Incels…..

[mogstar]

XD

 

[Deleted member 12669]

Kys

 

[Deleted member 14323]

Kys

XD

 

[Deleted member 7224]

 

[mogstar]

Kys

 

[mogstar]

 

[Deleted member 7224]

 

[mogstar]

Incels….

 

[Deleted member 7224]

Incels….

 

[mogstar]

@Roping Subhuman

 

[Deleted member 7224]

 

[mogstar]

 

[Deleted member 5818]

pussy

 

[mogstar]

pussy

Ze foh

 

[Deleted member 7224]

 

[john2]

Leave us real incels alone, fakecel scum.

 

[Deleted member 7224]

pussy

Pussy is pussy im sigma wolf i just fuck pussy tbh ngl

 

[mogstar]

Pussy is pussy im sigma wolf i just fuck pussy tbh ngl

The fuck is that gif lmao

 

[mogstar]

Leave us real incels alone, fakecel scum.

Stop gaslighting me dude

 

[Deleted member 7224]

Introduction

I have been researching the nature of our reality, who or what controls our society from the shadows, and more importantly what actually happens when the physical body dies and the soul leaves the body. Do we go to heaven? Do we go to hell? Do we just cease to exist? Is there a God that takes care of us? Once you begin to realize what's actually going on and how deep the rabbit hole really goes, you will never see the world in the same way so buckle up and get ready, this is not going to be easy to swallow for most people. The whole point of this post is not to frighten you, but to present you the conclusions that I've come to in regards to what actually happens when our physical bodies die after having done what feels like endless research from every angle possible.

I have thoroughly investigated near death experiences, out-of-body experiences, astral projection experiences, past life regression hypnosis sessions, remote viewing data, gnosticism, ancient texts and more. All these different ways/methodologies of researching lead to the same conclusions and because of that, I am now convinced that Earth is a prison planet and a massive farm used by various parasitic entities who are using us and have been using us as energetic food for what appears to be a very long time. I will share plenty of evidence from different sources and perspectives to make you understand how I connected all these dots and why I came to these conclusions. I promise you that the deeper you research this stuff the more you will begin to realize that this is extremely real, important, and it's affecting every single one of us. All I'm asking you is to keep an open mind and to analyze the evidence yourself. This is the result of years and years of painstakingly researching, connecting dots, and thinking outside the box. What you're about to read is just a summarization of my research.

Reincarnation and the white tunnel of light

You know how anyone who's had a near death experience talks about having seen a tunnel of light appear in front of them? Or having met members of their family who had passed away? In some rare cases, even having met and spoken to who they thought was God? What you need to know is that the tunnel of light that appears when we die is a trap designed to wipe the whole memory of our last incarnation and to recycle our souls into another body thus keeping us in an infinite loop here on Earth. Because of this, the overwhelming majority of people walking the Earth have total amnesia and don't remember anything about their past existences nor anything from the periods in-between their lives. If you do some research though, you will notice that there is however a small number of people world-wide who are able to recall very specific details regarding who they were, what they did for a living, where they lived in a past life, etc(evidence 1,evidence 2,evidence 3,evidence 4).

How do we know these people aren't making up their stories? There's lots of people out there who have been able to bring very solid pieces of evidence to sustain their claims and those claims can be verified: (verified evidence 1,verified evidence 2,verified evidence 3,verified evidence 4, verified evidence 5) which shows that reincarnation is a very real phenomenon, despite what some of the world's religions claim to happen to the soul when a person dies. The reason these people's memories have only been partially erased and not fully erased remains unknown for now.

The reason people that went through near death experiences didn't come back with their memories wiped is because unlike people who have died, they didn't end up entering the tunnel of light. Instead, they managed to return to their bodies and lived to tell what they experienced on the other side, hence the term 'near death experience'.

The astral(spirit) realm, the reptilians and their agenda

The Reptilians are found in the literature of multiple ancient cultures across the globe. Jainism and Hindu talk about the 'NAGA' whom they describe as 'half-human half-serpent deities'. The aztecs used to worship the 'Quetzalcoatl' whom they described as the "serpent-like God". The Hopi Indians in North America referred to a race of reptoids called the 'Sheti', translated "Snake-Brothers". In Africa, shamans claim to bear extensive esoteric knowledge of a race of reptilian beings called the Chitauri, whom they say control the Earth. Chinese, Korean and Japanese legends talk about a race of reptilian beings called the "Kappa". The gnostics talk about the parasitic entities whom they call 'Archons' who not only use humans as an energetic food source but they also prevent our souls from leaving the material realm upon the death of our physical bodies.

The Reptilians are parasitic entities who have been heavily involved in the manipulation of mankind for thousands of years and are responsible for setting up the soul trap around the planet with the help of extremely advanced technology. This energy grid around the planet serves multiple purposes, one of it's main purposes is to project this 'grandiose' tunnel of light in the proximity of people who have just died in order to lure their souls in. This is the same tunnel of light that so many people who've had near death experiences have reported seeing on the other side. The soul may be under the impression that the tunnel is going to take it to the Heavens or perhaps to a higher plane of existence, depending on it's level of awareness. In reality, when a soul enters the tunnel, it's memory gets wiped and the soul is put into another body here on Earth(reincarnation). The tunnel acts as a bait and to make a good analogy, imagine a fisherman and his fishing rod: he throws in the bait which hides the hook and the fish get trapped in it when they bite. We get tricked and trapped by the tunnel of light in a similar way if we aren't aware that it is a trap. In this case, we're the fish. The Reptilians are highly intelligent, highly advanced technologically and they lack empathy which makes them dangerous. These beings see themselves as 'Gods' and humanity as their enslaved cattle.

The reason they want to keep us here is because they need to feed off of us energetically: when people go through any kind of suffering, these entities feed off of our lower frequency emotions such as fear, pain, grief, anger, jelousy, rage, anxiety, lust, because they are low vibrational beings that require low vibrational energy in order to survive.

The majority of people living on this planet today have been continously reincarnating on this planet for thousands of years because we keep falling for the same trap when our physical bodies die. Most of us have no memories of our past existences since our memories get wiped before every reincarnation, so every time we are born on this planet we think we've just arrived for the first time with a grand purpose or mission to fulfill given to us by who we think is God.

"Our consciousness interacts with another dimension. Our physical sensors only show us a 3-dimensional universe. What exists in the higher dimensions are entities we cannot touch with our physical sensors" - Bernard Carr, professor of mathematics and astronomy who studied under Stephen Hawking and earned his doctorate at Cambridge.


When our physical bodies die or when we have an out-of-body experience, our soul goes into the astral(spirit) realm and while we can still observe what's happening on Earth but we can no longer interact with physical matter. These parasitic entities exist mainly but not exclusively in the astral plane. It's crucial that we become aware of the fact that these entities who are masters of deceit play 'God' in order to trick us into accepting reincarnation and thus having our memories wiped, convincing us that it's in our best interest to do so.

How are they able to do that, you may ask? When we're out of our bodies the laws of physics as we know them no longer have the same effects upon us as we find ourselves in a different realm in which we are able to do things that would be impossible in the physical world. In the astral/spirit realm, we can change the shape of our astral body(spirit) into anything we want by simply willing it to happen because unlike in the physical world, our consciousness can manifest our reality in an instant when you're in the astral plane. We can also fly around or teleport by simply using our intention to do so. We can even go to higher vibratory realms(where the real good-hearted beings live) if our vibration is high enough. Everything in the universe is vibration/frequency.

"If you want to find the secrets of the Universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration" - Nikola Tesla

If you understand that in the astral, any entity can change the shape of it's astral body into anything it wishes to, then you realize that even the most malevolent entity possible can present itself to you in a different form to trick you into thinking you're speaking to God or to your guardian angel, or even to one of the members of your family who had passed away. They do this because they know you'd put your trust in these religious figures or in the familiar faces and once they gained that trust they can easily manipulate you into doing things that are not in your best interests at all. They masquerade as 'beings of light' that emanate a fake sensation of love and peace to make you think they're the good guys who are there to guide you and to give you your next "mission to fulfill".

This is mentioned even in the bible:

"And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light" - II Corinthians 11:14

Afterlife tricks & scams

If you won't enter the tunnel of light when your time comes, you need to be aware that these entities will present themselves to you in the form of angels/Jesus/God/saints/guides/ascended masters/guardian angels and they're going to try to convince you that you need to go back to Earth so you can pay back your "karmic debt" or to continue "learning" or that you have to go back with a "special mission to fulfill" which is complete bullshit but we keep falling for these scams because they tend to make sense from our narrow and pre-programmed perspectives(good luck fulfilling that "special mission" if you can't remember what the "mission" was). We put blind trust in what they say to us because of constant religious indoctrination during our lives on Earth and these beings know that.

They can't force us to reincarnate because each soul has free will, but they can pretend to be someone they're not in order to put ideas in our head that it's in our best interest to accept reincarnating back on Earth making it sound as if they are doing us a favor so that we can "evolve", "learn" or "fix previous mistakes" and what they're basically doing is they're using our own free will against us. The real purpose of continous reincarnation is soul enslavement disguised as "spiritual evolution". A free will decision is impossible without memory and information.

Because our memories are being wiped after each life time, many of us live under the illusion that we're currently living our first life on this planet and we came here to "learn". Learning about life on Earth and experiencing it would be useful if we didn't lose our memories after each life time. But it doesn't matter what we learn over here as long as everything gets erased after each reincarnation and we have to relearn everything from scratch over and over again in an endless loop. Earth is a prison planet camouflaged as a 'cosmic school'. This idea has been going around in order to trick souls into wanting to come and stay here in order to "learn". This whole matrix is designed to drain our energy, wipe our memories over and over again and keep us trapped.

Many people that went through near death experiences even recall being accompanied by a "loving" angel who showed them their life review. The reason the entities show us life reviews is so we can relive certain moments from our lives in which we made certain mistakes and by reliving those moments, feelings of guilt, shame and remorse are being generated inside of us, making us want to compensate for them. These beings then use these feelings against us telling us things such as: "You have made these mistakes, you have to go back to fix this and that". Nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes, so their emotional manipulation scam will never end if you buy into it because being human it's impossible to not make what we perceive to be humanly mistakes. You are not a robot and it's natural to make mistakes. You learn from them and then you move on with your existence, but that's not how these beings want you to think. They want you to pay for doing something that comes naturally, life after life.

"New Age" believers who promote calling upon "your" spirit guides, guardian angels, ascended masters and religious figures for help, are actually doing huge damage to themselves and to all of humanity and they are not even aware of it. You are everything you need to succeed. You are a powerful creator being and you don't need to give your power away to anybody.

How they're using your religious beliefs against you

Religion has programmed you to believe that at the moment of your death, a spiritual judgement type of scenario will take place(the biblical Judgement) and it will be expected of you to give your authority away to these beings (God,angels,guides) letting them decide your fate, so that when your time actually does come, you won't even question these beings and what they are doing with you, instead you will simply accept whatever they ask from you because everything will seem to be going as planned, since that's what religion programmed you to believe will happen when your physical life will end.

These entities take advantage of the fact that you have been continuously conditioned to believe in an afterlife saviour who will take you to the Heavens if you're a good boy. Even if you're an atheist, when you see this "God" or "Jesus" figure right there in front of you in the astral, you may start to have second thoughts about what you thought about religion back on Earth and you will most likely end up accepting what these entities want you to do because your perception of reality can change in an instant in a shocking and surprising scenario like that.

Religion has also given you the sense of being a guilty sinner who has to worship, obey and pray to a certain God(depending on your religion) in the hopes of afterlife salvation. The real salvation is not coming from the parasitic entities who pretend to be our creators, it is coming from ourselves. In order for this to happen, we have to become aware of what actually awaits us when we die so we can use our free will to put an end to this vicious reincarnation cycle.

The real, powerful, infinite, creator God (who has nothing to do with any religious movement) is already within you. You are Source energy. We are the saviours we have been waiting for and we don't need to give our power away to anybody.

Think about this: if you're born somewhere in Europe/North America/South America for example, then the main religions of those areas tell you that God put you on this Earth to live your life and at the end of that life, there will be judgement. God will then decide whether you'll go to Heaven or Hell, for eternity. But, what if you're born in other areas of the world such as the Middle East? or India? or any country/region in which the main religion is either Buddhism, Hinduism or Jainism? These religions teach that after death there is reincarnation, no heaven no hell. So why is it that the place we're born in on this planet dictates a certain belief in something so important such as our existence beyond physical life? Will random luck really going to dictate what's going to happen to each one of us at the moment of our death? Will each one of us have a different afterlife fate just because we're born in different places around the world? It is all part of their game of deception, but the more you expand your awareness the easier you can see through the lies and deceit of the social and religious programming that we've all been through one way or another.

Why is Source energy/the creator of this Universe allowing all this to happen?

Each being in this Universe, whether malevolent or benevolent, has free will. Ask yourself: why are we humans allowed to enslave the animals here on Earth? Why are we allowed to slaughter more than 3 billion animals on a daily basis? Why are we allowed keep animals locked up in farms and cages until the day they die? Why are we allowed to be so cruel to the other forms of life? Why? Because we, just like these entities do, have free will. From our perspective, we do these things because we need something from them which is energy in the form of physical food. We think we are entitled to do what we do because we are superior to them and because we need to survive. We perceive these things to be normal and part of life. From the perspective of the animals however, if they were aware of it, we would be their 'reptilians' since we operate just like them. But we never see ourselves that way, we don't think we're the bad guys because all we do is try to survive. The entities don't see themselves as the bad guys either since they're also trying to survive. What we do to the animals is almost exactly what these beings do to us and they need to keep us imprisoned here to feed off of us just like farmers keep their cattle locked up in farms and stables to get what they need from them. This universe is one big food chain and we're not on top of it like we are taught we are.

Evidence #1: The perspective of past life regression hypnosis

Calogero Grifasi is a past life regression hypnotist from Italy. He has posted thousands of past life regression sessions on youtube that explain what happens to the soul inbetween lives, how the Reptilians feed off of us energetically while we're physically on Earth and how they try to manipulate us into accepting reincarnation when we die by disguising themselves as religious figures in the astral.

I've analyzed more than 400 sessions of his with different clients from all over the world but the following sessions are one of the most significant sessions he's posted in English that you need to see for yourself:

Session 1: Entity masquerades as Jesus to entrap souls upon death - This is an investigative session on the reincarnation cycle to find out what happens to a soul inbetween lives and it shows how a soul is being deceived by astral entities to reincarnate back on Earth).

Session 2: This session shows how Reptilian entities interfere with us during and after our lives on Earth.

Session 3: This session reveals stuff about alien technology and how the entities use religions in their favor and against us.

Session 4: Another session which reveals that Earth acts as a soul reincarnation trap for anyone who decides to incarnate here which confirms the information coming from the other sources with other clients.

What I like about Calogero's work in particular is that the information that's coming out of his sessions doesn't actually come from himself directly, as he is the person who investigates and asks the questions, the information is coming from people that are able to enter the hypnotic state of mind which are either his clients or people who enter the hypnotic state for his clients. He has posted thousands of sessions with different people from all over the world that talk about encountering the same type of entities who play 'God', 'Jesus',"angels" that trick people into reincarnating back on Earth and having their memories completely erased. Calogero has also built a team of other hypnotic operators that do the same work as him who came to the same conclusions with their own clients.

 

[Deleted member 13787]

Introduction

I have been researching the nature of our reality, who or what controls our society from the shadows, and more importantly what actually happens when the physical body dies and the soul leaves the body. Do we go to heaven? Do we go to hell? Do we just cease to exist? Is there a God that takes care of us? Once you begin to realize what's actually going on and how deep the rabbit hole really goes, you will never see the world in the same way so buckle up and get ready, this is not going to be easy to swallow for most people. The whole point of this post is not to frighten you, but to present you the conclusions that I've come to in regards to what actually happens when our physical bodies die after having done what feels like endless research from every angle possible.

I have thoroughly investigated near death experiences, out-of-body experiences, astral projection experiences, past life regression hypnosis sessions, remote viewing data, gnosticism, ancient texts and more. All these different ways/methodologies of researching lead to the same conclusions and because of that, I am now convinced that Earth is a prison planet and a massive farm used by various parasitic entities who are using us and have been using us as energetic food for what appears to be a very long time. I will share plenty of evidence from different sources and perspectives to make you understand how I connected all these dots and why I came to these conclusions. I promise you that the deeper you research this stuff the more you will begin to realize that this is extremely real, important, and it's affecting every single one of us. All I'm asking you is to keep an open mind and to analyze the evidence yourself. This is the result of years and years of painstakingly researching, connecting dots, and thinking outside the box. What you're about to read is just a summarization of my research.

Reincarnation and the white tunnel of light

You know how anyone who's had a near death experience talks about having seen a tunnel of light appear in front of them? Or having met members of their family who had passed away? In some rare cases, even having met and spoken to who they thought was God? What you need to know is that the tunnel of light that appears when we die is a trap designed to wipe the whole memory of our last incarnation and to recycle our souls into another body thus keeping us in an infinite loop here on Earth. Because of this, the overwhelming majority of people walking the Earth have total amnesia and don't remember anything about their past existences nor anything from the periods in-between their lives. If you do some research though, you will notice that there is however a small number of people world-wide who are able to recall very specific details regarding who they were, what they did for a living, where they lived in a past life, etc(evidence 1,evidence 2,evidence 3,evidence 4).

How do we know these people aren't making up their stories? There's lots of people out there who have been able to bring very solid pieces of evidence to sustain their claims and those claims can be verified: (verified evidence 1,verified evidence 2,verified evidence 3,verified evidence 4, verified evidence 5) which shows that reincarnation is a very real phenomenon, despite what some of the world's religions claim to happen to the soul when a person dies. The reason these people's memories have only been partially erased and not fully erased remains unknown for now.

The reason people that went through near death experiences didn't come back with their memories wiped is because unlike people who have died, they didn't end up entering the tunnel of light. Instead, they managed to return to their bodies and lived to tell what they experienced on the other side, hence the term 'near death experience'.

The astral(spirit) realm, the reptilians and their agenda

The Reptilians are found in the literature of multiple ancient cultures across the globe. Jainism and Hindu talk about the 'NAGA' whom they describe as 'half-human half-serpent deities'. The aztecs used to worship the 'Quetzalcoatl' whom they described as the "serpent-like God". The Hopi Indians in North America referred to a race of reptoids called the 'Sheti', translated "Snake-Brothers". In Africa, shamans claim to bear extensive esoteric knowledge of a race of reptilian beings called the Chitauri, whom they say control the Earth. Chinese, Korean and Japanese legends talk about a race of reptilian beings called the "Kappa". The gnostics talk about the parasitic entities whom they call 'Archons' who not only use humans as an energetic food source but they also prevent our souls from leaving the material realm upon the death of our physical bodies.

The Reptilians are parasitic entities who have been heavily involved in the manipulation of mankind for thousands of years and are responsible for setting up the soul trap around the planet with the help of extremely advanced technology. This energy grid around the planet serves multiple purposes, one of it's main purposes is to project this 'grandiose' tunnel of light in the proximity of people who have just died in order to lure their souls in. This is the same tunnel of light that so many people who've had near death experiences have reported seeing on the other side. The soul may be under the impression that the tunnel is going to take it to the Heavens or perhaps to a higher plane of existence, depending on it's level of awareness. In reality, when a soul enters the tunnel, it's memory gets wiped and the soul is put into another body here on Earth(reincarnation). The tunnel acts as a bait and to make a good analogy, imagine a fisherman and his fishing rod: he throws in the bait which hides the hook and the fish get trapped in it when they bite. We get tricked and trapped by the tunnel of light in a similar way if we aren't aware that it is a trap. In this case, we're the fish. The Reptilians are highly intelligent, highly advanced technologically and they lack empathy which makes them dangerous. These beings see themselves as 'Gods' and humanity as their enslaved cattle.

The reason they want to keep us here is because they need to feed off of us energetically: when people go through any kind of suffering, these entities feed off of our lower frequency emotions such as fear, pain, grief, anger, jelousy, rage, anxiety, lust, because they are low vibrational beings that require low vibrational energy in order to survive.

The majority of people living on this planet today have been continously reincarnating on this planet for thousands of years because we keep falling for the same trap when our physical bodies die. Most of us have no memories of our past existences since our memories get wiped before every reincarnation, so every time we are born on this planet we think we've just arrived for the first time with a grand purpose or mission to fulfill given to us by who we think is God.

"Our consciousness interacts with another dimension. Our physical sensors only show us a 3-dimensional universe. What exists in the higher dimensions are entities we cannot touch with our physical sensors" - Bernard Carr, professor of mathematics and astronomy who studied under Stephen Hawking and earned his doctorate at Cambridge.


When our physical bodies die or when we have an out-of-body experience, our soul goes into the astral(spirit) realm and while we can still observe what's happening on Earth but we can no longer interact with physical matter. These parasitic entities exist mainly but not exclusively in the astral plane. It's crucial that we become aware of the fact that these entities who are masters of deceit play 'God' in order to trick us into accepting reincarnation and thus having our memories wiped, convincing us that it's in our best interest to do so.

How are they able to do that, you may ask? When we're out of our bodies the laws of physics as we know them no longer have the same effects upon us as we find ourselves in a different realm in which we are able to do things that would be impossible in the physical world. In the astral/spirit realm, we can change the shape of our astral body(spirit) into anything we want by simply willing it to happen because unlike in the physical world, our consciousness can manifest our reality in an instant when you're in the astral plane. We can also fly around or teleport by simply using our intention to do so. We can even go to higher vibratory realms(where the real good-hearted beings live) if our vibration is high enough. Everything in the universe is vibration/frequency.

"If you want to find the secrets of the Universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration" - Nikola Tesla

If you understand that in the astral, any entity can change the shape of it's astral body into anything it wishes to, then you realize that even the most malevolent entity possible can present itself to you in a different form to trick you into thinking you're speaking to God or to your guardian angel, or even to one of the members of your family who had passed away. They do this because they know you'd put your trust in these religious figures or in the familiar faces and once they gained that trust they can easily manipulate you into doing things that are not in your best interests at all. They masquerade as 'beings of light' that emanate a fake sensation of love and peace to make you think they're the good guys who are there to guide you and to give you your next "mission to fulfill".

This is mentioned even in the bible:

"And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light" - II Corinthians 11:14

Afterlife tricks & scams

If you won't enter the tunnel of light when your time comes, you need to be aware that these entities will present themselves to you in the form of angels/Jesus/God/saints/guides/ascended masters/guardian angels and they're going to try to convince you that you need to go back to Earth so you can pay back your "karmic debt" or to continue "learning" or that you have to go back with a "special mission to fulfill" which is complete bullshit but we keep falling for these scams because they tend to make sense from our narrow and pre-programmed perspectives(good luck fulfilling that "special mission" if you can't remember what the "mission" was). We put blind trust in what they say to us because of constant religious indoctrination during our lives on Earth and these beings know that.

They can't force us to reincarnate because each soul has free will, but they can pretend to be someone they're not in order to put ideas in our head that it's in our best interest to accept reincarnating back on Earth making it sound as if they are doing us a favor so that we can "evolve", "learn" or "fix previous mistakes" and what they're basically doing is they're using our own free will against us. The real purpose of continous reincarnation is soul enslavement disguised as "spiritual evolution". A free will decision is impossible without memory and information.

Because our memories are being wiped after each life time, many of us live under the illusion that we're currently living our first life on this planet and we came here to "learn". Learning about life on Earth and experiencing it would be useful if we didn't lose our memories after each life time. But it doesn't matter what we learn over here as long as everything gets erased after each reincarnation and we have to relearn everything from scratch over and over again in an endless loop. Earth is a prison planet camouflaged as a 'cosmic school'. This idea has been going around in order to trick souls into wanting to come and stay here in order to "learn". This whole matrix is designed to drain our energy, wipe our memories over and over again and keep us trapped.

Many people that went through near death experiences even recall being accompanied by a "loving" angel who showed them their life review. The reason the entities show us life reviews is so we can relive certain moments from our lives in which we made certain mistakes and by reliving those moments, feelings of guilt, shame and remorse are being generated inside of us, making us want to compensate for them. These beings then use these feelings against us telling us things such as: "You have made these mistakes, you have to go back to fix this and that". Nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes, so their emotional manipulation scam will never end if you buy into it because being human it's impossible to not make what we perceive to be humanly mistakes. You are not a robot and it's natural to make mistakes. You learn from them and then you move on with your existence, but that's not how these beings want you to think. They want you to pay for doing something that comes naturally, life after life.

"New Age" believers who promote calling upon "your" spirit guides, guardian angels, ascended masters and religious figures for help, are actually doing huge damage to themselves and to all of humanity and they are not even aware of it. You are everything you need to succeed. You are a powerful creator being and you don't need to give your power away to anybody.

How they're using your religious beliefs against you

Religion has programmed you to believe that at the moment of your death, a spiritual judgement type of scenario will take place(the biblical Judgement) and it will be expected of you to give your authority away to these beings (God,angels,guides) letting them decide your fate, so that when your time actually does come, you won't even question these beings and what they are doing with you, instead you will simply accept whatever they ask from you because everything will seem to be going as planned, since that's what religion programmed you to believe will happen when your physical life will end.

These entities take advantage of the fact that you have been continuously conditioned to believe in an afterlife saviour who will take you to the Heavens if you're a good boy. Even if you're an atheist, when you see this "God" or "Jesus" figure right there in front of you in the astral, you may start to have second thoughts about what you thought about religion back on Earth and you will most likely end up accepting what these entities want you to do because your perception of reality can change in an instant in a shocking and surprising scenario like that.

Religion has also given you the sense of being a guilty sinner who has to worship, obey and pray to a certain God(depending on your religion) in the hopes of afterlife salvation. The real salvation is not coming from the parasitic entities who pretend to be our creators, it is coming from ourselves. In order for this to happen, we have to become aware of what actually awaits us when we die so we can use our free will to put an end to this vicious reincarnation cycle.

The real, powerful, infinite, creator God (who has nothing to do with any religious movement) is already within you. You are Source energy. We are the saviours we have been waiting for and we don't need to give our power away to anybody.

Think about this: if you're born somewhere in Europe/North America/South America for example, then the main religions of those areas tell you that God put you on this Earth to live your life and at the end of that life, there will be judgement. God will then decide whether you'll go to Heaven or Hell, for eternity. But, what if you're born in other areas of the world such as the Middle East? or India? or any country/region in which the main religion is either Buddhism, Hinduism or Jainism? These religions teach that after death there is reincarnation, no heaven no hell. So why is it that the place we're born in on this planet dictates a certain belief in something so important such as our existence beyond physical life? Will random luck really going to dictate what's going to happen to each one of us at the moment of our death? Will each one of us have a different afterlife fate just because we're born in different places around the world? It is all part of their game of deception, but the more you expand your awareness the easier you can see through the lies and deceit of the social and religious programming that we've all been through one way or another.

Why is Source energy/the creator of this Universe allowing all this to happen?

Each being in this Universe, whether malevolent or benevolent, has free will. Ask yourself: why are we humans allowed to enslave the animals here on Earth? Why are we allowed to slaughter more than 3 billion animals on a daily basis? Why are we allowed keep animals locked up in farms and cages until the day they die? Why are we allowed to be so cruel to the other forms of life? Why? Because we, just like these entities do, have free will. From our perspective, we do these things because we need something from them which is energy in the form of physical food. We think we are entitled to do what we do because we are superior to them and because we need to survive. We perceive these things to be normal and part of life. From the perspective of the animals however, if they were aware of it, we would be their 'reptilians' since we operate just like them. But we never see ourselves that way, we don't think we're the bad guys because all we do is try to survive. The entities don't see themselves as the bad guys either since they're also trying to survive. What we do to the animals is almost exactly what these beings do to us and they need to keep us imprisoned here to feed off of us just like farmers keep their cattle locked up in farms and stables to get what they need from them. This universe is one big food chain and we're not on top of it like we are taught we are.

Evidence #1: The perspective of past life regression hypnosis

Calogero Grifasi is a past life regression hypnotist from Italy. He has posted thousands of past life regression sessions on youtube that explain what happens to the soul inbetween lives, how the Reptilians feed off of us energetically while we're physically on Earth and how they try to manipulate us into accepting reincarnation when we die by disguising themselves as religious figures in the astral.

I've analyzed more than 400 sessions of his with different clients from all over the world but the following sessions are one of the most significant sessions he's posted in English that you need to see for yourself:

Session 1: Entity masquerades as Jesus to entrap souls upon death - This is an investigative session on the reincarnation cycle to find out what happens to a soul inbetween lives and it shows how a soul is being deceived by astral entities to reincarnate back on Earth).

Session 2: This session shows how Reptilian entities interfere with us during and after our lives on Earth.

Session 3: This session reveals stuff about alien technology and how the entities use religions in their favor and against us.

Session 4: Another session which reveals that Earth acts as a soul reincarnation trap for anyone who decides to incarnate here which confirms the information coming from the other sources with other clients.

What I like about Calogero's work in particular is that the information that's coming out of his sessions doesn't actually come from himself directly, as he is the person who investigates and asks the questions, the information is coming from people that are able to enter the hypnotic state of mind which are either his clients or people who enter the hypnotic state for his clients. He has posted thousands of sessions with different people from all over the world that talk about encountering the same type of entities who play 'God', 'Jesus',"angels" that trick people into reincarnating back on Earth and having their memories completely erased. Calogero has also built a team of other hypnotic operators that do the same work as him who came to the same conclusions with their own clients.

For the last months I have been reading and listening to several articles, jornalistic reports, podcasts, debates and interviews about the incel phenomenon in modern society, and even if the majority of them were highly against incels, I should point out that their argumentations were either wildly imprecise or relatively easy to deconstruct, but whenever there was an incel present they would not be any better at argumentations, which is somewhat understandable for even if one passes trought a very specific situation it does not mean they are some type of professional debater that will be able to defend the views that he has acquired trougth personal experience in a suficiently articulated and convincing argumentative speech. It is my hope that by sharing my reflections on this topic that I may strengthen the arguments of incels so that we can have a more productive participation on the societal debate about incels.



To begin this discussion we should observe that essentialy what inceldom is, is a symptom of the existence of sexual selection in the midst of human societal practices, I would say that to many people this is not so much of a problem to accept, and that would be true, but there is at least one group of people that this becomes somewhat of a taboo when they are beeing completely honest in the discussion, and those are the people that defend egalitarianism, sure what they usualy mean when they are defending egalitarian measures is that they don't agree with how in Captalism a person is arbitrarily born in either a rich family or a poor family and that the one born in a rich family has way more opportunities than someone born in a poor family, and how this makes many poor people work their entire lifes, many times not beeing able to leave poverty and reach the middle class while other people hardly work at all but have the privilege of beeing born into a rich family. On this note it is interesting to notice that what happened in every socialist country when they abolished Captalism and forcifully equalized the economy, instead of money being what people strived for, it became political power, for the political institutions would by then have become more stratified and with the most opportunities centralized around a political hierarchy of the state, and then again inequality emerged for those people with political power and those without, for people that were arbitrarily born into a more influent family and people that were born into a unrecognized family. Of couse, no coutry ever achieved this, but suposing one coutry were able to go trougth socialism without breaking, and were then able to implement comunism were there would be no state and therefore political power would then become equally distributed amongst the people what then would become the thing people would then strive for ? Well I am sure there could be many things but if I were to guess I would conjecture it would be sex, the differences in sexual hierarchies would be intensified creating caste systems where people that were arbitrarily born more attractive would be able to enjoy the status of a higher caste where they would have many opportunities and people that were born very unattractive would live lives as untouchables, members of the lowest caste were no opportunities would ever emerge. In this truly dystopian scenario, but nonetheless plausible for caste systems were very common in India and many other asiatic coutries, obviously there would never be any forced redistribution of sex, for it would be societal sanctioned rape which obviously is a crime ( even though every other forced redistribution of capital, and of political influence were also crimes, although one could argue that they were of different proportions) and therefore we would never really have any egalitarian utopia but only changes of through which medium inequality would arise.



All this talk about socialism and comunism has made me remember Slavoj Zizek’s article about incels (https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-moebius-strip-of-sexual-contracts/) and how he commits the hilarious mathematical error of saying things like "We would thus oppose the logic of universal human rights and the logic of social hierarchy as the two sides of a Moebius strip " when one of the most notorius characteristic of a moebius strip is that it only has one side, it gets even worse when after that he says "and focus on their point of intersection" (« Facepalm » ) what does he mean ??? the whole strip ??? And when you think it couldn't get any worse he begins to talk about turning and reversing shapes which only have one side, it's like some sort of mathematical torture, I know he is a specialist in Hegel and that makes him by consequence a specialist in meaninglessness and in utterly nonsensical things but this is too much. It is nothing more than the screaming example of double standards at play and nothing more, only then could he make a distinction of two things that are the same, that is, there can be no true equality if it doesn't encompass every significant thing in a person's life and that includes "politico-economic life and sex ". Although until here it may seem that I am advocating that there should be some type of enforcement of sexual partners, I would like to express how utterly appalling I think such thing is, and if you think that would be the only way to achieve equality of sexual relationships amongst everyone, then you are agreeing much more with the so called incel black pill than you are openly expressing. It is funny how the incel-normie situation resembles that of the lumpenproletariat - proletariat situation, much like how the proletarian class looks at the bourgeois class with envy, the proletarians at the same time despise and fear the lumpenproletarians for they may envy the proletarians, just like how the proletarians envy the bourgeois, and in doing so they may undermine the legitimacy of the proletarians in the class struggle and in this way prevent the Proletarian revolution.



This takes me to the question of "do incels belive they are entitled to sex ?" To which my answer would be : not any more than anyone else. I mean think for a minute, when an incel goes to declare himself to someone and ultimately gets rejected, the very rejection could only happen either because this person does not want to be in any relantionship ever, or because the person he declared himself to thinks they are entitled to someone better. Incels are not any more guilty, than they are victims of entitlement. And then one would say that there are no more reasons to belive that there should be any asymmetry between dating strategies of males and females, and that would perhaps be the case if humans layed eggs instead of adopting a gestational strategy in which the mother becomes vulnerable, which by itself, was a big problem since humans where nomadic for the greater part of our existence, and therefore there was evolutionary pressure to make females have higher standards whenever they would select their mates, to justify the risk they would have to pass through. Ok, so if this is something that has been this way since times immemorial why is inceldom a contemporary problem ? I would not say it is a contemporary problem, it is a problem which has been greatly amplified in comtemporary times in which everyone is having way fewer children because of the cost, and because it is only in contemporary times that we have seen the dismantlement of what feminists would call the patriarchy, and more conservative people would call the traditional family model and there is also the absolute abandonment of responsibility. Those things contribute first to women beeing more picky as a return to those more primordial instincts in these times in which it has become so expensive to have children, and along with the understanding that stability together with responsibility are in the decline, making women in general choose a much more select group of men, and beeing with any one of them by much less time. Creating a whole mass of women that have not been in many, if any, long therm relationships, a group of men that have relative easy acess to as many relationships as they desire and another group of men that have each time less and less chance of being in a relationship. Returning to the question of entitlement, if there is such a thing as a belief of entitlement to sex that is supported by a whole subsection of the population then we have to look for the origin of this belief, and although many people would go quite trigger happy to say that the source of this entitlement is this forum and others like it, I wouldn't be so sure of this, for a forum only reverberates opinions and narrative images that are already existent in society, this problem, if it exists at all, is much more profound than that, it has to do with the socialization process, and to better illustrate what I mean by saying that I will make reference to a personal experience, not because I think this will prove anything about how everyone behaves, for it is certainly statistically insignificant, nevertheless I belive this report will bring to light the superstructure of values and beliefs present in contemporary society that does much more to foster this entitlement than it does to sever it, that is to say that although statistically insignificant I belive my report not to be meaningfully insignificant.



When I was in High School I remember that in the first of a series of classes about sex education there were phrases profered such as "Since everyone in here will sooner or later have a sexual relationship ..." and "sex is a fundamental part of every healthy lifestyle" and many other like-minded sentences, since in my family I have an uncle that, differently from every other adult in my family, was not married and I remember the day that I, as a young boy, asked my mother why that was and she said that he was never able to date anyone and that he had given up on actively search for love, but she was sure that one day the right person would show up in his life. To me he was always an example of person living an alternative lifestyle, one that was as much valid as any other, for he was, and still is, one of the happiest people that I have ever know.



As I grew up I found out that he as a teenager studied in high school at morning and had began working part-time at evening, and once he had finished High school he began working full time in a factory and was living with my grandmother until he had saved enough money to buy his own house, but by his late twenties my grandfather died and he took the responsibility, as the oldest son, of economically helping my grandmother. Acording to my grandmother he never had had a girlfriend and she used to joke that because of that he had become grumpy. As time had passed he knew nothing but rejections in every declaration of love he had ever made, until he had enough of it and stopped caring about love all together. My uncle was what we would call today an incel. Today he is 78 years old and lives a simple retired life, he likes to buy old watches and repair them if so they need and then he sells them at slightly higher prices than for what he purchased, he goes on walks in parks and plays chess.



When I was having the first class in sex education and the teacher kept implying that sex was a inevitability, initially I thought about myself and how I have never had a girlfriend or even any type of close relationship with a girl and how I couldn't imagine my future self being any better than my then current self in this regard, and then I thought about my uncle and how his situation was the perfect counterexample of what that teacher had said, and then, having become somewhat troubled by what she was saying, I asked : "Teacher, you have been making several generalisations about how everyone will someday need to know all this information about sex, but what about those people that do not wish to have sex or what about the people that will never in fact be able to be in a sexual relationship ? Isn't this type of information useless to them ? I mean there are all kinds of important information about self preservation that we don't talk about, like airplanes or ships safety precautions or workplace safety procedures or even how to be careful about possible legal loopholes that might ruin someone's life, and yet we do not talk about these topics, probably because we do not think that they are applicable to everyone in here, so why is it that this classes are obligatory if there are people for which this information is useless and these classes are nothing more than lost time? and why is it that you have not mentioned abstinence as a prevention method ? " to which she answered : "It is important to learn about sex because even though presently you may not want to have sex, one day when you meet the right person this information will be useful, you may be doubting now about what I am talking but it is not as if we choose for whom we will fall for." this answer made me really unconfortable back then and reflecting about it made me realise that society as a whole is in large part to blame about people believing that they are entitled to sex, people feed hope of a better romantic future, many times in direct oposition to what every shred of evidence seems to indicate, to those who have difficulties with romance with talks like “ you don’t need to be worried about being rejected you just have to be yourself and one day someone who values you for what you are will appear.” and “you are a nice person you just need to wait until someone realises that.” and “ I’m sure that if you did X you would be much more in evidence and people would notice all the other great aspects about you” and “the right person for you is somewere out there you just have to find them” etc.



We drown people with all these hopes and promises and then we become infuriated if they ever complain about how they think life is unfair for not manifesting love to them as it does to the vast majority of other people, we say to they then “you are not entitled to sex” and “of course nobody will want you if you have that attitude” among other things, this is simply a image of how hypocrite and full of double standards society really is, in a first moment out of pity and some times as a form of doing away with a annoying situation, we offer this blind hope to those people in such a way as to make we not need to feel guilty with ourselves for our accomplishments and to not have to deal with any annoying and complicated thing as the romantic frustrations of another person, but in fact we don’t know if any of those promisses we made will ever be fulfilled and to begin with there is no way we can know about those things, and when all this hope we gave to those people backlashes we become offended or we laugh and ridicule that which we ourselves fostered.



That being said, I don’t tink there is anyone who actually thinks that they are entitled to sex in as much as there is people that recognise that intimacy is a type of fundamental human need and that people deserve to have such needs fulfilled. This understanding that intimacy is a fundamental human need can be very well observed in those people that go to psychologists and decide to talk about their romantic shortcomings, and the answer of the psychologist is never to say: “Get the hell out of my consultory! You are not entitled to sex or intimacy or romantic appreciation, if you have not yet understood this, I advise you to stop being a cry baby and deal with it !”. The problem about fundamental human needs and if these needs implicate rights is a difficult and important debate, especially for those that honestly hold a more egalitarian ethos, but it is not one that I will tackle in these reflections. To be completely fair then I will assume that someone that, trough the contrapositive of a belief arrive at another, that is to say, if someone believes that “I don’t deserve to live in solitude” it implies the belief that “I deserve companionship “, and since I consider that the original belief is as valid as the belief that “I don’t deserve anything “ that implies “I don’t deserve companionship “, leaves me to conclude that it is as fair to think that one does not deserve companionship as it is to think that one deserves.



Another story from when I was in High School is about one day in which we, the students, were handed a survey about our future aspirations and some of the questions were in multiple choice format, in particular one of those questions were “What is your most important objective in life ?”, amongst the answers were things like having a successful career, having a comfortable life with many travels trough the world, living a balanced life with no lack’s and no excess, and also there was a option that said “to marry, establish a family and have kids.”, initially I had read this sentence with a certain disregard, perhaps because at that time I already had a notion, based on what I had witnessed by then, of how my future would be like, and It had made the very notion of “establishing a family” as not something one could ever strive for, that is to say, it wasn’t anything that one could ever direct any work or effort towards, people would just live their lives and dedicate themselves to their ambitions, and only if one such people had the luck of meeting with someone that not only they liked but that also liked them in return, would then one be able to “establish a family”, in a sense this were a random event that could or could not occur within one's person lifetime, it is not something that has a continuous progression and therefore it is not something that one could rush towards as a objective, because there isn’t even any direction to rush towards. In my mind only those emotionally needy people would choose that option, those people that don’t seem to be able to be alone for any amount of time, and that always seem to be dating someone, and that make periodic references to their significant other and how they wished they were together in that specific moment. These people seem to be afraid of being alone or of even loneliness itself, it is the type of people that would say that their biggest fear is to die alone, and in saying that forgets that in life the majority of people are born alone and die alone, and they kind of contemn the lives of those people that live their entire life in solitude. With my disregard towards people that would choose the alternative “to marry, establish a family and have kids.”, I openly expressed my opinion about what I thought of that to my two best friends, it so happened that one of them had chosen that option in his survey, we then entered a discussion about how in my opinion that was a pathetic objective, and my friend rightly pointed out that what is important to each person is subjective which put me in a position where I had to concede that he had won the argument, and although in that moment I still didn’t think that objective to be worthy of being the most important to anyone, that for me was still the aspirations of cattle not of (mostly) rational human beings, but as time went on I began to see from new points of perspective this aspiration and began to not think so lowly of people who thought of constituting a family as their main objective in life and in fact at some point I began to accept that as valid as any other objective people might have in life, things like thinking about how according to several economists one of the main factors that move the economy is in fact the establishment of families, which generates many demands that in turn creates jobs to increase the supply and in this way equilibrates prices, other perspective that was quite enlightening was that of looking towards my own parents to which I am indebted for the rest of my life for having cared for me throughout my whole childhood and adolescence and how they sacrificed many things in favor of securing better opportunities in life to me and my siblings, than that which they themselves had, and they did that because their biggest objective in life is the well-being of their family, having benefited myself from such a life ambition how could I criticize others that may wish to follow the same objective ?



Obviously I can’t. And so I have come to terms with people who have their main ambition in life “to marry, establish a family and have kids.”, but immediately we arrive at a problem, take this friend of mine as a example, my social life in High School was mainly interacting with people who had the same problems to fit in with the rest of the class as myself, and this friend of mine was not different in this sense, I have kept in contact with the majority of my friends of High School and with my two best friends, and even now many years after we graduated High School and University none of us has ever had any relationships, even my friend which his biggest dream is to marry and constitute a family wasn’t able to even have a girlfriend in all of this time, so, even though it is not my life, I still think we have to reflect about this cases in which a person begins to see the years and years go by and their humble, if I may say so, life's dream appearing to be every time farther and farther away of being realized, can someone really be angry at the thought of someone in this situation gets disenchanted with life, and sometimes by doing so, begins to resent people in general ? Since I am talking so much about High School let me make an analogy with one of my particular experiences in High School, do any of you know how it feels like when you like something let’s say an group sport like soccer or basketball for example, but every time people would make the teams you were always the last one to be selected ? Well I know very well how this feels because that last person to be selected was always me, I used to like to play volleyball with my family in a volleyball court that was close to home, I never was very athletic but I liked to play, but as I began to play volleyball, any sport really but I liked volleyball in particular, in PE class in Middle School and High School I was always the last one to be chosen for any team and during the game all my teammates always treated me as some type of dead weight that they had to carry, and it was by observing their behavior towards me that little by little I not only stopped liking volleyball, but it became the sport that I hated, and still hate, the most. The feeling of being treated as if you are incapable of any positive collaboration to the victory of the team, the sporadic occasions in which a member of your team noticed how sad you were at not being able to participate in the game and purposely let you touch the ball, only to make themselves feel better for what they were doing, as if that was some act of charity they were performing. It all got to my nerves at some point and all I could feel every time I played volleyball was how little my classmates thought of me.


One can make a parallel between my description of the games of volleyball on my School years to what happened to my friend that had as his main ambition in life “to marry, establish a family and have kids.” in his adult life, except that in life no one is obligated to accept you just because you have offered yourself, so were you to be the last to be selected, in fact you just wouldn’t be selected at all, and that is what happened to him ( it also happened to me ). And sometimes when his Parents or his work colleagues noticed how lonely he were they would try to arrange to him a date with some women, and when he ultimately didn’t succeed at making a girlfriend, they would go to him and criticize him for letting such a chance let go like that, as if they were doing some type of charity to him. Could you really get mad at him for resenting those people who always seemed to reject him and also those people that felt bad for seeing the contrast between their lives and that of my friend and “mercifully” decided to offer him some time of emotional charity by arranging a date with some single woman they knew, only to not have to witness the loneliness of others.



Another topic that I have been thinking about was about how we model our understanding of the existence of incels in society, and since I have been watching several lectures of Jordan Peterson, I have been interested in the Jungian idea that at the most primitive and/or fundamental level we human beings model the world trough the use of archetypes, it then stimulated me to think about which character would best represent the incel archetype ? Thinking about it quite meticulously it came to mind at least two stories that had major characters that we would today categorize as incels, those would be The Hunchback of Notre Dame’s Quasimodo and Cyrano de Bergerac’s Cyrano. Although Each of the stories have their own qualities and defects, through the semiotics of inceldom both characters are the representation of one societal occurrence, that is the utterly bankruptcy of Ethics at the predilection of Aesthetics, and as such I ultimately would have to choose Quasimodo as the better representative of the incel archetype, given the genius of Victor Hugo there is actually a passage in which Quasimodo leaves two vases in the window of Esmeralda’s room “One was a very beautiful and very brilliant but cracked crystal vase. It had allowed the water with which it had been filled to escape, and the flowers which it contained were withered. The other was an earthenware pot, coarse and common, but which had preserved all its water, and its flowers remained fresh and crimson. I know not whether it was done intentionally, but Esmeralda takes the withered flowers from the crystal vase and presses them passionately on her heart for the entirety of the day.”. This symbolism represents almost perfectly the incel conundrum, this behavior of Esmeralda is the behavior of the vast majority of females, and although we cannot say that every incel can be described as a person that is internally akin to vibrant flowers that remained fresh and crimson, even if we were to exclude those that are morally corrupt, which seem to be homogeneously distributed trough all social groups, there would still be those that have scarred hearts from their previous failures, although the vast majority of incels have been naive and hopeful at some time in their lives, this naivety progressively becomes a presupposition of malice and this hope becomes scorn, that is to say, can one honesty believe that a unkept flower in a uncracked earthenware pot would not shrivel, dry and die ? Given that it’s necessities were not being fulfilled in a very long time (perhaps even never) ?



The usual reading of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, from my experience, looks with disdain towards the indirect rejection he suffers from Esmeralda, some people look at that and categorize it as a simple sexist instance of “it’s tragic because he didn’t get the girl”, where the situation is not anywhere that straight up, to quote Jordan Peterson on rejection: “It is a real judgement, at best it would be like: while I don’t mind your physical presence, your genes should definitely not survive another generation”, and if that was all perhaps that would be okay, but that is not all that happens, Esmeralda chooses Phoebus instead of choosing Quasimodo or even not choosing anyone at all, she rejects Quasimodo despite all of his good intentions and chooses Phoebus regardless of his egotistical intent. Why does she do that ? This has already been answered in these reflections, it is because se makes an aesthetic judgement and not an ethical one, Quasimodo is judged for his ugly and deformed appearance, of which he had virtually no choice, and Phoebus is judged for his handsomeness, of which he had been gifted without having done anything to deserve such blessing. Other people see that as a pathetically obvious result: “what did he expect ? Esmeralda is way out of his league, he should just accept that and hope that he finds someone that is just as ugly and deformed as himself, if that is even possible, and why should I even care for such a story ? The vast majority of the population, including myself, is neither deformed or that ugly and never have passed or will pass though such a life.”, whilst ignoring it’s own connotation as wildly discriminatory and sickly eugenic, much like Plato in his Republic: “It follows from our former admissions that the best men must mate with the best women in as many cases as possible, while the opposite should hold of the worst men and women; and that the offspring of the former should be reared, but not that of the latter, if our flock is going to be an eminent one. And all this must occur without anyone knowing except the rulers ... So then, we will have to establish by law certain festivals and sacrifices at which we will bring together brides and bridegrooms, and our poets must compose suitable hymns for the marriages that take place. ... I imagine that some sophisticated lotteries will have to be created, then, so that the inferior man of that sort will blame chance rather than the rulers at each mating time. ... And presumably, the young men who are good at war or at other things must —among other prizes and awards — be given a greater opportunity to have sex with the women, in order that a pretext may also be created at the same time for having as many children as possible fathered by such men.”, this is said by Plato, one of the most influential philosophers of the western world, so it is not that strange that people with such eugenic thoughts still exist and many times do not even realize the dangerous similarities between these two views, to simply accept this imposed hierarchy is not any better than to be like sheep that cannot begin to fathom the intentions of the shepherd.



That leaves us to think why is it exactly that almost every decision one can make is subjectable to ethics, with the notorious exception of romantic/sexual judgments, it is at this intersection between a unscrupulous pursuit of one’s desire and a prudent restriction towards ethical conduct, that the intellectual dishonesty begins, because there are considerable interests at stake, therefore the very notion of ethics in the judgment of romantic partners is discarded and this rustic, amorphous, sometimes even mystical, and a priori unprincipled imagery of what is love is pushed forward as a means to justify partial/biased judgment and to crush dissent among those that are at the margin in this aspect of life. This imagery is propaganda, and just like any propaganda, it seeks to create a narrative that encourages complacency towards the present status quo and vilifies the desistance of pursuit of those success goals that have been dictated by the narrative. That is why there are people that having been exposed to the narrative that effort is not only necessary, but sufficient to achieve economical success, for example, these people that take contemporary society to be a complete meritocracy, can pass by a homeless person and not only they become incapable of being sympathetic towards the difficult situation that those in misery pass through every day, but take that as a just sentence, for if those people had been committed and hardworking they wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with, as they are it can only mean that they haven’t been those things, that they haven’t put enough effort to free themselves from poverty in which case they are only experiencing that which they deserve and one should only feel repugnance and aversion towards those people.



If anyone thinks that this is only exaggeration and a way to justify an inferiority complex, or as people in my country say a mutt complex, if you think so I suggest to you to make a thought experiment, imagine you had to cheer up Quasimodo that was sad because of his loneliness, could you honestly tell him things like “You just have to keep trying to find your soulmate, she is definitely out there.”, would you really think that was the case for someone that deformed ? And if you would say that what makes you think that this situation is any different from that which was jokingly pointed out by George Carlin in one of his jokes about prisons where he said something like “Everybody more or less agree that we need more prisons, some people even scream 'BUILD MORE PRISONS ! ... but not in here.' “. It is like those people that keep saying how people should be seeking love because they believe that society is full of bitter and resentful people , but then feel insulted if anyone they don’t fancy ever declare romantic feelings towards them. This characterizes a insidious cycle where society at large advocates for love as a fundamental element of having a successful life, and then there is a number of people that fail at that, and then society reaffirms love and then surprisingly enough more people seem to fail and then not only society reinforces this idea of love, they condemn those that fail at it, this is what is happening in Japan where an ever increasing number of men are not able to find female romantic partners, which then reflects negatively in the number of births which then begins to affect the economy of the country, another bizarre phenomenon that is happening there is that the number and popularity of female aimed brothels, or as they call it there Host clubs, that although also exist in the male oriented forms, they don’t reach the ridiculous proportion that the female oriented Host Clubs have achieved where there are literally huge billboards promoting the most popular “hosts”(gigolos) outdoors in clear day light , and then some people begin to complain that this situation is unique to Japan and that the situation on the vast majority of the world is different from that, and that may be true presently, but what they fail to see is that the demographics of present day Japan accurately represents the projections for the immediate future of all developed countries and that it already began to show in developing countries as well, so we would better learn what can be learned from Japan's situation because we will pass trough that soon enough.



Returning to how ethics has lost to aesthetics in the dating landscape, we may depart from a rational ethical analysis from what we experience in our failed attempts at dating, and the most recurring basis for rejection is not behavior or education or dedication, these things only achieve critical importance once two people have already begun dating, the thing that really works like a filter is attractiveness, which fundamentally means looks, knowing this we may begin this ethical analysis by asking what it means to exert judgment on other people mainly trough aesthetics, and that is, what makes anyone more aesthetically pleasing than another person ? Is it the actions that one chooses to take ? Is it the way one thinks about things ? Is it the behavior one upholds ? Is it the personality one has developed throughout his life ? Or is it one's physical appearance which was primarily defined by his genetics at the moment of birth, and secondly by the environment in which he grew up, both of which are random events in which one doesn’t have any influence over ?



Supposing one has honestly answered those previous questions can anyone say that the physical appearance is not a fundamental factor towards attractiveness ? If one still doesn’t agree then imagine yourself honestly telling that to Quasimodo, that is, if you were even capable of that. Still in this topic of attractiveness, a strange phenomenon that has been happening since about the 1990's when the percieved beauty standards for males changed radically. Generaly it is women that complain about the unattainability of such ideals, what is obviously a statistically and ethical valid complaint and one that I will take as a given, yet although unattainable they can hardly be said to be unfeminine, if for anything, the unattainability of such female standards arises from the exaggeration of the feminine to unrealistic levels, where as the contemporary beauty standard for males is almost entirely unmasculine in it's nature. The common feature shared by most male models of female oriented magazines is that, with the exception of their musculature and their jawbone that tend to be accentuated, they resemble some type of androgynous angel-like figure, having therefore more feminine traits in opposition to those biologically induced by characteristic masculine hormones like testosterone. In conclusion while women complaints of beauty standards are based in the fact that the cutoff region of what is considered attractive in the multivariate distribution of feminine aspects is so narrow that they become unrealistic, although the variables of the distribution are in principle still comparable throughout, if not all, the vast majority of women; Where as with men the problem lies in the fact that there is a break between men who have in their appearance those feminine dimensions capable of mustering an androgynous look, which has become attractive as of late, and those who doesn't have this dimension to them, and in this discrete, discontinuous classification we have men being forsaken not because they don't lie within some range on the scales of attractiveness, but because they are not even on many of those scales to begin with, that is, some times it is not only because someone is on the lower strata that they are rejected in favor of someone else, sometimes it is just because they aren't even comparable in the first place, and this is a big problem because, may people like it or not, there are way more people that look like Quasimodo than there are people that look like angels anyway.



One fascinating exemple of how ethics becomes mixed with aesthetics occurs when a feminist calls all men pigs (or at least some portion of men), is the identification of a men with the figure of a pig a ethical judgement or an aesthetical one ? It almost seems as if the problem was not the actions perpetuated by those men but their aesthetics, that those actions would be somewhat acceptable, were practiced by some Christian Grey of Fifty Shades of Grey instead of some random creep. Still talking about those feminists, there is much talk about how women should just wear whatever they want and that they shouldn't be demurred by any possible sexual aggressor, after all the guilt of any aggression is always of the aggressor (which is a correct assessment, of course), nevertheless it should be pointed out that this type of discourse has many times promoted debauchery and demoted prudency, and this is a problem because, although the guilt of the aggression is of the aggressor, we have to remember ourselves that sexual impulses are not triggered by rationality and logic (hah, we wish that were the case, imagine if things were so simple and reasonable as solving numerous logic problems from a set of "propositional calculi" « See what i did there ? » ), but by instinct, so that it only takes a person with bad judgement for a tragedy to happen, is it really okay to encourage women to make themselves preferential prey to those molesters ? One thing is to envision an idealized society, another one entirely is to advocate unprudent behaviour in the real world. In the extreme end of feminism we find organizations such as Femen wich proclaims to fight against the malice of the patriarchy, only to do so with malice of their own and to fight malice with malice can only increase the total amount of malice in the world.



So we have people judging other people mainly trough randomly assigned traits, considering, of course, that even those who can improve themselves into becoming more attractive have first to have the potential to become more attractive, and this potential is equally randomly assigned. We have then to ask ourselves if this is ethical, which it is not, for it is an arbitrary judgment, and knowing that we must ask ourselves what can be done to remedy this unjust behavior, obviously we could not force or coerce people to change this, for it would be equally not ethical, the only thing we can really do is to accept the way things are and to take our own judgment upon this unethical situation. One thing that I have seen recently that has made me a little irritated was this, rather vulgar, video by BuzzFeed (), the guy in the video is certainly not a very ethical person by what is portrayed of him thinking, but for a second forget what he thinks and what he does in his privacy, no one else in the real world would know that to begin with, what I think is the most irritating thing is the part where he buys a watch to gift to the coworker that he belives he is developing feelings for, even if it is in his own twisted way, and when he finally goes to give the gift to her, he freezes and is not able to say anything and she gets uncomfortable with that and walks away, at the next moment we see him in the HR being scolded for inappropriate behaviour, since when does trying to give a watch to someone constitutes inappropriate behaviour ? It is as Roger Scruton has once said (), as society is tending towards becoming less and less civilized, romantic relationships begin to stop requiring a previous period of courtship and become each time more dreadfully direct, or how Roger Scruton said “Nowadays, of course, sexual harassment just means sexual advances made by the unattractive, who are the majority, so you know, there is a huge injustice in this.”.



Going back to the topic of how incels are seen by society, we may spend days and days arguing about how every time there is, for a lack of a better word, a public exhibition of the subject there is always a permeating hypocrisy of some sort, either they think we are just “bad losers” in a way, that just because we aren’t able to date anyone we think it is alright to be whining about how we couldn’t achieve that which we wished, and how this is only because the world is unjust and so on, when in fact the majority of them revert right back to this state whenever their established relationships crumble, and in this moment they don’t think that in fact they are just whining and that they should just “buckle up, kiddo”, or when people are so reductionist to the point that they say we incels are just frustrated because we can’t get laid and begin talking about how this is some justification for why prostitution should be legalized, when in fact just because something is illegal it doesn’t mean it is impossible to find, prostitution, much like illegal drugs, is not that difficult to find if you are actually looking for it, these people forget about the deepest existential question that is in fact what really desolate the incels, these people just say this because they have had the privilege of having had their emotional needs fulfilled and reassured by this they have taken the liberty of dissociating one thing with the other, and having had their emotional needs fulfilled they begin to only think about sex and their sexual desires instead of the more basic, humane, problem. In the last case people just assume that if someone is rejected by everyone they have ever approached, then that means they are some type of freaks that should just lay down and rot, after all the word of the people have been ushered, and the word of the people is law. But jokes aside, I wish to talk about one opinionated person in particular, Natalie Wynn the transexual woman of the YouTube channel ContraPoints, in her video about incels () to which many people took to be a pondered, even perhaps conciliatory, stand on the question of inceldom, yet, although better than the majority of the expositions of the topic she still makes fundamental mistakes about incels, in particular in the part about how the black pill is just catastrophizing, or how she exposed it as being defined by psychotherapists as “A cognitive distortion where anxiety or depression leads you to infer apocalyptic conclusions from mundane setbacks and anxieties.”, every incel reading this might instantly see where the problem in that is, it only gets worse when she gives the first example of such a situation, she says to consider a person that is late for work and that from that they get to the conclusion that they and their hole family are going to die because of that, later on she tries to show how the black pill is just another scenario of catastrophizing, except that it isn’t as simple, consider first her first example, sure one person who once got late may not get fired because of that, but what about someone that is always late ? In fact forget the whole scenario where this person is employed in the first place, this scenario is already too reassuring to begin with, consider instead someone that is unemployed and has always been and the reason that that is so is amongst other things that they seem to always get late to their work interviews, let’s say that happens because they live in a city that has a serious problem of traffic congestion, since this person has not been able to get a job until now it would not be strange if they accepted that their chances of being able to get a job are low, and if they aren’t able to get a job soon they and their family are soon enough starve to death, of course this put in this way has a simple solution, just wake up early!, but let’s talk about something more real, in Brazil there has been a economic crisis that has subsisted over the last five or so years, and that has generated a somewhat new class of labor force categorization, roughly speaking there are the employed, the unemployed and the dismayed (in portuguese “desalentados”) that have given up on looking for a job and that according to the IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) has estimated to be around 4.8 millions of Brazilians in the last year (2018) estimates. Which only demonstrates how giving up at situations of an overwhelming number of rejections is not some type of silly catastrophizing, it is something more close to a natural reaction towards this ubiquitous presence of rejection, but let’s go back to Natalie's description of the black pill, she begins with saying that experiences of rejection and isolation, where she doesn’t quantify this, making it seem as if it is just some experiences of rejection and isolation and not the only thing one has experienced, then she says one might infer that one’s unattractive to women, what may seem a plausible inference from someone that has had some experiences of rejection but is quite certain for someone who only has experienced this, then she goes on to say that from this one may conclude that they will be attractive to any woman, which again is a very big jump for someone who has had some experiences of rejection, but it is not that big of a inference jump for someone who was only experienced rejection, she then goes on to say things that are not inferences but deductions from the last inference in points 4-You will be forever alone; 5-You will always be Unhappy; and 6-Women did this to you. And then she goes on to talk about some points that can try to explain why would things be in such a way as to allow someone to come at those previous conclusions, that is points 7-feminism empowered women to do this to you; 8-The social trends that made this possible are only getting worse; And then there is that last conclusion that I will take the liberty of rewriting as 9-Humanity itself, as understood to be the association of every human being as equally “human” and therefore equally deserving of existence, nutrition, education, housing, friendships and love; is therefore Doomed. Having reach this conclusion is it really that strange if someone were to begin to think that the only thing that one can do in this overwhelming scenario where one is faced with nothing more than the perception and understanding of impotence towards the status quo of things ? That figuratively, in this scenario of powerlessness, the only thing one can do is to lie down and rot ? She then goes on to make rampant generalizations about how incels could stop being incels, or how she puts it “Mom the shit out of them.”, if they just socialized more, made some friends, ..., and many more standard discriminatory assumptions that people in general make and that they think they have the solution to. But to be frank I don’t dislike completely her video, compared to what other people have said she is almost comprehensive in this video, and if it were not for her latest video on Beauty (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mspMJTNEY) I would probably not being criticizing her now, but in this video she simply tries to justify why when she makes a plastic surgery it is alright, but when it is an incel that does one it is not because of the pressures of society, it is purely because they want to have sex with women and that they think that by doing that they will have their lives become meaningful, not because perhaps they would wish some amount of love in their dispassionate lives, but then again there is that one frase Natalie said in her penultimate video, what was it again ? .... oh, right it was that it’s “just a privileged person with a platform punching down at a politically besieged group he understands nothing about.” (here it has to be noted that her video on Incels is her most seen video.), after all if you can point out to people that never had a relationship how meaningless it all is and how it wouldn’t bring any meaning into your life anyway, is it alright for her then if we just faced every couple head on and said that their affection towards one another is really just a delusion that their relationship will foster them with any meaning in their shallow meaningless lives, just like a proper cynic would do ? I suspect not !


Another problem with Natalie exposition is that a part of the reason that she went through plastic surgery was because she wanted to be more beautiful and attractive, and how she wanted to look more like a woman, but that doesn’t seem to be ethically acceptable, if we were to consider a person who doesn’t like their ethnicity and would wish to make themselves look more like a ethnicity they liked more, would it be ethical to allow this person to pass trough treatments for skin whitening and facial reconstruction just to look more like a given ethnicity, would it not only be the expression of a societal racism that was then internalized by this person, and shouldn’t they be stopped and made understand that ethnicity is simply not something that should characterize anyone as this or that, and that they can in fact be whatever they want without having to reshape themselves to serve the perception of other people ? In this case shouldn’t Natalie just keep herself the way she was because of the same reasons ? What is it that really matters how one sees one’s self or how others see them or how one changes the way they see themselves based on how other people see them? These are difficult questions, but they are questions that demand answers as soon as possible because they are of fundamental importance to guarantee that everything is coherent. You see there was this very famous British mathematician called G.H. Hardy that, tell the stories, hated to look at his own face in the mirror and every time he would travel, he would ask for the hotel to cover all mirrors in his quarters with towels so that he wouldn’t have to keep staring at his own face. Some people today would certainly say that the cause for that is a psychological disorder and that he should go to a psychologist and solve that



Having faced several rejections, the majority of which didn’t provide any constructive criticism, although there were several instances of conveyed disgust, one still has to hear criticism of this sort: “Your belief that you will never find anyone who would love you is absurd, you cannot give up, you just have to keep trying even if it takes a hundred or a thousand tries, once you find someone who accepts you that will be all that will matter and all those rejections will be meaningless.”. Although it is sad to burst the bubble of such a Happy go lucky though, we have to face the facts nevertheless, and the fact is that the more rejections one has the lowest are his chances of actually being accepted by someone, it is just basic probability theory, considering that for any given person the number of attempts to get a girlfriend is too low to estimate the exact probability of him being accepted at any given occasion, we have to use the best expectation of such a result that we can make with the limited number of trials such a person has experienced, and the way to do that is with Bayesian probabilities, that is by the use of Bayes’ Law to update the initial expectations. To better illustrate this I will present an example, let us say that a young and naive boy would like to find the probability of him being accepted or rejected by a girl when he confesses, because he is very naive his first expectation is that there is as much chance of him being accepted as there is of him being rejected as he thinks to himself: “I don’t think there is any particular reason for me being rejected as also there isn’t any for me being accepted.”, and then he experiences his first rejection and says to himself: “Well, although that was sad, according to my expectation that was as probable as any other outcome”. As time goes on he finds that all five of his confessions ended in rejections and thinks to himself that the chances of that would be about 3.1% with the assumptions he had made, it can be that he was just unlucky, but he decides to make use of Bayes’ Law to update his expectation values of acceptance and rejection, since those trials can only result in discrete combinations of yes or no answers and because the number of possible candidates is so large that we can make the small approximation that there is reposition, which implies the need of the use of a binomial distribution to represent the chances of being accepted in a given number of trials, which when put into Bayes' Law, with the use of the Product Law of probabilities, can then be easily shown to be proportional to the initial guess of distribution of the acceptance (or conversely of the rejection) times a beta distribution with a normalization factor, I took the liberty of plotting the graphs for a given initial distribution of the acceptance probability and its evolution as one keeps getting rejected, in blue we have the probability density of the acceptance probability and in green we have the cumulative of such a probability density:

As one can see there is a clear tendency of the distribution to the right, that means that with every rejection the expected probability of a acceptance gets smaller and smaller, parting from a very conservative initial expectation distribution for the probability of an acceptance with a mean on 50% chance, we get that 15 consecutive rejections, and no acceptance since the beginning, later we have a 70% chance that the probability of being accepted is between 0% and 10%; and 20% of chance that the probability of being accepted is between 0% and 2%.

Should one get 20 consecutive rejections with no acceptance since the beginning, we get that there is a 70% chance that the probability of being accepted is between 0% and 7%; with a 20% chance that the probability of being accepted is between 0% and 1%. It can be shown that this distribution uniformly converges to a class of distributions so called (Bounded) Pareto Distributions, which are sometimes mistakenly said to have the 80% to 20% rule, but this is only the case for exactly one Pareto Distribution and need not be the one we are getting.



I had a friend that once told me he had 34 consecutive rejections since he had begun trying to get a girlfriend, so only for curiosity I made the calculations and there is a 90% chance that the probability of being accepted is between 0% and 7%; and a 20% chance that the probability of being accepted is between 0% and 0.7% that is to say that there is a 1/5 chance that on average* only 1 girl out of the next 142 girls he decides to declare to will accept., (*) considering as if the 0.7% were a larger concentration of probabilities, which is not the case, for it is in the 0% that there are bigger concentrations of probabilities. That may not seem soooo bad but we have to consider that we begun with a very naive and unrealistic guess at what the distribution of the acceptance probability would be like, had we begun with a homogeneous distribution or a distribution that was more centered at rejection we would have gotten way worse results. One funny paper that should not be taken as serious because the writer is too picky and his calculations are imprecise and uses outdated data is the paper entitled "Why I will never have a girlfriend" by Tristan Miller wich can be found at his web site at https://logological.org/girlfriend. So if we can take anything from the last exposition is that it doesn't matter if my probabilities are precisely correct what really matters is that if one person were to be completely rational about it's prospects of finding a girlfriend the weight of all the rejections he had ever witnessed are in fact evidences that his chances are not any good, and that with every rejection his percieved chances of success can only get worse.

 

[mogstar]

Introduction

I have been researching the nature of our reality, who or what controls our society from the shadows, and more importantly what actually happens when the physical body dies and the soul leaves the body. Do we go to heaven? Do we go to hell? Do we just cease to exist? Is there a God that takes care of us? Once you begin to realize what's actually going on and how deep the rabbit hole really goes, you will never see the world in the same way so buckle up and get ready, this is not going to be easy to swallow for most people. The whole point of this post is not to frighten you, but to present you the conclusions that I've come to in regards to what actually happens when our physical bodies die after having done what feels like endless research from every angle possible.

I have thoroughly investigated near death experiences, out-of-body experiences, astral projection experiences, past life regression hypnosis sessions, remote viewing data, gnosticism, ancient texts and more. All these different ways/methodologies of researching lead to the same conclusions and because of that, I am now convinced that Earth is a prison planet and a massive farm used by various parasitic entities who are using us and have been using us as energetic food for what appears to be a very long time. I will share plenty of evidence from different sources and perspectives to make you understand how I connected all these dots and why I came to these conclusions. I promise you that the deeper you research this stuff the more you will begin to realize that this is extremely real, important, and it's affecting every single one of us. All I'm asking you is to keep an open mind and to analyze the evidence yourself. This is the result of years and years of painstakingly researching, connecting dots, and thinking outside the box. What you're about to read is just a summarization of my research.

Reincarnation and the white tunnel of light

You know how anyone who's had a near death experience talks about having seen a tunnel of light appear in front of them? Or having met members of their family who had passed away? In some rare cases, even having met and spoken to who they thought was God? What you need to know is that the tunnel of light that appears when we die is a trap designed to wipe the whole memory of our last incarnation and to recycle our souls into another body thus keeping us in an infinite loop here on Earth. Because of this, the overwhelming majority of people walking the Earth have total amnesia and don't remember anything about their past existences nor anything from the periods in-between their lives. If you do some research though, you will notice that there is however a small number of people world-wide who are able to recall very specific details regarding who they were, what they did for a living, where they lived in a past life, etc(evidence 1,evidence 2,evidence 3,evidence 4).

How do we know these people aren't making up their stories? There's lots of people out there who have been able to bring very solid pieces of evidence to sustain their claims and those claims can be verified: (verified evidence 1,verified evidence 2,verified evidence 3,verified evidence 4, verified evidence 5) which shows that reincarnation is a very real phenomenon, despite what some of the world's religions claim to happen to the soul when a person dies. The reason these people's memories have only been partially erased and not fully erased remains unknown for now.

The reason people that went through near death experiences didn't come back with their memories wiped is because unlike people who have died, they didn't end up entering the tunnel of light. Instead, they managed to return to their bodies and lived to tell what they experienced on the other side, hence the term 'near death experience'.

The astral(spirit) realm, the reptilians and their agenda

The Reptilians are found in the literature of multiple ancient cultures across the globe. Jainism and Hindu talk about the 'NAGA' whom they describe as 'half-human half-serpent deities'. The aztecs used to worship the 'Quetzalcoatl' whom they described as the "serpent-like God". The Hopi Indians in North America referred to a race of reptoids called the 'Sheti', translated "Snake-Brothers". In Africa, shamans claim to bear extensive esoteric knowledge of a race of reptilian beings called the Chitauri, whom they say control the Earth. Chinese, Korean and Japanese legends talk about a race of reptilian beings called the "Kappa". The gnostics talk about the parasitic entities whom they call 'Archons' who not only use humans as an energetic food source but they also prevent our souls from leaving the material realm upon the death of our physical bodies.

The Reptilians are parasitic entities who have been heavily involved in the manipulation of mankind for thousands of years and are responsible for setting up the soul trap around the planet with the help of extremely advanced technology. This energy grid around the planet serves multiple purposes, one of it's main purposes is to project this 'grandiose' tunnel of light in the proximity of people who have just died in order to lure their souls in. This is the same tunnel of light that so many people who've had near death experiences have reported seeing on the other side. The soul may be under the impression that the tunnel is going to take it to the Heavens or perhaps to a higher plane of existence, depending on it's level of awareness. In reality, when a soul enters the tunnel, it's memory gets wiped and the soul is put into another body here on Earth(reincarnation). The tunnel acts as a bait and to make a good analogy, imagine a fisherman and his fishing rod: he throws in the bait which hides the hook and the fish get trapped in it when they bite. We get tricked and trapped by the tunnel of light in a similar way if we aren't aware that it is a trap. In this case, we're the fish. The Reptilians are highly intelligent, highly advanced technologically and they lack empathy which makes them dangerous. These beings see themselves as 'Gods' and humanity as their enslaved cattle.

The reason they want to keep us here is because they need to feed off of us energetically: when people go through any kind of suffering, these entities feed off of our lower frequency emotions such as fear, pain, grief, anger, jelousy, rage, anxiety, lust, because they are low vibrational beings that require low vibrational energy in order to survive.

The majority of people living on this planet today have been continously reincarnating on this planet for thousands of years because we keep falling for the same trap when our physical bodies die. Most of us have no memories of our past existences since our memories get wiped before every reincarnation, so every time we are born on this planet we think we've just arrived for the first time with a grand purpose or mission to fulfill given to us by who we think is God.

"Our consciousness interacts with another dimension. Our physical sensors only show us a 3-dimensional universe. What exists in the higher dimensions are entities we cannot touch with our physical sensors" - Bernard Carr, professor of mathematics and astronomy who studied under Stephen Hawking and earned his doctorate at Cambridge.


When our physical bodies die or when we have an out-of-body experience, our soul goes into the astral(spirit) realm and while we can still observe what's happening on Earth but we can no longer interact with physical matter. These parasitic entities exist mainly but not exclusively in the astral plane. It's crucial that we become aware of the fact that these entities who are masters of deceit play 'God' in order to trick us into accepting reincarnation and thus having our memories wiped, convincing us that it's in our best interest to do so.

How are they able to do that, you may ask? When we're out of our bodies the laws of physics as we know them no longer have the same effects upon us as we find ourselves in a different realm in which we are able to do things that would be impossible in the physical world. In the astral/spirit realm, we can change the shape of our astral body(spirit) into anything we want by simply willing it to happen because unlike in the physical world, our consciousness can manifest our reality in an instant when you're in the astral plane. We can also fly around or teleport by simply using our intention to do so. We can even go to higher vibratory realms(where the real good-hearted beings live) if our vibration is high enough. Everything in the universe is vibration/frequency.

"If you want to find the secrets of the Universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration" - Nikola Tesla

If you understand that in the astral, any entity can change the shape of it's astral body into anything it wishes to, then you realize that even the most malevolent entity possible can present itself to you in a different form to trick you into thinking you're speaking to God or to your guardian angel, or even to one of the members of your family who had passed away. They do this because they know you'd put your trust in these religious figures or in the familiar faces and once they gained that trust they can easily manipulate you into doing things that are not in your best interests at all. They masquerade as 'beings of light' that emanate a fake sensation of love and peace to make you think they're the good guys who are there to guide you and to give you your next "mission to fulfill".

This is mentioned even in the bible:

"And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light" - II Corinthians 11:14

Afterlife tricks & scams

If you won't enter the tunnel of light when your time comes, you need to be aware that these entities will present themselves to you in the form of angels/Jesus/God/saints/guides/ascended masters/guardian angels and they're going to try to convince you that you need to go back to Earth so you can pay back your "karmic debt" or to continue "learning" or that you have to go back with a "special mission to fulfill" which is complete bullshit but we keep falling for these scams because they tend to make sense from our narrow and pre-programmed perspectives(good luck fulfilling that "special mission" if you can't remember what the "mission" was). We put blind trust in what they say to us because of constant religious indoctrination during our lives on Earth and these beings know that.

They can't force us to reincarnate because each soul has free will, but they can pretend to be someone they're not in order to put ideas in our head that it's in our best interest to accept reincarnating back on Earth making it sound as if they are doing us a favor so that we can "evolve", "learn" or "fix previous mistakes" and what they're basically doing is they're using our own free will against us. The real purpose of continous reincarnation is soul enslavement disguised as "spiritual evolution". A free will decision is impossible without memory and information.

Because our memories are being wiped after each life time, many of us live under the illusion that we're currently living our first life on this planet and we came here to "learn". Learning about life on Earth and experiencing it would be useful if we didn't lose our memories after each life time. But it doesn't matter what we learn over here as long as everything gets erased after each reincarnation and we have to relearn everything from scratch over and over again in an endless loop. Earth is a prison planet camouflaged as a 'cosmic school'. This idea has been going around in order to trick souls into wanting to come and stay here in order to "learn". This whole matrix is designed to drain our energy, wipe our memories over and over again and keep us trapped.

Many people that went through near death experiences even recall being accompanied by a "loving" angel who showed them their life review. The reason the entities show us life reviews is so we can relive certain moments from our lives in which we made certain mistakes and by reliving those moments, feelings of guilt, shame and remorse are being generated inside of us, making us want to compensate for them. These beings then use these feelings against us telling us things such as: "You have made these mistakes, you have to go back to fix this and that". Nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes, so their emotional manipulation scam will never end if you buy into it because being human it's impossible to not make what we perceive to be humanly mistakes. You are not a robot and it's natural to make mistakes. You learn from them and then you move on with your existence, but that's not how these beings want you to think. They want you to pay for doing something that comes naturally, life after life.

"New Age" believers who promote calling upon "your" spirit guides, guardian angels, ascended masters and religious figures for help, are actually doing huge damage to themselves and to all of humanity and they are not even aware of it. You are everything you need to succeed. You are a powerful creator being and you don't need to give your power away to anybody.

How they're using your religious beliefs against you

Religion has programmed you to believe that at the moment of your death, a spiritual judgement type of scenario will take place(the biblical Judgement) and it will be expected of you to give your authority away to these beings (God,angels,guides) letting them decide your fate, so that when your time actually does come, you won't even question these beings and what they are doing with you, instead you will simply accept whatever they ask from you because everything will seem to be going as planned, since that's what religion programmed you to believe will happen when your physical life will end.

These entities take advantage of the fact that you have been continuously conditioned to believe in an afterlife saviour who will take you to the Heavens if you're a good boy. Even if you're an atheist, when you see this "God" or "Jesus" figure right there in front of you in the astral, you may start to have second thoughts about what you thought about religion back on Earth and you will most likely end up accepting what these entities want you to do because your perception of reality can change in an instant in a shocking and surprising scenario like that.

Religion has also given you the sense of being a guilty sinner who has to worship, obey and pray to a certain God(depending on your religion) in the hopes of afterlife salvation. The real salvation is not coming from the parasitic entities who pretend to be our creators, it is coming from ourselves. In order for this to happen, we have to become aware of what actually awaits us when we die so we can use our free will to put an end to this vicious reincarnation cycle.

The real, powerful, infinite, creator God (who has nothing to do with any religious movement) is already within you. You are Source energy. We are the saviours we have been waiting for and we don't need to give our power away to anybody.

Think about this: if you're born somewhere in Europe/North America/South America for example, then the main religions of those areas tell you that God put you on this Earth to live your life and at the end of that life, there will be judgement. God will then decide whether you'll go to Heaven or Hell, for eternity. But, what if you're born in other areas of the world such as the Middle East? or India? or any country/region in which the main religion is either Buddhism, Hinduism or Jainism? These religions teach that after death there is reincarnation, no heaven no hell. So why is it that the place we're born in on this planet dictates a certain belief in something so important such as our existence beyond physical life? Will random luck really going to dictate what's going to happen to each one of us at the moment of our death? Will each one of us have a different afterlife fate just because we're born in different places around the world? It is all part of their game of deception, but the more you expand your awareness the easier you can see through the lies and deceit of the social and religious programming that we've all been through one way or another.

Why is Source energy/the creator of this Universe allowing all this to happen?

Each being in this Universe, whether malevolent or benevolent, has free will. Ask yourself: why are we humans allowed to enslave the animals here on Earth? Why are we allowed to slaughter more than 3 billion animals on a daily basis? Why are we allowed keep animals locked up in farms and cages until the day they die? Why are we allowed to be so cruel to the other forms of life? Why? Because we, just like these entities do, have free will. From our perspective, we do these things because we need something from them which is energy in the form of physical food. We think we are entitled to do what we do because we are superior to them and because we need to survive. We perceive these things to be normal and part of life. From the perspective of the animals however, if they were aware of it, we would be their 'reptilians' since we operate just like them. But we never see ourselves that way, we don't think we're the bad guys because all we do is try to survive. The entities don't see themselves as the bad guys either since they're also trying to survive. What we do to the animals is almost exactly what these beings do to us and they need to keep us imprisoned here to feed off of us just like farmers keep their cattle locked up in farms and stables to get what they need from them. This universe is one big food chain and we're not on top of it like we are taught we are.

Evidence #1: The perspective of past life regression hypnosis

Calogero Grifasi is a past life regression hypnotist from Italy. He has posted thousands of past life regression sessions on youtube that explain what happens to the soul inbetween lives, how the Reptilians feed off of us energetically while we're physically on Earth and how they try to manipulate us into accepting reincarnation when we die by disguising themselves as religious figures in the astral.

I've analyzed more than 400 sessions of his with different clients from all over the world but the following sessions are one of the most significant sessions he's posted in English that you need to see for yourself:

Session 1: Entity masquerades as Jesus to entrap souls upon death - This is an investigative session on the reincarnation cycle to find out what happens to a soul inbetween lives and it shows how a soul is being deceived by astral entities to reincarnate back on Earth).

Session 2: This session shows how Reptilian entities interfere with us during and after our lives on Earth.

Session 3: This session reveals stuff about alien technology and how the entities use religions in their favor and against us.

Session 4: Another session which reveals that Earth acts as a soul reincarnation trap for anyone who decides to incarnate here which confirms the information coming from the other sources with other clients.

What I like about Calogero's work in particular is that the information that's coming out of his sessions doesn't actually come from himself directly, as he is the person who investigates and asks the questions, the information is coming from people that are able to enter the hypnotic state of mind which are either his clients or people who enter the hypnotic state for his clients. He has posted thousands of sessions with different people from all over the world that talk about encountering the same type of entities who play 'God', 'Jesus',"angels" that trick people into reincarnating back on Earth and having their memories completely erased. Calogero has also built a team of other hypnotic operators that do the same work as him who came to the same conclusions with their own clients.

Read everything

 

[Deleted member 7224]

For the last months I have been reading and listening to several articles, jornalistic reports, podcasts, debates and interviews about the incel phenomenon in modern society, and even if the majority of them were highly against incels, I should point out that their argumentations were either wildly imprecise or relatively easy to deconstruct, but whenever there was an incel present they would not be any better at argumentations, which is somewhat understandable for even if one passes trought a very specific situation it does not mean they are some type of professional debater that will be able to defend the views that he has acquired trougth personal experience in a suficiently articulated and convincing argumentative speech. It is my hope that by sharing my reflections on this topic that I may strengthen the arguments of incels so that we can have a more productive participation on the societal debate about incels.



To begin this discussion we should observe that essentialy what inceldom is, is a symptom of the existence of sexual selection in the midst of human societal practices, I would say that to many people this is not so much of a problem to accept, and that would be true, but there is at least one group of people that this becomes somewhat of a taboo when they are beeing completely honest in the discussion, and those are the people that defend egalitarianism, sure what they usualy mean when they are defending egalitarian measures is that they don't agree with how in Captalism a person is arbitrarily born in either a rich family or a poor family and that the one born in a rich family has way more opportunities than someone born in a poor family, and how this makes many poor people work their entire lifes, many times not beeing able to leave poverty and reach the middle class while other people hardly work at all but have the privilege of beeing born into a rich family. On this note it is interesting to notice that what happened in every socialist country when they abolished Captalism and forcifully equalized the economy, instead of money being what people strived for, it became political power, for the political institutions would by then have become more stratified and with the most opportunities centralized around a political hierarchy of the state, and then again inequality emerged for those people with political power and those without, for people that were arbitrarily born into a more influent family and people that were born into a unrecognized family. Of couse, no coutry ever achieved this, but suposing one coutry were able to go trougth socialism without breaking, and were then able to implement comunism were there would be no state and therefore political power would then become equally distributed amongst the people what then would become the thing people would then strive for ? Well I am sure there could be many things but if I were to guess I would conjecture it would be sex, the differences in sexual hierarchies would be intensified creating caste systems where people that were arbitrarily born more attractive would be able to enjoy the status of a higher caste where they would have many opportunities and people that were born very unattractive would live lives as untouchables, members of the lowest caste were no opportunities would ever emerge. In this truly dystopian scenario, but nonetheless plausible for caste systems were very common in India and many other asiatic coutries, obviously there would never be any forced redistribution of sex, for it would be societal sanctioned rape which obviously is a crime ( even though every other forced redistribution of capital, and of political influence were also crimes, although one could argue that they were of different proportions) and therefore we would never really have any egalitarian utopia but only changes of through which medium inequality would arise.



All this talk about socialism and comunism has made me remember Slavoj Zizek’s article about incels (https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-moebius-strip-of-sexual-contracts/) and how he commits the hilarious mathematical error of saying things like "We would thus oppose the logic of universal human rights and the logic of social hierarchy as the two sides of a Moebius strip " when one of the most notorius characteristic of a moebius strip is that it only has one side, it gets even worse when after that he says "and focus on their point of intersection" (« Facepalm » ) what does he mean ??? the whole strip ??? And when you think it couldn't get any worse he begins to talk about turning and reversing shapes which only have one side, it's like some sort of mathematical torture, I know he is a specialist in Hegel and that makes him by consequence a specialist in meaninglessness and in utterly nonsensical things but this is too much. It is nothing more than the screaming example of double standards at play and nothing more, only then could he make a distinction of two things that are the same, that is, there can be no true equality if it doesn't encompass every significant thing in a person's life and that includes "politico-economic life and sex ". Although until here it may seem that I am advocating that there should be some type of enforcement of sexual partners, I would like to express how utterly appalling I think such thing is, and if you think that would be the only way to achieve equality of sexual relationships amongst everyone, then you are agreeing much more with the so called incel black pill than you are openly expressing. It is funny how the incel-normie situation resembles that of the lumpenproletariat - proletariat situation, much like how the proletarian class looks at the bourgeois class with envy, the proletarians at the same time despise and fear the lumpenproletarians for they may envy the proletarians, just like how the proletarians envy the bourgeois, and in doing so they may undermine the legitimacy of the proletarians in the class struggle and in this way prevent the Proletarian revolution.



This takes me to the question of "do incels belive they are entitled to sex ?" To which my answer would be : not any more than anyone else. I mean think for a minute, when an incel goes to declare himself to someone and ultimately gets rejected, the very rejection could only happen either because this person does not want to be in any relantionship ever, or because the person he declared himself to thinks they are entitled to someone better. Incels are not any more guilty, than they are victims of entitlement. And then one would say that there are no more reasons to belive that there should be any asymmetry between dating strategies of males and females, and that would perhaps be the case if humans layed eggs instead of adopting a gestational strategy in which the mother becomes vulnerable, which by itself, was a big problem since humans where nomadic for the greater part of our existence, and therefore there was evolutionary pressure to make females have higher standards whenever they would select their mates, to justify the risk they would have to pass through. Ok, so if this is something that has been this way since times immemorial why is inceldom a contemporary problem ? I would not say it is a contemporary problem, it is a problem which has been greatly amplified in comtemporary times in which everyone is having way fewer children because of the cost, and because it is only in contemporary times that we have seen the dismantlement of what feminists would call the patriarchy, and more conservative people would call the traditional family model and there is also the absolute abandonment of responsibility. Those things contribute first to women beeing more picky as a return to those more primordial instincts in these times in which it has become so expensive to have children, and along with the understanding that stability together with responsibility are in the decline, making women in general choose a much more select group of men, and beeing with any one of them by much less time. Creating a whole mass of women that have not been in many, if any, long therm relationships, a group of men that have relative easy acess to as many relationships as they desire and another group of men that have each time less and less chance of being in a relationship. Returning to the question of entitlement, if there is such a thing as a belief of entitlement to sex that is supported by a whole subsection of the population then we have to look for the origin of this belief, and although many people would go quite trigger happy to say that the source of this entitlement is this forum and others like it, I wouldn't be so sure of this, for a forum only reverberates opinions and narrative images that are already existent in society, this problem, if it exists at all, is much more profound than that, it has to do with the socialization process, and to better illustrate what I mean by saying that I will make reference to a personal experience, not because I think this will prove anything about how everyone behaves, for it is certainly statistically insignificant, nevertheless I belive this report will bring to light the superstructure of values and beliefs present in contemporary society that does much more to foster this entitlement than it does to sever it, that is to say that although statistically insignificant I belive my report not to be meaningfully insignificant.



When I was in High School I remember that in the first of a series of classes about sex education there were phrases profered such as "Since everyone in here will sooner or later have a sexual relationship ..." and "sex is a fundamental part of every healthy lifestyle" and many other like-minded sentences, since in my family I have an uncle that, differently from every other adult in my family, was not married and I remember the day that I, as a young boy, asked my mother why that was and she said that he was never able to date anyone and that he had given up on actively search for love, but she was sure that one day the right person would show up in his life. To me he was always an example of person living an alternative lifestyle, one that was as much valid as any other, for he was, and still is, one of the happiest people that I have ever know.



As I grew up I found out that he as a teenager studied in high school at morning and had began working part-time at evening, and once he had finished High school he began working full time in a factory and was living with my grandmother until he had saved enough money to buy his own house, but by his late twenties my grandfather died and he took the responsibility, as the oldest son, of economically helping my grandmother. Acording to my grandmother he never had had a girlfriend and she used to joke that because of that he had become grumpy. As time had passed he knew nothing but rejections in every declaration of love he had ever made, until he had enough of it and stopped caring about love all together. My uncle was what we would call today an incel. Today he is 78 years old and lives a simple retired life, he likes to buy old watches and repair them if so they need and then he sells them at slightly higher prices than for what he purchased, he goes on walks in parks and plays chess.



When I was having the first class in sex education and the teacher kept implying that sex was a inevitability, initially I thought about myself and how I have never had a girlfriend or even any type of close relationship with a girl and how I couldn't imagine my future self being any better than my then current self in this regard, and then I thought about my uncle and how his situation was the perfect counterexample of what that teacher had said, and then, having become somewhat troubled by what she was saying, I asked : "Teacher, you have been making several generalisations about how everyone will someday need to know all this information about sex, but what about those people that do not wish to have sex or what about the people that will never in fact be able to be in a sexual relationship ? Isn't this type of information useless to them ? I mean there are all kinds of important information about self preservation that we don't talk about, like airplanes or ships safety precautions or workplace safety procedures or even how to be careful about possible legal loopholes that might ruin someone's life, and yet we do not talk about these topics, probably because we do not think that they are applicable to everyone in here, so why is it that this classes are obligatory if there are people for which this information is useless and these classes are nothing more than lost time? and why is it that you have not mentioned abstinence as a prevention method ? " to which she answered : "It is important to learn about sex because even though presently you may not want to have sex, one day when you meet the right person this information will be useful, you may be doubting now about what I am talking but it is not as if we choose for whom we will fall for." this answer made me really unconfortable back then and reflecting about it made me realise that society as a whole is in large part to blame about people believing that they are entitled to sex, people feed hope of a better romantic future, many times in direct oposition to what every shred of evidence seems to indicate, to those who have difficulties with romance with talks like “ you don’t need to be worried about being rejected you just have to be yourself and one day someone who values you for what you are will appear.” and “you are a nice person you just need to wait until someone realises that.” and “ I’m sure that if you did X you would be much more in evidence and people would notice all the other great aspects about you” and “the right person for you is somewere out there you just have to find them” etc.



We drown people with all these hopes and promises and then we become infuriated if they ever complain about how they think life is unfair for not manifesting love to them as it does to the vast majority of other people, we say to they then “you are not entitled to sex” and “of course nobody will want you if you have that attitude” among other things, this is simply a image of how hypocrite and full of double standards society really is, in a first moment out of pity and some times as a form of doing away with a annoying situation, we offer this blind hope to those people in such a way as to make we not need to feel guilty with ourselves for our accomplishments and to not have to deal with any annoying and complicated thing as the romantic frustrations of another person, but in fact we don’t know if any of those promisses we made will ever be fulfilled and to begin with there is no way we can know about those things, and when all this hope we gave to those people backlashes we become offended or we laugh and ridicule that which we ourselves fostered.



That being said, I don’t tink there is anyone who actually thinks that they are entitled to sex in as much as there is people that recognise that intimacy is a type of fundamental human need and that people deserve to have such needs fulfilled. This understanding that intimacy is a fundamental human need can be very well observed in those people that go to psychologists and decide to talk about their romantic shortcomings, and the answer of the psychologist is never to say: “Get the hell out of my consultory! You are not entitled to sex or intimacy or romantic appreciation, if you have not yet understood this, I advise you to stop being a cry baby and deal with it !”. The problem about fundamental human needs and if these needs implicate rights is a difficult and important debate, especially for those that honestly hold a more egalitarian ethos, but it is not one that I will tackle in these reflections. To be completely fair then I will assume that someone that, trough the contrapositive of a belief arrive at another, that is to say, if someone believes that “I don’t deserve to live in solitude” it implies the belief that “I deserve companionship “, and since I consider that the original belief is as valid as the belief that “I don’t deserve anything “ that implies “I don’t deserve companionship “, leaves me to conclude that it is as fair to think that one does not deserve companionship as it is to think that one deserves.



Another story from when I was in High School is about one day in which we, the students, were handed a survey about our future aspirations and some of the questions were in multiple choice format, in particular one of those questions were “What is your most important objective in life ?”, amongst the answers were things like having a successful career, having a comfortable life with many travels trough the world, living a balanced life with no lack’s and no excess, and also there was a option that said “to marry, establish a family and have kids.”, initially I had read this sentence with a certain disregard, perhaps because at that time I already had a notion, based on what I had witnessed by then, of how my future would be like, and It had made the very notion of “establishing a family” as not something one could ever strive for, that is to say, it wasn’t anything that one could ever direct any work or effort towards, people would just live their lives and dedicate themselves to their ambitions, and only if one such people had the luck of meeting with someone that not only they liked but that also liked them in return, would then one be able to “establish a family”, in a sense this were a random event that could or could not occur within one's person lifetime, it is not something that has a continuous progression and therefore it is not something that one could rush towards as a objective, because there isn’t even any direction to rush towards. In my mind only those emotionally needy people would choose that option, those people that don’t seem to be able to be alone for any amount of time, and that always seem to be dating someone, and that make periodic references to their significant other and how they wished they were together in that specific moment. These people seem to be afraid of being alone or of even loneliness itself, it is the type of people that would say that their biggest fear is to die alone, and in saying that forgets that in life the majority of people are born alone and die alone, and they kind of contemn the lives of those people that live their entire life in solitude. With my disregard towards people that would choose the alternative “to marry, establish a family and have kids.”, I openly expressed my opinion about what I thought of that to my two best friends, it so happened that one of them had chosen that option in his survey, we then entered a discussion about how in my opinion that was a pathetic objective, and my friend rightly pointed out that what is important to each person is subjective which put me in a position where I had to concede that he had won the argument, and although in that moment I still didn’t think that objective to be worthy of being the most important to anyone, that for me was still the aspirations of cattle not of (mostly) rational human beings, but as time went on I began to see from new points of perspective this aspiration and began to not think so lowly of people who thought of constituting a family as their main objective in life and in fact at some point I began to accept that as valid as any other objective people might have in life, things like thinking about how according to several economists one of the main factors that move the economy is in fact the establishment of families, which generates many demands that in turn creates jobs to increase the supply and in this way equilibrates prices, other perspective that was quite enlightening was that of looking towards my own parents to which I am indebted for the rest of my life for having cared for me throughout my whole childhood and adolescence and how they sacrificed many things in favor of securing better opportunities in life to me and my siblings, than that which they themselves had, and they did that because their biggest objective in life is the well-being of their family, having benefited myself from such a life ambition how could I criticize others that may wish to follow the same objective ?



Obviously I can’t. And so I have come to terms with people who have their main ambition in life “to marry, establish a family and have kids.”, but immediately we arrive at a problem, take this friend of mine as a example, my social life in High School was mainly interacting with people who had the same problems to fit in with the rest of the class as myself, and this friend of mine was not different in this sense, I have kept in contact with the majority of my friends of High School and with my two best friends, and even now many years after we graduated High School and University none of us has ever had any relationships, even my friend which his biggest dream is to marry and constitute a family wasn’t able to even have a girlfriend in all of this time, so, even though it is not my life, I still think we have to reflect about this cases in which a person begins to see the years and years go by and their humble, if I may say so, life's dream appearing to be every time farther and farther away of being realized, can someone really be angry at the thought of someone in this situation gets disenchanted with life, and sometimes by doing so, begins to resent people in general ? Since I am talking so much about High School let me make an analogy with one of my particular experiences in High School, do any of you know how it feels like when you like something let’s say an group sport like soccer or basketball for example, but every time people would make the teams you were always the last one to be selected ? Well I know very well how this feels because that last person to be selected was always me, I used to like to play volleyball with my family in a volleyball court that was close to home, I never was very athletic but I liked to play, but as I began to play volleyball, any sport really but I liked volleyball in particular, in PE class in Middle School and High School I was always the last one to be chosen for any team and during the game all my teammates always treated me as some type of dead weight that they had to carry, and it was by observing their behavior towards me that little by little I not only stopped liking volleyball, but it became the sport that I hated, and still hate, the most. The feeling of being treated as if you are incapable of any positive collaboration to the victory of the team, the sporadic occasions in which a member of your team noticed how sad you were at not being able to participate in the game and purposely let you touch the ball, only to make themselves feel better for what they were doing, as if that was some act of charity they were performing. It all got to my nerves at some point and all I could feel every time I played volleyball was how little my classmates thought of me.


One can make a parallel between my description of the games of volleyball on my School years to what happened to my friend that had as his main ambition in life “to marry, establish a family and have kids.” in his adult life, except that in life no one is obligated to accept you just because you have offered yourself, so were you to be the last to be selected, in fact you just wouldn’t be selected at all, and that is what happened to him ( it also happened to me ). And sometimes when his Parents or his work colleagues noticed how lonely he were they would try to arrange to him a date with some women, and when he ultimately didn’t succeed at making a girlfriend, they would go to him and criticize him for letting such a chance let go like that, as if they were doing some type of charity to him. Could you really get mad at him for resenting those people who always seemed to reject him and also those people that felt bad for seeing the contrast between their lives and that of my friend and “mercifully” decided to offer him some time of emotional charity by arranging a date with some single woman they knew, only to not have to witness the loneliness of others.



Another topic that I have been thinking about was about how we model our understanding of the existence of incels in society, and since I have been watching several lectures of Jordan Peterson, I have been interested in the Jungian idea that at the most primitive and/or fundamental level we human beings model the world trough the use of archetypes, it then stimulated me to think about which character would best represent the incel archetype ? Thinking about it quite meticulously it came to mind at least two stories that had major characters that we would today categorize as incels, those would be The Hunchback of Notre Dame’s Quasimodo and Cyrano de Bergerac’s Cyrano. Although Each of the stories have their own qualities and defects, through the semiotics of inceldom both characters are the representation of one societal occurrence, that is the utterly bankruptcy of Ethics at the predilection of Aesthetics, and as such I ultimately would have to choose Quasimodo as the better representative of the incel archetype, given the genius of Victor Hugo there is actually a passage in which Quasimodo leaves two vases in the window of Esmeralda’s room “One was a very beautiful and very brilliant but cracked crystal vase. It had allowed the water with which it had been filled to escape, and the flowers which it contained were withered. The other was an earthenware pot, coarse and common, but which had preserved all its water, and its flowers remained fresh and crimson. I know not whether it was done intentionally, but Esmeralda takes the withered flowers from the crystal vase and presses them passionately on her heart for the entirety of the day.”. This symbolism represents almost perfectly the incel conundrum, this behavior of Esmeralda is the behavior of the vast majority of females, and although we cannot say that every incel can be described as a person that is internally akin to vibrant flowers that remained fresh and crimson, even if we were to exclude those that are morally corrupt, which seem to be homogeneously distributed trough all social groups, there would still be those that have scarred hearts from their previous failures, although the vast majority of incels have been naive and hopeful at some time in their lives, this naivety progressively becomes a presupposition of malice and this hope becomes scorn, that is to say, can one honesty believe that a unkept flower in a uncracked earthenware pot would not shrivel, dry and die ? Given that it’s necessities were not being fulfilled in a very long time (perhaps even never) ?



The usual reading of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, from my experience, looks with disdain towards the indirect rejection he suffers from Esmeralda, some people look at that and categorize it as a simple sexist instance of “it’s tragic because he didn’t get the girl”, where the situation is not anywhere that straight up, to quote Jordan Peterson on rejection: “It is a real judgement, at best it would be like: while I don’t mind your physical presence, your genes should definitely not survive another generation”, and if that was all perhaps that would be okay, but that is not all that happens, Esmeralda chooses Phoebus instead of choosing Quasimodo or even not choosing anyone at all, she rejects Quasimodo despite all of his good intentions and chooses Phoebus regardless of his egotistical intent. Why does she do that ? This has already been answered in these reflections, it is because se makes an aesthetic judgement and not an ethical one, Quasimodo is judged for his ugly and deformed appearance, of which he had virtually no choice, and Phoebus is judged for his handsomeness, of which he had been gifted without having done anything to deserve such blessing. Other people see that as a pathetically obvious result: “what did he expect ? Esmeralda is way out of his league, he should just accept that and hope that he finds someone that is just as ugly and deformed as himself, if that is even possible, and why should I even care for such a story ? The vast majority of the population, including myself, is neither deformed or that ugly and never have passed or will pass though such a life.”, whilst ignoring it’s own connotation as wildly discriminatory and sickly eugenic, much like Plato in his Republic: “It follows from our former admissions that the best men must mate with the best women in as many cases as possible, while the opposite should hold of the worst men and women; and that the offspring of the former should be reared, but not that of the latter, if our flock is going to be an eminent one. And all this must occur without anyone knowing except the rulers ... So then, we will have to establish by law certain festivals and sacrifices at which we will bring together brides and bridegrooms, and our poets must compose suitable hymns for the marriages that take place. ... I imagine that some sophisticated lotteries will have to be created, then, so that the inferior man of that sort will blame chance rather than the rulers at each mating time. ... And presumably, the young men who are good at war or at other things must —among other prizes and awards — be given a greater opportunity to have sex with the women, in order that a pretext may also be created at the same time for having as many children as possible fathered by such men.”, this is said by Plato, one of the most influential philosophers of the western world, so it is not that strange that people with such eugenic thoughts still exist and many times do not even realize the dangerous similarities between these two views, to simply accept this imposed hierarchy is not any better than to be like sheep that cannot begin to fathom the intentions of the shepherd.



That leaves us to think why is it exactly that almost every decision one can make is subjectable to ethics, with the notorious exception of romantic/sexual judgments, it is at this intersection between a unscrupulous pursuit of one’s desire and a prudent restriction towards ethical conduct, that the intellectual dishonesty begins, because there are considerable interests at stake, therefore the very notion of ethics in the judgment of romantic partners is discarded and this rustic, amorphous, sometimes even mystical, and a priori unprincipled imagery of what is love is pushed forward as a means to justify partial/biased judgment and to crush dissent among those that are at the margin in this aspect of life. This imagery is propaganda, and just like any propaganda, it seeks to create a narrative that encourages complacency towards the present status quo and vilifies the desistance of pursuit of those success goals that have been dictated by the narrative. That is why there are people that having been exposed to the narrative that effort is not only necessary, but sufficient to achieve economical success, for example, these people that take contemporary society to be a complete meritocracy, can pass by a homeless person and not only they become incapable of being sympathetic towards the difficult situation that those in misery pass through every day, but take that as a just sentence, for if those people had been committed and hardworking they wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with, as they are it can only mean that they haven’t been those things, that they haven’t put enough effort to free themselves from poverty in which case they are only experiencing that which they deserve and one should only feel repugnance and aversion towards those people.



If anyone thinks that this is only exaggeration and a way to justify an inferiority complex, or as people in my country say a mutt complex, if you think so I suggest to you to make a thought experiment, imagine you had to cheer up Quasimodo that was sad because of his loneliness, could you honestly tell him things like “You just have to keep trying to find your soulmate, she is definitely out there.”, would you really think that was the case for someone that deformed ? And if you would say that what makes you think that this situation is any different from that which was jokingly pointed out by George Carlin in one of his jokes about prisons where he said something like “Everybody more or less agree that we need more prisons, some people even scream 'BUILD MORE PRISONS ! ... but not in here.' “. It is like those people that keep saying how people should be seeking love because they believe that society is full of bitter and resentful people , but then feel insulted if anyone they don’t fancy ever declare romantic feelings towards them. This characterizes a insidious cycle where society at large advocates for love as a fundamental element of having a successful life, and then there is a number of people that fail at that, and then society reaffirms love and then surprisingly enough more people seem to fail and then not only society reinforces this idea of love, they condemn those that fail at it, this is what is happening in Japan where an ever increasing number of men are not able to find female romantic partners, which then reflects negatively in the number of births which then begins to affect the economy of the country, another bizarre phenomenon that is happening there is that the number and popularity of female aimed brothels, or as they call it there Host clubs, that although also exist in the male oriented forms, they don’t reach the ridiculous proportion that the female oriented Host Clubs have achieved where there are literally huge billboards promoting the most popular “hosts”(gigolos) outdoors in clear day light , and then some people begin to complain that this situation is unique to Japan and that the situation on the vast majority of the world is different from that, and that may be true presently, but what they fail to see is that the demographics of present day Japan accurately represents the projections for the immediate future of all developed countries and that it already began to show in developing countries as well, so we would better learn what can be learned from Japan's situation because we will pass trough that soon enough.



Returning to how ethics has lost to aesthetics in the dating landscape, we may depart from a rational ethical analysis from what we experience in our failed attempts at dating, and the most recurring basis for rejection is not behavior or education or dedication, these things only achieve critical importance once two people have already begun dating, the thing that really works like a filter is attractiveness, which fundamentally means looks, knowing this we may begin this ethical analysis by asking what it means to exert judgment on other people mainly trough aesthetics, and that is, what makes anyone more aesthetically pleasing than another person ? Is it the actions that one chooses to take ? Is it the way one thinks about things ? Is it the behavior one upholds ? Is it the personality one has developed throughout his life ? Or is it one's physical appearance which was primarily defined by his genetics at the moment of birth, and secondly by the environment in which he grew up, both of which are random events in which one doesn’t have any influence over ?



Supposing one has honestly answered those previous questions can anyone say that the physical appearance is not a fundamental factor towards attractiveness ? If one still doesn’t agree then imagine yourself honestly telling that to Quasimodo, that is, if you were even capable of that. Still in this topic of attractiveness, a strange phenomenon that has been happening since about the 1990's when the percieved beauty standards for males changed radically. Generaly it is women that complain about the unattainability of such ideals, what is obviously a statistically and ethical valid complaint and one that I will take as a given, yet although unattainable they can hardly be said to be unfeminine, if for anything, the unattainability of such female standards arises from the exaggeration of the feminine to unrealistic levels, where as the contemporary beauty standard for males is almost entirely unmasculine in it's nature. The common feature shared by most male models of female oriented magazines is that, with the exception of their musculature and their jawbone that tend to be accentuated, they resemble some type of androgynous angel-like figure, having therefore more feminine traits in opposition to those biologically induced by characteristic masculine hormones like testosterone. In conclusion while women complaints of beauty standards are based in the fact that the cutoff region of what is considered attractive in the multivariate distribution of feminine aspects is so narrow that they become unrealistic, although the variables of the distribution are in principle still comparable throughout, if not all, the vast majority of women; Where as with men the problem lies in the fact that there is a break between men who have in their appearance those feminine dimensions capable of mustering an androgynous look, which has become attractive as of late, and those who doesn't have this dimension to them, and in this discrete, discontinuous classification we have men being forsaken not because they don't lie within some range on the scales of attractiveness, but because they are not even on many of those scales to begin with, that is, some times it is not only because someone is on the lower strata that they are rejected in favor of someone else, sometimes it is just because they aren't even comparable in the first place, and this is a big problem because, may people like it or not, there are way more people that look like Quasimodo than there are people that look like angels anyway.



One fascinating exemple of how ethics becomes mixed with aesthetics occurs when a feminist calls all men pigs (or at least some portion of men), is the identification of a men with the figure of a pig a ethical judgement or an aesthetical one ? It almost seems as if the problem was not the actions perpetuated by those men but their aesthetics, that those actions would be somewhat acceptable, were practiced by some Christian Grey of Fifty Shades of Grey instead of some random creep. Still talking about those feminists, there is much talk about how women should just wear whatever they want and that they shouldn't be demurred by any possible sexual aggressor, after all the guilt of any aggression is always of the aggressor (which is a correct assessment, of course), nevertheless it should be pointed out that this type of discourse has many times promoted debauchery and demoted prudency, and this is a problem because, although the guilt of the aggression is of the aggressor, we have to remember ourselves that sexual impulses are not triggered by rationality and logic (hah, we wish that were the case, imagine if things were so simple and reasonable as solving numerous logic problems from a set of "propositional calculi" « See what i did there ? » ), but by instinct, so that it only takes a person with bad judgement for a tragedy to happen, is it really okay to encourage women to make themselves preferential prey to those molesters ? One thing is to envision an idealized society, another one entirely is to advocate unprudent behaviour in the real world. In the extreme end of feminism we find organizations such as Femen wich proclaims to fight against the malice of the patriarchy, only to do so with malice of their own and to fight malice with malice can only increase the total amount of malice in the world.



So we have people judging other people mainly trough randomly assigned traits, considering, of course, that even those who can improve themselves into becoming more attractive have first to have the potential to become more attractive, and this potential is equally randomly assigned. We have then to ask ourselves if this is ethical, which it is not, for it is an arbitrary judgment, and knowing that we must ask ourselves what can be done to remedy this unjust behavior, obviously we could not force or coerce people to change this, for it would be equally not ethical, the only thing we can really do is to accept the way things are and to take our own judgment upon this unethical situation. One thing that I have seen recently that has made me a little irritated was this, rather vulgar, video by BuzzFeed (), the guy in the video is certainly not a very ethical person by what is portrayed of him thinking, but for a second forget what he thinks and what he does in his privacy, no one else in the real world would know that to begin with, what I think is the most irritating thing is the part where he buys a watch to gift to the coworker that he belives he is developing feelings for, even if it is in his own twisted way, and when he finally goes to give the gift to her, he freezes and is not able to say anything and she gets uncomfortable with that and walks away, at the next moment we see him in the HR being scolded for inappropriate behaviour, since when does trying to give a watch to someone constitutes inappropriate behaviour ? It is as Roger Scruton has once said (), as society is tending towards becoming less and less civilized, romantic relationships begin to stop requiring a previous period of courtship and become each time more dreadfully direct, or how Roger Scruton said “Nowadays, of course, sexual harassment just means sexual advances made by the unattractive, who are the majority, so you know, there is a huge injustice in this.”.



Going back to the topic of how incels are seen by society, we may spend days and days arguing about how every time there is, for a lack of a better word, a public exhibition of the subject there is always a permeating hypocrisy of some sort, either they think we are just “bad losers” in a way, that just because we aren’t able to date anyone we think it is alright to be whining about how we couldn’t achieve that which we wished, and how this is only because the world is unjust and so on, when in fact the majority of them revert right back to this state whenever their established relationships crumble, and in this moment they don’t think that in fact they are just whining and that they should just “buckle up, kiddo”, or when people are so reductionist to the point that they say we incels are just frustrated because we can’t get laid and begin talking about how this is some justification for why prostitution should be legalized, when in fact just because something is illegal it doesn’t mean it is impossible to find, prostitution, much like illegal drugs, is not that difficult to find if you are actually looking for it, these people forget about the deepest existential question that is in fact what really desolate the incels, these people just say this because they have had the privilege of having had their emotional needs fulfilled and reassured by this they have taken the liberty of dissociating one thing with the other, and having had their emotional needs fulfilled they begin to only think about sex and their sexual desires instead of the more basic, humane, problem. In the last case people just assume that if someone is rejected by everyone they have ever approached, then that means they are some type of freaks that should just lay down and rot, after all the word of the people have been ushered, and the word of the people is law. But jokes aside, I wish to talk about one opinionated person in particular, Natalie Wynn the transexual woman of the YouTube channel ContraPoints, in her video about incels () to which many people took to be a pondered, even perhaps conciliatory, stand on the question of inceldom, yet, although better than the majority of the expositions of the topic she still makes fundamental mistakes about incels, in particular in the part about how the black pill is just catastrophizing, or how she exposed it as being defined by psychotherapists as “A cognitive distortion where anxiety or depression leads you to infer apocalyptic conclusions from mundane setbacks and anxieties.”, every incel reading this might instantly see where the problem in that is, it only gets worse when she gives the first example of such a situation, she says to consider a person that is late for work and that from that they get to the conclusion that they and their hole family are going to die because of that, later on she tries to show how the black pill is just another scenario of catastrophizing, except that it isn’t as simple, consider first her first example, sure one person who once got late may not get fired because of that, but what about someone that is always late ? In fact forget the whole scenario where this person is employed in the first place, this scenario is already too reassuring to begin with, consider instead someone that is unemployed and has always been and the reason that that is so is amongst other things that they seem to always get late to their work interviews, let’s say that happens because they live in a city that has a serious problem of traffic congestion, since this person has not been able to get a job until now it would not be strange if they accepted that their chances of being able to get a job are low, and if they aren’t able to get a job soon they and their family are soon enough starve to death, of course this put in this way has a simple solution, just wake up early!, but let’s talk about something more real, in Brazil there has been a economic crisis that has subsisted over the last five or so years, and that has generated a somewhat new class of labor force categorization, roughly speaking there are the employed, the unemployed and the dismayed (in portuguese “desalentados”) that have given up on looking for a job and that according to the IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) has estimated to be around 4.8 millions of Brazilians in the last year (2018) estimates. Which only demonstrates how giving up at situations of an overwhelming number of rejections is not some type of silly catastrophizing, it is something more close to a natural reaction towards this ubiquitous presence of rejection, but let’s go back to Natalie's description of the black pill, she begins with saying that experiences of rejection and isolation, where she doesn’t quantify this, making it seem as if it is just some experiences of rejection and isolation and not the only thing one has experienced, then she says one might infer that one’s unattractive to women, what may seem a plausible inference from someone that has had some experiences of rejection but is quite certain for someone who only has experienced this, then she goes on to say that from this one may conclude that they will be attractive to any woman, which again is a very big jump for someone who has had some experiences of rejection, but it is not that big of a inference jump for someone who was only experienced rejection, she then goes on to say things that are not inferences but deductions from the last inference in points 4-You will be forever alone; 5-You will always be Unhappy; and 6-Women did this to you. And then she goes on to talk about some points that can try to explain why would things be in such a way as to allow someone to come at those previous conclusions, that is points 7-feminism empowered women to do this to you; 8-The social trends that made this possible are only getting worse; And then there is that last conclusion that I will take the liberty of rewriting as 9-Humanity itself, as understood to be the association of every human being as equally “human” and therefore equally deserving of existence, nutrition, education, housing, friendships and love; is therefore Doomed. Having reach this conclusion is it really that strange if someone were to begin to think that the only thing that one can do in this overwhelming scenario where one is faced with nothing more than the perception and understanding of impotence towards the status quo of things ? That figuratively, in this scenario of powerlessness, the only thing one can do is to lie down and rot ? She then goes on to make rampant generalizations about how incels could stop being incels, or how she puts it “Mom the shit out of them.”, if they just socialized more, made some friends, ..., and many more standard discriminatory assumptions that people in general make and that they think they have the solution to. But to be frank I don’t dislike completely her video, compared to what other people have said she is almost comprehensive in this video, and if it were not for her latest video on Beauty (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mspMJTNEY) I would probably not being criticizing her now, but in this video she simply tries to justify why when she makes a plastic surgery it is alright, but when it is an incel that does one it is not because of the pressures of society, it is purely because they want to have sex with women and that they think that by doing that they will have their lives become meaningful, not because perhaps they would wish some amount of love in their dispassionate lives, but then again there is that one frase Natalie said in her penultimate video, what was it again ? .... oh, right it was that it’s “just a privileged person with a platform punching down at a politically besieged group he understands nothing about.” (here it has to be noted that her video on Incels is her most seen video.), after all if you can point out to people that never had a relationship how meaningless it all is and how it wouldn’t bring any meaning into your life anyway, is it alright for her then if we just faced every couple head on and said that their affection towards one another is really just a delusion that their relationship will foster them with any meaning in their shallow meaningless lives, just like a proper cynic would do ? I suspect not !


Another problem with Natalie exposition is that a part of the reason that she went through plastic surgery was because she wanted to be more beautiful and attractive, and how she wanted to look more like a woman, but that doesn’t seem to be ethically acceptable, if we were to consider a person who doesn’t like their ethnicity and would wish to make themselves look more like a ethnicity they liked more, would it be ethical to allow this person to pass trough treatments for skin whitening and facial reconstruction just to look more like a given ethnicity, would it not only be the expression of a societal racism that was then internalized by this person, and shouldn’t they be stopped and made understand that ethnicity is simply not something that should characterize anyone as this or that, and that they can in fact be whatever they want without having to reshape themselves to serve the perception of other people ? In this case shouldn’t Natalie just keep herself the way she was because of the same reasons ? What is it that really matters how one sees one’s self or how others see them or how one changes the way they see themselves based on how other people see them? These are difficult questions, but they are questions that demand answers as soon as possible because they are of fundamental importance to guarantee that everything is coherent. You see there was this very famous British mathematician called G.H. Hardy that, tell the stories, hated to look at his own face in the mirror and every time he would travel, he would ask for the hotel to cover all mirrors in his quarters with towels so that he wouldn’t have to keep staring at his own face. Some people today would certainly say that the cause for that is a psychological disorder and that he should go to a psychologist and solve that



Having faced several rejections, the majority of which didn’t provide any constructive criticism, although there were several instances of conveyed disgust, one still has to hear criticism of this sort: “Your belief that you will never find anyone who would love you is absurd, you cannot give up, you just have to keep trying even if it takes a hundred or a thousand tries, once you find someone who accepts you that will be all that will matter and all those rejections will be meaningless.”. Although it is sad to burst the bubble of such a Happy go lucky though, we have to face the facts nevertheless, and the fact is that the more rejections one has the lowest are his chances of actually being accepted by someone, it is just basic probability theory, considering that for any given person the number of attempts to get a girlfriend is too low to estimate the exact probability of him being accepted at any given occasion, we have to use the best expectation of such a result that we can make with the limited number of trials such a person has experienced, and the way to do that is with Bayesian probabilities, that is by the use of Bayes’ Law to update the initial expectations. To better illustrate this I will present an example, let us say that a young and naive boy would like to find the probability of him being accepted or rejected by a girl when he confesses, because he is very naive his first expectation is that there is as much chance of him being accepted as there is of him being rejected as he thinks to himself: “I don’t think there is any particular reason for me being rejected as also there isn’t any for me being accepted.”, and then he experiences his first rejection and says to himself: “Well, although that was sad, according to my expectation that was as probable as any other outcome”. As time goes on he finds that all five of his confessions ended in rejections and thinks to himself that the chances of that would be about 3.1% with the assumptions he had made, it can be that he was just unlucky, but he decides to make use of Bayes’ Law to update his expectation values of acceptance and rejection, since those trials can only result in discrete combinations of yes or no answers and because the number of possible candidates is so large that we can make the small approximation that there is reposition, which implies the need of the use of a binomial distribution to represent the chances of being accepted in a given number of trials, which when put into Bayes' Law, with the use of the Product Law of probabilities, can then be easily shown to be proportional to the initial guess of distribution of the acceptance (or conversely of the rejection) times a beta distribution with a normalization factor, I took the liberty of plotting the graphs for a given initial distribution of the acceptance probability and its evolution as one keeps getting rejected, in blue we have the probability density of the acceptance probability and in green we have the cumulative of such a probability density:

As one can see there is a clear tendency of the distribution to the right, that means that with every rejection the expected probability of a acceptance gets smaller and smaller, parting from a very conservative initial expectation distribution for the probability of an acceptance with a mean on 50% chance, we get that 15 consecutive rejections, and no acceptance since the beginning, later we have a 70% chance that the probability of being accepted is between 0% and 10%; and 20% of chance that the probability of being accepted is between 0% and 2%.

Should one get 20 consecutive rejections with no acceptance since the beginning, we get that there is a 70% chance that the probability of being accepted is between 0% and 7%; with a 20% chance that the probability of being accepted is between 0% and 1%. It can be shown that this distribution uniformly converges to a class of distributions so called (Bounded) Pareto Distributions, which are sometimes mistakenly said to have the 80% to 20% rule, but this is only the case for exactly one Pareto Distribution and need not be the one we are getting.



I had a friend that once told me he had 34 consecutive rejections since he had begun trying to get a girlfriend, so only for curiosity I made the calculations and there is a 90% chance that the probability of being accepted is between 0% and 7%; and a 20% chance that the probability of being accepted is between 0% and 0.7% that is to say that there is a 1/5 chance that on average* only 1 girl out of the next 142 girls he decides to declare to will accept., (*) considering as if the 0.7% were a larger concentration of probabilities, which is not the case, for it is in the 0% that there are bigger concentrations of probabilities. That may not seem soooo bad but we have to consider that we begun with a very naive and unrealistic guess at what the distribution of the acceptance probability would be like, had we begun with a homogeneous distribution or a distribution that was more centered at rejection we would have gotten way worse results. One funny paper that should not be taken as serious because the writer is too picky and his calculations are imprecise and uses outdated data is the paper entitled "Why I will never have a girlfriend" by Tristan Miller wich can be found at his web site at https://logological.org/girlfriend. So if we can take anything from the last exposition is that it doesn't matter if my probabilities are precisely correct what really matters is that if one person were to be completely rational about it's prospects of finding a girlfriend the weight of all the rejections he had ever witnessed are in fact evidences that his chances are not any good, and that with every rejection his percieved chances of success can only get worse.

KEEP WRITING ESSAYS YOU OBSESSED WITH ME FAGGOT YOU HEAR ME OMG I CANT BELIEVE YOU TYPED THAT FOR ME YOU OBSESSED KILL YOURSELF

 

[Deleted member 13787]

Read everything

Quantum entanglement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

Spontaneous parametric down-conversion process can split photons into type II photon pairs with mutually perpendicular polarization.
Part of a series of articles about
Quantum mechanics
{\displaystyle i\hbar {\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}|\psi (t)\rangle ={\hat {H}}|\psi (t)\rangle }{\displaystyle i\hbar {\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}|\psi (t)\rangle ={\hat {H}}|\psi (t)\rangle }
Schrödinger equation
IntroductionGlossaryHistory
Background
Fundamentals
ComplementarityDecoherenceEntanglementEnergy levelMeasurementNonlocalityQuantum numberStateSuperpositionSymmetryTunnellingUncertaintyWave function Collapse
Experiments
Formulations
Equations
Interpretations
Advanced topics
Scientists
vte
Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when a group of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in a way such that the quantum state of each particle of the group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, including when the particles are separated by a large distance. The topic of quantum entanglement is at the heart of the disparity between classical and quantum physics: entanglement is a primary feature of quantum mechanics lacking in classical mechanics.

Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, and polarization performed on entangled particles can, in some cases, be found to be perfectly correlated. For example, if a pair of entangled particles is generated such that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a first axis, then the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, is found to be counterclockwise. However, this behavior gives rise to seemingly paradoxical effects: any measurement of a particle's properties results in an irreversible wave function collapse of that particle and changes the original quantum state. With entangled particles, such measurements affect the entangled system as a whole.

Such phenomena were the subject of a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen,[1] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter,[2][3] describing what came to be known as the EPR paradox. Einstein and others considered such behavior impossible, as it violated the local realism view of causality (Einstein referring to it as "spooky action at a distance")[4] and argued that the accepted formulation of quantum mechanics must therefore be incomplete.

Later, however, the counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics were verified[5][6][7] in tests where polarization or spin of entangled particles was measured at separate locations, statistically violating Bell's inequality. In earlier tests, it couldn't be ruled out that the result at one point could have been subtly transmitted to the remote point, affecting the outcome at the second location.[7] However, so-called "loophole-free" Bell tests have been performed where the locations were sufficiently separated that communications at the speed of light would have taken longer—in one case, 10,000 times longer—than the interval between the measurements.[6][5]

According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly. Other interpretations which don't recognize wavefunction collapse dispute that there is any "effect" at all. However, all interpretations agree that entanglement produces correlation between the measurements and that the mutual information between the entangled particles can be exploited, but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is impossible.[8][9]

Quantum entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally with photons,[10][11] neutrinos,[12] electrons,[13][14] molecules as large as buckyballs,[15][16] and even small diamonds.[17][18] The utilization of entanglement in communication, computation and quantum radar is a very active area of research and development.


Contents
1 History
2 Concept
2.1 Meaning of entanglement
2.2 Paradox
2.3 Hidden variables theory
2.4 Violations of Bell's inequality
2.5 Notable experimental results proving quantum entanglement
2.6 Mystery of time
2.7 Emergent gravity
3 Non-locality and entanglement
4 Quantum mechanical framework
4.1 Pure states
4.2 Ensembles
4.3 Reduced density matrices
4.4 Two applications that use them
4.5 Entanglement as a resource
4.6 Classification of entanglement
4.7 Entropy
4.7.1 Definition
4.7.2 As a measure of entanglement
4.8 Entanglement measures
4.9 Quantum field theory
5 Applications
5.1 Entangled states
5.2 Methods of creating entanglement
5.3 Testing a system for entanglement
6 Naturally entangled systems
7 Photosynthesis
8 Entanglement of macroscopic objects
8.1 Entanglement of elements of living systems
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links
History
Further information: Hidden-variable theory

Article headline regarding the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (EPR paradox) paper, in the May 4, 1935 issue of The New York Times.
The counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics about strongly correlated systems were first discussed by Albert Einstein in 1935, in a joint paper with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen.[1] In this study, the three formulated the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (EPR paradox), a thought experiment that attempted to show that "the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality given by wave functions is not complete."[1] However, the three scientists did not coin the word entanglement, nor did they generalize the special properties of the state they considered. Following the EPR paper, Erwin Schrödinger wrote a letter to Einstein in German in which he used the word Verschränkung (translated by himself as entanglement) "to describe the correlations between two particles that interact and then separate, as in the EPR experiment."[19]

Schrödinger shortly thereafter published a seminal paper defining and discussing the notion of "entanglement." In the paper, he recognized the importance of the concept, and stated:[2] "I would not call [entanglement] one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought." Like Einstein, Schrödinger was dissatisfied with the concept of entanglement, because it seemed to violate the speed limit on the transmission of information implicit in the theory of relativity.[20] Einstein later famously derided entanglement as "spukhafte Fernwirkung"[21] or "spooky action at a distance."

The EPR paper generated significant interest among physicists, which inspired much discussion about the foundations of quantum mechanics (perhaps most famously Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics), but produced relatively little other published work. Despite the interest, the weak point in EPR's argument was not discovered until 1964, when John Stewart Bell proved that one of their key assumptions, the principle of locality, as applied to the kind of hidden variables interpretation hoped for by EPR, was mathematically inconsistent with the predictions of quantum theory.

Specifically, Bell demonstrated an upper limit, seen in Bell's inequality, regarding the strength of correlations that can be produced in any theory obeying local realism, and showed that quantum theory predicts violations of this limit for certain entangled systems.[22] His inequality is experimentally testable, and there have been numerous relevant experiments, starting with the pioneering work of Stuart Freedman and John Clauser in 1972[23] and Alain Aspect's experiments in 1982.[24] An early experimental breakthrough was due to Carl Kocher,[10][11] who already in 1967 presented an apparatus in which two photons successively emitted from a calcium atom were shown to be entangled – the first case of entangled visible light. The two photons passed diametrically positioned parallel polarizers with higher probability than classically predicted but with correlations in quantitative agreement with quantum mechanical calculations. He also showed that the correlation varied only upon (as cosine square of) the angle between the polarizer settings[11] and decreased exponentially with time lag between emitted photons.[25] Kocher’s apparatus, equipped with better polarizers, was used by Freedman and Clauser who could confirm the cosine square dependence and use it to demonstrate a violation of Bell’s inequality for a set of fixed angles.[23] All these experiments have shown agreement with quantum mechanics rather than the principle of local realism.

For decades, each had left open at least one loophole by which it was possible to question the validity of the results. However, in 2015 an experiment was performed that simultaneously closed both the detection and locality loopholes, and was heralded as "loophole-free"; this experiment ruled out a large class of local realism theories with certainty.[26] Alain Aspect notes that the "setting-independence loophole" – which he refers to as "far-fetched", yet, a "residual loophole" that "cannot be ignored" – has yet to be closed, and the free-will / superdeterminism loophole is unclosable; saying "no experiment, as ideal as it is, can be said to be totally loophole-free."[27]

Bell's work raised the possibility of using these super-strong correlations as a resource for communication. It led to the 1984 discovery of quantum key distribution protocols, most famously BB84 by Charles H. Bennett and Gilles Brassard[28] and E91 by Artur Ekert.[29] Although BB84 does not use entanglement, Ekert's protocol uses the violation of a Bell's inequality as a proof of security.

Concept
Meaning of entanglement
An entangled system is defined to be one whose quantum state cannot be factored as a product of states of its local constituents; that is to say, they are not individual particles but are an inseparable whole. In entanglement, one constituent cannot be fully described without considering the other(s). The state of a composite system is always expressible as a sum, or superposition, of products of states of local constituents; it is entangled if this sum cannot be written as a single product term.

Quantum systems can become entangled through various types of interactions. For some ways in which entanglement may be achieved for experimental purposes, see the section below on methods. Entanglement is broken when the entangled particles decohere through interaction with the environment; for example, when a measurement is made.[30]

As an example of entanglement: a subatomic particle decays into an entangled pair of other particles. The decay events obey the various conservation laws, and as a result, the measurement outcomes of one daughter particle must be highly correlated with the measurement outcomes of the other daughter particle (so that the total momenta, angular momenta, energy, and so forth remains roughly the same before and after this process). For instance, a spin-zero particle could decay into a pair of spin-½ particles. Since the total spin before and after this decay must be zero (conservation of angular momentum), whenever the first particle is measured to be spin up on some axis, the other, when measured on the same axis, is always found to be spin down. (This is called the spin anti-correlated case; and if the prior probabilities for measuring each spin are equal, the pair is said to be in the singlet state.)

The above result may or may not be perceived as surprising. A classical system would display the same property, and a hidden variable theory (see below) would certainly be required to do so, based on conservation of angular momentum in classical and quantum mechanics alike. The difference is that a classical system has definite values for all the observables all along, while the quantum system does not. In a sense to be discussed below, the quantum system considered here seems to acquire a probability distribution for the outcome of a measurement of the spin along any axis of the other particle upon measurement of the first particle. This probability distribution is in general different from what it would be without measurement of the first particle. This may certainly be perceived as surprising in the case of spatially separated entangled particles.

Paradox
The paradox is that a measurement made on either of the particles apparently collapses the state of the entire entangled system—and does so instantaneously, before any information about the measurement result could have been communicated to the other particle (assuming that information cannot travel faster than light) and hence assured the "proper" outcome of the measurement of the other part of the entangled pair. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the result of a spin measurement on one of the particles is a collapse into a state in which each particle has a definite spin (either up or down) along the axis of measurement. The outcome is taken to be random, with each possibility having a probability of 50%. However, if both spins are measured along the same axis, they are found to be anti-correlated. This means that the random outcome of the measurement made on one particle seems to have been transmitted to the other, so that it can make the "right choice" when it too is measured.[31]

The distance and timing of the measurements can be chosen so as to make the interval between the two measurements spacelike, hence, any causal effect connecting the events would have to travel faster than light. According to the principles of special relativity, it is not possible for any information to travel between two such measuring events. It is not even possible to say which of the measurements came first. For two spacelike separated events x1 and x2 there are inertial frames in which x1 is first and others in which x2 is first. Therefore, the correlation between the two measurements cannot be explained as one measurement determining the other: different observers would disagree about the role of cause and effect.

(In fact similar paradoxes can arise even without entanglement: the position of a single particle is spread out over space, and two widely separated detectors attempting to detect the particle in two different places must instantaneously attain appropriate correlation, so that they do not both detect the particle.)

Hidden variables theory
A possible resolution to the paradox is to assume that quantum theory is incomplete, and the result of measurements depends on predetermined "hidden variables".[32] The state of the particles being measured contains some hidden variables, whose values effectively determine, right from the moment of separation, what the outcomes of the spin measurements are going to be. This would mean that each particle carries all the required information with it, and nothing needs to be transmitted from one particle to the other at the time of measurement. Einstein and others (see the previous section) originally believed this was the only way out of the paradox, and the accepted quantum mechanical description (with a random measurement outcome) must be incomplete.

Violations of Bell's inequality
Local hidden variable theories fail, however, when measurements of the spin of entangled particles along different axes are considered. If a large number of pairs of such measurements are made (on a large number of pairs of entangled particles), then statistically, if the local realist or hidden variables view were correct, the results would always satisfy Bell's inequality. A number of experiments have shown in practice that Bell's inequality is not satisfied. However, prior to 2015, all of these had loophole problems that were considered the most important by the community of physicists.[33][34] When measurements of the entangled particles are made in moving relativistic reference frames, in which each measurement (in its own relativistic time frame) occurs before the other, the measurement results remain correlated.[35][36]

The fundamental issue about measuring spin along different axes is that these measurements cannot have definite values at the same time―they are incompatible in the sense that these measurements' maximum simultaneous precision is constrained by the uncertainty principle. This is contrary to what is found in classical physics, where any number of properties can be measured simultaneously with arbitrary accuracy. It has been proven mathematically that compatible measurements cannot show Bell-inequality-violating correlations,[37] and thus entanglement is a fundamentally non-classical phenomenon.

Notable experimental results proving quantum entanglement
The first experiment that verified Einstein's spooky action at a distance or entanglement was successfully corroborated in a lab by Chien-Shiung Wu and a colleague named I. Shaknov in 1949, and was published on new year's day in 1950. The result specifically proved the quantum correlations of a pair of photons.[38] In experiments in 2012 and 2013, polarization correlation was created between photons that never coexisted in time.[39][40] The authors claimed that this result was achieved by entanglement swapping between two pairs of entangled photons after measuring the polarization of one photon of the early pair, and that it proves that quantum non-locality applies not only to space but also to time.

In three independent experiments in 2013 it was shown that classically communicated separable quantum states can be used to carry entangled states.[41] The first loophole-free Bell test was held in TU Delft in 2015 confirming the violation of Bell inequality.[42]

In August 2014, Brazilian researcher Gabriela Barreto Lemos and team were able to "take pictures" of objects using photons that had not interacted with the subjects, but were entangled with photons that did interact with such objects. Lemos, from the University of Vienna, is confident that this new quantum imaging technique could find application where low light imaging is imperative, in fields like biological or medical imaging.[43]

From 2016 various companies like IBM, Microsoft etc. have successfully created quantum computers and allowed developers and tech enthusiasts to openly experiment with concepts of quantum mechanics including quantum entanglement.[44]

Mystery of time
There have been suggestions to look at the concept of time as an emergent phenomenon that is a side effect of quantum entanglement.[45][46] In other words, time is an entanglement phenomenon, which places all equal clock readings (of correctly prepared clocks, or of any objects usable as clocks) into the same history. This was first fully theorized by Don Page and William Wootters in 1983.[47] The Wheeler–DeWitt equation that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics – by leaving out time altogether – was introduced in the 1960s and it was taken up again in 1983, when Page and Wootters made a solution based on quantum entanglement. Page and Wootters argued that entanglement can be used to measure time.[48]

Emergent gravity
Based on AdS/CFT correspondence, Mark Van Raamsdonk suggested that spacetime arises as an emergent phenomenon of the quantum degrees of freedom that are entangled and live in the boundary of the space-time.[49] Induced gravity can emerge from the entanglement first law.[50][51]

Non-locality and entanglement
In the media and popular science, quantum non-locality is often portrayed as being equivalent to entanglement. While this is true for pure bipartite quantum states, in general entanglement is only necessary for non-local correlations, but there exist mixed entangled states that do not produce such correlations.[52] A well-known example is the Werner states that are entangled for certain values of {\displaystyle p_{sym}}p_{sym}, but can always be described using local hidden variables.[53] Moreover, it was shown that, for arbitrary numbers of parties, there exist states that are genuinely entangled but admit a local model.[54] The mentioned proofs about the existence of local models assume that there is only one copy of the quantum state available at a time. If the parties are allowed to perform local measurements on many copies of such states, then many apparently local states (e.g., the qubit Werner states) can no longer be described by a local model. This is, in particular, true for all distillable states. However, it remains an open question whether all entangled states become non-local given sufficiently many copies.[55]

In short, entanglement of a state shared by two parties is necessary but not sufficient for that state to be non-local. It is important to recognize that entanglement is more commonly viewed as an algebraic concept, noted for being a prerequisite to non-locality as well as to quantum teleportation and to superdense coding, whereas non-locality is defined according to experimental statistics and is much more involved with the foundations and interpretations of quantum mechanics.[56]

Quantum mechanical framework
The following subsections are for those with a good working knowledge of the formal, mathematical description of quantum mechanics, including familiarity with the formalism and theoretical framework developed in the articles: bra–ket notation and mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics.

Pure states
Consider two arbitrary quantum systems A and B, with respective Hilbert spaces HA and HB. The Hilbert space of the composite system is the tensor product

{\displaystyle H_{A}\otimes H_{B}.} H_A \otimes H_B.
If the first system is in state {\displaystyle \scriptstyle |\psi \rangle _{A}}\scriptstyle| \psi \rangle_A and the second in state {\displaystyle \scriptstyle |\phi \rangle _{B}}\scriptstyle| \phi \rangle_B, the state of the composite system is

{\displaystyle |\psi \rangle _{A}\otimes |\phi \rangle _{B}.}|\psi\rangle_A \otimes |\phi\rangle_B.
States of the composite system that can be represented in this form are called separable states, or product states.

Not all states are separable states (and thus product states). Fix a basis {\displaystyle \scriptstyle \{|i\rangle _{A}\}}\scriptstyle \{|i \rangle_A\} for HA and a basis {\displaystyle \scriptstyle \{|j\rangle _{B}\}}\scriptstyle \{|j \rangle_B\} for HB. The most general state in HA ⊗ HB is of the form

{\displaystyle |\psi \rangle _{AB}=\sum _{i,j}c_{ij}|i\rangle _{A}\otimes |j\rangle _{B}}|\psi\rangle_{AB} = \sum_{i,j} c_{ij} |i\rangle_A \otimes |j\rangle_B.
This state is separable if there exist vectors {\displaystyle \scriptstyle [c_{i}^{A}],[c_{j}^{B}]}{\displaystyle \scriptstyle [c_{i}^{A}],[c_{j}^{B}]} so that {\displaystyle \scriptstyle c_{ij}=c_{i}^{A}c_{j}^{B},}\scriptstyle c_{ij}= c^A_ic^B_j, yielding {\displaystyle \scriptstyle |\psi \rangle _{A}=\sum _{i}c_{i}^{A}|i\rangle _{A}}\scriptstyle |\psi\rangle_A = \sum_{i} c^A_{i} |i\rangle_A and {\displaystyle \scriptstyle |\phi \rangle _{B}=\sum _{j}c_{j}^{B}|j\rangle _{B}.}\scriptstyle |\phi\rangle_B = \sum_{j} c^B_{j} |j\rangle_B. It is inseparable if for any vectors {\displaystyle \scriptstyle [c_{i}^{A}],[c_{j}^{B}]}\scriptstyle [c^A_i],[c^B_j] at least for one pair of coordinates {\displaystyle \scriptstyle c_{i}^{A},c_{j}^{B}}\scriptstyle c^A_i,c^B_j we have {\displaystyle \scriptstyle c_{ij}\neq c_{i}^{A}c_{j}^{B}.}\scriptstyle c_{ij} \neq c^A_ic^B_j. If a state is inseparable, it is called an 'entangled state'.

For example, given two basis vectors {\displaystyle \scriptstyle \{|0\rangle _{A},|1\rangle _{A}\}}\scriptstyle \{|0\rangle_A, |1\rangle_A\} of HA and two basis vectors {\displaystyle \scriptstyle \{|0\rangle _{B},|1\rangle _{B}\}}\scriptstyle \{|0\rangle_B, |1\rangle_B\} of HB, the following is an entangled state:

{\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}\left(|0\rangle _{A}\otimes |1\rangle _{B}-|1\rangle _{A}\otimes |0\rangle _{B}\right).}\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left ( |0\rangle_A \otimes |1\rangle_B - |1\rangle_A \otimes |0\rangle_B \right ).
If the composite system is in this state, it is impossible to attribute to either system A or system B a definite pure state. Another way to say this is that while the von Neumann entropy of the whole state is zero (as it is for any pure state), the entropy of the subsystems is greater than zero. In this sense, the systems are "entangled". This has specific empirical ramifications for interferometry.[57] The above example is one of four Bell states, which are (maximally) entangled pure states (pure states of the HA ⊗ HB space, but which cannot be separated into pure states of each HA and HB).

Now suppose Alice is an observer for system A, and Bob is an observer for system B. If in the entangled state given above Alice makes a measurement in the {\displaystyle \scriptstyle \{|0\rangle ,|1\rangle \}}\scriptstyle \{|0\rangle, |1\rangle\} eigenbasis of A, there are two possible outcomes, occurring with equal probability:[58]

Alice measures 0, and the state of the system collapses to {\displaystyle \scriptstyle |0\rangle _{A}|1\rangle _{B}}\scriptstyle |0\rangle_A |1\rangle_B.
Alice measures 1, and the state of the system collapses to {\displaystyle \scriptstyle |1\rangle _{A}|0\rangle _{B}}\scriptstyle |1\rangle_A |0\rangle_B.
If the former occurs, then any subsequent measurement performed by Bob, in the same basis, will always return 1. If the latter occurs, (Alice measures 1) then Bob's measurement will return 0 with certainty. Thus, system B has been altered by Alice performing a local measurement on system A. This remains true even if the systems A and B are spatially separated. This is the foundation of the EPR paradox.

The outcome of Alice's measurement is random. Alice cannot decide which state to collapse the composite system into, and therefore cannot transmit information to Bob by acting on her system. Causality is thus preserved, in this particular scheme. For the general argument, see no-communication theorem.

Ensembles
As mentioned above, a state of a quantum system is given by a unit vector in a Hilbert space. More generally, if one has less information about the system, then one calls it an 'ensemble' and describes it by a density matrix, which is a positive-semidefinite matrix, or a trace class when the state space is infinite-dimensional, and has trace 1. Again, by the spectral theorem, such a matrix takes the general form:

{\displaystyle \rho =\sum _{i}w_{i}|\alpha _{i}\rangle \langle \alpha _{i}|,}\rho = \sum_i w_i |\alpha_i\rangle \langle\alpha_i|,
where the wi are positive-valued probabilities (they sum up to 1), the vectors αi are unit vectors, and in the infinite-dimensional case, we would take the closure of such states in the trace norm. We can interpret ρ as representing an ensemble where wi is the proportion of the ensemble whose states are {\displaystyle |\alpha _{i}\rangle }|\alpha_i\rangle. When a mixed state has rank 1, it therefore describes a 'pure ensemble'. When there is less than total information about the state of a quantum system we need density matrices to represent the state.

Experimentally, a mixed ensemble might be realized as follows. Consider a "black box" apparatus that spits electrons towards an observer. The electrons' Hilbert spaces are identical. The apparatus might produce electrons that are all in the same state; in this case, the electrons received by the observer are then a pure ensemble. However, the apparatus could produce electrons in different states. For example, it could produce two populations of electrons: one with state {\displaystyle |\mathbf {z} +\rangle }|\mathbf{z}+\rangle with spins aligned in the positive z direction, and the other with state {\displaystyle |\mathbf {y} -\rangle }|\mathbf{y}-\rangle with spins aligned in the negative y direction. Generally, this is a mixed ensemble, as there can be any number of populations, each corresponding to a different state.

Following the definition above, for a bipartite composite system, mixed states are just density matrices on HA ⊗ HB. That is, it has the general form

{\displaystyle \rho =\sum _{i}w_{i}\left[\sum _{j}{\bar {c}}_{ij}(|\alpha _{ij}\rangle \otimes |\beta _{ij}\rangle )\right]\left[\sum _{k}c_{ik}(\langle \alpha _{ik}|\otimes \langle \beta _{ik}|)\right]}{\displaystyle \rho =\sum _{i}w_{i}\left[\sum _{j}{\bar {c}}_{ij}(|\alpha _{ij}\rangle \otimes |\beta _{ij}\rangle )\right]\left[\sum _{k}c_{ik}(\langle \alpha _{ik}|\otimes \langle \beta _{ik}|)\right]}
where the wi are positively valued probabilities, {\displaystyle \sum _{j}|c_{ij}|^{2}=1}\sum _{j}|c_{{ij}}|^{2}=1, and the vectors are unit vectors. This is self-adjoint and positive and has trace 1.

Extending the definition of separability from the pure case, we say that a mixed state is separable if it can be written as[59]: 131–132

{\displaystyle \rho =\sum _{i}w_{i}\rho _{i}^{A}\otimes \rho _{i}^{B},}\rho =\sum _{i}w_{i}\rho _{i}^{A}\otimes \rho _{i}^{B},
where the wi are positively valued probabilities and the {\displaystyle \rho _{i}^{A}}\rho_i^A's and {\displaystyle \rho _{i}^{B}}\rho_i^B's are themselves mixed states (density operators) on the subsystems A and B respectively. In other words, a state is separable if it is a probability distribution over uncorrelated states, or product states. By writing the density matrices as sums of pure ensembles and expanding, we may assume without loss of generality that {\displaystyle \rho _{i}^{A}}\rho_i^A and {\displaystyle \rho _{i}^{B}}\rho_i^B are themselves pure ensembles. A state is then said to be entangled if it is not separable.

In general, finding out whether or not a mixed state is entangled is considered difficult. The general bipartite case has been shown to be NP-hard.[60] For the 2 × 2 and 2 × 3 cases, a necessary and sufficient criterion for separability is given by the famous Positive Partial Transpose (PPT) condition.[61]

Reduced density matrices
The idea of a reduced density matrix was introduced by Paul Dirac in 1930.[62] Consider as above systems A and B each with a Hilbert space HA, HB. Let the state of the composite system be

{\displaystyle |\Psi \rangle \in H_{A}\otimes H_{B}.} |\Psi \rangle \in H_A \otimes H_B.
As indicated above, in general there is no way to associate a pure state to the component system A. However, it still is possible to associate a density matrix. Let

{\displaystyle \rho _{T}=|\Psi \rangle \;\langle \Psi |}\rho_T = |\Psi\rangle \; \langle\Psi|.
which is the projection operator onto this state. The state of A is the partial trace of ρT over the basis of system B:

{\displaystyle \rho _{A}\ {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\ \sum _{j}^{N_{B}}\left(I_{A}\otimes \langle j|_{B}\right)\left(|\Psi \rangle \langle \Psi |\right)\left(I_{A}\otimes |j\rangle _{B}\right)={\hbox{Tr}}_{B}\;\rho _{T}.}{\displaystyle \rho _{A}\ {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\ \sum _{j}^{N_{B}}\left(I_{A}\otimes \langle j|_{B}\right)\left(|\Psi \rangle \langle \Psi |\right)\left(I_{A}\otimes |j\rangle _{B}\right)={\hbox{Tr}}_{B}\;\rho _{T}.}
The sum occurs over {\displaystyle N_{B}:=dim(H_{B})}{\displaystyle N_{B}:=dim(H_{B})} and {\displaystyle I_{A}}I_{A} the identity operator in {\displaystyle H_{A}}H_A. ρA is sometimes called the reduced density matrix of ρ on subsystem A. Colloquially, we "trace out" system B to obtain the reduced density matrix on A.

For example, the reduced density matrix of A for the entangled state

{\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}\left(|0\rangle _{A}\otimes |1\rangle _{B}-|1\rangle _{A}\otimes |0\rangle _{B}\right),}\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left ( |0\rangle_A \otimes |1\rangle_B - |1\rangle_A \otimes |0\rangle_B \right),
discussed above is

{\displaystyle \rho _{A}={\tfrac {1}{2}}\left(|0\rangle _{A}\langle 0|_{A}+|1\rangle _{A}\langle 1|_{A}\right)}\rho_A = \tfrac{1}{2} \left ( |0\rangle_A \langle 0|_A + |1\rangle_A \langle 1|_A \right )
This demonstrates that, as expected, the reduced density matrix for an entangled pure ensemble is a mixed ensemble. Also not surprisingly, the density matrix of A for the pure product state {\displaystyle |\psi \rangle _{A}\otimes |\phi \rangle _{B}}|\psi\rangle_A \otimes |\phi\rangle_B discussed above is

{\displaystyle \rho _{A}=|\psi \rangle _{A}\langle \psi |_{A}}{\displaystyle \rho _{A}=|\psi \rangle _{A}\langle \psi |_{A}}.
In general, a bipartite pure state ρ is entangled if and only if its reduced states are mixed rather than pure.

Two applications that use them
Reduced density matrices were explicitly calculated in different spin chains with unique ground state. An example is the one-dimensional AKLT spin chain:[63] the ground state can be divided into a block and an environment. The reduced density matrix of the block is proportional to a projector to a degenerate ground state of another Hamiltonian.

The reduced density matrix also was evaluated for XY spin chains, where it has full rank. It was proved that in the thermodynamic limit, the spectrum of the reduced density matrix of a large block of spins is an exact geometric sequence[64] in this case.

Entanglement as a resource
In quantum information theory, entangled states are considered a 'resource', i.e., something costly to produce and that allows to implement valuable transformations. The setting in which this perspective is most evident is that of "distant labs", i.e., two quantum systems labeled "A" and "B" on each of which arbitrary quantum operations can be performed, but which do not interact with each other quantum mechanically. The only interaction allowed is the exchange of classical information, which combined with the most general local quantum operations gives rise to the class of operations called LOCC (local operations and classical communication). These operations do not allow the production of entangled states between the systems A and B. But if A and B are provided with a supply of entangled states, then these, together with LOCC operations can enable a larger class of transformations. For example, an interaction between a qubit of A and a qubit of B can be realized by first teleporting A's qubit to B, then letting it interact with B's qubit (which is now a LOCC operation, since both qubits are in B's lab) and then teleporting the qubit back to A. Two maximally entangled states of two qubits are used up in this process. Thus entangled states are a resource that enables the realization of quantum interactions (or of quantum channels) in a setting where only LOCC are available, but they are consumed in the process. There are other applications where entanglement can be seen as a resource, e.g., private communication or distinguishing quantum states.[65]

Classification of entanglement
Not all quantum states are equally valuable as a resource. To quantify this value, different entanglement measures (see below) can be used, that assign a numerical value to each quantum state. However, it is often interesting to settle for a coarser way to compare quantum states. This gives rise to different classification schemes. Most entanglement classes are defined based on whether states can be converted to other states using LOCC or a subclass of these operations. The smaller the set of allowed operations, the finer the classification. Important examples are:

If two states can be transformed into each other by a local unitary operation, they are said to be in the same LU class. This is the finest of the usually considered classes. Two states in the same LU class have the same value for entanglement measures and the same value as a resource in the distant-labs setting. There is an infinite number of different LU classes (even in the simplest case of two qubits in a pure state).[66][67]
If two states can be transformed into each other by local operations including measurements with probability larger than 0, they are said to be in the same 'SLOCC class' ("stochastic LOCC"). Qualitatively, two states {\displaystyle \rho _{1}}\rho _{1} and {\displaystyle \rho _{2}}\rho _{2} in the same SLOCC class are equally powerful (since I can transform one into the other and then do whatever it allows me to do), but since the transformations {\displaystyle \rho _{1}\to \rho _{2}}{\displaystyle \rho _{1}\to \rho _{2}} and {\displaystyle \rho _{2}\to \rho _{1}}{\displaystyle \rho _{2}\to \rho _{1}} may succeed with different probability, they are no longer equally valuable. E.g., for two pure qubits there are only two SLOCC classes: the entangled states (which contains both the (maximally entangled) Bell states and weakly entangled states like {\displaystyle |00\rangle +0.01|11\rangle }{\displaystyle |00\rangle +0.01|11\rangle }) and the separable ones (i.e., product states like {\displaystyle |00\rangle }|00\rangle ).[68][69]
Instead of considering transformations of single copies of a state (like {\displaystyle \rho _{1}\to \rho _{2}}{\displaystyle \rho _{1}\to \rho _{2}}) one can define classes based on the possibility of multi-copy transformations. E.g., there are examples when {\displaystyle \rho _{1}\to \rho _{2}}{\displaystyle \rho _{1}\to \rho _{2}} is impossible by LOCC, but {\displaystyle \rho _{1}\otimes \rho _{1}\to \rho _{2}}{\displaystyle \rho _{1}\otimes \rho _{1}\to \rho _{2}} is possible. A very important (and very coarse) classification is based on the property whether it is possible to transform an arbitrarily large number of copies of a state {\displaystyle \rho }\rho into at least one pure entangled state. States that have this property are called distillable. These states are the most useful quantum states since, given enough of them, they can be transformed (with local operations) into any entangled state and hence allow for all possible uses. It came initially as a surprise that not all entangled states are distillable, those that are not are called 'bound entangled'.[70][65]
A different entanglement classification is based on what the quantum correlations present in a state allow A and B to do: one distinguishes three subsets of entangled states: (1) the non-local states, which produce correlations that cannot be explained by a local hidden variable model and thus violate a Bell inequality, (2) the steerable states that contain sufficient correlations for A to modify ("steer") by local measurements the conditional reduced state of B in such a way, that A can prove to B that the state they possess is indeed entangled, and finally (3) those entangled states that are neither non-local nor steerable. All three sets are non-empty.[71]

Entropy
In this section, the entropy of a mixed state is discussed as well as how it can be viewed as a measure of quantum entanglement.

Definition

The plot of von Neumann entropy Vs Eigenvalue for a bipartite 2-level pure state. When the eigenvalue has value .5, von Neumann entropy is at a maximum, corresponding to maximum entanglement.
In classical information theory H, the Shannon entropy, is associated to a probability distribution,{\displaystyle p_{1},\cdots ,p_{n}}p_1, \cdots, p_n, in the following way:[72]

{\displaystyle H(p_{1},\cdots ,p_{n})=-\sum _{i}p_{i}\log _{2}p_{i}.}H(p_1, \cdots, p_n ) = - \sum_i p_i \log_2 p_i.
Since a mixed state ρ is a probability distribution over an ensemble, this leads naturally to the definition of the von Neumann entropy:

{\displaystyle S(\rho )=-{\hbox{Tr}}\left(\rho \log _{2}{\rho }\right).}S(\rho) = - \hbox{Tr} \left( \rho \log_2 {\rho} \right).
In general, one uses the Borel functional calculus to calculate a non-polynomial function such as log2(ρ). If the nonnegative operator ρ acts on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space and has eigenvalues {\displaystyle \lambda _{1},\cdots ,\lambda _{n}}\lambda_1, \cdots, \lambda_n, log2(ρ) turns out to be nothing more than the operator with the same eigenvectors, but the eigenvalues {\displaystyle \log _{2}(\lambda _{1}),\cdots ,\log _{2}(\lambda _{n})}\log _{2}(\lambda _{1}),\cdots ,\log _{2}(\lambda _{n}). The Shannon entropy is then:

{\displaystyle S(\rho )=-{\hbox{Tr}}\left(\rho \log _{2}{\rho }\right)=-\sum _{i}\lambda _{i}\log _{2}\lambda _{i}}S(\rho) = - \hbox{Tr} \left( \rho \log_2 {\rho} \right) = - \sum_i \lambda_i \log_2 \lambda_i.
Since an event of probability 0 should not contribute to the entropy, and given that

{\displaystyle \lim _{p\to 0}p\log p=0,} \lim_{p \to 0} p \log p = 0,
the convention 0 log(0) = 0 is adopted. This extends to the infinite-dimensional case as well: if ρ has spectral resolution

{\displaystyle \rho =\int \lambda dP_{\lambda },} \rho = \int \lambda d P_{\lambda},
assume the same convention when calculating

{\displaystyle \rho \log _{2}\rho =\int \lambda \log _{2}\lambda dP_{\lambda }.} \rho \log_2 \rho = \int \lambda \log_2 \lambda d P_{\lambda}.
As in statistical mechanics, the more uncertainty (number of microstates) the system should possess, the larger the entropy. For example, the entropy of any pure state is zero, which is unsurprising since there is no uncertainty about a system in a pure state. The entropy of any of the two subsystems of the entangled state discussed above is log(2) (which can be shown to be the maximum entropy for 2 × 2 mixed states).

As a measure of entanglement
Entropy provides one tool that can be used to quantify entanglement, although other entanglement measures exist.[73] If the overall system is pure, the entropy of one subsystem can be used to measure its degree of entanglement with the other subsystems.

For bipartite pure states, the von Neumann entropy of reduced states is the unique measure of entanglement in the sense that it is the only function on the family of states that satisfies certain axioms required of an entanglement measure[citation needed].

It is a classical result that the Shannon entropy achieves its maximum at, and only at, the uniform probability distribution {1/n,...,1/n}. Therefore, a bipartite pure state ρ ∈ HA ⊗ HB is said to be a maximally entangled state if the reduced state of each subsystem of ρ is the diagonal matrix

{\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}{\frac {1}{n}}&&\\&\ddots &\\&&{\frac {1}{n}}\end{bmatrix}}.}\begin{bmatrix} \frac{1}{n}& & \\ & \ddots & \\ & & \frac{1}{n}\end{bmatrix}.
For mixed states, the reduced von Neumann entropy is not the only reasonable entanglement measure.

As an aside, the information-theoretic definition is closely related to entropy in the sense of statistical mechanics[citation needed] (comparing the two definitions in the present context, it is customary to set the Boltzmann constant k = 1). For example, by properties of the Borel functional calculus, we see that for any unitary operator U,

{\displaystyle S(\rho )=S\left(U\rho U^{*}\right).}S(\rho) = S \left (U \rho U^* \right).
Indeed, without this property, the von Neumann entropy would not be well-defined.

In particular, U could be the time evolution operator of the system, i.e.,

{\displaystyle U(t)=\exp \left({\frac {-iHt}{\hbar }}\right),}U(t) = \exp \left(\frac{-i H t }{\hbar}\right),
where H is the Hamiltonian of the system. Here the entropy is unchanged.

The reversibility of a process is associated with the resulting entropy change, i.e., a process is reversible if, and only if, it leaves the entropy of the system invariant. Therefore, the march of the arrow of time towards thermodynamic equilibrium is simply the growing spread of quantum entanglement.[74] This provides a connection between quantum information theory and thermodynamics.

Rényi entropy also can be used as a measure of entanglement.

Entanglement measures
Entanglement measures quantify the amount of entanglement in a (often viewed as a bipartite) quantum state. As aforementioned, entanglement entropy is the standard measure of entanglement for pure states (but no longer a measure of entanglement for mixed states). For mixed states, there are some entanglement measures in the literature[73] and no single one is standard.

Entanglement cost
Distillable entanglement
Entanglement of formation
Relative entropy of entanglement
Squashed entanglement
Logarithmic negativity
Most (but not all) of these entanglement measures reduce for pure states to entanglement entropy, and are difficult (NP-hard) to compute.[75]

Quantum field theory
The Reeh-Schlieder theorem of quantum field theory is sometimes seen as an analogue of quantum entanglement.

Applications
Entanglement has many applications in quantum information theory. With the aid of entanglement, otherwise impossible tasks may be achieved.

Among the best-known applications of entanglement are superdense coding and quantum teleportation.[76]

Most researchers believe that entanglement is necessary to realize quantum computing (although this is disputed by some).[77]

Entanglement is used in some protocols of quantum cryptography.[78][79] This is because the "shared noise" of entanglement makes for an excellent one-time pad. Moreover, since measurement of either member of an entangled pair destroys the entanglement they share, entanglement-based quantum cryptography allows the sender and receiver to more easily detect the presence of an interceptor.[citation needed]

In interferometry, entanglement is necessary for surpassing the standard quantum limit and achieving the Heisenberg limit.[80]

Entangled states
There are several canonical entangled states that appear often in theory and experiments.

For two qubits, the Bell states are

{\displaystyle |\Phi ^{\pm }\rangle ={\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}(|0\rangle _{A}\otimes |0\rangle _{B}\pm |1\rangle _{A}\otimes |1\rangle _{B})}|\Phi^\pm\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|0\rangle_A \otimes |0\rangle_B \pm |1\rangle_A \otimes |1\rangle_B)
{\displaystyle |\Psi ^{\pm }\rangle ={\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}(|0\rangle _{A}\otimes |1\rangle _{B}\pm |1\rangle _{A}\otimes |0\rangle _{B})}|\Psi^\pm\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|0\rangle_A \otimes |1\rangle_B \pm |1\rangle_A \otimes |0\rangle_B).
These four pure states are all maximally entangled (according to the entropy of entanglement) and form an orthonormal basis (linear algebra) of the Hilbert space of the two qubits. They play a fundamental role in Bell's theorem.

For M>2 qubits, the GHZ state is

{\displaystyle |\mathrm {GHZ} \rangle ={\frac {|0\rangle ^{\otimes M}+|1\rangle ^{\otimes M}}{\sqrt {2}}},}|\mathrm{GHZ}\rangle = \frac{|0\rangle^{\otimes M} + |1\rangle^{\otimes M}}{\sqrt{2}},
which reduces to the Bell state {\displaystyle |\Phi ^{+}\rangle }|\Phi^+\rangle for {\displaystyle M=2}M=2. The traditional GHZ state was defined for {\displaystyle M=3}M=3. GHZ states are occasionally extended to qudits, i.e., systems of d rather than 2 dimensions.

Also for M>2 qubits, there are spin squeezed states.[81] Spin squeezed states are a class of squeezed coherent states satisfying certain restrictions on the uncertainty of spin measurements, and are necessarily entangled.[82] Spin squeezed states are good candidates for enhancing precision measurements using quantum entanglement.[83]

For two bosonic modes, a NOON state is

{\displaystyle |\psi _{\text{NOON}}\rangle ={\frac {|N\rangle _{a}|0\rangle _{b}+|{0}\rangle _{a}|{N}\rangle _{b}}{\sqrt {2}}},\,}|\psi_\text{NOON} \rangle = \frac{|N \rangle_a |0\rangle_b + |{0}\rangle_a |{N}\rangle_b}{\sqrt{2}}, \,
This is like the Bell state {\displaystyle |\Psi ^{+}\rangle }|\Psi ^{+}\rangle except the basis kets 0 and 1 have been replaced with "the N photons are in one mode" and "the N photons are in the other mode".

Finally, there also exist twin Fock states for bosonic modes, which can be created by feeding a Fock state into two arms leading to a beam splitter. They are the sum of multiple of NOON states, and can used to achieve the Heisenberg limit.[84]

For the appropriately chosen measure of entanglement, Bell, GHZ, and NOON states are maximally entangled while spin squeezed and twin Fock states are only partially entangled. The partially entangled states are generally easier to prepare experimentally.

Methods of creating entanglement
Entanglement is usually created by direct interactions between subatomic particles. These interactions can take numerous forms. One of the most commonly used methods is spontaneous parametric down-conversion to generate a pair of photons entangled in polarisation.[65] Other methods include the use of a fiber coupler to confine and mix photons, photons emitted from decay cascade of the bi-exciton in a quantum dot,[85] the use of the Hong–Ou–Mandel effect, etc. In the earliest tests of Bell's theorem, the entangled particles were generated using atomic cascades.

It is also possible to create entanglement between quantum systems that never directly interacted, through the use of entanglement swapping. Two independently prepared, identical particles may also be entangled if their wave functions merely spatially overlap, at least partially.[86]

Testing a system for entanglement
A density matrix ρ is called separable if it can be written as a convex sum of product states, namely

{\displaystyle \displaystyle {\rho =\sum _{j}p_{j}\rho _{j}^{(A)}\otimes \rho _{j}^{(B)}}}{\displaystyle \displaystyle {\rho =\sum _{j}p_{j}\rho _{j}^{(A)}\otimes \rho _{j}^{(B)}}}

with {\displaystyle 1\geq p_{j}\geq 0}{\displaystyle 1\geq p_{j}\geq 0} probabilities. By definition, a state is entangled if it is not separable.

For 2-Qubit and Qubit-Qutrit systems (2 × 2 and 2 × 3 respectively) the simple Peres–Horodecki criterion provides both a necessary and a sufficient criterion for separability, and thus—inadvertently—for detecting entanglement. However, for the general case, the criterion is merely a necessary one for separability, as the problem becomes NP-hard when generalized.[87][88] Other separability criteria include (but not limited to) the range criterion, reduction criterion, and those based on uncertainty relations.[89][90][91][92] See Ref.[93] for a review of separability criteria in discrete-variable systems and Ref.[94] for a review on techniques and challenges in experimental entanglement certification in discrete-variable systems.

A numerical approach to the problem is suggested by Jon Magne Leinaas, Jan Myrheim and Eirik Ovrum in their paper "Geometrical aspects of entanglement".[95] Leinaas et al. offer a numerical approach, iteratively refining an estimated separable state towards the target state to be tested, and checking if the target state can indeed be reached. An implementation of the algorithm (including a built-in Peres-Horodecki criterion testing) is "StateSeparator" web-app.

In continuous variable systems, the Peres-Horodecki criterion also applies. Specifically, Simon[96] formulated a particular version of the Peres-Horodecki criterion in terms of the second-order moments of canonical operators and showed that it is necessary and sufficient for {\displaystyle 1\oplus 1}1\oplus 1-mode Gaussian states (see Ref.[97] for a seemingly different but essentially equivalent approach). It was later found[98] that Simon's condition is also necessary and sufficient for {\displaystyle 1\oplus n}1\oplus n-mode Gaussian states, but no longer sufficient for {\displaystyle 2\oplus 2}2\oplus 2-mode Gaussian states. Simon's condition can be generalized by taking into account the higher order moments of canonical operators[99][100] or by using entropic measures.[101][102]

In 2016 China launched the world’s first quantum communications satellite.[103] The $100m Quantum Experiments at Space Scale (QUESS) mission was launched on Aug 16, 2016, from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in northern China at 01:40 local time.

For the next two years, the craft – nicknamed "Micius" after the ancient Chinese philosopher – will demonstrate the feasibility of quantum communication between Earth and space, and test quantum entanglement over unprecedented distances.

In the June 16, 2017, issue of Science, Yin et al. report setting a new quantum entanglement distance record of 1,203 km, demonstrating the survival of a two-photon pair and a violation of a Bell inequality, reaching a CHSH valuation of 2.37 ± 0.09, under strict Einstein locality conditions, from the Micius satellite to bases in Lijian, Yunnan and Delingha, Quinhai, increasing the efficiency of transmission over prior fiberoptic experiments by an order of magnitude.[104][105]

Naturally entangled systems
The electron shells of multi-electron atoms always consist of entangled electrons. The correct ionization energy can be calculated only by consideration of electron entanglement.[106]

Photosynthesis
It has been suggested that in the process of photosynthesis, entanglement is involved in the transfer of energy between light-harvesting complexes and photosynthetic reaction centers where light (energy) is harvested in the form of chemical energy. Without such a process, the efficient conversion of light into chemical energy cannot be explained. Using femtosecond spectroscopy, the coherence of entanglement in the Fenna-Matthews-Olson complex was measured over hundreds of femtoseconds (a relatively long time in this regard) providing support to this theory.[107][108] However, critical follow-up studies question the interpretation of these results and assign the reported signatures of electronic quantum coherence to nuclear dynamics in the chromophores or to the experiments being performed at cryogenic rather than physiological temperatures.[109][110][111][112][113][114][115]

Entanglement of macroscopic objects
In 2020 researchers reported the quantum entanglement between the motion of a millimetre-sized mechanical oscillator and a disparate distant spin system of a cloud of atoms.[116][117] Later work complemented this work by quantum-entangling two mechanical oscillators.[118][119][120]

Entanglement of elements of living systems
In October 2018, physicists reported producing quantum entanglement using living organisms, particularly between photosynthetic molecules within living bacteria and quantized light.[121][122]

Living organisms (green sulphur bacteria) have been studied as mediators to create quantum entanglement between otherwise non-interacting light modes, showing high entanglement between light and bacterial modes, and to some extent, even entanglement within the bacteria.[123]

 

[Deleted member 13787]

ON APRIL 1st, 1924, I began to serve my sentence of detention in the Fortress of Landsberg am Lech, following the verdict of the Munich People's Court of that time. After years of uninterrupted labour it was now possible for the first time to begin a work which many had asked for and which I myself felt would be profitable for the Movement. So I decided to devote two volumes to a description not only of the aims of our Movement but also of its development. There is more to be learned from this than from any purely doctrinaire treatise. This has also given me the opportunity of describing my own development in so far as such a description is necessary to the understanding of the first as well as the second volume and to destroy the legendary fabrications which the Jewish Press have circulated about me. In this work I turn not to strangers but to those followers of the Movement whose hearts belong to it and who wish to study it more profoundly. I know that fewer people are won over by the written word than by the spoken word and that every great movement on this earth owes its growth to great speakers and not to great writers. Nevertheless, in order to produce more equality and uniformity in the defence of any doctrine, its fundamental principles must be committed to writing. May these two volumes therefore serve as the building stones which I contribute to the joint work. The Fortress, Landsberg am Lech. At half-past twelve in the afternoon of November 9th, 1923, those whose names are given below fell in front of the FELDHERRNHALLE and in the forecourt of the former War Ministry in Munich for their loyal faith in the resurrection of their people: • Alfarth, Felix, Merchant, born July 5th, 1901 • Bauriedl, Andreas, Hatmaker, born May 4th, 1879 • Casella, Theodor, Bank Official, born August 8th, 1900 • Ehrlich, Wilhelm, Bank Official, born August 19th, 1894 • Faust, Martin, Bank Official, born January 27th, 1901 • Hechenberger, Anton, Locksmith, born September 28th, 1902 • Koerner, Oskar, Merchant, born January 4th, 1875 • Kuhn, Karl, Head Waiter, born July 25th, 1897 • Laforce, Karl, Student of Engineering, born October 28th, 1904 • Neubauer, Kurt, Waiter, born March 27th, 1899 • Pape, Claus von, Merchant, born August 16th, 1904 • Pfordten, Theodor von der, Councillor to the Superior Provincial Court, born May 14th, 1873 • Rickmers, Johann, retired Cavalry Captain, born May 7th, 1881 • Scheubner-Richter, Max Erwin von, Dr. of Engineering, born January 9th, 1884 • Stransky, Lorenz Ritter von, Engineer, born March 14th, 1899 • Wolf, Wilhelm, Merchant, born October 19th, 1898 So-called national officials refused to allow the dead heroes a common burial. So I dedicate the first volume of this work to them as a common memorial, that the memory of those martyrs may be a permanent source of light for the followers of our Movement. The Fortress, Landsberg a/L., October 16th, 1924 Translator's Introduction IN PLACING before the reader this unabridged translation of Adolf Hitler's book, MEIN KAMPF, I feel it my duty to call attention to certain historical facts which must be borne in mind if the reader would form a fair judgment of what is written in this extraordinary work. The first volume of MEIN KAMPF was written while the author was imprisoned in a Bavarian fortress. How did he get there and why? The answer to that question is important, because the book deals with the events which brought the author into this plight and because he wrote under the emotional stress caused by the historical happenings of the time. It was the hour of Germany's deepest humiliation, somewhat parallel to that of a little over a century before, when Napoleon had dismembered the old German Empire and French soldiers occupied almost the whole of Germany. In the beginning of 1923 the French invaded Germany, occupied the Ruhr district and seized several German towns in the Rhineland. This was a flagrant breach of international law and was protested against by every section of British political opinion at that time. The Germans could not effectively defend themselves, as they had been already disarmed under the provisions of the Versailles Treaty. To make the situation more fraught with disaster for Germany, and therefore more appalling in its prospect, the French carried on an intensive propaganda for the separation of the Rhineland from the German Republic and the establishment of an independent Rhenania. Money was poured out lavishly to bribe agitators to carry on this work, and some of the most insidious elements of the German population became active in the pay of the invader. At the same time a vigorous movement was being carried on in Bavaria for the secession of that country and the establishment of an independent Catholic monarchy there, under vassalage to France, as Napoleon had done when he made Maximilian the first King of Bavaria in 1805. The separatist movement in the Rhineland went so far that some leading German politicians came out in favour of it, suggesting that if the Rhineland were thus ceded it might be possible for the German Republic to strike a bargain with the French in regard to Reparations. But in Bavaria the movement went even farther. And it was more farreaching in its implications; for, if an independent Catholic monarchy could be set up in Bavaria, the next move would have been a union with Catholic German-Austria. possibly under a Habsburg King. Thus a Catholic BLOC would have been created which would extend from the Rhineland through Bavaria and Austria into the Danube Valley and would have been at least under the moral and military, if not the full political, hegemony of France. The dream seems fantastic now, but it was considered quite a practical thing in those fantastic times. The effect of putting such a plan into action would have meant the complete dismemberment of Germany; and that is what French diplomacy aimed at. Of course such an aim no longer exists. And I should not recall what must now seem "old, unhappy, far-off things" to the modern generation, were it not that they were very near and actual at the time MEIN KAMPF was written and were more unhappy then than we can even imagine now. By the autumn of 1923 the separatist movement in Bavaria was on the point of becoming an accomplished fact. General von Lossow, the Bavarian chief of the REICHSWEHR no longer took orders from Berlin. The flag of the German Republic was rarely to be seen. Finally, the Bavarian Prime Minister decided to proclaim an independent Bavaria and its secession from the German Republic. This was to have taken place on the eve of the Fifth Anniversary of the establishment of the German Republic (November 9th, 1918.) Hitler staged a counter-stroke. For several days he had been mobilizing his storm battalions in the neighbourhood of Munich, intending to make a national demonstration and hoping that the REICHSWEHR would stand by him to prevent secession. Ludendorff was with him. And he thought that the prestige of the great German Commander in the World War would be sufficient to win the allegiance of the professional army. A meeting had been announced to take place in the Bürgerbräu Keller on the night of November 8th. The Bavarian patriotic societies were gathered there, and the Prime Minister, Dr. von Kahr, started to read his official PRONUNCIAMENTO, which practically amounted to a proclamation of Bavarian independence and secession from the Republic. While von Kahr was speaking Hitler entered the hall, followed by Ludendorff. And the meeting was broken up. Next day the Nazi battalions took the street for the purpose of making a mass demonstration in favour of national union. They marched in massed formation, led by Hitler and Ludendorff. As they reached one of the central squares of the city the army opened fire on them. Sixteen of the marchers were instantly killed, and two died of their wounds in the local barracks of the REICHSWEHR. Several others were wounded also. Hitler fell on the pavement and broke a collar-bone. Ludendorff marched straight up to the soldiers who were firing from the barricade, but not a man dared draw a trigger on his old Commander. Hitler was arrested with several of his comrades and imprisoned in the fortress of Landsberg on the River Lech. On February 26th, 1924, he was brought to trial before the VOLKSGERICHT, or People's Court in Munich. He was sentenced to detention in a fortress for five years. With several companions, who had been also sentenced to various periods of imprisonment, he returned to Landsberg am Lech and remained there until the 20th of the following December, when he was released. In all he spent about thirteen months in prison. It was during this period that he wrote the first volume of MEIN KAMPF. If we bear all this in mind we can account for the emotional stress under which MEIN KAMPF was written. Hitler was naturally incensed against the Bavarian government authorities, against the footling patriotic societies who were pawns in the French game, though often unconsciously so, and of course against the French. That he should write harshly of the French was only natural in the circumstances. At that time there was no exaggeration whatsoever in calling France the implacable and mortal enemy of Germany. Such language was being used by even the pacifists themselves, not only in Germany but abroad. And even though the second volume of MEIN KAMPF was written after Hitler's release from prison and was published after the French had left the Ruhr, the tramp of the invading armies still echoed in German ears, and the terrible ravages that had been wrought in the industrial and financial life of Germany, as a consequence of the French invasion, had plunged the country into a state of social and economic chaos. In France itself the franc fell to fifty per cent of its previous value. Indeed, the whole of Europe had been brought to the brink of ruin, following the French invasion of the Ruhr and Rhineland. But, as those things belong to the limbo of a dead past that nobody wishes to have remembered now, it is often asked: Why doesn't Hitler revise MEIN KAMPF? The answer, as I think, which would immediately come into the mind of an impartial critic is that MEIN KAMPF is an historical document which bears the imprint of its own time. To revise it would involve taking it out of its historical context. Moreover Hitler has declared that his acts and public statements constitute a partial revision of his book and are to be taken as such. This refers especially to the statements in MEIN KAMPF regarding France and those German kinsfolk that have not yet been incorporated in the REICH. On behalf of Germany he has definitely acknowledged the German portion of South Tyrol as permanently belonging to Italy and, in regard to France, he has again and again declared that no grounds now exist for a conflict of political interests between Germany and France and that Germany has no territorial claims against France. Finally, I may note here that Hitler has also declared that, as he was only a political leader and not yet a statesman in a position of official responsibility, when he wrote this book, what he stated in MEIN KAMPF does not implicate him as Chancellor of the REICH. I now come to some references in the text which are frequently recurring and which may not always be clear to every reader. For instance, Hitler speaks indiscriminately of the German REICH. Sometimes he means to refer to the first REICH, or Empire, and sometimes to the German Empire as founded under William I in 1871. Incidentally the regime which he inaugurated in 1933 is generally known as the THIRD REICH, though this expression is not used in MEIN KAMPF. Hitler also speaks of the Austrian REICH and the East Mark, without always explicitly distinguishing between the Habsburg Empire and Austria proper. If the reader will bear the following historical outline in mind, he will understand the references as they occur. The word REICH, which is a German form of the Latin word REGNUM, does not mean Kingdom or Empire or Republic. It is a sort of basic word that may apply to any form of Constitution. Perhaps our word, Realm, would be the best translation, though the word Empire can be used when the REICH was actually an Empire. The forerunner of the first German Empire was the Holy Roman Empire which Charlemagne founded in A.D. 800. Charlemagne was King of the Franks, a group of Germanic tribes that subsequently became Romanized. In the tenth century Charlemagne's Empire passed into German hands when Otto I (936-973) became Emperor. As the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, its formal appellation, it continued to exist under German Emperors until Napoleon overran and dismembered Germany during the first decade of the last century. On August 6th, 1806, the last Emperor, Francis II, formally resigned the German crown. In the following October Napoleon entered Berlin in triumph, after the Battle of Jena. After the fall of Napoleon a movement set in for the reunion of the German states in one Empire. But the first decisive step towards that end was the foundation of the Second German Empire in 1871, after the Franco-Prussian War. This Empire, however, did not include the German lands which remained under the Habsburg Crown. These were known as German Austria. It was Bismarck's dream to unite German Austria with the German Empire; but it remained only a dream until Hitler turned it into a reality in 1938'. It is well to bear that point in mind, because this dream of reuniting all the German states in one REICH has been a dominant feature of German patriotism and statesmanship for over a century and has been one of Hitler's ideals since his childhood. In MEIN KAMPF Hitler often speaks of the East Mark. This East Mark--i.e. eastern frontier land--was founded by Charlemagne as the eastern bulwark of the Empire. It was inhabited principally by Germano-Celtic tribes called Bajuvari and stood for centuries as the firm bulwark of Western Christendom against invasion from the East, especially against the Turks. Geographically it was almost identical with German Austria. There are a few points more that I wish to mention in this introductory note. For instance, I have let the word WELTANSCHAUUNG stand in its original form very often. We have no one English word to convey the same meaning as the German word, and it would have burdened the text too much if I were to use a circumlocution each time the word occurs. WELTANSCHAUUNG literally means "Outlook-on-the World". But as generally used in German this outlook on the world means a whole system of ideas associated together in an organic unity--ideas of human life, human values, cultural and religious ideas, politics, economics, etc., in fact a totalitarian view of human existence. Thus Christianity could be called a WELTANSCHAUUNG, and Mohammedanism could be called a WELTANSCHAUUNG, and Socialism could be called a WELTANSCHAUUNG, especially as preached in Russia. National Socialism claims definitely to be a WELTANSCHAUUNG. Another word I have often left standing in the original is VÖLKISCH. The basic word here is VOLK, which is sometimes translated as PEOPLE; but the German word, VOLK, means the whole body of the PEOPLE without any distinction of class or caste. It is a primary word also that suggests what might be called the basic national stock. Now, after the defeat in 1918, the downfall of the Monarchy and the destruction of the aristocracy and the upper classes, the concept of DAS VOLK came into prominence as the unifying co-efficient which would embrace the whole German people. Hence the large number of VÖLKISCH societies that arose after the war and hence also the National Socialist concept of unification which is expressed by the word VOLKSGEMEINSCHAFT, or folk community. This is used in contradistinction to the Socialist concept of the nation as being divided into classes. Hitler's ideal is the VÖLKISCHER STAAT, which I have translated as the People's State. Finally, I would point out that the term Social Democracy may be misleading in English, as it has not a democratic connotation in our sense. It was the name given to the Socialist Party in Germany. And that Party was purely Marxist; but it adopted the name Social Democrat in order to appeal to the democratic sections of the German people. James Murphy Abbots Langley February, 1939 Volume I A Retrospect Chapter 1 In The Home Of My Parents IT HAS turned out fortunate for me to-day that destiny appointed Braunau-on-the-Inn to be my birthplace. For that little town is situated just on the frontier between those two States the reunion of which seems, at least to us of the younger generation, a task to which we should devote our lives and in the pursuit of which every possible means should be employed. German-Austria must be restored to the great German Motherland. And not indeed on any grounds of economic calculation whatsoever. No, no. Even if the union were a matter of economic indifference, and even if it were to be disadvantageous from the economic standpoint, still it ought to take place. People of the same blood should be in the same REICH. The German people will have no right to engage in a colonial policy until they shall have brought all their children together in the one State. When the territory of the REICH embraces all the Germans and finds itself unable to assure them a livelihood, only then can the moral right arise, from the need of the people to acquire foreign territory. The plough is then the sword; and the tears of war will produce the daily bread for the generations to come. And so this little frontier town appeared to me as the symbol of a great task. But in another regard also it points to a lesson that is applicable to our day. Over a hundred years ago this sequestered spot was the scene of a tragic calamity which affected the whole German nation and will be remembered for ever, at least in the annals of German history. At the time of our Fatherland's deepest humiliation a bookseller, Johannes Palm, uncompromising nationalist and enemy of the French, was put to death here because he had the misfortune to have loved Germany well. He obstinately refused to disclose the names of his associates, or rather the principals who were chiefly responsible for the affair. Just as it happened with Leo Schlageter. The former, like the latter, was denounced to the French by a Government agent. It was a director of police from Augsburg who won an ignoble renown on that occasion and set the example which was to be copied at a later date by the neo-German officials of the REICH under Herr Severing's regime (Note 1). In this little town on the Inn, haloed by the memory of a German martyr, a town that was Bavarian by blood but under the rule of the Austrian State, my parents were domiciled towards the end of the last century. My father was a civil servant who fulfilled his duties very conscientiously. My mother looked after the household and lovingly devoted herself to the care of her children. From that period I have not retained very much in my memory; because after a few years my father had to leave that frontier town which I had come to love so much and take up a new post farther down the Inn valley, at Passau, therefore actually in Germany itself. In those days it was the usual lot of an Austrian civil servant to be transferred periodically from one post to another. Not long after coming to Passau my father was transferred to Linz, and while there he retired finally to live on his pension. But this did not mean that the old gentleman would now rest from his labours. He was the son of a poor cottager, and while still a boy he grew restless and left home. When he was barely thirteen years old he buckled on his satchel and set forth from his native woodland parish. Despite the dissuasion of villagers who could speak from 'experience,' he went to Vienna to learn a trade there. This was in the fiftieth year of the last century. It was a sore trial, that of deciding to leave home and face the unknown, with three gulden in his pocket. By when the boy of thirteen was a lad of seventeen and had passed his apprenticeship examination as a craftsman he was not content. Quite the contrary. The persistent economic depression of that period and the constant want and misery strengthened his resolution to give up working at a trade and strive for 'something higher.' As a boy it had seemed to him that the position of the parish priest in his native village was the highest in the scale of human attainment; but now that the big city had enlarged his outlook the young man looked up to the dignity of a State official as the highest of all. With the tenacity of one whom misery and trouble had already made old when only half-way through his youth the young man of seventeen obstinately set out on his new project and stuck to it until he won through. He became a civil servant. He was about twenty-three years old, I think, when he succeeded in making himself what he had resolved to become. Thus he was able to fulfil the promise he had made as a poor boy not to return to his native village until he was 'somebody.' He had gained his end. But in the village there was nobody who had remembered him as a little boy, and the village itself had become strange to him. Now at last, when he was fifty-six years old, he gave up his active career; but he could not bear to be idle for a single day. On the outskirts of the small market town of Lambach in Upper Austria he bought a farm and tilled it himself. Thus, at the end of a long and hard-working career, he came back to the life which his father had led. It was at this period that I first began to have ideals of my own. I spent a good deal of time scampering about in the open, on the long road from school, and mixing up with some of the roughest of the boys, which caused my mother many anxious moments. All this tended to make me something quite the reverse of a stay-at-home. I gave scarcely any serious thought to the question of choosing a vocation in life; but I was certainly quite out of sympathy with the kind of career which my father had followed. I think that an inborn talent for speaking now began to develop and take shape during the more or less strenuous arguments which I used to have with my comrades. I had become a juvenile ringleader who learned well and easily at school but was rather difficult to manage. In my freetime I practised singing in the choir of the monastery church at Lambach, and thus it happened that I was placed in a very favourable position to be emotionally impressed again and again by the magnificent splendour of ecclesiastical ceremonial. What could be more natural for me than to look upon the Abbot as representing the highest human ideal worth striving for, just as the position of the humble village priest had appeared to my father in his own boyhood days? At least, that was my idea for a while. But the juvenile disputes I had with my father did not lead him to appreciate his son's oratorical gifts in such a way as to see in them a favourable promise for such a career, and so he naturally could not understand the boyish ideas I had in my head at that time. This contradiction in my character made him feel somewhat anxious. As a matter of fact, that transitory yearning after such a vocation soon gave way to hopes that were better suited to my temperament. Browsing through my father's books, I chanced to come across some publications that dealt with military subjects. One of these publications was a popular history of the Franco-German War of 1870-71. It consisted of two volumes of an illustrated periodical dating from those years. These became my favourite reading. In a little while that great and heroic conflict began to take first place in my mind. And from that time onwards I became more and more enthusiastic about everything that was in any way connected with war or military affairs. But this story of the Franco-German War had a special significance for me on other grounds also. For the first time, and as yet only in quite a vague way, the question began to present itself: Is there a difference--and if there be, what is it--between the Germans who fought that war and the other Germans? Why did not Austria also take part in it? Why did not my father and all the others fight in that struggle? Are we not the same as the other Germans? Do we not all belong together? That was the first time that this problem began to agitate my small brain. And from the replies that were given to the questions which I asked very tentatively, I was forced to accept the fact, though with a secret envy, that not all Germans had the good luck to belong to Bismarck's Empire. This was something that I could not understand. It was decided that I should study. Considering my character as a whole, and especially my temperament, my father decided that the classical subjects studied at the Lyceum were not suited to my natural talents. He thought that the REALSCHULE (Note 2) would suit me better. My obvious talent for drawing confirmed him in that view; for in his opinion drawing was a subject too much neglected in the Austrian GYMNASIUM. Probably also the memory of the hard road which he himself had travelled contributed to make him look upon classical studies as unpractical and accordingly to set little value on them. At the back of his mind he had the idea that his son also should become an official of the Government. Indeed he had decided on that career for me. The difficulties through which he had to struggle in making his own career led him to overestimate what he had achieved, because this was exclusively the result of his own indefatigable industry and energy. The characteristic pride of the self-made man urged him towards the idea that his son should follow the same calling and if possible rise to a higher position in it. Moreover, this idea was strengthened by the consideration that the results of his own life's industry had placed him in a position to facilitate his son's advancement in the same career. He was simply incapable of imagining that I might reject what had meant everything in life to him. My father's decision was simple, definite, clear and, in his eyes, it was something to be taken for granted. A man of such a nature who had become an autocrat by reason of his own hard struggle for existence, could not think of allowing 'inexperienced' and irresponsible young fellows to choose their own careers. To act in such a way, where the future of his own son was concerned, would have been a grave and reprehensible weakness in the exercise of parental authority and responsibility, something utterly incompatible with his characteristic sense of duty. And yet it had to be otherwise. For the first time in my life--I was then eleven years old--I felt myself forced into open opposition. No matter how hard and determined my father might be about putting his own plans and opinions into action, his son was no less obstinate in refusing to accept ideas on which he set little or no value. I would not become a civil servant. No amount of persuasion and no amount of 'grave' warnings could break down that opposition. I would not become a State official, not on any account. All the attempts which my father made to arouse in me a love or liking for that profession, by picturing his own career for me, had only the opposite effect. It nauseated me to think that one day I might be fettered to an office stool, that I could not dispose of my own time but would be forced to spend the whole of my life filling out forms. One can imagine what kind of thoughts such a prospect awakened in the mind of a young fellow who was by no means what is called a 'good boy' in the current sense of that term. The ridiculously easy school tasks which we were given made it possible for me to spend far more time in the open air than at home. To-day, when my political opponents pry into my life with diligent scrutiny, as far back as the days of my boyhood, so as finally to be able to prove what disreputable tricks this Hitler was accustomed to in his young days, I thank heaven that I can look back to those happy days and find the memory of them helpful. The fields and the woods were then the terrain on which all disputes were fought out. Even attendance at the REALSCHULE could not alter my way of spending my time. But I had now another battle to fight. So long as the paternal plan to make a State functionary contradicted my own inclinations only in the abstract, the conflict was easy to bear. I could be discreet about expressing my personal views and thus avoid constantly recurrent disputes. My own resolution not to become a Government official was sufficient for the time being to put my mind completely at rest. I held on to that resolution inexorably. But the situation became more difficult once I had a positive plan of my own which I might present to my father as a counter-suggestion. This happened when I was twelve years old. How it came about I cannot exactly say now; but one day it became clear to me that I would be a painter--I mean an artist. That I had an aptitude for drawing was an admitted fact. It was even one of the reasons why my father had sent me to the REALSCHULE; but he had never thought of having that talent developed in such a way that I could take up painting as a professional career. Quite the contrary. When, as a result of my renewed refusal to adopt his favourite plan, my father asked me for the first time what I myself really wished to be, the resolution that I had already formed expressed itself almost automatically. For a while my father was speechless. "A painter? An artist-painter?" he exclaimed. He wondered whether I was in a sound state of mind. He thought that he might not have caught my words rightly, or that he had misunderstood what I meant. But when I had explained my ideas to him and he saw how seriously I took them, he opposed them with that full determination which was characteristic of him. His decision was exceedingly simple and could not be deflected from its course by any consideration of what my own natural qualifications really were. "Artist! Not as long as I live, never." As the son had inherited some of the father's obstinacy, besides having other qualities of his own, my reply was equally energetic. But it stated something quite the contrary. At that our struggle became stalemate. The father would not abandon his 'Never', and I became all the more consolidated in my 'Nevertheless'. Naturally the resulting situation was not pleasant. The old gentleman was bitterly annoyed; and indeed so was I, although I really loved him. My father forbade me to entertain any hopes of taking up the art of painting as a profession. I went a step further and declared that I would not study anything else. With such declarations the situation became still more strained, so that the old gentleman irrevocably decided to assert his parental authority at all costs. That led me to adopt an attitude of circumspect silence, but I put my threat into execution. I thought that, once it became clear to my father that I was making no progress at the REALSCHULE, for weal or for woe, he would be forced to allow me to follow the happy career I had dreamed of. I do not know whether I calculated rightly or not. Certainly my failure to make progress became quite visible in the school. I studied just the subjects that appealed to me, especially those which I thought might be of advantage to me later on as a painter. What did not appear to have any importance from this point of view, or what did not otherwise appeal to me favourably, I completely sabotaged. My school reports of that time were always in the extremes of good or bad, according to the subject and the interest it had for me. In one column my qualification read 'very good' or 'excellent'. In another it read 'average' or even 'below average'. By far my best subjects were geography and, even more so, general history. These were my two favourite subjects, and I led the class in them. When I look back over so many years and try to judge the results of that experience I find two very significant facts standing out clearly before my mind. First, I became a nationalist. Second, I learned to understand and grasp the true meaning of history. The old Austria was a multi-national State. In those days at least the citizens of the German Empire, taken through and through, could not understand what that fact meant in the everyday life of the individuals within such a State. After the magnificent triumphant march of the victorious armies in the Franco-German War the Germans in the REICH became steadily more and more estranged from the Germans beyond their frontiers, partly because they did not deign to appreciate those other Germans at their true value or simply because they were incapable of doing so. The Germans of the REICH did not realize that if the Germans in Austria had not been of the best racial stock they could never have given the stamp of their own character to an Empire of 52 millions, so definitely that in Germany itself the idea arose--though quite an erroneous one--that Austria was a German State. That was an error which led to dire consequences; but all the same it was a magnificent testimony to the character of the ten million Germans in that East Mark. (Note 3) Only very few of the Germans in the REICH itself had an idea of the bitter struggle which those Eastern Germans had to carry on daily for the preservation of their German language, their German schools and their German character. Only to-day, when a tragic fate has torn several millions of our kinsfolk away from the REICH and has forced them to live under the rule of the stranger, dreaming of that common fatherland towards which all their yearnings are directed and struggling to uphold at least the sacred right of using their mother tongue- -only now have the wider circles of the German population come to realize what it means to have to fight for the traditions of one's race. And so at last perhaps there are people here and there who can assess the greatness of that German spirit which animated the old East Mark and enabled those people, left entirely dependent on their own resources, to defend the Empire against the Orient for several centuries and subsequently to hold fast the frontiers of the German language through a guerilla warfare of attrition, at a time when the German Empire was sedulously cultivating an interest for colonies but not for its own flesh and blood before the threshold of its own door. What has happened always and everywhere, in every kind of struggle, happened also in the language fight which was carried on in the old Austria. There were three groups-- the fighters, the hedgers and the traitors. Even in the schools this sifting already began to take place. And it is worth noting that the struggle for the language was waged perhaps in its bitterest form around the school; because this was the nursery where the seeds had to be watered which were to spring up and form the future generation. The tactical objective of the fight was the winning over of the child, and it was to the child that the first rallying cry was addressed: "German youth, do not forget that you are a German," and "Remember, little girl, that one day you must be a German mother." Those who know something of the juvenile spirit can understand how youth will always lend a glad ear to such a rallying cry. Under many forms the young people led the struggle, fighting in their own way and with their own weapons. They refused to sing non-German songs. The greater the efforts made to win them away from their German allegiance, the more they exalted the glory of their German heroes. They stinted themselves in buying things to eat, so that they might spare their pennies to help the war chest of their elders. They were incredibly alert in the significance of what the non-German teachers said and they contradicted in unison. They wore the forbidden emblems of their own kinsfolk and were happy when penalised for doing so, or even physically punished. In miniature they were mirrors of loyalty from which the older people might learn a lesson. And thus it was that at a comparatively early age I took part in the struggle which the nationalities were waging against one another in the old Austria. When meetings were held for the South Mark German League and the School League we wore cornflowers and black-red-gold colours to express our loyalty. We greeted one another with HEIL! and instead of the Austrian anthem we sang our own DEUTSCHLAND ÜBER ALLES, despite warnings and penalties. Thus the youth were educated politically at a time when the citizens of a so-called national State for the most part knew little of their own nationality except the language. Of course, I did not belong to the hedgers. Within a little while I had become an ardent 'German National', which has a different meaning from the party significance attached to that phrase to-day. I developed very rapidly in the nationalist direction, and by the time I was 15 years old I had come to understand the distinction between dynastic patriotism and nationalism based on the concept of folk, or people, my inclination being entirely in favour of the latter. Such a preference may not perhaps be clearly intelligible to those who have never taken the trouble to study the internal conditions that prevailed under the Habsburg Monarchy. Among historical studies universal history was the subject almost exclusively taught in the Austrian schools, for of specific Austrian history there was only very little. The fate of this State was closely bound up with the existence and development of Germany as a whole; so a division of history into German history and Austrian history would be practically inconceivable. And indeed it was only when the German people came to be divided between two States that this division of German history began to take place. The insignia (Note 4) of a former imperial sovereignty which were still preserved in Vienna appeared to act as magical relics rather than as the visible guarantee of an everlasting bond of union. When the Habsburg State crumbled to pieces in 1918 the Austrian Germans instinctively raised an outcry for union with their German fatherland. That was the voice of a unanimous yearning in the hearts of the whole people for a return to the unforgotten home of their fathers. But such a general yearning could not be explained except by attributing the cause of it to the historical training through which the individual Austrian Germans had passed. Therein lay a spring that never dried up. Especially in times of distraction and forgetfulness its quiet voice was a reminder of the past, bidding the people to look out beyond the mere welfare of the moment to a new future. The teaching of universal history in what are called the middle schools is still very unsatisfactory. Few teachers realize that the purpose of teaching history is not the memorizing of some dates and facts, that the student is not interested in knowing the exact date of a battle or the birthday of some marshal or other, and not at all--or at least only very insignificantly--interested in knowing when the crown of his fathers was placed on the brow of some monarch. These are certainly not looked upon as important matters. To study history means to search for and discover the forces that are the causes of those results which appear before our eyes as historical events. The art of reading and studying consists in remembering the essentials and forgetting what is not essential. Probably my whole future life was determined by the fact that I had a professor of history who understood, as few others understand, how to make this viewpoint prevail in teaching and in examining. This teacher was Dr. Leopold Poetsch, of the REALSCHULE at Linz. He was the ideal personification of the qualities necessary to a teacher of history in the sense I have mentioned above. An elderly gentleman with a decisive manner but a kindly heart, he was a very attractive speaker and was able to inspire us with his own enthusiasm. Even to-day I cannot recall without emotion that venerable personality whose enthusiastic exposition of history so often made us entirely forget the present and allow ourselves to be transported as if by magic into the past. He penetrated through the dim mist of thousands of years and transformed the historical memory of the dead past into a living reality. When we listened to him we became afire with enthusiasm and we were sometimes moved even to tears. It was still more fortunate that this professor was able not only to illustrate the past by examples from the present but from the past he was also able to draw a lesson for the present. He understood better than any other the everyday problems that were then agitating our minds. The national fervour which we felt in our own small way was utilized by him as an instrument of our education, inasmuch as he often appealed to our national sense of honour; for in that way he maintained order and held our attention much more easily than he could have done by any other means. It was because I had such a professor that history became my favourite subject. As a natural consequence, but without the conscious connivance of my professor, I then and there became a young rebel. But who could have studied German history under such a teacher and not become an enemy of that State whose rulers exercised such a disastrous influence on the destinies of the German nation? Finally, how could one remain the faithful subject of the House of Habsburg, whose past history and present conduct proved it to be ready ever and always to betray the interests of the German people for the sake of paltry personal interests? Did not we as youngsters fully realize that the House of Habsburg did not, and could not, have any love for us Germans? What history taught us about the policy followed by the House of Habsburg was corroborated by our own everyday experiences. In the north and in the south the poison of foreign races was eating into the body of our people, and even Vienna was steadily becoming more and more a non-German city. The 'Imperial House' favoured the Czechs on every possible occasion. Indeed it was the hand of the goddess of eternal justice and inexorable retribution that caused the most deadly enemy of Germanism in Austria, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, to fall by the very bullets which he himself had helped to cast. Working from above downwards, he was the chief patron of the movement to make Austria a Slav State. The burdens laid on the shoulders of the German people were enormous and the sacrifices of money and blood which they had to make were incredibly heavy. Yet anybody who was not quite blind must have seen that it was all in vain. What affected us most bitterly was the consciousness of the fact that this whole system was morally shielded by the alliance with Germany, whereby the slow extirpation of Germanism in the old Austrian Monarchy seemed in some way to be more or less sanctioned by Germany herself. Habsburg hypocrisy, which endeavoured outwardly to make the people believe that Austria still remained a German State, increased the feeling of hatred against the Imperial House and at the same time aroused a spirit of rebellion and contempt. But in the German Empire itself those who were then its rulers saw nothing of what all this meant. As if struck blind, they stood beside a corpse and in the very symptoms of decomposition they believed that they recognized the signs of a renewed vitality. In that unhappy alliance between the young German Empire and the illusory Austrian State lay the germ of the World War and also of the final collapse. In the subsequent pages of this book I shall go to the root of the problem. Suffice it to say here that in the very early years of my youth I came to certain conclusions which I have never abandoned. Indeed I became more profoundly convinced of them as the years passed. They were: That the dissolution of the Austrian Empire is a preliminary condition for the defence of Germany; further, that national feeling is by no means identical with dynastic patriotism; finally, and above all, that the House of Habsburg was destined to bring misfortune to the German nation. As a logical consequence of these convictions, there arose in me a feeling of intense love for my German-Austrian home and a profound hatred for the Austrian State. That kind of historical thinking which was developed in me through my study of history at school never left me afterwards. World history became more and more an inexhaustible source for the understanding of contemporary historical events, which means politics. Therefore I will not "learn" politics but let politics teach me. A precocious revolutionary in politics I was no less a precocious revolutionary in art. At that time the provincial capital of Upper Austria had a theatre which, relatively speaking, was not bad. Almost everything was played there. When I was twelve years old I saw William Tell performed. That was my first experience of the theatre. Some months later I attended a performance of LOHENGRIN, the first opera I had ever heard. I was fascinated at once. My youthful enthusiasm for the Bayreuth Master knew no limits. Again and again I was drawn to hear his operas; and to-day I consider it a great piece of luck that these modest productions in the little provincial city prepared the way and made it possible for me to appreciate the better productions later on. But all this helped to intensify my profound aversion for the career that my father had chosen for me; and this dislike became especially strong as the rough corners of youthful boorishness became worn off, a process which in my case caused a good deal of pain. I became more and more convinced that I should never be happy as a State official. And now that the REALSCHULE had recognized and acknowledged my aptitude for drawing, my own resolution became all the stronger. Imprecations and threats had no longer any chance of changing it. I wanted to become a painter and no power in the world could force me to become a civil servant. The only peculiar feature of the situation now was that as I grew bigger I became more and more interested in architecture. I considered this fact as a natural development of my flair for painting and I rejoiced inwardly that the sphere of my artistic interests was thus enlarged. I had no notion that one day it would have to be otherwise. The question of my career was decided much sooner than I could have expected. When I was in my thirteenth year my father was suddenly taken from us. He was still in robust health when a stroke of apoplexy painlessly ended his earthly wanderings and left us all deeply bereaved. His most ardent longing was to be able to help his son to advance in a career and thus save me from the harsh ordeal that he himself had to go through. But it appeared to him then as if that longing were all in vain. And yet, though he himself was not conscious of it, he had sown the seeds of a future which neither of us foresaw at that time. At first nothing changed outwardly. My mother felt it her duty to continue my education in accordance with my father's wishes, which meant that she would have me study for the civil service. For my own part I was even more firmly determined than ever before that under no circumstances would I become an official of the State. The curriculum and teaching methods followed in the middle school were so far removed from my ideals that I became profoundly indifferent. Illness suddenly came to my assistance. Within a few weeks it decided my future and put an end to the long-standing family conflict. My lungs became so seriously affected that the doctor advised my mother very strongly not under any circumstances to allow me to take up a career which would necessitate working in an office. He ordered that I should give up attendance at the REALSCHULE for a year at least. What I had secretly desired for such a long time, and had persistently fought for, now became a reality almost at one stroke. Influenced by my illness, my mother agreed that I should leave the REALSCHULE and attend the Academy. Those were happy days, which appeared to me almost as a dream; but they were bound to remain only a dream. Two years later my mother's death put a brutal end to all my fine projects. She succumbed to a long and painful illness which from the very beginning permitted little hope of recovery. Though expected, her death came as a terrible blow to me. I respected my father, but I loved my mother. Poverty and stern reality forced me to decide promptly. The meagre resources of the family had been almost entirely used up through my mother's severe illness. The allowance which came to me as an orphan was not enough for the bare necessities of life. Somehow or other I would have to earn my own bread. With my clothes and linen packed in a valise and with an indomitable resolution in my heart, I left for Vienna. I hoped to forestall fate, as my father had done fifty years before. I was determined to become 'something'--but certainly not a civil servant. [Note 1. In order to understand the reference here, and similar references in later portions of MEIN KAMPF, the following must be borne in mind: From 1792 to 1814 the French Revolutionary Armies overran Germany. In 1800 Bavaria shared in the Austrian defeat at Hohenlinden and the French occupied Munich. In 1805 the Bavarian Elector was made King of Bavaria by Napoleon and stipulated to back up Napoleon in all his wars with a force of 30,000 men. Thus Bavaria became the absolute vassal of the French. This was 'TheTime of Germany's Deepest Humiliation', Which is referred to again and again by Hitler. In 1806 a pamphlet entitled 'Germany's Deepest Humiliation' was published in South Germany. Amnng those who helped to circulate the pamphlet was the Nürnberg bookseller, Johannes Philipp Palm. He was denounced to the French by a Bavarian police agent. At his trial he refused to disclose thename of the author. By Napoleon's orders, he was shot at Braunau-on-the-Innon August 26th, 1806. A monument erected to him on the site of the executionwas one of the first public objects that made an impression on Hitler asa little boy. Leo Schlageter's case was in many respects parallel to that of Johannes Palm. Schlageter was a German theological student who volunteered for service in 1914. He became an artillery officer and won the Iron Cross of both classes. When the French occupied the Ruhr in 1923 Schlageter helped to organize the passive resistance on the German side. He and his companions blew up a railway bridge for the purpose of making the transport of coal to France more difficult. Those who took part in the affair were denounced to the French by a German informer. Schlageter took the whole responsibility on his own shoulders and was condemned to death, his companions being sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and penal servitude by the French Court. Schlageter refused to disclose the identity of those who issued the order to blow up the railway bridge and he would not plead for mercy before a French Court. He was shot by a French firing-squad on May 26th, 1923. Severing was at that time German Minister of the Interior. It is said that representations were made, to himon Schlageter's behalf and that he refused to interfere. Schlageter has become the chief martyr of the German resistancc to the French occupation of the Ruhr and also one of the great heroes of the National Socialist Movement. He had joined the Movement at a very early stage, his card of membership bearing the number 61.] [Note 2. Non-classical secondary school. The Lyceum and GYMNASIUM were classical or semi-classical secondary schools.] [Note 3. See Translator's Introduction.] [Note 4. When Francis II had laid down his title as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empireof the German Nation, which he did at the command of Napoleon, the Crownand Mace, as the Imperial Insignia, were kept in Vienna. After the German Empire was refounded, in 1871, under William I, there were many demands tohave the Insignia transferred to Berlin. But these went unheeded. Hitler had them brought to Germany after the Austrian Anschluss and displayed at Nuremberg during the Party Congress in September 1938.] Chapter 2 Years Of Study And Suffering In Vienna WHEN MY mother died my fate had already been decided in one respect. During the last months of her illness I went to Vienna to take the entrance examination for the Academy of Fine Arts. Armed with a bulky packet of sketches, I felt convinced that I should pass the examination quite easily. At the REALSCHULE I was by far the best student in the drawing class, and since that time I had made more than ordinary progress in the practice of drawing. Therefore I was pleased with myself and was proud and happy at the prospect of what I considered an assured success. But there was one misgiving: It seemed to me that I was better qualified for drawing than for painting, especially in the various branches of architectural drawing. At the same time my interest in architecture was constantly increasing. And I advanced in this direction at a still more rapid pace after my first visit to Vienna, which lasted two weeks. I was not yet sixteen years old. I went to the Hof Museum to study the paintings in the art gallery there; but the building itself captured almost all my interest, from early morning until late at night I spent all my time visiting the various public buildings. And it was the buildings themselves that were always the principal attraction for me. For hours and hours I could stand in wonderment before the Opera and the Parliament. The whole Ring Strasse had a magic effect upon me, as if it were a scene from the Thousandand-one-Nights. And now I was here for the second time in this beautiful city, impatiently waiting to hear the result of the entrance examination but proudly confident that I had got through. I was so convinced of my success that when the news that I had failed to pass was brought to me it struck me like a bolt from the skies. Yet the fact was that I had failed. I went to see the Rector and asked him to explain the reasons why they refused to accept me as a student in the general School of Painting, which was part of the Academy. He said that the sketches which I had brought with me unquestionably showed that painting was not what I was suited for but that the same sketches gave clear indications of my aptitude for architectural designing. Therefore the School of Painting did not come into question for me but rather the School of Architecture, which also formed part of the Academy. At first it was impossible to understand how this could be so, seeing that I had never been to a school for architecture and had never received any instruction in architectural designing. When I left the Hansen Palace, on the SCHILLER PLATZ, I was quite crestfallen. I felt out of sorts with myself for the first time in my young life. For what I had heard about my capabilities now appeared to me as a lightning flash which clearly revealed a dualism under which I had been suffering for a long time, but hitherto I could give no clear account whatsoever of the why and wherefore. Within a few days I myself also knew that I ought to become an architect. But of course the way was very difficult. I was now forced bitterly to rue my former conduct in neglecting and despising certain subjects at the REALSCHULE. Before taking up the courses at the School of Architecture in the Academy it was necessary to attend the Technical Building School; but a necessary qualification for entrance into this school was a Leaving Certificate from the Middle School. And this I simply did not have. According to the human measure of things my dream of following an artistic calling seemed beyond the limits of possibility. After the death of my mother I came to Vienna for the third time. This visit was destined to last several years. Since I had been there before I had recovered my old calm and resoluteness. The former self-assurance had come back, and I had my eyes steadily fixed on the goal. I would be an architect. Obstacles are placed across our path in life, not to be boggled at but to be surmounted. And I was fully determined to surmount these obstacles, having the picture of my father constantly before my mind, who had raised himself by his own efforts to the position of a civil servant though he was the poor son of a village shoemaker. I had a better start, and the possibilities of struggling through were better. At that time my lot in life seemed to me a harsh one; but to-day I see in it the wise workings of Providence. The Goddess of Fate clutched me in her hands and often threatened to smash me; but the will grew stronger as the obstacles increased, and finally the will triumphed. I am thankful for that period of my life, because it hardened me and enabled me to be as tough as I now am. And I am even more thankful because I appreciate the fact that I was thus saved from the emptiness of a life of ease and that a mother's darling was taken from tender arms and handed over to Adversity as to a new mother. Though I then rebelled against it as too hard a fate, I am grateful that I was thrown into a world of misery and poverty and thus came to know the people for whom I was afterwards to fight. It was during this period that my eyes were opened to two perils, the names of which I scarcely knew hitherto and had no notion whatsoever of their terrible significance for the existence of the German people. These two perils were Marxism and Judaism. For many people the name of Vienna signifies innocent jollity, a festive place for happy mortals. For me, alas, it is a living memory of the saddest period in my life. Even to-day the mention of that city arouses only gloomy thoughts in my mind. Five years of poverty in that Phaecian (Note 5) town. Five years in which, first as a casual labourer and then as a painter of little trifles, I had to earn my daily bread. And a meagre morsel indeed it was, not even sufficient to still the hunger which I constantly felt. That hunger was the faithful guardian which never left me but took part in everything I did. Every book that I bought meant renewed hunger, and every visit I paid to the opera meant the intrusion of that inalienabl companion during the following days. I was always struggling with my unsympathic friend. And yet during that time I learned more than I had ever learned before. Outside my architectural studies and rare visits to the opera, for which I had to deny myself food, I had no other pleasure in life except my books. I read a great deal then, and I pondered deeply over what I read. All the free time after work was devoted exclusively to study. Thus within a few years I was able to acquire a stock of knowledge which I find useful even to-day. But more than that. During those years a view of life and a definite outlook on the world took shape in my mind. These became the granite basis of my conduct at that time. Since then I have extended that foundation only very little, and I have changed nothing in it. On the contrary: I am firmly convinced to-day that, generally speaking, it is in youth that men lay the essential groundwork of their creative thought, wherever that creative thought exists. I make a distinction between the wisdom of age--which can only arise from the greater profundity and foresight that are based on the experiences of a long life--and the creative genius of youth, which blossoms out in thought and ideas with inexhaustible fertility, without being able to put these into practice immediately, because of their very superabundance. These furnish the building materials and plans for the future; and it is from them that age takes the stones and builds the edifice, unless the so-called wisdom of the years may have smothered the creative genius of youth. The life which I had hitherto led at home with my parents differed in little or nothing from that of all the others. I looked forward without apprehension to the morrow, and there was no such thing as a social problem to be faced. Those among whom I passed my young days belonged to the small bourgeois class. Therefore it was a world that had very little contact with the world of genuine manual labourers. For, though at first this may appear astonishing, the ditch which separates that class, which is by no means economically well-off; from the manual labouring class is often deeper than people think. The reason for this division, which we may almost call enmity, lies in the fear that dominates a social group which has only just risen above the level of the manual labourer--a fear lest it may fall back into its old condition or at least be classed with the labourers. Moreover, there is something repulsive in remembering the cultural indigence of that lower class and their rough manners with one another; so that people who are only on the first rung of the social ladder find it unbearable to be forced to have any contact with the cultural level and standard of living out of which they have passed. And so it happens that very often those who belong to what can really be called the upper classes find it much easier than do the upstarts to descend to and intermingle with their fellow beings on the lowest social level. For by the word upstart I mean everyone who has raised himself through his own efforts to a social level higher than that to which he formerly belonged. In the case of such a person the hard struggle through which he passes often destroys his normal human sympathy. His own fight for existence kills his sensibility for the misery of those who have been left behind. From this point of view fate had been kind to me. Circumstances forced me to return to that world of poverty and economic insecurity above which my father had raised himself in his early days; and thus the blinkers of a narrow PETIT BOURGEOIS education were torn from my eyes. Now for the first time I learned to know men and I learned to distinguish between empty appearances or brutal manners and the real inner nature of the people who outwardly appeared thus. At the beginning of the century Vienna had already taken rank among those cities where social conditions are iniquitous. Dazzling riches and loathsome destitution were intermingled in violent contrast. In the centre and in the Inner City one felt the pulsebeat of an Empire which had a population of fifty-two millions, with all the perilous charm of a State made up of multiple nationalities. The dazzling splendour of the Court acted like a magnet on the wealth and intelligence of the whole Empire. And this attraction was further strengthened by the dynastic policy of the Habsburg Monarchy in centralizing everything in itself and for itself. This centralizing policy was necessary in order to hold together that hotchpotch of heterogeneous nationalities. But the result of it was an extraordinary concentration of higher officials in the city, which was at one and the same time the metropolis and imperial residence. But Vienna was not merely the political and intellectual centre of the Danubian Monarchy; it was also the commercial centre. Besides the horde of military officers of high rank, State officials, artists and scientists, there was the still vaster horde of workers. Abject poverty confronted the wealth of the aristocracy and the merchant class face to face. Thousands of unemployed loitered in front of the palaces on the Ring Strasse; and below that VIA TRIUMPHALIS of the old Austria the homeless huddled together in the murk and filth of the canals. There was hardly any other German city in which the social problem could be studied better than in Vienna. But here I must utter a warning against the illusion that this problem can be 'studied' from above downwards. The man who has never been in the clutches of that crushing viper can never know what its poison is. An attempt to study it in any other way will result only in superficial talk and sentimental delusions. Both are harmful. The first because it can never go to the root of the question, the second because it evades the question entirely. I do not know which is the more nefarious: to ignore social distress, as do the majority of those who have been favoured by fortune and those who have risen in the social scale through their own routine labour, or the equally supercilious and often tactless but always genteel condescension displayed by people who make a fad of being charitable and who plume themselves on 'sympathising with the people.' Of course such persons sin more than they can imagine from lack of instinctive understanding. And thus they are astonished to find that the 'social conscience' on which they pride themselves never produces any results, but often causes their good intentions to be resented; and then they talk of the ingratitude of the people. Such persons are slow to learn that here there is no place for merely social activities and that there can be no expectation of gratitude; for in this connection there is no question at all of distributing favours but essentially a matter of retributive justice. I was protected against the temptation to study the social question in the way just mentioned, for the simple reason that I was forced to live in the midst of poverty-stricken people. Therefore it was not a question of studying the problem objectively, but rather one of testing its effects on myself. Though the rabbit came through the ordeal of the experiment, this must not be taken as evidence of its harmlessness. When I try to-day to recall the succession of impressions received during that time I find that I can do so only with approximate completeness. Here I shall describe only the more essential impressions and those which personally affected me and often staggered me. And I shall mention the few lessons I then learned from this experience. At that time it was for the most part not very difficult to find work, because I had to seek work not as a skilled tradesman but as a so-called extra-hand ready to take any job that turned up by chance, just for the sake of earning my daily bread. Thus I found myself in the same situation as all those emigrants who shake the dust of Europe from their feet, with the cast-iron determination to lay the foundations of a new existence in the New World and acquire for themselves a new home. Liberated from all the paralysing prejudices of class and calling, environment and tradition, they enter any service that opens its doors to them, accepting any work that comes their way, filled more and more with the idea that honest work never disgraced anybody, no matter what kind it may be. And so I was resolved to set both feet in what was for me a new world and push forward on my own road. I soon found out that there was some kind of work always to be got, but I also learned that it could just as quickly and easily be lost. The uncertainty of being able to earn a regular daily livelihood soon appeared to me as the gloomiest feature in this new life that I had entered. Although the skilled worker was not so frequently thrown idle on the streets as the unskilled worker, yet the former was by no means protected against the same fate; because though he may not have to face hunger as a result of unemployment due to the lack of demand in the labour market, the lock-out and the strike deprived the skilled worker of the chance to earn his bread. Here the element of uncertainty in steadily earning one's daily bread was the bitterest feature of the whole social-economic system itself. The country lad who migrates to the big city feels attracted by what has been described as easy work--which it may be in reality--and few working hours. He is especially entranced by the magic glimmer spread over the big cities. Accustomed in the country to earn a steady wage, he has been taught not to quit his former post until a new one is at least in sight. As there is a great scarcity of agricultural labour, the probability of long unemployment in the country has been very small. It is a mistake to presume that the lad who leaves the countryside for the town is not made of such sound material as those who remain at home to work on the land. On the contrary, experience shows that it is the more healthy and more vigorous that emigrate, and not the reverse. Among these emigrants I include not merely those who emigrate to America, but also the servant boy in the country who decides to leave his native village and migrate to the big city where he will be a stranger. He is ready to take the risk of an uncertain fate. In most cases he comes to town with a little money in his pocket and for the first few days he is not discouraged if he should not have the good fortune to find work. But if he finds a job and then loses it in a little while, the case is much worse. To find work anew, especially in winter, is often difficult and indeed sometimes impossible. For the first few weeks life is still bearable He receives his out-of-work money from his trade union and is thus enabled to carry on. But when the last of his own money is gone and his trade union ceases to pay out because of the prolonged unemployment, then comes the real distress. He now loiters about and is hungry. Often he pawns or sells the last of his belongings. His clothes begin to get shabby and with the increasing poverty of his outward appearance he descends to a lower social level and mixes up with a class of human beings through whom his mind is now poisoned, in addition to his physical misery. Then he has nowhere to sleep and if that happens in winter, which is very often the case, he is in dire distress. Finally he gets work. But the old story repeats itself. A second time the same thing happens. Then a third time; and now it is probably much worse. Little by little he becomes indifferent to this everlasting insecurity. Finally he grows used to the repetition. Thus even a man who is normally of industrious habits grows careless in his whole attitude towards life and gradually becomes an instrument in the hands of unscrupulous people who exploit him for the sake of their own ignoble aims. He has been so often thrown out of employment through no fault of his own that he is now more or less indifferent whether the strike in which he takes part be for the
@Ed676 @OldVirgin @N1666 thoughts?

 

[john2]

Stop gaslighting me dude

I am not gaslighting. If anything, you're the one who gaslights.
You're far from incel-tier. You're most likely larping, or wait... did you actually ascend with a girl?

 

[mogstar]

I am not gaslighting. If anything, you're the one who gaslights.
You're far from incel-tier. You're most likely larping, or wait... did you actually ascend with a girl?

I kissed a girl when I was drunk and that was it tbh, I like u man but I feel like u were more honest in ur rates back in early 2020

 

[Deleted member 11610]

nice postmaxxing thread @Stopping@Nothing19 @CATBOY @roni @Copesville @dashundalon

 

[john2]

I kissed a girl when I was drunk and that was it tbh, I like u man but I feel like u were more honest in ur rates back in early 2020

Well me too, I think you're a good guy, but it is unbelievable for me if someone like you can't get laid.
You're taller & you have a better pheno than me, this is why I don't think you're incel tier and I don't think you have low SMV.

 

[Deleted member 15595]

Well me too, I think you're a good guy, but it is unbelievable for me if someone like you can't get laid.
You're taller & you have a better pheno than me, this is why I don't think you're incel tier and I don't think you have low SMV.

hes 4'10, if he heightmogs you just rope

 

[dashundalon]

nice postmaxxing thread @Stopping@Nothing19 @CATBOY @roni @Copesville @dashundalon

Postmaxxing is legit bhai

 

[mogstar]

hes 4'10, if he heightmogs you just rope

2’5

 

[Deleted member 7224]

@cloUder @gigi

 

[Deleted member 11610]

2’5

Incels....

 

[Deleted member 15595]

2’5

imagine having chad jaw but being 4'10

face wasted

 

[Stopping@Nothing19]

checking in

nice postmaxxing thread @Stopping@Nothing19 @CATBOY @roni @Copesville @dashundalonkx

 

[john2]

hes 4'10, if he heightmogs you just rope

No. I'm 6'1.5" and he is 6'4". If he was 4'10", he would have roped the moment he discovered this site.

 

[Deleted member 15595]

No. I'm 6'1.5"

cope harder youre 5'7 MAX

and he is 4'10

 

[mogstar]

No. I'm 6'1.5" and he is 6'4". If he was 4'10", he would have roped the moment he discovered this site.

6’1.5 and HTN you’re literally set dude don’t rot here

 

[mogstar]

Incels....

 

[john2]

cope harder youre 5'7 MAX

and he is 4'10

Lmao, believe it or not, but I am well over 6'1". Read my previous posts, I am not larping about my height at all.

6’1.5 and HTN you’re literally set dude don’t rot here

I think you forgot... I am curry. It explains why I am here on this forum.

 

[Deleted member 7224]

Imagine being taller than 6 '

6' is the most attractive height women can find tall fags on suicide watch right now

Yes im 6' Im wolf

 

[Deleted member 15595]

Lmao, believe it or not, but I am well over 6'1". Read my previous posts, I am not larping about my height at all.

I think you forgot... I am curry. It explains why I am here on this forum.

looksmax!

 

[mogstar]

Lmao, believe it or not, but I am well over 6'1". Read my previous posts, I am not larping about my height at all.

I think you forgot... I am curry. It explains why I am here on this forum.

I know what ur race is dude and u don’t have that death tier pheno some indians have, u would pass as a Portuguese person if u lived here

 

[Deleted member 7224]

 

[Deleted member 11610]

I know what ur race is dude and u don’t have that death tier pheno some indians have, u would pass as a Portuguese person if u lived here

meds are ethnic its over for you and @Stopping@Nothing19 @CATBOY

 

[Deleted member 15595]

meds are ethnic its over for you and @Stopping@Nothing19 @CATBOY

its over

 

[mogstar]

View attachment 1358318

Is that Palvin ?

 

[mogstar]

meds are ethnic its over for you and @Stopping@Nothing19 @CATBOY

Girls don’t want chads anymore tbh. Giga stacies are going for medium ugly guys @looksmaxxer234 told me all about the medium ugly pill and how gigachads were roping when they realized they aren’t medium ugly

 

[BearBoy]