Sounds like we agree on most things. Our only disagreement really is this:
I think he both had more than enough to reasonably believe W was the case, and that W was actually the case. While you seem to think the opposite on both counts.
Not sure there's much more to say, since we're both looking at the same thing and coming to opposite conclusions. We'd have to speculate too much to fill in any blanks to bridge the gap here.
He even did almost everything you proposed. The only thing he didn't do was use the words trespass, police or divorce (that we know of). I don't think that needs to be spelled out at the point they'd gotten to. He repeatedly made clear he wanted them gone and outright told them to leave. And he was repeatedly told they wouldn't be leaving, that they'd be staying as long as they like, and his wife even explicitly invoked being a co-owner to justify it, right before he snapped.
To me, and him apparently, that clearly crosses the threshold of de facto divorce and forced tenants.
Add to that the fact her parents lived out of an RV (as in, didn't have a house of their own, see 1:14), brought the RV (ie, their house) to his house, and the mother straight up moved into his house in spite of having the RV (ie, her own bed) right there... and it's extremely obvious what was going on:
Her parents were getting old, tired of RV life, wanted the comfort of a real home, and felt entitled to his house. And his wife was on board with it. She straight up invoked legal leverage to get her way. Probably spurned on by the fact he was letting his elderly father live in his house, which she perceived to be their house, even though she wasn't the one paying the mortgage, nor did she provide children to fill it.
So his options were to live like a bitch in his own house, with the threat of getting divorce fucked hanging over his head, praying for his belligerent wife's mercy, with his elderly father also dependent on it... or take out the trash, and eat the life sentence, knowing that at least his dad will be alright.
I can't fault him for his choice. I can fault his wife and in-laws for forcing it upon him.
It is cold-blooded murder, absolutely. And he'll be in prison for the rest of his life for it. As a murderer must be, and consider himself lucky to be kept alive, in a civilized society. So he didn't "get to" do it, and that's not the point.
My argument is only that this is a choice he made purely as a result of having no better options. He says as much himself in the interrogation video.
For sake of the argument, let's give the wife and her parents the maximum benefit of the doubt, and assume they had no ulterior motives and the wife was merely spiteful about his father being there. An unreasonable assumption, I think, given the facts, but let's roll with it.
Even so, these facts remain:
- **He** (mistakenly, we'll assume) **believed they were scheming to take his house from him** (he says so in the video)
- **He had ample reason to believe that** (repeated previous unannounced "visits", knowing he didn't want them there, showing up and staying anyway, showing up with an RV, mother sleeping in the house anyway, outright refusal to leave when challenged, telling him they'll stay as long as they like regardless of how he feels about it, not taking daughter and leaving since they're not welcome, ... these are all unreasonable behaviors and indicative of them feeling entitled to the house)
- **The threat of them taking his house was credible and imminent** (the law being the way it is, no amount of documenting his grievances would help, the mother having moved in, cucking out and letting it continue would only make it worse, both legally and otherwise)
- **A divorce would more than likely leave him destitute and/or homeless** (war vet with PTSD, in his 50s, said he was cooking and taking care of his wife, no mention of a job, the house and his savings was likely all the had, and both under threat now)
With the wife and in-laws dead, his house and savings most likely went to his elderly father, whom he was also taking care of by the sound of it. So at least now his father won't be homeless and starve out in the streets. Given what he was looking at, and how he would be seeing it, that's the best outcome he could have hoped for.
What he did wasn't "good", and cannot be left unpunished. But his actions were not irrational.
What's irrational is having a legal system that so heavily favors house squatters and unreasonably entitled women that it would force an otherwise rational man into such an impossible decision.
They couldn't do anything to help him, even if they wanted to. He'd be lucky if they didn't arrest him.
The wife lived in that house and invited her parents. You can't trespass someone who lives in a house, nor someone who is invited by someone who lives there. Can't evict someone after 30 days in most states. No grounds for a protection order. Divorce would give her half of his house and wealth, or more. The law was on the wife's side, as it usually is these days.
There's nothing he could have done that wouldn't have ended with him losing his house, one way or another.
The longer it went on, the worse it would get for him. He knew, she knew, and her parents knew it too.
That's why they were so comfortable laughing in his face while sitting in his chair at his dinner table.
Your unwillingness, or inability, to see things from the man's perspective is what broke your heart.
Incidentally, that's also what got the wife and in-laws killed.
It was his house. This is a man who has been to war. He bled for it. Risked life and limb for it. Watched brothers die for it. Killed people for it. That's what he had to do to earn that house. It was his house. The product of his blood, sweat, and tears. Not hers. Certainly not her parents'. She didn't even give him any children for it. It was his house.
The wife and her parents had a perfectly good path to take here:
They could, and should, have taken their daughter and left. Then she would have had her parents around while she recovered, just like she wanted. And nobody could have blamed her, or them, for that. And the man would have looked like an asshole, who drove his wife away, when she needed him most, just because he couldn't get along with his in-laws. He wouldn't have gotten much sympathy from anyone, not even here. Hell, it wouldn't have even been a story.
That would have been the right thing for them to do. The White thing to do. The innocent thing to do.
But they didn't do that, did they?
Instead, they invaded the man's house. Against his wishes, and in spite of his warnings. They mocked him in his own home. Acted like it was theirs to take as they please. Sat in his chair, at the head of his table, laughed in his face, and dared him to do something about it. A man who had been a professional killer, as they knew perfectly well.
What a profoundly stupid thing to do. And there's nothing innocent about it, either.
They put the man into a position where he, unlike them, no longer had a good path out.
Did he have options that were less bad than triple homicide? Sure. Maybe. Depends on who you ask.
But he didn't have any good options. They didn't leave him any. And the law wouldn't have his back either. No matter what he did, he would lose, in full or in part, all that he worked and sacrificed so much for. So he choose the bad option he was most familiar with. The one he knew he could live with, because he had been living with it for years.
That's why he gets so much sympathy from the men here. Not because we think what he did was good. But because we understand what it's like to have all good options taken from us.
It looks pretty based from what I've read about it. I only hesitate to endorse it because I haven't looked into it closely, and don't have any first hand experience with it.
I suppose I should have added that, if you can find a suitable one, it would be more efficient to join and help it grow than to start your own.
Starting a religion that is explicitly for our people only, not based on mythology of ancient desert tribes, more structured than modern paganism, and which encourages stable family units, forbids miscegenation, nudges towards eugenics, emphasizes importance of blood and soil, demands productivity, and generally produces behaviors and views consistent with securing the existence of our people and a future for White children.
I said object storage, not VPS. VPS is useful for many things but not cost effective for backups.
If you want me to advertise a specific product, here you go:
https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html
You can send them up to 1 TB of data per month for less than $30/year.
If you make the bucket public, the backed up files can be accessed directly using a standard URL. It'll be a bit long and ugly but entirely possible to memorize. If you want a braindead easy solution for encryption, you can store every X minutes as a passworded archive. Even your lawyer should be able to figure out how to download a file and open an archive. All you need to give him is the URL and password.
Of course, I would recommend setting up a web portal for more convenient access, streaming, and better backup and encryption options. But that -would- require a VPS or similar, and would cost a bit extra, and you seem hell bent on making a point of keeping it under $30/year. One might be tempted to point out what that says about how much you value your freedom, privacy and soul.
In any case, there's your viable, encrypted, lawyer-compatible offsite backup solution for under $30/year.
Now stop making excuses and blaming others for your laziness and incompetence.
PS:
You can get a suitable VPS for under $10 / month. $40/month for a VPS is a scam. Might as well go dedicated at that point.
If your only concern is losing locally stored data, and you're otherwise able to set up a self-hosted solution, then setting up live offsite backups would be relatively trivial. A few hundred GB of object storage per month would cost less than $30/year. And you could encrypt the data, so nobody else can access it.
It would take some time and effort to set up, sure. But don't pretend that selling your soul to Amazon is the only option.
You're trading freedom and privacy for convenience and comfort. Nothing more.
Worried about [Parthenogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis#Birds)? It's so unlikely that, frankly, if she manages that on top of crossing the Pacific, she kind of deserves to colonize Australia.
On that other hand, pigeons are basically flying rats.
Did you know jewishness is just a social construct?
Think about it: Many jews are atheist or agnostic, so it's not a religion. And there are jews of every color, and they engage in miscegenation all the time, so it's not a race or tribal group either. They have no real history, since they just make up stories all the time. And no real culture, since they assimilate into their host countries.
The only thing all jews have in common is that they're all people who decided to live like antisocial parasites, and call themselves "jews" to justify living like that by pretending they're special somehow. It's kind of sad, really.
Your question is backwards. What's the point of a rooster crowing in the morning, or a dog fetching a ball?
It's not about a point. They do it because of what they are. It's in their DNA.
Mexicans are descendants of death cult savages who routinely butchered each other and cut the beating hearts out of their victims to please their gods. They do it because they always have. That's just who and what they are. Sprinkling some Latin DNA here and there hasn't fundamentally changed their nature. This should not be surprising.
I agree completely with you on allowing free speech, even and especially when it runs counter to popular opinion.
What I don't and never will understand is why you don't consider spamming porn on this site a breach of the rules.
Porn is not speech. And neither is spam. Both are a disruption of speech. Often intentional. On a site like this, obviously intentional. Your refusal to act on this harms your stated purpose.
Joe has a long history of relentlessly spamming porn, and [recently stated he intends](/viewpost?postid=64a00e4270edf) to continue doing so and slowly posting his entire collection.
Archive.is actively seeks to block all forms of proxies and VPNs. Finding one that works is difficult. It should be pretty obvious they have an agenda of harvesting dissenter IPs.
Catbox didn't used to be this way, but has been slowly blocking more and more as well. Not sure if they have similar motives, or just do it as a knee-jerk reaction whenever someone tries uploading CP that way. Either way, blocking all access, when they could just block uploads, is lazy and nonsensical.
In any case, it would be great to have alternatives.
No, OP is right. Women have a need to feel like they're the ones that are lucky to have you. They have a biological imperative to trade up.
If you shower her with too much affection, or keep saying outright that you're lucky to have her, at first she'll be really happy. But, after a while, she'll start getting a nagging feeling in her gut that she's trading down. Which plants the thought that she could do better. You start looking like a bad investment. Like a wasted opportunity. Before you know it, she's looking at you with disgust. She may not even understand why.
You have to give them just enough to feel secure, and only as long as they keep working for it a bit. Not understanding this is where a lot of young guys fuck up, and then end up wondering what is wrong with women. There's nothing wrong. It's just how they're wired.
There's more confusion than just that. Most voted against brother wars, yet support the land-grabbing invaders in the bloodiest European brother war since WW2.
GloryBeckons 0 points 8 months ago
Sounds like we agree on most things. Our only disagreement really is this:
I think he both had more than enough to reasonably believe W was the case, and that W was actually the case. While you seem to think the opposite on both counts.
Not sure there's much more to say, since we're both looking at the same thing and coming to opposite conclusions. We'd have to speculate too much to fill in any blanks to bridge the gap here.
He even did almost everything you proposed. The only thing he didn't do was use the words trespass, police or divorce (that we know of). I don't think that needs to be spelled out at the point they'd gotten to. He repeatedly made clear he wanted them gone and outright told them to leave. And he was repeatedly told they wouldn't be leaving, that they'd be staying as long as they like, and his wife even explicitly invoked being a co-owner to justify it, right before he snapped.
To me, and him apparently, that clearly crosses the threshold of de facto divorce and forced tenants.
Add to that the fact her parents lived out of an RV (as in, didn't have a house of their own, see 1:14), brought the RV (ie, their house) to his house, and the mother straight up moved into his house in spite of having the RV (ie, her own bed) right there... and it's extremely obvious what was going on:
Her parents were getting old, tired of RV life, wanted the comfort of a real home, and felt entitled to his house. And his wife was on board with it. She straight up invoked legal leverage to get her way. Probably spurned on by the fact he was letting his elderly father live in his house, which she perceived to be their house, even though she wasn't the one paying the mortgage, nor did she provide children to fill it.
So his options were to live like a bitch in his own house, with the threat of getting divorce fucked hanging over his head, praying for his belligerent wife's mercy, with his elderly father also dependent on it... or take out the trash, and eat the life sentence, knowing that at least his dad will be alright.
I can't fault him for his choice. I can fault his wife and in-laws for forcing it upon him.
/v/VoatQuotes viewpost?postid=66d1f85127f75
GloryBeckons 1 point 8 months ago
It is cold-blooded murder, absolutely. And he'll be in prison for the rest of his life for it. As a murderer must be, and consider himself lucky to be kept alive, in a civilized society. So he didn't "get to" do it, and that's not the point.
My argument is only that this is a choice he made purely as a result of having no better options. He says as much himself in the interrogation video.
For sake of the argument, let's give the wife and her parents the maximum benefit of the doubt, and assume they had no ulterior motives and the wife was merely spiteful about his father being there. An unreasonable assumption, I think, given the facts, but let's roll with it.
Even so, these facts remain:
- **He** (mistakenly, we'll assume) **believed they were scheming to take his house from him** (he says so in the video)
- **He had ample reason to believe that** (repeated previous unannounced "visits", knowing he didn't want them there, showing up and staying anyway, showing up with an RV, mother sleeping in the house anyway, outright refusal to leave when challenged, telling him they'll stay as long as they like regardless of how he feels about it, not taking daughter and leaving since they're not welcome, ... these are all unreasonable behaviors and indicative of them feeling entitled to the house)
- **The threat of them taking his house was credible and imminent** (the law being the way it is, no amount of documenting his grievances would help, the mother having moved in, cucking out and letting it continue would only make it worse, both legally and otherwise)
- **A divorce would more than likely leave him destitute and/or homeless** (war vet with PTSD, in his 50s, said he was cooking and taking care of his wife, no mention of a job, the house and his savings was likely all the had, and both under threat now)
With the wife and in-laws dead, his house and savings most likely went to his elderly father, whom he was also taking care of by the sound of it. So at least now his father won't be homeless and starve out in the streets. Given what he was looking at, and how he would be seeing it, that's the best outcome he could have hoped for.
What he did wasn't "good", and cannot be left unpunished. But his actions were not irrational.
What's irrational is having a legal system that so heavily favors house squatters and unreasonably entitled women that it would force an otherwise rational man into such an impossible decision.
/v/VoatQuotes viewpost?postid=66d1f85127f75
GloryBeckons 1 point 8 months ago
Call the police to do what?
They couldn't do anything to help him, even if they wanted to. He'd be lucky if they didn't arrest him.
The wife lived in that house and invited her parents. You can't trespass someone who lives in a house, nor someone who is invited by someone who lives there. Can't evict someone after 30 days in most states. No grounds for a protection order. Divorce would give her half of his house and wealth, or more. The law was on the wife's side, as it usually is these days.
There's nothing he could have done that wouldn't have ended with him losing his house, one way or another.
The longer it went on, the worse it would get for him. He knew, she knew, and her parents knew it too.
That's why they were so comfortable laughing in his face while sitting in his chair at his dinner table.
/v/VoatQuotes viewpost?postid=66d1f85127f75
GloryBeckons 2 points 8 months ago
Your unwillingness, or inability, to see things from the man's perspective is what broke your heart.
Incidentally, that's also what got the wife and in-laws killed.
It was his house. This is a man who has been to war. He bled for it. Risked life and limb for it. Watched brothers die for it. Killed people for it. That's what he had to do to earn that house. It was his house. The product of his blood, sweat, and tears. Not hers. Certainly not her parents'. She didn't even give him any children for it. It was his house.
The wife and her parents had a perfectly good path to take here:
They could, and should, have taken their daughter and left. Then she would have had her parents around while she recovered, just like she wanted. And nobody could have blamed her, or them, for that. And the man would have looked like an asshole, who drove his wife away, when she needed him most, just because he couldn't get along with his in-laws. He wouldn't have gotten much sympathy from anyone, not even here. Hell, it wouldn't have even been a story.
That would have been the right thing for them to do. The White thing to do. The innocent thing to do.
But they didn't do that, did they?
Instead, they invaded the man's house. Against his wishes, and in spite of his warnings. They mocked him in his own home. Acted like it was theirs to take as they please. Sat in his chair, at the head of his table, laughed in his face, and dared him to do something about it. A man who had been a professional killer, as they knew perfectly well.
What a profoundly stupid thing to do. And there's nothing innocent about it, either.
They put the man into a position where he, unlike them, no longer had a good path out.
Did he have options that were less bad than triple homicide? Sure. Maybe. Depends on who you ask.
But he didn't have any good options. They didn't leave him any. And the law wouldn't have his back either. No matter what he did, he would lose, in full or in part, all that he worked and sacrificed so much for. So he choose the bad option he was most familiar with. The one he knew he could live with, because he had been living with it for years.
That's why he gets so much sympathy from the men here. Not because we think what he did was good. But because we understand what it's like to have all good options taken from us.
/v/VoatQuotes viewpost?postid=66d1f85127f75
GloryBeckons 0 points 1.8 years ago
It looks pretty based from what I've read about it. I only hesitate to endorse it because I haven't looked into it closely, and don't have any first hand experience with it.
I suppose I should have added that, if you can find a suitable one, it would be more efficient to join and help it grow than to start your own.
/v/AskVoat viewpost?postid=64b40300a9bb7
GloryBeckons 4 points 1.8 years ago
Starting a religion that is explicitly for our people only, not based on mythology of ancient desert tribes, more structured than modern paganism, and which encourages stable family units, forbids miscegenation, nudges towards eugenics, emphasizes importance of blood and soil, demands productivity, and generally produces behaviors and views consistent with securing the existence of our people and a future for White children.
/v/AskVoat viewpost?postid=64b40300a9bb7
GloryBeckons 1 point 1.8 years ago
Bought into (((individualism))). Aka "act like a psychopath and pretend you're doing the world a favor".
/v/Rants viewpost?postid=64b2ae5d05032
GloryBeckons 1 point 1.8 years ago*
I said object storage, not VPS. VPS is useful for many things but not cost effective for backups.
If you want me to advertise a specific product, here you go:
https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html
You can send them up to 1 TB of data per month for less than $30/year.
If you make the bucket public, the backed up files can be accessed directly using a standard URL. It'll be a bit long and ugly but entirely possible to memorize. If you want a braindead easy solution for encryption, you can store every X minutes as a passworded archive. Even your lawyer should be able to figure out how to download a file and open an archive. All you need to give him is the URL and password.
Of course, I would recommend setting up a web portal for more convenient access, streaming, and better backup and encryption options. But that -would- require a VPS or similar, and would cost a bit extra, and you seem hell bent on making a point of keeping it under $30/year. One might be tempted to point out what that says about how much you value your freedom, privacy and soul.
In any case, there's your viable, encrypted, lawyer-compatible offsite backup solution for under $30/year.
Now stop making excuses and blaming others for your laziness and incompetence.
PS:
You can get a suitable VPS for under $10 / month. $40/month for a VPS is a scam. Might as well go dedicated at that point.
Contabo offers 4 core / 8 GB RAM / 200 GB SSD / 32 TB traffic for $8.50/month, for example: https://contabo.com/en/pricing/
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=64b174d554603
GloryBeckons 1 point 1.8 years ago*
If your only concern is losing locally stored data, and you're otherwise able to set up a self-hosted solution, then setting up live offsite backups would be relatively trivial. A few hundred GB of object storage per month would cost less than $30/year. And you could encrypt the data, so nobody else can access it.
It would take some time and effort to set up, sure. But don't pretend that selling your soul to Amazon is the only option.
You're trading freedom and privacy for convenience and comfort. Nothing more.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=64b174d554603
GloryBeckons 0 points 1.8 years ago
Just a fact.
/v/AskVoat viewpost?postid=64b07db02e611
GloryBeckons 0 points 1.8 years ago
You are the hostile third party here, buddy.
/v/AskVoat viewpost?postid=64b07db02e611
GloryBeckons 1 point 1.8 years ago
Sounds like you wanted to do it but got talked out of it.
I think you should do it. Downvotes are a form of community moderation, and moderation logs should be public for transparency.
Do a trial run for downvotes on posts at least. If it ends up making things worse somehow, you can always remove it.
/v/AskVoat viewpost?postid=64b07db02e611
GloryBeckons 7 points 1.8 years ago
> "This is the excuse we'll use if you try suing us for wrongful termination"
/v/Rants viewpost?postid=64b03b13a12eb
GloryBeckons 2 points 1.8 years ago
Worried about [Parthenogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis#Birds)? It's so unlikely that, frankly, if she manages that on top of crossing the Pacific, she kind of deserves to colonize Australia.
On that other hand, pigeons are basically flying rats.
/v/Australia viewpost?postid=64af45b4e361c
GloryBeckons 3 points 1.8 years ago*
Did you know jewishness is just a social construct?
Think about it: Many jews are atheist or agnostic, so it's not a religion. And there are jews of every color, and they engage in miscegenation all the time, so it's not a race or tribal group either. They have no real history, since they just make up stories all the time. And no real culture, since they assimilate into their host countries.
The only thing all jews have in common is that they're all people who decided to live like antisocial parasites, and call themselves "jews" to justify living like that by pretending they're special somehow. It's kind of sad, really.
/v/news viewpost?postid=64aea66a0662a
GloryBeckons 3 points 1.8 years ago
Well, yes, it's not a monarchy. Not sure what you're trying to say with that though. Not sure you know what you're trying to say, tbh.
/v/news viewpost?postid=64aea66a0662a
GloryBeckons 2 points 1.8 years ago
But don't we live in a democracy? /s
/v/news viewpost?postid=64aea66a0662a
GloryBeckons 10 points 1.8 years ago*
Your question is backwards. What's the point of a rooster crowing in the morning, or a dog fetching a ball?
It's not about a point. They do it because of what they are. It's in their DNA.
Mexicans are descendants of death cult savages who routinely butchered each other and cut the beating hearts out of their victims to please their gods. They do it because they always have. That's just who and what they are. Sprinkling some Latin DNA here and there hasn't fundamentally changed their nature. This should not be surprising.
/v/AskVoat viewpost?postid=64ae97368cac1
GloryBeckons 1 point 1.8 years ago
I mean, I could maybe understand the site and upload portal, but I question the utility of blocking read access to static .jpgs.
/v/Discussion viewpost?postid=64ad9e77a10c5
GloryBeckons 3 points 1.8 years ago*
I agree completely with you on allowing free speech, even and especially when it runs counter to popular opinion.
What I don't and never will understand is why you don't consider spamming porn on this site a breach of the rules.
Porn is not speech. And neither is spam. Both are a disruption of speech. Often intentional. On a site like this, obviously intentional. Your refusal to act on this harms your stated purpose.
Joe has a long history of relentlessly spamming porn, and [recently stated he intends](/viewpost?postid=64a00e4270edf) to continue doing so and slowly posting his entire collection.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=64ad729dac079
GloryBeckons 3 points 1.8 years ago
Archive.is actively seeks to block all forms of proxies and VPNs. Finding one that works is difficult. It should be pretty obvious they have an agenda of harvesting dissenter IPs.
Catbox didn't used to be this way, but has been slowly blocking more and more as well. Not sure if they have similar motives, or just do it as a knee-jerk reaction whenever someone tries uploading CP that way. Either way, blocking all access, when they could just block uploads, is lazy and nonsensical.
In any case, it would be great to have alternatives.
/v/Discussion viewpost?postid=64ad9e77a10c5
GloryBeckons 0 points 1.8 years ago
Sounds plausible enough, but the story is most likely fake judging by what was dug up in some of the comments.
/v/Niggers viewpost?postid=64ad9964cbb12
GloryBeckons 0 points 1.8 years ago
No, OP is right. Women have a need to feel like they're the ones that are lucky to have you. They have a biological imperative to trade up.
If you shower her with too much affection, or keep saying outright that you're lucky to have her, at first she'll be really happy. But, after a while, she'll start getting a nagging feeling in her gut that she's trading down. Which plants the thought that she could do better. You start looking like a bad investment. Like a wasted opportunity. Before you know it, she's looking at you with disgust. She may not even understand why.
You have to give them just enough to feel secure, and only as long as they keep working for it a bit. Not understanding this is where a lot of young guys fuck up, and then end up wondering what is wrong with women. There's nothing wrong. It's just how they're wired.
/v/Dads viewpost?postid=64acccc794ab7
GloryBeckons 1 point 1.8 years ago
There's more confusion than just that. Most voted against brother wars, yet support the land-grabbing invaders in the bloodiest European brother war since WW2.
/v/Interesting viewpost?postid=64ad6af11c2e9
GloryBeckons 13 points 1.8 years ago
And nobody will do anything about it.
/v/cringe viewpost?postid=64ac89ed9ae51