www.returnofkings.com

MCGOO #fundie returnofkings.com

Men it's time to MAN YOUR DICKS and FIRE UP YOUR BALLS. The slaying has not yet began. Every new family started is an abortionist thwarted, their pathetic murderous career gutterballed. Every young virgin conquered and domesticated is a wild slut that will never be. FIRE THOSE DICKS rrratatat-tat-tat like a wall of Gatling guns. BAM BAM BAM. Bag dat ass. Knock em up and take them captive. They are our other half, half of them stolen from us and the other half wayward and lost. They are OUR sheep. All you swingin' dicks RIISE UP. We live for OUR master.

Tuthmosis Sonofra #sexist #psycho returnofkings.com

5 Reasons To Date A Girl With An Eating Disorder

Nothing screams white-girl problems louder than a good old-fashioned eating disorder.* But they’re more than that. Eating disorders have been—quite appropriately—declared a luxury reserved for only the most privileged members of the female race. In other words, the presence of one of the classic eating disorders is a reliable predictor of various socio-economic, cultural, and personality traits in a young woman–features that, in the end, are desirable to today’s American man. In a world where the “retail price” on the typical Western woman continues to skyrocket—while their quality continues its precipitous decline—there are some real gems to be found in the bargain bin.

I’ve dated several girls with eating disorders—in various intensities—and all of these traits have applied to each of them.

*While obesity is, in most cases, also an “eating disorder,” this list doesn’t apply to emotional eaters, food addicts, and fatties with no self control.

1. Her obsession over her body will improve her overall looks.
A girl who spends inordinate mental and physical energy on her looks is rarely fat. If you were to get into a long-term relationship with one of these girls, she’s also less likely to become complacent about her physique over time. Girls like this are usually deft at properly dressing their body type, which translates into a more stylish girl overall. And, because cheap clothing lines—like H&M—are shaped with straight cuts that are less labor-intensive and therefore more inexpensive, they look good in even the cheapest of shit. While they may have a “distorted body image” on the inside, that usually means staying trim and fit on the outside. Let’s not forget that fatties too, in the majority of cases, have a “distorted body image,” but in the unattractive direction.

2. She costs less money.
You can go out to nice restaurants and order take-out with the confidence that your expense on her will be minimal. In most cases, she’ll get a small dish–like a side salad–or just eat a little bit of whatever communal dishes you order. If you’re a hungry bastard, you can even finish off her plate. “Are you going to finish that?”

3. She’s fragile and vulnerable.
The case has repeatedly and persuasively been made that an inflated ego and an unearned high self-esteem are among the most unattractive traits in a girl. You-go-girlist “confidence”—grounded in little more than years of being told she’s a unique and special snowflake for no other reason than she was born female—renders a woman into an insufferable turd who thinks the world revolves around her.
An eating disorder often translates into the direct opposite: a girl who’s modest, fragile, and vulnerable. Instead of having to constantly wrestle with a difficult and obnoxious girl, you’ll be dealing with a tastefully insecure girl, who’s eager to please, and wants nothing more than your approval. She’s quick to apologize for transgressions, and will make the extra effort to see you–instead of flaking on you constantly. This level of vulnerability often brings out the best in men, whose protector instinct can’t help but get activated.

4. Probably has money of her own.
They aren’t too many poor girls with eating disorders. These girls come from money, and often continue to wield that spending power right into their adulthoods. Her instinct to please you will translate into her picking up tabs, coming to your door not empty-handed, or buying you little gifts.

5. She’s better in bed.
It’s a well-known fact that crazy girls are exceptional in the sack. A girl with an eating disorder has just the right cocktail of pent-up insecurity, neuroses, and daddy issues to ensure that your whole building knows every time you’re beating it up.

Say what you will, a girl with a mild-to-moderate eating disorder—that hasn’t excessively marred her appearance—is today’s best-buy in the West’s rapidly plummeting dating market.

LegallySpeaking #fundie returnofkings.com

I'm really turned off in porn when suddenly the guy switches from vaginal to anal. It's a massive boner-killer. I'm such a porn freak that I know which porn stars never or rarely give anal sex, and like them more because of it. You already have a hole down there for that! And POOP comes out of there!

It's in the realm of interracial sex: it lowers their value. You'll note that the porn girls who are "anal princesses" fall into the same categories as the porn girls who do a lot of black sex on camera: 3rd tier in terms of looks of porn stars.

Martin Amis (!) noted the rise of anal sex in porn more than a decade
ago. He was werided out by how much he saw anal sex suddenly being pushed from porn producers without any demand from consumers. Like it was part of a social engineering plan....

I think we do have to think that gays have pushed the anal sex agenda into straight porn---this is just another subtle slippery-slope form of gay recruitment. Once you've got a guy thinking anal sex is ok and fun and got him sticking it where POOP comes from, the gays can say "well an anus is an anus and a mouth is a mouth" to a lonely or confused or drugged-up straight guy and get him into their little beds.

Max Roscoe #fundie returnofkings.com

Why We Should Reinstitute The Dowry

Marriage rates are declining, and some sociologists fear that an entire generation is choosing to opt out of marriage. While there are many causes, from the financial and personal risk of divorce, to the fact that men can today receive any benefits a woman could offer him without marrying her, to the simple fact that virgin brides are in such scarce supply, one step that would go towards reinforcing a patriarchal family unit is to reinstitute the Dowry.

[...]

Practical reasons for the dowry

What are some reasons to bring back the dowry?

1. Recognition of the true costs of marriage

Dowry recognizes that the groom is taking on a financial (not to mention emotional) burden by taking a bride, and dowry attempts to level the playing field a bit.

2. A wiser use of dad’s money

The new family could start out with a nice nest egg, land to build a house on, assets, and cash, or they could just blow 20 grand on a crappy DJ and some overpriced dresses.

3. Reinforces the value of virginity

A dowry is a significant financial commitment, and a father would not risk the loss of this investment because his daughter was impure.

4. Clearly states the value of marriage

While this was more obvious in the past, when a woman would be more of a burden on her father or husband, a dowry recognizes that marriage is the end goal, because the father will have to keep supporting the daughter financially until she finds a husband.

5. Protects women in case of neglect, abandonment, or divorce

A dowry is an insurance policy for women who are in a truly bad marriage.

6. Discourages divorce

Women today can financially *benefit* from divorcing a husband, and there is no test of love or neglect required. A woman can divorce “Cause feelings” and find herself receiving a free income for life. In the case of dowry, a woman would forfeit her dowry, and have to pay again to a second husband if she attempted to divorce and remarry.

7. Feminists hate dowry

Finally, if feminists hate it, it must be good. Social media is full of anti-dowry propaganda. Considering that dowry was originally instituted as a protection for women who upheld their end of the marriage contract, one must be very suspicious of this opposition.

Indeed in several countries, men are threatened with imprisonment for taking part in this institution that is fundamentally a part of marriage itself. It’s a shame we don’t see any of the “defense of marriage” types rally to support dowry.

Lawful Evil Award

If you want a picture of André du Pôle's vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.

André du Pôle #elitist #wingnut #psycho #sexist #fundie returnofkings.com

5 Essential Life Lessons From The Hindu Law Code Of Manu

Most ROK readers should find the idea of vocation intuitive. Women have purposes specific to their sex and should not attempt to steal or destroy manly places. However, the caste hierarchy and relative leveling of vocations may seem extraneous to American readers: the US were founded over the idea that neither a centralized Church nor a nobility should exist. Did not the Founding Fathers reject the caste system from the start? Indeed—but I am neither American nor conservative enough to put them on the same footing as sacred texts.

...

A hierarchy where manly men have authority over feminine women works well. Each one has a role fit to its nature and can realize one’s own purposes with the help of the other. An inverted, matriarchal hierarchy where women would rule, on the other hand, is dissatisfying: women would look like caricatures of men by being bossy, let their defects such as conformism and group-thinking tendency express, and turn men into slaves or short-term driven pleasure-seekers. None of the parts would be able to realize its better tendencies, such as loving and caring for women, or meeting with challenges for men.

Likewise, the four-caste hierarchy is the good or fairer one. A society following it and having proper individuals at each level would be the most harmonious one, even in poverty. When the regular order gets messed up, so does the whole society: Kshatriya pretending to spiritual authority start subordinating it to political interests, just as the Protestant princes of Europe did in the sixteenth century; Vaishya pretending to power end up commercializing everything, turning politics into a marketplace where lobbyists and sellouts abound. “Inferior” castes cannot help but bring their essential ethos with them no matter where they go or what they pretend to be.

The lesson, here, could be that modernity has been mostly synonymous with a “vaishya-ization” of society: universities have turned into an academic niche market, politics have become a market as well, and the process have been aggravated by women trying to play men—especially upper bourgeois women pretending to political power. Each “inferior” caste denythe “superior” ones their rights and prerogative have made the world poorer.

As for myself, I have no problem with the idea that some, even men, should not have the right to financial independence: libertarianism may work well among men of Mensa, but a 70-IQ people clearly need some paternalist management not to drown into their own stupidity.

“Even a capable Shudra must not accumulate wealth, for when a Shudra becomes wealthy, he harasses Brahmins.” (10.129) Some wealthy people fund seditious, divisive groups such as BLM, some who enjoy a small authority act like power-tripping small chiefs, some women get beta orbiters and management power— A fair hierarchy is not one with equal chances or opportunities to get promoted, but one where each one can reach his rightful place.
Conclusion

Alt-Right blogger Lawrence Murray contrasted Buddhism, which enjoys some cultural status and association with the upper classes in the West, with an “intensely alien Hinduism.” Practicing yoga, reciting a handful of mantra and mingling with other bourgeois bohemian while sipping fair trade green tea seems indeed easier than vindicating such a frankly non-modern order.

Modernity in general and the so-called American Dream in particular entertain a deep trend of anti-traditional, anti-dharmic thinking which promotes an abstract and formally autonomous individual able to do has he wants. “Gender” or the negation of biological sex in the name of a chosen or psychological sex is but the last product of the trend.

If you could choose between a society where Hillary Clinton had won the election and a society with castes and sacred fires, would you have the guts to choose the second option—knowing that women would be women but also that you may be, say, a Vaishya and thus not entitled to (for example) give a scholarly opinion about what the Bible says?

Whatever your answer, remember that modern ethical theories come and go with the Zeitgeist, whereas dharmic cultures still exist today side by side with modern technology. I could bet anything that in a hundred years the Law Code of Manu will still be studied while Anita Sarkeesian’s name will be forgotten.

Matt Forney #wingnut #homophobia returnofkings.com

Last week, Amtrak engineer Brandon Bostian was responsible for a train derailment near Philadelphia, killing eight people and injuring several others. In the aftermath of the crash, mainstream media outlets attempted to hush up the fact that Bostian was a gay activist and likely an affirmative action hire, as his job prior to Amtrak was as a register jockey for Target. Conservative journalist Charles Johnson was the first to uncover not only Bostian’s identity, but his penchant for plastering dick pics all over the Internet (link NSFW):

After a careful study of his social media we conclude that he is an exhibitionist who is interested in odd sex acts.
We’ve thankfully blocked out the actual dicks because we’re a family friendly website (sort of).
We’re publishing these photos because we believe the public has a right to know and because we think it’s important to always focus on the who of a story rather than whatever policy outcome.
(Of course, nobody would question this material if it came from Gawker or another degenerate site but because its GotNews.com they’ll freak out.)
Johnson’s detractors tried to argue that Bostian’s homosexuality and exhibitionism had nothing to do with the crash, but the reality is that character traits don’t exist in a vacuum. How someone acts in their private life sheds light on how they’ll behave on the job, a fact that leftists have twisted in order to sic lynch mobs on anyone whom they deem “racist,” “sexist” or “homophobic.” It’s not a stretch to argue that a man obsessed with showing off his private parts to strangers might also be inclined to show off how fast he can drive a runaway train.

For the past twenty years, the left has pushed acceptance for gays and gay marriage on the basis that homosexuals are just like you and me, the only difference being who they’re attracted to. While I don’t care what people do in their private lives, this reductionist line ignores widespread dysfunction among homosexuals. Indeed, because the left has so effectively hidden the dark side of gay culture from view, homosexuals are becoming a major threat to public health and safety.

Pax Masculina #sexist returnofkings.com

[A promotion for a short-film the author made about an alternate US where a totalitarian theocracy takes over and prevents women from gaining the vote (the author intends this as utopian btw)]

Fellow ROK fans, tired of every new film having a militant feminist theme? Want to see a universe on video in which men create a paradise on earth with their wise rule, and insolent women causing trouble are given their just reward? My short film (18 minutes) is called Pax Masculina (Latin for Peace of Men) and is an alternate history science fiction movie.

It all started when I posed the question “What would the United States be like today if women had never received the right to vote?” Check out the two minute trailer below. I think you will love the PAX universe.

...

In Pax Masculina, a theocratic totalitarian regime takes over the United States in 1910. Under this government, women have few rights like in Old Testament or Victorian England culture. The suffragettes were defeated and women never got the vote.

Uninhibited by the influence of women, what follows is a century of peace and prosperity, known as the Pax Masculina. Out of disgruntled suffragettes evolved the Women’s Resistance Movement (WRM) which violently opposes the regime. The movie takes place in 2016 when the WRM has increased aggression in its opposition to the governing patriarchy in their fight for equality of the sexes.

The Women’s Resistance Movement uses assassinations and bombings to create terror and kill without mercy. Seduction and murder of policemen and government officials are common tactics. The government induces its own terror with televised torture and execution of captured women soldiers. The movie’s Facebook site gives more details and many behind-the-scenes photos from the film.

The following photos represent the philosophy of the regime:

image
image

The conflict between the regime and WRM is really a battle for the hearts and minds of young women who might join the WRM. When a girl turns 16, she is eligible to be married. Husbands pay the father a dowry and there is a transfer of property. There is an all-girls high school where harsh teachers use ruler and paddle freely to discipline unruly females.

Girls are forced to watch public hangings of captured WRM soldiers on classroom televisions. In the photographed scene below, one girl jokes around about the threat of hanging beside a victim she has just had to watch.

...

A symbol on the wall of all classrooms remind them of the consequences of having a bad attitude. Gentlemen, how many times have you wanted to tell a woman to “lose the attitude”? In this universe, it is official policy!

image

The beautiful women of the WRM wear steampunk inspired uniforms designed for combat and seduction as they engage in hand-to-hand combat with police. Authorities have better weapons but hesitate to use them since they want to capture these arrogant women alive for public display.

...

Captured WRM soldiers are hanged publicly with a worldwide TV broadcast of the event as if it was the World Cup or Superbowl. There is no drop and a large diameter rope is used to haul them up into the air so they slowly strangle, preventing permanent damage to necks or windpipes. There is a good possibility that they will be half hanged (let down before dead) to be made a sex-slave to a deserving man. This discourages young women from joining the WRM while entertaining the populace.

As for the status of the film, the cut is finished and being submitted to film festivals. To stay up to date about its release, follow the Facebook page. The world premier of Pax Masculina will be at Comicpalooza in Houston May 12-14. The exact screening time and date will be posted on the aforementioned Facebook page.

I made this film to express my view and to share my artistic vision, not to make money. Eventually it will just be posted on YouTube or Vimeo to be viewed for free. But for now, festival rules prevent that to retain eligibility. My goal is to make a full length feature film which expands the story line of the PAX universe. But that is a year or two away. Now, I just want to share the vision with like-minded individuals such as ROK readers. I hope the trailer whets your appetite andI would love to hear feedback. My best estimate for release of the short film for public viewing is six months.

I admire Roosh more than I can say after having experienced similar harassment by the social justice warriors against me. Maybe he will agree to be a consultant on the feature film? I made this movie with a balanced perspective instead of the expected female empowerment manifesto. But the mere hint that a government which excludes women might be successful has led to an effort to silence my creative voice.

Instead of reasoned debate, some think I shouldn’t be permitted to express my artistic opinion. In addition, I have openly promoted the men’s right movement (posted links to ROK articles for example), and I have dared to say some positive things about President Trump. I have been vilified and my reputation decimated with lies.

Having practiced engineering for over 40 years, I am used to dealing with truth and facts. I have learned that the artistic community is in general close-minded and truth means nothing to them. I am astonished at their ability to lie without hesitation, without guilt, without apology. Some “artists” show a total lack of character and honor. Any deviation from political correctness is not tolerated. That will be the focus of a future post. For now, I plan to continue to make movies that tell the truth and present an alternative viewpoint.

Samson #sexist returnofkings.com

Bravo Michael, excellent article. Tip of the cap as well to Mr. and Mrs. Duggar. I read that either he or his wife chaperone all of their daughters' dates to ensure that their chastity stays intact. Of course the feminists mocked them and said it was "ridiculous" and "creepy", but I assume they're just mad because their vaginas have more mileage on them than a '72 Pinto whereas his daughters' are still factory fresh. They can't seem to grasp the simple fact that a woman's virginity is her greatest asset and the greatest gift she can give her husband, and no matter how much you call yourself a "Born-Again Virgin" on your wedding day by not fucking your fiance in the six months leading up to your marriage, that white dress doesn't make you any less damaged goods.

Mcgoo #sexist returnofkings.com

This is sounding prophetic now. Future research. We men must paint that picture of tomorrows victory - AND THEN DIVE INTO IT. It is in legend that the OBELISK actually represents an ancient 'male victory' within our species when we foisted ourselves out from under female domination. Breaking out of institutionalized 'bitch rule' as depicted in 'genisis II' , a '70's mini-series where whip carrying women in fishnets kept the males as pet slaves. Today, some betas fetishize being a whip to electra in costume, but WATCH OUT. Watch what you wish for. We learn that in slavery, you don't have to be physically larger to dominate. Control is all in the mind. Never let your brow fall under the point of her stiletto. Keep the bitch barefoot and naked. She can wear YOUR bathrobe if she wants to go in public. But in the castle, its barefoot, naked and pregnant. What real woman wouldn't love that.

Ghostrider #fundie returnofkings.com

The "Patriarchy" is a God given right. The "Patriarchy" reflects the Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. All evil/false religions are based on a Matriarchy. Liberalism is Satanism. Satan wants to do everything in reverse that God did. A matriarchy is the opposite of patriarchy. Through Liberalism, there has been a slow progressive push to allow for women to have special rights when it comes to anything in society. If they want to pop out 3 bastard kids and have it paid for by man, then they can do that. If they want to kill an unborn kid, then they can make that call and not the father. If they want to have a career and have a big $100K+ job in the corporate world, then affirmative action will make it so. If they want to have an endless string of boyfriends and endless string of sex partners, social engineering will make it so by "normalizing" such behavior through such nationally broadcasted 'sex in the city' types of mainstream media movies and shows and music. If a woman wants to file for divorce because she wants to go have sex with more men, then 'no fault' divorce makes it as easy as 1-2-3. And again, mainstream media will normalize divorce and even celebrate it to encourage such abominations against God.

The more independent men are, then smaller the government. The more 'independent' women are, the bigger the government. Women have NOT achieved any of this on their own. It took global elites to change and establish laws in society backed by military / police force and a court system to ensure women are given special rights. Women seem to think they did this all on their own and are truly "beating men" in life as if that's how it should have been all along.

In a nutshell, the story of Adam and Even has more truth than most realize. The "Eve's" of today are willingly believing the social engineering lies fed to them through mainstream media, and then taking the apple essentially selling mankind out to the overall end game goal of global enslavement.

Women have not achieved anything. If I were a global elite, I could finance politicians to establish laws that would allow for dogs to have special rights in society beyond man. Could the dogs achieve this on their own? Of course not. To collect welfare and have mankind pay for a single mom's kids is theft no different than stealing a car. When that single mom is standing before God one day at the day of judgement, she'll be told go stand next to the rest of the thieves. She won't understand why until she finally realizes that by accepting welfare money that she has participated in theft and she is no better than any thief that robbed a liquor store.

JD Unwin #fundie #sexist returnofkings.com

A few articles on ROK have touched upon basic biblical wisdoms and how they can apply to us here in the manosphere. What they haven’t elaborated upon is just how useful God’s biblical advice is regarding the leadership role of men and what His vision is for the interactions of men and women.

It goes without saying that God views (through his representatives) the phenomena of females controlling males aka feminism as utterly revolting. To that effect, I’m going to list just three verses for your perusal. These are from the Old Testament, so a proper temporal context is recommended.

1. Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

“—thy desire shall be to thy husband—rule over thee” is key. Here in the Old Testament, God himself is essentially saying that a woman’s natural state is to long for a husband, and a man’s natural role is to be a ruler over his wife. She can thank her actions in the Garden of Eden for this little fact (as well as the punishment suffering) which most of us are already familiar with. Paul later adapted this to mean “head” for the New Testament Christian but a leadership role is apparent in either case.

How many examples have we seen in society where females have claimed that they don’t need men, yet in magazines and even within their own bizarre behaviors the truth has shown much to the contrary?

With regard to marriage, the feminist movement (along with homosexuals and the pro-abortion supporters) has long tried to wage war on this religious institution for the purpose of marginalizing the role that heterosexual husbands and fathers have played. This is because when you divorce the natural leadership role of the husband from the relationship, you allow for the female to interpret the roles in marriage, parenting, and sexuality as she sees fit, or more appropriately, as she is told it should fit.

Most females are natural copycats, and possess conformist thinking rather than critical thinking. If this was not the case, Oprah and Dr. Oz would not hold the kind of hypnotic power over females that they financially enjoy today. Today’s elitist feminists (female and male) have learned to tap into that group-think power by indoctrinating other females into their ranks in order to get them to support this SJW cause or that one.

2. Pro 31:3 Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.

What the bible (King Lemuel specifically) is saying here is pretty simple: don’t waste all your energies on the pursuit of females because they will bring about your ruin. Don’t become a beta man who orbits a female like a satellite does a planet.

How many modern day kings have had their downfall financially and otherwise, because they chose to spend too much effort on chasing tail? Gary Hart could be considered an example. His presidential candidacy was torpedoed because of his infidelities. While Bill Clinton proved that venery doesn’t necessarily prevent one from obtaining the presidency, he nonetheless endured much deserved humiliation for his philandering endeavors and he is still considered a joke even today. You are more than the sum of your reproductive parts, brother.

3. Isa 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

This one from Isaiah is pretty profound, and speaks volumes about how things were even back then. It seems that females have been in the business of trying to control men (through themselves and betas) for years. In addition, the modern day interpretation of “children are their oppressors” can easily apply to millennials and how they are led astray by feminist indoctrination in media and of course in social justice schools of so called higher thought.

Regrettably, these millennials end up furthering SJW causes as they advance in age and take up positions of power and influence, perpetuating the cycle of culture rot more and more. Furthermore, allowing a woman or beta male to hold a position of influence within society allows for anti-masculine teachings to become commonplace to the detriment of society as a whole.

“Destroying the way of thy paths” is therefore prophetic with regard to academic institutions, custody cases, and gender-based affirmative action initiatives which all have the common denominator of transforming females into the ersatz dominant sex.

The modern day feminist movement recognizes the red pill wisdom of the Bible as an unacceptable threat, which is why they’ve tried their best to discredit it as misogynistic, dismiss it as irrelevant, and sabotage it through the phenomena of feminized churches. Too many beta Christian males have been molded into religious feminists as a result of that last one.

Regardless of all these circumstances, the Bible is still considered the world’s most popular book and it will withstand social justice fads until the inevitable book burnings that come with a full-scale tyrannical takeover. Even an atheist red piller who frequents ROK or other sites on the manosphere can appreciate what the Bible is talking about here.

Quintus Curtius #homophobia #conspiracy returnofkings.com

As everyone knows, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___(2015). At issue was whether “marriages” between gay couples would be recognized legally. By a narrow majority, the Court found that homosexual marriages were in fact a “fundamental right” worthy of societal acceptance.

The concluding paragraph of the majority decision rose to a disturbing level of opaque sentimentality. Inappropriately condescending to identify emotionally with one of the litigants, the Court issued this maudlin pronunciamento:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

And that was it. With one stroke of the pen, the Court found fit to overturn the definition of marriage (as a union between man and woman) that had attended humanity for thousands of years. The arrogance and presumption of the opinion was truly breathtaking. To understand why Obergefell was wrongly decided, we must do something the Court studiously avoided doing: we must trace the experience of history.
Historical Background

As an institution, marriage indeed appears to predate man. Biologists tell us that in certain bird species, males and females will live together for long periods. Gorillas and orangutans live together as males and females, with their offspring, in familial units.

Among humans, marriage has had a long and variable history among different cultures. Anthropologists tell us that among many primitive tribes (e.g., the Yakuts of Siberia, the Orang Sakai of Malacca, and certain Tibetan peoples) the marriage union could be freely terminated by either man or woman at any time.

In old Tibet, we even find “mass marriages” between groups of males and females, unifying collectively at once. Polygamy has seen institutional acceptance in some Middle Eastern societies, within certain boundaries and limitations.

gay2

The modern conception of marriage, as between man and woman, apparently arose to address a number of social needs: (1) care and rearing of the young; (2) the need to regulate sexual activity within acceptable bounds, so as to prevent social disorder; and (3) the need to pass on property to one’s kin in an ordered fashion. These practices predate history. We can conclude that marriage as the union of man and woman has existed for tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of years.

Always, the union of marriage has been defined as the relationship between a man and a woman. As we survey the peoples of the globe, we cannot find one single society, primitive or modern, in which marriage was ever accepted as a union between man and man, or woman and woman. It simply has never existed. We do not find gay marriage historically among Europeans, Asians, Africans, American Indians, Polynesians, or native Australians.

Social institutions develop in response to the needs of humanity. Those institutions that stand the test of time do so for a very good reason: they have served as a net benefit for social order.

This is not to say, of course, that homosexuality has not existed since the dawn of history. Without doubt it has. Whether through environment or genetics, or a combination of both (the question is not one I am qualified to answer), some humans find satisfaction in what may be called “sexual inversion”: that is, the inverting of sexual desire from the opposite gender, to one’s own gender.

gay3

But even though homosexuality has existed in every society, it has always been confined within specific limits. It was never permitted to gain official sanction as actual “marriage” co-equal to a normal marriage between a man and woman.

Proponents of gay marriage like to toss around historical “examples” of institutionalized homosexuality in history as somehow supporting their arguments. History does not support their argument.

Homosexuality was tolerated, for example, in the classical world, as well as in ancient China, India, and Persia. It also makes its appearance in the medieval period in nearly every civilization on record. But it was permitted to go only so far, and no further. This makes all the difference.

Among the ancient Greeks, we find an acceptance of the practice in all the major city-states; it was not stigmatized, but at the same time, the thought of two men living together as “husband” and “wife” would have been unthinkable. Aristotle himself puzzled at the practice’s ubiquity; he believed it was a social defense against overpopulation.

More likely it was an outgrowth of the strict segregation of the genders in Greek society, where both men and women spent most of their time with their own genders.

In any case, the point here is that we must distinguish between homosexuality as a practice, and homosexual marriage as an officially-sanctioned institution. The former has a long lineage; the later has never existed in history. In the classical world, the attitude towards homosexuality was generally this: it was accepted as a fact of life, and as long as its practitioners did not proselytize their views or threaten the established social order, they were generally tolerated.

Again, the point needs to be made here—which was lost on the Obergefell majority—that there has not been a single society, ancient, medieval, or modern, that has extended the definition of “marriage” to mean a union between two men or two women.

This is the fact that proponents of gay marriage have no answer for. They have no answer because there is no answer. If a social institution—marriage—has been defined for countless thousands of years as between two different genders, then this fact carries authority. It cannot be brushed aside. We cannot say that we, in the past fifteen years, have suddenly gained a greater insight and wisdom into human nature than all the generations before us.
Rationales

Same-sex marriage

It is characteristic of the feebleness of gay marriage proponents that they refuse to respond to this fact. When pressed on why they think gay marriage is appropriate, their answers are always a version of these arguments:

1. “It doesn’t matter anyway, because marriage itself is a ruined institution.” This is not a meaningful answer. One does not refute a flawed proposition (gay marriage) by stating that the object of that proposition (marriage) is a ruined thing. Despite all its flaws and abuses, marriage remains what it always has been: the cornerstone of social order.

2. “They have a right to be happy.” Civil unions could have given homosexual couples nearly everything they claim to have wanted. Yet it was not enough; they wanted to become co-equal with traditional marriages. One cannot get everything one wants in life; the hard reality of life is that some behaviors are socially acceptable, and some will remain only acceptable within certain boundaries.

The Court’s ruling will not be used as an invitation to further test the boundaries of acceptable conduct. The Court’s decision claims that religious institutions need not fear they will be forced to perform homosexual marriages; yet it is difficult to see exactly how this can be squared with their ruling.

gay4

The Obergefell decision undermines the status of both men and women. It denigrates the roles each of them play in a traditional marriage, and presumes to assert that two men can act as husband and “wife,” and that two women can behave as “husband” and wife. The indoctrination will now commence with greater intensity in the schools, the media, and in other spheres of social activity. Dissenters will be marginalized, and then penalized.

The Real Winners

One wonders how the collective experience of many thousands of years could be consigned to the trash bin so easily. The answers are there, but are deeply unsettling. The reality is that those who hold the levers of power do not really care about homosexuals. They care, in truth, very little about the “rights” of the gay community. Gays are being manipulated and used by the power structure, which has its own agenda.

What is this agenda? Control. The power elites want to see the traditional institutions of society neutered. They want to see the educational system shaped to serve their needs; they want the curricula dumbed down to accommodate the needs of the compliant masses. They want traditional morality (as espoused by religions) undermined, as it stands in the way of creating the perfect consumer zombies that they love so much.

When the social bonds which preserve order become frayed, the state is forced to step in and impose its own rules. In this way creeping authoritarianism moves forward, slowly but steadily, under the guise of liberation and empowerment.

And finally, they want to see the family unit, with the roles and authorities of the father and mother, neutered. They want the real mother and father to be them, the state. Marriage has now become meaningless with the Obergefell decision. By undermining marriage, they enhance their own power over their consumer-driven citizens, and replace themselves as every citizen’s surrogate parent.

They gay community thought it won a big victory with Obergefell, but they lost along with the rest of us. It will turn out to be a hollow victory. Authoritarianism is laughing. Obergefell opened the door to yet more government intrusion into the personal lives of individuals and families; for when the family unit is weakened, only the state wins.

The gay community got played. They got used. They just don’t know it yet.

Oracle Z #fundie returnofkings.com

Many men today deal with such scheming women in their day to day lives. Compare the Biblical Jezebel’s traits with feminism-bred, modern women you’d commonly see around you, which are explored below:

•Rebelliousness – both moral and spiritual? Check.
•Controlling tendencies over men (more so in partnerships)? Check.
•Tyrannical , unfeminine behavior and cruelty over the weak? Check.
•Narcissism? Check.
•Hatred towards men (covert or open)? Check.
•Extravagance, hustling and materialistic greed? Check.
•Spiritual harlotry and skepticism or general disdain for patriarchal religion? Check.
•Witchcraft and occult Sympathies? Check.
•Deception, habitual lying and cunning manipulation? Check.
•No sense of justice? Check.
•Promotion of sexual profligacy to fellow women? Check.
•Hubris and capriciousness? Check.
•General refusal to accept mistakes, no conscience and shamelessness? Check.

The reason why Jezebelian traits are increasingly seen in modern feminist women is the same as what defined Jezebel herself: spiritual rebellion or disgust to patriarchal religion in modern feminist societies. With the rise of witchcraft (Jezebel’s faith) in modern societies, more women turn away from patriarchal religion. And religious and spiritual corruption then sets the tone for eventual moral corruption, as godless women will obviously act in godless ways.

The rising skepticism towards religion itself in the modern world further complicates the problem. As mentioned above, the influx of the Jezebelian spirit into religious institutions further poisons the very framework which could possibly have exorcised the roots of the Jezebelian spirit in the modern world.

Max Roscoe #transphobia #sexist returnofkings.com

Japan Bans Chicks With Dicks

Max Roscoe

is an aspiring philosopher king, living the dream, travelling the world, hoarding FRNs and ignoring Americunts. He is a European at heart, lover of Latinas, and currently residing in the USA.

At the risk of breaking a personal journalistic rule of devoting far too much time to an incredibly miniscule and unimportant issue, I must draw attention to a recent win for masculinity. The island nation of Japan recently made a common sense decision regarding the extremely minute portion of its population that is dealing with the first world problem of its genitalia not matching the perceived sex of the owner, known in the West as transsexuals or “gender questioning individuals” to use the word salad nonsensical parlance of the day.

image
Sure thing, toots, just as soon as you lose the balls.

First, I should clarify that no one is being banned, deported, or shipped out of the country in a way that a more aggressive nation like Saudi Arabia might handle this issue. Instead Japan has a simple policy which efficiently handles the transsexual question—one that seems to bewilder and confuse the Western world, who must devote weekly news articles, federal legislation, prime time (((television programming))) and endless discussion on how to handle this fraction of a percentage of its population.

It works like this: do you have a penis? If yes then you cannot be a chick. It’s as simple as that.

With that one universal test, Japan has disposed of the endless head-scratching and policy making by Western politicians, critics, and social justice warriors about how to describe their private parts on government identification cards or which restrooms to pee in. In Japan you will be considered a man as long as you have a penis. End of story.

Likewise, if you have a vagina, you will be considered a woman. No matter what clothes you are wearing, how deep your voice is, or how you choose to “identify” that day. The beauty is in the simplicity.

image
Japanese Sex Change Operation

While Western nations must debate and compromise, legislate and propose, carving out exceptions for this or that behavior and endlessly consulting irate social justice warriors in a futile attempt to placate them, Japan disposes with the entire question of transsexual people with the simple question.

In the Japanese system, Bruce Jenner would not once have been a news story during my lifetime, as he has done nothing newsworthy since winning a 1976 Olympic medal. If and when he actually removes his penis and replaces it with a surgical vagina (Sugina from hereon), only then could he be properly considered a female and could announce he would like to be referred to as Caitlyn. (A person changing their sex is still not a newsworthy story to me, but I suppose there are those who would be interested to know what happened to this former hero of theirs).

image

Japan is a fascinating nation. As an island nation, it is naturally more isolated than most cultures, and is able to control physically and culturally what enters its society. Japan is one of the more difficult countries to immigrate to, and I have been told that Japanese will never fully accept Westerners, even if you take a Japanese wife and live there for decades (and why should they, as those actions will make you no more Japanese than Bruce Jenner installing a sugina will make him a woman).

Japan is one of the only societies in the world that was never controlled by Europeans. It holds on to its traditions, and has a strong history of physical fitness including the samurai warrior. While Westerners are committing virtual seppuku because they touched a woman’s butt in 1984, Japanese businessmen will glibly walk to a vending machine and purchase a high school girl’s panties for sexual purposes.

image
An oddity to a westerner, but in Japan men are not ashamed to be men

Odd? Sure, and I’m not going to even go down the road of weird Japanese kinks and bizarre pornography, but the point is the Japanese are proudly Japanese, and will not let others shame them into changing their behavior. I will always remember the line from James Bond’s You Only Live Twice concerning women and men, which made an indelible impression on me since childhood.

image
In Japan, men always come first. Women come second.

What Is A Woman?

Outside of the West in The Current Year, I doubt anyone has given this question serious thought, but today, sadly, it is necessary. If you ask yourself what truly makes someone a woman, It comes down to whether they have a penis or a vagina in their pants.

image
“OK is She REALLY a man or a woman?” Can only refer to one thing.

While there are levels of masculinity and feminity which vary between the sexes, at the end of the day, if you really want to know someone’s sex, you want to know what genitalia they have. All Japan is doing is confirming, yes, that is exactly what sex means.

TransTrenders: Belittling Those Who Are Truly Victims

Just as feminists are opposed to true diversity, the public discussion of sexual dysphoria is a distraction from the minority of people who have real problems with their sexual identification.

Just as those who suffer from the horrible crime of violent rape do NOT want to publicly discuss their traumatic past, those who suffer from rare sexual disorders or chromosomal mutations that affect their sexuality are embarrassed and saddened by their condition. Those who truly have a medical condition which causes their genitalia to be deformed, or not match the sex they mentally feel, or who were a victim of a botched (((circumcision))) want to quietly rectify the problem and live life without others knowing about the unpleasant thing that happened in their past.

The LAST thing they want is to publicly exclaim that they were one sex and are now the other. Which seems to be ALL that being a trans-trender is about. Watch a Youtube video of a prominent transtrender like Justin “Riley” Dennis, and all you were hear is endless talk about their gender identification or their transition (despite the fact that they have rarely if ever actually snipped off the bits and therefore have transformed nothing).

Common Sense: A Lost Idea In The West

image
Dr. Wang, Japan’s Top Sex Change Doctor

By forcing those who claim their sex is “wrong” to surgically correct their sex, Japan is calling their bluff and separating the trans-trenders from the trans-genders. There is no further debate or discussion needed with such a policy. While the West is trying to fire, fine or even imprison academics for using the wrong (read: gramatically correct) gender pronouns when referring to snowflake students, Japan has a simple system: If you want to be a woman, you need to have a vagina. If you weren’t born with one, get one first and check back with us.

A Win-Win Policy

While most of us probably aren’t comfortable with the idea of going to bed with someone who was born a man, the truth is, if one are attractive enough, and has a vagina, men will want to sleep with you, especially if they don’t know about your past (this is a universal truth, not specific to trannies). So if potential trannies really want acceptance by men in the sexual marketplace, this is exactly the model they should be following.

John Hydenius #homophobia #biphobia returnofkings.com

Study: Homosexuals And Bisexuals Are More Likely To Be Mentally Ill, Drug Abusers

It’s summer now, and in Sweden that means it’s pride parade season. One thing that’s different this year is that the very gay Milo Yiannopoulos is coming here to lead a parade on July 27th. The reason is that this particular parade will go through Tensta, a suburb comprised of mostly immigrants, a lot of them Muslim. We’ll see how that goes.

In other gay news: a new survey has found excess health problems in gays, lesbians and bisexuals. These groups reported more health problems than straight men and women.

More prone to smoking and heavy drinking

The study was done in the US, with nearly 69,000 participants. The National Health Interview Survey has been around for many years, but in 2013 and 2014 it included a question about sexual orientation for the first time.

The researchers conclude that gay, lesbian and bisexual adults “were more likely to report impaired physical and mental health, heavy alcohol consumption, and heavy cigarette use, potentially due to the stressors that (they) experience as a result of interpersonal and structural discrimination.”

The results show that lesbians, compared to heterosexual women, are 91 percent more likely to report poor or fair health. Lesbians are also 51 percent more likely, and bisexual women more than twice as likely, to report multiple chronic conditions, compared to straight women.

Gays, lesbians and bisexuals are more likely to indulge in heavy drinking and smoking. 26 percent of gay men and about 40 percent of bisexual men reported at least moderate psychological distress, compared to about 17 percent of heterosexual men.

In the case of women, about 22 percent of heterosexuals had at least moderate psychological distress, compared to about 28 percent of lesbians and about 46 percent of bisexuals.

Gilbert Gonzales of the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, who worked with this study, thinks so-called “minority stress” may account for health differences between heterosexuals and gay, lesbian and bisexual people. He thinks bisexuals have it worse than the rest because they may not always be accepted by gay, lesbian and transgender communities.

Right off the bat, you know the researchers aren’t exactly unbiased in this matter, since they talk about “structural discrimination” of these minority groups in America, a country where they are constantly praised in the media and by the elites. But leaving that aside, their study does show some interesting results.

I can’t say that I’m surprised. There are many possible reasons why the LGB (and likely also T) community is having more psychological problems than heterosexuals. One reason could be that some people do treat them badly on account of them being so strange (there’s a reason why they’re called queers). If they insist on acting act out their weird sexual desires in public, it’s understandable that some will take offense to that.

Some might even go so far as to discriminate against them. A business owner with more traditional values might deny them service—for instance, refuse to be the host of a gay wedding. That could well cause the gay couple to feel distress. (Although I would say that that’s the business owner’s right in a free country.)

But I would argue that there are other factors that affect LGBT people’s mental health more than real life discrimination, which can’t be that common in Western countries. The fact that their situation is often described as a lot more bleak than it is, is something that surely must affect them in a negative way. If they’re constantly being told about how oppressed they are by white, cisgender men, and “the religious right” (but not Muslims, we can’t say that), then of course they’re gonna be worried about their safety and future.

In the same way, if you tell a black person enough times that the police are after him and want to shoot him to death, for nothing more than walking down the street, eventually he’s going to believe it and start resenting cops and society in general.

Why celebrate sexual deviance?

But there’s one other factor that I want to bring to this discussion. I’m not a scientist like Gilbert Gonzales, and I’m definitely going to sound like a prejudiced asshole saying this (although it wouldn’t be the first time), but I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Wrong in the sense that they weren’t created as they were supposed to be.

People are, like all animals, supposed to mate with each other, otherwise we wouldn’t still be here. Hence, we’re meant to be heterosexuals. Ergo, gays, lesbians and bisexuals were born with a faulty constitution. And since they’re faulty, it’s no wonder if that reflects on their mental condition.

I’m not saying that there’s necessarily something morally wrong with being gay, just that they’re a small minority of the populace for a reason. It’s not something we should encourage people to be—the results of the study presented above support that case.

Should someone feel pride over being born faulty? Should it be paraded around in the street like it’s something we should celebrate? Should we embrace a condition that impedes our species’ ability to survive? I’m not sure I can agree with that.

Sgt POG #fundie #racist returnofkings.com

When Darwin's ideas first started circulating, a lot of people were trying to interfere and prevent it. The platypus was kidnapped as it was brought to England. I have come to realize that it is not the conservatives who were conducting this thought control campaign, but liberals. The same liberals that today conduct their campaign against human bio diversity and the truth about genetic racial behavioral traits.

Before they were called "scientists" they called themselves "naturalists." Before they called themselves "naturalists" they called themselves "natural theologians." Plato was the first Natural Theologian. Science was invented by natural theologians; classical theistic philosophers.

Darwinism eradicates the boundaries of taxonomy. There is no such thing as a species in Darwinism. The concept of "species" is borrowed from natural theology, i.e. Genesis 6 "each after it's kind." All creatures are transitional fossils in Darwinism. All creatures are their own unique genetic taxonomic entity in Darwinism. This is easily proven by looking up the definition of "species." There are six definitions, therefore there is no definition.

Darwinism logically leads to a belief in shifting, unfixed, chemical laws. (From goo to you). Biological Darwinism implies chemical evolution. Chemical evolution implies that the laws of physics evolve. Evolving physics implies that logic is unfixed; a delusion. Unfixed logic means humans are not ever rational. Non-rational humans unable to use logic are unable to begin with the first sentence in this paragraph and arrive at the conclusion that the universe is not logical and humans are not rational.

Darwin renders the universe absurd, and those who believe in it consider themselves absurd.

In the beginning was nothing, and then nothing exploded, for no reason, and everything came out, and everything randomly rattled around until it turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense.

Jack Package #sexist #wingnut returnofkings.com

Black Cricket Player Fined $10,000 For Asking White Reporter Out On A Date

Over the past week, another example of non-issue hysteria has been created in the Australian media, further feeding the need for female indignation. The following interview is what started the response:

Chris Gayle Flirts With Reporter Mel McLaughlin During Live Interview in Big Bash League

The man being interviewed is Chris Gayle, a professional cricketer from Jamaica. The interview was held shortly after Gayle left the field after being dismissed in a T20 match for Melbourne vs. Hobart. Gayle currently holds the record for the highest score in a domestic T20 game of 175 not out. This is only one of the many records that Gayle currently holds. His full player bio can be found here.

Off the field, Gayle has always been known as a smooth “ladies’ man.” It is his on-field performances, and his laid-back attitude and flamboyant lifestyle off the field, that have made him one of the more known and likable characters in world cricket today. It is also because of his character that he behaved in this way in the interview with Mel McLaughlin

The response from Mel McLaughlin

The response in the days after the event from the journalist who interviewed Gayle has to be applauded. McLaughlin could have easily used this to set herself up as a professional victim. However, her take on this is that while she was uncomfortable at the time, it isn’t a big a deal. Notice in the interview here she was continually trying to get those interviewing her to get over it as she wanted to talk about what she is actually paid to talk about— cricket.

Even though McLaughlin has accepted that Gayle didn’t mean to cause offence and she wants to move on, others in the media couldn’t accept this and are continuing with their assault on Gayle. While pretending to care about the welfare of McLaughlin, the people interviewing her in the video above don’t seem to care that she was feeling uncomfortable in continually having to answer the same question as to whether she felt harassed or not.

The media response

Chris has currently been fined $10,000 for this “offence,” but even the most novice of fortune tellers could have predicted that wasn’t the end of it. There are currently countless articles vilifying Gayle’s actions from a plethora of media channels on this issue, but the worst of all these is that the most respected source for cricket news the world over (ESPNCricinfo) has published these articles.

Much in the same way that Gamergate began with articles claiming that “gamers are dead,” cricket journalist Dan Brettig is also trying to lecture to men that we need to bend over backwards to accommodate women into another section of what used to be a male space. This was then backed up by a “cricket feminist” claiming that women’s cricket is just as good as men’s, as well as the usual garbage of wanting to introduce quota systems onto cricket administration boards.

Out of fear of becoming the next target for feminist sabotage, the chairman of Cricket Australia Jamie Sutherland has shown support for those wanting harsh penalties on Gayle. The media are currently and quite successfully calling for Gayle to be sacked, and it is now likely that Gayle won’t be part of the next season. Similar to how Bill Cosby had his name tarnished by claims of harassment in the name of publicity, so too has someone come out months after the event allegedly occurred to say that Gayle exposed himself to a female journalist in Sydney during the Cricket World Cup in February 2015:

This journalist is from the same company (Fairfax media) where Gayle was previously employed as a guest columnist. Even though Gayle has denied the allegations and there hasn’t been a single piece of evidence shown to prove this allegation, we can safely assume that Gayle won’t be employed to contribute any columns to this paper in the future.

The public response

The public response to this has been much polarized. After reading the comments sections from various new sources, there have been a surprising amount of people who are getting sick of being lectured to by leftist PC thought police. A lot of people are seeing this “incident”—a man complimenting a woman and then asking her out for a drink. There are, of course, those of the public who have joined the media in blowing this out of proportion.

People are now rightly so comparing this incident to one of Maria Sharapova flirting with a male journalist in a press conference:

Sharapova flirts with Aussie journo

This issue has nothing to do with whether Gayle made the journalist uncomfortable or not. The PC zombies are instead outraged that a man would take steps to fulfill his own sexual strategy rather than passively waiting in line so that women have full control in fulfilling theirs. Gayle putting a woman on the spot scares women and manginas because he is showing that they don’t always have full control. This is also why the red pill is so offensive to most women.

This issue will more than likely blow over in the next couple of days. However, with more and more examples of issues like this coming up each day, it might have the same effect of opening the eyes of a number of men to the feminizing of society.

Arson Greyer #fundie #sexist #homophobia #biphobia returnofkings.com

AN IDIOT’S GUIDE TO NEW WESTERN SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS
…
Arson Greyer
Arson is an anti-SJW crusader and critic of sexual marketplace deregulation who has gotten filthy rich from the non-existent gender pay gap. He enjoys spending as much time as possible outside of America in places where short-haired women are viewed as social outcasts rather than strong and independent.
…
Up until a couple of years ago, my basic understanding of human sexuality was roughly as follows: there are men, and there are women. A person’s sexual orientation could be defined as one of heterosexual (being sexually attracted to the opposite gender), homosexual (being sexually attracted to others of the same gender) or bisexual (being sexually attracted to both genders).

Recently, however, I’ve been coming across a plethora of new terms in mainstream cultural commentary that purportedly seek to describe other sexual orientations. I quickly found myself coming across such terms as “pan,” “demi,” and even “homoflexible,” wondering what the hell they all mean.

Even the dating app OKCupid has recently broadened the options on gender and sexuality its users can display in their profiles. What was LGBT has now expanded even further, with seemingly new sexual orientations materializing out of thin air on the regular. I’ve written the following “Idiot’s Guide” to help my fellow men avoid the same confusion I’ve suffered in making sense of this new alphabet soup of sexual orientations.

But first, a disclaimer:

You’ll notice that I’ve titled the article as a guide to new “western” sexual orientations. That’s because one would be incredibly hard pressed to find terms like “asexual” or “sapiosexual” being used in any non-western context. In fact, I can’t recall ever even seeing one instance of a woman on a Russian, Ukrainian, Asian or Latin American dating site ever mentioning she identified with one of these new-age, alternate sexual orientations.

Interestingly, the usage of these new sexual orientation terms seems to be primarily restricted to the discourse of two basic areas of the internet:

1. Articles by SJWs and feminists on known manosphere-hating sites (e.g. Jezebel).

2. The social media and dating profiles of young middle and upper-middle class white women.

The definitions and examples I’ll provide below are more relevant to understanding these terms as used in area “b,” but nonetheless will provide clarity in other contexts also. Okay, let’s begin:

1. Pansexual
Definition: sexual attraction to all sexes and gender identities.

Famous Alleged Pansexuals: Madonna, Lady Gaga.

More Accurate Description: Bisexual. Proponents of pansexuality claim that it differs from bisexuality in that it is gender blind, so allegedly pansexuals wouldn’t know a cock from a vagina if it slapped them in the face. The queer “movement,” however, claims both pansexuality and bisexuality can mean attraction to not just the male and female gender, but any gender (whatever those others are). So, they’re essentially the same.

…
4. Demisexual
Definition: sexual attraction to another person contingent upon deep emotional and romantic connection.

More Accurate Description: Women who are approaching the end of easy riding on the cock carousel and desperately want to lock down a good man before the wall or have the “baby rabies.”

With these in mind, a demisexual woman has resolved to restrict future access to her worn-out pussy to only those who want a deep, romantic connection (read: beta-provider LTR) with her. This is, of course, until she meets the next alpha who suits her fancy and is good for a quick one-nighter.

5. Asexual
Definition: is not sexually attracted to anyone; doesn’t have sexual feelings.

More Accurate Description: A woman who has allegedly never experienced sexual feelings yet signed up for a dating site and posted several extremely slutty, suggestive photos under the guise of “trying this out” or “just to make new friends”.

All indications indicate this woman has had multiple previous sexual encounters (including gangbangs), but is using the “asexual” label to discourage messages from thirsty betas who will pass over her profile because “she’s asexual”.

Conclusion
What’s common among each of these supposed new sexual orientations is that we already have a term that has long-described almost exactly the same kind of sexual attraction. This raises an important question: why are people classifying their sexual orientation under new, buzzword banners when there’s already a well-understood term that describes it precisely?

The answer lies in the attention-whoring tendencies of the two groups – a and b – that use these terms the most. To be merely bisexual isn’t counter-mainstream enough anymore and calling oneself that doesn’t get the same kind of attention it once did, when few people identified as this. Therefore, to feed the egos of members of these two groups, new terms for already-existing sexual orientations had to be conjured up to maintain a fresh supply of new attention and coverage.

They’re new labels for the same sort of old sexual behaviour. The next time you see an American woman who is calling herself sapiosexual, heteroflexible, or whatever new term is invented next month to describe long-standing sexual behavior, the most prudent option is to ignore it completely, as a shit test, and game on as you usually would.

These new sexual orientations are, for the most part, nothing more than a cry for attention. They win if we if give it to them.

Anton Hagen #fundie #biphobia returnofkings.com

5 REASONS WHY BISEXUALS CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY
[…]
Anton Hagen is a multilingual writer from the UK whose joys and woes living in different parts of Europe inspired him to contribute philosophical pieces to the manosphere, with the odd caustic joke.

The topic of bisexuality keeps cropping up time and time again. It’s constantly rammed down our throats: taking the form of either vacuous gossip about the “bi-curious” escapades of an acquaintance or vapid celebrity, or the even more tiresome bilge concerning “biphobia” and bigotry.

In this article, we shall examine how refusing to take bisexuals seriously is a perfectly rational point of view to hold, after having examined certain aspects of this phenomenon in closer detail.

1. The Ludicrous myth of “Biphobia”
[“Dancing with the Stars” Logo]

In the 21st Century, it is becoming increasingly more and more laughable to suggest that homophobia is rampant, when all television, entertainment and culture seem to be catered towards the tastes of gay men: just looking through a TV guide or turning on the radio confirms this assertion.

Yet it is even more ridiculous to suggest that we live in a culture of “biphobia.” There has been extremely little evidence in history which suggests that bisexuals have been more severely treated than homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Despite this fact, “biphobia” has become an accepted term. Furthermore, it is used incorrectly to describe anyone who questions bisexuality in any shape or form, as opposed to denote those who genuinely loathe and despise bisexuals (of whom there are very few).

By classing the opinions of those with whom they disagree as an irrational “phobia,” LGBT activists are able to shun counter-arguments as being inherently flawed and diseased, without having to tackle the assertion with reason and evidence. This tactic is a favorite among leftists (e.g. transphobia, homophobia, etc.)

[Picture of a hippie-looking woman.
Transcript: Your Rights End where my feelings begin.]

[…]
The term “biphobia” has just become a means of suppressing reasoned arguments and healthy skepticism by portraying their opponents as being mentally deranged. It could not be more typical of the totalitarian progressive movement.

There is no such thing as biphobia: there are only those who do not wholeheartedly embrace bisexuals and shower them in praise and compliments for being so open-minded and adventurous; there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

2. They’re trend-followers
[Picture of 2 female celebrities kissing]
Far from being a minority of poor, oppressed, counter-cultural victims, bisexuals are extolled and exalted in modern culture. From Madonna and Britney Spears’ kiss at that god awful music show all the way up to the Mozart and Beethoven of our age (Lady Gaga and Katy Perry), bisexual behavior is portrayed as “cool” and fashionable.

Impressionable youths therefore gravitate to such behavior because it gives them a sense of identity and excitement. They engage in bisexuality as an expression of faux-individualism, in an attempt to distance themselves from what they believe to be the bigoted, narrow-minded majority.

They are of course, all completely deluded. They think they’re unique, yet all they are doing is following a trend which has been concocted for them by MTV and record companies. Bisexuality has simply become a fashion statement, and very little more.

3. They’re promiscuous
In Tuthmosis’ famous article, he lists claiming to be bisexual as a major slut tell. This could not be more true. Many of the other signs mentioned in that article stem from an adolescent, pseudo-rebellious attitude (e.g. tattoos, piercings, swearing, drugs etc.)

Bisexuality is simply another form of immature revolt: by challenging the supposed “heteronormative” culture, they are trying to affirm themselves as individualistic, exciting people. This childish attitude manifests itself in bisexuality, promiscuity, and self-destructive behavior.

Very often, youths do not have any major achievements or unique personality on which to define themselves; they therefore jump at any opportunity to stand out from the crowd. Unfortunately, the “sex-positive” bisexual culture of today just happens to be the means to that end.

4. Bisexuals cannot form long-term relationships
The rebellious, childish youths described above are not fit for long-term relationships. It is impossible to be bisexual and maintain a monogamous commitment: one half of one’s sexuality must be renounced before entering into a relationship with a single person. Unfortunately the bisexuals will argue that they have the right to “be who they want to be” and claim “I am what I am.”

Monogamous relationships are based on self-restraint, compromise, and mutual understanding. Someone who continues to assert that they wish to sleep with members of both sexes whilst in a long-term relationship simply lacks the above virtues and has no empathy for their partner’s feelings, only caring for themselves and their carnal desires.

Were someone to vow full commitment to a single partner, they would obviously have to abandon any desire for someone of a different sex to their partner. This is a perfectly moral and reasonable expectation. Bisexuality is usually confined to the pre-adult phase of sleeping around and experimentation. It is therefore very difficult to view it something mature and worthy of anything other than condescension.

5. Evidence suggests it doesn’t even exist
Having said all the above, there is still reasonable scientific doubt as to the actual existence of bisexuality. A recent study investigating this naturally attracted a lot of negative attention from the liberal media powerhouse. In this study, it was determined that thirty males who identified themselves as bisexual were indistinguishable from homosexuals in their hormonal responses to pornography. The study can be read online here.

Dr. Michael Bailey, one of the conductors of the study, noted: “I’m not denying that bisexual behavior exists, but I am saying that in men there’s no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation.”

Skepticism over the existence of bisexuality continues to this day. We still cannot determine at this stage whether it categorically exists or doesn’t, but it is downright foolish and disrespectful to label those who question it as having a “phobia” or being “bigoted.” The burden of proof remains on those who argue for its existence, rather than those who claim its absence.

Conclusion
It is not irrational or incorrect to hold a healthy, skeptical attitude towards bisexuality. Furthermore, those who doubt it should not be classed as intolerant or bigoted. Upon closer examination of the matter, it appears to be linked to juvenile irresponsibility and typically millennial, liberal attitudes towards sex, relationships, and politics. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to cast doubt upon it.

Undoubtedly, the leftists will jeer, howl and screech their vitriol against such an objective examination of their degenerate habits. Questionable behavior such as bisexuality should be repudiated if we are to gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us as a whole.

advancedatheist #sexist returnofkings.com

Social conservatives understand women's mental inadequacies, though they don't always openly identify them. When you "liberate" women from having to marry men, and from having to submit to their authority out of natural necessity, women don't mysteriously become "strong" enough to make it on their own. They still need what men have to offer: material support, social status, and most especially, the benefits of men's relatively stronger self-discipline and rationality for running a life that makes sense and keeps you out of trouble.

When women reject these things from men in marriage, they still need them nonetheless, so they turn to the state as a kind of substitute husband. Yet given women's defective judgment, they tend to vote for defective politicians who have good game. And therefore the management of the country under feminism and women's suffrage begins a long decline as the new order of affairs consumes more and more of the society's capital built up and saved during the preceding age of patriarchy.

So that explains why social conservatives want to roll back women's sexual freedom. They think like economists, and they realize that this freedom has costs in terms of political and economic freedoms which over the long run have more value.

Michael Augustus #sexist returnofkings.com

Women Would Rather Be Raped By Invaders Than Stuck With Beta Males

She is dying for you to put her in her place, beneath you. A woman wants to be conquered, she wants to submit to power, she wants to give up control, but first she has to test to see if “it” exists within you. To submit to a lesser man is rape, to submit to a superior man is harmony. Feminism and other female SJW endeavors are societal shit tests. If you fail, they’ll push the boundary again, and again, and again… If you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.

The female imperative was never supposed to be 100% successful, though. Eventually, some man somewhere is supposed to not put up with her shit and put her in her proper place: beneath him and one half-step back. A woman’s job is to see you fail. For if you fail, you were never “worthy” in the first place. Western culture is now embracing that very failure.

The Beta That Broke The Western Cultures’ Back

Betas occur naturally in the wild, but over the past several decades, governments, corporations, media, and academia have attempted to artificially manufacture them en masse beyond natural levels with the assistance of female nature (stated earlier). They’ve indoctrinated man into believing blue pill sexual strategy that women despise. They’ve stripped fathers from the home and had females infiltrate male spaces containing masculine role models. And they’ve legally restrained a man’s ability to discipline and properly set boundaries in the home, the very same discipline and boundaries that women instinctively seek. All with the proud help of women.

So what’s left? A whole generation of men raised by women and the state, taught to be pussies and supplicate to females and authority.

Now, the feminization of man has hit critical mass and women’s amygdalas notice. Women are unknowingly witnessing their own creation and are left disgusted, wondering, “Where have all the ‘good men’ gone?” Now women are seeking another tribe…

The Invaders

“[…] women actually want strong male authority figures in their life.

But will deny it until the day they die.

If they admitted to it, it would allow non male authority figures (beta men) to emulate alpha qualities.

They want men that just get it. Even if that means takeover of Western European / u.s. Culture by Islamic militants.”

• /u/antariusz (Source)

Europe is currently witnessing female nature being expressed freely on a societal level without a civilized, masculine balancing factor. The truth of the matter is, women have no in-group loyalties. Whoever the powerful are in that moment, women drift their way with their asses bent over, knees quivering, and legs dripping with tingle juice. They want to be conquered, but they don’t care by who. Whether it’s daddy government, her father, a boyfriend, Chad Thundercock, violent criminals, or a horde of rapefugees doesn’t matter.

In times of war, women are constants. Men and boys are killed off, but women are simply transferred and assimilated into the new tribe to be the sperm receptacles of the victors.

Observing the weakness of many European men, women want a different set of male suitors. They call this initiative “diversity” or “multiculturalism.” In plain terms, women want to import men they perceive to be powerful and masculine to replace the weaklings they are stuck with. Women LOVE playing multiple men against each other to battle for her vaginal affections. It’s basically the plot of a every rom-com and romance novel.

Thanks to the 1984 police state, politicians and social media titans like Angela Merkel and Mark Zuckerburg, that new tribe so happens to be the biggest group in history to never reform itself to Western society: Muslims (over 2 billion of them). They give absolutely zero fucks about Western Civilization and their inhabitants. They never back down. These people are not just willing to die and be imprisoned to defend their beliefs, but kill: “There is no law, but that of Allah.”

This is attractive to women. Women LOVE violent males. Women love their conviction. It’s extremely arousing to them. The fact that it’s backed by a mental illness doesn’t matter. These Muslim immigrants are violent, they don’t break frame, and are becoming powerful. That’s seen as masculine. That’s sexy.

Most modern Western man doesn’t stand a chance. Rape and sexual assault has skyrocketed since immigrants have been allowed to settle into Europe, yet women and feminists were silent on the subject. Why? Because they would rather live under the threat of rape by invaders than settle with skinny beta manginas protesting at slut walks and minoring in gender studies. There are even instances where European girls refused to report their immigrant sexual assailants in the name of multiculturalism and fighting Islamophobia or just because they felt bad for them. But that’s bullshit. The power of the rapists gave her tingles and then she tried to rationalize it.

Conclusion

With Open Gates: The forced collective Suicide of European Nations - Watch with Audio below

You see that, betas of Europe? That’s your future.

The only thing saving North America from being Cologne, Sweden, or Britain is that there are two oceans separating us from Africa and the Middle East. But Obama seeks to change that by importing thousands of Syrians into small traditional family towns (view: Roosh’s video). Not to mention the education system, specifically the colleges here, are getting brainwashed to the max with anti-white “diversity.”

Betas of the United States and Canada? Keep it up, and women will encourage the same thing to happen here, embracing the enemy with open legs.

Derek Baroni #fundie returnofkings.com

“Mommy, I want to play ball with the boys”, said six-year-old Annie, in a tone of voice that was rapidly approaching the dreaded high-pitched whine. “You will, my dear, I will make them”, said her weight-challenged mom as she turned towards the pair of laughing teenage boys that were throwing a ball back and forth in the nearby cul-de-sac.

“NICKY! DANIEL! Annie wants to play ball with you! You better play with her and behave, otherwise I swear to God, I will tell your mothers!” bellowed the mother hen at the boys.

As soon as Annie joined the game, the boys’ behavior changed dramatically. They were expected to accept Annie as their equal, which she obviously wasn’t. The ball was no longer thrown or punted with any considerable force, lest little Annie trip herself up and kiss the ground.

Instead, the ball was passed along or gently rolled on the ground. Meanwhile, the mother hen perched herself high on the balcony overlooking the neighborhood, seated on what must have been a titanium-reinforced chair, and occasionally shouted orders.

The first thing Annie did was make sure nobody possessed the ball—everyone had to have exactly equal time with it, and in a specific order. The purpose of this forced sharing was so that nobody had their feelings hurt in any way by being left out. The game was no longer about competition, it was about participation.

Of course, boys grew tired of her rules immediately but still went along with the charade because it seemed like the path of least resistance.

What is going on here?

If you’ve spent any amount of time in a Western country, you must have seen something like this unfold right in front of your eyes. You might have been involved in such occurrences and yielded to women without thinking twice. Besides, it can seem so natural when you’re immersed in a gynocentric culture on a daily basis. Women are people too, right? Why not treat them with the same respect men get?

The problem is that women lack accountability and will always superimpose their inner realities upon the outside world, rather than the other way around. Ignoring objective reality usually comes at a great price, but women offload the cost onto unsuspecting men, dragging them down into the darkness.

If a woman was given free reign over the Garden of Eden, she would ruin it for everyone. Want proof? Allow me to go biblical for just a second and quote Genesis 3:13 :

13Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The Woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Note the deflection of responsibility – the woman hasn’t done anything wrong, it’s the snake’s fault for presenting her with a temptation she couldn’t resist. Now, the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally, but the fact that a 3,400 year old book talks so frankly about the true nature of women is astounding.

In fact, everything else in the Bible pales in comparison to that one verse and is pretty much tainted by a needless religious subtext. That one sentence is a warning from ages past—anything can be destroyed by putting a woman in charge and letting her have an “oopsie” moment.

So, how does this translate to our times? The root of all problems with women is that they are entitled, which means they want respect and attention they don’t deserve. Girls are carefully groomed from the early childhood to believe themselves to be perfect. When left unchallenged, this attitude eventually turns them into a black hole wherein all resources and attention disappear.

A boy who tries to do the same thing as Annie would be rightfully called “spoiled” and quickly humbled by his friends or his brother, if he has them.

It is your duty to call out female entitlement when you see it and spread awareness of this phenomenon, sharing your insights alongside it. Humbling a woman will generally cause a wave of triggering to occur among perennially butthurt SJWs, but it is the only way to stop females from being a liability, not just on you, but on the entire society.

If a woman still refuses to change her ways, don’t give her your respect or attention and simply move on.

Maximus Decimus Meridius #fundie returnofkings.com

The Orthodox Church Is The Answer To Reviving Christianity In Europe And Saving The West

Maximus is a Man, capital M, period. Love. Truth. Justice. Liberty. Respect. These are the lodestones pointing true to magnetic masculinity in a polarized feminist west. His goal for writing on ROK is to be the gadfly that provokes thought and counters groupthink. You can find more of his writing at A Dream That Was Rome .

First let us take a look at a Christian faith that is strong, vibrant and alive.

Christianity is a beautiful faith. For all my previous criticism of its intellectual formulation, the one thing it gets 100% correct is that it actually enshrines the nuclear family unit – Father, Son and virgin Mother. In that respect, it is more patriarchal than Islam in overtly formulating The Father as divine authority, The Son as heir to that authority, and the virgin Mary as model all women should aspire to be as wife and mother. The video above is a 26 minute silent reflection on life inside a men’s Orthodox Christian monastery in Abkhazia. The power of the documentary is palpable for its very lack of speech and thus quiet testimony to the essence of Christian truth – the worship of God through Jesus Christ.

After the passionate response to my last essay, I went on YouTube to look up what I could find on the Eastern Orthodox faith. Here is a great video series I would like to share with you all.

For Christianity to return and thrive in Europe & The West, there must be unity.

The single biggest advantage of the Orthodox faith is its unity. There is simply too much division and conflict in almost all flavours of Christianity outside the Roman Catholic Church. Historically, the Orthodox faith does not have a real history of theology (per se). That is, the Orthodox don’t think too much or question too deeply about their faith. They accept. They believe. They practice. Most importantly, they do not allow any change – none – to what they believe is the original church handed down to humanity from St. Paul.

For the Orthodox, it is not about the intellectual foundations (i.e. theology) so much as the community of worshipers and keeping to past traditions. They keep to what their ancestors practiced and see no need to change anything. Doing so would be a grave break and violation of the past, a complete insult to the body of Christ and the family tradition that has been passed down for generations to preserve the faith.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity has kept the original Byzantine rituals and formulations for worship. A good example of its seriousness and unwillingness to change is the fact that they will not let anyone who is not Orthodox to take part in communion. They see communion as a serious ritual, the true taking in of the body and life of Christ, His word, and His salvation. To allow just anyone to partake without proper preparation, proper orientation, and proper intention, is dangerous. The liturgy and hymns are also old. They go back all the way to the original church over 1000 years ago and more. The swinging incense pots is not some ornate flashy thing they do, there is real spiritual purpose and foundation to everything in an Orthodox liturgical mass.

What I have just described is practiced by all Orthodox churches which may strike many American Protestants and Evangelicals as odd. The different designations (Greek, Ukrainian, Russian, etc.) are nothing more than jurisdictional boundaries. If you are Russian, you want to go to mass in your language and with your people. Each church is local and loosely affiliated with the others, but there is no over arching official hierarchy, no Pope as it were for the ENTIRE faith. What unites them as Orthodox is not a single authority ON doctrine (per se), but common faith IN practice (de rigueur).

In many ways, Martin Luther was a revolt against the Pope having authority over how to worship by the local community. His opposition to Indulgences and a paper titled “The Pagan Servitude To The Church” are reminiscent of my own intellectual wrestling trying to understand Christianity. For Luther, it was ultimately about a return of faith to the followers of Christ, not blind obedience to papal authority for which he saw no authority given to it.

@Martin Luther ~ Wikipedia

His theology challenged the authority and office of the Pope by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge from God[3] and opposed sacerdotalism by considering all baptized Christians to be a holy priesthood.

Ironically, in Eastern Orthodox, the power of the church rests in the local faithful and has forever been this way. In one video, a story is told about an Orthodox priest who was invited to a world religions syncretic type seminar where he was quoted at the end of the conference as saying “Yes, there are many paths to God and all are valid.” When he returned to his local church and went to put the key in the door, the local church members had already changed the locks!!! How many Catholics would like to do that to the current Pope?!?! This is why the East rejected authority of Rome over THEIR religion. Christ belongs to the people, from God, and the Eastern Orthodox have protected this faith and non-hierarchical organization since the beginning of Christianity.

Why is it that Eastern Christians are agreeable about this? Why don’t they clamour and agitate for new stuff, for revision, for updating? The reason is that in the East, we expect the faith to actually do something. It isn’t just a matter of having the right institution, or having the right theology, though I believe the Orthodox church does have those things. That’s not what does it, really. It’s that we expect that practicing this faith will change people. And you know what? We see that it actually does. We see it over and over again. We see it in contemporary lives. We see people actually transformed.

To an Orthodox, they practice because it works, not just because it is right.

This— that single statement— would unite all Christianity. Gone would be the divisions, the arguments, the 1000s of flavours of Christ by each Protestant wanting to be a Pope.

If I ever become Christian, it will be in the Orthodox faith. This single video series has proved to me beyond a shadow of doubt that what the Orthodox has works. It works because—

Even after over 70 plus years of Communist oppression & outright murder, the faith has rebounded

Russians are Orthodox because faith in Christ works, not just because it is right. If you have ever known a Russian, you know how much they value what works and not what is bullshit. My intellectualization and analysis of Christianity is precisely the problem in The West. No single Christian tradition in The West, outside of the Catholic faith, can truly claim that what they have works, but they have ALL argued and warred for centuries about being right.

If Western Christianity did work, people would not have left. Leaving aside the massive hurdle of getting Westerners to actually stop being atheists or completely ignoring God, a Christian faith that can actually claim to work is precisely what will get someone like me back in the church. A claim I must repeat, that is actually backed up by evidence, not rhetoric.

The final video I want to close off with is an Orthodox explanation of salvation.

This— brought tears to my eyes. It actually answered one, if not THE, core complaint Westerners have about Christianity as they know it – you are condemned to hell if you reject Christ, and no amount of good works or deeds or repentance can save you if you do not accept Christ, the end. Of importance to note, this priest refers to God only when explaining the Orthodox version of salvation; it is God, not Jesus that is the focus of Eastern Orthodox faith. I suspect this is why the Protestants split from The Vatican and we can see it in their further splintering right up to today; Protestants wanted more Jesus and less God talk from the Pope because it was Jesus that truly saves. (Once again, you can see why a non-Christian starts to scratch his head in puzzlement.)

This Orthodox version of salvation is one I have never heard from any Christian priest or pastor in The West. If Europe, if America, were to hear the message of God in the Orthodox faith, I think you would have a revival like none we have ever witnessed in the past. In fact, the whole Theoria YouTube channel is, I suspect, a production created for just that reason. Thousands of disillusioned Protestants and other long lost former Christians are filling the Orthodox churches. The Theoria video series was created to help orient and guide the newly faithful. Is their any other church outside Catholicism that is seeing this kind of resurgence? (Assuming Catholicism is seeing an influx, I do not know and just speculating because it too has a good history of unity in faith and would be The West’s oldest incarnation of Christianity.)

Conclusion

Putin is demonized in the West for many things, but the one reason “they” hate him the most? Putin and Russia are a walking, talking, living reminder of a faith they thought was all but extinct by their design and command. Putin’s Christian message is not just reaching America, but the entirety of Europe. Note as well that Putin is an astounding example of the claim to proof that the Orthodox faith works.

He has single-handedly inserted himself in Syria and reversed what was not just the holocaust of Syrian Christians, but the globalist plan to balkanize the region with Iran being the last Muslim nation standing in their way. For all those who claim Islam is favored by the elites and want it to take over Europe, just look to Muslim lands where, regardless of how you feel about Islam as a religion, the homeland of Muslim faith is being literally bombed into oblivion in a way Christian “Muslim invasion” Europe is not. Make no mistake, after Islam’s “victory” in Europe, it will be up next for targeted wholesale destruction by they who hate God more than they hate humanity.

I have no doubt that if Europe and The West can find its way back to Christianity, our future will look as bright as Russia’s. From even this most minimal and cursory review of the Eastern Orthodox faith, it is the only path back to Christ in Europe and The West that I can see actually working.

What Christianity needs is unity of faith, unity of belief, unity of practice and unity in God. All of this is found in the Eastern Orthodox church and nowhere else.

[Emphasis original]

Christopher Leonid #sexist returnofkings.com

The Mainstream Embrace Of #MeToo Puts Us One Step Closer Towards The Enslavement Of Men

Defining male agency during the collapse of the Sexual Revolution.

The progenitors of the #MeToo meme have been elevated to that dubious plinth of social endorsement, the cover of Time magazine.

image
#Iwouldnt

These women did not “launch a movement.” However, the current wreaths-to-laurels victimhood craze does bear out the completion of an important cultural cycle.

Free Love Wasn’t Free

A core premise of our sexual dystopia is:

‘My body my choice.’

Within the bounds of legality, we are supposed to believe that neither sex is more damaged by their coital decisions than the other. The retro-active outrage now mounted by women at men on account of mutually consensual sexual intercourse (and calls for the bounds of legality to be shifted accordingly), reiterates that this is not actually the case.

The struggle of many a post-prime girl for exclusivity with a series of increasingly inferior suitors, must be a brutal way to discover that it is still impossible to raise a joyridden car back to its factory-new price.

Men are checking out of monogamous commitment, leaving two generations of women wandering a widening bimbo-limbo between settled life either as a housewife or denizen of the increasingly cash-strapped welfare state (the overwhelmingly administrative sector jobs provided to ‘career women’ being a manifestation of the latter).

As an institution, marriage is only debased further by social and legal efforts to enforce commitment from men to polygamous women who spent their bloom years in promiscuity. Although such an iniquitous contract could be excused by a myriad of exceptional circumstances, the unprecedented glut of women beneath the male investment threshold turn the exceptions into clichés.

The Gynocentric Interpretation

A defining characteristic of corporate and clickbait discourse is the effort to sublimate readers’ frustration into outrage while bypassing the question of accountability. Time and others are now under huge pressure to find mythologies to both explain the dissatisfaction of their female readership and serve as the basis for corrective political action. Someone must be to blame for their problems; anyone but themselves.

What Time has produced is a fairy tail without a prince. It begins:

‘Movie stars are more like you and me than we ever knew.’

We are then introduced to a wide range of women who were:

‘brought together by a common experience.’

They were actually brought together by Time, at great expense, to confirm the biased premise of their leading article. Time then chews over each of these women’s testimonies, droning on and on and on in a tantric, mantric, incuntation of its utterly banal and predictable conclusion:

image
Time have revealed their straw man – and he’s called Donald Trump.

I suspect that the feminist Trump-tantrum is not caused by Trump per se, but by the part of American society which voted him into office. It’s an important distinction because it means that, as a political instrument, Trump is needed the most by the very people who like him least. Without Trump, the outrage would be revealed for what it truly is: a million personal vendettas against a million brash, powerful and wealthy American men who these women consentingly gave their bodies to.

Trump’s appeal to the free market and private capital (as well as the string of hot women who have let him ‘grab ‘em by the poosy’), is more than just a refusal to push the envelope on welfare policies which enable sexual liberation—it is an exposition of the gulf between what is conventionally true and what is actually true about modern female sexual opportunism.

The self-deception may be genuine, but was revealed nonetheless when #metoo was triggered by the loss of societal contingency plans to ensure female sexual freedom (alpha fucks and beta bucks), by constraining that of men. The fat child screams not while it is happily eating itself to death but when the cookies are taken away.

[Video titled "Satan leaves a woman's soul as Trump is sworn in"]

Feminism’s Finale

The premise of #metoo has now been twisted by various degrees to its own complete inversion. Nearly a year ago, I was told by a County Court in Britain that I owed money to a woman whose sexual advances I had gently rebuffed some years before. Neither I nor the court had any idea why I owed her money or what her claim was, but I still had to defend myself.

A case that would never have come to trial twenty years ago dragged out for months as she gradually patched together a claim (without evidence), which gradually escalated to an allegation of sexual abuse.

My trial was the direct result of her assumption that society would stand behind her in extracting resources from the man of her choosing. I was lucky that she had a legal history of ‘choosing’ other men before me, and the judge sent her howling from the courtroom.

But what if I had been her first shot? What if she’d gone to the Crown Prosecution Service?

I add, for the sake of completeness, that I am a strict adherent of pre-marital abstinence and, in the case of this particular woman, had never kissed, hit on, made a pass at, nor been in any form of romantic relationship with her. #Iwouldnt—and that is precisely what enraged her.

Let the irony of this case serve as an illustration of the extent to which feminine imperatives can now be exercised to strong-arm men into compliance. If you have earned a #metoo assertion like I did, you’re probably doing something right.

What for men in 2018?

The dregs of women will always preen their sexual worthiness in a sensational light by announcing that a man once made an unwanted pass at them, just as feminist Phrynes like Emma Watson will always lend a pretty face to their ugly cause (phoney outrage is her profession’s prerogative. I bear her no grudge).

Our toxic tributary of sexual realism to the mainstream discussion sees the feminist victimbragging for what it really is: another attempt to circumvent rational analysis and keep society plugging the feminist narrative. Soon, #metoo will become as passé as ‘Trump Bedroom Backlash,’ but these phenomena are mere symptoms of a deeper social condition.

As private debt piles up and resources cease to flow, society will have to find new ways of demanding that men judiciously restrain their own behaviour on behalf of the unfettered dualistic sexual strategy of women—sexy badboys and stable providers stepping up and down as and when women demand it. The contradictory messages that this sends to men are now compounded by the constant possibility of being criminalised for making a faux pas.

Today, as trials move from the courtroom to the press and to Twitter and Facebook, the degree of kafkaesque reassurance that I had—the basic certainty that I was on trial—is starting to ebb away. A lot of men who don’t grasp the underlying biomechanics behind the sexual victimhood phenomenon are doomed to be spirited on a windowless train of THOT thought from false premise to final solution: their enslavement to women, either directly or via the state.

The chaotic disconnect between the claim and the truth is not a means to an end but the end itself. This climate of fear is the West’s way of forcing the marriage of mankind to womankind, joylessly mandating social responsibilities without providing any privilege. The carrot has gone from the sexual contract and only the stick remains.

image
It can still be a beautiful life for men who don’t answer to society. Careful though, the beta version of this man is Smeagol Gollum.

The harder men try to opt out of commitment to women, the stronger the social effort will be to drive them back, until escape from women will turn into escape from society itself.

Brian McGonagall #fundie returnofkings.com

“[Religion] is the opium of the people” – Karl Marx boldly declared this, as he set about creating what he perceived to be a new and better utopia. Even though Communism as an idea is nowadays morally spent, it is easy to see that its equally dangerous cousin, Socialism, lives on and has never been better.

The two share the ugly trait of militant atheism – not only aggressively discarding religion as the sum of all evils but also attempting to stamp it out in a blind rage. If a modern SJW is probed as to why his hatred of religion is so unwavering, he will more than likely fail to provide a reasonable explanation, preferring instead to hurl tired old Marxist buzzwords such as “Christian oppression.”

This is to be expected. What worries me, however, is that good, intelligent men are often infected with the same virus, failing to comprehend its Marxist roots. They claim that Christianity is a religion of the weak, that it caters to people who want to lead a sheltered life, that it stifles free thought.

After the evisceration of much of organized Christianity at the hands of Marxists and their allies since the 1960s, it is easy to fall for the trap of identifying with such leftist claptrap and claim that the proof is in the proverbial pudding. In the following piece I wish to present the argument to the contrary – Christianity is a red pill religion if its precepts are abided by.

[...]

Christianity promotes strength and sacrifice

Let’s cut straight to the chase on this one. This aspect of Christianity is best illustrated when the ethos of pre – “enlightenment” Europe is considered, before everyone started receiving illusory “rights of man” from their government with no responsibilities added.

Take the Crusades. “But these evil Europeans went over to the Middle East to rape, pillage and conquer peace loving people of different faiths” – immediately exclaims the chump who has been drinking the PC cool aid all his life. Not quite. True, the Crusades did have their negative aspects (such as the unwarranted detour to Byzantium during the Fourth Crusade) but I am referring to the overall picture.

Thousands of men, rich and poor, dropped everything to fight and die for an idea – to regain the Holy Sepulcher for Christendom and help their eastern brothers who were being crushed under what seemed like an invincible tide of Islam.

Many nobles sold everything they had to buy weapons, armor, and supplies for the journey. Thousands of peasants left their villages and families to follow them. Most knew they would never come back to their homeland, yet still chose to go.

Look at the mentality of the leaders who took part. Fredrick Barbarossa of Germany was one of the most powerful people in Europe at the time. He did not have to go anywhere, he had it all. Barbarossa died as many did on the perilous journey, drowning in an attempt to cross a river on the way to the Holy Land.

Richard the Lionheart, King of England, spent three years under the walls of Acre waiting to starve the defending Saracens into submission. Three years! He was reported to personally lead assaults on the walls, scaling the siege ladders with his men under a hail of arrows. I realize that we live in different times, but leaders of such fortitude and courage are sorely missed today.

These men embodied the very ethos of Christianity. Their attitude was uncompromising – they did not try to make excuses but gave their best efforts to whatever was required of them, not afraid to pay the ultimate price.

Christianity de-pedestalizes women and encourages positive gender relations

Most people notice that something is amiss in modern gender relations. Women are often valued over and above men and unduly pedestalized. At the same time, male traits such as aggressiveness, competition, and dominance are encouraged over traditional feminine traits such as gentleness and humility in same women. Go figure. The results of this erratic social engineering have already been discussed ad nauseam.

The Christian Bible has a few interesting things to say about gender relations, going back to the Garden of Eden. Eve was created as a “helpmate” for Adam, not some kind of “soulmate” or “better half.” Their union was then blessed by God, creating the first marriage.

It is clear that the Bible did not envisage women to rule over their men. One of the Biblical punishments of an unruly and unfaithful people in the Old Testament was allowing the women and children to do just that:

"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” (Isaiah 3:12)"

I am sure this is not a popular verse amongst the politically correct. However the same motif is repeated later on by St Paul, who tells the early Christians: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.” (1 Timothy 2:12) Therefore, it is the man’s job to be the leader, both in the Church and in the household.

At the same time this should by no means be interpreted as a license to be a tyrant. Women are not expected to be men’s slaves, walk whatever amount of paces behind men, or generally be bullied. In fact, men are called to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. This is a sacrificing love, which is pure, unwavering, and understanding. Women are not there to be used and abused.

If what is described above is not a model for healthy gender relations, than I really don’t know what is.

Conclusion

It is impossible not to notice that Christianity is under ferocious attack in the Western world. Its rites are mocked. Its precepts are attacked as oppressive. Its heritage is presented as an everlasting shame to mankind.

Let me remind you that this was also the case in the Soviet Union and anywhere else Communism reared its ugly head. As cultural Marxism is slowly but surely building its layer in the Occident, its communistic roots are at once discernible through the preponderance of militant atheism. It is important to know one’s enemy so that he is not able to deceive.

Perhaps it is worth stopping for a moment and asking the simple, but tremendously important question: why is Christianity viewed with such hostility by our increasingly socialist governments and media? Does it hold a valid message which could inspire and uplift the men of today? Is it a threat to the ruling kleptocracy? Does it present an alternative to the mentality of servility our overlords are so keen for us to adopt?

Jon Bergeron #fundie returnofkings.com

Hillary Clinton’s Socialist Manifesto Shows Why Women Shouldn’t Be Involved In Politics

It is no surprise that most men are inclined towards freedom and individualism, while most women are inclined towards security and collectivism. Building on this dichotomy, we have many examples of women finding the preference of security and collectivism illustrated in large, bloated welfare government.

For one, the Pew Research states “Women lean Democratic by 52%— unmarried women 57%”. In a similar article, “Since 1990, women have been consistently more likely than men to identify as Democrats or lean Democratic.” Nothing is closer to socialism and statism in modern America than the American left and the Democratic party. In case you didn’t know, they have an actual socialist running in the primaries. The Democratic party continues to represent women and their beliefs of security and collectivism.

You Must Love Big Brother

The ultimate caricature of the left, Hillary “the woman” Clinton, illustrates her ideas of collectivism in her creepy 1996 Communist Manifesto, It Takes a Village. The title of her book itself should give you shivers. The book illustrates its eerie socialist message of collectivism and state security. An excerpt from the Chapter “Brave New Village” from Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism, exemplifies Clinton’s idelogy of state controlled community accurately:

"—(the) notion of the ‘common good’—she (Clinton) indisputably draws her vision from the same eternal instinct to impose order on society, to create an all-encompassing community, to get past endless squabbles and ensconce each individual in the security blanket of the state. Hers is a political religion, an updated Social Gospel- light on the Gospel, heavy on the Social- spoken in soothing tones and conjuring a reassuring vision of cooperation and community—The village may have replaced ‘the state’, and it in turn may have replaced the fist with the hug, but an unwanted embrace from which you cannot escape— (Goldberg, 357)"

The idea of women embracing the left and socialism is not new to modern America, either. Throughout history we have many examples of such behavior from women. In John Derbyshire’s 2009 classic “We Are Doomed” (a must read), he explains:

"The ‘gender gap’ in political attitudes has been remarked on since at least 391 B.C. That was the year Aristophanes staged his play ‘The Assemblywomen’ (Ecclesiazusae). In the play the women of Athens, disguised as men, take over the assembly and vote themselves into power. Once in charge, they institute a program of pure socialism:

‘Everyone is to have an equal share in everything and live on that; we won’t have one man rich while another lives in penury, one man farming hundreds of acres while another hasn’t got enough land to get buried in—No one will be motivated by need: everybody will have everything—the children will regard all older men as fathers—’

The play wright grasped the essential point— Women incline to socialism much more naturally than do men.” (Derbyshire, 88)"

Mr. Derbyshire continues:

"George Orwell, whose insights into these matters were very deep, also noticed this (women’s inclination to Socialism)—Winston Smith, the protagonist of 1984, observe(s):

‘It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of orthodoxy— ‘

I (Derbyshire) saw the same thing myself when living in communist China in the years just after Mao. If you wanted to hear a total-credulity, utterly unreflective parroting of the Party line, a woman was always your best bet.’ (Derbyshire, 88)"

In America, when women were granted the right to vote, it opened a solid voting bloc for Left statists for years to come. Ironically, gyno-con Ann Coulter (a brilliant conservative woman; yes, they exist, but rare) states:

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 — except Goldwater in ’64 — the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted. – “An appalling magic” in The Guardian (17 May 2003)"

Gentlemen, it all went to shit when we gave them the right to vote. We even hear it from a woman, Ann Coulter. Women became a huge and powerful voting bloc that rarely change its tune—the numbers show very little fluctuation in their leftist leaning, as explained earlier.

One can only imagine a country where statists, leftists, cuckservatives, and neocons might not have existed if women had not been granted the vote. Whatever the case, a large statist government is now a pressing issue, with much of it being the responsibility of idealistic, dumb, and dangerous policies supported by women and feminized SJW men.

To take this a step further, the world becomes more feminized each day and traditional sex roles get reversed—look no further than the new Star Wars and Mad Max to see the effects of this feminization. In modern culture, we have women being glamorized in roles of power and “strong, independent, women” that can do what men do. This propaganda easily translates to the ballot box.

The feminization of everything is a weak attempt to indoctrinate young men to believe that women are leaders and that women are masculine. In response, weak men are followers of their causes and beliefs. This is something men, young and old, should strive to be conscious of every day.

We, as men, must be aware of this political bloc illustrated in the Democratic party. As we can see in the chart previously discussed, men tend to fluctuate their vote based on the individual, women vote based along strict party adherence. Women are one solidarity voting bloc for large government and Democratic party lines.

This is dangerous, because it is determining the fate of our country and our future. We are now on a path to destruction and drastic change must occur. The fate rests in the hands of men, not idealistic, statist, Leftist women, nor SJWs.

We must take back our country, if not by the voting box, then by any means necessary.

John Carver #fundie returnofkings.com

It Doesn’t Matter If Women Win Gold Medals At The Rio Olympics

The U.S. mainstream media is hailing the record number of female athletes which are heading to Rio de Janeiro for the Olympic Games, with a total of 292 out of the 555 American competitors being women. Because you know, gender gaps are worthy of congratulations and applause just as long as there are less men and more women stepping up to the plate.

In truth, this is actually a sad state of affairs. It means that the U.S. Olympic team will have less than a 50% chance of seeing a real champion, rather than a 2nd rate gold medalist from the weaker sex, achieving athletic glory on the world stage.

I’ve said it before in my previous article “Anything Women Can Do, Men Can Do Better,” and I’ll say it again in 2016. The best females can never outclass the best males in sport and athleticism.

Denial Is A River In Lefty Land

Feminists always love to espouse that women can be “just as good as any man” in sports, but this has always been a preposterous falsehood. The average women only has roughly 60% of the strength and muscle characteristics of a comparable man, and the greatest gender difference in upper body strength can probably be attributed to the fact that women tend to have a significantly lower proportion of their lean muscle tissue distributed in the upper body.

In other words, women will NEVER reach the stratospheric heights of the best male boxers, weightlifters, javelin throwers, hammer throwers, rowers, swimmers, pole vaulters, and a host of other Olympic events where upper body strength is pivotal to reaching the podium.

But what about feats of agility and stamina where upper body strength is not quite as vital? Such as Association Football (Soccer) and most running and jumping events at track and field? Well grab your adult coloring books and head to your “safe space” SJW’s, because the best male runners at the marathon (the biggest combo test of speed and stamina) are routinely faster than the best women.

“At every distance up to the marathon, the gap between men’s and women’s world record times is nine to 10 percent—and it’s a similar or even higher percentage among recreational runners.” – Runner’s World, April 2015 Edition

Get it? Due to irrefutable biological characteristics, women just don’t have the strength, speed, and physical fortitude to run faster or perform better at the same sport than the best men. Case in point, the Australian national women’s soccer team (which is participating at this Olympic games) was absolutely humiliated earlier this year by a 7 – 0 loss to the Australian national under FIFTEEN’s boys side (which is not participating).

Even in Olympic events which do not require overt displays of speed, stamina, or brute strength—such as gymnastics—denial dwelling SJWs and white knights may resort to saying that female gymnasts are more “graceful” and agile than their male counterparts.

Oh really? I beg to differ. Just watch British freerunner Will Sutton take a stroll around the Isle of Man, combining incredible acrobatics, athleticism, speed, stamina, and landing dangerous jumps that not a single woman has been able to emulate thus far.

Authoritative Quotes On Male And Female Physiology

‘Agility depends upon the ability to decelerate and accelerate fast, and men – because of their larger muscles – will always have an advantage,’ – Harry Brennan, Exercise Physiologist

‘There was a period in the Seventies when women equaled or broke more world records than men, but that was before the fall of the Berlin Wall.’ – Harry Brennan, Exercise Physiologist

(Translation: this was the era when Eastern Bloc coaches were feeding female athletes steroids like sweets. They were outright cheaters.)

‘The male skeleton is bigger and gives them an inherent advantage – larger bones are generally stronger,’ – Ignac Fogelman, Endocrinologist Professor

‘Faster men’s times for 100 to 800 meters are mostly due to men, on average, having greater muscle mass—and a larger portion of it is fast-twitch, which allows them to generate greater force, speed, and anaerobically produced energy’ – Chris Schwirian, Biological Sciences lecturer at Ohio University

World Athletic Records Men Vs. Women

100m Dash World Record

9.58 s – Usain Bolt (Men’s)

10.49 s – Florence Griffith Joyner (Women’s)

High Jump World Record

2.45 m – Javier Sotomayor (Men’s)

2.09 m – Stefka Kostadinova (Women’s)

Hammer Throw World Record

86.74 m – Yuriy Sedykh (Men’s)

79.58 m – Anita Wlodarczyk (Women’s)

Conclusion

Whenever female athletes are awarded a “gold medal” at the Olympics, it should just be a giant knockoff of that cheap Hanukkah gelt (chocolate gold coins) that Jewish children get for the holiday season. After the brief surge of excitement that they have won “gold” (and attention whore themselves with it on Instagram), they can peel off the tin foil and feast on the chocolatey goodness inside until it’s all gone. “You go girl!”

After all, since women are ultimately just big children, they merely deserve to have big children’s candy. The REAL gold medals should be allocated to the real champions of a sporting discipline’s top tier, which will always be men.

Unfortunately, “equality” obsessed feminists and SJW’s will be absolutely thrilled when women take home gold medals at the Olympic games, even though their competitive talents and event completion times will be noticeably worse than many male athletes who will return home with nothing.

So best of luck to all the male athletes in the Games of the XXXI Olympiad! Go for gold! (And I do mean the real kind).

Matt Forney #fundie returnofkings.com

[WARNING: STAR WARS THE LAST JEDI SPOILERS]

[The whole review is dumb and should be examined as bad, disingenuous criticism, this submission is just highlighting the more ideologically-charged nonsense]

Pretty much everything about The Last Jedi is a conscious slap in the face to Star Wars’ white male fans. For example, all of the leading generals in the Resistance are women, including Princess General Leia (Carrie Fisher), which explains why they went from running the galaxy in the previous movie to being reduced to a handful of ships in this one. All of the First Order’s soldiers and generals save one are white men, while the Resistance is staffed entirely by non-whites and women, with the exception of Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac).

Poe is by far the most interesting character in the movie, even considering how the script goes out of its way to shit on him. You can practically hear the writers muttering, “Fuck you, toxic masculinity!” every time he’s on screen. Despite being forward-thinking and courageous, Poe is constantly slapped down by his female superiors for being too “hot-headed.” For example, despite his bravery in taking out one of the First Order’s cruisers at the beginning of the movie, Leia demotes him for being “reckless.”

Later on in the movie, after Leia falls into a coma after miraculously surviving being blasted into open space (don’t ask), Poe discovers that her replacement, the purple-haired (yes, I’m serious) HR lady Holdo (Laura Dern) is planning to evacuate the Resistance’s last cruiser into unarmed transports, a suicidal and cowardly move. He intelligently proclaims a mutiny, only for Leia to side with Holdo, whose plan ends up getting all but two dozen members of the Resistance killed. Heckuva job, Holdy!

The film’s C-plot, starring Finn (John Boyega), is equally insipid. Frustrated with HR lady Holdo’s complete inability to lead, Finn teams up with Rose Tico (Kelly Marie Tran), a communist Montagnard with Down syndrome, to find a codebreaker who can keep the First Order from tracking the Resistance through hyperspace. They go to the resort planet of Canto Bight and literally start murdering people for the crime of being rich. This is Ghostbusters–tier dumb.

But none of this compares to how The Last Jedi rapes the character of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill). The main plot follows Rey (Daisy Ridley), the Mary Sue feminist street urchin, as she tries to convince Luke to help the Resistance and train her to use the Force. Luke initially refuses, whining about how the Jedi “deserve” to end, before reluctantly agreeing to Rey’s demands. Hamill’s performance is embarrassingly bad and Luke’s character arc is a sick joke, rivaling how The Force Awakens depicted Han Solo as a deadbeat Peter Pan.

One good thing about The Last Jedi is that Rey is given far less screen time then in The Force Awakens. She’s just as smarmy, unlikable, and unrealistic—her bizarre telepathic dialogues with antagonist Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) are a case in point—but this is still an improvement. Unfortunately, the addition of SJW masturbation fantasies like Rose and Holdo—who I’m pretty sure was given purple hair as a deliberate middle finger to the fans—drowns out this positive move.

...

Finally, General Leia somehow manages to completely evade responsibility for Kylo Ren falling to the dark side of the Force, even though she’s his mother. The plots of both The Last Jedi and The Force Awakens have Darth Bugman focusing all his rage on Han Solo (his father) and Luke Skywalker, with Leia somehow skating off. And despite the fact that Leia’s son is the second-in-command of the First Order—meaning she is directly responsible for the galaxy being plunged into war—nobody has a problem with her serving as one of the Resistance’s senior leaders.

...

The central problem with the new Star Wars movies—or revivals of any classic franchise, for that matter—is that contemporary filmmakers don’t understand what made the originals good. Star Wars was a product of the 1970’s: an epic tale of good vs. evil, drawing on cultural motifs familiar to Americans of the time. Bugmen like Rian Johnson or J.J. Abrams can see the surface elements of Star Wars, but without being immersed in the cultural milieu that birthed it, the best they can do is high-budget fan fiction with SJW nonsense drizzled on top.

That’s all The Force Awakens or The Last Jedi are: cosplay with CGI. The X-wings and lightsabers and aliens may look like the ones in the original trilogy, but the heart and soul aren’t there. In their place is poor writing, left-wing agitprop, and dumb jokes. The Force Awakens was dull and boring, but The Last Jedi will leave you longing for the earnestness of Jar Jar Binks. Yes, it’s that bad.

The irony is that Kylo Ren’s nihilistic mantra of “let[ting] the past die,” while completely inappropriate for a Star Wars movie, is precisely how modern moviegoers should treat the franchise itself. Star Wars is dead, nerds. It’s not coming back. It’s time to take it behind the woodshed and put a bullet in its brain. The original movies were great and some of the video games were pretty good, but the monkey’s dead and the show is over.

Oracle Z #fundie returnofkings.com

Why Women Are Like Cats And Men Are Like Dogs

CATS:

Cats are beautiful creatures. So are women. Especially when it comes to their faces, and more so their eyes. Staring in a cat’s eyes for long, can mesmerize you. So can a woman’s.

Cats are manipulative, prodigal creatures that only want you when they want you. Try picking up a cat at any time, and see how it will scratch you. A cat’s affection for you is essentially an act of investment on it’s end. There is nothing more fake than the dishonest affection of a cat, irrespective of its type. Cats only need affection on their own terms.

Cats know how to insinuate themselves into your affection, even if they are useless creatures. “Aw, look at the poor cute little thing!” A cat is a master at turning its weakness into its advantage. It would meekly rub its soft fur against you to garner attention. It would purr softly and sensually as you stroke it. It snuggles softly into your body, making you believe that it needs and ‘loves‘ you, but what it actually needs is the warmth of your body.

Cats are opportunistic. Cats live on opportunity. They stalk their prey. Women are the same, for they are hypergamous.

Cats are practically useless creatures. On an average, Cats spent 16 hours sleeping and the rest eating and lazing around. Cats can’t defend your home. A cat will only fight to defend itself, but never you. A cat’s life is engrossed with itself, and trying to exploit the resources of its master, without being of use in return. Cats are basically domesticated parasites.

Cats enslave you. A cat’s often ‘purpose’ in your home is to act cute. As mentioned above, they’re practically useless animals. Any home having a cat will be forced to acquiesce itself to its feline member. Essentially humans are the pets of cats, and not the other way around.

Cats are cruel and merciless creatures. Observe a cat with its prey (e.g. with a rat or an insect). A cat will play around with its prey’s half dead body before devouring it, much like a psychopath. Women more or less exhibit the same tendencies.

Cats can fuck up your home. Cats are worst when it comes to your furniture. A cat will happily allow itself to sharpen its claws on your furniture and ruin it.

Cats are insensitive and selfish creatures. Cats don’t think of anything, except themselves. Cats are essentially selfish creatures, except when it comes to their offspring. But a female cat is again never so protective of its young as a bitch is.

Cats are thieving parasites. A cat’s habit of stealing is legendary. The stealth predator that they are, cats will not hesitate to help itself to your stuff without permission. It’s a cat’s entitled nature to your stuff, as you’ve honored yourself by adopting it.

Cats are narcissistic creatures. A cat spends most of its time eating, exploring (to hunt or steal), sleeping, lazing around and preening itself.

Cats have seductive and feminine allure. Look at the graceful movements of a cat. Observe the lazy seductive stretches of its body. Cats are the natural exhibitors of female sex appeal. Any woman wanting to learn seductive female body language could learn well from observing a cat, and carry herself in a similar fashion. Humans have always been seduced by this appeal of these creatures from history.

Cats make valuable pets — to feminists.

Cats are disloyal creatures. As explained above, cats are only loyal to themselves, not to their masters. Cats are essentially mercenaries.

DOGS:

Dogs are honorable and loyal creatures, exhibiting essentially masculine virtues. A dog’s greatest quality is in its loyalty and honor when it comes to their masters. Dogs will always stick with you watch your back.

Dogs are intelligent, versatile and useful creatures. From guarding your home, giving you company and giving hope to humans in a modern world where the word loyalty has just become a tattoo, dogs are versatile pets. You can train a dog like no other animal.

Dogs are brave creatures. A dog’s bravery is legendary. So much that they were employed in war and domesticated to guard homes and livestock .

Dogs are self sacrificing creatures. A dog may run away when it comes to personal safety, but rarely backs down from danger especially when it comes to the safety of its master. A dog will fight for you and can even die for you. A dog’s spirit is essentially that of self sacrifice.

Dogs love doggy style. And so do men. No brainer there.

Dogs are often ignored, in lieu of cats. This happens usually in households where both the creatures are adopted. The dog’s loyalty and value is often ignored for the parasitical, undeserving and useless cat’s seductive appeal. Dispensable beauty often beats indispensable efficiency. This is just like how men—the indispensable gender necessary for the building of civilization—have become dispensable in modern societies.

A master can fool a dog, but not a cat. Dogs are trusting animals when it comes to their masters. Men are the same when it comes to their women. On the other hand, cats don’t trust you, even if you’ve raised them for long. One act of admonishment is enough for a cat to act as if it’s not your pet. Dogs can be fooled, because they’re essentially forgiving animals. Cats rarely forgive, but expect to be forgiven.

Dogs are sensitive creatures. Especially to a lack of love from their masters.

Dogs are direct and honest animals. A dog’s efforts to gain your attention are direct, not a subtle gauged seduction of you like a cat. But the problem with dogs is that they can’t act feminine and cute like cats to gain your attention. Dogs will lick you, bark at you and act funny so that you notice them. That’s how men are. A man’s sex drive and affections are the same – honest and direct. There is nothing deceptive about his interest in a woman than an erection when he sees her.

Dogs bear responsibility and adversity with fortitude. Dogs were domesticated to guard homes. The role of a guardian is a life of responsibility and peril. Dogs are masters at handling both eventualities with fortitude.

Dogs need freedom. One of the worst things people do to their pet dogs is to tie them up. A dog needs to explore and see the world, or it howls and becomes very aggressive. Dogs live for freedom.

Dogs are patient creatures. Until pushed too far. Cats are essentially impatient, and don’t tolerate unwanted attention at all.

Dogs can be easily assuaged. Your dog’s howling for some fresh air and freedom? Give it some food. Rub it. Dogs can be easily assuaged, and usually settle for little from their masters. A cat will move over to your neighbor’s home to find what it’s not getting from you. Dogs are essentially slave-like, while cats are mercenaries.

Dogs need love, and are receptive to affection. Dogs are happy with little, and need your company all the time. A dog without a master is indeed a sad dog.

Dogs bear responsibility and adversity with fortitude. Dogs were domesticated to guard homes. The role of a guardian is a life of responsibility and peril. Dogs are masters at handling both eventualities with fortitude.

Dogs need freedom. One of the worst things people do to their pet dogs is to tie them up. A dog needs to explore and see the world, or it howls and becomes very aggressive. Dogs live for freedom.

Dogs are patient creatures. Until pushed too far. Cats are essentially impatient, and don’t tolerate unwanted attention at all.

Dogs can be easily assuaged. Your dog’s howling for some fresh air and freedom? Give it some food. Rub it. Dogs can be easily assuaged, and usually settle for little from their masters. A cat will move over to your neighbor’s home to find what it’s not getting from you. Dogs are essentially slave-like, while cats are mercenaries.

Dogs need love, and are receptive to affection. Dogs are happy with little, and need your company all the time. A dog without a master is indeed a sad dog.

The biggest analogy? Just like how dogs do all their life, men chase cats, i.e. women. Even with the reversal of gender roles and tastes in the modern world.

Being called a dog and being called a son of a bitch are two different things. While the latter is essentially offensive and derogatory, being called a dog is essentially honorable if you consider the above points. The Mongols honored dogs in their culture. Genghis Khan famously called his commander Subudei “one of his dogs of war” – not in a derogatory sense, but to compliment Subudei on his loyalty, bravery and honor. Calling someone a cat is derogatory when taking a cat’s parasitical personality into consideration. A dog is an honorable and loyal creature, very much displaying the essence of true masculinity. But like men, it ironically gets the flak despite all its usefulness, so much that it’s name itself becomes a curse word.

Beta programming of modern men has often made them to behave in feminine ways like cats, and feminist modern women are behaving like masculinized bitches. Considering that, this analogy could rather be modified as “Why women were like cats, and men were like dogs.”

Relampago Furioso #fundie returnofkings.com

Will There Be Riots In America The Day After Donald Trump Wins The Presidency?

(photo snapped in Ferguson as thugs burned the city down)

The above photo was snapped in Ferguson as thugs burned the city down. Could we see a repeat of that fateful event and perhaps a worsening of it soon to a city near you?

The election is the focus of every news channel ad nauseum. But few people are focused on the day after the election. No matter who wins this year’s presidential “selection” the possibility of civil unrest the day after election day and beyond is a real possibility. Are you ready for chaos if it develops?

The nation is so divided we are likely to run into problems.

The ugliest scenario for the day after election day plays out if Trump wins. If Trump wins, get ready for Black Lives Matter, the Black Panthers, The Race (La Raza) and other racially motivated anti-white groups to come out and possibly start burning cities down again. After all, they have been given carte blanche all year long to do so in Ferguson, Baltimore, Charlotte, and San Jose. A worrisome precedent has been set.

Of course, Trump won’t be in power the day after election day (we have to wait until Inauguration Day for him to clean up any potential messes) so Barack Hussein Obama is likely to give the racial hate groups the green light once again while the media whips out their collective Stradivarius, plays my heart bleeds for thee, and sympathizes with the devils destroying the nation.

If Hillary wins, there’s the real possibility of protests the day after the election, and the social conditioning of whites to be polite and docile even as they’re railroaded in what was formerly their nation may not hold this time around. A Hillary win means the chaos and possibly violence could wait until she starts stripping constitutional rights away. Then, we are likely to see conservatives finally come out and start raising some righteous hell. There could be racially motivated clashes on the horizon as white people standing up for themselves goes against a long-established narrative that they’re all evil racists.

Few people think of the effects civil unrest could have on their livelihood and well-being. It’s time for a little education on just how thinly stretched the American supply chain is, and what could happen with only a short-term disruption in it.

Here’s a scenario – just one of many possible scenarios. Video of rioters stopping and then looting a semi tractor-trailer in Charlotte is worrying because if trucks stop, America stops. If attacks on truckers happen often enough, truckers may decide it’s not worth the risk to their lives to continue moving freight around and stop driving. Within a day, bedlam could ensue as the supply chain runs on a razor’s edge in modern America and everything from food to medication to gasoline starts running out.

Supply Chain

According to the American Trucking Association (ATA) a disruption of 24 to 48 hours means hospitals and nursing homes would run out of food. Fuel supplies at gas stations would also run out in that time frame. Garbage would start to pile up. Most grocery and retail stores would start to run out of food and merchandise. ATM and bank cash supplies would also run out.

The tight rope the corporate system walks quickly breaks when merchandise stops moving.

As an example, the ATA tells us this is what happens during a hurricane. Imagine what would happen with days or weeks of rioting in major cities.

In a hurricane situation, supplies that would normally last a few days, such as water, powdered milk, and canned meat, typically disappear within one day. Given these inventory rates, this means that perishable goods could be depleted in a matter of days and non-perishables in just a few days. Runs on food and non-food staples during hurricanes, and even before big winter storms, provide a good example of how fast some retail inventories can be depleted during panic buying. The same quick depletion of inventories could occur if trucks stopped making deliveries for any reason.

Panic buying means no food on the shelves. When people don’t have food at home and then the grocery store doesn’t have food, rioting will intensify. Things could get ugly in a hurry as one small disruption leads to a domino effect, after which Bedlam ensues.

So, it is best to be prepared with non-perishable items just in case things get out of hand. Have at least several weeks food supply on hand. But, how do you stop people from coming and taking your stash?

Be Armed

Contrary to gun propaganda from the media, you absolutely want to be armed in the event the election and its aftermath don’t pass peacefully. What happens when stores no longer have food and gas stations no longer have gas? Gangs form looking for homes that do have those items.

They’re going to pick out the weakest home in the neighborhood and pounce.

A home with guns is a safe home. Just as this YouTube video shows, armed thugs may bust into a house looking for money or food, but they started jumping through plate glass windows and scrambling like cockroaches once the homeowner came out with guns blazing.

Several handguns with extra ammunition are advised. Know how to use them. Be steady with the trigger. And don’t be afraid to use them if looters come to your house.

The police will NOT be there to protect you as they’ll have their hands full with the chaos.

Better To Be Safe Than Sorry

With the meltdown of America happening right before our very eyes, we are entering an unstable period in the nation’s history, to say the least. No matter who wins the election the nation we once knew and loved is passing away. Trump may be able to turn things around temporarily, but even if he does the country now has so many immigrants it will be impossible to assimilate them all.

We are entering a period in which America will resemble a third world country more and more. The demographics of the nation are being changed on purpose so white people are diminished at the ballot box and Democrats will gain a lock grip on the levers of power in the nation in the coming years. Divisions between rich and poor will grow, and the evil media will be there stirring the pot with racial, class, and gender division every step of the way. Peace will become a thing of the past as squabbling factions compete with each other for dominance.

In this transition from prosperity to despotism, it is best to be safe than sorry. The day after election day will be telling in that it will set the tone for the next four years. It may be a somewhat peaceful turn towards Communism if The Bitch wins, or it may not be.

But my money is on a steady degradation of civil society in the coming years. Tend your own garden, as I know I will be tending my own. My military friends are already discussing what will happen in SHTF scenario. You should be thinking about it, too.

Bob Smith #sexist returnofkings.com

9 Secrets About Female Nature Told By A Hot Girl Dying Of Cancer

Many years ago, I became friends with a very hot blonde in her early 30’s who was dying of cancer. Due to her impending death, she decided that it was okay to relay a vast amount of inside information to me, regarding what women were really all about. She volunteered this information. I have never forgotten what she told me, and it has served me quite well over the years.

Here is a summary of the ten things she told me about the true nature of women, which were related to me over the span of a couple of weeks, shortly before her passing:

1. Women are exactly like little children

We are constantly poking, prodding and testing a man, in order to find out what his boundaries are. If he has no boundaries, we will destroy him, especially if he loves us. A man has to have boundaries, and he has to outline them precisely, and he has to force us to adhere to them with the power of his conviction and the power of his action. If he doesn’t do that, we will beat him over the head with his weaknesses (his lack of boundaries) until he breaks.

2. Women put up a false front about virtually everything

Our faces are fake (makeup), our hair is fake (dyed), our boobs are fake (some of us), everything about us is fake. Most especially when it comes to what is inside of us. We lie constantly, because we are far worse, character-wise, than even our closest friends or lovers will ever know, and we desperately fight to keep all of that hidden.

We are looking for our true daddies, basically – the idealized daddies that we never had – somebody who can see through all of our false fronts and call us out on our bullshit and put us in our place. The problem is, those type of men are very few and far between.

3. If a woman ever tells you, “If we don’t have trust, we don’t have anything,” she is either cheating on you or planning to cheat on you

There are no exceptions to this rule. We use that as cover, to try and make the man feel guilty for questioning our fidelity. What we are really saying here, is, “I will fuck whomever I want and you’d better keep your nose out of it or I’ll cut you off from my pussy and I’ll ruin your freaking life if you keep pressing the issue.” If we really cared about you, and if we really weren’t cheating on you or planning to cheat on you, we would tell you something like, “I am not cheating on you, I love you, and I would never do that. I don’t care if we have to stay up all night, for the next week, and go over every single shred of doubt that’s currently troubling you about this. I have nothing to hide, I would never cheat on you, and I don’t want you thinking these things about me. Please tell me exactly why you think I am cheating, point by point, and I will do anything and everything that I have to do to prove to you that I’m not cheating, in order to ease your worried mind.”

4. Women are much hornier than men

Vastly, exponentially, hornier than men. A woman will do just about anything, sexually speaking, so long as she is fairly certain she won’t get caught. For example, we will occasionally go out of town in order to rendezvous with a man we’ve been longing to fuck, and/or to have multiple sex partners in the same evening, and/or at the same time.

This is something that hot women do, most especially. In our minds, it is a natural desire, and a natural thing, and so long as nobody else finds out, it’s “game on”. Women are receptacles for cock, that’s how we have been biologically designed. Nothing feels better to us than being completely filled up with multiple penises, than being the center of sexual attention, than being the object of unbridled group lust. Since it’s something we can’t risk doing on our home turf (don’t shit where you eat), we have to think outside the box, in order to get our boxes completely satisfied. And you might find this shocking, but many women – many, many women – have sex with dogs on a routine basis. This is just one example of how insatiable we truly are.

I can see why you might not believe it, to which I say, look really hard at all of the women you know who have dogs. Look at women who have dogs whenever you see them out on the street, in the act of walking those dogs. Or at the park. You will notice that most of them have male dogs – the vast majority, in fact. This isn’t a coincidence. And look at all the female teachers who are exposed in the media for having sex with underage students. We have no self-control when it comes to sex – or anything else, for that matter. To our way of thinking, losing control is what makes sex great. Doing anything that is taboo is what makes sex great.

5. Women do not have female friends—they have female competition

We lie to our so-called female friends and pretend we are loyal and faithful to them, just like we do with the men in our lives. Secretly, we are jealous of each other, and we want all of the desirable things that other women have—most especially when it comes to our female friends’ things.

And we consider men to be things. If one of our friends has a hot man, we want him to want us. We will do everything we can to seduce him. Not because we really want him—we don’t really want anybody. We do it because we are rarely happy, and we don’t want our girlfriends to be happy, either, and we want to boost our own egos more than anything else.

And after we get him to fuck us, when our girlfriends find out that he has had sex with us, that’s when we finally get what we wanted in the first place. If we break up the previously happy couple, that’s fine, too. It’s all about our pussy, not hers. It’s about winning.

6. Women always lie about the number of sexual partners they’ve had

They also lie about not wanting men with large penises. If we told the actual truth about the number of different men and women we’ve slept with, and if we told the actual truth about our fervent desire for big dicks, our pool of potential suitors would shrink drastically, to the point where it would completely dry up. So we lie. Most often, we will claim that we’ve had between three and eight sexual partners in our lifetime. And, to our way of thinking, it isn’t a lie, because if we had five sexual partners last Saturday evening, and our man asks us how many sexual partners we have had, and we answer, “Five”, well, technically, we aren’t lying.

7. All women dislike themselves

And because we dislike ourselves, we fervently hate any man who doesn’t see through our bullshit. The more a man loves us, the more we hate him. The more he overlooks our sins, and the more he fails to see how corrupt we are, and the more he gives us the benefit of every single doubt – the more we despise him. We will escalate our bad behavior until we finally break him and he wakes up and realizes how worthless we are and what a fool he has been for believing in us.

8. Women want what they can’t have

We want a man whom we can’t have. We want a man who honestly doesn’t give a fuck about us, who doesn’t care if we come or go. That’s the kind of man we will pursue. Call them bad boys or call them whatever you want, that’s the kind of man we want – period. The kind of guy who will make us orgasm, crudely, and give us a huge sexual thrill in the bedroom, and then discard us like used toilet paper, and fuck our female friends afterwards, just because he can. (Just like we would do with his male friends.)

9. All women are masochists

And all hot women are narcissistic masochists. We hate it when things are going well, especially if they continue to go well for long periods of time. We know down deep that we are fucked-up and not worthy of anything that is truly good. So when things are going well in a relationship, we eventually sabotage it. We just can’t help ourselves in this regard.

We could have the greatest, most handsome, most well-hung husband in the world—a one-of-a-kind man who makes all of our girlfriends jealous; we could have the greatest children in the world, who are beautiful, well-behaved and ambitious; we could have the most enviable career imaginable; we could have all of the money and prestige and the truly good things in life, and we could repeatedly tell ourselves over and over, and believe, on the surface, that we would never cheat on our husbands. But down deep we know that it’s a lie. Because one day, we could walk into a grocery store, and some bad boy could whisper just the right combination of words in our ear, and the next thing you know, we’re at the Motel 6 getting it in the ass. That’s just how we are, and any woman—especially a hot woman—who says otherwise, is a liar.

Over the years, my deceased friend’s words have proven to be spot-on, in the vast majority of cases. And if they ring true from your own personal experience as well, then I am more than happy that I shared them with you here today. I know that my deceased friend would be thrilled to know that I have shared this information with the manosphere. After all, she used to be a hottie, and she’s now dead, and by giving me the inside scoop on her female competition, she continues to beat them—she continues to “win”—even from beyond the grave.

Bob Smith #fundie returnofkings.com

10 Words And Phrases Girls Habitually Use That Prove They Are Mindless Robots

Have you ever noticed that most liberal Western women utilize the following 10 words and phrases as the mainstays of their vocabulary? They utter these words and phrases in the exact same ways, using the exact same vocal inflections:

1. Amazing

(Spoken as, uh-MAYYYYY-zing)

2. Oh my god

(Spoken as, OHHHHH my god or OH. MY. GOD.)

3. So good

(Spoken as, SOOOOO good, or SO. GOOD. – as in, “That chocolate dildo tasted – SO. GOOD. – right after I banged myself with it.”)

4. Thank you

(Spoken as, THANG-cue, or THANG-kuh yoooo-WUH)

5. Like

(Typically utilized in conjunction with the other four words above, such as in the following sentence, “OH. MY. GOD. – like, that orgasm was—SO. GOOD. It was uh-MAYYYYY-zing! THANG-cue.”)

6. Really

(Spoken as, REEEEE-lee, and typically utilized in conjunction with the other five words and phrases above, such as in the following sentence, “OH. MY. GOD. – like, that orgasm was—SO. GOOD. It REEEEE-lee was uh-MAYYYYY-zing! THANG-cue.”)

7. Right

(Spoken as, righ-EET?, and typically utilized in conjunction with the other six words and phrases above, such as in the following sentence, “OH. MY. GOD. – like, that orgasm was—SO. GOOD. It REEEEE-lee was uh-MAYYYYY-zing! Righ-EET? THANG-cue.”)

8. Cute

(Spoken as, CUE-wut, or KEE-ute, and utilized in conjunction with the other seven words and phrases above, such as in the following sentence, “OH. MY. GOD. You’re so CUE-wut. Like, that orgasm was—SO. GOOD. It REEEEE-lee was uh-MAYYYYY-zing! Righ-EET? THANG-cue.”)

(Thanks to ROK reader Andrew, who pointed out that I had forgotten to include No. 8 above, in my original list of words and phrases.)

9. Awesome

(Spoken as, AWE-sum, and utilized in conjunction with the other eight words and phrases above, such as in the following sentence, “OH. MY. GOD. You’re so CUE-wut. You’re so AWE-sum! Like, that orgasm was—SO. GOOD. It REEEEE-lee was uh-MAYYYYY-zing! Righ-EET? THANG-cue.”)

10. No

(Spoken as, NO-wuh, and typically utilized separately from the other nine words and phrases above; such as in the following, extremely common man/woman exchange – Man: “Did you get banged last night while you were supposedly visiting your sister, Sunshine?” Woman, pouting: “NO-wuh.”)

The 10 words and phrases above are often utilized whenever a woman is trying to deflect attention away from her sexual shenanigans. By strategically utilizing them at critical junctures, she maintains an innocent, teenage-girl vibe, while pretending to be really into you—above all other men.

This greatly appeals to your nurturing, protective side, not to mention your ego, and might allow her to distract you from the curious matter that exhibited itself only a few moments earlier.

She will often bust out the above words and phrases if she suddenly exhibits new physical skills that she didn’t used to possess, such as snapping a bath towel, or being able to play a brand-new type of card game, which are overt signs that she is a cheating slut who has picked up new tricks from some random dipstick she has been banging on the side.

These robotic, mindless, incessantly jabbering sluts are as common as crotch crickets and are literally everywhere, and you can quickly replace one with another, just by going down to the corner bar and telling some other vacuous broad that your great-uncle left you $10 million dollars which you will be collecting in 12 short weeks.

At which point, your newest bimbo-of-the-week will utter the same 10 words and phrases listed above, while simultaneously complimenting you on your good looks, your sense of style, your incredible scent, and your great sense of humor, shortly before whisking you off to her place.

Like, amazing!

Ryan Ashville #sexist returnofkings.com

How Anime Is Programming Men To Be Weak And Submissive

[...]

The first anime I chose from the list, was about a teenage girl named Misaki, who joined an all boys school which recently opened to girls. She works as a maid to support her family as her father had abandoned them.

The “Does Not Like Men” Female Protagonist

image
A female protagonist that openly hates men

Misaki never trusts her male counterparts, and beats them up if they tried something she didn’t approve of. The whole show is centered on how girls can be better than boys, where she terrorizes men, and how these men are portrayed as nothing but pervs, violent, thirsty mindless jerks.

Usui, the male character, after being yelled at for no reason, is strangely drawn to her, and so are the other boys of the school. This hyper misandric woman deemed ‘attractive’ in the eyes of both anime characters and the male fans. This show is targeted towards girls who call it “one of the most romantic anime”.

I was extremely disgusted and had to quit watching within 10 episodes. I couldn’t have a place in my mind to understand how men watch shows like this and enjoy it.

[...]

These shows are not only designed to destroy the male image and present it as inferior, but also to ruin their self confidence as human beings for being male. In dozens of anime, males are portrayed as either weak, or stupid, similar to how Daddy pig in the cartoon Peppa Pig is simply made to be laughed at, or how the main male cast of the Simpsons slowly degraded into ambition-less couch potatoes and the women becoming political figures.

Go-Girl-ism And Male Bashing
If you grew up watching TV in the 1990s, there is no way you escaped seeing at least a few episodes of Sailor Moon. It redefined the “magical girl” genre in its native Japan and its overseas influence has shown up in girl-power shows like The Powerpuff Girls and is the definition of a feminist anime. Haruka and Michiru, the series’ Sailor Uranus and Neptune, were a lesbian couple who helped girls around the world come to terms with their sexuality. The series also makes a point of commenting on how the less traditionally feminine girls have trouble coping with gender roles, like how Makoto learned to cook because she was teased for being a tomboy.

image
One of the most notable feminist anime works

The “girl power” concept is counter productive, but unfortunately it’s an inescapable void of entertainment, Charlies Angles, Steven Universe (where the male character is a boy who learns from women), Taylor Swift videos, etc. Australia’s national women’s soccer team the Matildas lose 7-0 to an under FIFTEENS boys’ side, we know that story.

[...]

Male disposability in anime was the right word I was looking for. Naruto has plenty of scenes where he is beaten up by women. Not to forget, where I thought Gintama would be free of male bashing, where Shimura Tae, a smiley woman constantly beats up a ‘hairy’ man – simply for asking her out.

Is this supposed to be comedy?

There’s plenty of hentai anime, like Girls Bravo for example, a blue haired boy who is mocked for being short by his female school mates, he is bullied to the point where he’s even ‘allergic’ to women. (Imagine an anime where a girl was treated like trash because she was fat). In one scene of the first episode, the boy accident walks into the bathroom where his female neighbour was taking a shower. She screams and throws a tantrum, she brutally beats him up, where his nose begins to bleed, until he falls into a tub, where he is eventually woken up in a planet where there are only women, however, since he was the only male on the planet, he is sexually harassed constantly through out the episodes and women molest him.

Dr Harry Longabaugh #sexist returnofkings.com

The Truth About Women In STEM

Over the weekend, I was treated to some truly hearty laughs when a group of computer programmers posted on GitHub the specifications of a feminist programming language. (It has since been removed and posted to bitbucket.) As a professional software developer and recreational critic of Social Justice Warriors, this article felt tailor-made to my interests. If either of those descriptions applies to you, feel free to check out the link above, it’s worth it.

“I wonder how long it would take an offended “feminist” to overreact to this article?” I thought. Turns out, not so long, as a feminist coder posted her response almost on cue, complete with “trigger warnings”, using the original post as 75% of her article content, the whole nine yards (check it out here).

Naturally, I was reminded about the infamous Adria Richards “Donglegate” incident, which has become somewhat legendary in the tech world, where a female employee of Sendgrid got two men fired because she overheard them making a joke about “dongles” in private at a conference. I couldn’t help but to think of Beavis and Butthead snickering and saying “huh huh, huh huh, she said dongles”. Crude? Maybe. Reason to lose employment? Absolutely not. And yet when “Donglegate” was all said and done, and Adria Richards got fired because sweet justice exists, the feminists and social justice warriors got the last laugh. For weeks, I saw Adria Richards on TV, playing the victim, distorting the story so hard that I was reminded of a famous Simpsons episode I saw on TV.

That was the Adria Richards coverage in a nutshell, and to someone who was not as invested in the story as I was (which is roughly 99% of people) it seems like another chapter in the long continuing narrative of “The evil ‘bro-grammer boys club of STEM fields that hates women and wants to make their life a living hell’”.

This narrative has always pissed me off because I can tell you firsthand that it is not true. In fact, in just about every aspect it has been the opposite. High schools, universities and employers try to fight so hard against the “boys club” stereotype that they end up giving women some rather unfair advantages. How do I know this? I graduated from one of the top science and engineering schools in the country.
College Years

When I was a college freshman in the Computer Science program, I immediately noticed that there were a lot more men than women. No biggie, people do what they like. I didn’t think much of it. It was widely accepted that computer science was one of the tougher majors in our university and students would routinely change majors when they started being overwhelmed by the incredibly demanding course load.

How demanding? During sophomore year my roommate and I pulled so many all-nighters that we inadvertently learned the rules of cricket (the cricket world championships were broadcast from halfway around the world, live, in the middle of the night, and it made for better background TV than infomercials.)

I first realized something was wrong when I got into trouble with the housing department of our school. My crime? Being a nerd hitting on the hottest girl in the dorms next to ours. Apparently, this was labelled as harassing behavior, and the only thing that saved me from being kicked out of on-campus housing was a friend of mine, who was an RA and member of some housing committees, vouching for me and promising everyone there that he would remedy the problem in private. Once again, I didn’t think much of it, we talked it out, and I was actually believing that what I did was wrong. But that’s a story for another time.

Some time later, I saw a student giving a tour to some high school kids, but then I noticed that the high schoolers were all girls, almost all of them wearing matching t-shirts. This was our state’s program to get more girls interested in science and math. Boy interested in science and math? You’re on your own there, buddy. The next year, it was touted as a success—many more girls enrolled in our schools science and math programs than they ever have. Except the numbers were still overwhelmingly male, I think the overall ratio moved by half a percent. I didn’t think much of it then.

As I progressed through my classes, I would see the same faces over and over again. By your senior year you will probably be in at least 1 group project, study group or circle with about 25% of your major by incoming class year. And while there were some brilliant, exceptionally bright and hard-working women, they were outnumbered by women who took the easiest duties in group projects and just coasted. How some of these girls ended up in Junior and Senior Level computer science classes at my school was a miracle. There were numerous instances where you would have to explain basic concepts to them. It blew my mind. And we encouraged them! We either took the harder group project roles because we did not want a bad grade, or we acted as complete supplicating chumps and ended up doing about 80% of these girls homework assignments thinking it would win us favors (it didn’t).

It’s not like the school had a shortage of resources to help them. Quite the opposite. There were several women’s organizations to help ensure the success of these ladies by helping them with tutoring, counseling, etc, for free. But these resources were often ignored in favor of the easy group projects and thirsty men.

There was a computer lab that stayed open all night. There were only 1-2 girls there pulling all-nighters at a time. But lots of dudes. Lots and lots of dudes. Because of the course load, people were dropping out left and right, but I can only recall one instance of a girl I knew dropping out, compared to the dozens of guys I knew.

And then came the job fairs. Because of my school’s prestige and reputation, many prominent companies and organizations recruited from our school. And you can guess what happened. All of the girls that coasted, all of the girls that cheated, “short cut” and gilded their way through college, ALL, without any exception, got job offers at these prestigious companies with those sweet high STEM salaries. I have known several guys that could not find work in their field while grinding hard for up to a year on the same exact prestigious degree. This was demoralizing. But, you know, male privilege.
More Examples.

“But maybe you’re just nitpicking and biased?” OK then, I will give you more examples from outside of my college career.

One of my friend’s girlfriend, on the surface, has a STEM career (computer software to be exact). If you google her name you will find several articles about her, talking about the challenges, hardships, and all the other bla bla bla that women face in computer science. The thing is, I am pretty sure this girl has never written a single line of code. And no, my friend is not dating Adria Richards. Companies are so desperate to employ and tout women, to be seen as that “progressive” company, that many create non-technical positions to fill that role, and then pat themselves on the back for it.

Another example: an ex-girlfriend, a hard science PhD, would routinely complain about the sexism at her job. As a caring and doting boyfriend, of course I took those things seriously, until I realized that the issues were not sexist – they were with her work. When you’re doing research-based academic work that kind of thing tends to happen. You are constantly under scrutiny, your bosses are people that haven’t been outside of academia for any parts of their lives, you get paid shit money, and it’s generally an unfriendly and unwelcoming environment. I realized this when I met more PhDs, male and female, from various fields. All of them had the same story. This girl mistook difficulty for sexism. Getting a PhD is so hard that there is a popular niche comic describing the rigors of professional academia (PhD Comics). Their humor won’t resonate with everyone, but every single PhD I know loves it.

So yes, STEM is indeed easier for women. Everyone wants then to succeed. Everyone needs them to succeed. No matter what the cost.

But you know who I respect the most? The grinders. The girls that work hard, the girls that learn, the girls that try to make a difference in the world on the same playing field as boys. Because, in reality, there is no sexism in science. In fact, there is no “-ism” in science. It’s a meritocracy, with knowledge and achievement as the main focus. And I can respect that.

This is exactly why the “bro” culture will persist. Science can not be held to the same politically correct standards as plain old office work. Because if I’m working with you at 4 am, fueled by pizza, mountain dew and cricket matches on TV, no matter who you are, man or woman, you’re gonna be my bro. Because that’s the only way anything will get done.

Kyle Trouble #fundie returnofkings.com

5 Ways Our Modern World Is A Pale Simulation Of The Past

Kyle is an entrepreneur and nomad who has been living abroad since 2016. He blogs at This Is Trouble. Follow him on Facebook.

When I was living in Kiev, Ukraine, I was spending a lot of time at business lunch. Essentially, it was a 3-5 course lunch time meal that restaurants in Kiev would do to entice people to come in and eat. Those 3-5 courses would usually cost about $3-$7 when it was all said in done. The most expensive restaurant in the city offered it for $6. Juice, bread, salad or soup, and a main course. It was a killer deal. My friends and I would go to one of these restaurants Monday through Friday, every day.

One of the major topics that always came up was the way that so many things in our modern world are simulated. Things that used to be typical in older times are now existent in our current culture, in a sort of fantasy. To me, there were five things that now exist in the world that basically simulate what people in the past used to do.

When we weren’t talking about how to handle Ukrainian women and the state of our dating lives, we had a lot of time to talk about life, how things have evolved in the last few years, and to bring these points into a more concise view of the world and how they have directly impacted modern day men. They deserve as much credit as I do for this post.

In short, these things all result in lower testosterone, depression, and a multitude of other symptoms that all can be traced back to what we’d consider to be the problems of modern society. These problems aren’t just pertinent to men, however.

1. Sports Replacing War

Gladiators used to fight in the Roman Coliseum for sport. These days, it’s simulated with things like football. “Violence and blood,” so to speak. Now, don’t get me wrong–if you’re active and participating in sports, it’s great. But it’s a substitute for literally going to war and killing off other tribes. Perhaps this is the one simulation on the list that isn’t a bad thing, on paper. Everybody should lead active and healthy lives. But then you look around and realize that many men are simply being spectators to sport.

Spending twelve hours on Sunday watching the NFL as a fan. It’s scary that the games kick off at 1pm EST and end at nearly midnight, if you watch the late game. Major League Baseball has 162 games in their season. I know that quite a few guys out there watch all 162 games of their respective teams.

It’s a simulation of replacing the long lost battles fought against other tribes. Instead, your “tribe” paints colors and logos on your face and goes to “war” with the other team’s fans. I don’t think you need to cut out sports (watching), and definitely don’t think they are 100% poison. Everybody needs a way to unplug once in a while. It’s not the worst vice you could have.

However, you must cut it down to manageable bits each week. Watch your favorite team’s football game. And when it’s done, it’s done. Don’t let it affect your mood for the rest of the week (or even day).

2. Porn, Dolls, and Virtual Reality, Replacing Sex

Everybody by now knows that porn is really, really bad for you. But people aren’t stopping their use of it.

Many men in Asian countries have all but thrown in the towel on having any sort of love life. They would rather use porn and blow-up dolls that simulate sex—pretty damn close to the real thing, I hear. Western men would rather stay home and jerk off to increasingly-disturbing levels of porn rather than travel abroad to remote places to meet Serbian women or Colombian girls. Hell, with the advancement of technology, blow-up dolls may be far more skilled at giving head than real girls in the not-so-distant future. Looking at the doll in the photo above is scary. You can tell she’s fake if you look closely, but from afar, I could be fooled.

With men, it’s all about the end release when it comes to sex. Women use porn (or at least say they do) at a less drastic rate. They also don’t seem to have quite the addiction to it. That’s because for women, the sex is all about the journey through it. It doesn’t matter if they have an orgasm. When you can simulate sex and still get the end release, it’s an effective simulation as opposed to the real thing—which isn’t that hard to get.

3. Pets Replacing Children

Dogs are a man’s best friend, but the way some people treat their pets is utterly pathetic. In a world where people are repeatedly being told now to have children (or to put it off in the case of women), they are finding other way’s to simulate raising children.

The entire biological point of our existence is to pass on our genetics. And yet people are being told that they really shouldn’t. Instead, they get dogs that fit into purses. And the sad part is that then those people become so reliant on the dogs that it’s the humans that need the dogs just so they can muster the courage to get on an airplane.

It’s disturbingly easy to get an emotional support animal these days.

4. Video Games Replacing Achievement

I’ve suffered from video game addiction myself. It’s a real thing. And I know exactly what achievement porn is. Video games suck you in now and don’t let you out. As men, we do work to achieve stuff. We get good feelings and a sense of accomplishment from it.

Video games take it up a level by adding fantasy to those achievements. Even though you’re pouring hours and hours into something pointless, you feel good because it’s accomplishment. It’s a false sense of working hard. The sad thing is, if you took those ten hours playing video games (a day) for achievement porn, and spent just three of them on building a business–you’d have a hell of a lot to show.

5. Food Replacing Pleasure

Food is a way to numb the pain for a lot of people. It’s a distraction from the day to day life of the office grind. You could throw alcohol into this discussion, too.

People are so disconnected from each other on a personal level, that’s it’s more comfortable to eat food instead of confiding in your friends and peers. Combine this with the sedentary lifestyle of the 9-5 grind, television (see #1), and it’s a recipe for disaster. It all goes full circle.

You’re now addicted and dependent on food for numbing pain. You have a “tribe” which just makes you sit on the couch more and more. You have a pet that replaces offspring, and a doll that replaces a lover.

That’s the life of simulation. And the worst thing? Most will never even realize what they’re doing. It’s time to wake up.

Eric Crowley #sexist returnofkings.com

WHY PATRIARCHY IS THE GREATEST SOCIAL SYSTEM EVER CREATED

In the feminist creation myth, patriarchy is original sin. It is the Lucifer from which all evils flow. Without patriarchy, we would all live in a genderless role-less feminist garden of Eden.

However, just as the name Lucifer actually means light-bringer, patriarchy is actually an enlightening influence which has brought humanity out of the mud into civilization. Feminism only exists in the shadow of the massive abundance produced by patriarchy. Patriarchy is not the enemy. Patriarchy is the greatest social system ever created.

soarfrank

The Myth of Patriarchy
Feminists ascribe all social ills to patriarchy. Like a medieval inquisitor looking for evidence of the devil, patriarchy’s influence is supposedly all around us – our media, our schools, and even our most intimate relationships. Patriarchy is responsible for domestic violence, lost promotions, mean comments on twitter – even women’s own feeling about themselves.

Anyone who doesn’t subscribe to feminist dogma is believed to be possessed by the influence of patriarchy and in need of exorcism by an ordained Priest of the Cathedral of gender studies theory. They are forced to renounce their views, or face excommunication from the public sphere. In more honest times, the dominant religion simply called freethinkers “heretics” and burned them at the stake.

Origins Of Patriarchy
In reality, there is nothing so mysterious about patriarchy. Patriarchy is a division of social roles based in natural biological gender differences.

Males and females have very obvious self-evident biological differences. Women can have babies. Men cannot. Women’s bodies are designed for nurturing, with wombs, breasts, and hormonal cycles. During pregnancy, women are unable to physically exert themselves. Men’s bodies are designed for physical exertion, and as a whole, physically stronger.

Imagine you are part of a small tribe in a survival situation. Conquest, war, famine, death – any of the four horsemen could strike at any moment. How would you divide social roles?

As Jack Donovan states in The Way of Men:

Because your group is struggling to survive, every choice matters. If you give the wrong person the wrong job, that person could die, you could die, another person could die, or you could all die. Because of the differences between the sexes, the best person for jobs that involve exploring, hunting, fighting, building, or defending is usually going to be male. This is not some arbitrary cultural prejudice; it is the kind of vital strategic determination you need to keep your group alive.

frank_frazetta_tarzanandtheantmen-smaller

In other words, traditional roles are the basis of our survival as a species.

The Sacrifice Of Men
In patriarchy, men sacrifice their energy, their time, and sometimes even their lives for the betterment of women and children, and women give themselves to nurturing children and families.

Feminists define patriarchy as a system of dominance, in which men oppress women. This redefines men’s sacrifice as an act of control, rather than love. Many men are perfectly happy to have sex with women without offering any protection or value to the woman or her resulting children. It is an act of love that men willingly give up their freedom in order to provide for women, and their young.

Patriarchy is about love. It is about the love of human beings in families, tribes, and small communities working interdependently for the benefit of one another.

Feminism Was Created By Capitalism
Feminism in it’s modern form began in the last hundred years, when industrialization moved our economic survival from requiring hard labor to requiring skilled labor. Work used to require hours of physical lifting, now it requires sitting at a desk. This transition made it possible for even the weakest women to work.

Employees are much easier to manage as interchangeable cogs than as gendered individuals with unique needs. In fact, convincing women to work doubles the size of the work force, allowing employers to half everyone’s wages. It’s simple supply and demand. As the book Revolution From Above chronicles, early feminist movements – even Marxist feminists – were bankrolled by major capitalists in order to increase the workforce and lower wages.

CapitalismAndTheExploitationOfWomen

Feminism is a product of capitalism. The “you can have it all” message is an attempt by corporations to swindle women out of their biological needs. If you’re a feminist, you’re a capitalist, because you’ve make work a greater priority than community, children, or love.

In families, each member is irreplaceable, but in a company everyone is replaceable. In patriarchy, women toiled for one man who loved her and the children he gave her. In capitalism, women work for many men completely indifferent to her and willing to disposes of her the moment cheaper labor appears.

Feminism Commodifies Relationships
In patriarchy, selfish relationship impulses were restrained. In capitalism, they are encouraged. Each member of a tribe of community works for the benefit of those around him, but in capitalism men and women are independent agents, with no loyalty or duty to anyone else.

Roles that were traditionally played by family are now outsourced. Group homes for the elderly, day care for the children. Even mentors and friends can be bought in the form of therapists and life coaches.

This system destroys intimate relationships. It selfishly benefits a woman to bear the children of strong lone alpha’s rather than the man providing for her. It selfishly benefits a man to impregnate every available fertile woman with no intention of further contact. Alpha fucks, beta bucks.

Feminism has created a war between the sexes with each side trying to maximize their profits in the sexual marketplace while spending as little as possible. We’re all little atomized corporations united only by the laws of bio-mechanics.

steinberg_war-of-the-roses

Men Have Lost Reason To Work
This new dynamic has freed men from work. In his new book Bachelor Pad Economics, Aaron Clarey advocates a minimalist approach to money – buy only what your need and using your time for your benefit rather than a corporation’s. This approach is already being taken as men drop out of the system, earn less than women, and avoid higher eduction.

The reason men worked hard was to provide for their families. Men didn’t work long hours out of self-interest. They did so out of love. Most men can subsist on very little. It’s been said that civilization was created to impress the opposite gender. Without reward, there is no reason to work. No carrot, no jump.

As a society, we’ve reached a point where technology has eliminated the need for everyone to work. Just as capitalism freed women from their natural role, it’s freed men from theirs. Masculinity has been reduced to a fashion statement.

Return To The Natural Order
While we understand that animals exists in natural groups – a herd, a flock, a pack – we forget that man is an animal too. Man’s natural group is the tribe. Humans are mammals. We learn through relationships, rather than instinct.

Ajna-Nursing-Acorn-Community-Virginia-2006-650x486

Children require love, attachment, and stability that can only be found in emotional bonds with present adults. They are not interchangeable cogs. You can’t buy a mother’s love or a father’s wisdom. Love cannot be outsourced. Authentic love is only possible within patriarchal community.

To a company, non-working children are a nuisance. The epidemic of single motherhood, plummeting birthrates, and mental illness is due to the rejection of traditional roles. If society wants healthy happy children and loving stable communities, it must embrace the lost values of patriarchy.

In the early tribes, humans were entirely dependent on one another. Now they are independent and unsatisfied. Returning to traditional roles means living interdependently, and align with the natural order not because we have to, but because we choose to. We could exist alone, but we are fulfilled together.

Of course, feminists will call this oppressive. They want you to be free – free from community, free from belonging, free from love. A mass of apes fighting over the highest value mate behind a gilded cage.

ffleft

Back to the mud, or back to the kitchen, the choice is yours.

Michael Majalahti #fundie returnofkings.com

The Inglorious Death Of The West

Michael is arguably the most acclaimed and accomplished pro wrestler in history out of Northern Europe, as well as the pro wrestling pioneer of Finland, where he has lived since 1996 after moving from his homeland of Canada. Michael is known as an outspoken figure that bucks the system and swims against the tide. Known in pro wrestling circles as “The Rebel” StarBuck, Michael has been a champion the world over, in addition to being a rock vocalist in three bands, a personal trainer, a voice-over pro, a business owner, an actor, an artist and a husband.

We have obviously come to the end of the West and Western civilization as we know it. No longer does it take a sociological “expert” or someone with a university degree to argue the point. Now it’s apparent all across the board. Our Western culture, whatever that even is anymore, is fastly disappearing and dying. And we’re letting it happen without even putting up a fight. This, I argue, will be to our own deserved demise.

We need to take a cold, hard look at what has led the West down the road of cultural ruin. After all, we’re only getting what we’ve ordered not too long ago.

Nietzsche the Prophet

I steadfastly argue that the single greatest factor that has led the west into the shitstorm it is now faced with is the abolishment of God and its resignation from all things even remotely Christian. Simply, we became inconvenienced with and ashamed of God and His statues regarding how we ought to orchestrate our lives. Even after the founding fathers of the West chose God-fearing, Biblical statutes to orient the ethical direction of the free world, we chose to balk at the freedoms and blessings afforded us under its banner and umbrella. Excuse my bluntness, but what the fuck?

What the hell was the big problem to begin with, that our Western society had to get rid of God and become so secular? Was it the allure of all things dark, forbidden, and sinful, much like the tempting apple in the Garden of Eden? Or was it just rotten, base human nature that tends to fuck up everything it’s given unless its spiritual self wakes up and enlightens the individual to better living? Or perhaps it was it the sins of the Catholic Church at large throughout world history, with its Crusades and and Inquisitions?

Any reasonable, sane person would understand that just because there is a killer loose in Disneyland, it doesn’t imply that the fault lies with Mickey Mouse. Anyone with even the slightest amount of intellect should be able to discern the obvious difference between what is faith and what is religion: one is a belief system that ordains personal decisions and and conduct of life at large, the other is a social construct of political yoke that serves to bind its members to its bylaws, rules and regulations.

Then again, the same applies to any secret society, alma matter, or club at large. So let’s get real for a moment and ask the hard, central question: what was wrong with the statues and morals of the God of Christianity, that we, as the West at large, decided to dump Him and move out from under His protective hand, as it were?

I suddenly recall a report that came out about the public school system in Canada back 1988, after the government decided to pull the Lord’s Prayer from schools in Ontario, where I spent the majority of my youth. What followed was a plummeting of school grades across the board, funny as that may seem. Don’t try to connect the dots, only consider the consequences at face value. The bottom line is, something happened in conjunction with this paradigm shift, and it wasn’t for anyone’s betterment.

Friedrich Nietzsche was right with his “death of God” analogy back in the day. We decided to kill God off from our lives and our society – societies that were largely built on Biblical principles and safeguards to ensure the posterity and safety of its people – and we left the door open for a horde of diverse and tumultuous demons to come in. We made our collective bed, in which we now lay. And the wages of sin is death. How fucking inconvenient for us!

The Fallacy of Relative Morality

There’s really no use or sense in complaining. It was a completely willful and conscious decision by us as a people and a collective society. God didn’t fit into our big picture and so we discarded the nagging voice of right and truth. We wanted our very own, custom-tailored, relative morality. We wanted to all be special snowflakes who would have their personalized cake and eat it, too. And in our deliberately blind gluttony, heresy, hedonism and salaciousness, we laid the groundwork for the inescapable law of reaping as we’d sown. Hey, don’t be fooled!

God is not mocked, and neither is the still, small voice of common sense and conscience within each and every one of us.When the dam broke, we were too ignorant to fix it. We let the landslide advance, unabated. The West let in the aggressive demands and doctrines of the east, the doctrines of which were adverse and foreign to the West to begin with.

The healthy not only tolerated but sought to accommodate the complaints and wishes of the perverse. The waters became muddied, unassimilable, and undrinkable. We were like spectators at the Colosseum, watching our own, unethical passion play unfold before our eyes, amused and sedated by it all at the same time. Things went from bad to worse and we just clamored for more fun, frills, and entertainment to fill our empty heads and void lives. Anything to dull the unnerving voice and moment of truth that kept beckoning to each and every one of us.

We didn’t protect our borders, our customs, our beliefs or our values, because we didn’t respect what we had. Someone else built the house which we inhabited; it wasn’t any skin off our own backs. We had no more sense of collective self, of tribe, clan or us. It became every dog for themselves. Me, me, me and even more me. Not you, not us. Just more of what’s in it for me, for my own, personal benefit, entertainment and pleasure. We took it all for granted, and now it’s being taken away from us.

With the death of God, we adopted new gods, albeit lesser gods at that. Mock gods like those offered at the altar of television, a conduit that taught us to believe whatever was fed through it; the media, who we believed all too eagerly at face value, without enough critical sense to question absolutely everything and ask the crucial and central question: “In whose interest is this message being sold to us?”

Popular music and its altar of indoctrination that has been admittedly so stealthy and shrewd, that even I, as a musical artist for nearly 20 years, can only marvel at its potency in conditioning the behaviors and attitudes of its audience.

Only as you age and grow as a person do you begin to see more clearly, but only if you steer clear of the mass sedation being force-fed all around you. That said, these new faux gods—and many others like the aforementioned—have filled the spiritual vacuum left behind by the absence of light that took immediate effect following the death of God, as foreseen by the accidental prophet, Nietzsche.

The Wages of Sin

In hindsight, we, as the West, have raped, spit on, shamed and insulted the Christian values that our lands were built on. We’ve become so goddamned secular, so boastful in our arrogant pride, that we’ve been ignorant of replacing the dismissed guards of our ethics and societal self with new, virtuous guardians of any kind. We’ve simply let ourselves drift, happily clueless, on our sea of indulgence and hedonistic pleasure. No one saw the hordes in waiting, and now it’s too late.

In our weakened state of constant self-gratification, we, as the West, have become weak. We’ve become milksops: easily offended and readily yielding, fragile individuals who hide behind the cloak of Big Brother. How the prolific words of Benjamin Franklin ring loudly now: “Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” Indeed.

Even what’s left of our weakened, watered-down Christianity has become a feminized, ineffective, dead symbol of religious ritualism and ineffective, empty clamor. Gone are the strong men of old, the spirit of the founding fathers. Gone is the bravado, the chest held high with its breastplate of uprightness, the strong and unmoving fortitude that was ready and able to wield the sword of truth and brandish the shield of faith. Woe to us, for gone is the faith that was steadfast, the powerful beliefs that steered the moral uprightness of entire societies. We’ve got it coming to us, folks. In spades.

Summa Summarum

We need that old time Christian warrior mentality now more than ever. Our lands need it. Our people need it. The West needs it. Because the West will not survive without a return to its Christian roots. The secular mindset will not accommodate laws to protect the West, for were it able to provide that, it would have offered them up already. The proof is in the pudding, we’ve already seen the degeneration and decline of morality and societal spine under the banner of secularism.

No religion, no bullshit. Just rock solid Christian values and respect for the freedoms afforded by the vastly gracious nature of Christian and Biblical beliefs. The proof is in our past, if you need further evidence.What have you got to lose? Only the last, scarce remnants of your personal freedoms that are all being stripped away, falling through your fingers, if you choose to remain embedded in secular indoctrination. And if that be your choice, good riddance.

albouski #sexist returnofkings.com

Last year, I decided to stay over at an old friend’s apartment, who had been my roommate back in college. A couple of weeks of residing there, every time I moved in and out of his room, my old buddy would be watching anime on his laptop. His door had a poster of his favorite anime, ‘Sword Art Online’.

He wasn’t an otaku or a dumb weeb, rather to simply put it, it was his pass time or a hobby, to relax from the stress that men face in the modern day world. I remember watching anime as a kid, and I admit, I enjoyed it—

But not anymore.

When he watched anime, he stared at the screen with fascination, as if he was a scientist waiting for the rocket to land on the moon. I was curious, so I asked him to recommend me some anime that he enjoyed. This is where I realized the ugly, misandric nature of anime that teens are exposed to.

The first anime I chose from the list, was about a teenage girl named Misaki, who joined an all boys school which recently opened to girls. She works as a maid to support her family as her father had abandoned them.

...

The “Does Not Like Men” Female Protagonist

Misaki never trusts her male counterparts, and beats them up if they tried something she didn’t approve of. The whole show is centered on how girls can be better than boys, where she terrorizes men, and how these men are portrayed as nothing but pervs, violent, thirsty mindless jerks.

Usui, the male character, after being yelled at for no reason, is strangely drawn to her, and so are the other boys of the school. This hyper misandric woman deemed ‘attractive’ in the eyes of both anime characters and the male fans. This show is targeted towards girls who call it “one of the most romantic anime”.

I was extremely disgusted and had to quit watching within 10 episodes. I couldn’t have a place in my mind to understand how men watch shows like this and enjoy it.

...

This is a common formula used by anime and manga creators to depict a strong independent woman who doesn’t need a man. Female superiority is rising within anime, and young may become some of those ‘nice guys’ who get used by women.

The common genre for anime girls called “tsundere“, which refers to a stubborn woman who is abusive to the man she likes, is very popular, shows like Sword Art Online, Bleach, Toradora, DBZ, etc. I could name a hundred more, but that would mean I would include almost every anime. And not just any people are influenced, but the most desperate men across the world. Men who have never had any luck with women are always attempting to fulfill a woman’s most dangerous desires just to keep her.

These shows are not only designed to destroy the male image and present it as inferior, but also to ruin their self confidence as human beings for being male. In dozens of anime, males are portrayed as either weak, or stupid, similar to how Daddy pig in the cartoon Peppa Pig is simply made to be laughed at, or how the main male cast of the Simpsons slowly degraded into ambition-less couch potatoes and the women becoming political figures.

...

Go-Girl-ism And Male Bashing

If you grew up watching TV in the 1990s, there is no way you escaped seeing at least a few episodes of Sailor Moon. It redefined the “magical girl” genre in its native Japan and its overseas influence has shown up in girl-power shows like The Powerpuff Girls and is the definition of a feminist anime. Haruka and Michiru, the series’ Sailor Uranus and Neptune, were a lesbian couple who helped girls around the world come to terms with their sexuality. The series also makes a point of commenting on how the less traditionally feminine girls have trouble coping with gender roles, like how Makoto learned to cook because she was teased for being a tomboy.

...

The “girl power” concept is counter productive, but unfortunately it’s an inescapable void of entertainment, Charlies Angles, Steven Universe (where the male character is a boy who learns from women), Taylor Swift videos, etc. Australia’s national women’s soccer team the Matildas lose 7-0 to an under FIFTEENS boys’ side, we know that story.

I decided to look up on the internet for further research. Apparently many men have the same opinion. As I’ve read on an MGTOW (anti-feminist, red pill) site:

" “—my friend’s been watching this anime called great teacher onizuka and it makes me fucking cringe. The women in that anime do terrible things to the main character. for instance, there’s a girl who lures him into a laundry mat promising sexual favors, but instead, she takes off her clothes, takes his shirt, puts in on, tears it up a bit, and makes him wear all these kinky things only to scream and call for the police claiming sexual assault. The teacher eventually just acts like it wasn’t a big deal. Also, there’s an episode where a female student of his runs into a building she knows is going to be bombed because she wanted to save a fucking piano.

“—today i witnessed something really disgusting in that anime. The students are on a field trip to a tropical island and one of the boys is kidnapped by three other female students. He’s a small, submissive type so he doesn’t fight back. They tie him up and blind fold him before leading him deep into the jungle. Basically, the leader of the three females wanted to leave him there to die because she hated how much of a loser/crybaby he is. She expressed disdain for how he just listened to whatever people told him to do (sounds familiar). Eventually, the girls realize they’re lost and start blaming the boy for everything. They tell him to man up and get them out of the situation and when he starts to take authority by telling them to remain calm— “"

...

Male disposability in anime was the right word I was looking for. Naruto has plenty of scenes where he is beaten up by women. Not to forget, where I thought Gintama would be free of male bashing, where Shimura Tae, a smiley woman constantly beats up a ‘hairy’ man – simply for asking her out.

Is this supposed to be comedy?

There’s plenty of hentai anime, like Girls Bravo for example, a blue haired boy who is mocked for being short by his female school mates, he is bullied to the point where he’s even ‘allergic’ to women. (Imagine an anime where a girl was treated like trash because she was fat). In one scene of the first episode, the boy accident walks into the bathroom where his female neighbour was taking a shower. She screams and throws a tantrum, she brutally beats him up, where his nose begins to bleed, until he falls into a tub, where he is eventually woken up in a planet where there are only women, however, since he was the only male on the planet, he is sexually harassed constantly through out the episodes and women molest him.

Being an Hentai (porn/pervert/sexual) anime, aimed for men, abusing boys seems to be normalized. In most households of Japan, women control all the finances. I wonder if Japanese men get domestically violated by women the same way as in anime.

Low Birth Rates In Japan

...

Feminization of men is also an issue, perhaps the decline in population is simply because of this hidden feminism in Japan. In Btoom!, a hunger games styled anime, Himiko always carries a stun gun whenever she goes because she is afraid of being touched by men. Her fear of men stems her past experiences with men who attempted to rape her. Her trauma is so severe that she announces to Ryota that every man on the island is her enemy. On two separate occasions when she is about to lose to a man, who is usually attempting to sexually assault her, she was willing to kill herself along with the enemy using a bomb. Almost every man in the anime attempts to assault her. The male protagonist of the story is a ‘wussy’ who simply allows her to treat him with distaste (yet another stereotypical main male character in anime).

While I was on my final anime, which I watched for research, Mirai Nikki, the female character Yuno will resort to cruel and usually violent methods, most of the time coming out of nowhere, that generally end in bloody deaths of anyone who tries to get in the path of the boy she likes, even if they are his close relatives, effectively making her a “Yandere“. The young girl seems to be having the “othello syndrome”, a type of delusional jealousy, marked by suspecting a faithful partner of infidelity, with accompanying jealousy, attempts at monitoring and control, and even violence. Many men often suffer when their wives who are extremely jealous, where as this “yandere” genre is particular that of a girl who stalks her lover, keeps him away from everyone he loves simply because she wants him as her property.

...

I also stumbled upon an incomplete game, about a playable Yandere girl, which had many references to Mirai Nikki, on starting the game I had a picture on what it was about. Your character is simply an emotionless teenage girl who harbors feelings for a guy who doesn’t even know she exists. Your mission is to stalk him, and try to eliminate “rivals”, so that she has him for herself. By eliminate meaning, to kill. The game would even include your crush’s sister, who has a chance of being a rival. (Think of a scenario where a boy would be stalking a girl, taking her belongings, sniffing or licking them to gain arousal, where he tries to keep her friends away from her, there would be a different response)

In the basement of the game, one would come across tape recording, when played, it reveals that your character’s mother (I assume) murdered everyone close to her crush, and tied him down onto a chair, forcing him to give in to her requests.

...

Recently, I was informed that the developing team had added a tsundere character and a pedophile teacher into the game, who would seduce him perhaps, I don’t feel the need to talk anymore about it.

A pedophilic female teacher who preys on a teenage boy’s sexuality. There’s plenty of harem (a anime with one guy and many female characters) where he is eventually mistreated by his female counterparts. Even many of Hayao Miyazaki’s films are centered on young “strong empowered” girls. When asked about it, he said:

"“When we compare a man in action and a girl in action, I feel girls are more gallant. If a boy is walking with a long stride, I don’t think anything particular, but if a girl is walking gallantly, I feel ‘that’s cool’. Maybe that’s because I’m a man, and women may think it’s cool when they see a young man striding. At first, I thought ‘this is no longer the era of men‘.But after ten years, I grew tired of saying that. I just say ‘cause I like women’. They are more reality.”"

All these point out why there are sites entirely dedicated to feminism in anime.

Yesterday, I decided to get in touch with my friend, to ask him about his life and job. He’s a stereotypical “nice guy” who remains friend zoned. He lets women pinch his cheeks and push him, when he just laughs it off. If a woman does something unfair to him, he simply sweeps it under the rug.

“I’m not interested in dating currently” he said when I asked him if he had a girlfriend. Either anime had terrorized him to protecting his virginity, or he’s simply happy being treated like a loser in a tsundere anime by his female co-workers, just like the great teacher Onizuka.

Andrew Levinson #fundie returnofkings.com

Christians in general, and Catholics in particular, are portrayed as puritanical and anti-sex. This raises a question: if Catholics hate sex so much, then why did they historically tend to have so many children? As recently as 100 years ago, child rearing was considered the proper object of marriage and sex. The blue pill script – go to college, get a good salaried job, marry young and for life, have two or three kids – retains its staying power because it used to be sound advice. The manosphere exists in part because it is sound advice no longer.

Pope Paul VI, who reigned from 1963 to 1978, was in many ways a weak and vacillating man. His predecessor, Pope John XXIII, described then Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini as, “our Hamlet,” always indecisive to the last. In an uncharacteristically bold move, he published the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae in 1968 that reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s opposition to all forms of artificial contraception.

At this point, many RoK readers may be thinking, “I’m sure this is terribly interesting to you Levinson, but I’m not a Catholic and the pill and the condom have been great for my sex life. Why should I care about this?” You should care because Paul VI called it: the easy availability of contraceptives paved the way for no-fault divorce, unleashed hypergamy, and sodomite “marriage.”

Marriage Then

Most of us take atomistic individualism for granted, in contrast to the ancient understanding of man as the political animal. “Who are you to say what two consenting adults can and cannot do in private?” is taken to be an unanswerable rejoinder to traditional understandings of sex and marriage. Sex seldom remains a purely private affair, especially in the era of social media. Among other things, sex can lead to love, marriage, hate, murder, children, disease, happy homes, broken homes, social cohesion and social disintegration.

As Pope Paul described it:

"Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness."

In other words, marriage was once considered a more public institution than it is today, not through legislation but through social convention. Young men were incentivized to make themselves good husband material if they wanted sex and children. Young women were encouraged to remain chaste and marry young. Divorce was unthinkable for our great-grandparents. Then, as now, women were much more ruthless about slut shaming than men.

Above all, marriage was ordered toward children:

"Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents’ welfare."

Marriage Now

In paragraph 17, Pope Paul predicts the consequences of the contraceptive mentality:

"Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law [emphasis mine – AL], and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection."

Players and sluts ye shall always have with you, but the world now incentivizes us to be this way. Men must constantly perform or else their unhaaaappy wives will blow up the marriage for cash and prizes. That is, if men choose to marry at all. Fewer do, and in all honesty, I can hardly blame them. Why should they? If they want sex, they can find plenty of willing ladies provided they have even a modicum of game, and they won’t have to risk losing their homes, their jobs, their children, and their sanity in the divorce grinder.

Women too have grown to devalue men. Would the carousel exist to the extent that it does if it weren’t for the pill? If they can have consequence-free sex, then they will pursue the apex alphas and ditch the frustrated betas who were the good husbands and providers of yesteryear. Women are more exquisitely sensitive to social pressure than men, and the social cues that existed in our great-grandparents day aren’t there anymore.

The key here is that artificial contraception radically separated marriage and sex from child rearing. Marriage used to be a recognized public institution that carried with it certain legal and social obligations to which the couple was expected to conform. If children are removed from the occasion, then marriage becomes all about romantic feelings.

Fuzzy Feels Are Optional

If marriage is nothing but a public declaration of romantic feelings, then two consequences follow: if the feelings go away, that’s a legitimate reason to end the marriage; and if sodomites have romantic feelings for each other, then what reason do we have to exclude them from marriage?

Traditionally, Christianity has taught that if you burn with lust, you should marry. The specific woman you married was a question of prudence like choosing a career or a new house. Nowhere did the Church say that God had created “the one” or your soulmate. Unfortunately, this thinking has infiltrated all Christian churches today with disastrous consequences.

Jesus Christ famously prohibited divorce in the Gospels but many Christian churches have creative methods for getting around that. In theory, the Catholic Church has stood strong alone among all Christians. Strictly speaking, she does not recognize divorce but she makes “declarations of nullity,” which means a couple never formed a sacramental marriage at the time of their wedding vows. The American Catholic Church in particular has been handing out annulments like candy for fifty years, so it’s understandable why outsiders think of them as Catholic divorces.

The Basis Of Civilization

The building block of civilized society is not the individual but the family. The great evil of our time is that our progressive overlords actively undermine the family at every turn. My tradcon friends vacillate between believing game is either a placebo or a set of irresistible Jedi mind tricks cads use to deflower innocent virgins. The media wonders why young men refuse to grow up, man up, and marry those sluts. I say the men of today are responding rationally to the incentives of a world gone mad.

Be honest gentlemen: if Marriage 1.0 were still the rule instead of the exception, how many of you would happily marry? The contraceptive regime radically disrupted the natural formation of families. Sex became an end in itself. From that conviction came the scourge of pornography. The logical conclusion is the development of sex bots. And an elderly, celibate Italian bishop saw it all coming more clearly than all of the experts.

Ryan Ashville #sexist returnofkings.com

From comics, movies, anime, gaming, and now the more recent kids shows, feminists will use any kind of tactic to promote their evil. Stories like Rapunzel or The Sleeping Beauty have been a part of our childhood, teaching us about gender roles and the importance of them. Now they have been changed in various ways to suit modern women, giving them unrealistic expectations of what they can be. Here are nine characters that show how they have infiltrated entertainment.

Steven Universe

The show deals with an entire species that is genderless but has feminine traits (female human forms), Steven is a male protagonist that is not masculine in a lot of ways. Rather than being the strong fighter type, he acts through femininity despite being male. He cries for help from women rather than helping himself. The show contains trans, queer and homosexual characters which is typical for a show like this. They have women of different sizes and has quite a dark story line for a show aimed for children. Cartoon Network is now giving a way for brainwashing, glorifying obese women and unhealthy diets.

They even place the emphasis on disguised leftist concepts like:

Tolerance – Praising of everything non-white, non-male and non-heterosexual
Minority – non-whites, non-male and degenerates
Inclusiveness – Accepting everything non-white and degenerate
Emancipation – Disregarding rules made by conservative males

But despite all these teachings, SJWs bullied a Steven Universe artist to attempt suicide because she drew Rose (an obese female character) too thin. Hypocritical? Yes. It certainly has one of the most cancerous fanbases, consisting of bronies and white knights.

Wonder Woman

Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don’t want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women’s strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.”

– William Moulton Marston, in a 1943 issue of The American Scholar.

Comics publisher Max Gaines asked him to create a new superhero for their comics, to fill the void he felt existed with something new. The creator knew that he wanted his hero to embrace love over violence, and to value peace over war. He assumed that women value love and peace. He valued independent, educated, and unconventional women.

Wonder Woman remains a feminist icon 75 years after her creation, because she symbolizes the idea of female domination. According to NY Post, Wonder Woman was not ‘feminist’ enough for Social Justice Warriors, because SJWs and feminists are never happy with anything in society until white men are silenced. Most wonder woman comics were terrible, but the media keeps pushing it on readers that they HAVE to give in.

BatGirl

Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon is allegedly a woke male feminist ally. He’s a mangina allegedly known for directing “strong female characters”. His characters are unrealistic as women simply can never be tough. He cares about fake women’s issues like the pay gap and the alleged success of lady Ghostbusters. Joss is directing Batgirl, the story about a super heroine who is basically Batman but a woman. Currently he’s facing back-lash on Twitter, but in smaller amounts due to more and more people accepting these kind of reboots.

Overwatch

This game is tainted by women who blame their problems on men. Basically, every character in Overwatch has different victory pose animations that a player can unlock and choose from. And for the time-traveling character Tracer (one of the female characters in the game), her victory pose gives players a wonderful view of her buttocks, clad in skin-tight leggings. Obviously, if men are enjoying something there must be feminist intervention, so Blizzard changed her appearance and stated:

We’ll replace the pose. We want *everyone* to feel strong and heroic in our community. The last thing we want to do is make someone feel uncomfortable, under-appreciated or misrepresented. Apologies and we’ll continue to try to do better.

Women expose themselves to men in conventions, and when they are assaulted they complain that “men should respect women,” even when their own clothes were designed to attract men. But when a character in a video game wears skimpy clothing, there is an outright backlash against it. Overwatch is even taking strides to be LGBT inclusive. This marks the end of straight white man in entertainment.

Wandering Son

Wandering Son follows two fifth graders who do not identify with the genders they were assigned at birth. Shuichi Nitori identifies as a girl, and Yoshino Takatsuki identifies as a boy. This series marks the end of an era, modern anime has come to suit feminist tastes. The rest is pretty self explanatory.

Splash

The 80s film, starring Tom Hanks and Daryl Hannah, is set for a reboot with Channing Tatum starring as the “merman”. The original Splash was about a man, Allen Bauer (Hanks), who falls in love with the mermaid (Daryl Hannah) who rescued him when he was a boy. Their relationship is hampered somewhat by the fact that the mermaid (who later names herself Madison) has to return to the sea after just a few short days, and also by the deranged scientist determined to prove that merpeople are real by throwing water at her.

Since the announcement, many feminists have been celebrating the gender swap on social media – particularly Tatum’s casting as a merman as some kind of feminist victory— but why? Because of the casting of a white, straight male in a role that was originally held by a woman. Hollywood’s content has become more man-hating than ever before. Seeing men in feminine roles is a way of brainwashing men to be submissive and less masculine.

Gender swapping is fast becoming a fail-safe way for Hollywood to shut up anyone who kicks off about equality without actually having to write anything new: Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmatians, Ghostbusters. All these films have either been made or are in the works and all of them have some kind of “feminist twist”. I’ve seen these gender bends in anime too, although no one seems to notice because anime gender bending is normalized.

Undertale

Your character is non-ambiguous (genderless) and non-white, which one could assume it is Asian or Mexican. They never refer to you as “him” or “her”. Despite having a small amount of characters, it managed to include homosexual relationships and a transgender robot. There are more homosexual couples than their opposite counterparts, and both the prominent female characters break out of gender roles. Undyne being the best fighter in the underground, another unrealistic feminist expectation that women can be better than men.

Do you see where “progressiveness” in gaming is really heading? Because the game pushes “progressive propaganda”. One of the major themes of the game that people have been gloating about is the notion that gay relationships are wonderful and perfect, straight relationships are doomed, diversity is strength, promoting inter-species romantic relationships, and it’s primarily because of this thematic content that the game gets praised. That is why Tumblr is spamming the votes, and the media is circle-jerking over the game. Nearing the end of the game I dawned upon the similarities of this game and Steven Universe. There’s nothing particularly special about the game except for discreetly lecturing you about homosexuality and political correctness.

Sailor Moon

It redefined the “magical girl” genre in its native Japan and its overseas influence has shown up in girl-power shows like The Powerpuff Girls and is the definition of a feminist anime. Haruka and Michiru, the series’ Sailor Uranus and Neptune, were a lesbian couple who helped girls around the world come to terms with their sexuality (lesbian propaganda). The series also makes a point of looking down on femininity, by showing how the less feminine girls have trouble coping with gender roles, like how Makoto learned to cook because she was teased for being a tomboy.
Though, I somewhat find it astonishing that the creator of the site anime feminist doesn’t care about “fanservice”, which is short softcore porn scenes, it occured to me because they know about the female supremacy in anime.

Life Is Strange

The creators of the game met with resistance to make the protagonist female. It’s a story about a girl named Max who learns that she can time travel. Life is Strange are some of the few games that are telling women’s untold stories in ways that make it seem as if women have it harder.

It’s simply a game made to exaggerate and show how cruel men can be to women (almost every man in the game is either a loser or a woman beating trash). It attempts to lecture you and say things like “these men need to be in check” whenever it finds the chance to. This game was published by SQUARE ENIX who also published Tomb Raider. Why is it that those people who push equality so much then decide to make a game where it’s about the girl, never around the male?

Conclusion

Modern entertainment is becoming more about social justice than hardware, software, story, gameplay, or animation, while we get to endure feminists complain about everything they don’t like, ruining entertainments we were once able to enjoy.

Eusebius Erasmus #fundie returnofkings.com

How To Become A Catholic Priest

I know what you’re thinking: “How can a man be celibate for the rest of his life?” I will gladly address that glaring concern, but first, hear me out.

The Church needs masculine leaders. Far too many priests are weak, cuckolded, beta men (and a few are child abusers). This is in stark contrast to the Church’s historical martyrs, like St. Jean de Brébeuf, who withstood harsh winters, month-long canoe trips, and gruelling torture, to spread the Gospel in Canada. Masculinity reflects Jesus Christ’s own human nature, as well as God the Father’s patriarchal attributes.

The question of celibacy is important: we men are wired to spread our seed. This issue can be addressed in two ways. First, after you have sowed your wild oats, and had your fill of hedonistic game, then you can join the priesthood; fornication does not yield lasting fulfillment, after all, and marriage is a rigged lottery. Indeed, the skills you learn by practicing game will be useful for the Church.

Second, consider joining an Eastern Catholic Church, which permits ordination after marriage – the downside of this is that you may need to be fluent in Ukrainian, Greek, Arabic, or some other language. In this article, however, I restrict my attention to the Church of Rome.

There are general requirements: you must be Roman Catholic, unmarried, and male. The Church often pays for your training, after which you attain a bachelor’s degree in theology or philosophy. Eventually, you are ordained a priest, taking solemn vows. This gives you the power, through Christ, to perform the sacraments: baptism, confirmation, reconciliation, marriage, and anointing the sick. After this, your Bishop or Superior may decide that you require further education, sending you to get a master’s degree or PhD.

You must decide whether to become a Diocesan priest, or to join a religious order. In the former case, you need only make vows of chastity and obedience – thus a Diocesan (secular) priest can own property and start a business. However, you are generally restricted to a single geographic area, making it difficult to move.

Religious orders, on the other hand, may require you to also pledge poverty, meaning you cannot own property, aside from simple personal items like a toothbrush. The upside is that you live in a community of likeminded men, and can travel or have other careers: teaching, research, medicine, etc. Each order has its own spirituality, and it is worth discerning this before you commit.

There are, perhaps, hundreds of religious orders to choose from. In what follows, I provide a summary of a few notable ones.

The Jesuits

Founded in 1540 by former soldier St. Ignatius of Loyola, the Society of Jesus is the most popular Catholic order. In addition to vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, Jesuits make a special vow of obedience to the Pope. Historically, the Jesuits were an important part of the Counter-Reformation and Vatican II.

The heart of the order is Ignatian spirituality, which requires you to “Find God in all things.” Ignatius, a military man, realized the importance of drills, and therefore composed a series of spiritual exercises for Jesuit men to follow. These exercises are performed in a 30-day silent retreat.

Jesuits have a reputation for liberal theology and politics, but there have been conservative Jesuits, like Cardinal Dulles. The order does not permit monasticism, since it requires Jesuits to be active in the community.

Franciscans

‘Franciscan’ is not an order as such, since it encompasses several orders, such as the Friars Minor, Saint Clare, etc. However, these orders all adhere to Franciscan spirituality.

St. Francis of Assisi, after whom this spirituality is named, was a medieval Italian friar who was a hippy, living in the wilderness, preaching to birds, and conversing with flowers. During the Fifth Crusade, he tried to convert a Muslim Sultan of Egypt, without success. Franciscans carry on St. Francis’s spirit, finding harmony in Nature, wearing a friar’s habit, and ministering to the community.

Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter

The Fraternalitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri (FSSP) is a traditionalist order, which grew from a rift between members of the Society of Saint Pius X. The order harkens to a pre-1964 Catholic Church, emphasizing the traditional Roman rite, in which all masses are said in Latin.

I have attended the ancient Tridentine Mass, and it is absolutely beautiful and sensuous, arresting your nose with incense, your ears with melodic Latin hymns, and your eyes with simple elegance. Needless to say, the men who work in this order are traditionalist and conservative in outlook. They are also fairly young, the average age being 37.

Conclusion

The Catholic Church is one of the few powerful institutions, in our modern world, that stand for Western values, and against degeneracy. It needs masculine leadership to ensure that it remains the rock upon which Jesus and St. Peter founded it. Prayerfully consider joining the priesthood, and improving the Church from within.

Relampago Furioso #fundie returnofkings.com

A man with a functioning libido is public enemy number one in the increasingly bizarre United States of America, a debased nation that liberalism is destroying. Putting tampons in men’s restrooms is just fine, creating 600 genders out of thin air when every other species gets by with two genders is fine, but a rich and powerful man talking about having sexual desire for women and making accurate comments about how women let alpha males do whatever they want has caused the castrati in the media to call into session an impromptu kangaroo court of persecution. Trump is also being given the Julius Caesar treatment by his own party.

The same feminist nation that bought 80 million copies of Fifty Shades of Grey, a book women got hot and bothered reading that features far worse language and actions than the secret recording of Trump, is suddenly aghast when a real life billionaire is revealed to have been talking about trying to fuck some chick and making moves on women. Tepid comments have been enough to cause a stir in the Cucklican establishment, in which anything but gelded deference towards women is verboten. A recording of Trump made my a lowlife media jackal named Billy Bush caught him making the following thought crime comments:

"Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything. When you’re a star, they let you do it— You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait."

Any man with two functioning testicles and any level of experience with women knows Trump is exactly right. Women turn into instant sluts around rich and powerful men. Hypergamy is the most powerful force in the universe. They absolutely “let you do it.”

Trump is also being called a sexist for making these comments about Nancy O’Dell.

"I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and fuck her. She was married. And I moved on her very heavily. I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look."

Why is this even an issue when it’s a recording of a supposedly private conversation? Do the sycophants in the media think Slick Willy talked any differently when he was discussing the women he was diddling when he was the governor of Arkansas and later the President? Or when he was flying down to a pedophile’s private island?

Even though Hillary’s obvious pathological lying, criminality and health issues have been swept under the rug, a man displaying a modicum of testosterone was enough to send the 2016 campaign into a frenzy, and the media into overdrive conducting one of their infamous witch hunts against those not in the Marxist/globalist claven.

They did not seem to be bothered by, and even glorified Fifty Shades of Grey, however, a book featuring explicit erotic scenes of dominance and submission, bondage and discipline and BDSM conducted by a sadistic billionaire. The irony, as usual, is completely lost on vapid mediaites.

Davis M.J. Aurini #fundie returnofkings.com

(about what Donald Trump said in the 2005 video)

The milk sops who are attacking Trump over this comment are criticizing his lack of politeness—the meek language we adopt whenever we find ourselves in mixed company. If his statements had been made in public they might have had a point—a frank conversation about bowel movements belongs in the doctor’s office, not at the dinner table, and telling a woman you barely know that you’d like to “grab her pussy” is the sort of social maladjustment that suggests a temperamental problem—but this was nothing more than a small clip of a long conversation, all of which happened behind closed doors, and exclusively amongst other men. Nobody present was offended—Bush’s own replies affirmed and agreed with Trump’s—and any man who denies having had a similar conversation is a bald faced liar.

Yes, the conversation was rude, but rude is not immoral; the behaviour that married couples get up to in the marital bed is also rude, and yet St Paul commands married couples to do it well, and to do it often. If you walked into a confessional and told the priest that you wanted to kiss pretty girls, he’d give you five Hail Marys for wasting his time, and even a nun like Mother Angelica can enjoy a bit of rude humor: after reading a Galatians 15:21 on her television show, she joked, “—drunkenness, orgies, and other things—oh my; I’m curious about what these other things might be!”

What sort of world is this where we expect Donald Trump to be better behaved than a Catholic nun? And what sort of hypocrites make up the Republican establishment, if this off-hand remark offends them? Do the indiscretions of the Democrats in general, and the Clintons in particular, even warrant a mention at this point? Or can we simply state that we’re living in a world of puritanical hypocrites, who promote the most depraved and debauched culture seen on this planet since the fall of Rome, but who are more than happy to scream “Pervert!” at their enemy because he once patted his wife’s derriere while boarding a plane?

Michael Sebastian #fundie returnofkings.com

How “Being Nice” Creates Serious Problems For Men

As I’ve watched the US and European nations destroy themselves through idiotic policies, I’ve often wondered how we got into this predicament. After much thought, I am convinced that most of our ills are attributable the drive to be “nice.” Here are some examples of how niceness is destroying us.

Being nice poisons our relations with women

Being a nice guy is the kiss of death if you want to get and keep a woman. This may sound odd because every woman, when asked, says that she wants a nice guy. In truth, women despise nice guys. What they really want is a strong man—a man who will lead them. But it is impossible to lead while always being nice.

Niceness is what leads men to beta orbit women on social media and in real life. The manosphere has been out here for years but I still see men posting comments like, “You look really beautiful,” to mediocre-looking women on Instagram. What do these men gain from commenting on an attention-whoring photo? What do you think the chances are that the woman who posts these pics will choose to date one of the 50 thirsty men who commented on her photo?

Being nice is even more of a liability in marriage and long-term relationships. It may be nice to ignore your mission to please your spouse, but it will repel her over the long haul. This is because niceness is inherently beta and women do not want beta males. I know two cases of men who had their wives cheat on them. In each case, there was nothing that the man did wrong. Neither man cheated on his wife, gambled away the family fortune, or developed a heroin addiction. They were both outstanding providers and fathers.

Their only fault was they were too nice. Their marriages could’ve have been saved if they had been more willing to unapologetically take the lead in the relationship.

Niceness in religion

Christian teaching has been deeply affected by the “will to niceness.” I recently read a discussion on Twitter between three theology students, one male and two females, at the Dallas Theological Seminary. DTS was once a conservative Evangelical seminary. Now it seems it has succumbed to therapy culture. The discussion consisted of the man challenging feminist talking points, but then conceding the argument to the women because he was told that he ultimately “could never understand being a woman.”

Sacrificing truth at the altar of niceness is not just something done by Protestants. In the past 50 years the Catholic Church has also de-emphasized its more difficult moral doctrines in the hope that it would become more welcoming. It has gotten so bad that some are teaching that having nice manners necessitates that the Church drop certain moral teachings altogether.

Of course, niceness in religion has the exact opposite of its intended effect. Rather than removing impediments to faith, it waters down that faith to the point where it is so insipid that there is no reason to even bother.

Being nice is destroying the West

Pretty much everything that ails Western countries is the result of someone’s stupid attempt to be nice to one group or another. Girl power was built on the premise that girls might feel bad about themselves and that is why they chose not to go into disciplines that are dominated by men. Gay marriage is the law of the land because we bought into idea that the homosexual men were sad that they could not enter into lifetime monogamous commitments.

When a few Social Justice Warriors complain about Confederate statues (most blacks don’t seem to care), conservatives quickly agree to take them down because they value being popular more than sticking to their principles. Europe and the US’s immigration policy is similarly driven by niceness. These nations are willing to sacrifice the lives of their citizens rather that make people who live in Islamic countries feel bad.

In reality, it is not possible to govern a country without offending someone. Trying to do so can only lead to foolish decisions.

Being good is not the same as being nice

Don’t be afraid to embrace your inner asshole.

You can’t go through life being nice to everyone. Sometimes you gotta say fuck it.

— Ed Latimore (@EdLatimore) August 23, 2017

One of the most common misconceptions of being nice is that it is the same as being good. This misconception even affects many otherwise red-pilled men. The truth is that being nice is often the exact opposite of being good.

The reason for this is that the compulsion to be nice springs from an inordinate desire to be popular and loved. The conservatives at National Review capitulate on every major cultural issue because they want to remain members of progressive society. Christian leaders who water down doctrine do it because they have a greater desire for the acclaim of the crowd than they do the salvation of souls. And beta orbiters on social media prefer to get a “like” from an internet thot to improving themselves.

By contrast, being good means you will sometimes have to assume unpopular positions. This is especially true on modern society where good and evil have been completed inverted. If you share the same political opinions your grandfather held, you will be branded as a fire breathing racist. You may lose your job because of it. If you want to restore the patriarchy, you will be shunned as a troglodyte.

Although there is a cost to being good, it is important to remember that history is never made by “nice” men, but by those who dare to hold lofty ideals even when it goes against popular opinion.

Conclusion

We must wage a holy war against “being nice.” But this holy war is not targeted at any external enemy but at the “nice guy” who lives inside each of us. You must oppose him every time he wants to beta orbit a girl online or in real life. Slay him when he urges you to put your woman before your mission. Crush him if he suggests that you should tone down your political or moral views to avoid offending others. At all times choose to do what is right and good, not what is nice.

This is a battle that lasts a lifetime. We were all programmed to be nice guys. Getting over that programming is not easy, but the rewards are worth it: you’ll will experience true freedom when you end the tyranny of nice.

Roosh Valizadeh #fundie returnofkings.com

Hillary will be far worse than Obama

Obama was the “race” president, and look how badly he has damaged race relations in only eight years. Hillary will be the “gender” president. The future we have in store should be absolutely clear to you if she happens to defeat Trump.

Not only will she move to establish a techno-matriarchy where men are second-class citizens to any female, but she will ensure that no movement or organization will be able to challenge her or her establishment cronies ever again. This isn’t a trivial matter of getting banned from a web site like Twitter or Youtube—many of you will be forced to escape the country for no other reason than you happening to be a man who found himself on the wrong side of the establishment.

Many men say that Trump is controlled opposition. The evidence to that has been wholly uncompelling based on the genuine establishment attacks he’s received, but even if he’s lying about all of his policies, including building a wall, the one guarantee we can make about him is that he won’t attack men. There’s absolutely nothing in his candidacy or behavior in the past 40 years of his life that suggests it.

If Trump happens to win and does attack us, I will proudly wear egg on my face, with the depressing realization that our last hope for some semblance of normality has been destroyed and the dark age will be brutal for us all.

A vote for Trump is a vote for self-preservation

My vote for Trump is based on self-preservation for myself, my brothers, and all the men who support me. If Trump wins, I’m confident that we will be able to exercise our free speech without unfair persecution and not be wrongly tried in courts for masculine behaviors. If he does only a scrap of what he promises, we’ll be able to pursue our constitutionally given freedoms without fear of destitution, imprisonment, or worse.

I predict that a masculine renaissance will occur upon his victory, where men can once again focus on their own individual goals with Trump as a patriarchal role model. I would devote more of my energy to helping men successfully pair bond with women, like I started my writing career with, instead of having to play political defense as masculinity becomes retroactively classified as hate speech.

But if Hillary wins, we’re doomed. I’m not saying this out of emotion but out of careful consideration of the globalist master plan and the increased speed of their advancement in the past ten years. What you saw against us in February is just a warm-up of what will come to hundreds of individuals and organizations on the right, all while the justice system pushes genuinely insane laws that force all men to prove they are not rapists after their sexual encounters. I do not look forward to how my life will be like if Hillary does win, or having to wake up every day to see if the “big” attack has started against us or not.

I therefore urge all American readers of mine to vote for Donald Trump on November 8, 2016. While I am skeptical of some of his promises, and wonder if America is too far gone to make it great again, Donald Trump must win so that the pause button can be pushed against this nightmare of insanity that is already crushing men. He will allow us to regain our footing after being forced to watch in disbelief at all the negative changes that have been recently forced upon us. Let us all breathe a sigh of relief if he wins, and pray to God for safety if he doesn’t.

Roosh Valizadeh #racist returnofkings.com

In the past couple of years I began to wonder about the fact that Jews are firmly in the middle of leftist movements centered around socialism, communism, and feminism. The Culture Of Critique by Kevin MacDonald answered why they are so heavily invested in leftist causes and how they have damaged traditional Christian ideals by treating America as a cultural laboratory to further their own group interests above those of gentiles (non-Jews).

Up to recently, Jews did not have a homeland, meaning they had—and still have—to live in countries where they’re minorities. Therefore they would historically favor societies that were open, multicultural, pro-immigration, and left-leaning so that they would not be persecuted by the host nation or be barred from attaining higher social and economic status.

"Jews benefit from open, individualistic societies in which barriers to upward mobility are removed, in which people are viewed as individuals rather than as members of groups, in which intellectual discourse is not prescribed by institutions like the Catholic Church that are not dominated by Jews, and in which mechanisms of altruistic punishment may be exploited to divide the European majority."

To accomplish such a society, Jewish intellectuals moved mountains to promote human equality and the idea of racial equality (the inventor of the word ‘racist’ was Russian Jewish communist Leon Trotsky, born Lev Bronshtein). While pushing the notion of equality, Jews were hyper-aware of their own unique race and would exclude themselves from many of the prescriptions they offered to their host cultures. They made sure to help their “tribe” before all others.

Below are the main arguments and highlights of The Culture Of Critique:

“Race is a myth”

Famed Jewish anthropologist Franz Boas was instrumental in pushing the idea of nurture and culture over that of nature. We now speak of “cultural” effects upon nations instead of more genetically determined factors like race.

[...]

Freudian psychoanalysis as a gentile subversive movement

The book proposes that Sigmund Freud, a Jew, pushed psychoanalysis to break down traditional pair bonding in gentiles.

[...]

Promotion of cosmopolitanism, individualism, and decadent lifestyles

A race to degeneracy hurts Jews less than gentiles because they still retain guiding ingroup values. Gentiles are left in the cultural winds that Jews help create.

[...]

Crypto-Judaism

Jews went through great efforts to conceal the predominately Jewish nature of their intellectual movements by having token gentiles be controlled spokespersons for their groups.

[...]

Their disproportionate participation in communism, Marxism, and socialism

[...]

A lot of red pill truth is concerned with dismantling myths that have been institutionalized by intellectual Jews over the past century. Not being able to highlight race or gender differences matches with the Jewish imperative because doing so will inevitably lead to “anti-Semitism” when differences between Jews and gentiles are pointed out concerning each group’s propensity for ambition, intelligence, ethnocentrism, identity, and socioeconomic class status. The Culture Of Critique explains where significant parts of our current cultural problems came from, connecting a lot of dots I had missing about why our culture got to where it is. The bulk of what I criticize about Western culture was in fact ushered in by intellectual Jewish movements.

Before opening this book, I wondered if it would turn me into a neo-Nazi, but instead it served as a historical truth bomb that has made me skeptical of the ideas, behavioral actions, and teachings of prominent Jews and where their true intentions and loyalties lie (i.e. if an American Jew would die for America before Israel). I’m also having trouble getting my head around the fact that such a small group would embark on a massive reconstruction of reality and ideological manipulations on the world’s people just to protect their group—and succeed. I feel both outrage and admiration at the same time.

Ironically, my parents were allowed to emigrate to the United States in part because of intense Jewish lobbying to loosen immigration laws. I probably wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for their efforts in creating a multicultural America. The neomasculine ideals that I believe are correct, and the traditions that I would want to bring back, would have likely prevented me from coming into existence and becoming an American citizen.

That said, when I witness the cultural destruction today and how it negatively affects my male peers, I feel not anger for what has transpired in the past but a deep focus on actions I can take in the present to preserve secular masculinity for men who don’t want to turn into a effete male who prays at the alter of a matriarchal power structure.

The Culture Of Critique is thoroughly cited, but the author often went on long tangents that veered away from his main arguments. It reads likes a textbook and does repeat itself often, but the author is patient in making sure you understand the gravity of the information he’s presenting. If you’re interested in how our culture got to this point in time, I highly recommend the book.

Harry Lime #sexist returnofkings.com

3 THINGS I LEARNED FROM DATING A LATINA FOR ONE YEAR


In keeping with Kyle Trouble’s recent post, this article will look at three key observations I’ve gathered from dating a Latina for over a year. Prior to this relationship, I never seriously dated any Latin American women and only heard secondhand what this breed of dames were like—in and outside the bedroom.

With a year of experience under my belt, I really haven’t looked back to the emotionless, tired, bland and masculinized (feminist translation: strong, independent) pool of women that lurch limply around my city, Toronto, like zombified worker bees. After you go Latina, there is really no need to look back.

As Toronto is virtually ground zero for non-feminine women, I was very fortunate to meet and hook up with a real lady here—one who embraces her femininity, believes in God, and cherishes traditional family values (naturally, she wasn’t raised in Toronto, but El Salvador). While those three qualities of Latinas were discussed in this ROK article, there are some other things I’ve learned from dating a Latina that, like with Mr. Trouble, have modified my overall views of male-female relationships.

1. It’s okay to put her on a pedestal—if she’s earned it

Only if Sofia’s earned it—
Rightfully, red-pill men believe that putting a girl on a pedestal is a bad decision and will eventually lead to her taking advantage of this freebie chivalry. This is certainly true with Western women because, despite their feminist facade, deep-down they know they are not behaving in a way that deserves male courtly love. In a progressive society, all things being equality™, women see themselves as men after given the ability to game the system by manipulating their other half’s chivalrous impulses that have been warped and suppressed by our anti-male culture.

In turn, red-pill men have rejected the pedestal and regard it as a man’s willingness to be exploited by Western women. This essentially boils down to the idea if women don’t act like women, why should we treat them like women? But Latinas do act like women and actually view the pedestal as a very masculine gesture. It shows that you care—that you respect and appreciate their feminine gifts.

However, the pedestal is not to be hoisted up indiscriminately. Latinas are not perfect and can lapse into bad female habits (lateness, attention-seeking behaviour, jealousy traps, annoying shit tests), at which point you drop the pedestal immediately and hold frame. Latinas are very intuitive creatures and will detect your display of discipline and self-respect. Once she realizes your pedestal is conditional, this will only strengthen the relationship and ensure you both cherish each other according to your own masculine/feminine principles.

2. They reject feminism, value motherhood

Motherhood first is the Latina mantra.
Let’s put it this way: there have been times when I, a writer at Return of Kings, have to cool down my Latina girlfriend after she powers through an anti-feminist rant. She endorses my standing at ROK and I constantly catch her reading articles on the site and snickering in response by saying “this is sooooo true.” Regularly, she comes home from her job, slams down her bags, and bickers, “I honestly don’t know how men survive here.” (The answer: they don’t, they just leave).

After my Latina girlfriend took up her 9-5 corporate gig, she now comes home, crashes to the bed with exhaustion, and admits that this job makes her want to become a mother even more. She sees all the sour women around her, riddled with penis envy and bitchy attitudes, and fears the prospect of becoming “that”. She rues the degenerateness of a gender neutral-equal society where non-traditional lifestyles are celebrated over nuclear families.

Further, when I audited one of Jordan Peterson’s lectures, she insisted on attending with me. When we heard the University of Toronto professor explain in-person what women can do about receiving better pay, she went out and bought a book on how to become a better negotiator.

The rare thing about Latinas is they are sort of, almost a little— accountable. While wild in the sack, they are not promiscuous if held in check by a strong, protective man. They are truly independent, as they value themselves but also understand the role of a man in their life and admit that there are times when they want and need a man—her novio.

3. They have a healthy “daddy complex”

Latinas tend to have strong, alpha, masculine fathers — which informs their expectations of men.
It’s true that all women view men as a reflection of their father (or lack of one). A weak or absent father generally produces a woman with poor expectations of men. A strong or involved father generally produces a woman with high expectations of men. For the latter, she dates up the dominance hierarchy and expects her man to treat her with the same level of reverence and love given by papi.

In turn, you are expected to fulfill your role as the alpha male, be a provider, and make decisions on your and her behalf. You must lead unapologetically. Latinas love men who stand by what they say, even if that stance enrages them. With a Latina: YOU MUST ALWAYS HOLD FRAME. They can be firecrackers—real vixens—but that passion is just them testing their man’s boundaries—to see if he can take them and if he really cares about the relationship.

Since Latinas tend to hold their fathers in very high regard, they hold their men to that same standard. In turn, you will find you grow as a man because you constantly have to stay sharp, firm, and honorable if you want to keep her. In return, you will have her committed loyalty.

Dating a Latina is built on a productive exchange of your most masculine virtues in return for hers. It is a rewards-based arrangement that brings out the best in your manhood—because that is what the relationship demands of you for it to last. While there are always exceptions to the rule, there is a good reason why Latinas are in such high demand in Toronto for men. They are part of a dying breed of strong, genuinely feminine group of women.

André du Pôle #fundie returnofkings.com

And here is the major fault line. The leftists deny or value—they often go from the former to the latter—the replacement of native European population, the aggressive and tribalistic stance of “minority groups” towards the silent majority, the forced inclusion of individuals into sick identity politics games, the perpetual hostility and institutionalized prejudice against whites and males— Either the leftists utterly deny what we are aware of, for example when they say that whites are not under replacement, or they demonize it as a remnant of some “privilege” or “prejudice.”

All their talk about “oppressed minorities” dissimulates the very real disenfranchisement of the white majority, of non-white meritorious and integrated Westerners, and serves to deny us from our rights to public empathy, to dignity, or to even basically survive in a world of our own. They work on language and representations because their job consists in manipulating these, thus brainwashing us into seeing the world through their lenses and denying the legitimacy of any other vision.

The importance of shared awareness explains why we united on the Internet. A lot of us were closet nationalists years ago, and still are. We could not, and often still cannot, be nationalists in public, or we would have been excluded from normal social life by the local leftists and cowards. Leftist hegemony was and is still real in the mainstream. You know hegemony when you see it and spend countless hours thinking about how you can thrive even when living under it.

In the mid-2000, I found out about the information website [i]Fdesouche[/i] (“Native French”) quote. By the standards of today, this news aggregator seems hardly interesting: it mostly collates pieces written by others. But then, it was fantastic. Here I could recognize what I already felt about the world—that something was wrong with all these non-whites thugs holding the streets and getting lavish promotion when they bragged about it. It was all concentrated before my eyes, and others were talking about what they went through daily as well. At least, others felt and saw the same as I did! I was not crazy, not bound to a life of unauthenticity or forlorn solitude among the almighty left. We were assembling. And we were on the Internet.

As most of us found ourselves under attack from non-native Frenchmen, and knowing intuitively that identity goes deeper than the fleeting winds today called culture, we often despised immigration in general. But eventually things changed, thanks to Alain Soral, mostly, who emphasized how racial struggle was leading to sterile battles among disenfranchised people while letting the truly powerful off the hook. Mathias Cardet, a black journalist who worked with Soral, showed how gangsta-rap culture was injected and nurtured among non-whites by powerful interests.

After all, one can be black or Arab and wanting to live in peace as a free individual, not as an identity politics pawn who spends his life attacking another social category.

Being pro-white, pro-masculinity and pro-tradition does not require being white: I often felt closer from Muslims with good intentions, i.e. Muslims who were genuine believers and not rancorous people using Islam as a mask for anti-white tribalism, than from white liberals. The Muslims would not share my blood, but they would share some of my awareness and yearning for Tradition, two things that white liberals eagerly reject.

The Internet is immaterial. It is, basically, a network where information flows. Awareness, and the will to spread it, are immaterial as well. This is why we could meet and act on the Internet. After all, the Alt Right and manosphere have been sharing ideas, media contents, memes, advises—and only later proceeded to meetups, panicking the totalitarian liberals in the process.

Trump’s victory is a major one. Regardless of what The Donald will actually do, it is an event of considerable historical magnitude. But it is only the beginning—make no mistake about that. The libtards’ establishment still holds loads of money, of institutions, of cultural territory. It has started to crumble and leak, yet it is still there.

Major battles are waiting ahead. We have to further our awareness, make thorough research on every aspect of leftism, and develop more proper cultural references.

Always remember the libtards never cared one second about us. They would have let us die off, alone, poor, childless, traumatized and demonized, had we not chosen to follow the path of the red pill.

America is a first-tier power, but it is still a battlefield among others. Wherever we are, it is time to thicken our mutual relationships and cooperate more closely. It is a battle, not between nationals and foreigners, but between workers and parasites, between those who feel the void and wrongness in the rotten core of postmodernity and those who dwell in the last liberal trend, between the realists who want freedom and responsibility in a healthy world of values and cultures against those who ravel in blue pill, media bullshit, complacency, parasitism and cucking for the empire of nothing.

We are the future. It doesn’t matter where we are. We are those with true awareness, those with genuine and healthy values, those who struggled to hone their abilities, and most importantly those who actually deserve to inherit the Western world. So, save it and conquer it, country after country, institution after institution, outlet after outlet—or there will be nothing left.

Steve McMahon #fundie returnofkings.com

Women Should Not Be Allowed To Vote

At the dawn of the 20th century, Britain had the greatest empire the world had ever seen. It stretched from the boreal vastness of Canada to the ice floes of the South Pole, from the scorching deserts of Egypt to the steamy jungles of New Guinea.

In 1900, British king Edward VII ruled over a quarter of the world’s population. His navy was the largest, most modern, and most ruthlessly efficient fighting force on the planet. His was the empire on which the sun never set, the undisputed global leader in science, technology, and commerce.

BEgoods

And then, in 1918, the British Parliament made a historic mistake. It gave women the vote. In 1920 the United States followed. Women’s suffrage rapidly spread around the world. Nearly 100 years later, how’s that working out for us?

Men were free in 1900
A man in Britain or the United States was free to say what he liked, subject only to the ancient laws on slander, treason, and incitement to crime. Men were the heads of their households, and they commanded respect as fathers and husbands. The majority paid no income tax. You were free to start a business without having to fend off legions of government busybodies. There was no welfare state, the only people who expected to live off their fellow men were beggars and drunks.

Western civilisation was unashamedly patriarchal and capitalist. Masculine virtues had propelled Europe out of the dark ages and colonised the New World, creating mighty new nations from scratch. Freed from feudalism and serfdom, the fertile mind of Western man produced an incredible series of discoveries and inventions. These allowed our forefathers to tame the forces of nature which had dominated and immiserated human beings since the first primitive hominids gazed in wonder and fear at a sunset on the African savannah.

Electricity let us push back the night. The steam engine brought us factories, mass production, and railways, which made mass prosperity and mass transit possible for the first time. Modern agriculture eliminated the ancient evil of famine in every country that bathed in the light of Western science. The world began to knit together as the primordial forerunner of the internet—the telegraph—brought regions and then nations and then continents together in almost instantaneous communication.

tesla_3

The intellectual crowning jewels of the West lay in its universities, from the medieval institutions of Europe to the Ivy League. These were places where serious and ferociously bright young men studied law, philosophy, and science. Where the secrets of the atom were probed, life-saving medical advances were made, astronomers mapped the cosmos, and engineers dreamed of ways to take us there, one day, into space.

The Western world in 1900 was not Utopia. There was poverty, bigotry, and injustice, but opportunity was real and a man with grit and ability could make something of himself. Many of the richest and most famous men of that era had been born poor and were self-taught.

Where stands Western civilisation today?

Men are not free in 2014
Most Western countries have a labyrinthine code of laws designed to jail you for saying the wrong things. Even in the United States, which stubbornly clings to its First Amendment, a man’s career can now be ruined and his reputation traduced if he offends against the latest dictates of political correctness.

Half or more of your income ends up in the pockets of the government, thanks to its bewildering array of taxes. Fathers and husbands—when they’re not being ridiculed as the butt of every joke on television—are second class citizens. If your wife decides she wants to take your house and your children away from you, she easily can with the full force of the law behind her.

If you try to start a business, you will find that not only are you not free to hire whoever you want, but you must also satisfy every whim of town planners, environmental bureaucrats, and health and safety commissars—all of them paid for by you, the taxpayer, to tell you what to do.

Another thing that you, the taxpayer, are funding is the welfare state. The welfare state exists to allow lazy people who don’t feel like working to live off you without going to the trouble of begging you for your money. The welfare state pays single mothers to squat out feral kids by multiple men without having to hold down a husband to pay for it all. The welfare state means the government is substitute Daddy for these women and their bastard offspring.

One fifth of US households now claim food stamps. That’s 47 million Americans, living in the richest and most successful society that has ever existed, where food is cheap and plentiful beyond the wildest dreams of people living 100 years ago, who are supposedly so pathetic and helpless that they need the government to feed them, as if they were children.

Our universities have become a bizarre combination of daycare facility, pick-up joint, and grotesque circus of left-wing drama. Universities are no longer places for serious thinkers to hone their minds. They’re places where braying young idiots go to learn to parrot feminist and Marxist slogans before reality punches them in the face with the realisation that their joke degrees are worthless.

gammamale2

The days have gone down in the West. Behind the hills, into shadow.

How did it come to this?
The state of modern society is a disaster for many fathers. But of all the self-inflicted wounds perpetrated on Western civilisation, votes for women was the most easily avoidable. It must have seemed like a good idea at the time, in 1918 and 1920, when Britain stood at her peak and the United States looked to the century ahead with supreme confidence. But women are not like men. They don’t think in the same way. They don’t understand or value freedom the way men do. Women have a herd mentality. Rugged individualism, healthy masculine debate, and raucous male laughter offend their sensibilities.

As soon as American women were allowed to vote, alcohol was banned in the United States. The temperance movement had been a female dominated nuisance for decades, but now hopelessly misguided female busybodies had electoral power. It was a farce that turned a nation into lawbreakers and birthed organised crime on a massive scale.

Slowly but inexorably, the United Kingdom and the United States, and other societies that allowed women to vote, began to tilt leftward. Welfare states were created, largely because women feel that it’s not “fair” to allow people to succeed or fail on their own merits. And it’s not “fair” that a woman should have to rely on the father of her children to support her, when she can make men in general pay for her upkeep through the tax and welfare systems.

Government, which had once been small and limited, began to spread its tentacles like a rape-beast from the sickest Japanese anime porn until it penetrated the lives of every citizen. Taxes started to rise in order to pay for all these new entitlements and programmes, and an entire caste of useless bureaucrats emerged to run them. Family and divorce law gradually warped into the anti-male Kafkaesque nightmare it is today because of politicians chasing female votes.

As with most female demands, capitulating to women’s suffragists didn’t satisfy them. Not content with invading the traditionally male space of political affairs, women started insinuating themselves into every other masculine sphere. The universities admitted them, which is why male students today find themselves harangued about imaginary “rape culture”. They swarmed into the workplace, which is why working men today find themselves terrified of sexual harassment or discrimination accusations from spiteful female co-workers. Even the military became feminised and sensitised, with deleterious consequences for the fighting man.

suffragewants

The modern religion of the West—political correctness—is every feminine vice writ large: bossy, deceitful, petty, and false. Almost everything that is wrong with modern life can be traced to the decline of masculine virtues and their replacement with feminine vices. For civilisation itself is the triumph of masculine energy, vision, and courage.

For the sake of our civilisation, for the sake of all men and women, we must undo this historic wrong turn. Women have no business voting in elections for public office, let them stick to voting for things they understand, like the X-Factor. This may seem like a quixotic idea. But remember—so was women’s suffrage, once.

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

Roosh Vörek #racist returnofkings.com

[Pax Dickinson was fired from his job as Chief Technology Officer for Business Insider after his racist and mysoginist Tweets were revealed by Anil Dash, an Indian businessman, and Nitasha Tiku of Gawker. This causes Roosh V to go into a racist rant.]

A disturbing story has recently developed where two Indian immigrants have coordinated to destroy the livelihood of a white American-borne professional who they didn’t agree with.

Pax Dickinson worked as the Chief Technology Officer for Business Insider. He had a Twitter account where he shared views that went against the liberal narrative of gay marriage, spinster worship, fat acceptance, and open borders.

[...]

Last time I checked, white culture made America, but here we have a man with Indian roots attacking the entire home race. Why is it okay for him to attack white culture, but if anyone attacked “black culture” or “gay culture,” he would be first in line to fight back, crying bigotry, or as in the case of Pax, “misogyny”?

While white men aren’t perfect, would you rather live in the USA or India? Sweden or Bangladesh? Australia or Pakistan? Amil’s country and his people still have a long way to go before they can bash the white man for causing economic hardship when they won’t even catch up to the West for another 100 years.

In my line of work (teaching men how to fornicate with women), I have noticed a lot of pent-up frustration from Indian men that is directed at white men. The reason? Indian men are jealous that they can’t lay white women, who they pedestalize to heavenly heights. You can shake your head or laugh, but most Indian men will openly tell you they prefer white women over their own race. On my forum, we have enough angry Indian trolls that we’ve developed a name for them: Indian Race Trolls (IRT).

In spite of Anil’s apparent success in business, I would bet a month of my income that he is angry at not being able to have sex with pretty white women. Look at what he has reduced himself to[...]

He dates an unattractive half-white woman that fell from the ugly tree and hit at least eight branches on the way down. This man has lots of money and half a million Twitter followers, can easily import a pretty Indian bride through his family connections, but instead settles towards the bottom of the crab bucket. In other words, the fact that he is with a homely white girl instead of a pretty Indian girl (they do exist) is strong proof to his white woman fetish.

In comes Pax Dickinson, a fellow tech worker who is okay-looking (no homo), cocky, confident, successful, and white. I have never met Pax, but it’s not hard to imagine Anil happily begging him for his one-night stand leftovers. Anil is resentful of the white man not only for building the West, compared to—say—a Mumbai slum, but also because he can’t come close to getting the type of woman that his business success would give him if he were white.

[...]

Nitasha Tiku, also Indian and a suspected Marxist, has shown a pattern of disliking white men, who she believes are privileged and contain no inherent value. She recently called an app “deplorable” because it helped regular people avoid ghetto areas. In her world, it is unconsciousable to think that someone would want to keep themselves safe, but when you consider she lives in a white New York neighborhood, it becomes clear she is a hypocrite who won’t be interacting with poor black people anytime soon. She deemed the ghetto avoidance app “racist” and “classist” because it’s better if everyone is equally poor and unsafe. Why she doesn’t return back to India, where there’s a flatter class system consisting mostly of poor people who defecate on the street, I have no idea.

[...]

The irony is that Anil, her partner in Soviet-style denouncement, would never date her because she is Indian, even though they are of the same race, but it’s okay for them to team up and get a white man fired. I suppose in the end it doesn’t matter since she’s a lesbian, and I predict that she’s only one year away from identifying herself as neither a woman or man, as encouraged by the latest liberal trend of declaring yourself to be a gender-neutral carrot, or whatever.

In this drama you have a classic Marxist dyke and a sexually frustrated Indian man joining forces to get a white American man fired within 24 hours. And no one cares besides our perverted corner of the internet. That tells you how much power that immigrant liberals have gained.