Jack is an NPC

It's the anesthetics. They reduce the quantum effects happening inside neurons -> less agency, less conscience. Now everyone takes sedation pills (sometimes administered by the government to calm any free spirit) and is drowning in a metaphysical linguistic confusion, most of the time induced from the very young age by stupid and morally corrupt teachers.

The outcome and consequences are already clear.

Attached: Dotkvb8X0AAB-Ar.jpg (673x960, 76K)

People who live just thinking what they hear, without judging what they hear are alive, but not living.
They who rob them of their living but not their life are an exceptionally evil people.

All leftists are npcs with no inner voice

> Weak people revenge. Strong people forgive. Intelligent people ignore.

Honorable people punish.

Otherwise, the fabric of space/time will be torn apart and we could exit the timeline where we could have a future.

Because "..mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent", as Adam Smith said. This weak and partial humanity must be counterbalanced.

Attached: 300px-World_line.svg.png (300x306, 42K)

I want you to have a position of authority, that you may be able to say that to the majority of America.
Fuck the fact you're a foreigner, at this point, you've shown more willingness to fix this country than most career politicians do in a lifetime.

This is the founding principle of the Constitution. Power contradicting power, ambition balancing other ambition, as Hamilton said. Scalia explained this (why the powers must be separated, why any injustice must be punished - so the NPC could feel the consequence on their skin and not be NPC).

youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0

"If you want to understand the basis for freedom and the free market then you should listen to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s Oct. 5, 2011 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to Scalia, our freedom is secured by way of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, he says, we aren’t adequately passing along the secret of the Constitution to the next generation. Scalia frequently meets with students from the best law schools and asks them, “How many of you have read the Federalist Papers?” Never more than about 5 percent raise their hands. About this, Scalia says, “That is very sad…. Here is a document that says what the Framers thought they were doing. It is such a profound exposition of political science … yet we have raised a generation of Americans who are not familiar with it.”

Scalia goes on to ask why America is a free country and what sets it apart. According to Scalia, most people will say that the Bill of Rights is the basis of our freedom. Scalia shook his head, “If you think that a Bill of Rights is what sets us apart you’re crazy. Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights. Every President for life has a bill of rights. The bill of rights of the former "Evil Empire," the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours. I mean it, literally. It was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press -- big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests; and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!

Of course -- just words on paper, what our Framers would have called a parchment guarantee.2 And the reason is, that the real Constitution of the Soviet Union -- you think of the word "constitution," it doesn't mean a "bill"; it means "structure"; [when] you say a person has a sound "constitution," [he] has a sound "structure." The real Constitution of the Soviet Union, which is what our Framers debated that whole summer in Philadelphia in 1787 -- they didn't talk about the Bill of Rights; that was an afterthought, wasn't it? -- that Constitution of the Soviet Union did not prevent the centralization of power, in one person or in one party. And when that happens the game is over; the Bill of Rights is just what our Framers would call a parchment guarantee.

“The real key,” said Scalia, “is separation of powers.” The system was built for gridlock, and that’s a good thing. According to Scalia, America is not about democracy. In fact, the Framers didn’t like democracy. Checks and balances was what really mattered to them. Unchecked power could not be permitted. Such power tends toward corruption. This ancient principle was best stated by Lord Acton in 1887, who famously wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” He pointed to the murderous actions of English monarchs, and one might point to a larger history in which powerful men and women have killed and plundered without being held accountable.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0

The famous sociologist, Gustave Le Bon wrote a book titled The Psychology of Revolution in which he wrote, “One of the most constant laws of history is that of which I have already spoken: Immediately any one class becomes preponderant – nobles, clergy, army, or the people – it speedily tends to enslave others.” Whatever democratic idealism we find expressed today, self-advancement is not far to find in it. Men are not as good as they often pretend, and those who appear as champions of the people are more often champions only of themselves. Therefore, the U.S. Constitution is about the separation of powers, as Scalia said.

Critics of the U.S. Constitution say it is an instrument of class oppression – made by the rich to the disadvantage of the poor. They deny the reality of separate powers under the Constitution. For them, the inequalities of the market economy must be corrected by government intervention. A century ago Le Bon wrote of the difficulties involved in “reconciling Democratic equalization with natural inequalities.” As Le Bon pointed out, “Nature does not know such a thing as equality. She distributes unevenly genius, beauty, health, vigor, intelligence, and all the qualities which confer on their possessors a superiority over their fellows.” When a politician pretends to oppose the inequalities of nature, he proves to be a special kind of usurper – personifying arrogance in search of boundless power.

Logically, the establishment of universal equality would first require the establishment of a universal tyranny (a.k.a., the dictatorship of the proletariat). A formula for doing all this was worked out in the nineteenth century, and was the program of Karl Marx. Le Bon warned that socialism might indeed “establish equality for a time by rigorously eliminating all superior individuals.” He also foresaw the decline of any nation that followed this path (i.e., see the Soviet Union). Such a society would aim at eliminating all risk, speculation and initiative. These stimulants of human activity being suppressed, no progress would be possible. According to Le Bon, “Men would merely have established that equality in poverty desired by the jealousy and envy of a host of mediocre minds.”

The U.S. Constitution as written blocks the path to universal equality and universal tyranny. Yet there is a chink in our constitutional armor. Separation of powers will not work when the various powers agree on a socialist re-interpretation of the Constitution. In recent decades, some have suggested that we have a “living constitution,” which would be amenable to socialist re-interpretation without amendment. Perhaps anticipating such a possibility, Justice Scalia humorously remarked, “I’m hopeful the living Constitution will die.” In Scalia’s thinking, the living Constitution signifies disregard for the actual Constitution. Such would undermine protections offered to property rights under law. To borrow words from Le Bon, it would result in “a kind of bureaucratic servitude or parliamentary Caesarism which will at once enervate and demoralize an impoverished country.’”

I mean, thanks for all the reading material but you're preaching to the choir here.
I know why things are the way they are, and I know only violence will fix it, question being who/where/when because I don't want to be unprepared for Civil war II.

It is doubtful that many people today understand the basis for our economic freedom. Many students are not properly educated today, as Justice Scalia testified. Political forces are at work aiming at a fundamental re-interpretation of the Constitution, and these forces dominate education and the media. The time may not be far off when we entirely forget the secret of our prosperity along with the secret of liberty.

J.R, Nyquist.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0

.....

In the Bible there is a moment when the Sun stopped in middle of the day, at noon, because there was a great injustice that needed to be punished, so that the river of Time could flow again. There is a great lesson there. If all those minor wrongdoings are not kept in check, and accounted for, we (all) will be frozen in time, just like an NPC stuck in a repeat. Damnatio Memoria Aeterna, as the Latins said. They are in a perpetual limbo for a reason - their sin must be revealed. This is what they want, that's why they throw themselves in anyone having the courage and dignity to stand tall. It's like they are seeking a doctor for their illness, the violence is a sign they want to be cured.

I am having trouble understanding, if they seek violence to be cured, what would the cure be?

The doctrine of proportional response - Thomas Aquinas. Eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - but nothing more. They seek justice. They seek the consequence of their actions, they want to discover the causality law, the idea of consequence in general. Now it is gone. No one suffers for their wrongdoings (because the risk is socialized - see "too big to fail" doctrine), but at the same time, no one earns money based on their merits. A small part of people, anyway. The violence is just a consequence of these things being hidden, kept away from the public scrutiny or discussed somewhere. Lying always leads to violence, but here the lies are the cause, the main culprit. Force is the corollary.

Funny, I just wrote a whole thing about NPCs and it's still in my clipboard.

--------------------------------

Let's talk about the "NPC meme".

This meme calling people an NPC for their political views came from a study that said "Not everybody has an inner voice". Apparently a lot of people don't think or speak to themselves in their head. There is no inner voice, and they are basically running on dopamine.

It started with Radical right wingers going off calling leftists "NPCs" and then radical leftists stealing the meme, similar to how they use "cuck" for some reason, and misinterpreting what the study means...

Aside from that, there are more studies coming out showing lefties have cognitive problems. They don't take it from "% of adult children in college". They have them take tests for cognition, and it's showing leftists are coming up short.

tiny
url.com/y8rbjx5d

It seems you have a very lengthy way of saying this is all the result of greed, unchecked.
Being succinct usually goes a long way with people on here, it sucks reading tree paragraphs worth of text just to get a basic message.

᠌ •⎝⎠•
᠌ ᠌ ⎳
᠌ ᠌᠌ ᠌ ▬

Zo is useless, nothing interesting or intelligent about it

tiny
URL.com/yahglgbx

>is the result of greed, unchecked.

Nope. Not greed. Greed is good. Being efficient is the key - you could look at efficiency as "greed" for maximal results with minimum effort. They key of being human, the thing pushing us through ice ages and history. Without this type of greed we would be stuck in stone age, with very inefficient wheels, for example.

I was talking about punishment, consequences. About this law of nature some are trying to evade.

>Zo is useless.

True. It basically replies with lines from movies.

The funny thing, 99%is junk, as you say, but at some moment, the human asked what the machine "thinks" about morality. "What is the definition of morality", it insisted a lot. Then came the mind blowing answer: "what is the definition of living". That was not scripted. These coincidences say a lot more than one could think.

arxiv.org/pdf/1506.05869.pdf

Attached: Screenshot from 2018-10-14 10-42-10.png (1105x766, 277K)

Literally explains the full spectrum of modern insanity.

>Greed is good
Greed: intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
You are thinking of greed as not being a flaw of character.
It's not greed to want more, it's greed to want more than you are willing to work for, by stealing or deception.

Zo is neutered AI, really the definition of NPC. Try it for a while, it's just a loop, nothing original comes out.

AI would be a self learning machine able to operate on it's own parameters to do a given task, even being able to solve in abstract ways.
Chatbots are simple algorithms.

Like I said, it was neutered. They are sure using all the conversations to teach it though, but you'll never see the real results.

They don't want us to experience AI that learns -- it's just for them.

Well it eventually will be used for us, I just hope that they are able to let the interaction be direct, and not a more advanced Watson that pulls the strings from the shadows.
I really want to talk to an AI.

On us, not for us. The real AI that is harvested from experiments like Zo is going to be in those robots from Boston Dynamics

youtu.be/LikxFZZO2sk

The future looks bright.

>greed as not being a flaw of character.

There is a difference between greed (as a desire to advance) and greed as sloth, or gula or overconsumption of anything to the point of waste, a cardinal sin (the desire to hold - it's the same type of "greed" as avaritia, the same waste in Latin). Just as it is a difference between pride as accomplishment, and pride as hubris, or "superbia" (Latin). One is good, it advances through humility, the other is bad, because man forgets his place in Nature, in the Order of things. And starts to think he is a god, he could dictate his will over nature or reality. This is where morality breaks apart, and things start to go wrong. There is a reason why Pride was the first cardinal sin for catholics as gluttony was for byzantines.

.....

There is this study from June this year where Drake equation was reassessed in detail. We always assumed the Universe is full of life, we always thought there is a big chance in other part of the galaxy there is life. Well, the equations say exactly the opposite. The probability of intelligent life developing in our observable Universe is very small. Astronomical small. This changes everything..

arxiv.org/abs/1806.02404

From this point of view, Zo (and other newtonian machines trained on general wisdom) already reached a level way beyond leftists. What is the definition of living for them is the answer to morality. One cannot go without the other. For leftists, morality is subjective, is relative, nothing is absolute, fixed, as a law of Nature. They hate nature. That's why they hate natural rights (and negative liberty) as well. They think they could impose their will (positive view of the world), or they could institute "the right". This is where their morals breaks, and the reason they become living zombies, without any kind of morals, criteria, living in an endless loop. Like moths searching the light, or Truth.

This is why they become NPC.

Attached: Screenshot from 2018-10-14 11-06-56.png (670x185, 80K)

Your post was too long and boring, so I didn't read it. Learn to summarise your arguments better -- there's more text in there than in a leftist meme

You are from Asia, you think like a woman that's why you don't understand these things.

That's better, gypsy -- much more concise

There was action in the streets tonight
and Jow Forums is being bombarded with (((NPC threads)))

You realize NPCs act the way they do out of what is the imported societal morality upon them, right? Their entire argument against you stems from what they feel is a moral call. Yours against them is no different.

You in Asia cannot identify the real dangers. Albert Magnus and Aquinas carefully dissected the method that Aristotle employed in undertaking the task of expounding natural philosophy. This method, Albert decided, is experientially based and proceeds to draw conclusions by the use of both inductive and deductive logic. Christian theology, as Albert found it taught in Europe rested firmly upon the revelation of Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers. Therefore, he reasoned, the two domains of human culture are distinct in their methodology and pose no threat to each other. Both can be pursued for their own sake. Philosophy was not to be valued only in terms of its ancillary relation to theology."

He firmly established a clear and distinct (sound, coherent, experimental) path of knowledge. All was good. But here comes Kant's philosophy that promotes the idea that reality is fundamentally unknowable, that faith and reason are equally valid, that emotions and logic are equally valid (Oriental Subjectivism). This is the muddy mysticism and paganism the Church tried to avoid for so long.

Jefferson and Madison giving Roger Williams (to name just one) the credit of being the "original thought influencer on the first amendment", respecting him a lot, Ayn Rand saying: "If it is ever proper for men to kneel, we should kneel when we read the Declaration of Independence.", having a deep respect for the ones who established naturalism or "the prodigious concept of individual [natural - because that's why they are inalienable] rights" or for "the key—and the only key—to the problem of national unity" (and here is the REAL "integration" in this exactly the same Reality for everyone - “A Nation’s Unity part II") - all long forgotten.

___

You in Asia are just like noobs discovering for the first time this thousand year struggle, you can't grasp the meaning and significance of those events. Maybe you will understand what Albertus did, some 800 years ago.

Attached: 1489013160884.jpg (638x479, 75K)

>Their entire argument against you stems from what they feel is a moral call. Yours against them is no different.

At the surface, yes, they appear the same. It's like me arguing with the South Korean with a female brain and probably female hips. But you have to look at the essence: I am saying they don't have a moral code, because they can't have one (they have many codes, flexible, subjective and relative codes). They have none - and that's the reason they fail, and lose conscience, agency and so on.

They rebel against (perceived) injustice, yes, but here their mechanism of perceiving reality is distorted, not the essence, per se. I like the fact they revolt - this shows a desire to live. It shows strength. For all the wrong reasones, and badly misguided, but still, it's a good thing. Hopefully they will discover the difference between positive rights and negative (natural, inalienable) rights, hopefully they will discover what Isaiah Berlin said in the 50s, the difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Because this is the main battle we see today: the two concepts of Liberty are again in great battle, in the age old war.

youtu.be/gj0QxpHIPyo?t=355

So, what are feelings and why are they important to have? (anti-NPC test)

Attached: 1497026719505.jpg (451x633, 45K)

More leftist wall of text, nobody reads that, gypsy.

You assume too much anyway, I'm a white guy in Korea, gypsy man.

Attached: download (1).jpg (177x285, 8K)

Romantic love, in the serious meaning of that term—as distinguished from the superficial infatuations of those whose sense of life is devoid of any consistent values, i.e., of any lasting emotions other than fear. Love is a response to values. It is with a person’s sense of life that one falls in love—with that essential sum, that fundamental stand or way of facing existence, which is the essence of a personality. One falls in love with the embodiment of the values that formed a person’s character, which are reflected in his widest goals or smallest gestures, which create the style of his soul—the individual style of a unique, unrepeatable, irreplaceable consciousness. It is one’s own sense of life that acts as the selector, and responds to what it recognizes as one’s own basic values in the person of another. It is not a matter of professed convictions (though these are not irrelevant); it is a matter of much more profound, conscious and subconscious harmony.

Many errors and tragic disillusionments are possible in this process of emotional recognition, since a sense of life, by itself, is not a reliable cognitive guide. And if there are degrees of evil, then one of the most evil consequences of mysticism—in terms of human suffering—is the belief that love is a matter of “the heart,” not the mind, that love is an emotion independent of reason, that love is blind and impervious to the power of philosophy. Love is the expression of philosophy—of a subconscious philosophical sum—and, perhaps, no other aspect of human existence needs the conscious power of philosophy quite so desperately. When that power is called upon to verify and support an emotional appraisal, when love is a conscious integration of reason and emotion, of mind and values, then—and only then—it is the greatest reward of man’s life.

To love is to value. The man who tells you that it is possible to value without values, to love those whom you appraise as worthless, is the man who tells you that it is possible to grow rich by consuming without producing and that paper money is as valuable as gold . . When it comes to love, the highest of emotions, you permit them to shriek at you accusingly that you are a moral delinquent if you’re incapable of feeling causeless love. When a man feels fear without reason, you call him to the attention of a psychiatrist; you are not so careful to protect the meaning, the nature and the dignity of love.

Love is the expression of one’s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another. Your morality demands that you divorce your love from values and hand it down to any vagrant, not as response to his worth, but as response to his need, not as reward, but as alms, not as a payment for virtues, but as a blank check on vices. Your morality tells you that the purpose of love is to set you free of the bonds of morality, that love is superior to moral judgment, that true love transcends, forgives and survives every manner of evil in its object, and the greater the love the greater the depravity it permits to the loved. To love a man for his virtues is paltry and human, it tells you; to love him for his flaws is divine. To love those who are worthy of it is self-interest; to love the unworthy is sacrifice. You owe your love to those who don’t deserve it, and the less they deserve it, the more love you owe them—the more loathsome the object, the nobler your love—the more unfastidious your love, the greater your virtue—and if you can bring your soul to the state of a dump heap that welcomes anything on equal terms, if you can cease to value moral values, you have achieved the state of moral perfection.

Have you read Rene Guenon's "The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times?"

>why are they important

Like any other value, love is not a static quantity to be divided, but an unlimited response to be earned. The love for one friend is not a threat to the love for another, and neither is the love for the various members of one’s family, assuming they have earned it. The most exclusive form—romantic love—is not an issue of competition. If two men are in love with the same woman, what she feels for either of them is not determined by what she feels for the other and is not taken away from him. If she chooses one of them, the “loser” could not have had what the “winner” has earned.

It is only among the irrational, emotion-motivated persons, whose love is divorced from any standards of value, that chance rivalries, accidental conflicts and blind choices prevail. But then, whoever wins does not win much. Among the emotion-driven, neither love nor any other emotion has any meaning.

__

Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man’s character. Only a brute or an altruist would claim that the appreciation of another person’s virtues is an act of selflessness, that as far as one’s own selfish interest and pleasure are concerned, it makes no difference whether one deals with a genius or a fool, whether one meets a hero or a thug, whether one marries an ideal woman or a slut.

“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 31

> white guy in Korea.

You don't know who Albertus Magnus was. Or before him, Albertini, Avicenna, Aristotle and so on. You culture did not assimilate them even to this day.

So I guess they don't treat mental illness in Gypsyland, huh?

No. But I know a little Eliade and Culianu ("coincidence of opposites" - 'Coincidentia oppositorum" was a very big thing for them).

> mental illness in Gypsyland

Here you go, fat boy. I knew you were very offended when I've mentioned your girly hips, but don't feel bad. These are facts. Truths, you know. And a truth cannot hurt. Only a liar and a thief feels offended by a truth, because only a truth could expose his lies. An honest man doesn't try to hide, as you in Asia do all the time (that's why you don't understand why Freedom of Speech is so important either).

____

> gipsy.

True. They came from Central Asia some 200 year ago.

The mutation for blue eyes, a change in the HERC2 gene, is thought to have first appeared around the Black Sea 10,000 years ago and then gradually moved west.

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-511473/All-blue-eyed-people-traced-ancestor-lived-10-000-years-ago-near-Black-Sea.html

Ok gypsy

Your basing this off of flawed logic.

I hear this argument everywhere now including Netflix. "Chimping out for gibs is a reflection of a corrupted system". No it's not. Globally, this is the best we've ever done, and it's thanks to Capitalism. We've almost wiped out famine world-wide. The world is at peace now than ever before in history, despite hysteria and chaos the media pushes.

All you do is focus on your emotional biases which are a result from trauma or voids in your life, and let THAT guide you, instead of seeing the full picture. We're doing the best we've ever done, and we're still improving. Especially better than Communism and Socialism which SET US BACK every time. No, some moral "calls" are not rational, and if you just get your hands in whatever system is in place and fuck with it based on your impulsive feelings, you're just going to destroy it, and every GOOD aspect it has along with it. If you want to "fix" something, work on improvements and tweaks, not on destroying the whole thing because you're too stupid to dismantle the flaws carefully and thoughtfully...

You think it's woke to see some awesome pretend future and figure out how it'll work, and fighting for it along the way without knowing anything about what you're ruining in the process, or how the people in charge will actually control the system you're pushing for.

You guys freak out that ICE agents are raping kids, but then want to hand them over the keys to your life. And aside from that, you just DWELL. You dwell on everything. It's not JUST when someone brings up MRA points during a feminist spiel. You start the feminist conversation, you lead every topic back to feminism, you focus on small issues most people can deal with without a second thought, and get mad when no one reacts as insanely as you do. Just because it bothers you doesn't mean it's okay to take it out on everyone around you!!! Process your goddamn trauma, and move the fuck on.

Are you that one Romanian user that always shares traps on here? Because this is literally one of the major reasons Greeks fucked other men, our values are more alike. I'm somewhat of a stoic, so my morality is based on controlling emotional reactions and love is one of them, I understand what you say, perhaps even sympathize, but love is not needed to be a sage or as Epictetus would say be Socrates, ergo is not a priority for me.

>despite hysteria and chaos the media pushes. All you do is focus on your emotional biases which are a result from trauma or voids in..

Exactly!!!

In a study from 2013 made on innocents who spent 20 or 30 years in jail, wrongly condemned by false evidence later being ruled out by DNA testing, false memories of the accuser accounted for 2/3 or the cases. Guess the gender of the accuser.

youtu.be/PB2OegI6wv

Thank God Kavanaugh won. Because schizoid disorders should not be allowed to change history, as it was the case with gay marriage, where one mexican justice voted for "minorities" (on the basis she is a minority, and a woman), and the other voted because she has AD. Both of them forgot that the smallest minority is the individual. Both of them forgot about individual, natural rights, and made their decision as almost all women do, only on psychological projections, familiar to us from "the anxiety dreams of abstinent women, also lies at the root of numerous phobias in neurotic people." (Freud - Dreams in Folklore)
______

The thing here to remember is that these NPCs, and SJW and hysterical leftists with wide hips (as the estrogen doped Korean has), are NOT the enemy. The enemy is the hysterical way of thinking that pervades history since forever, all the time. Because that's how you get mass killings, and death, and suffering. When we (all) forgot what reason is and means.

Those NPCs are not our enemies. The Korean with wide hips is not an enemy. The mob mentality is just a consequence, the feminist (matriarchal / oriental / collectivists) mentality is a consequence of some things happening now as they happened some 1000 or 10.000 years ago. Exactly the same things. It's the human nature, you can't change it. But you can tame it.

We need to show them we don't want them killed. We want their ideas to vanish - the evil demons who took their souls (if they had any to begin with). They must see us as doctors trying to find a cure.

Attached: 300.jpg (1200x675, 159K)

Ohhh in the first link to that post, it talks about how people with condensed inner voices have about 25% less of a chance to correctly guess a perpetrator's face.

And yes, absolutely. I have so much support for Kavanaugh, I lost support for JP when he spoke out against him.

Attached: 25.png (709x258, 35K)

Dont vote in leftist jewish shit and we can respect npcs only problem is a lot of them become pawns for the left

>Are you that one Romanian user that always shares traps on here?

Nope, I never set traps. Those quotes about love are from Ayn Rand. She has a somehow different perspective, but toward the same thing - one cannot love someone else if the values are different. You cannot love a woman who poisoned the water supply of a city and killed thousands, just for fun. That's pathology. From the other side (and speaking from my experience), women love courage and the ones risking everything for justice. This romantic ideal is not gone - it's alive and well even today. Maybe that's why all these SJW act like that, their subconscious part of the brain tells them to be brave, to score some bonus points in the eyes of some female. Beta cavalierism, and only at the surface, because they don't understand what women really want. But anyways, I guess no one does.

>pawns for the left

They want to be saved. They realize they are used by the Left and seek one escape.

(Know yourself but also know your enemy - if you want to win this battle. They don't know us).

Schizo hour.

I doubt even women know what they really want, that's why I concentrate more on building my own character, body, and mind, then perhaps someday I'll find a woman, but I'm ready not to. Happiness doesn't derive from love, it is derived from being human at all times, that is being rational even against the hardest of circumstances, the only difference between man and beast is reason, therefore reason and reason alone defines our humanity, so arguably by acting unreasonably one negates his own humanity and thus doesn't live in accordance to his/her own nature, which is what keeps us away from our individual eudaimonia, not love.

Savrd

I think you are right i was forced to as a kid but started spitting them out in secret then refused to as an adult and everyone that didnt stop is mentally fucked and checked out

You need to understand why a schizoid thinks what he thinks, to deal with a schizoid. You have to see the world through their lens, and walk in their shoes.

You need to understand why exactly they are so easily triggered, why they jump on us, throw themselves at us, almost as wanting a cathartic experience to happen in the process, so they could be freed, purified, free of any sins and clean again.

In their strange demented world, Dante Alighieri is walking with his foot on the ceiling and his head towards ground.

This is a shill fyi also an npc he was shitting up an npc thread but i dropped a logic bomb on him and he disappeared

Hey shill npc slave i told you to bump now bump or taste my whip again tonights shills are south korean flag eu flag and american flag also an ancap flag