"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." - Paul the Apostle (Galatians 1:8-9) marcionitechurchofchrist.org…

Correct. All simps are weak men although not all weak men are simps. Simps will sell away the strong men's civilization for "cheap" pussy because they have no part in creating, defending, or maintaining it but they will enjoy all its fruits. They're spiritually women.

The side that's no longer funny is the side that's out of touch. That's why the left is losing influence because they genuinely can't relate to regular people without a sneering condescension towards them too. They're unfunny retards with sticks up their ass and a killjoy.

Correct. That's how the left did it for the past several decades. They had a core small group of very zealous people with unwavering belief. Normies slowly learn to accept it or not get in the way because the overwhelming majority of people do not want to get the ire of said people. It only took 3% of the population for America to resist the British overreach and form an independent nation. The nationalist right is far more than 3 or even 10 percent nowadays. But the left still has a large, more insane grasp, dipping into terroristic. The amount the overton window has shifted since a short 10 years ago, in 2016, is massive when that took Dems about 60-80 years of subversion and ideological capture of prestigious, once trusted institutions. Never blackpill, keep a steady pressure and encourage faster but realistic tempo/cadence, don't fall for easy bait, demoralization, or gaslighting from the left.

The word you're looking for is, "Lynchian."

Women are far more simple and easier to understand once you remove every shard of well meaning egalitarianism from your mind that women = men who think, feel, have the same goals as men. You can literally mold women to your will if you understand that the main mechanism is through her emotions/validation of her identity and purpose. It's very easy: react very positively and earnestly to when she's doing something you want. All she wants is to be seen and praised for her work, whatever it is. This has to be done almost daily and is not a one-off affair, although don't overdo it. The surprise effect is what you're looking for as this gives women the most efficient, "truest" signal of your will: your actual thoughts of her when you're not performing. Women live in the now, men in the future. React less positively when she's doing something you don't like. Difference between, "Great job babe, couldn't have done it without you!" and "Pretty good, love." Think of her like a very well loved puppy: when she does something you like, excessively praise and reward her without a hint of irony. When she doesn't, lessen the praise/positivity; she'll get the hint and she'll especially appreciate you doing so in a considerate way. Majority of women's issues is your "tone". This is what she's talking about. Much like a puppy, if you act negatively, they don't immediately understand why, the simply develop a fear or an "ick" aka avoidance via negative experiences. Do not react negatively or she will see it as an attack on her, get self-conscious, and then get extremely defensive and you've basically enforced a bad behavior that you must break at some point or she'll harbor it forever. Negative reactions, coupled with absence of any positive reinforcement, should be rare and reserved when you absolutely do not want her to do something. Like committing suicide or killing her children. This is why weak beta simp men are absolutely deleterious to any society and should have minimal access to women, because they easily undo the hard work of strong men's guidance and loving stewardship over women much like an abused/neglected/untrained dog with no purpose will lash out and be antisocial/aggressive towards people/children.

Hegseth, JD Vance, Palmer Luckey, Elon Musk to name a few. There are a few others in the growing caste of Military Tech which will eclipse hollywood/silicon valley software tech bros' power, money, and influence. The future is going to be an American Isolationist Empire where we expand and conquer upwards instead of outwards.

If he understood anything about R vs K breeding strategies, he'll understand that the majority of the human populations on Earth are about quantity, not quality. Breeding for quality is a very minor portion of the overall human population. The average IQ of all humans is 85.

In a sense, the South will rise again. Into the stars. God has an impeccable sense of humor.

Yes. It's funny how the tip of the bell curve of occupational prestige/value, comprised of literal middlemen or bullshit makework jobs, almost perfectly align with the midwits of the IQ bell curve. And the productive tails are united ranging from surgeons to engineers to farmers.

All businesses upstream/downstream of illegals and hostile foreign ones deserve to die off in the US. America's consumption, as a single nation, makes up about half the world's economy. It is better and safer if your business is in the American economy than all of EU/China/SEA's. Ergo, America has the greatest financial leverage for being the most sought after economy for businesses to be a part of.

Gary, IN and Memphis, TN going the same route as NOLA during hurricane Katrina. Most personalities online seriously don't understand how people actually are, especially when push comes to shove.

You should study how Rome fell. If everyone is "American", no one is American. Being an American ceases to be anything meaningful. And when something's not meaningful, it's not worth your life to protect or work for it. Rome fell because actual Romans no longer cared being Roman.

The only people that can understand the implications of this are high IQ people. Ergo, only a small, tiny subset of the human population will.

Atheists basically make themselves their own moral judge and god. You might not operate via "threat of afterlife" but you operate via "threat of my own ego dying." That's hardly a better position than the Christians you view as being self-serving, despite said Christians often operating under the purview that you can't trick or lie to God and that God can see every aspect of your heart, even the ones that you don't know you lie to yourself about. Everything else is just window dressing to make center of the universe, yourself, look good. Atheists equate being nice as being good and good being nice and then it's a constant circular logic. Your entire framework of morality is, "Does this make someone else, whose opinions I care about, mad? Would I feel bad about it?" It's pure ego driven and status seeking of the people you want acknowledgement and approval from. Hence why you couldn't give a rat's ass about opinions from Christians. Especially once push comes to shove and you reveal your true feelings towards the faithful, especially Christians. You already view them as untermensch so your ego is thus, protected, under the initial guise of neutrality and being "nice" because you never really cared about them to begin with. They're just useful people to use as a punching bag to feel more secure about yourself. You think you're being moral because your ego demands it. Ergo, your morality is purely subjective. Your morality as you know it, especially if you live in the West/Europe, thanks to hindsight, stems from Christian morals after 2000 years of "obvious" morals upending the former "moral" framework of the times. Like people being born "chosen" and upper classes were holier than lower classes. If you were rich, you were considered holy because "god" clearly loves you enough to make you rich. Touching the dead made you unclean. Interacting with lower classes and sinners made you unclean. Sacrificing babes or abandoning them to the elements was the norm. Sacrificing people and animals to ask for pagan gods' graces was also as norm. Christians were the first people to adopt abandoned babies and made that a cultural norm, which in hindsight, makes it "obviously moral". You are not as independent from your environment and social effects of the culture that permeates around you as you think you are. Much like a fish unaware of the water around it. But your ego says you're a smart special fish. You're aware of the water, and thus, you think that makes you better than everyone else. You are not as good nor as smart as you think you are. A bit of humility and honest self-reflection goes a long way.

The average age of the American rancher is 60 years old. You're asking boomers to not be short sighted and sell out the future for lots of fast short term gain right now instead of investing into a future they're not going to see for posterity's sake. Young ranchers or those actually trying to build up the herd aren't going to sell their heifers as much. The boomer ranchers are selling their entire herds for a check and then retiring on hundreds of acres without cattle. Any heirs that want to own the land and put cattle back on it has to wait for their daddy to pass away because of gift taxes. And good luck convincing millennials/gen Z to not immediately cash that million dollar check by selling the family ranch and hope that they would rather rebuild their herd over years via physical labor while living in the "boring" countryside where you don't get vacations without a trusted family/friend nearby. The ranchers that don't want the foreign imports aren't really considering or caring about the fact that beef prices are about $10/lb for Americans. Trump is trying to alleviate the American consumer hit hardest by prices currently. Ranchers, you know damn well you're making a killing right now. That said, if you want the quickest reprieve for Americans struggling to afford beef, deport as many people as possible. Demand is faster to control because supply grows extremely slow. There is a lot of lag time between an impregnated cow to her heifer calf giving birth for the first time or a steer getting to market weight, about 2-3 years from impregnation. Acreage in good stocking rate areas (we're talking stocking rate of 1 where 1 acre can support 1 head of cattle, most areas in the US are something like, 5-100 acres/head) are about 8-10k/acre. So you want even 50 acres to support 50 head of cattle via rotational/regenerative grazing, in an area with stocking rate of ~1, you're spending about 400-500k on just the land. Add about another 50-75k for a tractor, a truck that can tow cattle trailers and the cattle trailer itself and that's an additional 100k and if you don't want to blow your money on repairs, you better learn how to be a mechanic to repair all these things and doctor your own cattle. This isn't even considering if you're cutting, raking, baling your own hay with all those additional tractor implements (~50k) nor factoring in the cost of a house to live in on said property which we'll be conservative and say ~150k. This also isn't considering that price of purchasing your head of cattle (~80k for 50 head at conservative price of $1600 per) Total cost for new rancher on just bare necessity to run a cattle operation by himself on 50 acres of good stocking rate land: $855k conservative estimate That's just to start your cattle operation. This isn't including price of feed/hay, ranch hands (if you can't manage the operation by yourself), fences, chute/corrals. You have to survive for about 1-2 years without income from your cattle to pay off any debt from loans to start your cattle business from whatever other income you have to support it in the beginning. Go ahead and try to ask the FSA for a loan as a White man. Funnily enough, they have loans specifically to encourage female and non-White ranchers, but not you, White man. Loans come with interest. Enjoy paying off just the interest on a million dollar loan month to month without income from your cattle for a year or two. Your cattle income comes once a year for the most part so you better have good accounting and spending habits to spread it out to the other 11 months.

If women knew what they want and how to get it, they'd be men. Everything women say they want is just a superficial proxy to whatever underlying emotional current she's actually feeling/crying about. "He's never home" -> "I'm not getting enough attention, he doesn't love me!" Decrease in pay -> "He can't provide! I'm not being taken care of! He doesn't love me!" "Would you love me if I were a worm?" Naive, unenlightened but honest man: "Of course not! You're a worm!" -> "Will you take care of and love me if something happens to me?" What she actually hears from naive man's response: "No, I will only love you conditionally!" You'd be surprised at how well you can placate or even make them ridiculously happy and content if you ping their emotions and tackle their underlying, present emotional issue at the time, in which 95% of the cases is: she feels like she's not seen/appreciated or is scared that you don't love her anymore.

There's nothing women hate more than weak men. It has always been this way. Weak men that allow women to murder their children and either give them positive attention or no reaction, and she will feel vindicated that she was right that you are weak. In a twisted way, she's right.

The purpose of banning pot has little to do with the weed itself. It has everything to do about discouraging the type of people pot usually attracts from moving there. Much in the same way a small town banning low income section 8 apartments isn't about cheap apartments at all.

Believe them when they tell you who they really are. The worst, tyrannical, enslaving despots in modern history but they lie to themselves with performative empathy.

Don't forget the g. Low IQ and dishonest people hate the idea of IQ and IQ test because it's extremely efficient at discerning intellectual capability/reasoning, extremely difficult to fake or cheat, and extremely cheap/easy to administer. Low IQ becomes apparent eventually.