1. Always carry a gun on your person.

2. Never eat out.

3. Always check under your car before getting in.

4. keep your car in a locked garage.

5. Only drink your own water, and bring it with you if you have to.

6. Travel with friends, who are also armed.

7. Have a protective, barkey dog at home.

8. Have a decent security system with CO monitoring, door and glass monitors, door cam, and phone alerts.

Sigh. Okay then, keep your secrets.

You know what they say about complacency then

From 2008 to 2020, I read the news for several hours every day. It became so predictable I could figure out what everyone would say, what they would do (or not do), just by reading the headlines and a few details in the article. I stopped reading the news after that, and in conjunction with learning about conspiracy theories, I'm well versed on what's happened, what's happening, and what's going to happen, who is involved, who it will affect, and why.

I've also largely separated myself from the entire "culture war" sphere after giving them undue credit, in the hopes that they'd figure things out. They didn't, and haven't. I used to follow Nerdrotic, Heelvsbabyface, Ryan Kennel, and a few others, for years. They kept ascribing the culture rot to incompetence, and not the true motive: malice. They kept pushing normie tier conservative ideals. I only know of Melonie Mac ancillarilly through them, and it's minor info.

Why do you expect anyone to know about everyone, everywhere on earth, lest you say they are "complacent"?

It's not just kids, but how most bad people react when anyone confronts them about their false beliefs, inadequacies, sins, or hypocrisies. They immediately become vitriolic and confrontational, lashing out at the person who told them the truth, as if they were physically assaulted. This is usually why having a good debate (logical, honest, civil, and prioritizing truth above all else) with someone who holds a false belief is nearly impossible, because people cling to those beliefs like an anchor, often doubling down on their own stupidity. I wish it wasn't so, but it's been the lion's share of my experience on the subject, personally having debates and observing others debate.

However, you are correct that for someone to react that way toward a kid, speaks less favorably toward that person, and highlights further their defensiveness of their sins.

Dan Crenshaw is an Israel first, America last "conservative". He's a judeo-Christian, meaning he's not a Christian.

You are extrapolating my arguments in order to defend that tradthot, that's my issue.

I'm not necessarily defending her, I'm opening up the conversation to the larger issue at hand. How can we judge a reformed Christian if they act like a Christian? Do we presume to know people's hearts? We can judge people's hearts, if their actions betray their statements (i.e fruit of the poisonous tree), but if they act Christian, and their works are good, then why cast aspersions on them?

I think you're assuming a lot about my feelings on her. I only know of her a little bit based on who I used to follow in the culture war, people I no longer follow, because they betrayed the fact that they'd rather remain silent on matters of importance and make more money, than be censored and be poor, and they also keep espousing the false idea that what we're seeing is due to incompetence, and not malice. I don't know enough about Melonie Mac to pass judgment on her either way. I'm not attempting to simp, white knight, carry water, or anything else for her. I love philosophy and exploration of ideas, which is why I was attempting to pursue the conversation to the larger issues.

I agree with you that there have been, and exist many, Christians who were false converts (conversos), who said they were Christian, but weren't.

Since you want to discuss Melonie Mac specifically, what has she done to warrant extra scrutiny? Truly, I don't know enough about her one way or the other. Just curious if you know any specifics.

Bro, arguing with some forum autist is definitely not christian.

Pursuing truth is the pursuit of God, to understand his will. It is the most Christian thing we can do, to learn the truth, to espouse it, defend it, and to live it. Debate is one of the best ways to find truth, to challenge our own ideas, to learn if they're wrong, in part or whole, and to hone them. Weak people hold weak ideas, because neither are challenged. If someone shirks away from debate, challenge, or hardship, they are meritous of nothing.

If you have time to waste on this shit, you're not a christian.

False. Christians are not told to remain silent. Christians are not told to be pacifists to the world and people around them. Tell me where such passages in the Bible espouse these behaviors?

You did not answer my questions, so I must conclude that you're not a Christian, and given how you've reacted, you hold Christians in contempt. You use Biblical passages how Satan used them, and how the Pharisees used them, as a bludgeon against the righteous, to burden people with guilt so they don't come to God, to twist the meanings, to make a law mean its antithesis, or to accuse others of that which you are guilty.

When weak men get in a debate, and they can't refute anything, they try to attack anything of the opponent they can, grabbing at straws, in the hopes to "win" the debate. It's the worst thing they could do to themselves. Debate, when good, is supposed to be logical, civil, and honest, with all parties prioritizing truth above all else, so even if they're proven wrong, they still win, because they come closer to truth. When weak men's ideas are challenged, they see it as a personal attack, and respond with vitriol. It completely escapes them that a Christian, who is commanded to love his neighbor, may tell a man the truth, in an attempt to correct his mistakes, so that he doesn't fall to ruin and sin, in the hopes that his neighbor be saved. But, many who hear the truth, recoil and lash out at the speaker, doubling down on their failings and falsehoods, rather than ever admit wrong. It's probably the most common failing of men that I see, a refusal to budge, hanging onto their beliefs like an anchor, letting it drown them.

Enjoy your day.

I hope God softens your heart and humbles you, like he did with me. I'm hard headed. It took me many years to realize what God was teaching me. Hopefully it won't take you as long.

Jesus has one "bride", the Christian church. The New Testament says that Israel is no longer a specific ethnic group. Israel is Christianity.

Dispensationalism is heresy and satanic, pushed and funded by jewish subversives for well over 100 years. As an easy example, look into who funded the Scofield Bible, and how a seeming nobody somehow became prominent on the world stage.

From what I've heard, the drones are U.S. military drones used to sniff for radioactive material. I've been speculating similar to you, that those drones are there to give plausible deniability to the government, that they were "trying to stop it" while also being behind it. I'm theorizing a possible dirty bomb false flag. Even if they don't have enough fissile material for a conventional nuke, a dirty bomb, in many ways, is worse.

With the shitstorm of international stuff going on, I don't doubt for a second the people in power want to stage another false flag (like 9/11) to get the U.S. involved in more wars for the benefit of a certain demographic (i.e. not White Westerners), which also explains why all military recruitment ads have switched to White men exclusively (zero DEI). It would also explain why the people in power let (helped) Trump get elected, to placate White men, and since "our guy" got in, it's now okay to support the military again, to push more globohomo across the planet.

Oh, it's easy - most people who say they're christian don't act christian at all.

You dodged the question. What bar, what metrics, do you use to judge if someone is Christian or not.

I somewhat agree, that many Christians do not act like Christians, but most Christians I've seen are better people than those I've seen who aren't, on average. Even considering the corruption of the modern church to espouse anti-Biblical stances, modern Christians are better people on average.

Also, I'm curious. Are you Christian?

And your second point is childish. It's not about abdicating to lesser evil, it's choosing which one to combat. And no, you can't fight them all - the modern reality is that hardly anyone can actually do anything about evil, outside of internet shitposting (which doesn't qualify as a christian act as it's no act at all).

You're putting forth different positions. You're initially arguing that people are incapable of fighting multiple things at once, to which I whole heartedly disagree. Secondly, you argue almost no one can fight evil, at all, to which I also whole heartedly disagree.

Both of your positions are an abdication of a man's responsibility to espouse truth in face of falsehoods and lies, and to violently fight evil in his presence. Your position is understandable, though, given how much demoralization propaganda abounds in Western culture, to keep men weakened, controlled, stupid, demoralized, and inactive. On top of this, civilizations at their peak naturally produce weak constituents who cling to their comforts like a sinking ship, refusing to alter their behavior or lift a finger in the face of the growing tide of corruption in their midst, or the ever accelerating slide toward collapse of their civilization. We see this evidence all over Western civilization.

People are still too comfortable, and will enumerate all manner of excuses for why they can't, won't, or shouldn't act. Your excuse is no different. In your own mind, your reasoning is sound, but it's because you're motivated purely by your comforts, knowing that if you were to take up the sword against the people hurting you, and everyone you love, it would rob you of what little comforts you have left. There will absolutely come a time where your excuses no longer suffice, that people will be forced to fight, or to die.

Can people do more than one thing at once? Yes. Can people fight more than one evil at once? Yes. Can people espouse more than one truth at once? Yes. You're acting like you believe individualism is correct, the false belief that people don't group up or have collective interests, or act collectively to fight back against common enemies. We group up precisely because we understand that we can achieve more together than we can by ourselves, to help us fight all the lies and evil.

Your philosophy is also self serving and self defeating, because you actively denounce any idea, action, or people who would fight back against the lies and evil, even though you admit that the lies and evil exists. Thus, your philosophy allows lies and evil to propagate, to spread, and to become worse, fulfilling your prophecy that it is harder to fight "all" the lies and evil at once. This philosophy would put your children and people in a worse position, essentially kicking the can down the road, because you don't want to act.

You also advocate that we should "pick our battles", and constantly compromise with the lesser evil, which is what's allowed evil to propagate in the first place. You can't correct a problem by acting identically to what caused the problem in the first place. Correct the behavior, and then you can correct the problem. But, in your case, you must correct your mind first.

I assume you're referring to how Job realized his own limitations in understanding God? If not, what are you meaning?

If you're meaning what I think you are, it's not analogous to the conversation. Scripture isn't infinite. Scripture is designed to bring us closer to God, how to live righteous lives, and live according to God's wishes. God is infinite, though. Realizing the totality of truth (or God), as humans, is impossible.

However, you're making a relatively common fallacious argument with regard to human failings. You're suggesting (if I assume your argument correctly) that because we don't know everything, that because we're mortal, finite, and imperfect, that because there will always be doubt about our actions being in accordance with God (given our limited understanding), that therefore we are forbidden to speak and act, for fear of transgressing against truth (God).

That is a fallacious argument, and no one in the Bible, even Jesus or God, advocate for that position. Furthermore, it's an inherently destructive philosophy, crushing all who believe it into pacifism, moral cowardice, inaction, and inevitable suicide, due to fear of any misstepped action or word.

Keep it going.

Your own view on this is reflective of how you espouse it. You betray your own inadequacies, and don't realize you are. You say that length is inherently bad, and show how thoroughly that thought pervades your entire life and worldview.

Why would I stop doing something that is meritous, necessary for strong ideas and men, and something I enjoy doing?

You're so close to being the mental god you believe you are.

Satan is called the great accuser. Do you know why? He accuses people to shame them, to burden them in their guilt so they don't come to God, believing they are incapable of being saved. He also accuses those of things he is guilty of. You are doing the exact same here.

It is you elevating yourself to godhood. If you are incapable of self reflection, self doubt, admitting you are wrong, and changing your mind, it means you wholly reject your own humanity, because you're making the claim that everything you think and say is correct. Humans are finite, mortal, and imperfect. We can't be correct on all of our views. For reference, I've changed my mind on several things over the last several years, many of which were deeply held beliefs (like egalitarianism, race realism, jews, rampant individualism, and libertarianism).

The very purpose of debate is to challenge our ideas, to make sure we're right, or to figure out if we're wrong, and adjust accordingly to the truth. If you refuse to participate in the best means of discovering truth, it means you reject truth, and consequently promote yourself to godhood. You, again, betray yourself as a hypocrite.

Just one more response and it will prove me wrong, and not only will you change my ways in a deep and profound matter,

My responses change nothing. All I do is enumerate and explore truth. You are free to reject it, or not. I can't force you to change your mind. Feel free to cling to your hypocrisy if you like.

you'll actually change every single person reading it.

No one else is reading this. It's only you and me here. But, as stated previously, debate (even bad debate) still holds great value when there is no audience.

You're making a massive difference in this niche corner of the internet through your big brain.

This is a tangential logical fallacy to an appeal to popularity. You're suggesting that large numbers are required for anything of importance, and if large numbers of people are not involved in a thing, that thing is therefore invalid. You crap on the merits of individuals improving themselves, because they're not "popular" enough.

Every response you give further details your own failings. You're not alone in that, though. When pressed, people are quite eager to display their own inadequacies, and especially in debate, they delight in those inadequacies, clinging to them like an anchor, letting it drown them, refusing to budge an inch, acting like the person who challenge's their ideas is an attack on their person, responding with violence and vitriol, refusing to self reflect or question, declaring themselves to be God. You, apparently, are no different. If you participated in debate, at all, you'd see the same thing. But, you don't, and continue to fail in the same ways as many others. But hey, according to your own logic, at least you're part of the popular crowd. Good for you!

Just because someone thinks they're christian doesn't mean they are.

True enough, but what bar do you set for how to determine if someone is truly Christian? What's the reasoning for your judgments? If someone says they're Christian, and acts in a Christian manner, how can we judge them any other way?

If we were living, say, in the fifties, I would also attack fanservice. But, for now, it does more good than bad - at least it promotes the traditional kind of beauty and relationship between a man and a woman. Now is definitely not the time to attack it and doing so is hardly a priority.

The promotion of beauty is the one positive of "fan service" and older style entertainment that was put out by Hollywood. However, it is always combined with the temptation of lust that's intentionally inserted into that media, to drive men toward sin (lusting after a woman who is not your wife is the same as adultery in the Bible).

Your position is the advocacy of the lesser evil, but that lesser evil also contains sin, and drives your brothers to sin (lust, masturbation, porn). What's happened to Western civilization with people constantly abdicating to the lesser evil? It's only resulted in more evil. At some point, decent men must reject all the compromises that were made before them, and become steadfast in truth. These men are always called zealots in their day, because their fervent adherence to truth appears radical in a world of lies and lesser evils.

That specific passage is about people coming to accept Jesus (and God), accepting truth, which naturally divides a fallen world where people have embraced lies. Look at the above passage when combined with Luke 12:49-53 and Luke 14:26:

“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

These passages don't mean one should hate their family, or that Jesus is intentionally dividing families against themselves. It's that Jesus (and God) want us to prioritize him (truth) above all other priorities. It's identical to when a loved family member espouses a foolish thing, or does a foolish thing, and we correct them. Just because we love someone, doesn't mean we have to agree with everything they say and do. We must rebuke falsehoods and lies.

What good is repentance if it's done for acceptance and not repentance's sake? If she truly believes what she preaches rejecting her isn't a problem

By that logic, all new converts (Christian or otherwise) should be disbarred from earning any income or speaking. What time frame is long enough for you to recognize sincerity? 6 months. 1 year. 10 years?

Currently, White people are being denied the rights to:

1. Associate with whom we choose.

2. Group up (collectivize) with whom we choose.

3. Espouse for our collective interests.

4. Elect leaders on our behalf and have a government that operates in our best interests and enacts our will.

5. Protect our homes and nations (the same thing).

6. Protect the borders of our homes and nations.

7. Control who enters our homes and nations.

8. Gatekeep out undesirables (regardless of reason).

9. Enact our will upon the majority.

10. Maintain the homogeneity of our homes and nations.

11. Maintain the health and prosperity of our homes and nations.

12. Protect ourselves.

13. Protect our neighbors and people.

14. Live.

15. Violently stop the people hurting us.

All of these natural rights are necessary for the function, health, prosperity, and longevity of a group, regardless of size or intent, whether it be a marriage, family, community, city, hobby, job, church, charity, army, nation, or people.

All of these natural rights are actively being denied to White people, but granted to everyone else. When you deny these rights to a people, it means you wish to kill them, which is precisely what the people in power are doing to us.

One of the most truth bound Christians I ever found was on Youtube, the two men doing the Stone Choir podcast. Don't forget that many of us attempt to use the platforms that we know are controlled by our enemies, to invade the enemy's space, to preach the truth.

They just shouldn't be leaders or influencers in conservative movements.

I agree with this somewhat. Leaders should be the best of us, should know what we know, and must prove themselves.

i do not trust such people (especially women) and you won't change my mind on it

I'm not asking you to blindly and naively accept everyone. I'm asking for you to forgive people who actually repent and accept truth.

There are obviously devious people, false converts, grifters, subversives, and liars who will always attempt to enter our spheres, homes, and nations, in an attempt to take them over and destroy them. Do not welcome or accept those people, but be sure you know how to spot them, and the differences between them and true converts.

With regards to women, they are easily manipulated, because they're less logical and more emotional than men. They are not meant to lead. We are to lead them. If we lead them, and they accept our ways, they aren't a false convert. They will always try to err, but that is the nature of women, and to a slightly lesser extent humans as a whole. If women could never be trusted of their convictions, they'd never be able to enter Heaven, because all of their prostrations and repentance would be meaningless.

It's sad how easy it has been to get you to write paragraphs and paragraphs

I can type fast. What may take long for you, is quite quick for me. It's a habit I've practiced for many years.

Furthermore, you're signaling your ignorance to why debate is good, even when it's not being conducted properly. Debate (whether good or bad), enables a man to practice his habits in good debate. Debate lets a man practice his arguments and explore his ideas. Debate lets the audience hear different viewpoints. Debate lets a man challenge his ideas against an intractable opponent, to truly determine if he is correct. Ideas, like men, are honed through hardship and challenge. Weak men hold weak ideas, and for the same reasons.

Since you shirk away from any challenge to your views, since you refuse to participate in a thorough examination of your ideas, if you refuse to challenge your own ideas, if you refuse to participate in good debate, you inherently weaken your own position, because all of your ideas are unchallenged, unexplored, unreflected, and weak.

about how much you really want to engage in violence against people that want to unironically be left alone and engage in voluntary and consensual co-operation.

That's not what I've been advocating at all. All groups, regardless of size or context, must be homogeneous. Government should, at whatever level its at, only enforce rules along the lines of agreed homogeneity of the people it rules.

However, this position can only work so long as the government and the people (nation) are healthy and uncorrupted. This isn't the case currently, as the people in power hate us, have been intentionally propagandizing our own people against us, have been importing people who are not like us, and are intentionally diversifying us in philosophy, habits, traditions, language, religion, politics, morality, and race. In every conceivable way, the people in power are taking away our natural homogeneity, and destroying it, to weaken our collective bonds, to weaken us, to make us easier to control. Thus, it becomes necessary for people to enforce their views upon the wider whole, to rebuild the homogeneity that was lost, and fight back against the intentional diversification of their people, and violently fight back against the people doing it (and their supporters). In this, I openly admit and condone the use of violence, because violence isn't inherently wrong. You will, of course, latch onto this as a perceived victory, without acknowledging the reasoning.

I'm sorry you refuse to see this, because you're holding onto one facet of this argument with such a fervent stranglehold that you refuse to see the bigger picture.

Like it's clear that I'm not reading this because I don't care what you have to say

You further admit that you're brainrotted, incapable of reading or engaging in any content longer than 15 seconds, and hold inherently weak unchallenged ideas.

but you're so hell bent on winning an internet argument that you bite the bait every time.

Good debate requires all parties be civil, logical, honest, and pursue truth above all else. In this way, even if one side, or both sides, is proven wrong in the debate, in part or whole, they can accept the truth openly and proudly. That's how you "win" a debate, by coming closer to the truth. Only fools think they "win" a debate by the standards you profess. But, to be fair, there are a great many fools in modern society that think that's how debates are won, so at least you're not alone in your foolishness.

And to repeat what I said above, which you will also not read, I intentionally challenge my ideas in long form debate, because I don't want to hold weak ideas, I want to know if I'm right or wrong, I want to explore my ideas, I want to practice my views and arguments. I want my ideas to be strong and practiced. I want to be sure. This takes time and length. It's identical to exercise, which takes a lot of time and dedicated effort. You can't do short form exercise and see massive results. It takes time and effort, which you actively refuse. People's views shape their entire reality, so I must also reason that you're also fat, unfit, unpracticed, and lazy.

Which funnily enough shows just how poorly you would do at any sort of "governing" since you can't even show enough self control to not respond to obvious bait.

On the contrary, my habits would make me worlds better at governing than someone like you, who are an admitted fool. And, weirdly, you tacitly admit that all of your responses have been "bait", meaning that you've been behaving disingenuinously this entire time, thus every word you said must be taken as a lie or manipulation, in one regard or another.

In any case, I don't care if what you said was "bait". All of the above reasons for why debate is needed and meritous, that I outlined above, still work when you engage an opponent in a debate who is "baiting" or being disingenous. Most of the best, long form debates I've ever had have been with people similar to you, practicing bad debate, who prioritize themselves above truth, who cling to their views like an anchor, who would rather die than admit wrong in any form, who are being disingenuous.

So you only accept converts so long as their conversion was a long time ago? You're not answering the fundamental problem of your stance, only putting an artificial time limitation on it. If you want people to come around to your views, if you want people to improve, would you not accept them, regardless of how long ago or how soon it was? If you reject new converts wholecloth, you dismiss push away people who would otherwise become your ally. That's not the mentality we should engender if we wish people to realize the truth and accept our views.

I changed several of my above viewpoints in just the last few years, with most occurring between 2016 and 2020. I'm a relatively new convert to many of my current stances. By your own standards, I am unwelcome, and everything I say is false and disingenuine.

I'd venture a safe guess most here have changed their minds on several things over the years, even core principles. I have.

I used to support gay people.

I used to support the empowerment of women.

I used to support the military and police.

I used to support Israel.

I used to think egalitarianism, individualism, and libertarianism were correct.

I used to be an agnostic.

People change. I'm also a relatively new Christian as well. Accepting Jesus naturally changes your heart. Reading the Bible and believing Jesus' words and lessons changes your heart.

Why would Christians, or right wingers, or anyone here be averse to changing one's mind? Why would we be averse to women changing their minds? Since women are the most susceptible to propaganda and psychological manipulation, if you demonize those who do come to our side, you're effectively telling them that you reject them, don't want them, that they'll never be good enough, and that you want women (or men) to remain under their brainwashing, that they are forever stained and sentenced to hell just for their views, which they were manipulated into.

This isn't a Christian view. We all fall short, but we're all forgiven, now matter how far we fell.

Could Melonie Mac be gritting? Possibly. But to demonize all women who break free of their conditioning, which I see more and more men do, is antithetical to their goals.

Damn son, that's a whole lot of writing

Ah yes, the classic intellectually fallacious and lazy fallback position of "I have no retort, so I'll just criticize the them on anything I can grasp onto". You have no problem with length. You're only criticizing it here because you can't respond or refute, so you try to sling any criticism you can in the hopes that your critic or the audience (which has now left this discussion), will be manipulated into a fallacious argument, away from the pertinent discussion. If you're so monumentally retarded that you view all long form discussion as inherently bad, you've been completely brainrotted by short form dopamine driven social media (engineering), then it casts doubt on all your other positions.

Even though an ad hominem is a logical fallacy, reality shows us that source absolutely matters. It's how people can recognize patterns, determine what's good or bad, and make sweeping judgments upon the groups that are good or bad.

that completely ignores and avoids the key principle of voluntarism being brought up.

If you think libertarian "volunteerism" is the same as collectivism (grouping up for mutual benefit, goals, and commonality), you're a moron. I explained the differences above, but since you apparently don't like to read, well, that's on you. I won't explain it again. Perhaps if you ever undo the damage that short form content has caused you, you might reconsider your asinine position that anything longer than a 10 second quip is inherently bad.

Please, do share more about how you wish you could force others to do your bidding so you can achieve your utopia.

Government is force. See, this is why I know you're an idiot. You have no clue what government is, how it operates, or why it exists. I attempted to explain above, but again, you can't read. Government operates to enact the will of the governed (or when corrupt, the will of the people in charge). Government comes about precisely because people group up (collectivize), because all groups must (if they wish to survive) enumerate rules for that group, and enforce those rules for the benefit of the group and constituent members. Government, by its very nature, relies upon force (i.e. violence, or the threat of violence). Rules are meaningless if there is no force to back them up. Rules and laws are foundationally and inherently "do this, or else". If rules/laws aren't enforced, there's zero reason to have them in the first place, zero effectuallity of government or the need to keep it around.

If you're arguing that force is inherently bad, it ultimately means you're an anarchist. By this position you've espoused, you've displayed your ignorance to the subject (again), not knowing that what you're advocating for is anarchism, not libertarianism.

I'm sure any day you'll bring about true peace and prosperity on earth any day now, so long as they follow your specific brand of statism.

Yes, thank you for noticing. My positions and arguments on government are logically sound and consistent, so they work, and my position even allows a wide breadth of possible governmental forms, so long as they follow the basic tenets of what government should be and how it should operate, and remains uncorrupted. When government does become corrupt, it ultimately requires men to retake their own responsibilities, and use their natural right of violence against their oppressors in government, to reform the government, and shape it and man it to enact their will.

Feminist and leftist writers are definitely incapable of getting lost in a fantasy setting. They have to use a fantasy setting to overtly spread their own ideologies, using the setting as a skinsuit to spread the message. They're incapable of nuance, which is why their messaging feels like being hit over the head with a hammer, and drives people away. Whereas intelligently written fantasy and scifi hides the messages much better, leaving the created world feeling real, where the lessons contained within make sense within the confines of the world, the characters, and the story, letting the reader interpret the lessons for themselves, making them much more widely applicable.

In a broader sense, I think men are predisposed to be better fantasy and scifi writers than women, for the same reasons above. Women, at least modern women, want the attention to be on them, so their created worlds feel hollow, merely a backdrop to tell the story they want, replete with the central girlboss character that's an obvious stand in for the writer. Men are less vain, so they're better able to leave themselves out of it, to let the story tell itself, while he merely sets up the chessboard. At least that's what I've seen.

Geralt in Witcher 3 is a model? This is the first comment I've ever seen about this. He's just an extremely fit guy, which naturally enhances looks.

Geralt, nor any of the other remaining witchers, would ever have allowed Ciri to undergo that trial. I don't remember the exact number, but it kills about 70-90% of all the kids that undergo it. Geralt loves Ciri like a father. He simply would not have let her do it, would not teach her what ingredients were used, how to make the potions, or done it for her.

Furthermore, if I remember correctly, there are several story points, lines of dialogue, and quests in Kaer Morhen (the Witcher 3) that say the trial of grasses is no longer possible. The manuscripts detailing the knowledge are all gone. The apparatuses for doing the trial are in ruins. And Vesemir was the last remaining witcher who knew the ingredients, and he was killed in Witcher 3.

This is all lore shattering, character destroying bullshit for just another girlboss game.

People who criticize jews get debanked, deplatformed from entire industries, get their contracts cancelled, and have their lives ruined. For her to do this, and be a grifter, she'd have to be the dumbest grifter on the planet.

That's my understanding of the event as well. Israel and the jewish controlled U.S. government were trying to stage a false flag and sink one of our own ships, and then blame it on Egypt (who Israel was at war with at the time), to get the U.S. involved militarily on the side of Israel, against Egypt.

Almost every war in the last 100 years has started the same way, with a false flag, either allowed to let happen, or perpetrated by our own government (or the Israelis).