[Leonard D Neubache]

(02-20-2019 06:53 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

...
The whole premise of this thread originally was to take women's rights away to get control over the madness. All I'm saying is that if men stop having kids with cunts, a lot of the problems that have been discussed in this thread would work themselves out eventually.

That's just the thing. I don't think that this current state of affairs has anything to do with natural selection. It didn't happen naturally and it wont cease to be an issue naturally.

Every day more and more men take more and more steps to insulate themselves from women and the consequences of dealing with them, but every year things get worse and worse.

Now, even if we pretend that there are no (((outside forces))) fucking our societies and that gender relations will return to normal once a catastrophic failure occurs (or all the "bad women" die out childless over 70 years which is nonsense), if a catastrophic failure is left to run its current course then there will be Chinese, Africans, Indians and Arabs ruling the lands Western men once claimed as their own. This stuff is not occurring inside of a nicely sealed off biodome. We have to compete with the rest of the world WHILE dealing with these issues.

Of course it's a well established fact that there ARE (((outside forces))) fucking our societies so we have to deal with that nonsense ON TOP of feral female empowerment.

SO, the OP might be retarded (loosely speaking, no offence) but like many threads this one has taken on a broader issue. Okay, it may be impossible to lawfully and by democratic means remove women's rights however we are not going to survive as a peoples or as societies if we allow our (((greatest allies))) to carefully pit western man against western woman until none of us are left (or one is at best).

As for the women, most of these specimens 50 years ago would have been marriage and breeding material. They aren't genetically defective. They're socially weaponised. Talking about removing them from the gene pool is misguided.

More and more however I recognise that most western men are looking for any option that allows them to pretend that they can simply retreat from these issues and that some sort of nature-based/free-market cleansing will occur that will rebalance society. Libertarianism. MGTOW. Etc etc.

It's not going to happen. We are not in the throes of a natural imbalance that will simply burn out over time. We have been set upon by several very insidious foreign tribes who are engineering our downfall, and retreating to some kind of imaginary high ground will not do anything except remove you from the fray for a short while.

Rest assured however that you will be gotten to eventually because there's nowhere left to run. That's the whole point of globalism. You have an account here so one day long after you've ceded the battleground completely you're going to swipe your bank card and it's unexpectedly going to come up "declined". A week later in a cashless society you'll be digging through bins for food and sleeping under a bridge, whether you're in Los Angeles or Laos.

You fight this war, win or lose, or you get trampled underfoot. That's just the way it is.

[Solitaire]

(02-20-2019 08:02 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

More and more however I recognise that most western men are looking for any option that allows them to pretend that they can simply retreat from these issues and that some sort of nature-based/free-market cleansing will occur that will rebalance society. Libertarianism. MGTOW. Etc etc.

It's not going to happen. We are not in the throes of a natural imbalance that will simply burn out over time. We have been set upon by several very insidious foreign tribes who are engineering our downfall, and retreating to some kind of imaginary high ground will not do anything except remove you from the fray for a short while.

You fight this war, win or lose, or you get trampled underfoot. That's just the way it is.

Leonard, your post has made me think about several different aspects of all this. I found my way here to the forums via RoK website, having found that last some time last year after having discovered the term MGTOW and believing that I'd pretty much went 'that way' so to speak. I've had a rough few years lately, with a divorce that set me back at least a decade financially (just the costs of the divorce and aftermath, not counting the actual money flushed down the toilet by my ex and her family) then a stupid relationship I got into that almost destroyed the rest of what I had. I realized finally that *every single dumb decision I've ever made* involved a girl/woman somehow. Especially when it involved money. Long story short: MGTOW I became, by default, and ran across the acronym a year later.

You're right, though. It's not nearly enough. It's me removing myself from the responsibilities of the insane cultural shifts that are happening - all while I whinge about it to myself in the meantime.

So I ask you this, and this might be for a different thread: I'm seeing now that we're in a war, but how do we fight it? This forum is about as insulated as it can get, I would think, without resorting to extreme methods of vetting. But we can't fight this war from the shadows, can we? Maybe there's a thread or a place where all these questions I have are already answered. I'm just wondering what to do, what do we men do?

[Leonard D Neubache]

The collective wisdom of approaching this issue is virtually the entire forum itself.

Everyone is at a different stage of their journey out of the mouth of madness that most of us were born into and indoctrinated within.

To put it simply the first step is committing yourself to rebellion against tyranny, or evil, or hostile foreign forces or whatever you want to frame it as. One of the biggest keys in the soyification of Western men was to convince them that there are no enemies anymore (except their own masculinity or white privilege or whatever). You need to be completely unapologetic for your existence. Embrace it and swear a blood feud with anyone who seeks to not only take your life but even merely diminish your right to exist.

Enemies keep a mind focused and give a man purpose.

When you adopt this mindset then everything you do can reflect a will to defy those who wish you ill. I've laughed heartily when people asked me to donate to breast cancer funding or to wear pink for some inane women's rights bullshit. You have to purge apology from your mind and embrace hostility against those who would harm you, even inadvertently. Useful idiots who think they're doing the right thing while undermining western men are a serious problem. You have to be psychologically committed to maintaining frame against them, even when you seem like an asshole. This allows you to kill duality in yourself where you create two personas that battle for your mindspace. The secret alpha male and the publicly apologetic nice guy. Slay the latter and remove "secret" from the former.

When you do this you instinctively see your enemies for who they are, from sniveling "refugees welcome" Christians to smiling cunts who will sap you of your resources and psychological independence while singing their siren's song. You can learn to see these people as avoidable nuisances or expendable assets to use up and discard rather than allowing them to do it to you.

You will also learn in this way to recognize the rare men and women who are either your allies or willing to follow your leadership. You will learn to recognize the local men who ought to be followed. They are not always found in the most obvious places. Stick up for them even if it seems compromising and speak the truth even if it ruffles feathers.

You need to lift and you need to learn to fight, with your hands, with hand to hand weapons and with guns. This is part and parcel of maintaining a rebellious mindset in the face of the soykind. You don't have to be great at it. The process of committing to learning these things builds the mindset which is the most important part.

You should put yourself in a location where you are minimally exposed to hostile people who don't concede your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is where the soil is most fertile for building tribes, clans, or at least a few good brotherhoods. When you are proud of what you've become then you can reach out to men heading in your direction but who aren't quite there yet. But never play the wimp to fit in. Never. They rise to your level or you cut them loose.

The good news is that the battle lines are being drawn, especially in America. People willing to wear their heart on their sleeve in the right areas are going to be able to find brotherhood one way or another. After that all you have to do is rebel in whatever way you choose against the globohomo elite with the end goal being to collapse their ability to oppress you while defending your people.

This is the most important revelation I've had in the last few days, and if nobody reads any part of this post other than this then so be it. Politics is not about plans and principles. That is the lie foisted on the West in order to destroy it. Politics is about people. It's about your people, however you choose to define them. It's about protecting your people from destruction, and where there are snake-tongued vipers engaging in 'your political arena' who are not thoroughly committed to protecting your people much less actively seeking to harm them then the circle around your polity must be reduced, psychologically if not literally. With that in mind you must accept as hostile and illegitimate any governing body which fails to meet that basic criteria and seek to live beyond its dictates where it's reasonably possible to do so, without hesitation and with out guilt.

Rebellion begins in the heart and expands slowly outward from there.

[questor70]

Leonard seems to be the type who is itching to join the equivalent of a militia movement in Idaho.

The core problems related to men these days exist in the social sphere, not the battlefield. Hypergamy is about control over the social sphere. There's no amount of lifting or target practice at the shooting range that will assist with that.

[Leonard D Neubache]

There are no special and separate "spheres" in society and politics.

These are made-up qualifiers for conservatives in the lap-dog Right to justify them losing for 70 years straight.

Fighting against those who seek an end to "your people" does not happen in a contained little bubble of conduct that you deem acceptable. You prepare for war while hoping that your preparations themselves will convince your enemy to withdraw or at least stop attacking. You premise your existence around your very right to exist and make it clear you will do whatever it takes to preserve that right.

The cucked lap-dog Right can come up with all the "social sphere" bullshit they like. It doesn't matter. In the end the Left will lie, cheat, steal and kill their way to victory because they know the cucked lap-dog Right will never actually fight them physically.

The Left only debates with people it cannot steamroll. If your plan is shun the "battlefield sphere" as barbaric and uncouth then you've already signed your death warrant.

Simple analogy. A smug NY cunt will not pour her drink over a Hells Angel because she knows that her aggression will be met with superior aggression. She is forced to be civilized by the potential violence of the gang member. Potential for violence = civilization.

Meanwhile she will pour her drink on Ben Shapiro despite his immense social skills because he is a simpering faggot. Facts and logic absent potential violence = women do whatever they want.

Your grievances will never be taken seriously unless there are consequences for failing to do so.

[Donfitz007]

^the goal is to have dominance, social and physical dominance. But both are “toxic” in this society. Being a commanding presence. Simplified of course

But it seems like nowadays even the gym bros and jocks are weaklings. Not all of course

[MrLemon]

(02-19-2019 09:26 PM)Donfitz007 Wrote:  

I agree removing women’s rights isn’t the answer. But please tell me what negative thing would happen if we did? Are the women going to revolt?

The problem is men. Men are weak when it comes to girls. It’s installed in our brains to desire them, protect them, sacrifice for them, love them, and forgive them. It’s much much easier to be a white knight than a misogynist. These white knights are rewarded not with pussy but validation and admiration (2 things most men desire) so it’s not unlikely for me to go out their way and act illogically to get those things.

It’s also much much easier to be a white knight beta cuck than it is to work out, learn game, and get women. Playing video games= adventure, online debates= controversy, women’s validation=medals and achievements, other betas and women= tribe. Porn= sex.

Until men start realizing their worth then there will be no change. Hate to say it but we have to treat women according to their value, the same way they treat us. Weak men and strong women destroy nations.

And yes strong women and strong men build nations too.

There's a big misconception in this thread: that men will have to "take away" women't rights. That's a fundmental misunderstanding of the way men and women interact. You have just bought into the BS feminist worldview, that men are the aggressors.

First, the "rights" that we are talking about are just a tiny subset of what women get or want. Women are the recipients of 90% of society's benefits. In fact, society is a system created BY MEN to collect and harness the work OF MEN to distribute to women and children in order to protect them. Women are, essentially, the sole recipients of social benefit...ALREADY.

Why should women have equal say in how society is run, when society is already just a system for taxing men and giving those taxes to women? Women should (and in the past did) just shut the fuck up and accept their huge payday with grace and gratitude.

200 years ago, women understood this. That's why they didn't give a shit about "having the vote". Voting was irrelevant to them because "men do the work to protect us, to hunt for us, and to fight for us. Why should be have a say in HOW the men fight for us?". Voting was a "man thing" because it related to war and male activities.

Also important to understand that women have an entirely seperate power structure, they run themselves by their own rules, which men have little access to to this day. Women run their homes, children, schools, etc with an iron fist. Men have little say in this. Or more precisely, men don't try to interfere in the women's rightful domain.

Why should women have a say in "our world" when we have none in theirs?

Finally, we men won't "take away" rights from women. Women will simply abandon them because they don't really care. That is where the OP is right...women need a religion to instruct them how to let go of these inappropriate "rights" and let men take them back.

Check out http://www.thetransformedwife.com site for a great example of a good and non-angry woman who advocates for women to give back power to their husbands in a Christian fashion. Whether it's Christian or Muslim or Sikh or Hindu, the concept of encouraging girls to become married, submissive wives and mothers is the key to our future. Most women are not intellectually capable of understanding this, so we use religious narratives to push them in the right direction.

Or buy them Roosh's new book. Which is literally a field guide for a married, submissive wife and mother.

[Donfitz007]

(02-20-2019 01:49 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 09:26 PM)Donfitz007 Wrote:  

I agree removing women’s rights isn’t the answer. But please tell me what negative thing would happen if we did? Are the women going to revolt?

The problem is men. Men are weak when it comes to girls. It’s installed in our brains to desire them, protect them, sacrifice for them, love them, and forgive them. It’s much much easier to be a white knight than a misogynist. These white knights are rewarded not with pussy but validation and admiration (2 things most men desire) so it’s not unlikely for me to go out their way and act illogically to get those things.

It’s also much much easier to be a white knight beta cuck than it is to work out, learn game, and get women. Playing video games= adventure, online debates= controversy, women’s validation=medals and achievements, other betas and women= tribe. Porn= sex.

Until men start realizing their worth then there will be no change. Hate to say it but we have to treat women according to their value, the same way they treat us. Weak men and strong women destroy nations.

And yes strong women and strong men build nations too.

There's a big misconception in this thread: that men will have to "take away" women't rights. That's a fundmental misunderstanding of the way men and women interact. You have just bought into the BS feminist worldview, that men are the aggressors.

First, the "rights" that we are talking about are just a tiny subset of what women get or want. Women are the recipients of 90% of society's benefits. In fact, society is a system created BY MEN to collect and harness the work OF MEN to distribute to women and children in order to protect them. Women are, essentially, the sole recipients of social benefit...ALREADY.

Why should women have equal say in how society is run, when society is already just a system for taxing men and giving those taxes to women? Women should (and in the past did) just shut the fuck up and accept their huge payday with grace and gratitude.

200 years ago, women understood this. That's why they didn't give a shit about "having the vote". Voting was irrelevant to them because "men do the work to protect us, to hunt for us, and to fight for us. Why should be have a say in HOW the men fight for us?". Voting was a "man thing" because it related to war and male activities.

Also important to understand that women have an entirely seperate power structure, they run themselves by their own rules, which men have little access to to this day. Women run their homes, children, schools, etc with an iron fist. Men have little say in this. Or more precisely, men don't try to interfere in the women's rightful domain.

Why should women have a say in "our world" when we have none in theirs?

Finally, we men won't "take away" rights from women. Women will simply abandon them because they don't really care. That is where the OP is right...women need a religion to instruct them how to let go of these inappropriate "rights" and let men take them back.

Check out http://www.thetransformedwife.com site for a great example of a good and non-angry woman who advocates for women to give back power to their husbands in a Christian fashion. Whether it's Christian or Muslim or Sikh or Hindu, the concept of encouraging girls to become married, submissive wives and mothers is the key to our future. Most women are not intellectually capable of understanding this, so we use religious narratives to push them in the right direction.

Or buy them Roosh's new book. Which is literally a field guide for a married, submissive wife and mother.

I personally agree with what you said now. I also believe men allow certain things to happen. Men allowed feminism to happen thus men ALLOWED themselves to be the aggressor.

In My perfect world the only people who got the chance to vote were the once who have seen war or served for their country. The policemen, Firemen, soldiers etc, MAYBE doctors.

[MrLemon]

(02-20-2019 03:45 PM)Donfitz007 Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 01:49 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 09:26 PM)Donfitz007 Wrote:  

I agree removing women’s rights isn’t the answer. But please tell me what negative thing would happen if we did? Are the women going to revolt?

The problem is men. Men are weak when it comes to girls. It’s installed in our brains to desire them, protect them, sacrifice for them, love them, and forgive them. It’s much much easier to be a white knight than a misogynist. These white knights are rewarded not with pussy but validation and admiration (2 things most men desire) so it’s not unlikely for me to go out their way and act illogically to get those things.

It’s also much much easier to be a white knight beta cuck than it is to work out, learn game, and get women. Playing video games= adventure, online debates= controversy, women’s validation=medals and achievements, other betas and women= tribe. Porn= sex.

Until men start realizing their worth then there will be no change. Hate to say it but we have to treat women according to their value, the same way they treat us. Weak men and strong women destroy nations.

And yes strong women and strong men build nations too.

There's a big misconception in this thread: that men will have to "take away" women't rights. That's a fundmental misunderstanding of the way men and women interact. You have just bought into the BS feminist worldview, that men are the aggressors.

First, the "rights" that we are talking about are just a tiny subset of what women get or want. Women are the recipients of 90% of society's benefits. In fact, society is a system created BY MEN to collect and harness the work OF MEN to distribute to women and children in order to protect them. Women are, essentially, the sole recipients of social benefit...ALREADY.

Why should women have equal say in how society is run, when society is already just a system for taxing men and giving those taxes to women? Women should (and in the past did) just shut the fuck up and accept their huge payday with grace and gratitude.

200 years ago, women understood this. That's why they didn't give a shit about "having the vote". Voting was irrelevant to them because "men do the work to protect us, to hunt for us, and to fight for us. Why should be have a say in HOW the men fight for us?". Voting was a "man thing" because it related to war and male activities.

Also important to understand that women have an entirely seperate power structure, they run themselves by their own rules, which men have little access to to this day. Women run their homes, children, schools, etc with an iron fist. Men have little say in this. Or more precisely, men don't try to interfere in the women's rightful domain.

Why should women have a say in "our world" when we have none in theirs?

Finally, we men won't "take away" rights from women. Women will simply abandon them because they don't really care. That is where the OP is right...women need a religion to instruct them how to let go of these inappropriate "rights" and let men take them back.

Check out http://www.thetransformedwife.com site for a great example of a good and non-angry woman who advocates for women to give back power to their husbands in a Christian fashion. Whether it's Christian or Muslim or Sikh or Hindu, the concept of encouraging girls to become married, submissive wives and mothers is the key to our future. Most women are not intellectually capable of understanding this, so we use religious narratives to push them in the right direction.

Or buy them Roosh's new book. Which is literally a field guide for a married, submissive wife and mother.

I personally agree with what you said now. I also believe men allow certain things to happen. Men allowed feminism to happen thus men ALLOWED themselves to be the aggressor.

In My perfect world the only people who got the chance to vote were the once who have seen war or served for their country. The policemen, Firemen, soldiers etc, MAYBE doctors.

Starship Troopers

[Heuristics]

A floodgate has been opened that can't be easily closed barring some sort of seismic paradigm shifting event.

While it is nice that there are still some Christian women out there, that's the exception not the rule.

In terms of the culture wars, the area where we, men, have the most capital is by convincing women that they're not happy. Modern culture does not make women happy. Yeah it may validate them, but validation does not equal happiness. Validation is superficial anyway.

A meme has to be pushed that women are made to rear children. (Completely true). Also, dialing up pressure to marriage, via males (especially via male relatives), and fellow older women would help. We need to get the older women who are more naturally red pilled on our side. Unsurprisingly the media treats older women, especially those who have more than two children and who turn away from their careers, as either fundamentalists or kooks.

Grassroots efforts have to be made to use social media against degeneracy and (((nontraditional))) gender norms. It could work... We've already seen the power of social media in action with "Meme Magic" in '16.

Simply a disruption campaign would have to be launched, or more accurately, culture jamming, something to the effect of some of the artwork conservative street artist Sabo, or even the more well known, Banksy. A small percentage of social media users pushing one message can have a disproportionate affect on the normies perception of reality and group norms.

[RatInTheWoods]

(02-20-2019 01:49 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

First, the "rights" that we are talking about are just a tiny subset of what women get or want. Women are the recipients of 90% of society's benefits. In fact, society is a system created BY MEN to collect and harness the work OF MEN to distribute to women and children in order to protect them. Women are, essentially, the sole recipients of social benefit...ALREADY.

This is the problem, right here. Welfare and "family court", and all the other methods of extracting resources from men, and giving them to women.

I don't think it's ethical to call for the removal of women's equal rights, but we do need to start insisting on equal responsibilities, and fighting for male equal rights.

The right to male economic abortion, iron clad 50% child access, no welfare, and shaming women into fixing the "taxation gap" by shaming them into working more and paying more tax.

At the moment, women have more rights and less responsibilities in society.

Calling for the removal of women's right to vote is a bit sharia for me.

If women couldn't divorce rape a man for assets and children, had to work to pay their bills and buy food, I am sure they would start treating men better, and acting better in general.

[Heuristics]

(02-20-2019 06:38 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 01:49 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

First, the "rights" that we are talking about are just a tiny subset of what women get or want. Women are the recipients of 90% of society's benefits. In fact, society is a system created BY MEN to collect and harness the work OF MEN to distribute to women and children in order to protect them. Women are, essentially, the sole recipients of social benefit...ALREADY.

This is the problem, right here. Welfare and "family court", and all the other methods of extracting resources from men, and giving them to women.

I don't think it's ethical to call for the removal of women's equal rights, but we do need to start insisting on equal responsibilities, and fighting for male equal rights.

The right to male economic abortion, iron clad 50% child access, no welfare, and shaming women into fixing the "taxation gap" by shaming them into working more and paying more tax.

At the moment, women have more rights and less responsibilities in society.

Calling for the removal of women's right to vote is a bit sharia for me.

If women couldn't divorce rape a man for assets and children, had to work to pay their bills and buy food, I am sure they would start treating men better, and acting better in general.

Feminism has given women a double helping of “rights” if you think about it for a second. Prior to feminism there were clear delineated roles for men and women. Thus both genders (not 90, mind you) brought something to the table, in other words both genders gave value-added…. Post feminism, that is not the case. The roles of men and women have blurred, and even, in fact, merged. No wonder there is so much confusion. Both genders (oftentimes males are worse about it now because of the indoctrination) have no clue about what their role is—ie, what they’re supposed to do. To repeat, feminism displaced gender roles and actually gave women too many options. Society had existed fine prior to feminism yet now we have all these demographic issues, declining testosterone, destruction of the family, Gammas going on rampages, and no great struggle anymore.

The social services and courts, especially family courts are tremendously biased. Although we could discuss criminal courts too where they are also biased against men by sentencing disparities… Look at Alex Jones, they pilloried him during his divorce and made every effort to discredit the poor guy in the midst of the divorce battle, trying to say he couldn’t be a good father to his kids. And I don’t even listen to the guy; something about that seems really unfair.

Economic male abortion was suggested in Sweden I think and it caused a lot of SJW/feminist outrage. But it’s a good starting point for the conversation. That or mandated paternity testing. I think it’s France that has made paternity testing illegal, so in other words it cucks men until the children become adults.

Women perform better than men in schools, university, the economy, and health. And it’s only after they leave the workforce to have kids that things shift in the workforce in favor of men.

It’s true they have less responsibilities and I’m waiting for the Selective Service to come to women.

Rather than removing rights, expectations need to be adjusted to let women know they have a valued role to play, and that it’s ok to not be careerist, not want to abort children, and to raise a family.

Of course the answer to avoiding divorce rape is not to marry. But children need fathers. So much of the problem right now is that women are playing father to the children, emasculating them, setting them on a path to repeating their mistakes, etc. Also, government is playing father and that’s a problem.

[Brosemite]

(02-19-2019 06:38 PM)doc holliday Wrote:  

A lot of guys that have this quantitative intelligence on the one hand, really seem to lack the type of social skills that you're describing here. That's why so many of these dudes have so much trouble with women. Some of them are able to read an instruction manual like Roosh's books and then go out and replicate some success in picking up girls and getting laid but ultimately fail in getting a girl's juices flowing so she'll want to stick around and become attached. Getting a girl hooked on you requires true game and is an art much more than a science and highly technical, analytical guys have a lot of trouble with this. They want to try and deal with a woman as if they are some computer algorithm that will behave predictably every time. They then get upset when women predictably behave unpredictably and irrationally and think that all women suck as a result.

Allow me to double down on the bolded part. Not only might they have issues with women, but these individuals also think they can get away with being inconsiderate pricks feeling slighted by others on a social level growing up.

I chat with a lurker here frequently who attends a well known STEM institution as dudes in his startup circles are awkward AF yet such passive aggressive assholes which derive from bitterness in their past social experiences.

With that being said, you can take away more rights from females but things aren't necessarily going to tilt in your favor as a result. Women have always gravitated towards the male with the most perceived & favorable alpha traits as this was a means of survival with evolution. If you're awkward & devoid of exerting any positive influence even "with" more "favorable conditions," things aren't going to get any better for ya

[NoMoreTO]

(02-20-2019 09:20 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Enemies keep a mind focused and give a man purpose.

This brought me back to the first strategy of war in a book I read in my youth - Robert Greenes 33 strategies of war. Took me down a road re - reading this chapter.

"Rule 1 Declare war on your enemies: DECLARE WAR ON YOUR ENEMIES: THE POLARITY STRATEGY Life is endless battle and conflict, and you cannot fight effectively unless you can identify your enemies. Learn to smoke out your enemies, to spot them by the signs and patterns that reveal hostility. Then, once you have them in your sights, inwardly declare war. Your enemies can fill you with purpose and direction."

"....Xenophon was not a soldier. In fact, he had led a coddled life, raising dogs and horses, traveling into Athens to talk philosophy with his good friend Socrates, living off his inheritance.....That night Xenophon, who had stayed mostly on the sidelines during the expedition, had a dream: a lightning bolt from Zeus set fire to his father's house. He woke up in a sweat. It suddenly struck him: death was staring the Greeks in the face, yet they lay around moaning, despairing, arguing. The problem was in their heads. Fighting for money rather than for a purpose or cause, unable to distinguish between friend and foe, they had gotten lost....."

Funnily enough, the example he uses is of Xenophon and his story. Sadly, I actually couldn't have recounted to you anything about Xenophon until re reading this about 5 minutes ago. Only that he was a Greek from Antiquity who didn't like foreigners. It turns out he travelled deep into Persia in search of adventure/war. Probably banged lots of exotic foreign puss too.

On a simple conversational level, when I read this story, it seemed clear he was a hero. I think we could undress someone who is using the expression of the day "xenophobic" who actually does not know the story of Xenophon. In the current war of words leftists use words they do not understand. Being able to have an aside to a conversation and educate people on the true story of Xenophon shines a light on how the word is a sheer lie. We have to tear apart this globo homo NWO religion, I think we can see this happening even while they advance in power.

I think you could take some interest at being called xenophobic, look at the word in conversation and guide someone to some truth. Why would I be afraid of Xenophon? Anyway, I still doubt leftists are too retarded historically to actually take the bait, but it might open up some centrists and right leaners.

Regarding OP:
- Votes don't really count. Canada has 6% of the population polling that more immigrants is a positive thing. Funnily enough the democracy is bringing more in, and there is no major party proposing a halt to this. The only thing I can say is don't give them a vote in your personal life - Lead like you should.
- No thanks on the new religion unless its a proper reading of Christianity. Voxday makes some sense on this topic, how current Christianity is pacifistic in ways that are not scripturally supported.

Book link for those who are interested
https://blackmystory.files.wordpress.com...of-war.pdf

[Donfitz007]

Great book btw. Read it a couple months ago, Laws of human nature is the current read.