www.returnofkings.com

Jean-Batave Poqueliche #conspiracy returnofkings.com

12 Methods America Is Using To Turn France Into A Globalist Nightmare

Uncle Sam eats your children and you pass him the salt

Recently, Roosh shared with me an article in three parts on a conference that took place in Paris in 2010, initiated by the US ambasador to France, Charles Rivkin and aimed at many influencal figures of the state. The goal of this confidential conference was to deconstruct the French identity and sovereignty through different actions.

The document was released on Wikileaks and can be found here. It is a written proof of the will of the American government and investors to interfere in the domestic affairs of our sovereign state, something that we see in our daily lives. Here are the fields on which the multicuturalist and globalist decisions maker focus:

1. School

Being a former teacher, I noticed the introduction of constant changes since my youth and the education I received. An even stronger cultural masochism is taught to our kids at school. Racist and racism are the almighty go-to words that instantly discredit the hour-long argumentation of anyone, even when backed with research and scientific proof.

Educational lobbies are changing the school programs to teach the glory of African kingdoms and the expansion of Islam, instead of French history and civilization. Leftists call anyone who wants to focus on native history and its figures a “neo-colonialist.” As French polemicist Eric Zemmour puts it, destroying “the French National epic” and its heroes is the goal. The Rivkin program also includes redefining French history in the school curricula to give attention to the role of non-French minorities in French history.

The decision of teaching more about Arab kingdoms than French kings belongs to the current Minister of education, formerly Minister of Women’s rights, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, a short-haired Arab woman born in Morocco who became French because her dad worked in France. She is fighting against sexism and inequality, is pro-abortion and stumps for the rights of the gay and transsexual lobby. I am obviously expecting an unbiased decision.

Rivkin states in the report of the conference, that the 1,000 American English language teachers employed at French schools will be provided with the propaganda materials necessary to inculcate the desired ideals into their French pupils.

2. Kids shows

The earlier the better. Back when I was a child, the cartoons I watched depicted mighty heroes crushing the enemy, often bloodily. There was a conflict between good and evil and a lesson taught. The story had a beginning, a chain of events, and an end. Now every episode has too many characters (all diversity-approved) who are often weak, but that’s ok because everyone is nice and worrying about the unknown is intolerant. The creators teach children that being a weakling is not a problem and that working on your looks is not important because true beauty is in the heart.

As the son of an ambassador, Rivkin had no experience in foreign policy and diplomacy. He was appointed because he had experience in including multiculturalist propaganda in kids’ shows and being the CEO of the Wildbrain company, which created Yo Gabba Gabba! among other things. Watch an extract of the show if you don’t know it, you will understand what I mean.

[...]

4. Food

The phenomenon of “malbouffe” (junk food) is smearing our rich culinary culture and became an essential part of our young people’s social life and diet. Coca Cola, McDonald’s, and other giants advertise everywhere and fast food “restaurants” just pop out of nowhere, even in the remote countryside. So does liquid sugar merchant Starbucks and its open support to homosexuals.

Our national agrarian system is now invaded by pesticides and automated agriculture. The opponents of it are quickly silenced. With the GMOed Frankenstein turnips and corn created in American labs, the plants mutate and the people will soon pay the price.

Small local producers disappear and the large companies put what they want in the food. We are still slightly protected by our national laws on food quality and protected labels. But for how long?

5. Influence on native youth

The Hipster-loving, tattoo-sporting, slut-celebrating culture as reached them and they love it. It makes them feel so special. So did lesbian and pansexual attention whoring of the girls, taught by pornography and the Hollywood crowd.

Promiscuity is on the rise, thanks to apps such as Tinder, the fashion of selfies, likes, attention-whoring, nudes sent on smartphones, Sex In The City, Instagram and the promotion of the hook-up culture, even if the young girls become more feminists. It goes only one way: against men.

The destruction of the nuclear family model and healthy relationships between men and women is the objective. The global culture turns our girls into unfuckable modern art masterpieces and our lads into fragile chicken-legged boys in skinny jeans and snapbacks for the urban predator to rob and attack.

6. Hollywood culture

The Hollywood sphere keeps unloading its filth in France. Open homosexuality, metrosexuality, narcotic abuse, along with Pitt-Jolie and their adopted African kids, brought around like a new handbag are everywhere in our tabloids. Everything they do is cool—changing religion like you change underwear, becoming a woman because you are bored, mudsharking, being gay as a three pound note. The words they say are followed by the mass like the bloody Gospel.

7. Destruction of nationalism

The civil rights and feminist movements that trampled the ideas of freedom of association and patriarchy inspired the plague that are the anti-whites of SOS Racisme (oh, the irony) and the anti-heterosexual male feminists of Ni putes, Ni soumises (“Neither Whore nor Submissive”).

Regionalists and nationalist movements and their sympathizers are filed by the police and intelligence services like they supposedly do with the potential jihadis.

Observe what happened in Corsica lately. The police services are moving heaven and earth to find the handful of men that broke into the Mosque and smashed the kebab place, but leave the youths that attacked the two firemen and the police officer that sparked the gatherings of the patriots in the first place. When a handful of Corsicans show more patriotic balls than millions of hand-holding JE SUIS CHARLIEs, there is an issue.

The objective detailed in Rivkin’s report is to monitor and counter any party that does not satisfy their agenda, namely nationalists and traditionalists, dubbing them “racist” and “xenophobic.” The words verbatim: “focusing on the decrease in popular support for xenophobic political parties and platforms.” This is to ensure that the program is working as it should to block the success of any “extreme” or “xenophobic” party that might challenge globalization.

8. Consumption

The consumerism brilliantly orchestrated since the end of World War II started with GIs distributing cigarettes and chocolate to French children after four years of rationing during the Occupation, and continues with the giant American corporations pushing us to purchase things we don’t need. Inside every French, there is an American trying to get out.

The explosion of advertising budgets of the likes of Pepsi, Kellogg’s, or McDonald’s shows it. Some courageous peasants lead by Jose Bové, seeing the threat, tried to take McDonald’s influence apart physically, by crushing one of their joints with their tractors. They failed, as they had limited means compared to the gigantic reserves of cash the corporation had.

Before, the French were champions of recycling and inventiveness. Now they throw away without repairing. There is an obsession with novelty and the newest gadgets. This also helps them collect your data and know your taste so they can propose more things to buy. “Oh you bought X Item, you will also like Y and Z item! Buy, buy, buy!”

9. Influence on non-native youth

The Quick burger chain in France now wants to have the cool halal image and will only serve halal meat in a few years. McDonalds France already serves halal meat but does not advertise it and admits serving it without explicitly warning their clients. So do KFC France and Flunch.

The halal market is a gigantic and lucrative one, as the client that buys it pays a tax directly to the mosques and their private funds on the pretext that they are the authorities that validate every kilogram of halal meat produced. Some large chains of supermarkets focus more and more on their halal clientele. In addition to the sanitary risks of halal slaughtering, the problem is that the natives have to adapt to the non-natives’ diet in the name of equality.

There is also a strong phenomenon of “thugization” of the black and Arab youths in the housing estates of the big cities. All of that thanks to the rap and gang culture, brought by American television shows and the gangsta clips on MTV.

10. Communication tools

The tablets and smart phones reach us younger and younger each year. Every schoolkid that can barely read already has a smartphone, an open door to porn, and the rest. Every family has one, and they replaced the baby-sitters.

Your position is always known thanks to your phone and they will listen to what you say if they want to. They know how many of you are in the house, what is your daily routine, what you buy, and what you read. The algorithms and data are kept.

The policy of “état d’urgence,” initiated following the Paris attacks, allows the government to bypass all the laws about digital privacy on the internet and is directly inspired by the Patriot Act that followed 9/11.

With the development of smartphone video games, more entertainment online, more immersive and time-consuming games where the mind is put on pause, you have fewer people thinking and questioning whoever is in charge.

11. Celebrations

Ah, Halloween. Another hardly disguised consumerist celebration. Occulting the autumn equinox and All Saints’ Day, trampling the tradition of family meals and flowering the graves of our loved ones, one pack of cheap lollies at a time. Overpriced costumes and diabetes for the kids, slutty behaviour and bad decisions for the grownups. Well, at least the pumpkin farmers thank you.

Santa Claus, invented by Coca Cola, pulverized Saint Nicolas that my father used to sing about and greet as a child. The cries of ungrateful brats under the Christmas tree because Barbie’s caravan does not include the picnic table replaced the Christmas carols. My grandfather used to say “When I was a child, we got an orange and a candy stick for Christmas. If we did not behave, we got a bag of coal. So don’t complain.”

[...]

Don’t be fooled—you are next on their list. Their end game is to submerge us into one big melting pot of global consumerism, to uproot every individual from an identity and heritage and replace that with the global shopping mall, and the “global village.”

Roosh Valizadeh #conspiracy returnofkings.com

A term that kept coming up in my research on modern governments was “Hegelian Dialectic.” I spent some time studying it to understand not only what it was, but how it is being used by the ruling class to manipulate the public into fulfilling a pre-determined agenda.

First described by Enlightenment German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, the Hegelian Dialectic is a mechanism to arrive at a final truth or conclusion. Right now you probably use the Aristotelian method for arriving at truth, which is to observe all the facts of the situation and then make the most logical conclusion based from those observations. Hegel explained a process where truth is instead arrived through the friction and conflict between one force (the thesis) and its opposite (the antithesis). The final result from that clash, the synthesis, is the best conclusion.

In all likelihood, the synthesis is not the final and absolute truth. It becomes the new thesis where a new antithesis forms to oppose it. The conflict between them leads to a second synthesis. This process repeats until the final synthesis is revealed, which theoretically is absolute truth.

In plain terms, the Hegelian Dialectic is the battle of two extremes to get a result that is somewhere in the middle. That result will develop an opposing force of its own and the ensuing battle yields another result. The objective reality we have right now has incorporated within it all previous “battles” of thesis and antithesis since the beginning of time, meaning that—according to the theory—we are living in a progressive arc to absolute truth and world perfection.

Examples of thesis and antithesis

Thesis: British and French power hegemony after World War 1
Anti-thesis: Hitler
Synthesis: USA hegemony

Thesis: Traditional conservatism
Anti-thesis: Marxism
Synthesis: Globalism

Thesis: USA government losing domestic power
Anti-thesis: 9/11
Synthesis: Patriot act, NSA spying

Thesis: Feminism
Anti-thesis: PUA, MRA, neomasculinity
Synthesis: ?

The nation dialectic

Hegel proposed his dialectic as a natural way of arriving at the truth, but had in mind that the nation itself was the vehicle to create new syntheses. Like most Enlightenment thinkers, he threw god away and made the nation-state god instead. The modern elite has taken this a step further by pre-determining a synthesis (a specific agenda) and then developing events that arrive at that synthesis through artificial means.

If the elite has a result they would like to have, whether it be increased authoritarian rule or a war that solidifies their power, all they have to do is devise an anti-thesis that will lead to the outcome they want. This is commonly done through false flag attacks, where the government of a nation attacks itself so that it can respond in the way that it had wanted to all along, because it’s only through that attack would citizens agree to the planned synthesis. False flag attacks are in fact a common way for governments to fulfill their goals.

Here are two Hegelian loops we may be currently living through:

Problem (thesis): Russia refuses to enter the New World Order
Reaction (anti-thesis): Destabilize Ukraine and Syria, forcing Russia to act aggressively
Solution (synthesis): Create pretext for removing Russian leadership and installing Western rulers,

Problem: Nationalism in Europe
Reaction: Allow millions of Afro-Islamists
Solution: Strengthening of United Nations and European Union to “protect” people from social unrest

People use the dialectic in their own lives when trying to solve problems:

Problem: Not receiving enough attention
Reaction: Invent drama, catastrophes, diseases
Solution: Receive attention from family, friends, strangers

What the ruling elite does, and have been doing for centuries, is create reactions which requires solutions they had wanted all along. The reaction (e.g. 9/11) puts citizens in a state of fear and anxiety that allows easily implementation of the solution without resistance. Would Americans have protested the Patriot Act more strongly if 9/11 had never occurred? They’d probably laugh at its proposal, just like how they laughed at George W. Bush’s attempts to privatize Social Security at the start of his second term.

Beware of government “solutions”

One way you know the government is using the Hegelian dialectic to fulfill their agenda is when they have a ready-made solution immediately after an event, all without public debate. This is most commonly seen in the United States with gun control, where after every mass shooting, calls for limiting sales of guns are made by the media and government. Strict gun control or outright confiscation is a pre-determined solution in the USA that will certainly be attempted in the future.

"From Nero burning Rome to Hitler burning the Reichstag, power-mad leaders across the decades have manufactured crises in order to present the public with situations where their Police State solutions “make sense”.

“Give up your rights — it’s for your safety—”

[—]

Every major financial crisis America has experienced in her history has followed this same Hegelian dialectic pattern with the outcome being another incremental step toward world financial domination by an elite few. [Source]"

A related use of the Hegelian dialectic is to create the appearance of healthy governmental opposition. We see this in the United States where both Democrats and Republicans are two heads of the same body. They create a theater show for the public that two opposing forces are debating and compromising to serve the interests of the nation when they are actually both controlled by the same globalists who donate money to both parties. The cuckservative phenomenon has shown that mainstream conservatives are nearly identical to the left besides a few hot button issues like abortion and religion (they have even converged on homosexual marriage).

"In the West the choice is basically between a controlled ‘left-oriented’ information, and a controlled ‘right-oriented’ information. The conflict between the two CONTROLLED groups keeps an apparent informational conflict alive. Unwelcome facts that fall into either camp are conveniently forgotten. Books that fall into either camp can be effectively neutralized because they will incur the wrath of both ‘right’ and ‘left’. The faster the cattle run, the faster the treadmill takes them to nowhere.

[—]

The Hegelian dialectic is being employed to secure and sustain absolute world power and authority to an elite. [Source] [—]

—the Hegelian dialectic requires a thesis and an antithesis, a pro and a con. Are these not absolutes? Is not the very concept of left and right, east and west, black and white, etc., required by the dialectic a confirmation of absolutism itself? [Source]"

It’s effortless to rule when you have citizens programmed to demand the changes that match your agenda:

"The disturbing aspect to Alinsky’s approach for “radical social change” is his belief in the Marxist-Leninist method of always keeping the masses demoralized so they will demand change, or even insist the system be abolished altogether. [Source]"

Many of us are already aware of what the elite is doing to society in order to maintain control. The Hegelian dialectic allows us to see how they are doing it, adding an important piece of the puzzle to more easily recognize their authoritarian schemes.

Whenever a crisis occurs that politicians, governments, world organizations like the United Nations, IMF, World Bank, US Fed, or countless other quasi-governmental entities have a solution for, three things are certain:

1. Their solution will not solve the original problem.
2. The problem was possibly created themselves in order to introduce their desired “solution.”
3. The engineered process of Problem-Reaction-Solution is reducing your liberty and making you more dependent on the state.

After violent catastrophes and global events, think for a moment to see what their real agenda is based on the reaction by those in power, and consider resisting if you have the strength to do so. To be on the safe side, you can assume that just about any non-local solution by the government is part of a plan to hurt you, and that it will have the opposite stated effect if allowed to be implemented.

Roosh Valizadeh #fundie returnofkings.com

Does Ancient Muslim Wisdom Have Answers To Modern Western Problems?

Western civilization was not the only producer of wisdom. I stumbled upon some useful Islamic quotes, many of which are from Ali ibn Abi Talib, the leader of the Islamic caliphate from 656-661 AD and cousin of the Prophet.

[...]

Sex differences

"‘The good characteristics of women are the bad characteristics of men: pride, cowardice and stinginess. If a woman has pride she will not allow herself to be taken advantage of; if she is stingy she will guard her wealth and her spouse’s wealth; and if she is cowardly she will be cautious of everything that confronts her.’" (Iman Ali)

Obeying

"Obeying women is the ultimate ignorance.

[—]

Obeying desire corrupts the mind." (Iman Ali)

[...]

Sexual pleasure

"Beware of too much passion for women and being seduced by the sweet temptations of this world, for passion for women is trying and being seduced by worldly temptations is humiliating." (Iman Ali)

[...]

Virgins

"‘The archangel Gabriel descended to the Prophet (SAWA) and told him, ‘O Muhammad, verily your Lord extends salutations on you and says, ‘Verify the virgins from among your women are as fruits on a tree, which when they ripen must be plucked otherwise the sun rots them and the wind alters them. So when young women reach marriageable age, they have no other recourse apart from husbands, otherwise they will not be safe from corruption.’" (Iman al-Rida)

A suitable wife

"He who marries a woman solely for her beauty will not find anything he likes in her, he who marries her for her wealth will be deprived of it as soon as he marries her, so look to marry women of faith.

[—]

The beauty of a woman’s faith must be given priority over the beauty of her face." (The Prophet)

An evil woman

"‘Beware of the verdure growing in manure.’ When asked what verdure growing in manure was, he replied, ‘It is the beautiful woman that comes from an evil environment.’" (The Prophet)

Happy husband

"Woe unto the woman who angers her husband, and blessed is the woman whose husband is pleased with her.

[—]

If I was in a position to command anyone to prostrate in front of anyone else, I would command the woman to prostrate in front of her husband." (The Prophet)

Husband’s duty

"The right of a woman on her husband is that he feeds her, clothes her, and does not cause her to lose face [by insulting her or chiding her].

[—]

Verily the man who lifts a morsel of food to his wife’s mouth is well rewarded" (The Prophet)

A woman’s jihad

"The sacred war (jihad) of a woman is to be of excellent service to her husband." (Iman al-Kazim)

Marital mistreatment

"If a man has a wife who mistreats him, Allah does not accept her daily prayer, nor any other good deed she performs, even if she was to fast all her life, until and unless she relieves him and pleases him—and the husband will bear the same burden and punishment if he mistreats or oppresses his wife." (The Prophet)

Cursed woman

"Cursed! Cursed indeed is the woman who troubles and distresses her husband; and blessed! Blessed indeed is the woman who honours her husband, does not trouble him and obeys him in all matters." (Iman al-Sadiq)

Cursed man

"Every man who is controlled by his wife is indeed cursed." (Iman Ali)

Nobility

"Habituate yourself to performing noble deeds and tolerate the burdens of losses, and your self will be noble." (Iman Ali)

[...]

While many of us here do not agree with the sometimes violent spread of Islam to European lands, their views on the sexes and marriage fully account for the true nature of women that we’re all too aware of.

Islamists understand that a woman can become feral if not constrained by a strong patriarch in the home. When a culture fails to incorporate this understanding, the result is what we have in the modern West, of women who trade having a healthy family to become degenerates and sterile freakshows. Islam is not without its problems, but if their higher birth rates are of any indication, their gender strategies should be duplicated to some degree in the West.

David Garrett #fundie returnofkings.com

(Submitter's note: SPOILER ALERT!)

Why Star Wars: The Force Awakens Is A Social Justice Propaganda Film

Spread my warning across the galaxy, Padawans.

The Force Awakens is spectacularly replete with the handiwork of the avowed Social Justice Warrior JJ Abrams. So where can I possibly start in my criticisms? From the casting, which puts minorities and women incessantly and ridiculously in your face to make a political point (not tell a story), to the laziest of all space battles, the problems with the Episode 7 are more than numerous.

Let’s make no mistake: Abrams is a capable filmmaker, when he wants to be. Parts with General Hux, especially his speech and the destruction of the Hosnian system, are glorious. The visuals, not just those with CGI, are stunning. Abrams’ mission, though, is to distract viewers with impressive scenes and some chunks of capably written dialogue so as to implant his take on “girl power” and safe spaces for non-whites.

The Mary Sue of all Mary Sues

Is there anything she can’t do after reading a third wave feminist tract?
The female Rey, who it is heavily implied is Luke’s daughter, is the most underdeveloped character yet in over 14 hours of Star Wars films. Her story arc is practically-speaking non-existent and only the veneer of her sadness about her family leaving her on Jakku is painted over it. Whereas with other major Force-wielders in the series their abilities have previously developed or are developed over years, Rey seemingly does it in less than 12 seconds, rather than parsecs. Her whole trajectory in the film reeks of “god mode”, which for non-gamers like myself refers to the cheat codes that make a game character invincible.

Big question: did she fart in the wind on Jakku and the blowback from the desert winds grew her Force powers to monolithic proportions? That’s the only possible explanation.

In the case of Anakin Skywalker in the prequels, by contrast, we learn that he is the only human pilot to engage in pod racing. His mechanical know-how has been honed over some years, culminating in his construction of both his own pad racer and the droid C-3PO. And when he destroys the droid control ship above Naboo, it is largely as a result of his good fortune, not just long-acquired skill. A decade later and with continuous training, he additionally fails to best Count Dooku on Geonosis.

Two hours into the first film, with no training, Rey beats Kylo Ren. Four hours into the original trilogy, and with the training of Ben Kenobi and Yoda, Luke loses his right hand. Go girls!
Cast your mind back to the original trilogy, too. Aside from a little kid’s play with his father’s lightsaber at Ben Kenobi’s hermit pad and onboard the Millennium Falcon, Luke does not wield the weapon at all in A New Hope, let alone in combat against the likes of a Vader. He does destroy the Death Star as a very novice X-wing pilot, but this is after years of him taking out his stuck-on-bloody-Tatooine frustrations on womp rats in his T-16. Moreover, Luke would have been burnt space toast without the intervention of Han Solo and the Falcon. Oh, and in The Empire Strikes Back, after the tutelage of Yoda, he still gets his hand cleaved off by Vader.

So I am meant to believe that Rey could savage and nearly kill her presumed cousin Kylo Ren, whether he is injured or not? Ren is not yet a Vader in his powers. That much is clear. But this is the man who helped slaughter, as a boy or teenager, basically all of the talented pupils of Luke Skywalker. Luke then disappears and Kylo Ren is given more or less free rein, only to be wounded once by Chewbacca’s crossbow, once by apparently non-Force-sensitive Finn (“This is for slavery, whitey!”) and three times by Rey (“Fuck the patriarchy!”). Fuck off—that’s a plot fueled by meth.

To boot, Rey’s piloting and mechanical skills, to the point of knowing everything, is mind-boggingly “get more women in STEM” in its motivations. When she starts teaching Han Solo about the Falcon, things become breathtakingly contrived. It’s as if Abrams was paid by a female science scholarship foundation to drum up some public service announcements via film.

The plot is IQ-damagingly dumb

They put twenty times more effort into the parade than organizing the base defenses. And they didn’t learn from either the first or second Death Star debacles. Or Abrams and his writing team were too busy making Rey a goddess.
I take no issue with some of the artistic license Abrams uses in The Force Awakens. How the First Order managed to create a sun-sucking super weapon on a preexisting ice planet can be explained one day by some talented PhD graduate from the University of Coruscant. So, too, can the appearance of the Starkiller’s death beams and the destruction of the Hosnian system in the sky above far removed Takodana.

What matters, though, is the plot. Scientific ambiguities and inaccuracies can be tolerated if the story functions. But it’s entirely lacking here. For a start, the film borrows from or plain copies so many elements of A New Hope that I lost count. A non-exhaustive list would include a girl being held captive at the flagship facility of a military junta, a space battle to prevent the noble guerrillas’ base from being obliterated, and the death of an older character just as the younger infiltrators are about to leave for home. For the sake of free words, I cannot mention them all.

Beyond just the formulaic plot, here are a few of the frankly stupid elements of the story:

Finn just happens to be an ex-sanitation worked at Starkiller Base, in a galaxy where the First Order forces are now so numerous and powerful that the New Republic has to use the Resistance as a weak proxy to fight it. So he knows where to find the oscillator, which will destabilize and then obliterate the planet if destroyed. Makes perfect sense!
Both in its size and complexity, Starkiller Base makes the two Death Stars look like plasticine renderings. Yet there is no fleet to protect it? And a paucity of very ineffective turbolaser batteries and TIE fighter squadrons? A Resistance member at their headquarters light years away mentions them losing half their X-wings during the battle, as if that was so hard when they launched about, um, three and a half of them.
The amazingly overblown female character Captain Phasma is held at gunpoint and forced to lower Starkiller Base’s shields. These shields can be lowered so easily and without the immediate knowledge of General Hux or someone else? Oh, please, spare me.
Han Solo exits hyperspace no more than a few hundred metres from the surface of the Starkiller planet. And he announces it with “Now!” Hooray! Base infiltrated with common sense!
Finn is likeable but nevertheless a glorified white knight. Trained from just after birth to be a fighting machine, he does nothing relative to Rey and devotes the whole film to trying to protect her.

Tick the boxes with plenty of female and non-white characters

Game of Thrones’ Jessica Henwick was a cast a female X-wing pilot. Again, cast for her race and gender.
You can sniff out Abrams’ leanings from the start. As First Order troopships prepare to land to take out a village on Jakku, the first villager who pulls out a a blaster in defense is a woman. And it is some sort of big, mounted-looking one! This girl power is really paralleled in our world, where millions of young Western girls are so keen to protect their village or country that they won’t even join up, as their male contemporaries are forced to, in places like Finland and South Korea during peacetime. Or make the slightest squeak about the double standard. Well done, JJ.

Captain Phasma is given command of the First Order’s elite stormtroopers but she has the same biology as in our world, where no woman has ever passed the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course. Another female stormtrooper reports to Ren about the failed attempt to locate Rey. And, after years of pretty much male-only recruitment, the New Republic’s affirmative action policies have been copied by the First Order, with large numbers of female military panel operators, technicians and officers.

The same goes for the racial choices. Insert a token female Asian and black male pilot. Black and Asian pilots were actually first done long ago (in Return of the Jedi) but JJ needs more, more, more! All while the plot suffers. Funny how an overwhelmingly male military combat force in a film is considered “unrealistic” when it is almost a carbon copy of our own reality in 2015.

Do not watch this film (at least by paying)

Pretty much sums it up.
Somebody has to watch it and for ROK that person is me. Our proprietor Roosh has refused to and all power to him and anyone else who has abstained. It helps when a limited few of us view it, to pick it apart piece by piece. An understanding of how entertainment is being used to propagandise acceptable social narratives is important.

It’s laughable how critics can butcher the revelation in the prequels that the Force is just the interaction of symbiotic organisms called midi-chlorians and other living things but laud The Force Awakens as a piece of sophisticated, “progressive” filmmaking. Some outlets have even resorted to naming and implicitly shaming critics who disliked this new addition. For a good parody of the pro-SJW obsessions of The Force Awakens, see Steven Crowder’s recent takedown.

For the time being, when it comes to deciding whether to see this film, take evasive action. It’s a trap.

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.

Terry “Death to Equality” Xu #racist returnofkings.com

All diversity is conflict - you don't need to wait until there's terrorism/rape/sharia law to oppose it

Even in better off countries like the US the population gets riled up at the slightest mention of race relations

All societies should progress towards the ethnostate - multiculturalism is something to be dealt with through nationalism, assimilation, or just plain xenophobia. The western world confuses empathy with rational thought because it's too feminized, and values the opinion of its women too much

wisdom seeker #fundie returnofkings.com

Canada is finished.

Trudeau is the epitome of a mangina, 100% the complete opposite of Vladimir Putin. Even his voice sounds gay. Some even speculate he actually is gay.

With him at the helm, Canada will quickly become just like Ontario: a Marxist paradise with insurmountable debt.

Legalized marijuana, full abortion rights, higher taxes, the list is endless.

O Canada!

Roosh #fundie returnofkings.com

Someone recently recommended I take a look at Ted Kaczynski’s Manifesto, stating that Kaczynski foresaw a lot of problems with modern culture that we write about here. After reading it, I have to agree that the “Unabomber” clearly understood what society was up against, a full decade before the development of the manosphere.

The media has done a good of painting Kaczynski as a deranged madman, but I found his writing to be clear and perceptive. His manifesto connected some loose dots I had between Neil Postman’s work, which described what we have lost through technology, and this community’s observations that the juggernaut of leftism is destroying what remains of traditional culture.

Kaczynski states that leftism and technology go hand in hand, because the collectivism and control that leftism requires cannot be accomplished without technology. The more advances we have with technology, the more it will be used to further progressivism, which includes a decrease in individual rights and an increase in authoritarian state control. I recommend you read the entirety of the manifesto here. In the meanwhile, the most important passages are below.

...

Kaczynski’s manifesto made me realize that the solutions I have proposed to improve modern society would not stem the tide of advances in technology and leftist degeneracy. By the time we identify one problem, isolate it, and solve it, more degenerate leftist causes would have been pushed down our throats alongside technological advances that make our counter-movement all seem fruitless. Up to this point, we’re hacking at little branches, especially when we attack the useful idiots in the form of individual feminists and social justice warriors, while the roots of evil are becoming ever stronger.

As long as the system is in place, any victory we achieve will only be short-term in scope. Such a victory could last a couple generations, but once the dust settles and the globalists re-gather their footing, they will use the existing technological, industrial, and banking frameworks to not only gain what they lost, but learn from their past mistakes and control humanity even tighter.

The question we must ask ourselves before proceeding is if we want the system to die or not. Kaczynski suggests that it is all or nothing, and assuming he’s right, we either have to get ready to throw away urban living, industrialization, and virtually all technology, or be reduced to putting out small fires that don’t begin to reverse a worldwide societal decline. As a man who has never lived in a rural setting, I remain undecided about how best to continue.

In spite of my hesitation to hop on board with Kaczynski’s message that the entire system must be destroyed, I am convinced that as long as it’s in place, we will continue to see a neverending drive towards authoritarian liberalism and parasitic globalism that erodes national sovereignty and our individual humanity. A worldwide economic collapse may temporarily bruise the elite and usher in a mini-age of traditionalism, but once the world recovers, they’ll likely resume right where they left off.

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?

Roosh V #fundie returnofkings.com

Compelling new scientific research has shown that female insects and mammals are able to absorb foreign DNA throughout the cells of their bodies. In human beings, this phenomenon has been conclusively shown to occur in women during pregnancy where genetic material from her growing fetus becomes fused within areas of her brain, affecting her chances of developing Alzheimer’s disease.

The evidence now shows that female animals can incorporate sperm DNA from her prior sex partners. This foreign DNA winds up in future children after the woman successfully reproduces with a completely different male. In the human world, this means that the children a man has with a promiscuous woman could possess genes from previous sexual partners he has never seen or met.

...

The above study has two seismic implications. The first is that a woman can absorb enough DNA during her lifetime that it changes her phenotype (i.e. her appearance and overall health state). There could be some truth to the phrase “slut face” in which highly promiscuous women suffer a change to their appearance because of all the variable sperm from different males that have been deposited inside them.

The second implication stems from the fact that it’s scientifically conclusive that single mothers have DNA of their bastard children residing permanently within their bodies. Any man who reproduces with a single mom will have a child that contains DNA from the bastard spawn, which of course includes DNA from the absentee father. This means that men can be genetically cuckolded without being traditionally cuckolded, and that having a baby with a single mom is essentially giving the father of her first child a bonus prize in the game of evolution.

...

For thousands of years, a woman’s purity was cherished above all else when it came to creating a family. Now the scientific community is confirming the validity of that practice. Until the science is settled, men who insist on reproducing with a promiscuous woman should at least demand to interview her previous sexual partners so he can become familiar with the men whose genes may be passed on to his future children.

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.

Matt Forney #fundie returnofkings.com

Last week, the mainstream conservative press went apoplectic with rage at the epithet “cuckservative,” a popular insult in alternative right and neoreactionary circles. For the uninitiated, cuckservatives are right-wing politicians and pundits who make a big show of defending traditional values, yet when push comes to shove, they roll over for the left on every issue out of fear of being called “racist,” “sexist” or “homophobic.”

Conservatives like Red State’s Erick Erickson who throw tantrums over the term “cuckservative” are doing so because the term describes them perfectly. If you’re wondering whether you might be a cuckservative, Return of Kings has put together this handy guide to show you. Read on and discover if you’re the kind of conservative who enjoys watching your nation get brutally gang-raped by cultural Marxists—

...

4. You think the reason Detroit and other major U.S. cities are falling apart is because of unions

Cuckservatives are so desperate to avoid being called “racist” that they completely deny the role of race in American society. For example, National Review’s Kevin Williamson absurdly blames the dysfunction of Detroit on unions run amok and not the fact that the city is more than 80 percent black. While socialist policies will eventually ruin a nation, white liberal areas such as Vermont and Oregon have considerably higher standards of living than black areas with the same politics.

...

6. You support corporations, despite their advocacy for leftist causes

Cuckservatives are vociferously opposed to any government action that limits the power of corporations, from higher taxes to environmental regulations to minimum wage increases. These corporations have rewarded cuckservatives by eagerly shoving left-wing degeneracy down Americans’ throats. Not only does Hollywood and other popular media glorify homosexuality, transsexuality and other perversions, most corporations enforce leftist orthodoxy, contrary to the left’s claim that big business is pro-Republican.

For example, following the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing gay marriage, a whole host of corporations, from Google to Facebook, suddenly put up rainbow flag logos in solidarity with the LGBT movement. Here in Chicago, Allstate currently has posters plastered all over the L featuring two men holding hands. Just a few days ago, the WWE acceded to left-wing hysteria about “racism” by firing Hulk Hogan solely because he used a racial slur in a private conversation nearly a decade ago.

Even supposedly right-wing corporate figures are further to the left than the average American. For instance, the Koch brothers, favorite boogeymen of the left, are in favor of open borders. Yet despite being turkey-slapped repeatedly by their corporate masters, cuckservatives are all too happy to spread their cheeks for these multinational purveyors of leftist degeneracy.

...

Unfortunately for cuckservatives, their reign of squeezing their clammy mitts around conservatism’s balls is coming to an end. The sudden popularity of the “cuckservative” epithet shows that grassroots right-wingers are tired of the movement’s spinelessness and groveling to the left. With Donald Trump on the rise and cuckservatives on the run, reversing America’s decline has never looked more possible.

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.

Rick Moser #fundie returnofkings.com

Most people don’t consider how architecture is important to relationships. Good architecture helps you meet and get to know people. But what few people realize is that the stores, office buildings, and houses they live in are often designed to stop this from happening.

Why would architects want to design unhappy buildings? To push an agenda. The preachers of social justice have realized architecture’s significance and used it to subtly change our behavior, our values, and beliefs. They want to change how we interact, and that includes isolating people and destroying their relationships.

...

Ancient languages were infused with gender. Early people saw gender differences in everything around them. Gender became weaker and less important over time, until progressives erased gender completely. Today’s gender-neutral language inculcates a false belief that male and female are equal.

Sexes were distinct in architecture as well. The Greek Doric order, with its robust and austere proportions represented the man. The slim and decorative Ionic order represented the female. Designers emulated the inherent human roles they saw in the natural world.

But modern progressives decided that a person’s sex is just a construct of conditioning. They decided women are less useful to the economy as stay-at-home mothers and more productive in the workforce and as prodigious consumers. To change human roles they changed environmental expectations.

Just as modernists erased gender from language, they removed it from our buildings and made purely functional structure that did not speak to the sexes. Distinction is rarely made that correlates to the sexes: sturdy vs. slim, bare vs. adorned, dominant vs. subservient, geometric vs. whimsical.

...

Today’s architecture pushes unnatural expectations. The Women’s Restroom Bill of 1987 mandated that men’s and women’s bathrooms be exactly the same, except what is necessary for biological differences. Before this, men’s bathrooms were communal and accommodated more people. Women’s restrooms placed toilets behind a lockable doors and had extra spaces for childcare, grooming, and resting.

...

Sex roles ought to be the norm, and exceptions can be accommodated in a separate space. Early European settlers in Australia wiped out the aboriginal jilmi which accommodated a single woman’s special needs. They thought it was “prison-like” to isolate single women away from everyone else. But it turned out this was important for social cohesion. Similarly, the Law of Moses set certain standards for women in the community. The community in those days did not bow down to their needs, but rather made a separate space to accommodate them.

Ancient Egyptian, Roman, and Oriental houses had separate areas for women and men. Englishman Robert Kerr outlined gender-specific organizations and functions for each room of a house. Emphasis was placed on the man as the leader of the household. The radial paths of garden paths at the Duke of Beaufort’s residence all converged on his dining chair. (see Gender Studies in Architecture—, Dorte Routledge, p. 135) Architecture reinforced healthy expectations of human interactions.

Today’s house assigns no hierarchy of gender to its rooms, which means women take over the entire house. By designing from a female frame, less emphasis is made on the diversity of the household, its hierarchy, or of the diversity and hierarchy of the community. If the man is lucky, he can have the garage for his “man-cave.” But along with the house, public and work spaces are overtaken and forced to serve the woman’s needs.

Early Irish natives were nomadic tribes who repeatedly dismantled and rebuilt their dwellings. Over time, construction of their tents became a ritual that symbolized the marriage of the owners. Then, as today, the dwellings were constructed by men and the interior furnished by women. This distinction made the tent ritualistically “a site of creation, separation, autonomy and mobility.” (Vernacuular Architecture in the 21st Century, Lindsay Asquith, p. 80) Both men and women had a role in architecture, but in proper and distinguished ways. Today, how many men are in control of the house they live in?

Such consideration must be made in today’s architecture. The public needs to recognize the gender manipulation and oppressive expectations pushed on them by their environment. Today’s push against traditional gendered architecture isolates men. Public spaces do not help men and women meet each other, because they suit the woman’s need to “feel safe.” Private spaces do not foster a harmonious family relationship because they manipulate the natural family hierarchy.

The presence of gender in architecture helps couples meet each other in public places and live happily in domestic places. Its removal and manipulation is pushing men and women apart.

Theodore Gumbril #fundie returnofkings.com

[An ultra-orthodox Jewish community in London banned women from driving]

The first reaction of rank feminist disapproval came within the fortress. Dina Brawer, the UK ambassador of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, said: “What this is really about is the curtailing of women’s freedom of movement rendering them dependent on men. It’s an issue of power and control not one of religious sensibility.

Or, translated from sociology-speak:

Muh patriarchy

Another Jewish critic, Ella Marks of the “League of Jewish Women” said “I can see no question of it being immodest and I would not want a repeat of the situation in Saudi Arabia which is certainly a patriarchal society.”

Saudi Arabia. Because the degradation of not being allowed to drive is concomitant with the degradation of having an Sheikh use you as a personal shitter for $10,000 a night.

After this, as if like clockwork, the government piled in. Nicky Morgan, one of David Cameron’s government appointments on the basis that the appointee has a vagina, the cabinet’s Education Secretary, raised her quota-hire head above the parapet to say that such a ban was “unacceptable.”

...

Gloria De Piero MP, perennial bag of useless and Labour Party politician, even wrote to the chief Quango in charge of Human Rights, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, to ask them to investigate the Belzers. A private group arranging their own affairs! Her complaints were based on Labour’s freedom-destroying Equality Act legislation.

The complaint precipitated more pompous letter-writing between the nonentities at the EHRC and the nonentities in the Labour Party, until the following statement was issued by a “spokesperson” at the EHRC:

This sort of discrimination has no place in our society and we will be writing to leaders of Hasidic Belz educational institutions to underline their legal obligations.

“Our society” by which the mean of course the society of humourless, lawbook-waving turds in suits who profess to build the progressive utopia that Lenin and Stalin didn’t quite manage to.

By nannying and mollycoddling everyone from cradle to grave.

For the greater good.

...

Bar the occasional murmurs of concealed paedophilia, the Hasidic Jewish community appear to be a model of morality in the sea of East London’s degeneracy. Just down the road in Hoxton and Shoreditch, every Friday night the town becomes a sea of degeneracy as mandied-up sluts cavort, covered in tattoos and smoking cigarettes and pot, with name-dropping hipster retards from the fashion and entertainment industry and other assorted decadent filth.

Every one of them, to a man, will be readers of the Guardian, and every one will hold the same cookie cutter progressive political positions, and will find themselves disgusted, nay, physically repulsed by the thought that somewhere on their progressive earth, a group of people dares to divide and organise themselves on lines of gender.

Further out into central and north London, we find the leftist intelligentsia who pour their intellectual dross into the vapid empty brains of the hip and fashionable. Sitting in their leafy Islington townhouses, or in their air-conditioned NGOs, these ministers of Secular Good live a life of militant opposition to the very notion of self-determination.

Everybody must subscribe to the same bland, generic list of “human rights.” Deviation is impermissible, even when harmless. Cases like the present, as well as cases like the cake shop which was fined for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, are treated as if they were the most abject transgressions against common morality, akin to murder or torture.

...

A close look at the Hasidim will reveal that, while the community has its own problems, they have been admirably resistant for the modern malaise of change for the sake of change, and have maintained a harmonious division of the community on gender lines, as well as sky-high birthrates.

Their women are, it should be noted, utterly lacking in shit tattoos, Skrillex haircuts, and sociology degrees. Moreover, much like our own community, they have come and continue to come under sustained assault from the degenerate liberal intelligentsia. For that they deserve that they deserve a hat-tip, even from the Jew-baiters.

CaptainObvious #fundie returnofkings.com

Become a fucking savage. Do you hate this modern world and the disgusting women it has shat out of its unholy womb?

Make yourself harder, meaner, stronger and more fucking ruthless than any white knight faggot could ever imagine.

Do women owe you anything? Does this shit hole of a modern progressive world owe us anything? Nope. Then we fucking OWE THEM NOTHING!

So give them your fucking middle finger and the spit out of your mouth. Mock them, bruise them, fucking shit all over them. Find like minded men estranged from this rancid cuntocracy and help light the fuse that burns this fucking shit to the goddamn ground.

More men are waking up. More are seeing that everything has been stolen from them and now we have absolutely NOTHING. Well do you know what that means? Now we are truly free and we have nothing to lose. We are on death ground and now it's time to wreak some fucking havoc. When you have nothing to lose you are the most dangerous fucking thing in this entire goddamn world.

Let the anger and the rage flow through you like fuel cascading down onto a righteous fire in your belly.

Train yourselves up in violent disciplines. Take no shit from anyone and be prepared to exact furious retribution on all transgressors. If you don't make them pay no one will. Fucking remember that shit goddamnit.

Most of all stop doing whatever you can think of that helps keep this unholy beast chugging along. Grab some gasoline and let's light a cigar as this motherfucker burns to the ground!

Paul #fundie returnofkings.com

I read an article when I was overseas (Eastern) that said 'a boy brought up by only his mother will increase the chances of him turning gay.'

It got me thinking and all the guys I had to deal with that are "bi" or gay, were only brought up by their mother. Most of these guys are lucky to ever get laid and cause they are still little boys, this is what I believe... they end up becoming GAY men so they can get comfort and love cause they can't get laid from a woman. It makes sense... you live your whole life not getting any love from a woman cause your a HUGE beta, and we all know betas are children that need comfort, love and attention, I'm sure they would bend over and be a bitch to get what they want at some stage of their life if they refuse to take the red pill. Just like David Futrelle.

When I google it, I found some articles from religion where a child WILL BE confused about his sexuality if he or she is only brought up by his mother and it will increase their chance of becoming gay.

Advancedatheist #fundie returnofkings.com

I would like to see the return of social norms where gays feel shame and humility again because they face sanctions against "expressing themselves," and where they especially have a lot of trouble finding each other to engage in their self-destructive behavior. I suppose gay men's lives have "value" based on some kind of abstract moral reasoning. But that "value" doesn't mean they have a right to sexual fulfillment, for the simple reason that nobody has such a right. Instead we have let gay men set the standard for this entitlement mentality that threatens to bring down civilization.

Oh, speaking of a return to tradition, I work in the hospitality industry, and last night I checked in a young, Mennonite-looking couple from Missouri. The young woman wore a plain, old-fashioned prairie dress and bonnet, like she stepped off the cover of one of those "bonnet ripper" novels many women like to read these days.

I thought: Hey, I could see living in a world where that standard of women's decorum becomes the norm again. I don't like the world of obese, vulgar, loud, promiscuous women with tattoos, piercings and opinions based on arbitrary liberal ideology instead of empiricism.

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.

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.

TS77RP1 #fundie returnofkings.com

The only way back is to begin punishing ambition in our daughters and in all female children. They need to be physically and psychologically disciplined to be servile and deferential and they unfortunately need to have it beaten into them that they should NEVER trust their own judgement and always seek guidance and permission of their male headships. My daughter would be turned out with nothing but a shirt on her back if she so much as looked at a college website or played with her brother's educational toys. She would be belted to the point of being unable to sit if she exhibited confidence in decision making. I don't want my wife to step foot out of the house unless her every dime and minute spent can be accounted for and executed in conjuncture with my approval. My daughter will exude obedience and timidity for whoever her future husband is and it's imperative that all Christian Men demand nothing less within their own homes. Playtime for feminazis and the left is over. This is our world and our heritage to protect. Let the cultural war begin!

Krum #racist returnofkings.com

As Roosh says people's exterior reflect their inner world and let's not beat around the bush - Most Jewish people are plain ugly!

I can always tell if someone is Jewish simply by looking at their faces and I don't mean just the nose. I guess traditions like incest, child sacrifices, Metzitzah B'Peh, etc are bound to reflect on their exteriors and characters.

If they hadn't mixed with other races they would have become totally deformed by now.

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.

hv #sexist returnofkings.com

To be honest, I'm starting to think maybe Saudi Arabia has it right. When you look at the disaster that Western feminism has wrought in Western societies, why would you even consider for a moment that the current Western culture is so much more "superior" to other cultures?

What puzzles me about some of the reactions of people here is that you seem to be anti-feminist and yet you attack the Muslim and Arab world for keeping women in their place, which yes, sometimes unfortunately requires some measure of coercion, social and physical.. because ultimately, that is the only thing that will work. The manosphere is full of “analyses” about how feminism is destroying the West and ruining Western civilization.. you don’t seem to consider the fact that perhaps the only way to fight feminism is through coercion and denying women certain freedoms and rights. Nothing else will work. You can write long articles about how feminism is detrimental to society and might cause all sorts of problems but that will not make women give up their rights or their freedoms, sexual or otherwise. Once you give women equal rights, you end up precisely with the problems you lament about in the manosphere.. you might want to consider minding your own business in the West. Muslim men know feminism and giving women equal rights isn’t in the interest of the average man, and clearly as the social experiment in the West demonstrates, equal rights for women is a disaster in many ways for most men. See the following articles by women in the Islamic world starting to question and fight male-patriarchal attitudes and cultural oppression. The plague of Western feminism and liberalism is spreading in the Muslim world and in the Middle-East.. Is this "progress" ?

1) ““When a woman is the sum of her headscarf and hymen — then nakedness and sex become weapons of political resistance”

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/st...

2) Beirut’s “Carrie Bradshaw”: tired of women being seen as mothers, daughters, lovers, wives, properties, accessories

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

Give women an inch, and they will demand a mile. I suggest you Western men here who seem to hate feminism after letting women walk all over you and emasculate you kindly STFU and don’t lecture the Muslim world about how to deal with their women. They know what is in their interests. Do you?

Blair Naso #sexist returnofkings.com

The popular narrative today is that women demanded the right to vote and the menfolk just told them no until they got tired of their whining. After all, why wouldn’t a woman want more rights?

Turns out there are plenty of reasons why most women would want their own rights restricted, and they all have to do with women knowing the true nature of women. As the saying goes, “A misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate each other.” Women know exactly how terrible they can be. A feminist friend of mine once told me, “I envy men, because you can put two random guys in a college dorm together and they’ll get along, but that never happens with two random girls.”

The anti-suffragist organizations had the same numbers among women in America and the United Kingdom as the suffragist organizations, often even excluding men from joining. More women than men were opposed to women’s suffrage. In fairness, some of these groups supported women’s suffrage in local elections.

But all of them feared the hell that would be spawned from complete women’s suffrage, namely the soft socialism we live in today. Ever notice how everything Obama says is pro-woman but that he’s dialed-down his pro-black agenda? It’s because women are the only fans he still has left. Even the blacks don’t want him anymore.

Here’s a few reasons why women themselves did not want to involve themselves in politics.

Less Than Feminine

It’s unbecoming for a woman to be caught up in the affairs of politics. It just isn’t sexy. Nobody likes an activist. A woman doped up on Fox News or HuffPo is as disturbing as your stepmother screaming at the referee at a high school basketball game.

Women get passionate about things, often that whichever her man is passionate about. This can be a very good thing in the right contexts. In the wrong contexts, it’s terrifying. A friend of mine used to be big into Rush Limbaugh, and he decided to involve his wife in his passion. But she was a psychopath in general, and he became horrified at this terrifying right-wing beast he had created. He saw her general hatred and cruelty magnified in her political views.

[...]

Be as offended as you want, but how many women have you met who were bitter, aggressive, and antagonistic over their political views? Why would a woman want to turn into that? And how many more women than men have you met with that demeanor? Being married to a woman invested in politics or social theory is like being married to that one passive-aggressive co-worker who is best friends with the manager.

Today more women than men vote, especially single women, although married women vote more often than single women. Single women are more likely to vote Democrat than married women, and men are more likely to vote Republican than either of them. Whether it’s the financial support or the moral guidance of a husband, women tend to be right-wing when influenced by a man (hence why the left keeps trying to destroy the nuclear family).

And if you are a man who votes Democrat, then yes, you vote like a girl. And probably the kind of ugly girl no man wants to commit to instead of the young hot Presbyterian Sunday school teacher.

Part of the reason women tend to vote Democrat is because women are terrible with money and math. This is the same reason kids are taught in school to pursue their dream job instead of learning a trade that will provide a secure income.

Bad For The Family

Ultimate History Project writes,

One year later, on April 3, 1914, [Theodore Roosevelt’s cousin-in-law Kate] Roosevelt’s diary mentions Mrs. Martin speaking at the home of Mrs. Henry Seligman, wife of the millionaire banker—According to the Times, Mrs. Martin proceeded to tear to tatters the great new cause. The audience listened to her demolition of the suffrage movement “We are not merely against feminism, but for the family. We cannot reconcile feminism and the family. We hope to hear the sound of women’s feet, walking away from the factory and back to the home.”

Notice the idea of suffrage is connected to women in careers. Ideas do not exist in isolation. The barefoot and pregnant Catholic housewife with five children is a far happier person than the sulky feminist writer who retires to squeeze out a retarded child in her late 30s conceived through in vitro.

Women often don’t transition well from the office to the home, becoming bored and listless after being used to the high energy (and germophobic) environment of work. Furthermore, the reason feminist writers think careers are fulfilling is because writing feminist literature is fun. Most women (and men) don’t have careers—they have jobs where they work at the grocery store and hate life.

This claim that women’s entrance into politics and the workforce would destroy the family was not merely the anti-suffrage position. The suffragists themselves admitted that a war between the sexes was a major reason they wanted the right to vote.

[...]

If you look at history, democracy has rarely worked well. It is not rule by the majority but rule by the loudest. And who is louder than a woman? Who is more passionate? And when women follow others like lemmings, we see that women’s suffrage can quickly become destructive.

True, the monarch could be oppressive, take away your rights, censor speech, enact things that the most people are opposed to, and often make the common people miserable and impoverished. But how is that any different than modern western democracies? At least the monarch could accomplish things. Our government can’t get anything done except throw away money.

Furthermore, the monarch has the all-seeing God, his family legacy, and anxious nobles with small armies breathing down his neck to help make sure he does what’s best for the country. In the democracy, it’s greedy corporations and small minorities of activists who control the political narrative. Which is the lesser evil?

[...]

Progress

We have this idea as a society that we are constantly getting smarter with each generation. Yet if you read old books, you find that man has gradually become stupider over the centuries. Even just 100 years ago, people—both men and women—still had the common sense to not shoot themselves in the foot over women’s issues.

Today we have this sense of rights in general, like we are entitled by God at best and by Nothing at worst to have certain laws in place. Where God or Nothing promised this to us is beyond me.

The liberal atheist believes in these human rights more than anyone, even though he doesn’t believe in a god and therefore has no basis for his natural law philosophy. At the least it would make sense for him to believe in whatever is either the oldest or the most universal morality, but instead most atheists jump ahead to whatever new moral fad will fill the emptiness. Just because religion is the opium of the masses doesn’t mean mankind doesn’t need an opium.

The religious person isn’t any more off the hook. Nowhere in the Bible is tolerance, equality, or democracy mentioned, and I doubt they are very prevalent in other religions. The Bible doesn’t say much about politics, but one could make the best guess that while a king may or may not be appointed by God, a senator or president is clearly appointed by man, and therefore democracy isn’t Biblical.

Wi Tu Lo #fundie returnofkings.com

The ultimate reference to the Bible is in Genesis. Women were made from the rib of man. Without a man first being created, women would never exist. This is the ultimate reality that feminists can never get over or get past. All effort at feminist supremacy are therefor doomed.

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.

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.

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.

kramw #fundie returnofkings.com

With global and national power elites, the 'changing of guard' occurs like clockwork with each revolution of the planets it seems. Old bureaucrats out and in with a new crop of 'crats'.

It has been at least as long as the turn of the nearest greater star system since the guard changed gender and mankind fell under absolute 'bitch rule'. Many changes in groups of MEN ruling, but not recently have we seen a landslide of women grabbing clubs and wagering for a mad power grab. Of record, acient Egypt was the last to fall under severe bitch rule with the priestess judges. An era of bitch rule in a technological age could last longer than a lifetime before it is exhausted and collapses.

Gender cuts across all lines - racial, religious, political, cultural - it is a vector that divides every other category. Every pie graph with which you can categorize humans into separate groups is skewered through the middle like a shishkabob when you factor in gender.

Under 'bitch rule', women donning the robes of power and seizing the 'guard' is the final stage of arrested development for humanity. I've personally experienced and seen women in action hundreds if not thousands of times. Should they be allowed to rule? I will testify HELL NO.

Picture if you will the laughable Darwinian cartoon depicting the drawings of the chimpanzee gradually becoming upright and finally there stands a European man in a suit with briefcase. (and it is undoubtably a cartoon that must have spawned such theory). Then imagine reversing the diagram. Begin with a picture of a patriarchal family, tribe or klan, and devolve it to its most failed state of dysfunction. The picture of the rock bottom gutter for humanity would be a picture of a large burly muscular female holding a whip over a castrated male.

No system of culture or law can survive and remain consistent with the right brain deciding all matters on a whim and a monthly bout of complete psychosis. Our civilizations would never get off the ground. Rome would have been like an etch a sketch tablet. Its foundations shaken and erased monthly. Rome would have NEVER BEEN in other words. No civilization could ever arise until man dominated woman. No matter how much trading the baton from one monthly bedridden damsel to another fresh femme runner, the overriding downward flush would quickly sweep humans under the rug.

This goes for all races - We must all get back control of our women or else we are all looking at entering a long dark age of animal like baby eating barbarism.

Dylan Frost #fundie returnofkings.com

It wasn’t until my siblings and I were fully grown that I realized the necessity of investing in your sons. I come from a family of three children, with me being that last in line with two older sisters. Growing up, I’d like to think that we were all raised rather fairly, without too much favoritism towards any one of us in particular.

But like most families, much of the preparation for raising children to become adults starts with the oldest child, and then down to the others. By the time both of my sisters had started college and had strained my parents financially, it was my turn to go to school and there wasn’t much help my parents could offer anymore; I had to work and pay for myself.

Now, I don’t want this to come off as a sob story; “Oh, poor me who had to pay for my own education!” But the results of the money my parents invested in my sisters first compared to their outcomes in life really struck me as to why it is important to invest in your son’s endeavors.

A Case Study

My oldest sister, the star child of the group with straight As throughout school, ultimately ended up getting a degree in journalism (no surprise in today’s climate) and has spent the last decade bouncing between odd jobs. By the saving grace of her recent fiancée (an engineer), she now lives comfortably doing whatever she pleases as he works as the breadwinner.

The thousands of dollars that went to her education have ultimately become a waste, and she seems to not have a care in the world about it. She recently lamented that she was “bored with life;” Oh, how hard it must be to have a man taking care of all of your bills while you sit around the house and aren’t out on the streets.

My next sister was the wild child. We were all surprised when she chose to go to college, but in the typical female-child mentality, she decided to get a degree in fashion design. Somewhere down the line, she became a repulsive hairy-armpit overweight vegan, and I shit you not, she now works as a vet tech taking care of cats. Obviously she had no backup plan when her dreams of being a fashionista were doomed to fail.

...

I guess the point is, it doesn’t matter what your daughters are going to do. The wild child is ultimately going to end up making poor choices and failing you as a parent, and even your little princess with the most promise will ultimately end up marrying a man who will turn her into a housewife anyway.

So this is why you should invest in your sons. I worked to save money, I learned two different languages, I paid for my own college education (international business), and I’ve spent the last five years living in both Tokyo, Japan and Seoul, South Korea while visiting another dozen countries to boot.

I can only wonder how much easier this process of getting to where I want in life would have been if only my parents had the foresight to understand how their daughters would turn out. Invest in your sons. They’ll get educations, they’ll open businesses, they’ll create wealth for themselves and travel and live the life of men with the world in the palm of their hands. Your daughters will become housewives at best, cat ladies at worst.

Michael Sebastian #fundie returnofkings.com

(part of an article titled Why You Should Emulate Jim Bob Duggar Of “19 Kids And Counting”)

While you might not subscribe to Jim Bob’s religion or want such a large brood, there are lots of reasons to aspire to be like him.

Jim Bob gets as much sex as he wants

Jim Bob has a lot more sex than most guys, especially married ones. In an interview with Today, Michelle Duggar said: “In your marriage there will be times you’re going to be very exhausted. Your hubby comes home after a hard day’s work, you get the baby to bed, and he is going to be looking forward to that time with you.”

Her advice to other women is to “be available. Anyone can fix him lunch, but only one person can meet that physical need of love that he has, and you always need to be available when he calls.”

Granted, not everyone would want to sleep with Michelle Duggar. This is a valid objection. Michelle is a little past her prime (she is pushing 50), but if you make allowances for the 80s fashion and hairstyle, young Michelle was actually attractive.

Others might raise the objection that Jim Bob has limited himself to sleeping with just one woman. This is also a valid objection, but seducing good-looking women takes time and effort, even for alpha predators. And not all guys are irresistible alphas. If you happen to look like Jim Bob, it might take a lot of effort, so Jim Bob’s deal is actually pretty good.

While Jim Bob says he treats his wife like a queen, it still pays off. Michelle takes care of his needs. She has a home cooked meal on the table and cheerfully tends to his brood. There are many other men who treat their wives or girlfriends like queens and get TV dinners and no sex in return.

[...]

Jim Bob is having an impact on the world

Most modern day parents abdicate their duties as primary educators of their children to the state and to popular culture. Jim Bob, on the other hand, has done a great job of instilling his values into his nineteen children. Assuming that each of his children has ten children, that will mean that within a few years, Jim Bob will be the patriarch of over 200 people. Few men are fortunate enough to establish that kind of a legacy.

Additionally, Jim Bob takes his role as father seriously. While many modern day dads provide little to no guidance about relationships and marriage, Jim Bob makes a point to teach his children the importance of picking a suitable husband or wife. And by home schooling his children and monitoring Internet and phone access he has managed to prevent the culture from corrupting them.

Additionally Jim Bob’s strict approach successfully prevents his daughters (and sons) from becoming promiscuous. No father, no matter how “progressive,” wants to see his daughters become grist for the serial pump and dump mill, and Jim Bob’s method has been successful so far.

The Duggar girls prove that not all western women are beyond hope. They were taught to cook, clean, and save themselves for marriage. And if they are like their mother, they will never deny their husbands sex. Jackpot.

The Duggar’s way of life is obviously counter-cultural. It might be too extreme for some men, but we can all still learn a little from Jim Bob’s approach.

Matt Forney #sexist #crackpot returnofkings.com

Ayn Rand once wrote, “Show me the woman [a man] sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself.” If this applies to American men in general, our nation is rocketing towards Gomorrah like a fat kid on a water slide. No less than an authority than the New York Times has declared that booty is in, with pop singers and movie stars like Iggy Azalea and Beyonce showing off their asses and music videos for songs like “Booty” providing a butt buffet for America’s simpletons.

This is not a good thing.

I don’t mean to trample on anyone’s preferences, but America’s increasing ass addiction is further evidence of our decline as a society. Not only is booty worship associated with primitive, backwards cultures, but America’s burgeoning butt cult is yet another expression of female narcissism. By cheering on the likes of Meghan Trainor and other ambassadors of ass, you are helping perpetuate the degradation of women into fat, self-centered sluts.

Ass, Class And Status

It’s universally accepted that a man’s preferences in female beauty are indicative of his class and attitude. Historically, ass fixations were considered trashy, because butts signify the primal and hearken back to our animal origins. Boobs were associated with working-class men (think the original Playboy), while legs were the preference of the upper classes because they signified good breeding (since height is an indicator of good nutrition and genes).

This was confirmed by a recent Pornhub study analyzing the types of search strings their sites get. The map below displays whether boob or butt searches are more popular in certain countries:

image

As you can see, asses are preferred in Africa, South America, and the Middle East, regions known for their crushing poverty and corrupt governments. The civilized, wealthy nations of the world, from Europe to Asia, prefer boobs. Egypt and Argentina, historically the most advanced countries on their respective continents, also prefer boobs. The U.S. is the only first world nation in the Butt column, and that’s primarily because of our large black and Latino populations.

Looking at a state-by-state breakdown, we see the exact same pattern. The states where boobs reign are the whitest ones, as well as the ones with the highest quality of life, the least corrupt governments, and the lowest crime rates. Vote Ass if you enjoy paying 50 percent of your taxes to a government that can’t even pave the roads or protect you from criminals, while your city devolves into a third world cesspool.

Those Phat Asses Aren’t For You

So maybe you think my civilizational explanation is cracked out, or you just don’t care about the fate of the U.S. But even if that’s the case, there’s still a very good reason to oppose the MSM’s booty crusade: it’s feeding the self-absorption of young women.

The reason why asses are considered low-class is because developing a big ass requires less discipline then any other female beauty standard. The butt is the only part of a woman’s anatomy that improves when she gains weight. Contrary to what fat girls think, getting obese doesn’t make for better boobs, because a fatty’s tits are veiny, distended, and saggy. Absolutely no effort is required for a girl to get a big ass; perfect for a nation in which the majority of women are turning into cellulite-ridden hambeasts.

This is the most troubling aspect of America’s butt cult: virtually all the ass anthems being pushed by the media are paeans of self-love. Take the video for Meghan Trainor’s “All About That Bass” as an example:

Trainor is a fat white girl rapping about how she’s fine just the way she is, how beauty standards that expect her to cut down on the bon-bons are oppressive, and denigrating women who have “stick figure,” “Barbie doll” physiques. The message to girls is clear: don’t work on yourself, don’t take care of your body, and any man repulsed by your undulating stomach flab and toilet paper-infested asscrack is a meanie misogynist.

The same attitude is present in last year’s other major butt worship song, Jennifer Lopez’s “Booty.” When that video first came out, I was talking about it with some friends and one commented on how anhedonic and unsexy it was. I told him that “Booty” wasn’t supposed to be sexy. J.Lo and Iggy Azalea aren’t flaunting their butts because they want to look hot for men, they’re doing it out of narcissism: “You better worship my big booty, or else!”

Contrast these music videos to Sir Mix-a-Lot’s “Baby Got Back,” which ass-lovers point to as an example of how butts have gone mainstream. “Baby Got Back” is sexy and appealing because it was sung from a man’s perspective, about what men liked. It wasn’t even representative of black America’s tastes, because the majority of attractive black women didn’t emphasize their butts, even going all the way back to the sixties (NSFW link).

The current crop of ass anthems are by women, about women, and are about shaming men for not giving these women the deference they think they deserve. What you prefer as a man is irrelevant: big booty is the only item on the menu, and if you don’t like it, you can starve for all they care.

Planet Of The Asses

It’s fine to prefer booty, but the left never stops at tolerance. Gay rights were originally sold to the public with the “tolerance” canard, but in the year 2015, Christian bakers are getting sued left and right for refusing to make gay wedding cakes. Eventually, if you don’t worship the flabby ass of every narwhal lumbering down the street, you’ll be treated like you’re personally jamming your finger down the throat of every bulimic in America.

Again, if you like asses, there’s no problem with that. But the booty cult being pushed by the mainstream media isn’t the product of what men want, it’s yet another way to bolster the already inflated egos of women. Iggy Azalea, Meghan Trainor and their ilk are horsewomen of the female narcissism apocalypse, slipping poison in the ears of this nation’s already slovenly, slutty, selfish girls.

Donovan Sharpe #fundie returnofkings.com

Why shouldn’t women be referees?

Estrogen. You see competitive sports on all levels gets intense. In the heat of battle, tempers flare, names are called, and shit gets physical outside of the normal playing rules. Minor scuffles break out all the time in the NBA and the NFL. The officiating crews know and understand that this is what happens when testosterone mixes with adrenaline in a competitive environment.

Cooler heads prevail more often than not (the Malice at the Palace being the one major exception) and outside of a few shoves and some foul language, referees generally refrain from imposing any sort of penalty.

Women are governed by their emotions. So when things heat up on the playing field and things get rowdy they go to their default programming which is make the call based on feelings. Thursday night was the perfect example of this. The Clippers were frustrated due to being blown out, but Holtkamp made it worse by unleashing her hair trigger finger with all of her terrible calls because she simply couldn’t handle the gravity of the situation.

The bottom line is she cracked under pressure and tried to mitigate the damage by projecting it onto the players by making bad calls. And if you think this going to be an isolated event, think again. All women are like that. Period.

Plus, when things do escalate physically referees step in to separate the players. You think a female is strong enough to stop a 6’6? 230 lb power forward from accosting another player?

Then there’s the issue regarding personal vendettas. Yes, men hold grudges from time to time, but females take them to their graves. Piss them off one time and you’re on their shit list for life. There’s no way Holtkamp doesn’t hold this against Paul, and I’d bet the farm that other female officials act on long standing quarrels with players and coaches on the regular.

In the end—

—this is about the relentless pursuit of the infiltration into a male sphere by women. Female referees, female sports pundits, women’s causes and every other vagina-motivated agendas are becoming more prominent by the day. This fiasco is further proof that sports on all levels will eventually be eroded by women and their white knight betas.

This is yet another feather in the feminist cap. Sooner or later sports will be completely infested by females rendering professional sports in this country just about unwatchable in every way.

Ray Wolfson #fundie returnofkings.com

[In response to a post claiming that Katy Perry and the NFL were promoting lesbianism at the Superbowl]

it's not lesbianism that's the problem, it's the bisexual agenda that lets women be anything they want to be.... if men jump the fence they become gay, but it's generally abhorrent to most males... they are either gay or straight.... women can and will float in the middle with even a small amount of persuasion.... I kissed a girl and I liked it, openly encourages women to get down and dirty with each other... it's not the same as men turning gay.... it's far more messy....

this makes them hyper sexualized sluts, both with each other and with men.... it shuts men out from innocent dating and stable relationships and by the time a girl is in her early 20s, she already has a closet full of sex toys and carnal knowledge of 10+ BFFs.... and a bunch of men too...... any young man trying to compete with that is automatically a beta (or a full blown gangster pimp)....

you end up with a ghetto attitude towards sex, where it's only about hedonistic fucking and pleasure, something Dante talks about in his trip through hell....

NeoBushi #fundie returnofkings.com

[In response to Katy Perry singing at the Superbowl]

I kissed a girl should not be sung by a woman in a super bowl halftime show. This is blatant social engineering and the NFL should be ashamed for promoting lesbianism to the masses.

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.

Ashlar Ben David #fundie returnofkings.com

Modern feminism embraces sex denialism

Sex Denialism, a denial of the Essential Difference, obviously leads to less happiness for those who buy into it. All of life is a game of learning how to maximize, tame, and utilize your own nature to live closer and closer to a state of harmony and congruence. Denying one’s nature and spending all day rebelling against it is a very quick path to unhappiness, so it’s no surprise that sex-denying transsexuals have some of the highest incidence rates for drug abuse and suicide.

I would guess that it is working even better than planned. The sheer number of people who have been trained to parrot rhetoric about the “gender binary,” somehow having buried everything they know to be true, real and good somewhere inside of them in favor of a pat on the head and maybe a treat, is staggering and absurd. The damage this causes on a global scale, and the way in which it has altered other groups’ perception of America, is just as important as the damage it’s causing internally. That is a topic for another time.

It is also playing out in schools, but in the context of education it benefits women in the short-term (though as always, not the long-term). Males are inherently seen as having a profound weakness in “non-cognitive skills,” so schools are now designed to help males get in touch with their feminine side by threat of medication and therapy for ADD.

Of course, men do tend to perform worse at most “non-cognitive skills” than women, but it is equally true to say that women have a defect in “cognitive skills.” In a sane world, men would teach boys male skills and women would teach girls female skills. But we do not live in a sane world, do we?

Instead of the obvious solution—teach men to train their minds and teach women to learn the art of femininity and home care—our society’s solution was to punish men for not being women, and to artificially inflate girls’ grades so they could see how much smarter than boys they are. To an alien looking down on the United States, our situation would doubtless appear to be a cosmic joke of some kind. Like maybe the leaders in America somehow lost a bet, and now they have to destroy their own country in the most obviously stupid possible ways.

Broken schools, broken marriages, and broken families. Only one of three things can happen at this point:

1. A strong, moralistic and traditional leader is fairly elected into office, and he strong-arms the country back into sense and reason. This outcome is highly unlikely, and by far the most ideal option.

2. An enemy who is already poised to attack and hiding within our borders will strike when the time is right, attempting to topple the government and impose their own rule instead. This is a fairly likely outcome, as there are groups here right now who would love nothing more than the opportunity to take down everything America stands for. Whether they would succeed is anyone’s guess, but they will certainly try.

3. An enemy from outside invades and conquers. This is also fairly likely, as if the weakening of our military and wide-open southern border are any indication, we are a nation and a culture that has largely given up without a fight. T

he fight was carried out so insidiously that most had no idea they were in the middle of a war, and yet our ranks are decimated and the people have turned on themselves and each other. A weak military, weak family bonds, and weak tribal identity make any culture ripe for the pickings.

Will we shoot the vultures out of the sky, or let them fight over our bones?

Psquare #fundie returnofkings.com

ROK sure knows how to dwell into the abyss of nihilism. Hating women for their actions is like hating a fish for swimming. This behaviour that we are seeing is the physical manifestation of Eve. Eve was self-entitled, narcissistic and fell for the charms of a bad boy(Lucifer). Adam failed to keep his bitch in check and the rest was history. I'm not a devout Christian but I know wisdom when I read it. Women have always been decimated and desecrated. Hence the patriarchal systems of old institutionalized marriages and limited their freedoms to save them from themselves.

A free woman without a man to keep her in check is dangerous as she will always seek out the forbidden fruit e.g. bad boys, marxism etc. Now that we have governments that have practically nullified our abilities to keep these hoes in check, the Eve that dwells in every women has the perfect opportunity to be released and scorch the Earth.

Since most if not all of us here have no political and economic means to reverse the workings of the Cathedral, one has a variety of ways to adapt to the over-saturation of hoes in the world.

1. Become a pimp- Pussy has become such a worthless commodity, why not make a profit for yourself and turn out bitches to give you revenue. This not only meets your monetary needs but her needs to be mounted by as many cocks as humanly possible. Win-win for the both of you. * You need to be exceptional in behavioural and psychological manipulation

2. Be a player- Run through as many hoes as you can(use protection) and limit your investments(don't 'wine and dine' these hoes) . You can also form a team with other players to toss each other your used up hoes. I can vouch for this as it limits your dry spells by having a constant rotation of hoes that you can fuck.
*Take a break to recharge your batteries and spirituality

3.Celibacy- Avoid hoes altogether and channel your libido into a project, technological/business venture or in the expression of art(music, paintings, acting etc.)

guest #fundie returnofkings.com

Interestingly, just as Spengler predicted in Decline of the West, as our civilization gets farther from its foundational texts, i.e. its myths are analyzed out of existence, the more things fall apart.

I'm not a Christian but I know wisdom when I see it, and there is a good reason this wisdom was written down a long time ago. Humans have not really changed biologically in 10,000 years or more...but our surroundings have seen rapid and revolutionary changes in that time. Civilization has sprung up, and as Freud pointed out, much of the daily struggle man has results from the combatting tendencies of his animal nature vs. the demands of civilization. (Love him or hate him, I think Freud was basically right in Civilization and Its Discontents.)

Religions can be valuable as ways to try and control some of man's (and woman's) nature. Like it or not, as we have lost touch with religion in our society, the worse things have become and the worse they're going to get.

Shortest Straw #fundie returnofkings.com

Rape should not be a standalone crime at all. Rape is considered a crime purely because it affects a woman's honor. If rape involves restraint or coercion, or threats, or violence, those are separate crimes and should be treated as such. But the mere act of inserting a penis in a vagina: Why is that potentially such a heinous crime?

The answer is it all boils down to feelings. She is "violated".

The mere fact of considering rape to be a crime demonstrates inequality. Women are special, fragile creatures, and if they have sex they didn't particularly want, or later regretted, it must be that heinous of crimes, rape. They are fragile, vulnerable, helpless creatures and must be coddled like fine china.

When sex is criminalized, we are doomed.

Roosh Valizadeh #fundie returnofkings.com

It was Joe’s first date with Mary. He asked her what she wanted in life and she replied, “I want to establish my career. That’s the most important thing to me right now.” Undeterred that she had no need for a man in her life, Joe entertained her with enough funny stories and cocky statements that she soon allowed him to lightly pet her forearm.

At the end of the date, he locked arms with her on the walk to the subway station, when two Middle Eastern men on scooter patrol accosted them and said they were forbidden to touch. “This is Sharia zone,” they said in heavily accented English, in front of a Halal butcher shop. Joe and Mary felt bad that they offended the two men, because they were trained in school to respect all religions but that of their ancestors. One of the first things they learned was that their white skin gave them extra privilege in life which must be consciously restrained at all times. Even if they happened to disagree with the two men, they could not verbally object because of anti-hate laws that would put them in jail for religious discrimination. They unlocked arms and maintained a distance of three feet from each other.

Unfortunately for Joe, Mary did not want to go out with him again, but seven years later he did receive a message from her on Facebook saying hello. She became vice president of a company, but could not find a man equal to her station since women now made 25% more than men on average. Joe had long left the country and moved to Thailand, where he married a young Thai girl and had three children. He had no plans on returning to his country, America.

If cultural collapse occurs in the way I will now describe, the above scenario will be the rule within a few decades. The Western world is being colonized in reverse, not by weapons or hard power, but through a combination of progressivism and low reproductive rates. These two factors will lead to a complete cultural collapse of many Western nations within the next 200 years. This theory will show the most likely mechanism that it will proceed in America, Canada, UK, Scandinavia, and Western Europe.

...

The Cultural Collapse Progression

1. Removal of religious narrative from people’s lives, replaced by a treadmill of scientific and technological “progress.”

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles through feminism, gender equality, political correctness, cultural Marxism, and socialism.

3. Delay or abstainment of family formation by women to pursue careerist lifestyles while men wait in confused limbo.

4. Decreasing birth rate among native population.

5. Government enactment of open immigration policies to prevent economic collapse.

6. Immigrant refusal to fully acclimate, forcing host culture to adopt external rituals and beliefs while being out-reproduced.

7. Natives becoming marginalized in their own country.

1. Removal of religious narrative

Religion has been a powerful restraint for millennia in preventing humans from pursuing their base desires and narcissistic tendencies so that they satisfy a god. Family formation is the central unit of most religions, possibly because children increase membership at zero marginal cost to the church (i.e. they don’t need to be recruited).

Religion may promote scientific ignorance, but it facilitates reproduction by giving people a narrative that places family near the center of their existence.[1] [2] [3] After the Enlightenment, the rapid advance of science and its logical but nihilistic explanations into the universe have removed the religious narrative and replaced it with an empty narrative of scientific progress, knowledge, and technology, which act as a restraint and hindrance to family formation, allowing people to pursue individual goals of wealth accumulation or hedonistic pleasure seeking.[4] As of now, there has not been a single non-religious population that has been able to reproduce above the death rate.[5]

...

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles

Once religion no longer plays a role in people’s lives, the stage is set to fracture male-female bonding. It is collectively attacked by several ideologies stemming from the beliefs of Cultural Marxist theory, which serve to accomplish one common end: destruction of the family unit so that citizens are dependent on the state. They achieve this goal through the marginalization of men and their role in society under the banner of “equality.”[6] With feminism pushed to the forefront of this umbrella movement, the drive for equality ends up being a power grab by women.[7] This attack is performed on a range of fronts:

medicating boys from a young age with ADHD drugs to eradicate displays of masculinity[8]
shaming of men for having direct sexual interest in attractive and fertile women
criminalization of normal male behavior by redefining some instances of consensual sex as rape[9]
imprisonment of unemployed fathers for non-payment of child support, rendering them destitute and unable to be a part of their children’s lives[10]
taxation of men at higher rates for redistribution to women[11] [12]
promotion of single mother and homosexual lifestyles over that of the nuclear family[13] [14]

The end result is that men, confused about their identify and averse to state punishment from sexual harassment, “date rape,” and divorce proceedings, make a rational decision to wait on the sidelines.[15] Women, still not happy with the increased power given to them, continue their assault on men by instructing them to “man up” into what has become an unfair deal—marriage. The elevation of women above men is allowed by corporations, which adopt “girl power” marketing to expand their consumer base and increase profits.[16] [17] Governments also allow it because it increases their tax revenue. Because there is money to be made with women working and becoming consumers, there is no effort by the elite to halt this development.
3. Women begin to place career above family

At the same time men are emasculated as mere “sperm donors,” women are encouraged to adopt the career goals, mannerisms, and competitive lifestyles of men, inevitably causing them to delay marriage, often into an age where they can no longer find suitable husbands who have more resources than themselves. [18] [19] [20] [21] The average woman will find it exceedingly difficult to balance career and family, and since she has no concern of getting “fired” from her family, who she may see as a hindrance to her career goals, she will devote an increasing proportion of time into her job.

Female income, in aggregate, will soon match or exceed that of men.[22] [23] [24] A key reason that women historically got married was to be economically provided for, but this reason will no longer persist and women will feel less pressure or motivation to marry. The burgeoning spinster population will simply be a money-making opportunity for corporations to market to an increasing population of lonely women. Cat and small dog sales will rise.

Women succumb to their primal sexual and materialistic urges to live the “Sex and the City” lifestyle full of fine dining, casual sex, technological bliss, and general gluttony without learning traditional household skills or feminine qualities that would make them attractive wives.[25] [26] Men adapt to careerist women in a rational way by doing the following:

to sate their natural sexual desires, men allow their income to lower since economic stability no longer provides a draw to women in their prime[27]
they mimic “alpha male” social behavior to get laid with women who, without having an urgent need for a man’s monetary resources to survive, can choose men based on confidence, aesthetics, and general entertainment value[28]
they withdraw into a world of video games and the internet, satisfying their own base desires for play and simulated hunting[29] [30]

Careerist women who decide to marry will do so in a hurried rush around 30 because they fear growing old alone, but since they are well past their fertility peak[31], they may find it difficult to reproduce. In the event of successful reproduction at such a later age, fewer children can be born before biological infertility, limiting family size compared to the historical past.

...

Cultural decline begins in earnest when the natives feel shame or guilt for who they are, their history, their way of life, and where their ancestors came from. They will let immigrant groups criticize their customs without protest, or they simply embrace immigrant customs instead with religious conversion and interethnic marriages. Nationalistic pride will be condemned as a “far-right” phenomenon and popular nationalistic politicians will be compared to Hitler. Natives learn the art of self-censorship, limiting the range of their speech and expressions, and soon only the elderly can speak the truths of the cultural decline while a younger multiculturalist within earshot attributes such frankness to senility or racist nostalgia.

With the already entrenched environment of political correctness (see stage 2), the local culture becomes a sort of “world” culture that can be declared tolerant and progressive as long as there is a lack of criticism against immigrants, multiculturalism, and their combined influence. All cultural identity will eventually be lost, and to be “American” or “British,” for example, will no longer have modern meaning from a sociological perspective. Native traditions will be eradicated and a cultural mixing will take place where citizens from one world nation will be nearly identical in behavior, thought, and consumer tastes to citizens of another. Once a collapse occurs, it cannot be reversed. The nation’s cultural heritage will be forever lost.

...

How To Stop Cultural Collapse

Maintaining native birth rates while preventing the elite from allowing immigrant labor is the most effective means at preventing cultural collapse. Since multiculturalism is an experiment with no proven efficacy, a culture can only be maintained by a relatively homogenous group who identify with each other. When that homogeneity breaks down and one citizen looks to the next and does not see a person with the same values as himself, the culture falls in dis-repair as native citizens begin to lose a shared means of communication and identity. Once the percentage of the immigrant population crosses a certain threshold (perhaps 15%), the decline will pick up in pace and cultural breakdown will be readily apparent to all observers.

Current policies to solve low birth rates through immigration is a short-term fix with dire long-term consequences. In effect, it’s a Trojan-horse prescription of irreversible cultural destruction. A state must prevent itself from entering the position where mass immigration is considered a solution by blocking progressive ideologies from taking hold. One way this can be done is through the promotion of a state-sponsored religion which encourages the nuclear family instead of single motherhood and homosexuality. However, introducing religion as a mainstay of citizen life in the post-enlightenment era may be impossible.

We must consider that the scientific era is an evolutionary maladaptive feature of humanity that natural selection will accordingly punish (i.e. those who are anti-religious and pro-science will simply breed less). It must also be considered that with religion in permanent decline, cultural collapse may be a certainty that eventually occurs in all developed nations. Religion, it may turn out, was evolutionary beneficial to the human race.

Another possible solution is to foster a patriarchal society where men serve as strong providers. If you encourage the development of successful men who possess indispensable skills and therefore resources that are lacked by females, there will be women below their station who want to marry and procreate with them, but if strong women are produced instead, marriage and procreation is unlikely to take place at levels above the death rate.

A gap between the sexes should always exist in the favor of men if procreation is to occur at high rates, or else you’ll have something similar to the situation in America where urban professional women cannot find “good men” to begin a family with (i.e., men who are significantly more financially successful than them). They instead remain single and barren, only used occasionally by cads for exciting casual sex.

Blair Naso #fundie returnofkings.com

The Mystique Of The Feminine Mind

Abso-fucking-lutely not. Why would anyone envy women? Sure, I’ve always wanted to be a lesbian, if only for a few years, but that’s comparatively insignificant. The drawbacks are far heavier the benefits. The most obvious drawback is the body. There’s a reason that men don’t squawk about how independent they are. Women are tiny. Almost any woman could be raped and killed by almost any man regardless of all the self-defense classes and jazzercise she does. Let’s not kid ourselves. Women live in a constant state of fear, which is why they keep screaming about being strong and empowered. A truly strong and empowered person has no need to convince himself of it.

But the body is not the main reason I wouldn’t want to be a woman. By far the most terrible thing about being a woman is having a woman’s mind. Sure, they have better time-management skills, but that just means they’re wired for service. Women suck complete shit at objective reasoning. Why did you hate high school English? Because a woman taught it, and she told you that a poem can mean whatever you want it to. They couldn’t expect you to do something they could never figure out themselves.

I’m in law school right now. Unsurprisingly, I couldn’t find any data for what fields of law women tend to study, but from what I’ve seen, they are almost always either “fun” fields like child advocacy, sports, or entertainment, or “clean” fields like tax law or prosecution. Women don’t study divorce, custody, criminal defense, or anything that is morally vague or subject to interpretation. They make better grades, but that just means that they are wired for studying for tests. It is said that there are twice as many law jobs as there are new law graduates, but that’s because people specialize in bullshit fields that are flooded by cowards. If you study law, you will either learn moral flexibility or die in poverty.

Also unsurprisingly, the kind of men and women who go to law school aren’t the type of people who read Return of Kings. I realize that doesn’t have anything to do with the female mind, but this seems as good as any place to make that observation. Law school attracts the absolute worst in humanity. Weak, cowardly men and cutthroat, entitled women.

[...]

Women are terrible at historical criticism, philosophy, or anything that involves value judgments, and they generally seem uninterested in it unless it directly affects them. This is because a woman will always argue the person, not the issue. There’s a reason St Paul said that women should never teach or speak in church. Women just aren’t equipped to perform with men when it comes to deep thinking, and that is why all the women’s liberation in the world will never enable them to accomplish much worth remembering. For example, rock music has always been pretty liberal, and there have been exactly two well-known and talented instrumentalists in all of its history: Nancy Wilson of Heart and Kim Deal of The Pixies. Imagine all of the money record companies could have made had they been able to find a talented female rock band.

[...]

Women, of course, will never understand their inferiority any more than a child can understand his. You cannot argue with a child. Instead, you must discipline to build good behavior, and in time, that good behavior will turn into a worldview. The same is true with women. Women are inherently terrible people, and you can’t correct their bad behavior with words alone. No, you must tame the shrew using positive and negative reinforcement.

Religion is best for the job, but in today’s pluralistic marketplace, that’s often not an option. Furthermore, society has decided it’s best for women to continue acting like children, ever focused on their wants instead of their shoulds. But with a subtle reward and punishment system, you can turn the any promiscuous harpy into a submissive virgin bride. Perhaps I am a fool, but I like to believe the best in people.

You cannot tell the hawk not to devour the mouse any more than you can verbally teach a woman right from wrong. You can hate the effects of women, but you cannot call women evil. Every strong, empowered woman at heart is a scared little child lost in the woods. She’ll never admit it to herself, but every woman has a Disney fantasy about some strong man taking her away and becoming her identity. Those movies made a fuckload of money for a reason. Be her identity.

Matt Forney #fundie returnofkings.com

[This is from an article titled, "5 Reasons Why Girls With Tattoos And Piercings Are Broken".]

1. They're sluts

What kind of girl would be comfortable lying down half-naked in public for two hours while some fat dude with a dirty beard jams a sharp needle into her skin? Answer: the kind of girl who takes sharp objects in her vagina as a hobby. Girls with tattoos and/or piercings (aside from earrings) are slags who fall in and out of guys' beds at a moment's notice. If you're unfortunate enough to commit to a girl with ink on her body or metal in her face, she'll cheat on you at the drop of a hat. Tattoos and piercings are the mark of the whore, which is why in more traditional countries like the Philippines, only whores have them.

[...]

3. They're selfish

The reasons girls get tattoos and piercings - "I'm doing it for ME!" - are indicative of narcissism and mild psychopathy. Girls get tattoos for the same reasons they cut their hair short: a desperate attempt to assert how unique and special they are. A girl who willfully disfigures herself like this will never attempt to please you or do anything nice for you. She won't care for you when you're sick, will refuse to sleep with you for completely arbitrary reasons, and will generally be a moody, unlikable cunt.

4. They're boring

Girls' logic when it comes to tattoos is best described by paraphrasing Lena Dunham's character in Girls: "I have a tattoo, and that just makes me naturally interesting." Nothing could be further from the truth. My experience shows me that girls with ink and/or metal are the most boring, conformist chicks you'll ever come across. To be fair, most girls are dull as dirt, but tattooed and pierced girls are aggressively dull, assaulting you with the most hackneyed left-wing tripe you'll ever hear.

My "piercing addict" girlfriend, for example, identified as Marxist (I shit you not) based on one class she took on Latin America and was constantly talking my ear off about some "injustice" or another. The joke was that before she took that class, she was so tuned out to current events that she wasn't even registered to vote. I derived incredible pleasure from shoving my cock in her mouth to shut her up.

5. They're mentally ill

This is the clincher. Any girl who thinks that getting a ring in her nose or a Bible verse on her back is a good idea is going to be off her rocker. In my entire life, I have never met an inked or pierced girl who wasn't sick in the head, whether they had depression, "anxiety" or a full-blown personality disorder. While girls with facial piercings and tattoos on the arms or legs can at least feign normality, chicks with piercings or tattoos on or near their erogenous zones (breasts, labia, ass) are the kinds of broads who will cut you with a knife.

[...]

The only good thing about tattoos and piercings is that they signal which girls you can bang with minimal effort. If you're looking to make a girl wince during anal on the first date, pick the one with a tramp stamp or a tongue piercing. But if you're looking for a girl you can wife up, go for the ones who haven't mangled their bodies beyond repair.

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.

Wi Tu Lo #fundie returnofkings.com

The West is now entirely a secular society and culture. There is no higher moral standard. No doctrine, religious or otherwise, that stands above, apart from, and unmoved by the forces of secularism.

There are many virtues to a secular society. However, the West has taken this to an extreme, believing that it is the job of government and laws to beat down and destroy any belief system that stands above or apart from it. In this worldview, no religious or other moral system is allowed to exist without explicit authority given it by government. The "progressives" of the West have seen something they like in China and adopted it for the West.

Hence, you have things like Obamacare superseding and obliterating people's religious beliefs. If you think abortion is morally wrong, well fuck you! You have to pay for it anyway. There are a million examples like that now.

You can't do anything about it. What you do need to do is RECOGNIZE reality. Since there is no other moral system than secular culture, all norms of behavior and beliefs are now defined by secular media, cultures, and government (which is run by know-it-all bitches and their White Knights). Women go with the flow, and the flow is exactly what you see in media. "Empowered" means fuck whoever you want. "Equality" means, "we are free to be bitches." And so on. The are now celebrated for doing the exact opposite of what is good for them.

For a man, this ultimately means you cannot trust a woman in the West. You might fool yourself into thinking you have love, but you will sure enough find that you are wrong. The first few times you think you have found love, and then love selflessly (as men often do), you will end up devastated.

As you walk through the West, if you are dealing with reality, you are viewing women as options for short term pussy and nothing more. PUA is an odd obsession to me, but they have a point. If you want pussy, you should approach it like going to the Apple Store. You look around, approach what you want, ask for what you want. If the price is too high, or its just not for sale, just move on to the next item. Don't give it a moments of remorse. No woman in the West is worth remorse.

This is harsh stuff. But to get some joy out of this life you must deal with reality, not fantasy. If you grew up in a fairly normal environment, your mother loved you. But no other woman in the West will ever love you. They have been instructed not to love you, to use you, and to pursue their own desires. They are incapable of love even if they wanted to love. The only love a Western woman is capable of is narcissistic self-love.

I'm sorry this is reality. It hurts to come to this realization. But you must. If you do not, your life will be ruined. I've been there, done that. And learned my lesson. If I want to feel a woman's love, I go to another country where woman are still capable of genuine love.

Lance Christopher #fundie returnofkings.com

[Commenting on the "Why I Quit Going To Your Church" article]

There's only one masculine, righteous form of Christianity left in the world and that is Orthodox Christianity with its ultimate masculine expression being the Russian Orthodox Church. Every Western church is feminised, corrupted and betaised. I want nothing to do with the weak Protestant sects or the current Vatican II mafia. In fact just like marriage in the West, if any man is associated with a Western church, your masculinity has immediately been demoted. The churches are 'legitimisers' of the state and cultural norms. The real Western churches died sometime circa 1962ish. The new architecture is drab and ugly, drawing its inspiration from the ugly glass and steel designs of modern architecture. The interiors are as hallowed out as the culture and people it represents and the church leaders dispossess the moral authority that once consolidated the families of nations. The West is a whore, bereft of any real legitimacy, and whose principles are completely alien to anything masculine and right.

Blair Naso #fundie returnofkings.com

American Christianity is a service industry for women. The men are just there orbiting because they don’t know how else to get sex from their wives. Dalrock best explains how feminism has saturated Christianity, but he is fighting a losing battle. The reality is that pastors will always be afraid to speak on what the Bible says about women because they will lose their biggest clients. Pastors have to eat too, you know, and if public speaking is their own marketable skill, then they’ll do whatever it takes to survive.

1 Peter 3 makes it clear that women are to handle marital difficulties by being quiet and submissive, and St. Peter even calls women “the weaker sex.” Titus 2 says they are to be “home-workers” in the Greek. Beta Christians (i.e. almost all Christians) love to champion the Proverbs 31 woman who sells her surplus weaving, but they don’t realize that’s an occupation from the context of the home. It’s a surplus of what she was already doing. And if you’re open to the Apocrypha, Sirach 25 says that it is shameful for a woman to financially maintain her husband.

TheRedemption #fundie returnofkings.com

God created women as Man's greatest trial. And yep, Adam's banishment from Heaven is a lesson for men to understand as to what men could potentially face when they choose to love women over God. A woman's 'love' is not love to begin with. It's a conditional investment on her part. God's love is unconditional. He doesn't punish mankind today as He used to with earlier generations. His punishment on those generations was a lesson for later generations, a lesson we (and especially the women in our generation) have forgotten today.
Women often play the role of the Devil's agents in a man's life. They're both stupid and evil, but never stupid when dealing with men. They try men through sex, relationships, intrigue and what not. Women thus represent, more often than not, the road to Hell, even it might be symbolic. Adam's Hell is the life he was condemned to lead on this Earth, full of miseries, in contrast to the pleasures he enjoyed in Eden.

Next page