American Psychological Association’s, overtly controlled by feminists, mission statement has for decades declared, “The critical study of how gender shapes and constricts men’s lives, endeavoring to erode constraining definitions of masculinity which historically have inhibited men’s development, their capacity to form meaningful relationships, which has contributed to the oppression of other people.” They specifically define “toxic masculinity” as stoicism, competition, ambition, which of course, is masculinity. They claim that these features are socially destructive, leading to homophobia, violence, domination & sexual assault, without listing any of the positive aspects.

The concept of toxic masculinity is used in academic and media discussions to refer to the affects of testosterone, which like fire, is both a gift and a curse. It’s a basic observable fact that men are better than women in things where testosterone benefits, and where testosterone is a disadvantage, women excel. To make this simple statement is considered “misogyny” by women because they want to be the center of the universe and anyone suggesting otherwise makes them angry, even hateful, which they then project back onto the speaker. The Left is primarily made of narcissistic women and conniving men, or men with low testosterone, with no masculinity to speak of, toxic or otherwise.

If there’s a choice between saving my child or a million people, I would pick my child. The logic being: if there is a god and he thinks those people are worth saving then he’ll save them; and if there isn’t a god then the universe is random and can’t be predicted; I certainly would only be guessing about what would happen to those people, and it would be hubris to act otherwise, hence I’ll make the choice that means the most to me. This justification applies to all the moral dilemmas that propose saving 2 lives rather than 1; you should not act to save any because God will take care of it. The question then becomes are you the tool God was intending to use to save the life? If God only has 1 option, then he’s not much of a god; he can leave you out of it, and you don’t have to be beating yourself up about being responsible one way or the other. In fact, all moral conflicts in life can be solved with this basic premise: you can’t predict the future but God can.

This brings up the uncomfortable option that there is no god; that only you can act to save anybody, especially yourself: it’s called free agency. There are no morals if there is no god. The reason someone is a hero for rescuing a life at the risk of his own is because there is no moral obligation to do so. A world without God or morals wouldn’t be much different than the one we have now where half the population wants the other half dead for simply sharing a different opinion than them. It’s certainly not the first time in history something like this has happened, and those wise enough to recognize it came up with the God & morals indoctrination to prevent it.

Tabula rasa, colloquially know as “blank slate,” is the idea of individuals are born without any mental predilections, so that all of their personality & morality comes from outside educational & sensory experiences; the nurture side of the nature vs. nurture debate. Proponents argue that humans are born without differing psychological traits and that all aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behavior, knowledge, or sapience are later imprinted by one's environment onto the mind as one would onto a wax tablet, hence tabula rasa. Only politics can explain why this obviously flawed argument continues to this day.

Any parents who have had multiple children objectively know this idea is completely debunked; children are their own individual personalities from birth, and exhibit them in sometimes dramatic fashion: shy vs. outgoing, smart vs average, even happy vs. angsty. Twin studies suggest it must have something to do with differing DNA, but even twins show some differences. Though this evidence seems unassailable, the facade is maintained because totalitarianism is justified by the Left if people are a blank slate that are inherently equal in all ways, only molded by the patriarchy into inequality. Consequently, they are justified by the deduction that if people can be made into perfection then isn’t it society’s moral obligation to do so? That’s why they insist everyone must be equal.

The term “pro life” implies that living is the primary goal of its adherents, but that is demonstrably not accurate in that many Pro Lifers are accepting of the Death Penalty, going to war, and potentially dying in a car accident. If they could use this same moral flexibility on the view of a preborn life, then even if they believe that life begins at conception, at what point in the baby’s development does its life outweigh the autonomy of the mother? Obviously there’s some amount of judgment in that evaluation because those same people find it perfectly acceptable for a pregnant woman to drive.

On the flip side, feminists want abortion on demand, regardless of the time, even after birth in the case the baby slipped out before it could be killed. There is a mentally ill portion of this cohort that brags about how many abortions they’ve had, and use abortion as their only form of birth control. For years, they used their personal liberty, “Pro Choice,” as cover for murdering a baby but they can no longer say, “My body, my choice,” because they hypocritically sided with mandatory vaccinations during the shamdemic. Now they simply say “Pro Abortion;” at least the non cognitive dissonance ones do.

The story of the Garden of Eden is confusing to children and adults alike: why were Adam and Eve so unceremoniously tossed out of paradise naked? Why was knowledge forbidden? One interpretation, Psalm 51:5 says "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Was it because they had sex? This interpretation caused a lot of angst-ridden Christian teenagers throughout history. But Romans 5:12–21 provides a cryptic but more accurate explanation: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.” To understand this, you must see through the “sin” part and delve into what they were talking about: innocence. A child is innocent because it knows nothing, has no ambitions, and no comprehension of life. The wise men that wrote the Bible were using Eden as a metaphor for this naive & immature state of being.

However, innocents, following their basic instincts, would rape, steal & murder their brethren, just as animals do. They would feel jealous, envious & resentful, which becomes malevolence, more so than animals. No societies can form because the innocent have no ambition to do anything but serve their primordial needs. To become productive members of society, innocents must eat the apple, which means be indoctrinated not to do these things, and what things to do instead. Jesus in the indoctrinator, thereby “saving” them. It actually all makes sense when explained so plainly, and makes me wonder why they didn’t just write it like that the first time?

Every child growing up in a Christian household learns to bless the food, pray before bedtime, and not use the lord’s name in vain. That last one is always confusing; not only is the sentence structure awkward but the word “vain” doesn’t seem to fit. As a kid, I certainly didn’t know what it meant, something to do with cursing. I’m know I’m not the only one who grew up feeling uncomfortable if I said the word “God” in any context. When I was a teenager and finally started cursing up a storm, I still couldn’t understand why that word should be special. After much consideration, it finally dawned on me that every adult who ever told me saying “God” was a curse word because it invoked him somehow was misinterpreting the commandment; that’s not what “Don’t take the lord’s name in vain,” means.

It’s not about coarse language, that’s silly; it means don’t speak for God, as in claiming something is “God’s will” for your own personal reasons & benefit. If you have some difficulty in your life, God has nothing to do with it; there’s no predestination, as there are no prizes for doing the “right” thing. Often people who want something from you will often outright claim, that God wants you to do it. If someone is doing that, they are insinuating that they know what God wants, which implies they have some special connection to a power greater than you; it’s vanity & narcissism. Speaking for God is taking his name in vain. Curse all you want, God doesn’t care, but he might care if you claim to be reading his mind.

Unless trained not to be, people are born narcissistic; they will be envious, vain, self-centered, controlling, lustful & murderous. Society discourages these inclinations. A common mechanism society uses to propagandize its members is religion, for example, Christianity specifically targets these proclivities, which it terms “vices,” specifying virtues instead. But Christianity is more subtle & sublime; God is inserted above the individual; people would be ashamed but Jesus forgives them. Ritual is reassuring. The church hierarchy provides leadership. Sunday school and referencing the Bible reinforces the teachings. Tithing not only supports a dedicated clergy, but also gives a sense of value and proves commitment. Prayers are self-therapy; confession is group therapy; both protect mental health. Festivals give parishioners something to look forward to. The promise of an afterlife soothes the anxiety of death.

Of course, like anything, religion can be exploited, but the teachings are its own safeguard. You don’t have to accept the imaginary, such as miracles, nor do you have to have faith; you can still reap the benefits of Christianity by practicing it, understanding what is artifice and what is substantive. Pray if you want, attend services if you want, tithe if you want. Don’t reject the whole premise because it’s shrouded in mysticism. Churches are full of people who ignore the bad to reap the good. A person who can’t do that, who thinks the whole shebang is perfect because it’s directly from God, those are what’s really wrong with religion.

Deep down, people are narcissists, and they will act in their own self-interest. Leaders throughout history have required something to keep their followers in line; the most successful has been religion. People can be motivated by many things: lust, avarice, anger; but all are topped by fear. Though the concept was cloaked in fealty. altruism & righteousness, at its essence, fear of an all-powerful god who would exact his vengeance if his commandments were not met, was used to control the populace.

In these secular times, without the presence of an all-powerful god, something needed to serve in God’s fear-mongering place, bigger than any one person or group, that leaders could use to force everyone to comply. Obviously, something that threatened the existence of everyone, so that leaders could claim their actions were for the best; hence came the existential alarmism cults like climate change, institutionally implemented as ESG; and social justice, enforced by DEI departments everywhere. not because God said so, but because the world will become Fascist if everybody doesn’t do as they say. A wise & benign god has been replaced by the cynicism & authoritarianism of democracy.

Without an omniscient being watching your every move & listening to your thoughts, people have no supreme power over them; there’s no “Because God said so” refrain to keep them under control. Due to envy & resentment, no person can take the place of God, even if they were always right. It’s possible an A.I. can eventually serve in that role but it would have to be a monotheism, otherwise humanity would descend into wars arguing which A.I. was the true god. The only way this god thing works out is if everybody generally accepts there is some kind of god, even if it’s not their particular God. However, that’s no longer the case with increasing secularism.

The problem with of a godless society is that something needs to serve that purpose. Governments are too provincial, even if there is only one superpower. Concepts & ideologies try to substitute for godliness but it’s the same problem that polytheism has. The question of what god comes down to: What does everybody in the world share? They share the world, of course. The god of everybody is called “Climate Change.” You can’t do this because of Climate Change; you’ve got to do that because of Climate Change. Climate Change has been the god for a few decades now, but that hobgoblin is wearing down due to endless missed predictions and evidence to the contrary such that even the NPCs are noticing. We need a new god or go back to the old one.

There’s a lot happening inside your brain that you don’t know about but should:

1. Perversity is the underlying motive of altruism.

2. The primary victims when a soldier is killed is not women.

3. The worst kind of aggression is the passive kind because it’s difficult to tell.

4. Because people are vain, they hate their betters.

5. No one is really altruistic; they’re doing it for something.

6. If you’ve ever been in love, you know oxytocin firsthand.

7. Everyone is a victim of something.

8. There’s a simple way to save society, if it was worth saving.

9. Personality disorders used to be rare; what happened?

You may get your news somewhere else but take your advice from me, the Wysest Myn in the Wyrld.