War on Men: Feminism Has Destroyed Marriage

“A wife who belittles her husband, cuts him down, nitpicks him relentlessly, holds her affection — both physical and emotional — as a ransom, nags him endlessly, criticizes him constantly, humiliates him in public and to her friends and in front of the children, and will not allow him to take a leadership position in the home, cannot be terribly surprised when he begins to withdraw. And if he cheats — which would be a great and indefensible evil, no matter how cold and domineering his wife may be — it cannot be said that he was the first. She cheated him; she lied to him, by promising to respect him and treat him like a man, only to turn around and treat him like a child.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24676/walsh-most-effective-way-destroy-your-husband-ruin-matt-walsh#exit-modal… Read the rest

Rob a Man of Everything and You’ve Lost All Power Over Him

It’s the birthday of Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, born in Kislovodsk, Russia in 1918 who was thrown into the gulag as a young man for saying that Stalin wasn’t Marxist enough in one of his personal letters. But the Gulag changed his life, because in a strange way, it was only in the Gulag that Russians spoke freely about their political beliefs. Solzhenitsyn later wrote, “You can have power over people as long as you don’t take everything away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything, he’s no longer in your power.” (Writer’s Almanac)… Read the rest

Cassman’s Principle of the Certitude of Contrarianism

Complex situations (like societies), can often be difficult for us to interpret and analyze (if you doubt me, watch people trying to order at McDonalds). I find that a reliable method for simplifying this process is to simply study my opponent. Put another way, if you know who your enemy is, and you are uncertain of your situation, observe your enemy closely for a reliable barometer of reality. I listen to NPR for this reason, and watch CNN. I can quickly ascertain the reality of any situation simply by believing the opposite of whatever they assert. If they say the polar ice caps are melting, I know they are not. if they say the seas are rising, I know they are not. If they say candidate X will lose, I know he will win. This is how reliable they are. It’s an extraordinary thing, really. But you have to read Orwell to get it, and that means I’m only making sense to 12.5% of you.

This Slate article is a great example: the modern understanding of “civil rights” is unequivocally a violation of the first amendment rights of every citizen. You are not even free to THINK without violating federal law. (Hate crime legislation and ‘enhancements’ in federal sentencing guidelines prove this beyond a doubt). P.S. Trump is winning and I don’t even think he gets it.

 … Read the rest