A place for a


The stupid mindset of justifications

A female job recruiter on LinkedIn inquired whether I was interested in a position. I wrote back that I was not. Being a photographer, I could not but notice that her profile picture was more suited for a shady dating site than a job portal. Taken at night with a webcam, eyes looking down at the display, grainy and blurred, it definitely was an acceptable portrait of her sexy facial features, but looked very amateurish nonetheless.

I nonchalantly attached this observation to my reply and did not expect an answer; when I wrote messages with sexual undertones on LinkedIn in the past, I never got answers. Granted, my own profile picture back then was not what you would call attractive.

But I am not only sharing this because I want to showcase my balls – Donald’s are bigger, but because she actually replied.

Her reply

What she had to say was:

Regarding to my photo. I have not had any problems with it, i recruit very successfully globally and it has not held me back. I will update it when I get a moment, but I was unfortunately at a funeral the day the photographer came into my work. That held priority.

Now, there was a time when I would have felt vaguely bad about having criticized her photo. My thoughts would have been something like: She did not do anything bad, she did not mean it, it was not her fault. And she does not need my advice anyway, she is doing well.

I would have beat myself up for my comment, because she did not ask for it nor deserve it. Back then, I would likely only have said it to satisfy my unhealthy altruism, anyway. But I am kinda past doing stuff because it will make a woman happy.

So today my reaction to her comment was: Jeez, why are you telling me about your funeral? Am I guilty of your dead relatives or what? What the fuck, girl? And why tell me it has not held you back? I gave you a tip that will improve your presence; I did not try to publicly shame you or anything. Take it or leave it, bitch.

Weird mindset

Now, why would she not simply say: Hey, thanks for the idea.

It would seem intuitive.

But take a look at the weird brilliance of her game. Firstly, she invalidated the impact of my criticism by stating that she is doing as good as she possibly could anyway. Secondly, she gave me a reason for why she did not yet upload a better photograph, justifying her inaction. Thirdly, and she did that eloquently within the same sentence, she brought up an emotional subject like her funeral. And smartly isolated the sentence That held priority, emphasizing it. As if I had implied that this was not true.

Let us take a closer look and conjecture what kind of mindset makes you react in that manner.

1. Invalidation of criticism

By invalidating my criticism, she proved that her choice to not use a better photograph has not had any negative influence on her career. But why bother? Maybe to prevent regret, aka If I could have done it better, I have not done it perfectly and am bad.

That is illogical. It presumes that there is some kind of absolute knowledge of the perfect way to do things that can be easily distilled out of thin air. Nonsense, of course.

Of course, if you are an amateur, you see the contrast between yourself and something that may seem like perfection. But if you are actually at the top of your profession, you see that ideal norms and standards are a matter of consensus much more than a matter of being right. And even those compromises are reached after years of experimentation.

I am a proponent of perfectionism, but I assert that you can not reach perfection unless you define it. And that presumes that you already know enough about a matter to know where you want to go. Even a professional photo can vary in millions of ways.

For some reason, this gal may believe that it is possible to know the right way to go and if she did not go it, she is bad. Or whatever. Since she must not be bad – presumably some childhood nonsense like mine – she cannot allow to admit that she could have done better.

Feminism on your shoulders?

Now, you would think that this is a stupid thing for her to say, because she robs herself of the opportunity to do better in the future. But she does not:

2. Justifying her inaction

Of course, if there is a right (better) way to go, she must not admit that she did not know it beforehand. I may be projecting here, because I myself use to have this problem.

Anyway, it is stupid. How would you know if a path leads somewhere before actually going it?

Nonetheless, from the moment you give criticism, the criticized is free to say Well, of course, you are only stating the obvious, which is consistent with the belief that there is something obvious to know. This false bravado may seem arrogant, but I prefer to have compassion for it, because it showcases the desperate confusion of a mind that thinks Ah, I knew it, just had to get it right. When you believe in the right way and a cosmic truth, it may seem to you like you finally remembered the truth just after somebody told you a good idea. Coincidentally. You just need to have that good day!

It is a bit similar to my first point, in that you may feel like you knew where your path would lead you before you went it. Example: You fear that you may fail. You try. You fail. You remember your fear and conclude that you already knew that you would fail. But you totally ignore that back then, you also had hope it would work out.

So she says that she of course already considered making a photograph, it just did not work out.

I am not saying that she did not, but why is it so important for her to assert it? Why does she need me to know that she did?

Why is it a problem to admit – not even to others, just to yourself – that you simply did not think it was very important back when you made the decision?

Ironically, if she knew of the importance of the photograph all along, why did she have to assert that it did not hamper her in the first place?

3. Instilling guilt

Now, this is the most petty part of it all and I am lucky to be at a point where it almost only mildly amuses me.

She not only asserted that she was not bad, she also made sure to assert that I was.

The irony here is of course that she may be just a sheep following an arbitrary moral ideal of piety. But since she believes in absolutes and maybe even omniscience, she would of course think that I knowingly did an evil thing. Not only is it ridiculous to assume that I knew about her funeral, it is also ridiculous to be so convinced of an action being inherently evil or bad.

But it is necessary for her to believe that my action is inherently bad and that such an ideal exists. Why? Because how else could she then use it against me? If there are no absolutes, how can you fight the battle for perfection?

It comes from a mindset that is akin to politics. If you think of it, politics are where you would need to keep up a picture of perfection, no matter how illogical the concept is. It is about appearance. And that is also where frame control comes from. It is a battle of ideals; and since sheep believe in perfect ideals, but no sheep knows what that perfect ideal is, they will switch their ideals in a matter of seconds – if only the speaker appears convincing. And why would the sheep not? If something is absolute, after all, there is no reason to resist it; it would be futile.

Yet the sheep can never eliminate the cognitive dissonance of Oh, how could I have been so stupid!

Now, while a politician or psychopath may calculatedly deceive people to conceive him as perfect in order to pursue goals, this gal did not have to impress anyone – as no one was observing.

From this I conjecture that she feels a strong emotional attachment to proving that she is better than others. And when you think about it, it is even more stupid since there is no audience but me. If she needs to prove her superiority, she needs me to acknowledge it. That makes her my slave, because I can practically freely choose any kind of standard to judge her by; there is no social pressure. I guess that is what game is all about, eh.

Again, I may be projecting – which does not necessarily prove me wrong.


Let me theorize here how such an emotional attachment to the appearance of perfection may develop.

Ever watch television?

Where the hero is confronted by a fighter with a mysterious and powerful technique? And the hero immediately looks through it, copies it and beats the enemy? Or where the hero immediately looks through all deception and has a practically all-knowing intellect?

What a heap of bunchshit.

But imagine that you had parents who – being human and fallible – have come to believe in indoctrinated ideals of perfection, omniscience and omnipotence. They adore that politician or perfect man / woman in the movie. He / she never makes an error. Or he / she is always kind, friendly and everybody likes them. It may be a kid. Then they look at their own kid and are kinda disappointed.

So the kid thinks: Ah. I need to appear omnipotent, or perfectly nice and likable.

Kid will do whatever it takes to get the approval of the parents. I tried to be nice. Cause equality needs men to be nice. Girls tried to be perfect and superior, because equality demands women to be strong.

But even being nice carries a kind of idiotic arrogance. The belief that there is the right way to behave. The smooth way. Oh, if you only knew wbich.

Being nice is an ideology. The belief that everything can be solved through being nice. Like the overburdened girl may think that everything can be solved through appearing perfect. Both are laughably ridiculous.

Now, how much was I talking about the girl and how much was I talking about myself? Not sure. If what I said applies more to me than to her, does it invalidate my points? You be the judge. Because I frankly do not believe that I can do it perfectly right anymore. Not from the get go, that is.

And if I wrote more about myself than about her, well, then the purpose of this blog is fulfilled, anyway.

Now, how about some smart ass quotes I would have despised not long ago?

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

– Albert Einstein

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.

– Francis Bacon, The Advancement Of Learning

In the Congress of the United States, Cromwell had known a good many men who were possessed of absolute certainty, and this he feared so much that he felt the only real and enduring evil on the face of the earth was unbending certainty, unshakable orthodoxy.
― Howard Fast, The Dinner Party

Here are some more.

Think of it. What kind of certainty did it take for me to write this? Was it really more than an intense intuition that may not hold true to all cases in reality? And even if I described a true tendency, is it really that absolute? Are single mothers the source of all evil? Hardly. But in regard to this article, that is not even the point. The point is: Could single mothers have known beforehand that they are not up to it? How can you prepare for your first parenthood? Well, they could not know. Does not mean you should not hate their guts.

Yeah, so I am talking against certainty a bit. Of course I am not proposing relativism. Far from it. I still despise the vague approach to life. The belief that you can not know anything for certain. But I only despise it insomuch as I believe that everything is theoretically knowable, because the information exists in reality. There is just not – yet – a method to access that kind of knowledge. And, regarding your own life, if you only did the things you know everything about, you would never be doing anything new. I will have to think about it.

In the end, the rational person is not the one who finds a way to be absolutely perfect. But the one who realizes that it is illogical to attempt it. Because who defines perfection? Him? Or him? Or him?

0 votes

One Pingback/Trackback

  • Pingback: The stupid mindset of justifications | Manosphere.com()

  • Micah Geni

    lol Spot on

    Professional Victimhood.. In their blood..

    And when someone genuinly ask them why ?

    Feminism on your shoulders?… Blame it on men.

    • Is there any other way ? I cannot think of any.

      Sure. I wrote a post on Zhawq’s Facebook wall today, as a result of a chain of though I have been having. I think that psychopaths may make for great therapists because of their lack of identification. Their ability to manipulate, if used smartly, could be used to heal people. In other words: Instead of introspection, it would be based on external observation.

      Apart from those pure psychopaths, that is

      I doubt a psychopath would feel the need to justify anything. Unless something could be gained from it.

      But do they really care ? Are they really compassionate ? Do they really have empathy ? Sure, for themselves.

      Yes, for themselves. Projected onto everybody else.

      but if a bomb hit them, they will be the first ones to save only their own life and give shit about their so called friend

      Sounds like me. The cool thing is, I am becoming more honest about it. Not that it makes people like me, but fuck them.

      That is why the world seem to be going under pretty steadily, if noone can pull out their heads of their own asses.

      The world always seems to be going under for those whose lifes are going under.

      • Micah Geni

        I doubt a psychopath would feel the need to justify anything. Unless something could be gained from it.

        They are the group that invented the idea of “political correctness”. They give a shit. It serves their goals. But they are too few to execute the concept. They need assistance. So the inverted narcs is doing their jobs actually, believing that they are “curing” their own situation (the silly narcs).

        About the bomb. I would probably prioritze my life, then see if I could also save 1 or 2 beside myself. I would not run 10 miles away first, if the danger was only in being within a 1 mile radius. I would probably be standing at 1.1 to see how things were developing. And if it was safe enough, Id try help a person or two. But I am not claiming I would do this or that, be good or bad, and neither are you. They often are.

        • They need assistance

          Are you sure a they exists? If I was a predator, I would not want to be part of a group. I would want to eliminate all other predators and come out at top.

          About the bomb. That is stupid.
          Firstly, how could you possibly know the safe radius? Because police said so? (Haha.)
          Frankly, I would either run for my life and not give a damn. Or I would hide much closer, if there was some cover.

          I actually experienced a bomb detonation here in Munich. Near where I live now. Police made a big fucking radius and had to keep the curious people at bay. People did not run away. They were curious.

          • Micah Geni

            I would want to eliminate all other predators and come out at top.
            Short sighted. The begining of the pyramide, isnt at the top

            Firstly, how could you possibly know the safe radius? Because police said so? (Haha.)
            Because I use my own senses, observe and trust myself most.
            That does make anyone safe ? Of course not. As I said, it isnt up to you all of it.

          • Micah Geni


            Good story, it had me drawn into thoughts about radical feminism. Apart from that, the answer you got, is also merely another way to tell you to “fuck off!”. It is not given that she got offended at all, or anything. “I dont care”, can be said in many ways.
            Anyway.. you gave an advice and your opinion about the picture. Maybe she will use another, maybe not.

          • I share your interpretation.

            I do not really give a fuck what she does. This was just a useful example to formulate some thoughts about.

          • Tomorrow, I will publish a good one. Stay tuned.

      • Micah Geni

        The world always seems to be going under for those whose lifes are going under.

        Naively said. As if it is up to you.

        • It is a matter of perspective. Do you choose to see the signs of demise or the signs of hope?

          If you want to make a realistic assessment, you need to define objective criteria and commit to scientific research. Otherwise, your emotions taint the results.

          • Micah Geni

            What if science is a lot about manipulation.

            It has been revealed to be a lot of “opionon” science going on the last decade. Results that fail retests.

            What do you then trust. Add few signs of hope, apart from talking the talk.

            But clearly, life still must go on. But reactions/objections can also be spoken out loud, as in the story of the emperor without clothes.

          • True. In any case, if you want to trust science, you must never confuse science with publication of science. The media is good at interpreting shit the way they want to.

            I enjoyed basic education about science. It is a solid concept. But as you imply, it can be falsified of course. Make up some fake data, put it into nice tables. I actually want to write an article about how easy that would be. Still, you would need a few knowing or unknowing accomplices due to peer review. It is definitely doable.

          • thordaddy

            Science not rooted to a universal conception of Perfection is ENTIRELY manipulatable by raw human autonomy.

            If the secularist isn’t he who wills right then his “science” is mere observation and labeling of phenomena. And even there, skepticism reigns “supreme.”

          • Yes, science is observation and labeling of phenomena. I expect nothing else of it.

            And even there, skepticism reigns “supreme.”

            What do you mean?

            Science not rooted to a universal conception of Perfection is ENTIRELY manipulatable by raw human autonomy.

            What do you mean?

            Do you have any scientific background?

          • Micah Geni

            Goes without saying.

            Perfect setup, what ever it may be and involve, is needed if an experiment is to be valid (as The Truth).

            One cannot achieve that setup without any idea of perfection. And what is perfection. You see, science is more complicated than we like to believe. Popper knew it, but many have forgotten the other aspects.

            You seem to trust science. Why ? It has become the new religion. The truth is not provable, yet we believe.

          • You misunderstand. Thor is using Perfection with a big P. He means God.

            No, I do not trust science as an institution. But I trust it as methodology.

            A bit like a person who believes in god, but not in the church and religion. Which happens to apply to me, too, to a certain degree.

          • thordaddy

            A scientist can label an abortion a “reproductive right,” ie., the right to reproduce, and be none the wiser.

            A scientist HAS TO BE RIGHT when he labels observed phenomena. BUT, if he is wrong, he can still claim it legitimate “science.” That’s nonsensical. There is no empirical evidence that scientists can always correctly label phenomena. Ergo, skepticism reigns “supreme.”

            What is your empirical evidence that science has not just labeled all the phenomena wrong?

            Is it “climate change,” “global warming,” “anthropological global warming” or just “man-made global warming?”

            Dark matter, anti-matter, black hole or nothing?

          • Very good comment. I agree almost fully.

            There is one exception, though. Science has nothing to do with morals or rights. That is the media abusing science, not science itself.


            Men are evolutionarily wired to be polygamous and spread their seed.

            That is nonsense. Science observes patterns. But an observed pattern does not translate into intrinsical motivation or obligation.

            Also see the is-ought problem.

            If you equate science to science as portrayed by the media, I agree fully with you. I do not, because I received formal education in basic scientific research.

          • Also, do not forget the self-corrective traits of science. Within the scientific community, there are usually many competing models and ways to label things.

            Scientific theory often comes up with the most ridiculous notions. But the theory is only the soil in which to plant the actual experimental research, so to speak. That is the only thing that matters.

          • Micah Geni

            A recent scandal comes to mind.

            Volkswagen Science.

            They even won prizes.

            Well. The globe needs less diesel engines, so I am just glad it eventually came out in the open.

          • thordaddy

            It’s not either/or… There are signs of hope AND demise. So your perspective must be conditioned to assimilate both signs.

          • It does. But my perception is a very emotional matter and does not allow any conclusions about objective reality.

          • thordaddy

            Yet, you still tacitly concede objective reality… Which I suggest is equal to a concession to objective Supremacy which is equal to an acknowledgement of absolute Perfection AS your operative paradigm.

            If you wish to “blame” this ^^^ on your mother than a reevaluation may be necessary? It seems your mother did more than most to make life really real.

          • Objective reality, yes, as in: The physical universe.

            Not as in: Absolute moral laws or values.

            Even if the universe is perfect, people are not. Shoe-horning imperfect people into hypothetical ideologies that satisfy the rational Pythagorean mind does nothing but trouble.

            If you wish to “blame” this ^^^ on your mother than a reevaluation may be necessary? It seems your mother did more than most to make life really real.

            What do you mean?

          • thordaddy

            “Who” or “what” drove *you* to perfection if you have no objective sense of “it?” How have *you* been able to sense small (p) perfection if big (P) Perfection does not exist to your senses?

  • thordaddy

    I don’t “see” the couinter “game” in her response. I think a more straightforward interpretation is, “oh, you are the first to make mention of my “problem” that never seemed a “problem” to me, but I acknowledge that a more professional looking photo can be taken that wouldn’t hurt me and as soon as I get another moment — the previous time, I had an important commitment — I will certainly embrace your advice.”

    Your interpretation, unfortunately, stinks of the de facto homo-ism of the “manosphere.”

    PS I don’t associate with the “manosphere” as I consider it a “white” male liberationist movement (de facto homo) in symbiotic regression with dyke movement (what you inexplicably call “feminism”).

    • Micah Geni

      Why dont she just reply “I like it. Fuck off!”

      Because she dont like it if noone else does. She has no substance (exaggerated), nor integrity (exaggerting again)

    • Interesting perspective. Yes, it is possible. Then again, you rewrote it. She did not express gratitude for my mention in any way, otherwise I may be more inclined to accept your interpretation.

      Please elaborate on the homo-ism. What do you mean exactly?

      I share your view about – some parts I know of – the manosphere. It is angry irrational men vs. angry irrational feminists. Both parties consisting of wounded personalities who think they represent their entire gender. But since I am a wounded personality myself, I enjoy it for what it is. Venting.

      • thordaddy

        Her gratitude was accepting your unsolicited advice. She agreed to change her photo EVEN THOUGH she hadn’t experienced any negative feedback from it. She acknowledged that a more professional photo was merited. Also, she didn’t specify the funeral. This means that IF she was lying about why she didn’t have a more professional photo uploaded, she was at least conscientious enough not to curse a family member with such a trivial lie. If she was telling the truth then she was telling the truth. It makes perfect sense why she hadn’t uploaded a more professional photo. But she will ON ACCOUNT of your two cents.

        MGTOW = (white) males going their own way = de fact homo lifestyle = wifeless AND childless, ie., father-less = pleasurable self-annihilation…

        • Firstly, having not experienced negative feedback does not equal not having been set back. Her picture is clearly very unprofessional and if no one yet told her, she either spends her time with unprofessional people or people are just not telling her.

          Secondly, why did she tell me about the funeral at all? We are not friends or even acquaintances, just strangers.

          Thirdly, I do not think that she really cares. I do not think that she will put any effort into a new photograph purely based on my note. But sure, that is a pure assumption. Based on my experiences, that is. Those people who actually care about my advice usually let me know that they value it. I do not feel my advice valued by her at all.

          MGTOW is not the entire manosphere, as I see it. I see it more as a niche. MGTOW pretty much falls together with what I need at this moment in time. But that does not mean that I consider it a valid life strategy. I am simply too hurt to pursue family right now – I would just destroy my child as my mother destroyed me. I need to heal first.

          • thordaddy

            She wrote exactly four sentences and 51 words to your unsolicited “advice.” One sentence was to acknowledge YOU and your unsolicited “advice.” The next sentence was an “oh, no one has said that to me ACCEPT YOU.” The third sentence was an acceptance of YOUR advice and perhaps some ad hoc rationalization (as to why she hadn’t done what YOU CLEARLY have reminded her she needs to do) promptly confirmed in the fourth sentence.

            Your interpretation is the noxious effect of the general de facto homo-ism of the “manosphere.” The pathology of “single motherhood” is self-evidently creating sons that hate their mothers and by extrapolation males who hate females, ie., homo-sexuals. You want to hate this female first, you provoke her and then show “us” why your hatred of female is “justified.” This is the mindset of the de facto homo.

          • Micah Geni

            I interpreted the story to be more about his mother and radical feminism than the lady in question.

            You’re probably right about what single-mom does. It is a setup. Makes one wonder if someone has done it with a hidden purpose. It was probably some “psick” idea back then. Here things are changing a bit more to that 50-50 stand in courts. At last.. And at least according MSM.

          • thordaddy

            Exactly… His interpretation cohered to his own provocation rooted in a mother/female hate. He has taken kernels of truth from the “manosphere” without acknowledging the giant turd he has grabbed containing those kernels.

            She took his advice sincerely and he interpreted it with malice.

          • Maybe you are right. I am not convinced.

            Malice is a judgmental and simplifying word, in any case. My interpretation stems from my own experience. It would be foolish to discard a negative interpretation just in order to ‘not be malicious’.

            The fact that I hate all women does not mean that some do not deserve it.

          • Micah Geni

            The fact that I hate all women

            .. Just a phase. I still “hate” some traits that are more visible among some women. But in general, I really like a lot. Deeper thinking, actually most. And with experience and the passage of time, it has turned in to be more about friendship and less about hormones.

            Hey. Even those “wicked witches” can be relaxing and nice to be around.

          • Micah Geni

            I dont completely disagree with you.

            But I see it more as a starting point for a deeper intropective thought stream, basically about his mother, that the women’s reply just started. Not so much about whether what exactly that woman meant with her reply. Probably not much else then “I may think about it. Kind of agree a little”

          • I did mean the girl, consciously.

          • Well, that is your interpretation. I respect it. And yet you make it sound like I am the bad boy here and bothered her with my advice and she selflessly lowered herself to even regard it with communication.

            Anyhow, it does not matter. I did not like her response, because that is who I am. People do not have to fit together.

            The pathology of “single motherhood” is self-evidently creating sons that hate their mothers and by extrapolation males who hate females

            That is surprisingly very correct, bravo. I do not deny it. Then again, my mother was one especially crazy bird.

            Not liking and respecting women does not make me a homosexual, since I still desire relationships and sex with women. The hatred simply overweighs.

            For clarification, here is the advice I gave:

            You may want to upload a picture from a professional photo shooting; this one is sexy, but amateurish and a bit shady. A crisp and well lit photograph will make you appear more competent on top of pretty.

          • Micah Geni

            I think that was informative and polite advicing. To some degree even flattering. I guess were both messed up :D

          • Maybe it is not flattering if it comes from me.

          • Micah Geni

            yeah. That is another phenomena and issue you’re touching there. Even worth a tirade

          • Want to write a guest article?

          • Micah Geni

            Neh Im no public writer. I might send you a story from a life, to inspire you.

            You know you can look very “mad” when angry ?
            So i reason like this:
            When Tom meets a woman, he has a sceptical look on his face. Due to the classical conditioning from “all the rage back home” (as Paul Banks sings). This is happening on a more subconscious level, yet in such a way that Tom might not be it aware, but the women “sense” it. They don’t relax and therefore find the situation harder to enjoy. So flatter becomes spookie, because it may not feel sincere.

            If so, just practise. Dont even think about sex, when you talk with a woman

          • thordaddy

            There is no “game” in that advice (it was professionally trite) and her response was a sincere acceptance. End of story.

          • thordaddy

            The key equation is thus:

            Homo = same = EXACT SAME = self…

            In the case of the modern “white” male and his desire for de facto homo lifestyle, his sexual relationship with female is entirely self-centered. In other words, “game” is fundamentally about sexually gratifying the self without inhibition or guilt. This is de facto homo-ism. The female vessel is just that type of “justification” that has one deny that the “game” is all about pleasuring the self. Homo-sexuality… Where homo = same = exact same = self.

          • So in your mind, sex is not about pleasuring the self? What is it about then? Making children? Come on.

          • thordaddy

            Sex is about not degenerating… Do you have single regenerating sexual experience?

          • What? Dude, at least have the decency to write correctly. I am not your damn grammar teacher.

          • thordaddy

            If your sexual relations are ABOUT pleasuring yourself then you are CERTAINLY degenerating. The empirical evidence is almost everywhere throughout the West.

          • If anything, that justification is only necessary due to Christian shame of sexuality.

          • thordaddy

            No Tom…

            It is a straightforward and unequivocal equation that in no way needs to invoke Christian sexual morality.

            Whereas the modern mind war has you BOTH disassociate from “sodomy” while coercing you into “loving all equally,” the goal of the “default elite” is to manufacture a homo-sexual “nature” without one noticing that he actually possesses a homo-sexual “nature.” This is exactly the affliction of modern “white” male. Pleasurable self-annihilation is the modus operandi of the modern “white” Dillenial. A weak… A mean… An effeminate… An obnoxious “Christianity” is merely the modern’s “justification” to not “see” the utter degeneracy, ie, the “procedural” annihilation of one’s self.

            PS You CAN deny the veracity of the following equation:

            Homo=same=exact same=self…

            But then you show yourself to be suspect, forever and always. Skepticism of *you* is paramount.

          • Honestly, I have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Leave me alone.

          • thordaddy

            Bullshit… You are lying to yourself.

          • No. You have your own beef with god. I got mine.

          • thordaddy

            There is no beef with the Father on my part. I grant His Perfection. Living in degeneracy… Infinite regress… Total redundancy… Is what I seek TO A-VOID… That’s “why” Perfection is granted as my “operative paradigm.”

            The symbology of the logo and the slogan tells “us” your fundamental disposition. It’s all or nothing. Perfect Father or no father at all. What you choose now is the psychological chaos of not choosing at all.

          • Interesting. Go on.

          • thordaddy

            Reality can accommodate AND MORE IMPORTANTLY provide ALL THE consequences of your beliefs.

            If you TRULY BELIEVE that you have no father then you will be readily subject all the perfect consequences of that belief.

            Likewise, if you come to embrace The Perfect Father (or the ideation thereof) as the “operative paradigm,” you will ALSO be subject to all the perfect consequences of that belief.

            And the perfect consequences NOW… The result of you not choosing either total rejection or full embrace.

            Reality “can do this.”

          • Well, it has some poetic simplicity that I can appreciate, I will let you that.

          • thordaddy

            The basic assumption is that you are a modern “white” male desirous of radical autonomy and thus immersed in an ideologically-driven self-annihilation. This whole process starts with being Fatherless and thus uncertain about one’s very existence. So the modern condition is a manufactured existential crisis. This is *you* in a nutshell. You came “here” MOSTLY by way of “single motherhood.” But not a “single motherhood” where mother raised you singularly, rather, a single mother by way of rejecting the father. You are semi-consciously continuing the fatherless cycle.

          • Interesting on an emotional level, no doubt.

            Here is the thing. I do not know where to see you in the whole picture. You seem to be a single father yourself. You care for your 4 kids in this world, want to have a good path for them.

            Why your interest in me? What makes me worthy of your attention? What or whom do you see in me?

          • thordaddy

            You are the first high IQ “white” male that I have come across that is in an open and honest battle with Perfection. Need I say more?

          • I do not understand. Please elaborate.

          • You know what. Even the thing about the non-redundancy starts to make sense now. I am unique. This is not a copy of someone else’s life. This is my life. My battle. Worth to be fought.

            This is an important point to me right now. Maybe you knew that I needed to hear it.

            Nonetheless, science has its value. You can not deny its achievements.

          • thordaddy

            You have “no clue” about a “society” seeking to manufacture faggots from its pool of white sons? You are not that clueless?

          • Makes me think of an aquarium. Thanks for that disgusting vision.

          • thordaddy

            But because you have no sons then you can’t “see” the genocidal war? So part of your procedural self-annihilation is not “seeing” yourself as a “son” either?

          • What do you mean?

          • thordaddy

            You are AN ACTUAL SON to a father and mother. Do you not relate to other “sons” as sons OR as “sons” under the assault of a homo-sexualization process from above? Was your mom not “instrumental” in stunting your sexual maturity? What does that even mean? If you were to have sexually matured perfectly, what should be your predicted NOW look like?

          • I do not understand. Sons? “Sons”? What?

          • thordaddy

            To be truly fatherless is to be “not a son.” Just as to not be a father, ie., father-less, is to not have a son…


            You are a son… A child of a father AND The Father…

            And you are part of a demographic of “white” sons with liberated “fathers,” ie., fatherless “fathers,” who have been deeply immersed in a homo-sexualizing paradigm. The sexual stunting that you have suffered IS WIDE SPREAD amongst “white” sons and “white” daughters.

            I also have white sons and white daughters who I do not wish to be sexually stunted. But if the mass of their peers are sexually degenerate then woe is me, no?

            Call me selfish, if you will. I would dig A Land of white Supremacy for my sons and daughters.

            And of course, the “rules” of the modern world allow me to find other “sons” if I so designate. The “rules” also allow a son’s and a “son’s” rejection. Regardless, the father STILL speaks Truth the best he can.

          • I also have white sons and white daughters who I do not wish to be sexually stunted. But if the mass of their peers are sexually degenerate then woe is me, no?

            Call me selfish, if you will. I would dig A Land of white Supremacy for my sons and daughters.

            That is an honest answer, I can appreciate that.

            I am a proponent of selfishness. Although, to this day, I was it more rationally than emotionally.

            I do not share your view of the importance of white supremacy. I see many Turks here in Munich. They are not sexually stunted. Of what consequence is my whiteness and their non-whiteness?

            But I guess they have something we whites do not have: A pride and love of our own kind.

            You know, maybe there is something to what you say. But I would not advocate White Supremacy in the sense of objective supremacy, but rather as a patriotical kind of pride in one’s own tribe.

            It does not make sense to me that any tribe should be inherently more worthy in god’s eyes than another. They can still compete.

            Wait a minute. Now that I think (feel) about it, there is something fishy about that concept. I want Father to be one of my tribe, not one of all tribes. How selfish of me. But does that make it the truth?

            Is there any principle to your use of “quote marks”? They are confusing me.

          • thordaddy

            Tom… You are still clinging to a relativistic conception of “white supremacy” where the “white” part becomes the obsessive concern IN ORDER to objection the fundamental rejection of Perfection. It is the “white” male liberationist, truly severed from his origins, who in rejecting Perfection clearly must then reject his “whiteness” (his race) to remain cognitively coherent.

            In the absolute conception of white Supremacy there IS NO cover-up, coercive disassociating or diabolical perversions.

            A white Supremacist is a white man that believes in and therefore strives towards objective Supremacy.

            This rendering is not only Truth. Exact. And unassailable. It is the very entity *you* are NOT TO BECOME.

            PS I’m white because “white” means something to me. You are “white” because white means nothing to you. I reject radical autonomy which leaves me embracing white Supremacy. There is no other realm to ponder this close to the existential end game.

          • thordaddy

            ^^^ You are still clinging to a relativistic conception of “white supremacy” where the “white” part becomes the obsessive concern IN ORDER to [obscure] the fundamental rejection of Perfection.

          • Please write more correctly. What do you mean by ‘to objection the fundamental rejection’? So being white is irrelevant or what?

            I do not know what liberationists are.

            This rendering is not only Truth. Exact. And unassailable. It is the very entity *you* are NOT TO BECOME.

            What do you mean?

            What is radical autonomy, what does it mean to you and why do you reject it?

            What is the existential end game?

          • thordaddy


            A white Supremacist is a white man that believes n and therefore strives towards objective Supremacy… Perfection.

            Nothing more and nothing less. No relational baggage. No relativist web of “equality.” A simple and ABSOLUTELY, straightforwardly self-evident definition of the phrase.

            It is irrefutable by anyone not a slave to the zeitgeist. To those enslaved to the zeitgeist… Those enslaved by those that rule “supreme,” “white supremacy” is a most evil “thing.” But “what” is actually evil? The “white” or the “supremacy?” “What” is really evil? The most efficient and efficacious “vessel” of Supremacy or his historically unrivaled faith in Supremacy?

            YOU ARE NOT TO BE a genuine white Supremacist BY ORDER of the global zeitgeist…

            You are not to be an individual that identifies as a white man who strives towards Supremacy…

            Yet in all your objections over your life, this is not one of them?

            This is evidence of radical autonomy… A severing from reality. A desire for self-annihilation… A belief in “infinite regress” and General Entropy.

            You are in many ways conditioning yourself for Hell… A conscious oblivion…. Fully sensate with only “nothing” to sense… Forever.

          • I do not believe in hell or an afterlife. Life on earth can be as much heaven as hell, depending on which version I choose.

            Nothing would be quite peaceful, frankly. A nice uneventful black nothing and a peaceful mind.

            I for once never said that anything about white supremacy is evil. You are laying words into my mouth. I just find it unimportant and silly to obsess about.

            I do not believe in Supremacy or Perfection as something that I need to strive to be. It is my choice to be as pathetic as I want to be and still be worthy of love.

          • thordaddy

            So you BELIEVE with physical death comes total annihilation? What empirical evidence do you possess to support this belief? And what is “total annihilation” anyway?

            So the war of life ends at death? Why not end the war NOW with your Final Liberation? What really does happen if you kill your body, but you cannot murder your soul? Radical autonomy? An eternal sense of “nothing?” If you practiced tolerance and nondiscrimination with methodical scientific rigor, what is your predicted end result IF NOT self-annihilation and loss of soul?

          • Dude, I think you convinced me in the end.

            White Supremacy makes sense. Because my identity is my sexual identity in a big sense. That is what present, what I have to offer as a gift. If I can not be proud of my color and proudly think it superior to others, how else can I possibly have the confidence to compete on the sexual marketplace?

            What bugs me is that I did not choose to be white. Why should my identity be prescribed by the cosmos?

            But then again, everything I am has been given to me in one way or another. Nothing is exclusively me. Me, in the end, is a result, a product of many gifts that I can choose to receive or refuse. Refusing – I hate to use your word – feels like self-annihilation indeed.

        • She did change her picture. Look, look.

          • Micah Geni

            You give excellent advices :)

          • Well, I write a lot of bullshit about mindset and psych-stuff. But I know my shit when it comes to photography.

            Maybe Thor’s interpretation has some merit, after all.