good? Isn’t this simply too convenient for you that you are, arbitrarily or not, “fully assimilated”?
      As for the killing of those that aren’t assimilated “fully”, what method of killing would you propose for “not fully” assimilated legal immigrants? Would they be given the option to “self-deport”? What about those that don’t have where to go to, like say, mixed race individuals (assuming everyone adopts Patriarchal Nationalism) or ethnicities that lost their nation-state? Wouldn’t some kind of partition (based on maybe population size, region, and matters of national security) in ethnic/nation-states be ideal where there are already “rainbow states”?
      “There is an over-representation of Jews in the highest reaches of the globalist platform that can’t be explained by randomness.”
      What is the Return of Kings’ answer to the Jewish Question? This implies that jews are not “fully assimilated” (which I don’t contest), I’m just wondering if they would be deported to Israel, killed, or if they would be allowed to remain on a “case by case basis” (i.e. if you’re a neocon or a shitlib jew, you leave, but if you are a “Trump supporting” jew or whatever, you stay).
      Simultaneously, if all jews are deported to Israel – what would be the stance then on the Israeli-Palestinian question? I ask because, if jews are deported indeed to Israel, then supporting the palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle would mean that RoK is deporting an ethnoreligious group to a region and simultaneously destroying such a region; might as well kill them instead of deporting them. I ask in order to know if RoK has an opinion as far as foreign policy is concerned; is every nation outside of “the” nation an “enemy” nation, are there specific alliances out there, or is RoK strictly neutral?

      1. I’d say Roosh fits right in with white ppl
        But then again I’m not an expert on white ppl
        There are some real angry race purists out there

        1. The thing is, various groups will take racial purity to the extreme therefore race cannot be a part of the solution.

        2. Maybe he’d fit-in in Southern Europe (especially Albania or Turkey), Central-Asia, Armenia, Iran or Azerbaiyan. Certainly not wester, Eastern or Northern Europe or the US

        3. Not in the new world it’s not. The damage has already been done. It’s about working w/ what we have now.

        4. I’m not angry. I don’t even hate you. I just do not believe subjecting my children to a future where they have no identity, and everything their ancestors fought and died to defend is gone, to be in my or any people’s own best interest. So no miscegenation.

        5. Brazil is a fractured mess that serves as little more than a rathole to very selfish foreign nationals. You have no unity or will, so you are subjected to indirect slavery through elites manipulating politics. This is by design.

        6. Most foreign nationals are white Americans and Europeans. You still think race has anything to do with politics? FYI, Brazil is one of the fastest growing economies in the world!

        7. Off of population. If you correct for each individual, it isn’t going very far. You’ll hit the limits of using just manpower much more quickly than say, Japan did (and China will in the future). And you are not set to evolve either.
          It’s really pathetic to admit you have a foriegn upper class in your own country.

        8. I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. In any case, Brazil is the place to be right now. It’s economy is booming (despite a bit of a slowdown in global markets) and it’s a beautiful place, great beaches, and easy going lifestyle, bustling with people of different race living in harmony. No racial problems ever.

        9. An upper class raiding the country is not real growth. Your average citizen has next to nothing, with a personal GDP of 11,000. Any economist would tell you that makes it poor. A lot of poor people is a lot of manpower, but population can only grow a country in absolute for so long. Something China, which contrary to popular belief is filled with poor farmers, is figuring out the hard way right now.
          But sure, I’ll raid your country for easy lays and money with no commitment; seems you are proud of being robbed.

        10. Who are the “upper class” you are taking about and what does that have to do with race?
          As low GDP per capita as it may seem, Brazil is one of the fastest emerging economies. A few years back, the GDP per capita was only $5,000. I think the solution for poor people is education, and I think now there are educational reforms where education is free in Brazil. I see good things happening in Brazil in the long run.

        11. I see a giant facade where an elite class emerges (like in China) which will try to collect more power by gerrymandering the statistics to fill them with nationalism and then put them to the slave labor. The average person in China is dirt poor, but the elite are rich. And now their population can’t sustain the elite class and their stocks are collapsing. The same will happen in Brazil.

        12. Quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
          “Nations” are always in flux.
          MEN shuld be our nation. Global one.

        13. Brazil is not a nation; it is a failed state.
          States with highly mixed populaces will not remain great or peaceful for long.

      2. ” I thought non-whites/Iranians were not assimilable into germanic americans the same way the French or Russians would be” — I think that is horribly racist…Iranians are an Indo-European race making then ‘caucasian’ in any logical sense.

        1. Armenians are white (Haplogroup G). They are members of a white genetic subgroup who were nearly wiped out by turks. Iran has little white genetic character at all, even if white people migrated through there or from there.

        2. ok boys, for todays fappage I present :
          Catherine Bell
          Sarah Shahi
          and and older pic of Shohreh Aghdashloo
          …if you consider them ‘non-white’ then sign my ass up for the race mixing!

        3. Do what you want. But I’m not having kids with them. I made sure I knew what her genetics were (h2a/slavic) before I married.

        4. What nonsense are you talking about? Histone H2A has nothing to do with race. All humans have H2A. Do you even understand the importance and benefits of genetic diversity and harms of inbreeding? Please get a University education before spewing utter nonsense.

        5. Not the histone you moron, I’m talking Y-DNA genetic subgroups.
          If you’re so clever, does acetylation deactivate or activate transcription?
          Only an amateur biologist thinks that because homozygotic build up occurs if you fuck family, that absolute race mixing should be promoted. This is something called a false dichotomy; humans adapted to have more genetic flexibility, so genomes in humans can be more different than the differences between closely related species.
          That’s not even the first problem with your argument. Breeding in nature is not random, most mammals have highly ritualistic behavior in nature to pass on the best genes. Domesticated animals (even self-domesticated ones like humans) have no drive to do this because they aren’t struggling to survive like other species do in nature. There is a reason animals attack invading groups of their own species, and humans have forgot; now they foolishly subsidize proliferation of shitty genetics and punish those with good genes through tax and social burdens.

        6. The first one is related to the importance of having genetic resistance to external and internal diseases, so they can narrow the genetics further for food production. Among domesticated mammals who have less genetic diversity between them than the French and Germans. I did misspeak and meant to say haplogroup r1a. Here’s the wikipedia article, which you will hate because you are a neophyte who lacks the ability to scroll to the bottom of the page to confirm the information came from primary sources.

          Now some questions as I vet everyone on the internet who claims to have a STEM degree: Name two decarboxylation steps in the citric acid cycle.
          Or the role of TPP in pyruvate decarboxylase. Both of these I expect a freshman to be able to answer.

        7. And by the way, all of this knowlege is available in books; you don’t need to waste a professor’s time so they can hold your hand in doing something you should’ve been taught to do on your own. The only worthwhile college class I ever took with information I could not get elsewhere was Dr. Cook’s class at purdue, which I took for shits and giggles.

        8. It is shocking to see that despite you may have taken some post secondary courses, you still don’t understand how to interpret data or apply the scientific method.
          I examined the article you linked and none of the papers cited in your link support the nonsense you are uttering. Here is the conclusion on R1A:
          R1A haplogroup is “common in a large region extending from South Asia and southern Siberia to Central Europe and Scandinavia” (Underhill 2009).
          Citation (from YOUR link):
          Underhill, Peter A; Myres, Natalie M; Rootsi, Siiri; Metspalu, Mait; Zhivotovsky, Lev A; King, Roy J; Lin, Alice A; Chow, Cheryl-Emiliane T; et al. (2009). “Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a”. European Journal of Human Genetics 18 (4): 479–84. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.194. PMC 2987245. PMID 19888303.
          Obviously you are an epic fraud pretending to be an intellectual. What a joke.

        9. Are you not the idiot who can’t tell the difference between Haplogroup R1A and Histone H2A? LOL
          Indeed, all the knowledge is available. Just cite your sources instead of making up things from thin air or out of your behind!

        10. Survival fitness is everything in biology.
          Arbitrary “prettiness”, “purity” , or “rightness” of any race/species/clade and/or genotype can be shoved up its collective ass, if found unfit.
          The “purest” of procreation tactics, parthenogenesis, is a surefire road to extinction, sooner rather then later.

        11. Like I said to the other poster, this would be true if man was under pressure to adapt. Currently we discourage the fittest members of our society from having children to pay for the children of the dregs of society. Yours is an apples to oranges comparison; don’t pretend humans living in advanced cities are the same as gazelles in the Serengeti. Discouraging the bloodlines that built society for the sake of ones that built nothing is suicide.

        12. Slip of the fingers does not negate my point. Typical for a style over substance liberal. I noticed you were incapable of answering basic biochemistry questions. You are a pretender who thinks their ability to use google makes them intelligent.
          I bet you can’t even describe the full exent of DNA condensation using Histones, just like you don’t know how basic Histone tail modifications affect DNA transcription. Typical.

          This describes you perfectly, even if you aren’t white; still an effete snob with no real ability to back your supposed ‘credentials’.

        13. And it is concentrated in Slavic countries, while the ones you mentioned have 10-20% character. Learn to interpret data rather than assuming you know the numbers from an abstract. Something you would know if you ever participated in a real literature review. R split from K and then into D, which the paper describes.
          This comment was also a trap. If you had been in college you would be capable of getting a paper from someone still at the university. I still can from the research group I worked with. You can only get the abstract.

        14. They also have to have delusions of persecution or being followed for some reason, which I don’t. Nice try; one of the more interesting red herrings I have seen. But then again, liberals always try to medicalize dissent.

          I have a degree in biochemistry. And as per my tests, which you were unable to respond to, you apparently are capable of typing something into google scholar and are very proud of it.
          New question: based on how histones associate and form into complexes, can they be described as an octamer (sans histone H1), a dimer of tetramers or a tetramer of dimers?
          It’s ok. I know you don’t know. Accuse me of having a personality disorder next, this is very amusing.

        15. Wow, you only proved my point.
          1- Indeed you suffer from mental illness (Grandiose delusional disorder)
          2- I’m the last person you can call liberal (or political leftist)
          3- You are utterly wrong. You don’t know that I know that histone complex is described as a cylindrical wedge that is derived from the spiral assembly of the four histone dimers into a left-handed protein supercoil and within this supercoil, each dimer subtends an arc of 140 degrees on the cylindrical face of the octamer. I can play your game of asking irrelevant technical questions but I am not deranged like you. I have better things to do than engage with your mental disease.You need professional help.

        16. It was a trick question. A histone is a tetramer of H3/H4 with two dimers of H2A/H2B, with positively charged residues associating with DNA and H1 holding it in place. Acetylation of the lysines of the Histone removes the positive charge, allows the DNA to dissociate and opens it up to transcription. You also failed to describe how chromatin condenses. You see, I was in the top ten percent of all of my classes. I was the guy who beat you. And I have no ‘delusions’ of grandeur; I make 100k+ and am stronger physically than 99.98% of the population.
          The funny thing with the ‘disorder’ you posted is that it describes every political dissident in existence. May as well call it ‘statusquophobia’, but using a lot of big words to confound people makes it sound more believeable. There is a reason they never find underlying neurological causes for these types of disorders; they are nothing more than medicalization of dissent. Similar to oppositional defiant disorder, or any of the disorders that used to be assigned to escaping slaves for the insane desire to be free!
          I love it when centre left people consider themselves right wing because they aren’t a raving moonbat. Please tell me what you are? A libertarian, lol?

        17. Have fun in your hug box, where you use accusations of mental illness to avoid ever questioning your beliefs or considering what others have to say.
          I see you are replying to everyone here and have never been here before. On a little trip, haha?

          I think you have this disease because you obsessively seek out people you disagree with and fight them for no reason, to relieve some fear or inferiority.
          What I just wrote is psychobabble. It is what you are doing. It is very easy to claim everyone who disagrees with you is mentally insane. It is borderline psychopathic to use it in an argument, for the effect it may have on the other person leading them to be possibly institutionalized, falsely. I knew someone this happened to. The ‘psychiatrists’ drove him to suicide. If you were scientific at all, you wouldn’t resort to ridiculous, childish tactics when presented with a hypothesis you had an emotional aversion to.
          I think you are still in college now, actually. You act like people around that age. Or you just never grew up.

        18. 1- You are unskillfully diverting from the original topic. Why are you talking or asking about the molecular structures of H2A?
          2- I include proper citations with every argument on the other hand, you either copy and past wikipedia, or utter nonsense and make pseudo scientific claims.
          3- You are incapable of making your argument intelligible or coherent or supported with reference or citations.
          4- It is obvious that your mind is clouded, and you are suffering from psychological/mental disorder.
          5- For the last time, I ask the relevant question again: How is your argument about haplogroup R1A (which extends both continents Asia and Europe (Eurasia) connected to your certainty about your wife’s genetic/race heritage?
          You proclaimed in your comment above: “You see, I was in the top ten percent of all of my classes. I was the guy who beat you. And I have no ‘delusions’ of grandeur; I make 100k+ and am stronger physically than 99.98% of the population.”
          Definition of Grandiose delusional disorder: A person with this type of delusional disorder has an over-inflated sense of worth, power, knowledge, or identity. The person might believe he or she has a great talent or has made an important discovery.

        19. Here is my citation:
          Arents G., Moudrianakis E. N. (1993) Topography of the histone octamer surface: repeating structural motifs utilized in the docking of nucleosomal DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 90, 10489–10493

        20. Oh, dear brother…but we do have the pressure to adapt…) And reproductive success and offspring survival is still the measure of it; the cultural and societal pressure have replaced most of the meteorological, nutritive and parasitary challenges…but modern cities are no less a BIOTOPE as is Serengeti (for comparison: ants have both adapted (and are still adapting) for the life INSIDE, as well as outside of the anthill hive…no “orange-apple-fruit salad” here, that You imply). Evolution continues on and on, and there IS no stopping it…what You are suggesting is actually the opposite; by changing SOCIETY of human species, You want to skewer that intrinsic adaptative pressure toward favouring either Your current ( real, or perceived as such) “maladaptation”…or, some romantic, nostalgic, idealizing notion of “good ole’ times”, and that from our puny human perspective. Concerning “bloodlines”…humans, contrary to ants, are not an eusocial (single-mother-multiple fathers, highly specialized, hivemind…etc.) species. Our genetic (NOT cultural) diversity and LACK of specific niche is exavtly that what made us to this “pinnacle of evolution” that we think that we are. Still we yet have to become more than just the flieas who quarrel to whom belongs the dog. A good start would be creating a NEW male-centric society (as opposed to old “patriarchal nationalism”, with “meritocracy” based on irrelevant “merits”). And for those who want to create this by saying: “just lift and diet and be honorable, don’t miscegenate and lay as many females on their backs, as you can…and, yeah, be sure to eliminate the Jews (and blacks?) from the “big picture””, I wold gladly give the reminder that chimpanzees (not bonobos) are stronger by several multipliers then humans, eat a very healthy diet and live in true patriarchal society…while being kept in zoos and as (very dangerous) pets, by the dominant species.
          Creating the new culture and spirituality, shaping the adaptative pressure of our society to optimize for BOTH intrinsic, as well as external challenges, is the key…not the simpl-minded, imaginary “Blut und Boden” (Blood and Land) pseudo-ideology.

        21. (I apologize to readers for writing errors in my reply…I have very big hands, writing on teeny-weeny smartphone keyboard.. 😀 )

        22. I did not deny that, I merely stated that the pressures are different. Right now, we are allowing globalist corporations to shape evolution. They don’t really want innovation (which increases cost), competition or very intelligent human populations. They want an elite class and a mixed mongrel class that will never question them. I always thought expanding on the idiocracy idea genetically would be hilarious; humans, having miscegenated until none of their genes were adaptive and all of them were the same, get bottlenecked by a single mutation of the flu.
          Chimapanzees are around twice as strong as humans, the muscle weave (I’m talking molecular structure, not cellular, so don’t try that shit) doesn’t allow for more than this; the data you are using is based on studies done in a zoo, using a rickety apparatus during 1923.

          Read more than just the headline, to avoid looking ridiculous to everyone here.
          Human beings adaptation to nature was to develop rapid adaptation; something we colloquially call intelligence. While an animal must wait thousands of years to develop the traits of a predator, we simply invented guns. We like being nice and humane, but the truth is that you line of reasoning is bunk; a gorilla wouldn’t even be able to take two steps against a device that can fill him full of rifle hollowpoints at a rate of 600 rounds per minute (10 per second). Intelligence also has conquered bacterial infection, and may conquer the stars, all disease and eliminate human waste; patriarchal society allows for structured breeding, and thus the proliferation of intelligence. Not everyone should be allowed to have children, and to suggest that mixing until intelligence is largely gone for the sake of political correctness when we need that intelligence to address systemic issues is to commit suicide. Your argument is merely a strawman where you take a mocking tone to distract from its ‘apples to oranges’ character.

        23. What a waste of time. Wait until after work and use a computer. Or stop wasting time raiding boards for the sake of disagreeing with people, which does nothing contructive for your cause or yourself.

        24. I cannot truly dislike You, or dismiss Your opinion as entirely incorrect, because You seem well read and attempt to support Your opinion with clear arguments and polite debate but, oh boy, do You mix up truths and …well, something guess would be pseudo-scientific attempt at creating political agenda to soothe the qualms of a pissed-off citizen 🙂 (…something in tone of : “Crush the elites! I deserve to be on the trone! If You don’t believe me -ask my mama and she will tell You how smart and deserving I am!”
          In short: sour grapes (as in the fable)…
          But to adress Your misquote first: chimpanzers are about FOUR times as strong as humans. Article from 2009:

          Second: You need to brush up on evolutionary logics; ALL of the evolved traits are INCREMENTAL and must bring fitness advantages EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. Thus, it is impossible for a species (unless You step on a DC comics magic meteorite) to SUDDENLY evolve a smashing, game-changing trait AT ONCE. So no “simply evolving into an intelligent being” and “simply inventing machine-guns snd gorilla-stopping hollow-points”..)) Sorry.
          For further edification, see:

          But, what glints through Your angry words may be the terrifiying future truth nevertheless: for the majority of humans alive, and under merciless heel of new adaptive stress and environmental challenges (admitted: mostly society-intrinsic) intelligence may not be the “winning trait ” anymore! Individual lives are longer (on the main) in intelligent humans…but “Treyvons” of the world beat smart guys fertility-wise hands-down fifteen times till Christmas!
          And that, alas, may point to the only exception to the “no-fast-wham-bam-evolution” rule.
          And this exception lies in paraditic/symbiotic co-evolution and its role in further speciation.
          In short: Eloi of the future may be (as you imply) “mistery-meat”, half-cretin, semi-parasitic,semi-probiotic, “canon-food”…nourishing,andactually, ACCELERATING evolution of the elite!
          And here I must agree with You on some points.
          However, Nature is still undecided on the winning strategy and has no “noble bias”, if “lions” shall win..or the “rats”…it’s still undecided. 😉
          p.s. I am neither blue-piller, white-knight, SJW or feminist…therefore, “strawmen” tactics are not in my arsenal…))
          Sincerely Yours,
          RoK-friendly “Eskimo Psychiatrist” with Ph.D in evolutionary Biology 🙂

        25. Sure, discussion board here will tolerate no “time-wasting” dissent, oh Mighty Guardian Of Sensitive Eyes…))

          So no “Simply Evolving Rapid acting intelligence” and “gorilla bashing hollowpoints”.
          Edificate Yourself…and then discuss.
          And even though Your Google search of this reference (from 1965 btw) makes Your balls swell with undeserved “academic”pride….

          The truth is….the chimps are, actually about FOUR times stronger than humans, respective all the corrections concerning size,anatomy and physiology.
          (as in 2009 article):

          However, as much I abhor giving a superficially educated man ANY credit…You may inadvertently make a real point: the idiocracy-made “Trayvons”, may, as semi-parasites and semi-probiotics of elite Morlocks (who are, in reality much prettier and smarter then their chattel..) actually REALLY, not only nourish…but also ACCELERATE their (Elite’s) evolution…all the way to the true new speciation.
          However, Nature has no “noble” bias…and whether “lions” or “rats” , with their totally different adaptative traits, shall thrive (and survive!) in the end…is still undecided.
          P.s. I am no feminist, blue/purple-piller, or SJW…so no need for “strawman army”. Ever. 🙂

    4. I would really like to hear your opinion on interracial marriage Roosh. Lefties seem to brag about how good Diversity is all the time yet ironically they are doing everything to destroy Diversity by promoting the black guy-white girl couple everywhere in movies , ads etc. They sure hate diversity and want asap a world of Brown Mongrels , the final and biggest globalist intention. Don’t you think it’s time we went red pill on this topic and seek Interracial Marriage Ban ?

      1. I think what you’re looking for is the Alt Right faggot committe, I’m not exactly sure what website that is myself, but a simple Google search should suffice

        1. Thanks Prince but Im not interested in googling that shit. Anyway are we supposed to ignore race differences here coz you’re butthurt ? You would be better off hiding in your mum’s royal basement than out here if you can’t handle the truth.

        2. I couldn’t care less about the African American race if that’s what your insinuating the majority of my people are useless social justice warriors who refuses to take responsibility or work. My problem isn’t even the fact that you may or may not see Caucasians as superior to every other race it is your god given right my friend, but when you try to take my white women away then we have a problem.

      2. Imposing bans like that would make you no better than those you seek to protect yourselves from with said ban.
        But I agree with you. Only those of like kind SHOULD breed. You only need to look at nature to see the results. How much does a purebred Tibetan Mastiff with a pure lineage cost you compared with a Mastiff breeding with any other dog? They call mixed-breed dogs MUTTS.

        1. It’s not about being good anymore iBoob, it’s about preven your own race from going extinct.

        2. I disagree by your methods. Creating license to breed is a horrendous idea IMO. True education and real leadership are ways toward long lasting and healthy solutions.

      3. As a brazilian, i know very well what you mean. My father is black and is descendant of indigenous and africans, and my mother is white and is descendant of germans and italians. I’m, as you said, a brown mongrel, as well as my brothers.
        But in Brazil this is a very common scenario. Everyone is mixed here, and the concept itself of “race” or “ethnic” seems to be too vague for us. We mixed so much, that we became a proper ethnic group with unique characteristics purchased from all kinds of races around the world. The price of this situation is that Brazilians do not value their family tree, since it’s so vast and diverse that is just too confusing to care. Because of this, we don’t care about family inheritance since our family was never united by a culture or race at long term.
        The good side is the girls. We have curvaceous girls with all kinds os characteristics mixed. If you want a blonde with voluptuous ass like that of a black girl, you find here. If you want a black girl with blue eyes and straight hair, you will find as well. Just know where to look.
        If the globalized world becomes true, then it will look like Brazil. To me it’s not seems to be so bad, but I can understand that this will affect all the cultural matters of these countries in a deep way so that they will be uncharacterized.

        1. You can’t talk to these guys, man. They’re so caught up in their racial purity obsessions that they can’t see natural allies like us right in front of them. I’m of a similar background to you, my dad’s 100% white (American-born Austrian/Polish ancestry) and my mother is from Trinidad (Black/Indian). These alt-right guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. Race-mixing has always happened, it’s always going to happen, and outlawing it isn’t going to stop it. The problem is not white women fucking non-white men, the problem is that so many white women have been made effectively barren thanks to decades of feminism, careerism and carousel riding.

        2. Im not saying you guys are not good allies or that you should feel bad about yourselves or anything , you are talking ou of your ass. I’m just saying racial mixing shouldn’t be promoted , at least over here , coz it serves to globalist goals. Period.

        3. And what is your nation now? No unity, with an elitist class and no hope. Your country was set to be an economic powerhouse, and now it is failing. Human beings need to belong to a group. It is how we evolved. I am sick of people pretending their ideas transcend nature. Nature has been shaping life for 5 billion years. It is delusional to think the mechanations of your mind can overcome such a force.
          You can take man out of nature, but you cannot take nature out of man.
          I am sorry you had the right to identity stolen from you. But I must protect my own genetic future.

        4. I don’t think man can overcome nature, but I recommend you to rethink your concepts of nature. I think racial pluralism has nothing to do with the actual societal crisis in the west, at least not in Brazil.
          Brazil is beyond problematic in a lot of senses, but racial mixture has little to do with it. I’ll not describe the societal history of my country because this will take too much time, but what I can say for now is that every single social and political problem that Brazil has today is due to the fact that, since the first colonizations, Brazil was a land made to be explored by the benefits of other countries, the resources and riches of Brazil never belonged to its people, but to foreign people.
          That mentality is the root for everything that happens today, and that’s because the brazilian elite think that all our riches belongs to them, not to the people.
          As I said in my previous comment, Brazilians has overcome the status of “mixed races” and become a unique race with unique characteristics. Although the fact that you can see many people with pure white,pure black or pure hispanic characteristics, indians and asians, to us the true brazilian is the one that has a little of every ethnicity. We are proud to mix and this is not a problem, because our identity is not associated to our race, but to our unique culture.

        5. Lack of agency claims are little more than people begging for people to expect from them a lack of accountability. Hundreds of millions of people and no one has risen to make a better country for their ancestors? This is a ridiculous assertion. Either you are too lazy to improve, lack the will to defend your own or are destined to lose based on genetics. Since the first possibility can be solved with nationalism, which Brazil has spades of, process of elimination leaves the last two. I was being nice and assumed you weren’t stupid based on genetics but lack of education, stemming from a lack of unified drive as a culture.
          Yes, a culture. Contrary to assertions that every culture is worth as much as the next, in reality behavior patterns are judged in nature based on their utility to the species or organisms who employ them. Your culture has so little utility for improvement for the sake of a nation’s future because it is not tied to a genetic destiny shared by a group of unified people, and rather to an amorphous blob where everyone is both a stranger and the same, leading to no real sense of identity. This is why poor children have no hope for the future and sniff glue; there is no real community, only a facade. If I had nothing financially passed on and no culture tied to genetics in my favor, I’d sniff glue too.

        6. “And what is your nation now? No unity, with an elitist class and no hope. Your country was set to be an economic powerhouse, and now it is failing.”
          Your statement ignores Brazil’s history and trivializes the causes of it’s many problems, nearly all of which have more factors at play than racemixing; which contributed negligibly at best if not having outright anything to do with the situation at hand. You cannot be seriously suggesting that, with everything that happened in Brazil’s past, much caused by factors completely unrelated to race; like corruption, that the most pressing cause of Brazil’s problems if not the cause solely responsible for them over all others; was two people of different ethnicities fucking.
          “I am sorry you had the right to identity stolen from you. But I must protect my own genetic future.”
          Both that “identity” and “genetic future” are and will always be, for you, me and pretty much every human on this planet, biologically composed of people of a different race than us. As everyone has ancestors of a different race. Your not only not protecting a thing but your retarded and sound like a nutriding faggot for believing you are. On top of being and being shit at any type of historical and biological research whatsoever. You and your “muh race” ilk are equally as bad as any Feminist and SJW

        7. “Lack of agency claims are little more than people begging for people to expect from them a lack of accountability.”
          This is not even a case of lack of agency. More like a mix of greed and lack of foresight for future consequences; if not outright ignoring long term consequences in favor of short term benefits. It’s easy to ignore and handwave problems as long as it looks like your descendants and nearly everyone except you will suffer the consequences of your actions while you reap all of the ill gotten gain for what your doing. Such things mrror a lot of what is talked about on this very site and what Riverside is saying, like ‘the Decline’ (well holy shit isn’t that all the same as Brazil) and issues posed by SJW’s (directly similar to the greed of other nations and Brazilian elite Riverside just posted). If we go by your supposition of a lack of agency, then this site, the manosphere and all like it are just a result of us all meaninglessly whining and about no substantial problems and all of the topics we talk about (the decline, SJW’s, false rape and many others) are not only solely all our faults and ours alone but not rooted in any sort of realism; as well as not being true problems worth going on about. And if we can for just a moment go back to parallels, not only are all of these things the mansphere’s detractors say we do, they are things our detractors actually do: have no agency, blame everything on men, etc. The root of many of Brazil’s problems and the manosphere’s problems ( and I’d argue most problems the world over) are one and the same. Just substitute those other countries and greedy elite for SJW’s and the like. It’s all no different.
          TDLR It’s all same shit a.k.a same shit different toilet 2 electric boogaloo
          ” Since the first possibility can be solved with nationalism, which Brazil has spades of, process of elimination leaves the last two.”
          The process of elimination can’t be used for this or anything else you’ve posted as none of is based in an logic or reason and especially not in any historical or scientific context.

        8. Your reading comprehension skills are poor. I’ll use simpler prose.
          People who claim they have no agency just want to avoid responsibility for their actions.
          Intelligence can be traced genetically, which is the giant confounding variable all race denialists ignore. They just make excuses for themselves by saying other people are evil for putting their own kind first. A completely ridiculous assertion, when the point of life is to pass on genetics for further proliferation and breakdown of organic molecules, leading to entropy increase. I am historically correct as well, as every empire was erected by limiting female sexuality and maximizing in group genetic similarity, which creates strong in group bias. Both of these things encourage men to build society; a lack of these things make men feel like they are slaves for the elite and feel like doing nothing (this is me holding up a mirror to you).

        9. Man, you talk like if human beings had literal different races, like if one is like a elf, other is like a dwarf, other is a proper human… man, this is not an RPG.
          We are all humans, and it ends there. Alright, I agree that different ethnics have different aspirations and gifts, but science never proves that the mixture itself of an ethnic group has any abnormal effect on the genetic ground that can cause any form of intellectual or anatomical disability. All effects are well explained and easy to understand, and if there is any deficiency in the rational behavior, or disability in culture, there are several external factors out of Ethnicity field that explain it, and moreover is nothing that does not happen in “pure” ethnic groups when it comes to individual rational ground.

        10. A long-time ago some of the smarter white people in the United States (Jefferson and even Lincoln among others) realized that if we freed the slaves they would never function as well as whites in our free enterprise societies and through their failure we would become slaves to them and their failure will be blamed on whites until there are no whites left. This is exactly what has happened.
          The United States preserved our ethnic lines by bringing our women when we came to colonize. Brazil was colonized by conquistadors and slaves so you guys started race-mixing from the beginning.

        11. I understand. I do not dare to opine about race mix in US and Europe anymore, I realize that I’m unable to figure out if is right or wrong for them to mix with other races.
          But Brazil, as you said, is a different case. We’re mixed from the beginning, so In our case this is not the problem. Race-mixing is itself a Brazilian cultural characteristic and this will never change, and it didn’t need to change anyway. What need to change is the status quo of our political culture.

        12. Yeah, banning anything doesn’t seem right to me as something that goes against freedom. Now encouraging… that’s a different matter.

        1. It is very disturbing that you are derailing our legitimate quest for gender equality and men’s rights with utter pseudo-scientific nonsense, antisemitic Nazi propaganda, and racism. You do not represent the majority of us.
          I only hope that you posted this video as satire and this is just a misunderstanding or poor communication.

        2. I dint say it would be easy Neo.
          Just the truth.
          “the majority of us” was a nice touch. Oy vey.

        3. Oh I see, now it makes sense! You’re an MRA. Listen here, you are still a leftist; you still ascribe to the liberal lies of blank slatism. Go back to your no starter hug box. Begging for rights won’t work because society pedestallizes and feels sorry for women, not men. An artifact of the extreme investment having children was in the wild due to humans long development time. Genetics (read: reality) undermines your idealism yet again.

        4. Oh, it’s you again…. The guy suffering from Grandiose delusional disorder. Sorry about the mental health issue you are going through, I realize it is difficult for you. I will help you with the scientific part. In science, we use scientific method and whenever you make a claim, you have to cite it from a credible source such as peer reviewed academic papers and scientific research. Don’t forget to take your medication before posting because you just make a fool of yourself.

        5. And you don’t deny it! Have fun begging for rights, the same way you beg for pussy. Like liberals, you must denounce people with meaningless labels (like racist) to have any hope of winning an argument.
          In science, we make a hypothesis and test it, and I do this in the real world. We do not use a blatant appeal to authority (except when looking up chemical syntheses) and post journals that may have an 80% retraction rate for articles, like psychology. We also do not use single journal articles, and the article systems you posted don’t even try to replicate the results of the paper before publishing. I say ‘we’ because I am a scientist and you are not, by decree of your sacred university system no less!
          Your understanding of science reads like an English major wrote it. Most english majors I meet who are ‘scientific’ are posers who listen to a few podcasts. Science knows some, but also very little, which you would know if you ever got beyond high school level teachings and into the frontier where we are still learning.

        6. I was correct about every statement I made because I cited credible scientific sources. You, on the other hand, failed on every level to support your argument and obviously suffering from Grandiose delusional disorder and depression. Besides, you are the one chasing after people to chat with. I for one, find you dull and incoherent. I’m not interested in your delusional opinions and conspiracy theories. I suggest you get professional help.

      4. The feminism problem has little or nothing to do with race. If anything, the problem is exacerbated in “leftist western white” culture. In fact white women married to non-white men seem to care less about feminist ideology. Just my observation.
        But it doesn’t have to be about the white woman. How about white men marrying non-white women?
        Let’s not forget that patriarchal social structures are alive and healthy around the world. We suffer from the toxic feminism mostly in the “white” culture if you want to consider race in your equation.

        1. It’s not all about Feminism. Feminism is only o part of the big momma Leftism and Leftism’s ultimate goal is the destruction of Nationalism , Western Civilisation and White Race and Race mixing can only contribute to that. The degeneration of White women through feminism and liberalism contributes to that also.

        2. Only white men have lost to women’s feminist movements. Only in white culture, men are second class citizens, women have taken over politics, government and educational institutions. In all other cultures, women respect their men. Perhaps white men need to take notes on how to be real men.

        3. Ĺol you are really overestimating women here. Women are not capable of taking over anything , let alone governments and politics. If it were for women they would have never even imagined a future out of kitchen. White women and all women in non-third world countries are brainwashed and tricked into believing they have power and equality. In reality they are just being used like an army of robots with their feminist movements to serve to their Elite Globalist Masters’ Agenda. Western women are not the enemies , they just need to be “saved” and kindly brought back to the kitchen (patriarchy) . So no white men have not lost to white women , they have lost to western civilisation’s enemies , the Globalist Elite. Why white men ? Coz white men are the backbone of the western civilisation , whose downfall is the ultimate goal of their progressive Agenda. Like they couldn’t overthrow the Strong , Intelligent , Manly African males with femism if they wanted to right ? Give me a break !

        4. Lets take a look at the FACTS:
          1- In white societies such as western Europe, North America, and British colonies such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Men are second class citizens. The legal system is bias against men, 95% of family court cases favor women, forcing men to lose their house, pay alimony and child support. Many of those who suffer commit suicide and society simply does not care about their men because they [men] are expendable.
          2- More women graduate from Universities than men
          3- Women do indeed assault men but rarely prosecuted. On the other hand, if men are simply accused of assaulting women, they are immediately convicted with little or no evidence mostly, based on witness accounts of other women.
          4- There are more women working in government establishments and offices than men. It is estimated that 78% of government workforce are women. Government blatantly discriminates against men and men don’t have the balls to do anything about it. No wonder your women laugh at you and make you cuckolds.
          5- Patriarchy is DEAD in the West. Everywhere else and in practically every other culture, Patriarchy is the normal and natural social structure. White men simply have no ball, most of whom are feminized or gay! what a joke!
          I don’t know what you are smoking but your conspiracy theory fantasy simply does not fly.

        5. The situation is similar in all non-third world countries. Even in Saudi Arabia women can vote and drive cars now , thats a nice start. In third world countries there is no feminist dominance yet coz they have bigger things to worry , like what are they gonna eat for dinner for example.And I never denied the gender roles situation is fucked up in the west , which again is a misch masch of races and cultures now not exclusively white anymore like you are implying. You first admitted yourself that feminism has nothing to do with race and now you’re trying to make it seem like it is a white men’s problem only. I don’t buy that bullshit.

        6. Wrong. The situation only exists in the West as I mentioned earlier. Only in the west will you find feminized men, gay men, and men inferior to women. In other words, you have no balls and your women walk all over you and prefer to date real men. The question is, how did you foolishly lose the patriarchal social structure to women since the 50s? How did you lose your honor this easy?

        7. Your racial inferiority complex makes your arguments pathetic…in the west you will find some of the most alpha males around , backed up by warrior genes and and strong family traditions.Hell even Rok is born in west with a dominantely western fanbase. Show me an asian or african similar page please. And ironically it is the asian males who are known as weak beta nerds , it is Thailand the capital of transgenders. So your bitching towards white males is pointless.

        8. Lets take at the FACTS because delusional opinions are just that – fantasies.
          In the West, the legal system is bias against men and favor women especially in cases involving family law, domestic violence and (sexual) assault. The witness statement of a women is enough for a judge to believe her over a man. All it takes is a woman (the wife) to call the police and accuse the man (husband) of assault (whether true or false) and the man will be taken away immediately, losing his house and custody of any children. Can you imagine this happen in Saudi Arabia for example? At the workplace, men have to be very careful to appease women or they fear getting accused of sexism or risk losing their job. The Western culture cares more about women and establishes many different women organizations yet men cannot dare create a Men’s organization without getting harassed or shutdown. Men actually get physically beat up by women in the west because the western man has no balls. You will never see this happen in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa or Asia- All these cultures are a Patriarchal social structure. Only in the west the Patriarchy is DEAD and men are socially and culturally weaker than women. I dare you to display masculinity at work or in front of women. I dare you to display leadership in a relationship towards a white woman. See what will happen to you. I dare you to straighten up your bitches.

    5. What about El Chapo? Can your patriarchal ideal ensure he doesn’t break out of prison again?
      And, will you guys promise to get rid of the Kardashians?

    6. The United States is a REPUBLIC it has never been, nor was it ever intended to be a “democracy” so that needs t be corrected. The current mob rule culture is how the commies have pushed so much insanity on a very unwilling populace.

      1. US is a Constitutional Republic. The US Constitution is one of the rare documents in history that tells a government on what they can not do. We can use patriarchal nationalism is repair or create new check and balances on the power of government. Right now, we all need to be good and better men that those in power today. Patriarchal nationalism is useless without strong men of integrity and wisdom.

      2. So is China, republics suck.
        “It’s a republic mam if you can keep it.” You lost it a long time ago and your living a pipe dream if you think you can get it back.

        1. Never said it could be taken back, I well aware it can’t be, and only a fool would think otherwise.

        1. Communist infiltration, they couldn’t defeat us militarily so they used the democrats who already hated freedom, and feminists who hate men to destroy the nation from the inside out.

        2. And don’t forget how Abraham Lincoln by trying to keep the Union at all costs laid the foundation for the tyrannical American State today.

        3. Actually it goes back even farther, to British socialites… There is a letter penned to the Queen long ago, I’ve forgotten the specifics, and she flatly refused the demands because she knew women would destroy the land if given the chance. Marx had inspired many by then with his twaddle and it came here and took off leading to banning booze which created the mob, and opened the door for more crime.
          As for Abe, It’s a mixed bag if what he did was rightly or wrongly, but it was the democrats who fired first on Sumpter and started the combat actions so as with all things the left does it leads to death.

    7. Will American-born, hard-working, family-oriented African Americans and Hispanics have a place at the table in this brave new world? I would like to think they would, but I’ve heard several people say otherwise. The dissenters often state that to include non-whites is to choose diversity over nationalism, but I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. Any thoughts?

      1. Yes, legal citizens from that are hard-working, family-oriented, and who accept the PN platform would be included. What we really want to get rid of is the constant social justice warrior engineering.
        Diversity does make it more difficult to build a cohesive nation though. For example, even in the Holy Roman Empire there was a tension between Germanic & Slavic groups.

        1. No doubt the tension was purposefully used by the masters of the time to turn two groups against one another. I have seen this many times at many mine sites across Canada. Employee vs contractor ideology is cultivated by management to divide people to be dominated. Another good example on the world stage would be China supporting north korean communism, because China does not want a Racially/linguistically united Democratic Korea next to her.

    8. You made it to my school newspaper. And of course, they slandered the fuck out of you. I’m thinking about writing an anonymous letter to the editor of sorts, because it’s not right for anyone to be misrepresented like that. The article that you wrote, while possibly not in the best taste, was so obviously satire about women going to strange men’s houses at night that anyone with half a brain would see it’s clear satire.

    9. hahahahahahahahhahaa… are such a loser. Move out of mommy’s house. Neomasculinity….what a fucking joke… suck my cock, bitch.

  2. Just give me my damn duchy already. I got some administratin’ to do.

  3. The fundamental problem is that men are not equal.
    We don’t know for sure how our distant ancestors lived, but the above article matches my own conclusions based on historical and genetic evidence coupled with looking at how modern tribes function.
    We are the minority. We are the few who would have had a shot at being the silverbacks of ancient times. And that means that if we want to set up a system that lasts for more than the usual ten generations – if we want to safeguard the future of our nations for longer than the youngest of us will be alive to see – then we will probably need to set up a system where strong, rational and philosophical men rule over the remaining 80% of men and practically all women.
    But that’s for the future. For now, the answer remains the same: There will be no improvement until the system collapses and people are starving in the street.
    ps still don’t like the term neomasculity. It is simply plain old being a man.

    1. I don’t get “neo-masculinity”, either. It should be redefined as the terms “real man” and “traditional masculinity”. These make a clearer statement.

    1. we are living in a tang dynasty right now my friend. Thanks to the collapse of the western world, I can scarcely leave my house without being offered some tang.
      Tang here. Tang there. Goddamn tang is everywhere.
      I have more tang than I can shake a stick at and, believe you me, I’ve been shaking my stick at it for longer than I can remember.
      Maybe this is the problem. There is no way I am going to revolt against the current Tang Dynasty. I am too busy enjoying all the tang.

      1. What a fool you made of yourself. Tang is pronounced Taa-ng not Tang as in tangy. Reread that sentence and realize how ridiculous that sounds. That will show you how ridiculous your comment was.

        1. ok fu man chu…whatever you say….just don’t make joke….don’t make peepee in my coke smh lighten the fuck up

        2. We’re talking about patriarchal nationalism and I pointed to one of the greatest empires in history with many many lessons to learn from (but people ignore because lol Asia) and you treat it like a fucking joke and tell me to lighten the fuck up. Stick it up your ass, worthless cunt.

    2. China may be messed up by the descendants of SJWs now but as a culture they are far more united and stable than the West has been since the days of Rome.
      The Chinese government is already opting for more and more conservative media controls (they recently banned depictions of homosexuality and premature romance) and is putting more emphasis on old literature and the glories of past empires in their history classes. Contrast this with the past when they only glorified Chairman Mao.
      I predict that at some point China’s leaders will remove Marxism and Leninism from the ideology entirely (themselves decidedly Western concepts) and promote full-on nationalism.
      The forces of Sinocentric traditionalism and Western degeneracy are going to be the ideological blocs of the mid to late 21st century. China is building up semi-colonial infrastructure in Africa, tightening its grip on the South China Sea (with a third of the world’s shipping), and building up an advantageous relationship with Russia. While China may be materially and strategically disadvantaged now, it will probably be able to outdo the emasculated welfare queen states of the West.

      1. “I predict that at some point China’s leaders will remove Marxism and Leninism from the ideology entirely (themselves decidedly Western concepts) and promote full-on nationalism.” — maybe by 2040. My guess is some modern form of Legalism will be the backbone of civilization.

  4. The idea is useless unless those who practice it have a LOT of children. This sounds like a queer point – and unpopular because it takes so long – but any idea and every idea is easily and perhaps only passed from father to son/daughter. After all, that’s the core of patriarchy, right?
    Emphasis needs to be placed on encouraging ALL supporters to marry and have as many children as possible to achieve this point. It’s the surest way to multiply our numbers by massive amounts.
    An obstacle is white women are increasingly making poorer wives. Your race focus is an obstacle you’re making for yourself. Importing Asian wives is easy and a solution to combating feminism, and the half-white children are every bit their father’s children. If you don’t accept that white women have failed us and incorporate an alternative, you’re not going to get the numbers to destroy the left. Never.

    1. Yes, importing a wife from a more patriarchal and traditional country would be easiest thing to do. However, in such a scenario we would bring the culture as well, thus continuing the multi-cultural experiment. Despite of it being with better intentions, we’ve seen the consequence of it. Cultural and racial homogeneity is healthiest for individuals and a society.
      There is a whole generation of women in the west that are essentially damaged goods. Short of taking away their freedoms, and making them proverbial baby making slaves, there isn’t much hope for them.
      People work with incentives. The government would just need to make the incentives good enough to have big families. Essentially, what Hitler did…
      Edit: Putin has also introduced similar incentives.

      1. Asian Wives really ? …so the next generation would consist of bastard mongrels ? We could as well say goodbuy to the white race and western civilition than…I don’t care if the white women are degenerated and all , they still carry the genes that gave birth to Newton , Mozart , Churchill and all the other great man in the history of mankind. If I absolutely had to I would marry a “western slut” over some loyal brown women anyday. Genetics and race differences are REAL. Get over it …the only solution is to bring the white women back to patriarchy !

      2. This is absolutely untrue. The problem is probably you’re using the families of left wing men as example, where the father deliberately encourages his wife’s Asian culture in his children. This doesn’t happen when the father is right wing, duh.
        I have a Thai wife and 2 daughters so far. My wife lets me raise my daughters as I see fit. She’s NEVER stood in my way. This is, ironically, largely a cultural thing. She does believe in patriarchy – patriarchy is a huge part of her culture – and educating the kids is largely the father’s job.
        This gives me free rein to teach my girls whatever I want. You wouldn’t get this from a Western woman – you’d be competing ideologies in your own house. My children, despite being half white, are going to be more on board with the revival of patriarchal Western culture than the children of most white women will be.

    2. You just went full retard here buddy…Asian wives really ? so the next generation would consist of bastard mongrels ? we could as well say goodbuy for good to the white race and the western civilisation than . I don’t care if the white women are degenerated and all , they still carry the genes that produced Newton , Mozart , Churchill and all the other great men in the history of mankind. If I absolutely had to I would marry a “western slut ” over some submissive brown women anyday. Genetics and race differences are REAL. Get over it..the only solution is to bring whitr women to patriarchy.

      1. I used to think the same way until I discovered Colombian women. They beat white women any day of the week. When is comes to fucking women, pasty white women are at the bottom of the barrel. You haven’t lived, my friend.

        1. Sure pal I bet they are but I wasn’t talking about fucking here but having some god damn kids. It just wouldn’t feel ok if my son didn’t look like me and my father. But hey maybe that’s just me.

        2. If your son doesn’t look like you, it’s because your wife’s fucking somebody else.
          Your comments on “brown” skin towards me are also ignorant. My daughters have whiter skin than me, and you, too, no doubt. It’s a real milky tone that resists sun-tanning, see.
          By the sound of it, you really just don’t know anything about this.

      2. “so the next generation would consist of bastard mongrels ?” Dean Cain, Keanu Reeves, Kristin Kreuk, Vanessa Hutchins…yes you occasionally get an Elliot Richards but he’d have been fine if his dad had just bought him a hooker and put him on stronger meds.

        1. These people are so great I’ve never heard of them . Sorry guys but I refuse to go blue pill on race.

        2. You’ve never heard of them? lol! Superman, Neo, Lana Lang, neither of them? ROFL! How are we supposed to take you seriously on race relations if you’re from some backwater country who hasn’t heard of, at LEAST Neo from the Matrix, I mean come on!!!

        3. You don’t even know the definition of the word “bastard”. A bastard is someone born of an adulterous union. Go read the Bible. We are all descended from one man and one woman. If a man marries a virgin (of any race), and has babies with her, the babies are by definition “legitimate and pure offspring” in the sight of God.
          Faith is the key matter. Ruth was an “unclean foreign Moabitess”, but she had faith in the God of the Bible and she was grafted into the people of God, and is an ancestor of the Lord Jesus Christ.
          I’d marry and make babies with faithful Christian virgin women of any race. I’d never marry and make babies with some idolatrous, and adulterous white whores. (Not disparaging white women, I generally prefer them to others, but Faith is infinitely more important). There are faithful Christian women of all races, and they are to be esteemed.

        4. I demanded examples of great mixed people and you dare bring me actors…actors had the same status as prostitutes in antiquity and medieval times and have only gone rich and powerful because of the degeneration of the western society and lefties who promote them. Even monkeys can perform great numbers at Circus…nothing impressive here. I’m hoping you can provide me with some cases of great nonwhite scientists for example.

        5. Never gave a fuck about Hollywood or other propaganda tools in the hands of lefties and globalists. Just to let you know I live in Germany even though Im very proud of my balcanic roots.

      3. There’s not much inferior about Asians aside the size, which can be bred against. I’m 6 foot 1 inch. My sons won’t be small. And the most successful alpha male to ever draw breath remains Genghis Khan. Reflect on that for a moment, please. And with the way things are going, Genghis Khan, a Mongoloid, will probably remain the pinnacle of masculinity and humanity until the end of our species. He was it. Largest conquest by a single man. Most children ever made by a single man.
        As for the idea of Caucasian superiority – we’re currently a failing race. There’s no way to stop it. Feminism has killed our women’s wombs en masse. But we, as Western men, need to breed to save our individual bloodlines and with our children resurrect what culture we can.
        Man, if you’re not breeding right now, then you’re failing. Find a white wife if you can, but reproductive failure is NOT an option. Reproductive failure is the disease of feminism to begin with. It’s the reason the conservative West is collapsing. Your ridiculous racial preferences only add to that collapse.
        Feminism may have doomed our race, but it doesn’t have to doom our individual bloodlines, culture, and the rivival of masculinity and patriarchy.

        1. Asians aren’t small because of genetics. They are small because of diet. People of Asian ancestry can be large and manly if they are raised on a diet higher in protein, and lower in soy.
          I’ve spent a lot of time in Japan, and notice a huge difference in height based on people’s age. Old folks (80-90s) are tiny. They grew up impoverished on a diet of rice. People in their 60-70s are a little bigger. People in their 40-50s are a little taller than that (better economy and food when they grew up). People in their 20-30’s are even bigger (more food, and more protein). I’ve seen guys in their 20-30’s as tall as me (I’m 6’4″ – or 192 cm) riding on the subways of Tokyo.
          Childhood nutrition is far more important than race for the growth and development of strong bodies (and minds).

        2. Perhaps. I mean, even I at 6 foot 1 inch am a head taller than my father, and all the men of my ancestry. I suppose I don’t owe my height exclusively to genetics.
          However, genetics DO play a small factor. An average Balinese will always be shorter than an average Scandinavian no matter what the diet.

        3. “There’s not much inferior about Asians aside the size, which can be bred against.”
          Then why don’t we see so much innovation and invention coming from Asia?

      4. I understand the sentiment that white women are damaged, our enemies have been super effective destroying them. Like you I would be damned to piss away tens of thousands of years evolution and heritage of those that overcame before me just for an easy lay that can cook and clean.
        A good read here on the intended mongrelisation of Europeans
        “Kalergi-Coudenhove started the 1922 Pan-European movement to achieve this diabolical plan with the help of the B’nai Brith, a Jewish Supremacist international support group and criminal cult. His book was never very widely circulated and it appears that it was never fully translated into English (the original German version can be downloaded here.)
        In the preface to the 1932 edition, Kalergi expanded on his mongrelization plan and included a clear call to genocide the White race in Europe:
        “Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race … similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples … Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, will against its own will … turn Europe into a mixed race of Asians and Negros … through this artificial selection process.”
        His honored status within the EU system today can still be seen in the Coudenhove Kalergi Prize, which is given to heads of state in the EU for furthering the real aims of the EU contained within his book. Recent recipients of the prize have included Herman Van Rompuy and Angela Merkel. Prizes like this are often given out by the Jews to encourage competition among their servants in carrying out their genocidal agenda against the White race .”

    3. My wife is black and more traditional than any white woman I’ve ever met. I come to this site for the return of gender roles/patriarchy/whatever you want to call it but the race shit is a big eye roll for me, not to mention counter productive to the “cause” so to speak. Also I’m not religious. I support the Christian way of life, but there are things in the bible I simply can’t believe ever happened. That being said, I find the Old Testament to be great.
      My views on gender roles, race and pretty much everything else comes from a mammalian perspective. Different races are different breeds, and most breeds of human and animal were originally two separate breeds. For example, what are now known as Native Americans were Russians once upon a time. The only way to not be hypocritical is to specify nationality instead of race seeing as how, genetically, an Australian and a German are just as different as an Australian and an African. The only variable is merely cosmetic. As far as gender, by today’s standards I am a raging sexist and I’m fine with that. LGBT, while a VERY minor amount of people are born that way due to hormonal imbalances the rest are just attention seekers, and their activities cause greater obscurity and more angst between the genders. Religion, as stated before, I simply don’t believe. I don’t meant to insult anyone that does, but I support science and logic more than things like faith and theory, though I do acknowledge the positive effects of faith.
      Thanks to anyone who actually read this whole thing.

      1. Agreed. The Alt-Right race ideology is poisonous and toxic to the very core. It should be done away with because it is incompatible with what we need to do with the people we have. Working in harmony is the true way but before we can do that, we gotta get society healthy and people educated.

      2. I get it. I find the “lets blame the jews stuff” as well as a lot of the super political stuff and shit where people take themselves way to seriously to be eye roll worthy. That’s ok. In an open enviorment there will be stuff you like, stuff you don’t and stuff you are apathetic to.
        read and participate where you like and ignore or mock the stuff you don’t. It is the price you pay for an open forum where everyone is coming from different points of view.

        1. I’m of the same mindset. I honestly don’t really care about race; it’s all about each individual’s character. Are there noticeable trends in each race? Sure, but let’s not get too hung up on it unless it detracts from our goals. The Jew stuff just seems silly. THE JEWS! THE JEWS! THEY’RE OUT TO GET US!

        2. It’s silly only because they make it silly. I think the important part is identifying the threat that comes from the Jews. Let’s learn how to attack and cripple that and leave race out of it.

        3. The Jews suck. So do the jigs, the spics, the sand apes, the chinks and everyone one else. There is a small percentage of people that don’t suck and race has little to do with it.
          It is a very convenient thing to do, when you reach down to grab your balls and realize you don’t have any, to point at some subgroup and say it is their fault. It is the heart and soul of the retarded female mind and I want no part of it.

        4. Totally agree. The Jew haters overpower this site and the message. Too bad, there is a lot of good stuff here.

        5. …and I have noted on here that I’m sure Josh & Ruth down at the local synagogue are dealing with the same crap as the rest of us and trying to get by, they certainly are NOT part of some massive ‘conspiracy’, they are getting screwed over like the rest of us.

        6. I think we need to make our official slogan that line from Full Metal Jacket:
          “There is no bigotry here. You are all equally worthless.”

        7. Perfect sentiment. I am the least racist person in the world. Racism involves a notion that one is above other based on race. That is insane. As I have said before, my general assumption is that everyone is a totally worthless moron. For the 5% of the times that I am wrong I can sincerely apologize and move on.

        8. Their very own religious texts proclaim that it is their god given right as the chosen ones to rule over the world.
          Their version of Jesus or ‘saviour’ (who by the way they denounced and had slaughtered for calling them out) reads something like lord Satan returning and rewarding them with plentiful Goyim slaves for all their good service to the dark lord.

        9. And it can be assured that you will always adorn your white knight armor for every thread the fair maiden Jew is critiqued or not shed in a positive light.

        10. I used to feel this way. And, of course, I agree that many cracker victims sound just like black folk blaming whitey, when they go on and on about Jews.
          I have re-worked the Jewish Question a bit; to me, it’s more an Apostate Question. It is indubitable that the most destructive movements and events over the past few centuries of European history, have been bankrolled and supported by Jews.
          … and, those who have fallen away from the Catholic Faith. Judaism and Catholicism – these together have comprised the Israel of God through history. Those who have fallen from it, bear a curse: a kind of madness, a hunger for chaos, a satanic penchant for nihilism and revenge, that fills the mind of the apostates from God. This spirit of godless rebellion is strong amongst the Jews, and the apostate Catholics (i.e., most Protestants, and most of the unbelieving impostors who refuse to abandon the exterior pretense of Catholicism, such as “pope” Francis, “cardinals” Kasper and Marx, Hans Kung, and all their ilk).
          We find these people behind the most pointlessly destructive movements in modernity. It is a real problem, and I hope to get into that in a few months’ time in my articles, here.

        11. But do you sincerely see no difference between the apparent capabilities of different races? I agree that all have the same human worth; all human life is in God’s image, as I believe. I acknowledge that individuals differ more greatly than groups, and there will always be exceptions to the rule.
          But, it’s pretty obvious that no culture ever attained the clarity and creativity of European man, though Indian and Asian cultures have been close seconds, historically. Likewise, it’s pretty clear that Sub-Saharan Africans in general have never accomplished anything, whether before or after the “evil” of colonialism. I think it’s prudent to take these kinds of facts into account when you are running a society. For example, why bother smashing one’s head against a wall for four decades in a row, wondering why black girls never perform well on Trigonometry exams? It’s futile to have unrealistic expectations of people on the basis of a fictitious egalitarianism.

        12. My instinct is to agree with you.
          However, I wouldn’t place a value judgment on it, hence not saying one race is better than the other. Is one race better at trigonometry than another? It looks like that may be the case (though I would be interested to see black childred raised by alpha jap parents) but this doesn’t mean the the black is worse or the better mathematician is better.
          I am sure there are a lot of people who can do advanced math who I would consider less than human and plenty of people who can barely add who I would admire. My comment had more to do with a person’s value as a person.

        13. It is not about race, it is about God, and Ideas. Biblical Christianity is the actual issue – and historically conservative Protestants – (think Calvin, Luther, Knox, the Puritans) have done the best at building societies.
          Historically these conservative Protestant cultures have done best (United States, England, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, etc.)
          When they abandoned the faith, then the collapse began. The nations that honor God, and his Word, will prosper – whatever color they may be. Whatever nations reject Him, will do into decline – whatever color their skin may be.

        14. Again, I think this is largely about culture and race, which is intimately tied to culture. To be sure, I think the explanation for Europe’s outstanding success, is the fact that it was Catholic for so long, and thus had been suffused by divine graces that produced supernatural results in the human culture, supernatural results that still linger in their effects to this day. The system of law and philosophy that paved the way for the Modern era, was all but completely developed by the 15th century. The myths about the Renaissance as the first awakening of science and learning are precisely that, and in fact the Renaissance represented a brief retardation of even the scientific progress that had been made in the last couple centuries of the Middle Ages; it was primarily a period of artistic flourishing.
          But in addition to this, we see European peoples founding great societies all the way back to ancient Greece, long before Christ. Northern European peoples, as a result of the Feudal and Manorial systems, further refined both a gene pool and a culture of high trust.
          The brief flash of success amongst the Protestant apostates, was the result primarily of three factors: first, centuries of refinement of the high-trust genes and culture of the Franko-Germanic-(Saxon) Feudal and Manorial cultures; second, the abuse of philosophy, redirecting it towards positivism and the partial sciences, which produced a burst of material progress that was godless in itself, and ultimately fomented a culture of godlessness; third, the fact that the Protestants grew instantly wealthy by plundering the coffers and shrines of the Church, and also by buddying up to the Jews, elevating them to positions of influence and granting permission for usury (which Christians had always forbidden), leading to an explosion of capital wealth and financial “progress,” modern banking, and a general increase in the love of money. This is why we see the emergence of atheism, liberalism and the obsession with “economics” and international trade in the century immediately after the ascent of Protestantism to power. This is the cancer we are still fighting: the Judaeo-Liberal Godless Global Finance Behemoth.
          This created an explosion of material success in Northern European countries, but as history showed, it also completely severed them from any real sense of the sacred and confirmed their devolution into materialism. Yet their genetic and cultural predisposition to idealism led them to become material idealists, paving the way for the explosion of atheism and the obsession of financial, material, ideologies (the gradual unfolding of the SJW approach), especially the almost entire subordination of politics to economics and class identity, that have torn apart European society for the past centuries.
          In short, they were not good at building societies; they have constructed the most dysfunctional and irreverent society ever to exist. They were good at misappropriating the wealth and ideas of the great societies their ancestors had built, and then abusing them in a manner that created a flash in the pan of material abundance, followed quickly and inevitably by the complete apostasy and atheistic materialism of modernity, which is now entering its terminal stages after five centuries of decline. They were great destroyers, not builders, of society.

        15. Well I agree with you there. Trigonometry won’t save your soul.
          I agree that people do not have more or less value as human beings; but so often when people say that people are “equal” and racism is bad, they mean to imply that everyone is equal in terms of their capabilities, and thus disparities must be the result of some discrimination or cultural problem. I don’t deny anyone’s human worth, but I do have greatly reduced expectations of what certain races will be able to do or accomplish, as a general rule, and therefore have very different expectations of how we should treat them and relate to them. Certain populations may simply not be capable of bearing the burden of self-governance, and refusing to admit this fact and live accordingly, is the source of many problems in society. I think this is realistic, but many people would consider it “racist.”

        16. I think we have a fundamental agreement here. I do think racism is bad, but because it implies a connection to ones racial or national identity which one thinks makes them superior which is bullshit and, in my experience, hiding weakness and impotence.

      3. Yeah, I’m not sure why the non-white with traditional values are the enemy in this article. I personally welcome anyone to the table that sincerely wants the same goals as I do; a strong, peaceful society where people are incentivized to be productive and complementary gender roles are espoused (as opposed to women vs men).

        1. I think you might have misread. When they said they are enemies of the system it means the globalist system. I thought the same thing you did at first.

      4. This hits home for me as I am a white man who is in a serious relationship with a young, attractive, feminine, traditional minded black woman. I’m not against forming relationships with white women, but I find that most of them (and most women in general) are unsuitable for marriage and children because they have been poisoned by consumerism, the feminine imperative, and anti masculine propaganda. I also think that some of them can be cured, but it’s probably too much effort. Ultimately, I think we need work with what we have, regardless of race. And although I am a race realist, I do know that a self aware masculine father can override any shortcomings a child might be genetically predisposed to. If I have mixed race children, they will be children of a strong, intelligent, masculine white man. Not the children of third world, ghetto trash.

        1. I personally am tired of the race crap…yes I get it…we don’t want to see the savages swamping civilization. But the simple fact is…allowing for some ethnic diversity, especially in a patriarchal framework, is preferable vs. becoming the very stereotype of ‘in bred yokels’. I would much rather father a dozen children with a woman of any ethnicity as long as she held the correct values vs. spawn children with a social justice warrior or a whore whose reproductive system is compromised by too many injections of alien DNA.
          Finally, I submit the following … Exhibit A is Leslie Ann Brandt who previously played “Naevia” on “Spartacus”, she is of mixed south asian, european and pacific islander ethnicity…exhibit B is Mama June boo Boo, who could arguably be seen as a more or less ‘pure’ Aryan….all things considered, if you needed to select one and only one of these two ladies for your “survive the apocalypse bunker”, which would you rather repopulate the planet with? Hell, which would you rather bang under ANY circumstances?

        2. Hell yes! On the flip side, Mannu Bennet (who played Crixus) is mixed race and he seems like an amicable bloke you could toss a pint back with.

        3. My same thoughts. Also, I don’t blame black women for being interested in white men at all considering how black guys generally act.

        4. You think you have it good but there are several issues with interracial marriages. Mixed race children have it hardest in life. They often feel lost, not belonging to either of the races of their parents. Also your family may never accept your wife as one of their own. Same goes for her family too

        5. Perhaps you should be the Un-Wise Man. You are giving up your genetic inheritance to be lost in African genetics.
          And, your children will indeed turn out to be ghetto trash, because all will revert to their mean. And the mean is garden variety you know whats.
          The talented tenth have this problem. Their blood always goes back toward their mean, so their children are more savage, and less intelligent then they.
          Simple genetics for a wise man.

        6. Oh yeah that dude is a beast. He’s now on the SyFy Channel’s Sword of Shannara and plays this badass Druid wizard type

        7. It’s a nice sentiment, the whole peerage by ideas rather than blood and then finishing the post with a great example of comparing outliers.
          Diversity is orthogonal to trust. Read Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam. He sat on the research for years because he didn’t want it to be true (he’s a diehard Leftist). Read The Son Also Rises by Gregory Clark to see why Trump’s kids are likely to be awesome Shitlords like dear old dad. Read American Nations by Colin Woodward and/or Albion’s Seed by David Hacket Fisher to see how ethnicity and ideas are hand in hand. Check out bloggers HBDChick and JayMan, Steve Sailor, and John Derbyshire to see that all human behavior is heritable. Check out a series made in Norway of all places in 2010 about some of this budding research called Hjernavask (Brainwashed). It has English subtitles.
          Sorry, but genes matter. I don’t think that means we need to start killing people but I also think it’s foolish to keep making appeals to people who feel “American” just like Rachel Dozeal feels she’s “black”. Your feelz mean shit to reality.

        8. ” then finishing the post with a great example of comparing outliers.” It was partially to make a point…as well as call out these folks bitching about ‘racemixing’ out one side of their mouth while talking about Filipina or Asian or Latina women out the other side.

      5. The thing that catches my attention about this and other posts on ROK, is that real discussion is taking place. While everybody may not agree on every point, the fact that adults can have a conversation, disagree, and still be civilized and respectful is refreshing.
        I look at each person as an individual. It is the character of the individual that separates us, one from another. It is also the character of the individual that helps us determine who we decide to associate with. Race is only skin deep and tells me nothing about the spirit inside . . . unless you have multi-color hair, many piercings, tons of body “art”, and are screaming profanities. At that point I may pause and say, “something is not quite right with this one.”

      6. You should look into idealist philosophy and the introspective argument. Knowing about how quantum mechanics validates idealism can also help. Once you understand those, and how idealism is superior to materialism, you will see almost nothing that isn’t outright contradictory as impossible, and from there, you will see how miracle claims in not only the Bible, but plenty of other religious literature sources, not only can be valid, but are exponentially more likely to be valid, once you have the surrounding archaeological data. This sounds utterly absurd at the moment, but once you understand this philosophical framework, things that once seemed impossible or extraordinary will be trivially explainable.

        1. “quantum mechanics validates idealism … idealism is superior to materialism”
          Sincere request, can you provide a reading list?

      7. That’s acceptable, this proposed ideology only says Christianity should be encouraged (maybe the state religion?) while allowing freedom of belief. I don’t believe science and faith contradict each other, using reason is simply using our God-given faculties for progress.

    4. Plenty of white girls can be saved from this. My wife grew up with dressage horses. Now she is a stay at home mom at 25 years old. We have three kids and one on the way. That’s not to say the state of this country hasn’t negatively effected her and made some of our interactions more difficult as a couple and made her accepting this more difficult. But she is very happy most of time and we both get a lot of joy out of watching our kids grow and succeed and out of spending time together. Most of her thinking has turned the conservative side. She wants her kids to grow up safe, happy and healthy and she doesn’t want the sluts she knew in college hitting on me. She wants a more conservative world as well.
      One of the most damaging things to our relationship early on was actually how feminism effected me. It led to the PUA world and made me think I was some sort of sex god whom was worthy of fucking every single girl I walked by. This was somewhat true at the time, but when you have 4 kids and you care about your family and the mother of those kids, this is something that is pretty easily put aside. The player lifestyle is terrible for a family of course, as it puts everyone at risk for family instability, new pregnancies with people outside the family, disease, etc….

        1. Yeah. Like most gals, she probably wants what she doesn’t want, all at once. But, that’s their nature and that’s why they need us. It’s not really a mark against them; it’s only a demerit against us, if we don’t know how to take that into account, and plan accordingly.

        2. Absolutely brother.
          Going even deeper men can be susceptible to materializing the thing they fear just as much as women can.
          I just think it’s a bit like telling cats that they can be big and strong like dogs or that they should strive to become like dogs because being a cat isn’t good enough. Why aren’t women insulted by that line of reasoning? It’s one of the tenets of feminism isn’t it? If women spent some time following this line of reasoning they should come to the realization that “Oops, we were duped. We were made to think that way so that our labour could be used in the market place (among other nefarious goals)”.
          I’m sure there are swathes of jaded 30-something year old women who are FURIOUS at where they are in life and how they got there. Well sorry to tell you this but you got Fucked by Feminism. Wake up and realize that the same men you protest, fight and slutwalk against are the very ones wishing to free you from your hideous oppression.

        3. Yup. I have an aunt, good-hearted woman, hard worker, honestly would have made a fantastic mom, if the culture had supported her.
          Instead, she gave the best ten years of her life (19-29) to some guy who never married her, dumped her because of a “family crisis,” and then got hitched to a younger lady shortly thereafter. Now, her life revolves around her desk job (Human Resources). I lived with her for two years right after I graduated high school (her house was two blocks from the University), and saw how her schedule went: out the door at 6:45 AM every morning, normally returning between 8 and 9 PM. Then, microwave dinner and watch HGTV until falling asleep on the couch around 1 or 2 AM. Weekends, sleep in, microwave breakfast, read “O” magazine and watch lots of HGTV; maybe go out to dinner and a movie with my mom.
          I wanted to videotape two or three weeks of her life, and show it to all the young ladies I knew. My aunt was a beautiful, thin, fair-skinned, red-haired gal in the late 70s, very stylish, very feminine, small-town morals. She was as good a gal as you could hope to find. Now, she’s overweight, post-menopausal, and morally brainwashed. If it could happen to her, it can and will happen to any girl who acts like her – spending one’s youth on everything that doesn’t matter, only to wake up one day at 2AM on your couch watching a show about other people’s beautiful homes, not putting two and two together about how your new morals may be responsible for not having the good life your old morals would have enabled. Women need to realize that Feminism is not on their side; it hates them more than the Patriarchy ever did, or could.

    5. For large families to thrive, the huge armies of professional SJW’s who are employed by those government branches which are devoted exclusively to over regulating, taxing and outright butchering intact families need to be eliminated completely. No court could handle the log of criminals who got blood on their hands while they legally took a hand in destroying the families of the culture. Throw the anti family, anti culture government wogs back to their victims and let justice be done. Nothing is more gratuitous and exhillarating for the masses than to give them a little slice of ‘people power’ to chomp on. And the schmucks who work within the massive divorce rape industry, throw them as well to the masses. Toss them with an underhanded softball pitch right into the pitchforks wielded by the disposessed but strong and dedicated masses who erected the great culture. When those who besiege a culture are nixed, then for god’s sake let the vibrant and vigilant people get their hands on the culprits. Law and order will always stand but we can never become a stunted and paralyzed gridlock of legalistic excess. Leave courts to the larger and more important issues that affect the greater course of society. Minor issues like ‘who stalked and lynched whoever ex-sjw CPS worker kidnapper from the former regime shouldn’t even become back page news if any at all. Or who dealt a dirty willie to some ex schuyster divorce lawyer from the past should not even raise an eyebrow. Hell people get pissed on, shook down, stuffed in a can, shorted or whatever EVERYDAY. Today they make sacred cows of the sjw’s and the culture destroyers, both professional state sanctioned and renegade. Once they all get thrown off their pedestals, they aren’t so special or ‘untouchable’ anymore. A criminal is always a criminal and the righteous never forget.

  5. The concept of family, morality and patriarchal society you are proposing can be promoted entierly by using reason and evidence. Imposing or promoting religion (Christianity) isn’t necesary, and shouldn’t be the way to do it. Why?, because it isn’t true. Simple as that. We don’t have evidence that any part of Christianity apart from some moral codes is true, and as science advances, religions gap to operate diminishes, and people are not believing in gods any more at a rate never seen before. Religion polarizes people and causes conflict. Also promotes beliving in something without evidence, which contradicts the way I think this blog presents it’s ideas.

    1. Correct enough about religion. We need to launch a dual-pronged plan to incorporate this reality.
      The Christian conservatives ought ever be our ally, but it’s possible to reach out to an atheist conservative, too.
      A unifying example between these two groups is modern sociobiology is proving that Christian ideals weren’t just “invented” – humans are evolved to behave in ways encouraged by these religions, and our underlying biology is what pushed us to create them in the first place.
      It’s possible for atheists and Christians to make common ground on that – whether we believe god created man to behave this way or evolution did, we both fundamentally agree that the same things are our nature, and we can move forward together on that principle.
      Conservatives are too slow to realize this. They’re missing out on a lot of supporters so long as they fail to begin incorporating sociobiology.

      1. Sadly, many of the conversations tend to break down once someone finds out I’m a Christian. I am certainly being a bit one-sided since I’m speaking strictly from my point of view. Seems to be many bitter atheists that would rather choose to bash my religion as opposed to have a civil discourse. Agree with your comment, btw.

    2. I think the sad truth though is that most people can’t control themselves entirely through reason and evidence.
      If people don’t conform based on a supernatural authority, people will conform based on whatever imposed authority is available.
      In the absence of local myth and religion, communism, tyranny, or hedonism takes hold as the unifying authority figure, and reinvents morality as it sees fit.

      1. Maybe you are right. But maybe also it’s dishonest to promote then a lie to control the masses. It may backfire in the long term like it has already happened many times in history.

        1. I agree.
          Then I suggest that state religion must always be able to recognize the brightest minds within its borders, otherwise great thinkers will rebel against the idiocy of the herd.
          I think this is a fair compromise to the ethical issue of whether or not the lies of state religion can be justified with an organized and contented masses.
          This begins to sound like Plato’s Republic, where people are essentially sorted into social classes based on their talents and temperaments (i.e., commoners, warriors, and philosophers).
          I’m not committed to these ideas, but it does seem that our secular society doesn’t have enough of its own internal motivation or inspiration to protect itself and grow.

        2. Yeah.. some kind of Aristocracy maybe. Well… we could go on forever. Let’s leave it at that lol.

        3. One should consider the necessity of religion to sustain society as evidence for the existence of a God of some sort. It would be the absurdity of absurdities if evolution were to make godless cultures implode with no God whatsoever in existence, but it would make sense under theism, because social implosion under atheism would be a pre-programmed problem by God/gods to make intelligent beings evolve toward worship. You might ask “which God?”, but there’s an awful lot to be said about the vast degree of similarities between almost all world religions in their representation of the highest Spirit, so even with the ostensible conflicts, it’s not much of an issue. Mere theism is good enough to improve one’s wellbeing and social interactions.

      2. “I think the sad truth though is that most people can’t control themselves entirely through reason and evidence”
        Yeah it is unfortunate, but thats because most people are ignoramuses that lack the motivation to learn Absolute Truths about the world and about themselves. Christianity is a far lesser evil in comparison to state-sponsored Atheism .

        1. It is a lesser evil. Not like there was any choice. The state should not promote any religion or non-religion. Just endorse secular moral codes and laws that are benefitial to society. And how do you back which moral codes and laws to endorse?. Well with evidence, experience, reason. Not fairy tales and dogmas.

        2. “Christianity is a far lesser evil in comparison to state-sponsored Atheism .”
          As a fully grown adult I’d rather suffer daily idiotic superstition over daily idiotic chaos.

        3. Every time you atheists have tried to find morality in the laboratory, it has ended in disaster. There is a reason why no civilization ever, has been based on dysfunctional, illogical and evil atheism.
          While free speech for everyone, high or low rank, is based on the Bible as Jesus Christ permitted everyone to speak and never infringed on free speech for anyone, the vile hard-left atheists using, science, reason and atheist logic, have found out that it is, as you state it, “benefitial to society”, to oppress and persecute anyone critical of Islam and multiculturalism. That’s why Geert Wilders could not be protected by documented truth. The judge said it clearly that even though Geert Wilders provided documented truth, it would still be hate-speech if it could lead to hate and persecution. When in Europe was not even the truth protected speech, before we got butt ugly atheism and your insane pseudo-morality?

    3. You wrongly assume that basing a society around reason would be beneficial for everyone.
      You must either lack experience or the reasoning ability itself which you claim everyone would adhere to.
      Any student of history can tell you that most humans are not reasonable, do not even wish to use logical faculties and half of the population(women) do not possess any reason what so ever.
      This lack of reason is compounded when humans are in a group or herd mentality.
      So religion is necessary as a moral framework and set of grounding rules which the average idiot must adhere to.
      Your suggestion is the height of hubris and has been attempted before at the loss of many many lives throughout history.

      1. Indeed. It is when we assume society as a whole will rationalize all their decisions that catastrophe arises. We are an emotional species. The better of us embrace rational discourse but we are the exceptions, not the norm.
        Dave Ramsey is a great example of this process. His 7 steps for financial freedom are centered around human emotion and behavior (quick, small wins) instead of what’s “rationally” superior (avalanche method).

      2. Yeah right. I agree to some degree that most people are not reasonable right now and must adhere to some kind of framework to function and guide their lives. But that has changed a bit since the bronze age dude. ¿Why not let that guide be reason and logic in the future?. You talk about history. Of course. All religions and gods where invented thousands of years ago when people had no idea where any natural phenomena originated from, and lawless societies where drowning in moral chaos. But much has changed since the enlightenment. We now know how stuff happens. Now we can even explain the origins of human morality. It may come from evolutionary advantageous traits to survive in groups (even chimps show a degree of morality), logic and reason, and experience (laws). Not a god.
        So the way to spread critical thinking like this is through education. Numerous studies show the negative correlation between IQ and “religiosity” in different countries. The same with GDP and level of education. So you propose to keep a dumb population so it’s easier to control them?. Maybe not. Maybe we should embrace science and promote further education. Maybe we have no choice as a matter of fact. And that may be a better way of afterwords supporting the ideas of this system you guys are promoting. Having read a lot of these articles, it seems the ideas spread by this community may have a strong evidence-based background to support it, but if you at the same time endorse blind faith (the act of believing in something without evidence), then you are going backwards since you won’t be able to back up your points with the truth in the same line of logic.
        Lastly, if the only way to achieve the “societal stability” that this article aims for is blindly endorsing the teachings of a book written by desert peasants in the bronze age, then im sorry guys but that is not the society I would like my kids to grow in. It would be dishonest, and that never works in the long term. Find another way to educate women and man that the classic gender roles have a rational background to them and are more benefitial to society.

        1. Religion is for retards, science damn it !
          I don’t know if you’re aware but what you’re preaching has already be done in France in 1789 and has led to hundreds of people beheaded, slaughtered, boiled alive, raped in the name of your “Progress” and “Reason”.
          Same thing in Russia, two centuries later.
          You “enlightened” people can go die.

        2. You are making more assumptions again. Firstly I never said I personally believed anything.
          What we are talking about here is what kind of society is best for people as a whole.
          Again you assume that everyone has equal capacities for critical thinking and logic. The same science you claim to adhere to disproves this naive notion.
          Humans are NOT equal. We will never be equal and our attempts to create societies which all force us under the weight of this egalitarian leviathan have proven historically to be the cause of more death and human suffering just in the last few centuries than perhaps we have ever seen in our recorded history.
          You speak of faith as if it is the singular cause of all these horrible things. Yet just from examining the reasoning of your response you have all your faith in science and only a fool would say you 100% lack any inclination towards faith.
          Genetic and biological realities make it clear that not every man is capable the same kind of reasoning than the next man. This fact alone should prevent any experienced man from imagining that all men can live in peace and harmony if only we all were educated correctly and given the means to proper learning. This is the ideology of the leftist progressive retard and has no place in a masculine/patriarchal nation

        3. We will then. I don’t think there is a way around it. Religions are not true and will not be more important in the future than they are right now. Promoting a lie is futile even if it was benefitial for society.

        4. “Religions are not true and will not be more important in the future than they are right now. Promoting a lie is futile even if it was benefitial for society.” — I’m sure that same conclusion has been whispered in temples and tabernacles ever since the days of Stonehenge.

        5. I did not assume, nor do I care aboute your personal beliefs. I am talking about the idea you seem to support about promoting a 2000 year old fairy tale to keep people happy and stable. I repeat, even if it were true that religion is beneficial for society as a whole, that does not make it true. At least not the supernatural component of it. Period.
          Also I never said people have the same capacity for critical thinking and logic. You merely have to stand outside your door for 5 minutes to see that.
          Note I have strong capitalist – neoliberal tendencies and studied business and finances. Advocading for science, truth and critical thinking has nothing to do with which socio- economic system you support. That is a stupid old assumption.
          Lastly you say I have faith in science? Lol that would be some kind of paradox since its the complete opposite. If you prove me wrong with evidence I would change my mind. If you go to someone with “faith” in a idea with evidence that contradicts he’s idea, he won’t stop believing. Thats the whole idea of faith. Withfull thinking. Believing something because you want to.
          As for the main discussion of this thread, I have nothing else to say here. I was just pointing out religion might not be necesary to promote the ideas of neomasculinity and patriarchal society.

        6. Sure, but surely in the days of Stonhenge there was no real alternative to religion so I doubt many people took this conclusion seriously. No we have thousands of years of knowledge and observation.

        7. You are a progressive plain and simple. This is why you think that things are getting better as time progresses and the more “science” we learn the better off we all become.
          Science cannot account for everything and there is a lot of evidence that societies of the past were more advanced than us. For example, even today with all our knowledge and expertise we still do not know how the great pyramids in Egypt were built and even our most “enlightened” architects of today admit they could not recreate the phenomenon TODAY with all of our technology.

        8. I find that argument has many fallacies my friend. To start if there is no God then there is no anything, morals would simply be a useless social construct that serves no purpose in a society ruled by Darwinism. It is a lack of knowledge in fact that makes these progressive fools think that any of there lives or social justice movements are in any way revelant. More knowledge would in fact only cause people to see the infinite possibilities of why they came into existence which in the end would either cause them to believe God is there creator and adhere to his rules or that they’re existing on this planet is meaningless which may cause some to create there own standards of living; but an overwhelming majority would choose to create chaos.

        9. …the way I see it, a “Red Pill” SJW would be a Social Darwinist…”Fuck everything and since life has no meaning, and morality has no purpose, I’m going to kill/rape all I want.”

        10. First of all a read pill social justice warrior is a paradox. That’s the equivalent to saying an intellegent idiot. And secondly SJW promote nothing but “We’re all equal, everyone’s a winner” which is the polar opposite of what Social Darwinism is. On a side note there is a very thin line between indoctrination and teaching, but a society where everyone is under the belief that there is no God seems to be one that was indoctrinsted instead of introduced to or taught the possibilities.

        11. Dude you strike me as someone who has never even heard the arguments against your position. Nevermind. In some subjects, yes I may be progressive. In others I am not. But don’t put me in the same bag with all other progressive idiots. I think science makes our lives easier, making food, shelter and health widely avaliable. But also as we part ways further and further from our evolutionary past, some primal social structures like patriarchy start to vanish. And that is not good since we are still the same species.
          I know science can not account for everything. Of course not. But it’s by far the best tool we have for understanding reality until now. There are things we might never undertand, but also there are questions that do not deserve an answer. For example: what is the color of hate?. Its as useless as asking “why we are here?”. The good thing about science is that it changes as new evidence appears. If you prove something wrong the scientific “truth” will change.
          The fact that past civilizations did things we cannot understand right now doesn’t prove anything. We just don’t know yet. That doesn’t mean they were more advanced. Oh, and we kind of know now how the egyptians carried those massive blocks of stone to make the pyramids. The used water of the nile to wet the sand and then used some kind of sleds. Look it up. Peace.

        12. Yeah but we already have those horrible experiences and I think most of us agree we wont behead and boil someone for not being “rational”. That is why we study history. Oh, but I just remembered that there are still groups people who behead and torture people for thinking differently. And those people have strong religious belifs. Namely ISIS and all that shit. Oh and another group that sistematically rapes children for decades. The Catholic Church.

        13. I won’t start a debate of wether there is a god or not. I was a catholic for 20+ years and did 4 courses of theology in college. I never found any evidence that any god ever existed. But I can tell you, morality does have a purpose from a Darwinian point of view. Assuming you understand evolution even in a basic level I will explain.
          Many animals apart from us, specially other apes, show some kind of group morality. As them, we evolved as a social species. If an individual killed, raped, or stole from he’s community, he would be rejected from the group. He’s probability of surviving would drastically decrease living in isolation, making him much less likely to reproduce and leaving offspring. So maybe morality has at least some kind of basic genetic component. Also we have reason and logic. “Don’t do unto others what you don’t want others to do unto you”. That quote is not from the bible. Confucius said it. Lastly we have experience and laws. So my question is now. If you didn’t have this absolute morality from a god, would you go out tomorrow killing and raping everything?

        14. If you claim to have evidence that Catholic priests systematically rape more children than the average in society, and not less, then please provide them. If not your comment makes no logical sense and is nothing but smear.

        15. Atheists killed, raped and tortured more than 100 million innocent people, within less than 100 years. More than anyone else in the recorded history of mankind.
          Great morality you have there, atheist, surely your selfish-gene morality is not that good. A male lion taking over a group of lions will start with killing off the offspring of his defeated enemy. Why don’t humans do the same thing with single moms and their kids? How are we any different for you Darwiniacs?
          You were Catholic and studied theology at the university as well? And then turned to empty and illogical atheism?
          Well, then please explain to me the spiritual significance of water baptism, as it is found in the Bible. This is a very basic question for you. Something you ought to know and understand, for you to reject Christianity.

        16. At least you can be honest enough with yourself to admit you’re a progressive that completely denies metaphysics.

        17. Yeah atheists did that. But they didn’t do it BECAUSE they were atheists or in the “name of atheism”. Just like the crusades, inquisition, or 9/11 were not in the name of god. And again. Even if some atheist kills all the population of earth, that would not prove there is a god.
          I don’t remember exactly about the baptism thing. Probably some faith, trust and obedience thing. Or some symbol of turning to jesus to forgive our sins since according to that ridiculous story we are all sinners since birth.

        18. Your “in the name of” argument, from the idiot Dawkins, is immature and paralogical. I can kill in your name, against your will and morality. What does that say about you? Nothing.
          To claim that there is no causality between atheists and mass-killing/rape/torture is like saying there is no connection between removing brakes in a car and a car crash. There is nothing within atheism that forbid, or even say it is wrong, to kill, rape and murder all you want.
          That you don’t even understand the spiritual significance of a basic concept like water baptism, clearly indicates that you are in no position to make a logically sound conclusion regarding the Bible. You simply don’t know what you are talking about.

        19. We are not discussing what is better for us any more aren’t we?. If people are bad without absolute morality, I repeat, that would not make the supernatural claims true. Simple as that.
          I prefer relative morality and being good because I want to be good, than being good for fear of punishment or because a book of myths of the bronze age tells me to. Like Einstein said: “If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.”
          I dont believe in the spirit, and I couldn’t care less about the stupid rituals your religion does to encase inocent, ingorant children into a given faith before thay can even speak.

        20. Well in regards to your second point I think you’ve blown the size of the community morality out of proportion (or I could be interpreting it that way) but the group you’re referring to could be no more than a couple of friends and people who aren’t in said group even today but on a much less lethal level are subject to abuse from the group if it helps to advance the group (not to mention the fact that many people prefer to be on there own). And a of this still doesn’t negate my claim that there could be chaos but instead just aids factions of groups causing chaos. And to address your beginning statement the Catholic religions practice baffles me and if you read the entire bible (which I assume you have) a lot of the stuff those churches do don’t even accord to the word. And of course you couldn’t find evidence God exists, in a world where everyone knew he was real only an idiot would disobey him.

        21. Christians do good because we agree with God. Morality is clearly stated and explained in the Bible. We don’t do it because we fear God, because we already are saved and God does not punish us unjustly. We do it out of free will, as we agree with God, and we wish to honour God by good deeds.
          I see you atheists whine and bitch a lot about how good you atheists are without God or any given morality from atheism. However, I have been all over Europe at night and I always have seen Christians providing food and shelter for the poor and needy. Most of them atheists/gays etc. I have, however, NEVER seen you atheists do anything for these poor people. I ONLY see you hypocrites on photo ops, bragging about how good you are.
          The rest of your psycho-infantile and logically incoherent angry rant is so void of any meaning that I will just ignore it.

        22. Im talking about how humans lived thousands of years ago when evolving. Living alone or outside a group in that time would severly lower your chances of survival and reproduction, so guys that lived alones because were immoral would have less or no offspring. Of course that doesnt apply today, but just maybe that morality got to us today somehow, as we are the same species.

        23. You make a nice point, I suppose your plan could work in an ideal society but there are simply too many variables, the biggest one being most people are unethical morons, and a close second most religious men will die for there beliefs and would refuse to live in such a world, leaving a very miniscule amount of people within your society.

        24. Yeah well it’s the same. There are still evil people of course. But some kind of morality always had to prevail or we wouldn’t be here.

        25. Yeah, still doesn’t make the supernatural claims true.
          I will copy and paste a piece of Mark Thomas on the subject (the link I sent you before) since he explains it much better and im to lazy to do it my self because im an atheist. Fell free to read it or ignore it:
          “Argument from Morality
          How about morality? Some people say that we need an absolute morality, and that we all have a sense of morality. They say that the only possible source for this morality is their god.
          Many people have claimed that humans could not have created morality, that there is nothing in evolution or history that mandates it. This is wrong. In order for any social species to function, implicit or explicit rules of interaction are necessary. This is the basic function of morality — implicit rules of interaction that allow us to function cooperatively.
          Some have even claimed that humans could not have had the concept of morality. I don’t see why not. We’re fairly intelligent. Human minds have created many ideas that are far more complex than morality. Why should morality be different?
          The idea that we humans didn’t create morality — that it came from some god — is insulting to us.
          Explaining morality and altruistic behavior is not a problem, when we understand that humans are social animals. In order to survive, we mainly need to work together in groups. Groups of our distant ancestors that had individuals who worked together were more likely to succeed. Individuals who didn’t cooperate in a group might have been kicked out of the group, and had their survival severely threatened. Groups that kept non-cooperative individuals were less likely to succeed. Laws are the explicit rules of interaction. Morality and laws are human constructs that come from basic human empathy, kindness and compassion, a desire to treat others as we wish to be treated, and our need to work together — not from some ancient static scriptures. Morality and laws have evolved as humans have evolved our culture. We are social animals evolved by natural selection, so the great majority of us will naturally desire the health of our families and the peace of our communities. Evolution has programmed us socially and biologically for morality and cooperation. Our morality comes out of our humanity.
          For god-fearing religions, the only reason to be moral is the child’s concept of morality — be good or you will be punished. For healthy non-believers, we can see that altruistic behavior and morality grow out of the knowledge that making others happy makes us happy.
          Even other primates such as chimpanzees, monkeys, and apes exhibit empathy and morality. For more about this, see “Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior.”
          Of course, the natural world is not loving or moral, along with many humans. We thus have the continual dilemma of how to survive with this conflict, using our natural self-interest.
          If people claim that their god is the source of morality, they are faced with defining morality and whether it is dependent on their god. Plato said it best, “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?” If it’s the former then God is not needed. If it’s the latter then morality depends on God’s whim, and ethics are unnecessary.
          Let’s look at what happens when people claim to get absolute morality from a god or his “holy” book. I say that such religious absolutists don’t have morality; what they have is a code of obedience — which is not the same. This god sets what is supposedly moral, and they obey. If this god were to say that murder and theft were moral, theists would have to kill and steal to act morally. Actually, this is exactly what is happening with the suicide bombers in the Middle East. This is also what was behind the Crusades, the Inquisitions and 9/11. The fact that we find this so abhorrent shows that morality does not come from a god. Gods fail as a source of morality.
          Many religious people like to claim that non-believers have relative morality, while they have absolute morality. However, since no Christians or Jews are stoning those who work on the Sabbath, and no Muslims are slaying transgressors wherever they catch them, they are choosing which “holy” laws to follow and which to ignore. We all have relative morality.
          For Christians, if their morality is based on fear of punishment from their god then they have an “out” where they can be absolved of their sins (usually by an appropriate Earthly authority). This is a good marketing scheme, but it makes for flimsy moral system of punishment and reward.
          Monotheistic religions typically define most or all of morality as dealing with humans and their “sins” against their god. People are then moral to each other only to obey their god and escape his punishment. This ignores the concept of morality that deals directly with the consequences of our actions on other people or conscious beings. This morality is about the reality of our impact on others, not on our relationship with an imaginary god who can be appeased with a few magic words.
          A large philosophical problem that religious moralists face is where to get the word of their god or gods. They can get it from “divine” revelation or from supposedly “holy” books. Each of these sources faces a problem; how do we know that this is the true word of the god? I’ve already discussed revelation, so let’s look at the idea of a holy book. I am most familiar with the Christian Bible, so that’s what I’ll address.
          The Bible is touted by many as a source of ultimate knowledge and morality. It is said to be God’s perfect words to humankind. Have you ever read it? It contradicts itself in many places, is often difficult or impossible to interpret, and is largely simply boring. Some of it looks to me like it was written under the influence of hallucinogens. It contains two very different lists of Ten Commandments (in three sets) and three sets of paternal ancestors for Jesus (with one lineage just being the Holy Ghost). The better-known set of Ten Commandments (given in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21) even says that children can be punished for the sins of their great-grandfathers! The lesser-known set (in Exodus 34:12-27) tells us to not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk. Are these the words of a perfect moral being?
          The Christian Bible is also conflicted about homosexuality. Altho there are notoriously anti-gay verses, 1 Samuel 18:1-3 clearly refers to two men loving each other. Even the Jesus character is hinted at as being gay in John 20:2. This shows that Christians have little to stand on when they try to push their religion’s view of sexuality on the rest of us. Their logic is based on the primitive concept that we don’t want to make their (all-loving?) god angry, or he’s going to do something bad to us.
          Many Christians think that the Bible supports “traditional” marriage. However, nowhere does it clearly state “one man and one woman” or “monogamy” or any words to that effect, but references to abstinence and polygamy are plentiful.
          The Bible also has the purported histories of many rapes, slaughters, and other mass killings, most of them directed or condoned by the god Yahweh. They even note how pregnant women were sliced open — so much for Yahweh being against abortion. In one well-known story, Yahweh drowned almost everyone and everything on the planet merely because he didn’t like the activities of some of the people (that he had created). In another story, 42 children were killed in the name of Yahweh, just for calling a man bald. In addition, the Bible has more than 50 listings of death penalties — some for supposed “sins” that most of us don’t even consider to be morally wrong, such as working on the Sabbath or eating blood. Do these tales and penalties show the actions of a loving god? The god of the Old Testament is a capricious, petty, pathological, vindictive, schizophrenic, mass-murdering tyrant — not a paragon of moral virtue. And, Satan often comes off as the good guy. After all, how many people did Satan kill? The god of the New Testament is a little nicer, as described by the character Jesus. But Jesus and this god also introduced eternal punishment — not a very kind or loving thing to do. This New Testament god also kept the idea of a human blood sacrifice, even demanding it of his own son. If you still think that morality should come from the Christian Bible, I ask, what do you think about slavery and child abuse? Not once in the entire Bible is slavery or child abuse (other than child sacrifice) condemned, not even in the writings about Jesus. In fact both are condoned in many places; there are over 20 verses on slavery and over 30 verses advocating child abuse. Even the Jesus character had recommendations about whipping and chopping up slaves. It’s obvious that any kind person could do a better job of defining morals than what is in the Bible. The Christian Bible, its god, and its savior all fail the morality test. Sam Harris has done an excellent job of demolishing “Christian morality.” Mr. Deity has a more humorous take.
          Jesus died for our sins. This is one of the primary moral points of Christianity, and it is glorified human sacrifice, or formally known as atonement or substitutive sacrifice. Many religions have practiced it when they killed sacrificial animals or humans on altars. What kind of morality is this, where an animal or person has to die because of what others have done (or will do)? When we look at cultures that sacrificed humans, we call them barbaric and primitive. It makes no difference if the person being sacrificed agrees; it is still blatantly, repugnantly immoral and abominable. The Christian ceremony of communion is based on this blood sacrifice, and is just ritualized cannibalism and vampirism. Note also that the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of transubstantiation holds that during communion the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. This doctrine makes Leviticus 7:27 problematic, because it calls for the execution of those who eat blood.
          Using religion as a source for morality completely collapses when we look at religious positions now and in history. There are religious people with different positions on such moral issues as the death penalty, abortion, birth control, and gay and women’s rights. How can this be, if they all get the same divine words from the same god? Restrictions on birth control have added to the misery in the world by causing more disease and more births on a planet that already has too many people. Racism, misogyny, and slavery were once considered perfectly moral by large portions of humankind, and were seen as having a religious basis. Also, the killings done in the names of different gods, by most religions, are legendary. Our culture has changed, along with our laws, and these evils are no longer acceptable in modern society. Religion cannot give us reliable answers to moral issues. Morality is a social and legal construct, not a religious one. Religion and gods fail as sources of morality.
          Sam Harris, in his book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values shows that we don’t need religions or imaginary gods to determine objective morality. If we define morality in terms of human and animal well-being, Sam argues that science can do more than tell how we are; it can, in principle, tell us how we ought to behave.”

        26. Didn’t bother to read all of the trash. Firstly, he is so stupid that he don’t understand the difference between morality and instincts. Secondly, he has no clue about subjective versus objective morality. Thirdly, he does not relate his crazy atheist morality to reality, is he in favour of morality of the majority or what? How does he find the “correct” morality. Fourthly, I challenge the idiot to show me where in the teaching of Jesus Christ I am commanded to murder.
          Oh, yea, Christendom was the first civilization ever to ban slavery. Done by Christians, based on the teaching of Jesus Christ, while atheists had millions of slaves in their death camps, just a few decades. Yet, this atheist idiot, rant on about how the Bible supports slavery.

        27. //Yeah, still doesn’t make the supernatural claims true.//
          Silly atheist ape. I countered your argument. I never used it as evidence for supernatural claims. At least try to be intellectually honest.

        28. Hahahaha dude you seem really pissed. Well we could continue going on forever but experience has tought me that faith blinds people to the truth. In your case you are not only blind but also full of rage and frustration for some reason. You dismiss any argument that goes against the little fantasy you want to believe.
          Aaaaand no proof of the existence of god (specifically the christian one) has been provided once again.
          Let the insults flow to me =D

        29. Again, you asked for logical evidence for God, and I gave you a book by former atheist and Germany’s leading scientist in information, but you refused to read it, and only continues to bitch about how you have no evidence.
          I asked you a very basic question regarding faith, and you of course again could not answer, so clearly you are lying again.
          I gave you simple and numbered questions. You could not answer, but directed me to hysterical atheist sites, even though is specifically said I wanted at least one science paper and not some atheist Mickey Mouse site with pseudo-science. But of course, that is all I got, because that is all you have.
          This is why you atheists are distrusted as much as rapists:

          Even atheists distrust fellow atheists more than believers. What a joke.
          You atheist apes are nothing but the internet version of the local village idiot, standing on street corner, shouting at people.
          As you demonstrated so well.

        30. 1. I said maybe I will read it in the future. There is a really low number of atheists who turn Christians, so It might be interesting.
          2. The baptism thing? Obedience? Faith? Sacrifice? The forgiveness of sins? Who cares.
          3. Those Mickey Mouse sites had the links to the infinite amount of peer reviewed papers you are asking me for.
          4. Yeah in America. So what. Of course I have more trust in a dumb peasant that thinks will go to hell if they lie that in a probably more inteligent atheist. Stuidies show an inverse correlation between IQ and “religiousness” in the world. Some countries are outliers though, like USA and Vietnam.
          5. Yeah well you are the one that started shouting. I just provided my humble opinion on the matter of this article.
          Humble. A supposed christian virtue I think I posess in a greater degree than you. Since I am able to admit I don’t know something (like the DNA thing or the origin of the universe may well be beyond our understanding). You seem to think you have all the answers.

        31. No, you are not humble. I asked you specifically for the minimum scientific requirements for any scientific theory, formulation of hypothesis, falsification, statistical hypothesis testing and probability. You directed me to a site with just trash and could not provide a single peer reviewed science paper. Instead you gave me completely irrelevant junk science, not even remotely answering what I asked for.
          Interesting to see a low-IQ idiot like you ranting on about IQ and correlation with atheism. Fact is that the studies you are referring to are all junk science done by atheist fanatics. Like the atheist quack scientist Zuckerberg who uses different definitions of atheism in same “science” report. So in Sweden everyone is atheist and definition is “not going regularly to church”, while in China, atheist is “not beliving in anything higher, like the state”.
          I am sure that a true scientific study would find that the brainwashed low-IQ people in atheist paradise Soviet Union, and Mao’s China were atheists, while the people challenging the system were believers. But of course the gay Marxist college professors in the West will never do that. All hyperintelligent people that I know, with an IQ above 140-150 are believers, either Christian or deists. The retarded Marxist, atheist, college professors normally have an IQ of 110-120, and they are too stupid to see their own stupidity. These people tend to brainwash their students into atheism. The worst stupidity ever invented by man, (gender is a social construct, gay couples better parents than biological parents etc) are all mainly found among college professors. So for you to bitch about IQ and atheism, is just pathetic. You are one of these low-IQ morons, just a little bit above average, believing that you are so smart and better than average population, right? Fact is that hyperintelligent people, in my experience, tend to have more of the same opinions as uneducated labour dudes, in contrast to the usual psychotic College professor and his/her brainwashed students. You clearly belong to the latter category.

        32. So you have all the answers. Wow. You must be a genius. I provided the way for you to find what you are asking for. If you are to lazy or angry to even try and copy paste the sources form the responses to your ridiculous claims thats not my problem. Evolution is beyond doubt the best answer we have to explain the diversity of life.
          Like any theory, there is a huge list of things that would falsify it. For example:
          a static fossil record;
          true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
          a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
          observations of organisms being created.
          Evolved “true” altruistic behavior among non-relatives in non-social animals
          Complete discordance between phylogenies (evolutionary history of groups) based on morphology/fossils and on DNA
          About the other bitching rant you make afterwords, well my experience is the total opposite of what you describe. What we gonna do.
          Question: what do you think of non atheist – non christians?. Such as muslims, hindus, buhdists, etc…? They are equally dumb as atheists or just confused?

        33. With IQ of 170+. I am per definition a genius. Your ironic comment only makes you look stupid.
          We are back where we started. You are such an idiot that you provide any answers. I gave you all the answers you asked for. So what do you, the atheist idiot, do? You just start again, from scratch, as if nothing happened, and continue to spew your ignorant atheist ape nonsense.
          The stupidity and utterly dishonesty from you atheist apes are just breath-taking. I never cease to be surprised by your utter lack of intellectual integrity and honesty. Bye.

        34. Woah. Ive seen few intelligent religious people. It’s an interesting phenomena. We “atheist apes” have many theories as of why your people exist. Although the lack of eloquence in your writing points the other way.
          Oh well. Lets hope within the next 2000 years or so your prophet finally returns as promised so we can finally see one single piece of evidence that your imaginary friend is up there. Meanwhile you can continue living your little lazy ass, limited view of the world with your supreme babysitter watching over you. Bye.

        35. Good thing that you hate-filled atheist animals are so predictable that I can recycle my own comments:
          This is why you atheists are distrusted as much as rapists. Even atheists distrust fellow atheists more than believers. What a joke.
          You atheist apes are nothing but the internet version of the local village idiot, standing on street corner, shouting at people.
          As you demonstrated so well.

    4. It doesn’t really matter if religions are pure fantasy – they serve as a kind of moral dogma that binds a society together. In the secular west, political dogma is filling the same conscious void as religious ones, they just won’t admit it
      If the average person was truly enlightened enough to base most decisions on pure reason, then maybe its not necessary. I don’t think humanity is there yet

      1. Indeed we are not there yet. But I dont think going backwards in this matter would do any good. As of religion vs science and logic, I propose we keep pushing for the latter while giving a logical reason to maintain certain traditional values as family and traditional gender roles (there are quite a few).

      2. on that note…Confucianism gives such structure without mystical ‘mumbo jumbo’

    5. Chance have no creative power. There is absolutely no chance that a system creating valid information contained in a language, a system to read this information and another system to execute the commands in this information, could have happened through sheer chance. The probability is beyond insane.
      Carl Sagan only needed a few prime numbers to know that there was intelligence behind. Compare that to the extremely compressed and insanely advanced information in single human cell.
      Darwin had no clue about this, and everyone in his age believed that cell was more or less like a single brick in factory wall.
      We have never ever observed information coming from any other source than an intelligent and self-are being.
      Prof Dr. Werner Gitt, former Head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt), was an atheist but came to the conclusion that it was impossible to have DNA without a divine source.
      His first major book is now made public online for free. Read it and then come back and explain how religion isn’t true.

      1. I wish you studied evolution a little bit further so you knew that natural selection has nothing to do with chance. It’s the complete opposite as a matter of fact. I won’t go any further explaining you what is one of the greatest scientific consensus out there, but not knowing something yet only means one thing: We don’t know it yet, and maybe we should continue to research and not be satisfied with the easy- dumb ass- meaningless “creator” answer. Which as well complicates the question even further, as who the hell created the cretor?

        1. Rubbish. Mutation is your “thing”, right? How is that not connected based on chance?
          Your comment is in now way a reply to my comment to you. That only further implicates that you don’t know what you are talking about.
          There is not great scientific consensus. Only within biology, and if you are not a fanatic and die hard Darwiniac, you will not even pass high school, far less be in a position to study or lecture in biology.
          The other scientific fields have no idea about the pseudo-scientific corruption with Mickey Mouse biology.
          If you talk about the “theory” of evolution to a scientist, he would then of course assume that this is truly a scientific theory and not an invented crack-pot fairy tale, far away from a scientific “theory”.
          Your claim this great “consensus” for your theory, well then you should have NO problem providing me:
          1. Where is the hypothesis of this “theory” scientifically formulated?
          2. How can this hypothesis be falsified?
          3. Where is the statistical hypothesis testing?
          4. What was the probability.
          Please provide ample peer reviewed science paper(s); rabid scientific illiterate atheist internet sites not included.

        2. You claim that we don’t need a creator, then surely you can explain:
          A. How life can spontaneously self-create from rocks (dead matter) without any divine intervention whatsoever. Give me the science papers and probability
          B. How can a universe with a beginning, according to scientific consensus, not logically demand an uncreated first cause with the power to create/cause a universe (normally called God)? Please explain. Use facts and logic only. Good luck.

        3. My god I never thought I would find creationists even in this community. You guys are everywhere. To save both of us some time, I think you should check out the following link and read a little: It’s not an angry atheist site as It leads ultimately to many peer reviewed papers so if you have the time and interest to learn, you should be able.
          I hope you know that the word theory in science is has a diferent meaning than in every day use. “The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena”
          Yeah mutations are somehow random. But then comes natural selection, which is not. A small percentage of mutations are beneficial, and selection can cause the beneficial mutations to persist and the harmful mutations to die off. The combination of mutation and selection can create new useful adaptations.
          Now check out that link since I could be for ever explainig myself here. Im sure you will find the answers.

        4. No, I asked you specific questions, and your “google it and look at rabid atheist sites” is in no way an answer. Try again.
          Your supposed definition of a “theory” is not even close to the definition used in empirical science.
          This rubbish looks like comes right out of some liberal arts department. You can use your definition: “s “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena”, in political “science”, not in the STEM fields.
          Show me ONE observation where chance have had any creative power, outside adaptation and scrambling with already existing information.

        5. Im sure you know problem of Abiogenesis hasn’t been solved yet. Many ideas have been proposed, but the ultimate explanation hasn’t been found. The same with the origin of the universe (as what caused the big bang, because asking what was before the big bang has no meaning as time itself also came to be at that point).
          Of course that doesn’t prove there had to be a creator. Assuming that lazy ass answer has at least two implications:
          1. You complicate the question even more. Who created the creator?
          2. You stay satisfied with that answer and stop researching. With that mentality humans would still be living in caves.
          3. There is no evidence for a creator. Something existing is not evidence of another more complex thing existing.

        6. Dude, the answer to your questions has been there for many years, I just wont write them right here. Follow that link. Pretty much all creationist retarded claims are answered and with leads to real scientific peer reviewed papers and studiesd. If you instantly dismiss it because im not writing a whole essay for you right here, well then I cant help you mate.
          One observation. Hmmm well its difficult to observe since its a process that takes millions of years to develop, and we have only known about it for a few decades so..
          But if you insist, you might want to check out the E. coli long-term evolution experiment. Look it up. After thausands of generations, a strain of the bacteria started being able to use citrate in an aerobic environment as an energy source.

        7. Of course it gives meaning. A being outside our four dimension, and thus time, can exist.
          You have more than a “problem” within atheistic Abiogenesis, you have nothing but pure state-funded insanity and crazy fairy tales, not even related to science. That’s why you can’t even produce a single scientific hypothesis, far less a theory. Yet you all “know” there is no need for God. What a joke. You rabid atheists are truly blind.
          1. I see you like to quote the idiot Dawkins? Too bad he is too stupid to understand that everything that come into existence logically need a creator or cause, however an eternal being does logically not. You “new” atheists are disgrace for all old atheists. You surely are not on the same level as Bertrand Russel and Nietzsche
          2. Christendom created modern science, funded by the Catholic church, not the state. So for you to claim that with Christianity “humans would still be living in caves”, is a truly retarded comment. What has atheism and atheists ever given us? Tell me.
          3. I gave you Werner Gitt, a simple two days read by Germany’s leading scientist within information. You, as a typical rabid atheist, did of course not do that, instead you choose, willfully ignorant, to make obviously false statements that you somehow “know” that there is “no evidence for a creator”. What a joke. You atheists are the most deceitful and ignorant group there is. Scientifically illiterate cry babies.

        8. The formulation of a hypothesis is one sentence. Same with falsification. The probability is one number. One reference to one science paper is one sentence.
          In short, you wasted more time and sentences on explaining why your “scientific” answer is “Google it” and “look at these rabid, pseudo-scientific atheist sites, written by atheist Mickey Mouse scientists”.
          This is just sad, but says everything about the scientific level of you atheists. Pretty much non-existing.

        9. Lol, the language in you responses is starting to show your frustration. You just repeated the same bullshit you want to believe because it suits you. I would love to think that a creator controles my destiny and explains everything. But I don’t see evidence. Not one piece of verifiable evidence. Let’s just leave it here since you seem to be about to explode in ignorance.
          I am not telling you im sure there isn’t a god. That would be as blind and arrogant as someone telling me they are sure there is. Im just telling you I think it’s highly improbable given what I have observed in my life. As do for example, 93 percent of the scientist members of the National Academy of Sciences.

        10. As a typical atheist fanatic, pretending to be scientifically illiterate, you have just exposed you as a complete ignoramus, not being able to substantiate your claims and position in any way, and that you run away as fast as you can from any documentation that is contrary to your blind faith in illogical, dysfunctional and evil atheism.
          “for example, 93 percent of the scientist members of the National Academy of Sciences.”
          This is another lie from you. Please provide documentation.

        11. Nowhere in this survey does 93 percent claim that the existence of God is ” highly improbable”.
          There are many surveys out there, and common for nearly all of them is that the vast majority of scientists are either believers or agnostics. Very few are atheists and nearly none of them rabid and fanatic atheists calling believers idiots etc. These atheist morons you will find on the internet and at atheist conventions, not in the science departments.

        12. In 1996, we repeated Leuba’s 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba’s 1914 survey to gauge belief among “greater” scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents
          100 – 7 = 93
          You know math? You even read?
          Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.
          Agnostic, atheist. Whatever. I am an agnostic atheist. Being 100% atheist as in being sure there is no god is just as arrogant and dumb as being 100% sure he does exist.

        13. You inject your own fantasy version of reality and claim that everyone in the survey, not stating that they are believers, claim that the existence of God is “highly improbable”. This is not true and is a clear lie from you. I challenge you to find that claim in the survey. But of course you can’t. You will just repeat your chant: “you know math? You even read?”
          Most of the time you have operated as you are 100% sure there is no God, as the vast majority of the hordes of ignorant atheist roaming the internet.
          Your old survey is highly selective and hardly scientific. A more accurate description comes from the Pew Research Center, which reported in 2009 that 51 percent of scientists believe that God or some higher power exists. Only 41% are agnostics or atheists.
          A normal intelligent guy would factor in divergence in the different surveys, but no you rabid atheists. You find the one fitting most your crazy agenda, ignoring all other surveys, and then to top it all, lie about the numbers, as you just did.
          This is why you atheists are distrusted as much as rapists:

          Even atheists distrust fellow atheists more than believers. What a joke.

        14. Lol you continue to throw petty insults and kindergarten logic to me. You continue to “challenge” me but I won’t waste my time any more. At least in the evolution/creationism subject, I provided with a compilation of almost all creationist retarded claims and it’s answers baked up by numerous study/paper/evidence avialiable.
          Of course I act as if I’m 100% sure there is no god, since im almost 99% sure there isnt. There is no reason to think there is so I just live my life as if there isnt. It wasn’t always like that as I told you I was Christian for 20+ years. And oh I feel much better, intelectually honest and free right now.
          The burden of proof is on you. The one that makes the claim that a god exists. But oh well, if there was just ONE piece verifiable evidence that there is a Supreme Being, we would not be having this discussion.
          Oh and don’t come to me with the bullshit that I can’t prove there isn’t, since you cant prove either that there isn’t any unicorns.

        15. Intellectually honest and free? Are you on drugs?
          You asked for logical evidence for God, and I gave you a book by former atheist and Germany’s leading scientist in information, but you refused to read it, and only continues to bitch about how you have no evidence.
          I asked you a very basic question regarding faith, and you of course again could not answer, so clearly you are lying again.
          I gave you simple and numbered questions. You could not answer, but directed me to hysterical atheist sites, even though is specifically said I wanted at least one science paper and not some atheist Mickey Mouse site with pseudo-science. But of course, that is all I got, because that is all you have.
          You atheist apes are nothing but the internet version of the local village idiot, standing on street corner, shouting at people.
          As you demonstrated so well.

        16. Sure. I hope you keep living your fantasy fairy tales. Go pray to your imaginary friend that he keeps protecting you from those mean atheists!. All that while some of us here live in the real world making the most of the only lives we probably have.

        17. If you were living in the real world, you could answer real world questions and would dare to read a book by an international leading scientist giving you what you claim does not exist. But you don’t, because you are a coward and a moron, hence an atheist. Good luck with that.

        18. You seem to have a lot of hatred towards atheists within you. Have they damaged your faith in the past or something?.
          I didn’t get that book you are talking about. ¿Give me the link please?. I will check it out when I have time. Gotta work right now.
          Also I recomend you this source so you can better understand the position against yours:
          Its a compilation of the atheist ideas and logic. You have some potential in arguing your case if only you would turn down on the insults just a bit.
          Good luck as well.

        19. I absolutely hate the typical toxic atheist blend of ignorant stupidity combined with baseless arrogance.
          Atheists damaged my faith? I am a Norwegian, and former atheist myself. Unlike you, I did my research.
          Prof Dr. Werner Gitt, former Head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt), was an atheist but came to the conclusion that it was impossible to have DNA without a divine source.
          His first major book is now made public online for free. Read it and then come back and explain how religion isn’t true.

        20. We are in opposite directions it seems. Im from Chile, where almost everyone is Christian as I was for almost all my life. I became atheist when I took those theology courses and started thinking for myself.
          About the DNA thing, there is no certianty of the answer as I told you before but maybe I can help:
          “DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA — all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).”
          Böhler, C., P. E. Nielsen, and L. E. Orgel. 1995. Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature 376: 578-581. See also: Piccirilli, J. A., 1995. RNA seeks its maker. Nature 376: 548-549.
          Jeffares, D. C., A. M. Poole and D. Penny. 1998. Relics from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 18-36.
          Leipe, D. D., L. Aravind, and E. V. Koonin. 1999. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Research 27: 3389-3401.
          Levy, Matthew and Andrew D. Ellington. 2003. Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(11): 6416-6421.
          Poole, A. M., D. C. Jeffares, and D. Penny. 1998. The path from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17.

        21. Let’s do the basic Cosmological argument: 1. everything that exists has an explanation, either in its logical necessarity or an underlying cause (being some condition that must be met before something can come into existence)
          2. God, if it exists, is a necessary being with agent causation (that is, a being which does not require an external underlying cause, yet possesses the type of causal power we generally think we have- the ability to cause without said result being immediately entailed by our existence from the start of our own).
          3. If the physical universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God. This would hold true regardless of whether it was created or not. The reason for this is that everything physical is contingent in some way or another on something else. For example, each moment in time requires a previous moment’s existence to exist. Any sequence of contingent things must terminate at something necessary, otherwise it wouldn’t have an explanation. Since an infinite regress from any contingent thing before coming to something necessary makes something impossible to exist (since the cause would never get to propagate to the result with an infinite chain in between), there must be finite regresses only for physical causes. Thus there must be a finite regress in the physical universe to its necessary cause. Here’s the problem. Such a cause must have agent causation, since if it had abstract causation instead, everything would instead be necessary, and there would be no time or contingency- nor even the illusion of a flow of time. Thus, there is a necessary thing with agent causality which caused the existence of the universe – I.e, God.

        22. I asked you a simple question regarding the spiritual significance of water baptism and you could not answer. You clearly have not read any book within systematic theology. While you can be a good Christian without systematic theology, it is impossible to claim yourself to be the judge of the Bible, without even understanding the very basics of the inner logic of the Bible.
          Neither of these papers answer my questions at all. As this insane pseudo-scientific field, a priori rule out the only logical conclusion, they have to invent insane fairy tales with not even an attempt to look into the probability and hypothesis testing? What kind of hoax and insane anti-scientific position is that?

        23. Please enlighten me sir. What does that medieval ritual mean? According to you personal interpretation of course.
          Did you read those papers? That was fast. They are not asserting anything man. They are just theories as experiments have been done but the ultimate answer still hasn’t been found. At least they try.
          So let me understand how you became a Christian. “I was an atheist but came to the conclusion that it was impossible to have DNA without a divine source.” So you NEED the answers for everything right now. Your urge to know everything was so bad that you had to assume that a -far more complex- invisible being had done it magically. Specifically the Christian god because the other 2000+ gods that humans have invented couldn’t have done it!. Cool story bro.

        24. The spiritual significance of water baptism is not clearly stated in the Bible. It is, however, connected to salvation, without ever being said it a precondition. That being said, in the NT water baptism was often done very shortly after conversion, often the same night. Water is often used as cleansing in the Bible, see the flood etc. Plus now, with science we know that we cleanse fingers etc from bacteria with water.
          I have read multiple papers regarding abiogenesis. and they all are insane junk science and utter pseudo-scientific trash, fairy tales for blind faith atheists. Unless I get a clear formulation of a hypothesis, and then hypothesis testing, I don’t bother reading their psychotic rant about their free fantasy version of how life spontanously self-created from dead matter (rocks) when they don’t even bother to examine possibility and probability. That’s not science. Not even close.
          I looked at several academic disciplines, history, philosophy, math, physics, biology etc, and they all converged. My IQ is 170+, so one thing IQ measures is to see logical patterns. For me it was kind of crazy. Christianity was absolutely the last religion I believed was true. But when I reluctantly digged into it, and did my home-work, it all made sense.

        25. I will answer this with a copy paste since this argument has been adressed many times:
          “The main problem of the First Cause Argument is the idea that every event has a cause. As we discovered in the 20th century, the universe is actually ruled at the bottom level by quantum mechanics, in which it’s possible for particles and events to have no cause. An obvious example of quantum mechanics in action is the radioactive decay of a uranium atom. There is no previous cause for each such event, and we can only predict it with probability. The averaging of quantum effects gives us the Newtonian experience that we have. However, Newtonian physics does not control the universe; quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity do. We now know that the universe has an intrinsic, bottom level of uncertainty that cannot be bypassed. Quantum mechanics also shows us that particles can appear out of nothing and then disappear back into nothing. Even in supposedly empty space, virtual particles are continuously appearing and disappearing. This is a real and measurable process, via what are known as the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift.
          Quantum mechanics shows us that subatomic particles such as electrons, protons and neutrons can disappear and reappear in a different place, without existing in the intervening space. Such particles can even be in more than one place at a time, if that time is brief enough. Perhaps even stranger, an electron can travel between two points by taking all possible paths simultaneously.
          I’d like to emphasize that quantum mechanics doesn’t make sense in our experience of the world. As Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is — absurd.”

    6. i am what i call a ‘by-default atheist.’ meaning i dont believe in there being a god, but thats the extent of my belief. differentiating that from the new-age atheist, who shoves it down your throat and loves liberalism.
      my gf is also not religious, but i wish she was. truth doesn’t matter so much in some regards, as captain obvious said, but rather- what’s best for society.
      that’s a doublethink scenario hard to play out. truth vs what’s best? if it takes believing in an invisible god hanging out in the sky for society to work, then i’m all for it.

    7. Science has vindicated theism. Go watch “Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism”. Idealism is the only philosophy consistent with current scientific discoveries, as well as the only one that doesn’t have gaping holes or impossible problems. For example, it doesn’t require the existence of an entire world outside of mind which is impossible to perceive, yet supposedly the source of your perceptions, and it doesn’t require for subjectivity to magically appear from complete nonsubjectivity (both problems with materialism). It is completely parsimonious and capable of explaining all known phenomena. Idealism also has a few strengths that are perfect for neomasculinity. One is that morality and other ideas are just as real as matter. Another is that it encourages the idea of personal and social development over material goods when applied socially. Ethical values under this system have real objective grounding in it as well. Lastly, idealism entails the existence of a pan(en)theistic God who is the ground of being, an idea which is in line with Christian religion and many other spiritual traditions.

  6. This is why I read ROK for, even though as an agnostic I can’t agree with the Christianity part. We absolutely need to get over with this equalism (mediocrity) and relativism (disorganization and manipulation) that is letting corporations and plutocratic elite destroy our nations with poverty, ignorance, lack of inner strength and pure immigrant invasion/colonization.

  7. If “child” support and spousal support policies were eliminated, my bet is that the rate of single motherhood would plummet in a hurry.

    1. Shaming and refusing to date single moms – mercilessly in both cases – will ultimately have a more profound effect than any other method out there, even if it takes a few generations to really germinate. I don’t believe in shaming the single mother idiots’ children as “bastards” at this point; the kids are totally inncocent of their mothers’ foolish choices and we need these kids to restore the patriarchy; it is the female single mother herd/hive mind that must be shamed and denigrated if we are to have a major effect. Employing marketing specialists to do so may be advisable, no?!

      1. Most of these kids need father/big brother figures. Aaron Clarey does a pretty good job being just that with his “Asshole Consulting” business, and now I’m wondering how I can serve such a role in my community.

      2. Maybe, but it’s hard to beat a financial incentive that is unconditionally enforced by the legal system.

      3. Sterilize single women in the hospital having babies…tell them reversal is $100,000 or a marriage certificate.

        1. No fan of single motherhood, but if it boils down to relying on single mothers bearing American kids, or bolstering the population with immigrants, I’ll take the former every time.

        2. Exactly. The only thing that will solve the many problems that single-grrrl dysfunction poses to society, is to exercise complete dominion over them. They are not rational actors, and lowering benefits or some such silliness is not going to have much effect. If they want the state to take the place of daddy or hubby, fine: let the state start making their choices for them.

        3. Yeah, with any luck, eventually our bastards can be as dysfunctional and r-selected as the immigrants we want to avoid.
          Better solution: force women to marry at gunpoint, if it really comes down to that. Chain them to a post in the house, if need be. Letting them raise kids “on their own” is the last thing we should encourage.

        4. The immigrants are dysfunctional and “r-selected” because the cultures they come from make them that way. Like I said, no fan of single motherhood, but better we deal with acculturated bastards than unwashed and unassimilable 3rd world scum.

        5. I knew what you meant; I was just saying that after a few generations of single-mother families have gone by, our culture is not likely to be any better than the immigrant cultures are now.

      4. I agree with you and I don’t think that the child should be ridiculed.
        But acknowledging him as a bastard is half of the ammo in shaming the single mothers and always was (before our times now).
        I.e., This is what your foolishness does! Not just to you, but also to your child!
        Remember that no woman (back then) wanted a bastard child and so they would marry the father (men are also affected by the “my son the bastard” shaming factor) before they were even showing and hope no one did the math. 🙂
        My point is, that as sad as this reality may be, the truth is, that if you try to do it without what I’ll coin as “the bastard effect”, it won’t work.
        What you’ll actually end up with, is a bunch of women who don’t care and will find some guy who “won’t judge them”.
        But put the effects of their sluttiness onto the child’s life and they may not be so eager to be single moms! Plus even the “less judgmental” men won’t want to have to live a life where they’re constantly jabbed at about “marrying that slut and raising her bastard child”.
        Unfair to the child? Of course. But remember that it’s the truth. And the truth is, that what we do affects other people, whether it’s fair or not. And if you take away half the consequences, it just won’t work!
        I.e., women can be very protective of their children and will not be eager to sentence their children into paying for their mistakes.
        Children need to be the last step, not the third (text me ten times, then bang me and forget me, now here comes the kid I get to keep and you get to pay for, no shame in that, you go gurl, you get that kid and money, you don’t need no man, slut pride, yea!).

    2. And the abortion rate would skyrocket. Indeed what you propose is an abortion doc’s wet dream

      1. Actually, I think they’d be safer about getting pregnant in the first place. And remember, many women use pregnancy as a way to try to trap a man. And they know they have a financial safety net, if their plan fails. Take that away and they may not be so eager to go that far.
        Don’t get me wrong, the abortion rate may indeed go up (or possibly down). I personally think it would. I just don’t know that it would necessarily skyrocket.

        1. But either way the native birth rate would drop so it’s a net loss. And if you think we’ll ever go back to the “Wake up little Susie” 1950s I’ve got oceanfront property in Nebraska to sell you.

    3. A much more effect method would be to simply stop promoting sex bore marriage as a culture. It would drop the single motherhood rate and divorce rate to basically 0.

  8. Would you consider initially implementing this system slowly and on a small scale? Like, what if a large group of traditional people bought a bunch of land, built houses, schools, etc, and lived this way? They take over the mayorships, town council, school boards, etc. Almost like a nation within a nation.
    This is what some Jewish families do after all. You should see some of these towns in New York and New Jersey, you would think they were pockets of tiny theocracies. Their “public schools” are 100% Jewish. There’s synagogues everywhere. Religious symbols are spread across government buildings. And some even have local town ordinances that mandate Jewish religious customs.
    It seems like it can be done.

      1. the current state is designed to win those small battles. It’s either go big or go home. The best chance you have of winning a small battle is to take over your local government and control how laws are enforced in your village, and no, you can only do this in some isolated village.

        1. Even big battles that seem to be lost on the surface can actually turn out to be a win in the long run.
          Trump, for better or worse, has brought a lot of non-PC issues to the MSM. Doesn’t matter at this point if he loses. The cat is outta the bag.
          Roosh “lost” the tribal meetup battle, but in the process, many people have found out the truth about this site and about the SJW’s who attacked us.

        2. Well on the bright side, it means ROK has enough publicity and readership size that SJW’s see it as a top priority threat!

      1. You said it man. Another great reason to donate to Aurelius Moner’s hermitage project — or maybe even better, find a similar place more local to you and help there. If there isn’t one, build and grow it.

      2. Exactly. Gentiles need to adopt the winning strategies they used to possess and the Jews still possess but tell everyone else to dump – think like a tribe. The Right keeps losing because they want to be a bunch of islands unto themselves.
        the West, Christendom, rose to it’s pinnacle when it thought like a tribe…both as individual nation-tribes and as a collective tribe, Europa, when faced with an existential threat, like Islam. It’s time to start small, build the tribes up, unite against our enemies, and reestablish the nation-tribe, or something close to it with similar power and inertia.

    1. It’s a reason why they are so successful. They are tribal and keep to themselves. The solution as Michael Sebastian pointed out is to build small communities of like minded individuals. Jack Donovan also wrote about it in his The Way of Men.

    2. The optimal way would we with a swift coup followed by a society revolution. But in theory, yes we could. One Idea I have considered is getting enough money to “buy” a part of a third world country. Either A) Outright buy full rights and make it an independent state or B) Make it a de facto independent state because the de jure government is too weak.

  9. Considering that people treated my comment like a joke, I don’t think we’re going anywhere. There’s nothing that can be done. People do not respect history and therefore do not respect their future.

    1. yes…based on people making a joke out of your comment we are doomed to repeat history. Do your feet even touch the ground with that huge stick up your ass Wang Chung?

      1. Look around. Do you see other people making jokes? Or are you singling me out because I brought an Asian perspective into this?

        1. Maybe you could try expounding a little on what it is that the Tang Dynasty did and how it applies to this article.

        2. The question isn’t what they did. The question is what didn’t they do? My comment was to open up your mind to something new or as yet to be considered. It is not for people to make jokes, especially the language of a people.

        3. I am singling you out because you are a self-important jackass who thinks he is far smarter and far wiser than he actually is — well, that and because I thoroughly enjoy it.

        4. Don’t give this twat a soapbox to go all Kung Pow. I am sure there is some intro to whatever the fuck this kid is talking about professor that he is just regurgitating.

        5. With your disrespect to other languages and treating the subject matter like it was a joke. The one that should truly be ignored is you. The time for entertaining fools is over.

        6. I am an INTJ-A, only 2% of the population are. I have proven time and time again that I can see the bigger picture and have what it takes to solve major problems that most others don’t. I never passed myself off as a self-important Jackass. I simply made a two word comment, you treated it like a joke, and now you’re getting aggressive with me because I exposed how ignorant and unimportant you really are. Like I said, time for entertaining fools is over. This conversation has ended.

        7. Dude if you actually studied Chinese ways you wouldn’t be bickering with this guy.

        8. I’ve said it once and I have said it before…when talking about China….I never joke….someone might wind up with PeePee in their coke.
          As for the time to entertain fools, it seems like it is actually at hand.
          Do yourself a favor kid, try not to be such a twat. You might find out that you know a lot less than you think and you will be happier for the chance to learn something rather than pretending to teach it.
          I am sure this will fall on deaf ears so I leave you with this bit of wisdom from Confucius: It is ok to meet girl in park, it is better park meat in girl

  10. Wishful thinking. Without identifying your enemy you can not win a battle.
    Are feminists, SWJs, liberals, faggots, trannies the enemy? No, they are fronting for the enemy. Are Jews the enemy? No, wrong again. They are fronting for the enemy as well.
    The current order is far from collapsing as Roosh thinks. The enemy is elusive, it avoids open battles, it lurks in the shadows. We can chase and sometimes hit a few targets, but these actions often have little impact on the wider problem.

    1. Who is the enemy? I don’t know how you could go deeper than the Juden, unless you are one of those Alien nuts.

  11. If we want to change society we need to pursue is a government steeped in classical liberalism. We need the maximum allowable levels of economic and personal freedom. The problem isn’t that government is adversely affecting society, it’s that government has the power to affect society in the first place. Strip away all of those powers and return them to the individual. Then, let neomasculine principles take care of the rest. Give us freedom of thought and free markets and we will come out on top, every time.

    1. Classical liberalism comes from the same bad thinking in the Enlightenment that gave us progressivism. You need to go back to see what the Enlightenment destroyed to get a good idea of how Western civilization worked during its ascendancy.

        1. There may be easier introductions, but Joseph de Maistre’s “Considerations on France” does a good job of summarizing what is wrong with the Enlightenment.

      1. While that is true, things only got bad once college students started deconstructing everything without considering the effects it would have. Some enlightenment thought is definitely necessary to maintain our current standard of living, so we need to find the right balance between the good liberal thought, and the necessary authoritarian social stabilization.

  12. I understand the point of the article, but religion and having kids? Ugh that sucks.

    1. Kids aren’t so bad once you have them. You’ll see. Plus, there’s nothing better than keeping a wife in your bed. Just do it.
      You need to realize that reproduction is the lone thing you’ve evolved to do and all other things are only a means to that end. So if the concept seems so alien to you, it tells of your sick culture. The core of your nature shouldn’t be unappealing to you, man. That’s truly unhealthy.
      I suggest you try for wife/kids, and the sooner the better. Plus, the rest of us are relying on you, so don’t be a jack fuck to the team.

      1. Many of my friends are married with kids, SOME are happy, MOST are miserable.
        I understand the mating drive, I also understand the drive to better and improve oneself, there is NO time for that with more than one kid.
        Plus the fact that you can do everything right and the kid(s) turn out to be scumbags. That’s a waste of life.
        You have no idea how unhealthy I am MUAHAHAHAHAHA!
        Ha ha what is a jack fuck? And what team? You sound like the colonel in Full Metal Jacket 🙂

        1. Men takes risks raising a kid. Good or bad, it’ll shape you for the later years of your life. Besides do you want your Big Daddy Gov to start importing more illegal immigrants or “refugees” to pay for taxes

        2. I see it differently, your freedom goes out the window. There’s a reason people refer to their wives as “the ball and chain”.
          Ha ha they don’t pay taxes. They are the foundation of the recipient class. If they worked, earned and paid taxes they’re not a “safe” base for the libercrats.

        3. Be an Alpha husband, those guys who call women that are sissies, they are better off joining the Faggetry Movement.

        4. Agreed, but MOST of the married guys I know refer to their wives with some type of prison analogy. Some used to be fairly alpha, but the nagging of a wife can be like raindrops on a boulder, eventually it wears one down.

        5. correct-o-mundo
          Ball and chain is a name for something you are saddled with, involuntarily, and that you cannot be free from.
          If this is your marriage then it is already dead. You are just going all weekend at bernie’s with it

        6. Love the allusion to Weekend, hilarious.
          Well what is the reason people stay in… oh yeah kids and $$$$
          Count me out of that mishegas.

        7. There is a great old Johnny Taylor tune called It’s Cheaper to Keep Her. I guess that’s right for a lot of people.
          You couldn’t march me down the isle with a fife and a machine gun.

        8. Yeah, I know this one too.
          If you read Keith Richard’s Autobiography called Life (which I strongly suggest you do) he has some wisdom on this. He was talking about how Mick Jagger NEEDED to be with the hottest woman or women in the room. He totally got off on it. It was an obsession for him. Keith says that for himself he never cared for any of that. All he wanted was a 250 pound southern black lady who knew how to fry up an excellent chicken, made him breakfast in the morning and appreciated him

        9. You have to uphold your wife or partner to the highest possible standards you set yourself. I always uphold my main girl to a standard that’s realistic but ultimately makes her a better person.

        10. The nagging has always been there. What’s changed is now the nagging is backed up by the power of the state. When a man was really the head of the house, he could “shut that shit down” and maintain his alpha status. Kind of hard to be the “alpha” of the house when you know your wife could be fucking the entire neighborhood, call the police for a fake DV and then file for divorce. You’ll be in jail and broke on a fucking whim.

        11. But true manhood requires altruism! There’s is nothing more charitable than making someone better. I always want people to be better! It’s the ultimate legacy you can leave this world.

        12. “Besides do you want your Big Daddy Gov to start importing more illegal immigrants or “refugees” to pay for taxes”
          No. But I honestly can’t give enough fucks to fight for this country and have kids. Especially since I think we’re going to lose either way and my kids are the ones who will have to live through the hard times. I think of it as doing my unborn children a favor and not having them.

        13. So you’re a defeatist? Channel your inner Alpha alright. Positive thoughts man!

        14. “If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife.”

        15. I somewhat agree, I just wish so many people in modern society didn’t exploit altruism.

        16. “Plus the fact that you can do everything right and the kid(s) turn out to be scumbags.” That means you did something wrong.

  13. Im not so sure about the religious part. I say this coming from the heart of the Bible Belt, there is no correlation between religion and a heightened level of morality. The liberal denominations taking hold in this country do nothing to preserve or enhance traditionalist morals. I’ve been in a church where a preacher would condemn adulterers, then go pork the choir director after the service. I’ve been to Pentecostal services where grown men weep and wail and flail on the floor while speaking gibberish. At the moment, churches are producing a bunch of stupid, over emotional manginas with zero self-awareness. I, personally, think that modern Christianity is totally incompatible with neomasculine thought. If we’re going to follow a book, let’s make it a good one, like Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations.

    1. I’ve been reading the progression from the Tang Dynasty to the Song Dynasty and it went from free practice of religion (with the dominating religions being Daoism and Buddhism) all the way down to no religion.

      1. Having no religion means more individualism. Religion is really just the bond that unites society together. Without a bond, your society gradually decays and you end up with Sweden that let Malmö be overrun by Muslims in less than 20 years it went from 100 percent cent whites to almost 95 percent Muslims.

        1. Let me add that in China during those time periods, they forcefully integrated their immigrants or those immigrants were kicked out. They were not allowed to call themselves Chinese, or even look Chinese. If they took a Chinese wife, they had to stay there (and in a good deal of time, nothing short-term).
          In today’s multiculturalism, you’re allowed to live in another countries but you don’t have to assimilate into that country’s culture or way of life. The problem is, how do we achieve the same effect in ancient times without the use of force from that time period?

        2. They wouldn’t need that policy if they were having babies and creating cohesive families. This is the west’s main weakness.

        3. The Asians, Africans, Latinos got that shit on lock. Cohesion is also the reason why Islamic State is terrorizing the west. They are Wahabis to the core!

        4. India as well. Narendra Modi is building a nationalism built around the Hindu faith.

        5. Islamic State is mostly terrorizing other Muslims in the Middle East. And they appear to be having trouble even with that, lately.

      2. China became less and less religious (Neo-Confucianism started that trend in the Song Dynasty) and it led to a gradual stagnation of the culture over a period of about 1000 years.
        The Song were technologically advanced but limp-wristed pussies who betrayed Yue Fei, the one man who was saving them from the Mongols.
        Later, after the Mongol dynasty imploded, the Ming Dynasty brought back some Chinese things but there was little of the cultural achievement from the Tang and Han eras that made China so great. The emphasis was rather on big business and the emperors, starting with the peasant rebel Zhu Yuanzhang, were almost all incompetent.
        The Qing was a supremely capable dynasty for about 150 years due to two genius emperors (Kangxi and Qianlong), but they too did more to preserve superficial forms and expand their borders than to re-invigorate the essence of classical China.
        And off course, all religion and tradition was castigated by the communists, who in today’s terms were an SJW elite that nearly ruined the country.

        1. Corollary: It is truly a testament to the success of Confucian patriarchy standing strong in the core of China’s population that the social culture never totally collapsed in the darkest hours of Mongol conquest, the Western invasions of Beijing, the Japanese invasion, or even the Cultural Revolution.
          China has suffered multiple civilization-crushing events that can and do destroy less coherent cultures.

    2. Christians are either Crusaders or a Mangina. The left won’t allow the former to happen.

    3. It is atheism that gives feminism wings and no other ideology.
      Christianity, albeit subverted now, is the greatest patriarchy we have right now.
      As a matter of fact I believe that without such a belief system patriarchy is impossible.
      Atheism is the abandoning of all values. That never leads to anything “good”.
      “If we’re going to follow a book, let’s make it a good one,…”
      What do you mean by that?

      1. This is wichtig! I’m not even a devoted Christian but I understand they have set up principles that you preach.

    4. Europe has totally crashed with the influx of rampant atheism. With more atheism we got MORE divorce, rape, murder, abortion, suicide, mental problems, drug abuse etc, not less.
      The problem is that subjective morality and moral relativism are logically inherent within atheism. So you automatically get the your-truth and my-truth garbage. This is also why atheism has never ever produced a single society based on atheism. Far less a whole civilization, compare that to Christendom, the greatest civilization the world has ever seen.
      Using Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations as a template for morality does not escape the problem of subjective morality, unless you explain and convince everyone why they should submit to his teaching on an individual level. Furthermore, in Christianity we have God as a judge, who sees everything. That is a good way to stop/discourage evil and/or anti-social behaviour.
      I am a European Pentecostal and your claim, “men weep and wail and flail on the floor while speaking gibberish. At the moment, churches are producing a bunch of stupid, over emotional manginas with zero self-awareness”, is not even close to reality.

      1. All religious people have to be moral, but not all moral people have to be religious.

      2. But you actually BELIEVE that judge is there. Good for you. Except god doesn’t come down from on high and make judgments and settle disputes. In fact, even most religious people think that if someone claims they actually communicate with god they think them mentally ill. Part of the spread of atheism or non-belief is that fact that we’re not forced to believe anymore. Long ago if members of your village or town or what ever thought you a heretic they could do some pretty immoral things to either bring you in line or drive you out.
        I don’t think christianity needs to be the basis of a civilization. I don’t think it’s necessary an obstacle either. The Chinese built a huge empire lasting thousands of years (until the chi-coms came along) with major infrastructure and relatively high literacy rates.

        1. The point is that a civilization must have a template for morality.
          The Greeks had the Iliad and Odysseys. People tend to view these as mere literature, but they are wrong. Embedded in both are gods and how they interacted with humans. Thus both epic works contain proper conduct, chivalry, how to be polite, morality etc has a religious foundation. Without it, the impact on the Greek civilization would have been far less
          Same with the Bible.
          Thus, God does not have to “come down from on high and make judgments and settle disputes”.
          That “members of your village or town or what ever thought you a heretic they could do some pretty immoral things to either bring you in line or drive you out”, is a pop culture myth and not representative for Western Civilization. On the contrary. The idea of freedom of speech for everyone, no matter how stupid, ill-informed, stem from the Bible where Jesus Christ never infringed on the freedom of speech of anyone. No matter how evil, hate-filled and ignorant. He always countered them with arguments or silence. This is why Christendom had full freedom of speech (together with Judaism – see David being rebuked by Nathan), and no other civilization in the history of mankind.
          That people were forced to believe, etc, is just a pop culture myth and can not be supported by empirical evidence.
          The literacy rate have been high in Christendom, as the foundation is a book. This in contrast to China, so I doubt that they had such a high literacy rate and schooling.
          On the surface Islam ought to be pretty much the same, except that the Qur’an is so short and encourage to learn it by heart, instead of reading it. So, say, in Afghanistan, the best thing for an illiterate person is to learn the Qur’an by heart in Arabic, regardless of factual understanding. In Norway we had public school for everyone, a heavy investment for the society, already in 1739. Mainly because everyone should be able to read the Word of God. This thinking and motivation was a major force for advancing European culture.

        2. EuroDude, to your first point, morals are relative. It’s just a fact of life. moral relativity even exists in Christianity. It is immoral for a Mormon to consume caffeine. It is immoral for a Catholic to use birth control, or for a Jehovah’s Witness to accept a blood transfusion. Many old school Baptists think that alcohol is immoral. Some denominations marry two guys, others only allow female clergy. Radical Islamists consider it moral to lop the heads off of infidels. To them, they’re just doing their moral duty as a Muslim. I agree with you that we need an ideological template, I just dispute the use of religion to achieve that end. There is wisdom to be found in the Bible, no doubt, but it’s buried beneath a lot of nonsense. Marcus Aurelius gets right to the point, to the heart of morality. No threat of eternal damnation, no promise of eternity, just morality for morality’s sake. That is what we need to be pushing.

        3. No, if a civilization is based on Christendom, then the objective moral foundation can be found in the Bible. There is no my-truth and your-truth garbage, as is prevalent in our current dysfunctional society.
          This in contrast to atheism where all morality is subjectively based, if any moral at all.

        4. Christian morality has been very consistent in the 2 000 year old history. There has been no fundamental moral disputes, so the clarity has always been there. Of course there will be minor variations, but that is why a Europe with nation states, in contrast to a giant Muslim Ummah, is to be preferred. If coffee really is a major issue among religious Christians, then there would be at least one country, or state in the US, following that principle, and every adherent to that doctrine could move there.
          If you believe that “wisdom to be found in the Bible, no doubt, but it’s buried beneath a lot of nonsense”, then you obviously have not seriously studied it. Have you read a single book within systematic theology, in combination with the Bible?
          The problem with a secular moral template is that people just don’t care. If they are drunk and/or can rape, steal without anyone finding out, they will most likely do it, and some dude called Aurelius will not stop them. If, however, the moral law is given by the creator of the Universe and giver of all life, then only a fool would dismiss it, and certainly if one get judged by an all-knowing God later on.
          There has never been a secular template for any civilization in the recorded history of mankind. A bunch of selfish gene adherents, running around, will not submit their own pleasure maximization, short-term and long-term, to some book by some dude.

        5. The King James Bible and the Printing Press caused English speaking civilization to take a great leap forward in literacy…the word of god was now there for all men to read, thus being able to read it was now important, which made the need for education important.

        6. Absolutely true. If Christianity was not based on a book (or rather 66 books by 40 authors), but rather on meditation, inner universe etc, – Europe would have been totally different. Just look at India.

        7. Not at all, morals are supposed to absolute, in accordance with universal Law(God/Laws of Nature). The problem with moral relativity is that anyone can justify being a monster. Moral relativity gave us Communism(Marxism), Nazism , Egalitarianism etc. all collectively responsible for the deaths of 250 million people in less than a 100 years. The crimes of Christianity pale in comparisons to the crimes of Atheism. Even to this day, genocidal infanticide is occurring… 100 million babies have been slaughtered in the womb in the name of feminism(derived from Marxism) since Roe vs Wade

        8. Who decides this?
          “No threat of eternal damnation, no promise of eternity, just morality for morality’s sake.”
          Imagine a psychopath, incapable of morality…
          Why should he care? Isn’t it plain irrational to care about others when your mood is independent of them?
          But no, even for “normal” people the rational approach is to eliminate regard for others. Why would it make sense to let your mood be dependent on others? It doesn’t.
          It is beyond me how atheists can claim to be “moral” when that is technically still and always crushed by Nietzsche…

        9. Morals are entirely relative. They’re relative to region, to culture, and time. In Ancient Greece and Feudal Japan, it was completely acceptable and moral for a master to have anal sex with his child apprentice. I don’t see us reaching any kind of consensus on this matter. The subject of religion is entirely subjective, as you’re unable to prove that there is a God and I’m unable to prove that there is not, so it really does come down to your-truth and my-truth. Atheism and Agnosticism has been hijacked and perverted by leftists to the point that we all come across as mustache-twirling villains with nothing better to do than mock religion. I can assure you, at least with me, that’s not the case. You and I probably see eye to eye on a lot more than you think we would. At the end of the day, the origin of morality and virtue is of no importance. Only the fact that we have and uphold them matters. We’re both neomasculinists, otherwise we wouldn’t be here. We have arrived at the same conclusion despite our differences. That alone should be evidence that atheists can and do have values.

        10. Actually the “chi-coms”, to use a silly, outdated term, breathed new life into a China that had become irredeemably decadent by the 19th century, and was used as a giant punching bag by the Japanese in the first half of the twentieth century.

        11. True, when we both are neomasculinists, then we are on the same team and that’s really what matters.

        12. First of all the communists didn’t take over from Imperial China. They didn’t take over until ’49
          Secondly, “breathed new life”?? Mao’s “Cultural Revolution” and “Leap Forward” killed at LEAT 50,000,000 people.

        13. Back then, China was the USA of the world. They eventually fell to ruin, but miraculously they’re still here. I think that studying them is the way for the future and it’s SO fucking sad that racists (mostly of the Stormvermin variety) readily dismiss Asia and mock them when they’re the only group of countries in the world where traditions are still observed, culture has been preserved or intact, people are homogeneous, mostly free of degeneracy. They’re doing everything right, and Stormvermin regularly classifies them as dirt or lower than dirt. In reality, Asians are what Stormvermin aspire to be but can never have.

        14. Quote from a friend of mine:
          Whatever you can do, there’s an Asian who can do it better than you.

        15. I agree that atheists can have morals but they can only according to their own regard.
          When your feelings don’t align with caring about others then your moral compass will match that.
          Christians can’t and this is exactly how a society succeeds.
          Sure, as said, you can have values but those are only your own and never that of others. From your worldview you can’t logically argue why some values are “bad” and others “good”.
          The best you can do is to say that some actions are “bad” for society but that to is negated meaningless when the individual doesn’t care about the subjective “success” of society.

        16. It’s funny how their only rebuttal is “but they can’t innovate!” as if that’s worked against them significantly.

        17. Well, anyways don’t mean to be your enemy it’s just that I want you to know what atheisms place is.

      3. “Europe has totally crashed with the influx of rampant atheism. ” — those ‘new’ Migrants aren’t atheist, in fact, they are very fervent in their beliefs…non Christian, but very fervent. In a generation we shall see the great cathedrals of Europe convert their bell towers into minarets

        1. Atheists took over near perfect societies in Scandinavia in the early 1930s. It has been downhill after that, despite technological progress and more economic wealth. Now, Scandinavia is one of the most retarded places on earth, with an astonishing amount of stupidity and self-hatred, combined with all the hallmarks of atheism; moral relativism, nihilism and rampant hedonism. Not very good for a society.

      4. Yep, A society needs moral absolutism enforced by a centralized religion. The best religion for this is Christianity but particularly that of Eastern Orthodox since heterodoxy has been bastardized and infiltrated by pseudo-priests and pastors not correctly interpreting the Holy scriptures

        1. As I see it, there has only been two successful paths in Christianity. One, like Eastern Orthodox, centralized but independent from the state. Securing sound Biblical teaching and development of cultural heritage, like the very beautiful Orthodox Churches with a clear lineage to Byzantine painting and architecture. The danger with a centralized church is corruption at the top.
          The other path is the American way, with a very vital and Bible based congregations, competing with each other, where reading of the Bible is the foundation and where the father in the home is the spiritual leader. The danger with a non-centralized church is deviation from the true faith.
          Worst, in my opinion, are the Scandinavian state churches, completely controlled by progressive atheists, perverting every good there is.
          In my view a combination would be most robust. Both centralized churches, combined with decentralized house-churches as well. As the Molokan Christians in Russia.
          I am a Pentecostal and nearly all underground churches in the Middle East are Evangelical (Pentecostal/Charismatic etc), very much like the underground church in early Rome. A centralized church is very difficult and dangerous to run in those areas.

        2. “I am a Pentecostal and nearly all underground churches in the Middle East are Evangelical” Umm do you have proof of this?

        3. I am connected to underground churches, and that is my experience. Same with Voice of the Martyrs, Open Doors and other organizations dealing with persecution in the Middle East. You can also look at the openly ex-Muslim converts in the West. It is very rare that they are not Pentecostal/Charistmatic. There is of course no official numbers that I can direct you to. Do you have any reason to doubt my claim?

        4. Because I would expect a large portion of them to also be Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox.

        5. All of them are out in the open, and if it were known that they were converting Muslims to Christianity, something that is strictly forbidden in Shariah, then they would face very grave retaliations from the Muslims. So they have traditionally avoided it, in order to survive as Christian communities, in hostile Muslim areas.
          Pentecostals have pastors, and home churches. Much easier to hide and much more flexible. Also, most Ex-Muslims that I know of, have supernatural experiences with God, and their experiences are more often seen in Pentecostal churches, so that’s where they most like will go. But you also have hybrid versions, like

          where they first go an Armenian church to get a Bible and direction and then go to the Pentecostal/Evangelical underground church.

  14. Are you guys more Wahabi Alphas or Saudi Alphas? That’s the question you all have to ask yourself before shoving down Patriarchy in everyone’s throat.

    1. I wonder how many Neomasculine red pillers will decide to go all the way and convert to Islam. This way they can adopt a way of life with built-in patriarchy, and find themselves a nice submissive Moslem woman to marry, who’ll pop out a half-dozen little Moslems without complaint.

      1. I will never convert to Islam. If anything, I’ll pick up Confucianism/Neo-Confucianism which isn’t technically a religion lol

  15. “Eliminate the revolving door between government and corporations”
    I have to disagree with this on in 2 ways or at least restate it.
    “Career Politician” should be a contradiction in terms. Terms limits should eliminate such a thing. Rather people should be moving from careers in business, law, whatever, to politics and back – constantly.
    And – government workers should be managed and compensated like corporate workers. No more pensions, no more unions, lay-offs when they aren’t needed, and fire the lazy and incompetent.

    1. The Saudis and the other Arab family who runs a dictatorship is an example of what he’s alluding to. I’ve met Saudis that are not related to the family that runs it, and they are fond of them.
      The most glaring example of Patriachy succeeding.

    2. Agreed about career politicians. There’s one in my state that’s particularly nasty and I was shocked to find that if people keep voting for the guy, he’d never go away.

    3. Term limits make stuff worse. Why should we vote out someone we like to install someone else who we don’t? The real solution is that we move to a continental parliamentary system. Parties should be able to replace their MP’s any time and put in a new guy.
      “No more pensions, no more unions,” I don’t get why so many people in the private sector in the US of A are too incompetent to setup their own unions. How about instead of getting mad at other people having better benefits, you get off your arse and try to get better benefits. Plenty (and by that I mean every) corporation in the developed world outside the US gives Pensions, good salaries, payed sick days, a month of vacation, etc. and all these companies still survive and thrive. Yet Yanks seem to think their is something mind wrapping impossible about it and it can never ever ever ever ever be achieved.

  16. Once again I’m impressed by the level and intent of the conversation on RoK. I’m often very thankful to the fates for dropping me off on the doorstep. This is another great step, building on the core concepts of neomasculinity. Thank you guys for taking the time to articulate it.
    The only bullet point here that right away jumps out at me as ripe for further refinement is the one stating that only landowners should have voting rights. This seems really dangerous, almost as if it’s bound to create a new American plutarchy. I’m with you fully, in that there has to be a better way to control who gets a vote. But I’d like to understand your rationale there a little better. Maybe in the future (or now, here in the comments) you’ll be down to elaborate on that choice.

    1. Yeah. The landowner thing did not work before, I don’t think it would work now.

    2. This is a tricky issue. I believe land ownership is simply the starting point and would be hashed out in further debates. There are far to many people who have no business voting for what restaurant to go to let alone in government elections.

      1. Exactly. I’ll tell you what really got me thinking seriously about voting rights was a piece here 2 or 3 years ago, about how women should not have the right to vote. This is about the time I began to swallow the pill. I remember reading that headline & thinking WHAT THE FUCKKKK, but by the time I was done reading, I thought Maybe this guy’s on to something here….
        Thing is, some women are smart enough to make sound decisions; and on the grounds of incompetence, there are a lot of men whom you’d also have to seriously question. An IQ test or something might work, except IQ doesn’t necessarily mean wisdom. Any arbitrary measurement really, they could all be rigged to favor one ideology over the next. It almost seems like you have to let everyone vote, but elevate the mentality of the society as a while to the point where the decision making abilities of the common person is strong enough to trust in.

  17. I challenge all North American tribes to a duel and once in get rid of most of you I will call my country Patriach of United States and Sillyness aka PUSS

  18. Patriarchal nationalism is theoretically compatible with other forms of
    government, such as aristocracy or the ultimate form of patriarchy,

    Monarchy is definitely the ultimate form of patriarchy and the world already has One:
    “When they did not find them, they began dragging Jason and some brethren before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have upset the world have come here also; and Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” (Acts 17:6~7 NASB)
    “Society must be unified around Christianity. . . “
    Agreed. Society can only exist, be free, and prosper where Christianity exists as the civil body politic:
    “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Cor 3:17 NASB)
    “Christianity is the most compatible religion and “operating system” for the Western world, and is far superior for societal stability than atheism.”
    It’s more than an “operating system”. Christianity is realizing the Kingdom of Yahweh “here on earth as it is in heaven”. A favorite pastor put it best, Christianity is a “conviction not merely a preference”. One of the many mistakes of unregenerate man is to assume that God exists to serve man. True Christianity is nationalistic and patriarchal, but Christianity is not a means to the end of a man made idol called “patriarchal nationalism”:
    “But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these. For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim 3:1~7 NASB)
    Paul should convict many with his words I just quoted. If you have yet to regenerate your spirit and enter a covenant relationship with the King of Kings, you’re spinning your wheels at best. At worst, you’re insulting God. That always ends the same way.
    “Other religions will be able practice freely, but not demand special prerogatives.”
    This statement is not compatible with Christianity. “Religious freedom” is against the law:
    “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (Exodus 20:3 NASB)
    Yahweh’s law does not tolerate the presence of any other “god” or law system within His society. There is room for native born, passive, non-believers who respect and obey His law. There is no room for active non-believers who promote any other law system or any other gods:
    “If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods’ (whom neither you nor your fathers have known, of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end), you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. So you shall stone him to death because he has sought to seduce you from Yahweh your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such a wicked thing among you.” (Deu 13:6~11 NASB)
    “But those mine [Yeshua’s] enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27 KJV)
    …ye [Israel] shall drive out all the [heathen] inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures [figured stones NASV], and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down [demolish NASV] all their high places. (Numbers 33:52)
    …ye [Israel] shall overthrow their [the heathen’s] altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. (Deuteronomy 12:3)
    Make no mistake: Christianity is an intolerant, exclusive religion concerning any competing religion or law system. The above quotes are but a few that should solidify that point beyond any doubt. My forefathers had the proper attitude when they expanded the West, the Kingdom of Yahweh, to America:
    Daniel Webster, discourse at Plymouth Rock on December 22, 1820, The
    Works of Daniel Webster (Boston, MA: Brown and Company, 1858) Vol. I, p.10:
    “…if God prosper us, we shall here begin a work which shall last for ages; we shall plant here a new society, in the principles of the fullest liberty and the purest religion … we shall fill this region of the great [North American] continent … with civilization and Christianity; the temples of the true God [Yahweh] shall rise, where now ascends the smoke of [non-Christian] idolatrous sacrifice…”
    Webster, Vol. I, pp. 48-49:
    “Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our [European] fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary. Let us cherish these sentiments, and extend this influence still more widely; in the full conviction, that that is the happiest society which partakes in the highest degree of the mild and peaceful spirit of Christianity.”
    Many commendable and agreeable sentiments in this article. Without a true conviction and fealty to the King of Kings it will fall flat. Men of conviction, who love and honor God first, and strive to understand His commandments and do them is where any rebuilding has to begin. Consider the books of Ezra and Nehemiah for a model on how to rebuild the Kingdom. Interestingly, major themes of these books is returning to Yahwehs’ law, building a wall, putting away foreign wives, and expelling foreigners in general from the nation.

  19. Michael, Roosh, great start with this. This is oddly similar to a theoretical platform I’ve been working on and I doubt I’m the only one. My comments to some of the points above:
    “Allow only those with “skin in the game” to vote. Namely, land-owning families (one vote per family).”
    Go even further and require a minimum child requirement. I suggest 2, so that said natalist family has at the minimum, replaced themselves.
    “Minimize the influence of corporations, foreign governments, unions, and wealthy individuals upon government.
    Eliminate the revolving door between government and corporations, reform election process, re-implement constitutional safeguards so that it is much more expensive to buy everyone off.”
    I’d add that anyone working in government, receiving any kind of welfare, or working for a multinational corporation is unable to vote so long as they work there or collect payments. Net taxpayers who have no allegiances to globalism or other nations should be the only families that can vote.
    “Society must be unified around Christianity. In spite of its faults and those of its leaders, Christianity is the most compatible religion and “operating system” for the Western world, and is far superior for societal stability than atheism. Other religions will be able practice freely, but not demand special prerogatives.”
    I’d limit the tax exemption status to only Mainline, European denominations that refuse to have female clergy or gay marriage. Everyone else can be a club. Islam should be banned as incompatible with Christendom. So should Marxism and it’s ilk (Feminism, Multiculti) as Christian heresies.
    All the other bullet points I’m good with.
    I do question if those who rule need to be monitored in some way. The self monitoring could be done that if anyone is caught violating the law or general Christian morality, they are immediately displaced from their government office or job and have a time period, say a 10 year ban, from being able to work or hold government office.
    We also have the problem of figuring out what positions should have term limits and what positions shouldn’t. Short term limits tend to create short-time thinking politicians who only have immediate solutions, not long term ones. They also tend to treat the country like a communal good (i.e. don’t care) rather than as private property. So if term limits are removed for some positions, but a referendum or immovable law is set to cause impeachment due to violation of Christian morals, the law, or the new constitution that can’t be wiggled and re-interpreted by idiot lawyers and judges, the typical conniving of the stop should work as a enforcement system to be good or close to it.

    1. I respectfully disagree with the child requirement for voting. As long as an individual is being productive and not leeching off the system, they should have the ability to vote.
      The very thought of letting an individual vote when they are on welfare is ludicrous; can we say conflict of interest?

      1. The simple solution, IMHO, is that if you don’t pay income tax, you don’t vote. Shockingly, this is about 1/2 the country that would lose the vote. However, the vote should be a privilege, not a right. And allowing people who collect more than they contribute to the government to vote leads to never ending growth of government. Should we pave the streets with gold? Sure, because Overtaxed is paying for it, why the fuck not.
        It’s amazing that republicans can win at all given the makeup of the electorate. The vast majority of people out there have no or a shockingly low income tax burden. “Cut taxes” really only applies to a small segment of society. It a good thing that many people don’t realize they pay no income tax, or the republican rallying cry wouldn’t be nearly as effective.

        1. Indeed. We stand at a precipice right now. Either the populace is going to wake up and vote to save themselves from destruction or they are going to realize they can vote to give themselves more free stuff. Call me cynical, but I think it will be the latter. Enjoy the decline, comrade.

      2. Children do two things for healthy families and for the purpose of building an NP system:
        1) Due to having children, their time frame for the country extends to when their children take over. You’ll want to leave something better for them.
        This assumes of course that we do not create and take steps to prevent another dumbarse Baby Boomer generation, who are narcissistic twits and can only think as far as their next feelz, from ever coming into existence.
        2) Increases the families “skin in the game”
        Those without kids, like say gays, have a tendency to be short-time preference types. We need long-time preference types to be running the show.
        Note the child requirement was an add on to the other requirements. For such types, children are a likely part of the equation. Adding 2 kids means they are older. So if child-rearing starts younger, the re-wiring to the pre-frontal cortex should be closer to completion after waiting to have 2 children. Also, they should have some experience before they vote in the booths with intimately dealing with a non-thinking human. Changes your perspective on how to deal with adults who still act like kids.

    2. Another thing to add: We should consider some humane eu-genic policy. Abortions are banned, it’s murder, but fines to people with high chances of creating less than normal children should be applied, and single mothers and other degernates in our midst should not be rewarded for getting knocked up by another baby daddy. Perhaps women on welfare need to be placed on Depro in order to receive food stamps and once that male sperm ripper drug is available, same to men who receive welfare.
      It’ll piss the Catholics off something fierce, but who cares, they vote Democrat. Besides, historically, they always conform to the government system placed in front of them. They’ll line up while still having half-hearted parades in the Capital.
      In the reverse, those with good genes to pass should get some type of break, like tax breaks, in order to encourage more than replacement level birthing.

      1. Not sure I agree with this. Sounds like more government intervention. No thanks, that’s what got us into this mess in the first place.

        1. I used to be a Libertarian too, in my college years once I had grown out of being a ShitLib. The thing is, once you observe people not only outside of your typical friends but also in other countries, your ability to be a humanist will likely die. Most people are natural slaves. In Christian theology, they call it Original Sin. in secular humanism, vice and corruption. Something needs to keep it in check. If the people can take it upon themselves as individuals to police their behavior, external discipline isn’t needed. WASPS and the English are good at this. Brown people not so much. Heck, even Southern Europeans are less disciplined than the Germanics. Which is why the system is breaking, because those who will not discipline themselves will need discipline to be imposed on them.
          You want no government? Then kill every single human on the planet, because you will never have a perfect government if humans are involved. Once you finally see that, you’ll see why Libertarianism is just as dumb and pie-in-the sky as any Bernie-topia.
          Now, how can we make a system that requires responsibility and obligation out of the people and directs them to be the best version of themselves, to be the best kind of human? Not for the sake of corporations and governments, they just want compliant lemmings. I’m saying we make something that pushes people towards individual greatness. The rest will flow from there.
          But if we are to perfect humanity, the science suggests we need to tackle the issue of genetics, as behavior and culture flows from it.

      2. With genetic therapy (which is coming) Eugenics is no longer needed. In fact, it’ll come to pass that having a child with a birth defect will be considered child abuse.

Comments are closed.