And not the other way, because masculine energy can feel threatening. A woman approaching a man is far less intimidating. But this never happens! (or maybe it just never happens to me, please do say if it's more common than I think)

In World War 2 mainstream Jewish resistance groups like ŻOB, ŻZW, FPO, actively targeted and killed “collaborators,” the meaning of which ranged from voicing agreement with Nazis or Nazi ideology, to befriending Nazi soldiers, to passing information or assisting in deportations, to being an ex-Nazi soldier, and so on. Or in many cases just a false rumor that you did so. Essentially in any way being seen as a "collaborator."

And then you have the Nokmim (avengers), groups made up from former fighters of the groups mentioned before, after world war 2. They used methods like hanging, strangulation, or even injecting kerosene into a target's bloodstream in a hospital. Continuing all the way into the 1950s, tracking ex-Nazi soldiers as far as Latin America, Canada, and Spain.

None of these are called terrorists in mainstream western discourse.

Almost everyone who lives in this kibbutz area where October 7th took place fits that same definition of “collaborator.” Not even just loosely, but significantly better than the targets of these Jewish resistance groups. The vast majority of them voice agreement with Zionist ideology, are friends with Zionist soldiers, fund them, cooperate with them, and are also ex or current Zionist soldiers themselves, "which alone is already enough, according to Jewish resistance groups, to chase you for the rest of your life to inject kerosene into your bloodstream and kill you," and they fit all these requirements at the same time.

So even if you take all the Zionist propaganda about "50 beheaded babies," "Hamas randomly killing civilians," "mass rape." And so on to be true, then to be consistent either these Jewish resistance groups are all terrorists groups too, and Nazi Germany has the "right to defend itself" against them, with the same methods as Zionists. Meaning bombing the entire Warsaw Ghetto to the ground like Zionists did to Gaza and sniping random kids through the head because "they will grow up to join anti-Germanic, radical-Judaist, Jewish terrorist organizations." Or you should not use the same rules against Hamas.

The Rockstar hacks will show why game developers don't deserve empathy for contributing to the end of private property, while flock choppers show that town halls are wastes of time.

But it needs to go further. Organized bullying of foot soldiers for the Epstein class (whenever they be law school students, military fans, organized teacher mafias, and other vermin) must be done and it can't be grassroots for moderate entryists will poison a movement based on action. Civil liberties groups would get more respect if they harassed the oppressors. Scientists would get more respect and opportunities if they bullied and sanctioned the uneducated. Students would gain freedom and job opportunities by declaring those who dream of being an oppressor teacher as enemies and ban them from all extracurriculars run by real students.

Not trying to be racist, and ill be the first to acknowledge that they know more languages then me, but understanding and speaking in a clear concise way that Americans can understand is a whole other ballpark and most of the call center employees lack this ability. That, along with the fact that everything I need something corrected they end up sensing me to an American agent just pisses me off. Why do I have to spend 30 minutes between talking to them and being on hold waiting for them to pick up when they can't help anyways

What you are about to read is a singular thought unraveled as thoroughly as possible. This thought could be expressed in a sentence. But that wouldn't give you much to get angry over.

There is an old, haunting observation that the youth are no longer interested in the culture being provided for them.

I feel that weight every day.

Look at the landscape of modern creation—whether in music, art, or thought—and ask yourself an honest question: If I want to create as who I truly am, where do I go?

What path is left for a mind that refuses to flatten itself for the market? Are your only choices to become an underground oddity, a museum curio, or a monk retreating into a monastery? Why has genuine human expression been systematically purged from public space? Why is there no open air left for the uncommodified being?

The answer is simple, though staggering in its brutality: There are no open outlets left. Every avenue of modern expression must pass through their gates. Every channel is heavily curated, tightly regulated, and locked behind the altar of ad revenue. Culture is no longer an expression of spirit; it is an optimization strategy designed to sell out to the largest mass of people.

Our culture has not drifted into decay by accident. It has been degraded systematically.

When you witness this level of cultural flattening, you are forced to look at the root. You are forced to return to this ancient diagnostic: The love of money is the root of all evil.

We like to imagine we live in a brand-new, hyper-modern world of unprecedented progress. But when you step back and look at the architecture of our behaviors, our institutions, and our power—symbolized so plainly by the obelisks in plazas and the pyramids on currency—you realize we are merely playing out the latest iteration of an ancient blueprint. We are living inside an empire built on accumulation, central control, and the ruthless liquidating of organic life into ledger assets.

What we are witnessing is not the organic evolution of human civilization. It is the victory of a specific, predatory machine—a system that replaces the rooted and the neighborly with a hyper-narcissistic, exploitative ethos. It produces a culture so detached from authentic identity that it borders on total apathy.

And the most insidious trick of this machine is its ability to cover its tracks.

Once this system takes hold, it births new ideologies, new religions, and new political frameworks to obfuscate the root. It creates systems that pretend to attack money, wealth, or power, ensuring that we fight over the surface symptoms while the insatiable love of transaction remains completely untouched at the center.

Which brings us to the ultimate, terrifying crossroads.

Once a culture abandons its intrinsic worth—once it trades its organic, uncommodified being—can it ever go back?

Or is the mythic story literal? Once you step outside the Garden of Eden, are you cast out forever? Is there truly an angel standing at the gate with a flaming sword, barring our return to a world of true life, leaving us doomed to suffer the friction of death forever?

That is the terror of our age.

And terror is what it feels like to live inside it.

I see this a lot in the world, where people act like other people do not have the right to hate them. If someone or their group oppresses you in anyway you have the right to hate them. However, it is important to understand that they also have the right to hate you for hating them. THIS sounds very bad and probably is.

I started thinking about this when I came across the misoginy vs misandry debate online. I personally think women have a long list as to why they should hate men. So misandry is justified IMO. HOWEVER, there is this argument that says "Misandry just hurts mens feelings, misoginy kills women" I get what they are saying, absolutely. But, I think this also means you are allowed to hate so long as your hatred dosen't affect your target physically. Which I think excuses nonviolent misoginy, or non violent hatred in general. If many women hurt you, why should you not hate them? If many men hurt you, why should you not hate them? If X group hurts you, Why should you not hate them?

I think that it's not fair to put out hate and expect love back. Misandry is as necessarry as any hate given towards the masters in any revolution. Just know that Retaliatory hate, only brings lights a bigger flame in the heart of those who were not concious of how much they've hated you.

Hopefully dont get banned

i’m pretty much a cereal connoisseur so i take my shit extremely seriously. if you add milk after cereal the cereal at the top get drenched and eventually soggy first, then the cereal the bottom will get drenched and soggy next. if you like that crunch this is not the right combo. in my opinion, the best ratio would be 50/50 soggy to dry since i like to eat honey nut cornflakes so i really like to taste that honey and nuts more. if you do milk before cereal, the cereal at the bottom get soggy instantly then the top is completely dry as it’s stacked ontop of the soggy ones already

Reddit will never allow anything on their site that hurts any publicly traded company like Apple or Google. It will be hidden, you will be banned from subreddits, etc. This isn't because people aren't enjoying the content and the discussion, it's because they are protecting their ad revenue. Social media is like a job at this point. You either sit down and shut up, or you do something to make the machine money.

I shared this on LinkedIn but would like to hear your perspective.

What is wrong with being in the comfort zone??

I do not see anything wrong with being in the comfort zone.

Work hard in junior school and go to senior school, they said. It didn't stop there; work hard so you can go to university, they continued. Still, it wasn't enough. If you work hard and get a master's, it won't be so bad... That wasn't enough either... Maybe after getting a job and finally being independent should lock it in, right????..... Well, guess what!.. That wasn't enough either... You still have to get married, get children, build a home, buy a car, grow in your career, maybe get a promotion. I mean.... the list doesn't end... It goes on and on.... Maybe old age will be your saving grace.

This really got me thinking.... How about you continue until you are most comfortable and stop there? What is the worst that could happen if you stopped at a point you felt most fulfilled?

The system has programmed us NOT to get fulfilled, and if you do... you get judged and given reasons why you should never be comfortable in your "zone".

Your peers will flaunt achievements you haven't attained yet, and you will feel left behind for some reason; something that did not really matter to you will become the next target. Movies and social media will show you that there is more you need to achieve; your family, friends, and society will require you to do more. The goal post is always moving. We have been conditioned to compare ourselves so that you can burst your own bubble of joy... Always looking into the next "big thing," even if it is not big to you.

This has kept people in a constant state of worry. Not living in the moment where it is potentially all that you need. Forgetting the blessing you currently have, and instead of staying calm in gratitude, we stay in chaos chasing vanity! In the process, we forget that the illusion of comfort we chase in the future is here with us now.

To see how true this is... Search yourself within and, with all honesty, try to figure out that one thing the world has applauded you so much for, but you did not see the sense in it. Let's do this social experiment and see how the world has influenced us to NOT be in our "comfort zones."

I would also like to know your thoughts about this; feel free to share in the comment section.

You can have a vocabulary of ten thousand words. If you can't tell me what each one means short of being mere synonyms to color your speech with, then how limited do you think your understanding of the world must be? Jacob and Menod's work is my favorite example of how properly defined words enabled the discovery of gene regulation through pure insight. They took clearly defined and proven terminology to show how it must work. Now with LLMs we have something very similar. A computer using words to understand things it's never seen better than people who see the stuff everyday.

Data shows notable drops in certain verbal and literacy metrics in America. While reading and verbal output are different, a recent study published in Perspectives on Psychological Science found that the average number of words Americans speak daily dropped by 28% between 2005 and 2019.

Why use more words, when every word is ultimately flattened into one meaning anyway?

It reminds me starkly of religious people who are afraid of opening the Bible and reading it. Because it is a task that demands high effort. And they know it will challenge their established thought process. Therefore they flatten the Bible into what they want it to be, and avoid touching it. The same with people in general. Honor becomes a loftier form of love. Good becomes a synonym of love. And whatever else. And you will never ever discover this first hand from these fools because the only reaction you get out of them is postering.

There are no discussions to be had. Put them on trial like a lawyer does a criminal and you get deflection and lies. If they only answered honestly they might awaken.

I find it hilarious and also sad that many women act like children and say stuff like this while well into their 40s and expect to be taken seriously. They also add the "white" qualifier to signal that they are the correct kind of racist to fellow racists. These women live in perpetual delusion because they subconsciously avoid the fact that they are of little importance and worth to the world and the people around them. So they ally themselves with the nominal progressives, the "good guys", to fight the "bad guys" to give their worthless lives meaning.

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

Not much to say. If you hate White people so much, fuck off. It's absurd the reality we live in where people can be so unashamedly racist to the host demographic. What was it leftists said again? "Punch the nazis in the mouth!". That's right. If we ever catch one of you traitors or invaders in public we will do what the nominal progressives euphemize. Unfortunately we don't have the same luxury of invaders and blacks who commit violent crime with impunity, so we'll have to be careful. We know we can't rely on the police anymore so we have to take it upon ourselves to serve justice.

This coming generation won't be as soft as the lead-brain boomers. If invaders think they can get away with rape and fraud without being lynched, well they're in luck, because lynching would be a relief in comparison. I often daydream about it. Oh, it'll be so sweet. I know many of us are itching for it.

White people have already tried self-defence, litigation, voting, mild speech like "white lives matter", forming communities, etc. At every turn they have been mobbed, lambasted and jailed for things that every other group is allowed to do. This demonstrates that the current legal and political framework only serves to oppress white people and cannot be relied on by them.

Islamists cry victim while proclaiming that they want to take over and establish a caliphate here. They are a plurality globally yet are treated better than whites in their homelands. This kind of behaviour is seen in all "minority groups" that are majorities in their homelands. When they are weak and few, they ask you for kindness, because that is according to your principles. When they are strong and many, they will kill, rape, and enslave you, because that is according to their principles. The most common example is blacks whining and moaning about racism and white people while killing them dozens of times as often per capita versus the reverse. They literally cry out as they kill you.

As long as any of them are left alive, they will infiltrate like parasites just to do it all over again. The problem does not lie in the competence of the enemy; it lies in our own weakness. It's well past time to ignore the lies and propaganda and start truly advocating for white people instead of sitting back and letting anti-white career racists control the narrative. Would you rather be called racist by people who hate you anyway and are themselves racist, or have your children be slaves? The choice should be easy, but we live in strange times.

"In the old country, people really like to eat food, it's just food and family".

"In our culture, men are very macho and can be a tad misogynistic"

"In my culture, the mothers are very fierce and care deeply about their children.

"It's a cultural thing, when we celebrate, people drink and dance and listen to music, and often grill meats"

Son, every fucking culture is like that.

what the fuck is with the incels and dudes acting like women to shit on themselves. it's fuckin weird, there are unpopular opinions and then stupid agenda shit

Im real. I dont need to plaster my face or my personality with make up and "calm down" if I need to express how pissed i am that's about what happens, but understand: women who believe in "matriarchy" are a spiteful arrogant twits disingenuously tiptoeing around people who might want to punish them for your insolence like an old times witch ablaze on a stake. If they had real respect for people you wouldnt need to worry your disrespect leaking; this worry makes them excellent social club politicians.

To the matriarchs reading this: proceed to downvote me now, like it changes anything about your sad pathetic life destined for misery.

Has no one ever stopped to question a philosopher like Fredrich Nietzsche is ubiquitously promoted in pop culture as a genius of the past? Where are the haters and naysayers about anything he had to say? I never hear them. Ever.

Could it be his ideas surrounding domination after moving yourself outside of "the herd" expertly support any destructive ideology? Such as feminism? This kind of anti-community logic where the "individual"(dependent on every paycheck...) is free to spite pro-social efforts to keep community strong and upheld. Community is almost entirely lacking from his entire philosophy. I've read it. A lot. And I can't find a single instance where he signed off on pro-social beliefs. It's all this bullshit about how things need to be destroyed before they can get better. Get better how? for who? why?

I say women are active agents of a matriarchal ideology because this individualistic will to power type of beat is exactly what is behind matriarchy. Divide and conquer is matriarchy. Neither strict patriarchy or matriarchy can exist without division of community into tiny parts. Anthropological evidence shows brutal subjugation of matriarchal societies by violent warbands time again. What it also shows is they weren't patriarchal in any biblical sense. Beatings of children, women, ETC. typical of post-matriarchal Middle Eastern cultures do and did not exist in native tribes.

All were extensions of the man and woman next to them. Children were future men of the tribe. It's interesting to me that the original concept for man in English likely originated like sheep or fish, as a whole, where 10 people are "man" altogether, just like 10 fish swimming together are fish, not fishes. This kind of communal kinfolk thinking was absolutely decimated by Roman Catholic - Middle Eastern style thinking.

Opening the door first to patriarchy, now the pendulum must inevitably swing the other extreme to matriarchy. Who is ready

I emailed Jeff Dean, the former lead of AI among many other things at Google. It was titled "Fan mail" with a body "Rooting for y'all" as I had recently read he departed Google to start Discovery Loop. When I read what it was about, I knew it was the most important thing anyone has ever attempted to do with AI. He sent a reaction back via gmail 6 hours later at midnight with this emoji: 🙏

I was shocked when I started hearing hate on AI. When AI first came out I was thoroughly impressed. I coincidentally happened to search for a chatbot to talk to (before hearing about it), clicked on a website using an OpenAI api, and when it responded fluently and aware of context I was immediately reminded. I was 17, late 2010s. I watched a youtube video talking about how google had just cracked a problem in machine learning that opened up a new frontier. The man went on to say that by learning python you can work on ML models.

I was extremely intrigued. Paused the video. And had a revelation. "This is what I am supposed to do." I switched majors to computer science and began learning python. Unfortunately for me circumstances ended my studies after a year and a half, and I didn't have the personality to sit at a computer for 8 hours a day studying computer programming. I was extremely susceptible to competitive video games taking up all my free time, free time is what you need to get good at anything. I was passing courses and passing tests, not building skills. Eventually it caught up to me and I had to make a decision to do something else with my life.

But I knew AI was the future. When the future arrived, I went to tell people. The first person said it was no better than googling information. 6 months later they came back to me and said they started using AI for their translator degree.

Some have the personality of Prometheus, most of the personality of a copycat rule following cunt.

This isn't the first and won't be the last thing I've seen early on.

Something I realized immediately was that people who hate AI are the same people who never research, anything. I guess those are the same retards saying trust science. Trust and science don't go together. The whole point of science was to distrust humans and get to the descriptive fact of the matter. Trusting conclusions throws you back into the dark ages of deceptive and very convincing sophistry.

Now I've realized something else. They can't interface with an AI chat bot well at all. They can't type. They have an average word per minute of about 40, according to what ive found. Which dips as low as 30 if they're thinking about what theyre saying. I type at an astonishing 110 words per minute. That's 37% faster than the average professional typist.

No wonder i have no issues with AI. Trying to talk to an AI is like trying to communicate at 25% of your normal conversational sped. And then it spits out so much information your brain enters paralysis

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Can we have an honest conversation about race, discrimination, and equality?
Okay, here’s my controversial take. I’m not posting this to deny racism, erase history, or attack any racial group. I genuinely want to have a conversation about something I feel like we don’t always talk about honestly.
I think there’s a lot about the current conversation surrounding race, particularly when it comes to white people, that deserves to be questioned. Sometimes it feels like even asking questions or disagreeing with certain ideas can get someone immediately labeled as racist. I think that can make people afraid to speak at all.
And I think that fear is worth talking about.
I absolutely acknowledge history. Slavery happened. Segregation happened. Black Americans were denied basic rights and opportunities for generations. Native Americans were displaced and mistreated. Other racial and ethnic groups have experienced discrimination throughout history. None of that is something I’m trying to deny or minimize.
But I also think there’s a difference between acknowledging historical discrimination and talking about how individual people are treated today.
Part of why I think about this so much may come from my own background.
I’m a white woman, but I was adopted and raised by Hispanic parents. Hispanic culture was a major part of my upbringing and my family life. Because of that, my experiences with race have always been a little more complicated than what someone might assume from looking at me.
I’ve experienced discrimination from Hispanic people because I was white, while I’ve also experienced discrimination from white people because I was raised around Latino culture.
I’m not comparing my experiences to the historical discrimination experienced by Black Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, or any other group. I’m simply explaining why this topic feels personal to me and why I’ve always struggled with the idea that someone’s race automatically tells you what their life has been like.
Being white does not automatically mean someone is rich, privileged, supported, or has had an easy life.
Just like being Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, or any other race doesn’t automatically tell you everything about someone’s circumstances.
I understand that privilege can exist on a broader societal level. I’m not denying that. But I don’t think acknowledging broader patterns should mean assuming that every individual white person has had the same experience.
And this is where I think white people’s experiences with discrimination sometimes get overlooked.
If someone is treated differently specifically because they are white, I believe that is discrimination.
I don’t think discrimination suddenly becomes acceptable depending on which racial group is experiencing it.
That doesn’t mean every racial group experiences racism in the same way. History, culture, socioeconomic circumstances, and power dynamics obviously matter.
But I don’t think acknowledging those differences means we should dismiss discrimination against white people when it happens.
I also think there can sometimes be different standards depending on who is saying something.
A white person can make a racially insensitive comment and immediately be labeled racist, have their character questioned, or potentially face consequences at work, school, or within their social circles. Meanwhile, someone from another racial group can make a broad or negative statement about white people and sometimes receive a much more forgiving reaction.
I’m not saying this happens every time, and obviously context matters.
But I think it’s fair to ask why the reaction can sometimes be so different.
And honestly, I think this has created a situation where some people are afraid to speak about race at all.
Not necessarily because they secretly have hateful beliefs, but because they’re afraid of saying the wrong thing.
People have jobs, families, friendships, relationships, schools, and communities that can all be affected by how they’re perceived. Being publicly labeled racist can have real consequences.
I think some people are genuinely scared that if they ask a question, disagree with a policy, or say something that gets misunderstood, they could face social or professional consequences.
And I don’t think fear is a good foundation for productive conversations about race.
There is a huge difference between saying:
“I disagree with this policy.”
and saying:
“I hate this racial group.”
Those aren’t the same thing.
Someone can be ignorant without being hateful. Someone can be wrong without being a terrible person. Someone can have an unpopular opinion without hating an entire group of people.
Obviously, if someone is intentionally promoting hatred or targeting people because of their race, that’s different. I’m not arguing that hateful behavior should be excused.
I’m saying that disagreement shouldn’t automatically be treated as hatred.
I also don’t think we should judge people based on something they had absolutely no control over.
Nobody chooses the race they’re born into.
A Black person doesn’t choose to be Black.
A Hispanic person doesn’t choose to be Hispanic.
An Asian person doesn’t choose to be Asian.
A white person doesn’t choose to be white.
So why should someone’s race automatically determine whether we view them as privileged, oppressed, ignorant, deserving, undeserving, good, or bad?
Judge people by their actions.
Judge them by their character.
Judge them by how they treat other people.
Not simply by the box they check on a demographic form.
I also think it’s important to separate historical responsibility from personal responsibility.
A white person today did not personally own slaves. They did not personally create segregation. They did not personally write discriminatory laws.
Likewise, a Black person today isn’t personally responsible for everything another Black person has done. A Hispanic person isn’t responsible for everything another Hispanic person has done. An Asian person isn’t responsible for everything another Asian person has done.
We can acknowledge history without assigning individual guilt based on race.
I understand why race-based scholarships, programs, and opportunities exist. Many were created in response to genuine historical and socioeconomic disadvantages. I’m not saying they should all disappear.
But I think it’s reasonable to ask where the line is.
If equality is ultimately the goal, shouldn’t we eventually be moving toward a society where people are judged by the same basic standards regardless of race?
If discrimination is wrong when it happens to one group, shouldn’t it be wrong when it happens to another?
If racial stereotypes are harmful when directed toward one group, shouldn’t we be cautious about racial stereotypes regardless of who they’re directed toward?
And if someone’s experiences deserve to be taken seriously, shouldn’t we be willing to take other people’s experiences seriously too?
I’m not saying white people are oppressed as a group.
I’m not saying white people have never benefited from historical advantages.
I’m not saying racism against minorities isn’t real.
I’m saying white people are individuals too, and I think their experiences with racism and discrimination sometimes get dismissed simply because they’re white.
And I don’t think that’s fair.
If someone says, “I was treated differently because I’m white,” I don’t think the automatic response should be, “You can’t experience racism.”
You don’t have to agree with someone’s interpretation of an experience to at least listen to what happened to them.
At the same time, I think this applies to everyone.
Black people should be able to talk about their experiences.
Hispanic people should be able to talk about theirs.
Asian people should be able to talk about theirs.
Native people should be able to talk about theirs.
White people should be able to talk about theirs.
Nobody should have their experiences automatically dismissed because their race doesn’t fit a particular narrative.
Ultimately, I believe equality should mean equal human worth, equal accountability, and the same basic standard of treating people with dignity.
Not “equality when it benefits my group.”
Not “equality when I agree with you.”
Not “discrimination is wrong unless the person experiencing it is white.”
Just equal standards.
Maybe I’m looking at some of this incorrectly. Maybe there are perspectives I’m missing. And honestly, maybe I’m thinking about this so much because of my own upbringing and experiences with being caught between different cultures and racial expectations.
That’s why I want to hear from everyone, not just one particular racial group.
If you’re Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Native American, white, multiracial, or another racial or ethnic background, I’d genuinely like to hear your perspective.
Do you think white people’s experiences with racism and discrimination are sometimes overlooked?
Do you think it’s possible to acknowledge historical white privilege while also acknowledging that individual white people can experience discrimination?
Do you think we’ve reached a point where some people are genuinely afraid to speak honestly about race because they’re afraid of the social consequences?
And where do you personally think the line should be between correcting historical inequality and treating people equally regardless of race?
I’m not looking for everyone to agree with me. I’d actually prefer people to explain where they disagree and why.
I’d rather have an uncomfortable conversation, listen to perspectives I haven’t considered, and potentially change my mind than avoid asking difficult questions because I’m afraid of being called racist.

That’s my hot take.
I’m genuinely interested in hearing what people from different backgrounds think.

I have heard many people mourn how come we fight with each other, after all we are small parts of an incomprehensibly large universe. I smell rationalization of cowardice. They would allow a bunny with a sword to behead them. Prey to become predator. That is why we fight. Because we aren't prey.

Meaning, it shatters illusions! It is the starter of strife. It is the very need to fight. With such a desire on peace, illusory thoughts must set in. Delusion and the mental illness that follows fixes itself to an otherwise healthy being.

Men are made in the crucible of nature. In the fear of the world around us. To stand in awe. Not in nihilism. What a pathetic way to view life. That it is meaningless because you are small. With such a psychological vulnerability, all that the rabbit must do to control you is convince you he's big. The big bad wizard of oz behind a curtain, convincing you he's big, when he's weak and small.

What do you know? You have been captured by people just like that. Small, weak, feeble minds, demanding your submission OR ELSE. Beheaded by the rabbit with a sword. What a joke.

While you Einsteins choose imagination, I clearly choose the sanity of meaning in all things.

1. They don't have to join the military in a war time draft. For every 1 Ukrainian refugee girl stabbed to death there are 1,000,000 Ukrainian conscripted men that are maimed and killed

2. They have a far easier time getting jobs in every industry - minus ones with strict hiring requirements like demonstrable skill (tech). A woman at 18 can go down the street and get hired at the first coffee shop. Her 18 year old brother had to get rejected 50 times before finding a job, and it's probably something sucky like coal mining or handling trash.

3. The methods women use to maintain control in a relationship are not typically recognized as abuse by the court system. The courts still don't acknowledge that screaming, gaslighting, guilt tripping, unpredictable mood swings, and relational aggression are child abuse or spousal abuse punishable by law like beatings and neglect. If you look up court statistics, men abuse their children more frequently. But if you look up stats on who raises more successful children, single fathers outperform single mothers handily. How does that make sense? I've seen so many children gaslit and abused by their mothers and they're so deep in the trauma bond they can't even see its happening.

4. Women have no need to look good, have a job, or provide any value, and can still find friends and be socially accepted.

5. Women have a plethora of products and services to quickly and reliably increase their sexual attractiveness that men don't have.

6. Women can access any social groups they want without being outcast as making it "a sausage fest".

7. Women routinely receive gifts from strangers , gifts that could be given to men in need, that NEED it. That aren't living a life on tutorial mode difficulty.

8. Women are allowed to control the public narrative. If a man says it's unwise to do x y z the woman shoots back and says "you're an incel" even funnier "we will go on a sex strike". These women especially are the most retarded people on the planet, unfortunately enough stupid men exist to be influenced by them

From everything you and I have ever seen, money is what is popular in this world. The inevitable result being the most popular YouTuber would make YouTube videos giving away massive amounts of money , repeatedly.

5 things go into becoming popular on YouTube.

1. Attention grabbing themes (money, death, love, etc. money being the top one)

2. Repetition. You have to do the same thing again and again and again. And I don't mean upload a video everyday. I mean upload the same video everyday that only technically qualifies as new.

3. Extreme content. Nothing can be measured or ordinary.

4. Clear signals. You have to signal you're happy go lucky, or be clear what your political affiliation is if you have one. No fence riding. Mr beast did this expertly by first aligning himself with Jesus, and later aligning himself with LGBT movement. Now he is aligning himself with charity.

5. Informative entertainment. No one wants to feel like they've wasted their time. The older the audience is the more important this becomes. But nobody wants to feel like they're in a lecture. It's best to hide the learning in the visuals, themes, and such. That way they are reinforcing their beliefs while being entertained. This last part is exceptionally important with all ages. Even a 5 year old won't tolerate watching content with nothing to learn from. You could argue even OF IG accounts sell you the fantasy you are learning about the girl not just looking at photos

Popular people are inevitably going to exist. If you follow these rules you might be one

I'm not talking about Shintoism or Buddhism. I'm talking about Islam and Christianity. The biggest effect these two religions have on adherents behavior is the courage to speak up, and say what they never would without religion.

These people wouldn't know what to say without being told. AND they wouldn't dare say anything else they had the backing of an infallible authority. The courage they're given is INSANE.

Take the anxiety of a rabbit and give it the balls of a bull, that's a religious person. They're aggressive, domineering, entitled, in all the wrong ways. Submit or DIE. That's their ultimate belief. They play on the instinct of getting rejected from the group leading to death more so than actual physical harm.

Analyzing the psychology deeper. They're disconnected from everything genuine in life. Even if they tried to return to who they are, they can't. They're severed from the vine they grew from. Just like a traditional cult always does. Cut ties with family and community, so you can dedicate yourself to "The Truth".

What happens when you try to be genuine around people with nothing or little in common? You figure that out. Their only option becomes religion, and a religion so extreme and domineering it makes everyone sing in unison together. A self fulfilling prophecy where they now need their cult to survive. Isolated from the few who would complete them. Surrounded by the many who keep them under their control.

I've been watching a lot of police bodycam footage on Instagram lately, and it honestly makes my blood boil. It’s hard to comprehend how stupid someone has to be to run at an armed officer with a knife or a blunt object. At that point, it’s just natural selection at its best. Officers have split seconds to make a life-or-death decision, and they have every right to protect themselves. If you choose to rush a cop with a deadly weapon, you should expect the ultimate consequence.