Answering the Jewish Question

If memory serves, Dr Kevin MacDonald once said that an 120 IQ was a prerequisite for discussing the Jewish Question. Not to speak on his behalf, but I don't think he meant that you had to be a genius to talk about Jews, but rather it was an attempt to separate “low-IQ anti-Semitism” from intellectual discourse.  

Right-wingers are fascinated with IQ to the point that it’s a focal point of the ideological brand. It’s an unspoken credo that says, “We’re the smart ones.” And that’s fine. All movements have mantras. There’s certainly nothing unappealing about being “the smart ones.” But when was the last time you heard the Left discuss IQ?

The Left understand that practical politics involves consistent messaging that resonates emotionally with their audience. Black Lives Matter was so successful because they took their best meme and named their movement after it. Regardless of how you feel about that, it was brilliant.

The decades-long culture war between pro-Whites and anti-Whites isn't about intellectual superiority, it's the perpetual battle for the moral high ground. Not to regurgitate that paper, but if being smart was the path to victory, nobody would've ever cared about MLK's “dream,” or Saint Floyd's fentanyl overdose.

I was somewhat reluctant to write this piece, because although my 139 IQ (Stanford-Binet) should qualify me, my position on the subject isn't intellectually complex. But I have given a lot of thought to the JQ over the last 15 or 20 years, and I'm completely aware of why it's not an ideal subject matter for those with subpar critical thinking skills or a deficiency in intelligence.

With that being said, the amount of “antisemitism” currently being espoused in the social sphere is quite remarkable. I remember when one would get banned for the pre-2016 version of “antisemitism,” which was just defined as “calling a Jew 'a Jew' because they were Jewish.”

The rise of antisemitism was actually a rather easy prediction, so it's not shocking to those who have a vague understanding of how societies work. Once a certain level of societal decay sets in, elements within the power structure are always going to be the scapegoat. When a marginalized group disproportionately wields more power than their representation should warrant, and their power is destructive to the moral values of the society, it's just a matter of time before people begin to notice. With Jews, this has happened over and over again.

However, when dealing with the analytical propensity of the Western mind, there is quite a bit of difference between the complexity of the JQ and something simple like “black fatigue.” Almost every American is well aware of the potential dangers that exist when dealing with “the blacks.” Nobody is asking the question, “But, why do blacks act like that?” It's not something people want to figure out. But being ignorant of it can literally cost you your life.

Jews present a different kind of problem. Their perceived negative behavior is subversive, and typically disguised with deception. That's one of the fundamental components of “the question.” They tend to genetically assimilate to some degree, so they often look White. Most have changed their last names to hide that they're Jewish. And those that are openly Jewish just get swept under the “God's chosen people” rug, which pretty much gives them a pass for anything (at least with evangelicals).

Genesis 12:3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.

One of the three fundamental precepts of Western Civilization is justice (freedom and liberty being the other two). One of the elements often required in the establishment of justice is motive. For most people, the “Why?” is an itch that has to be scratched. Knowing is half the battle.

Growing up in the Midwest, I didn't know anything about Jews. Knowledge is experience, and I had never been around any. So, when I became interested in White Nationalism, one of the first things that caught my attention was all of this talk about Jews. White Nationalism is a straight-forward, reactionary concept. You don't need to be 120 IQ to understand it. The JQ is more of a causative diagnosis that is central to the understanding of White Nationalist ideology. It focuses on things like agenda, power, politics, tribalism, etc. It's essentially pointing a finger at the problem.

The JQ is like a bad car wreck; once you see it, you can't unsee it. It's fairly easy to read the “early life” of those often behind a lot of the anti-White agendas. It won't take long before you understand the accuracy of the “Every. Single. Time.” phrase. Once you've looked behind the curtain enough, you know what you're going to see.

Even though it's rather obvious that there are a disproportionate amount of Jews pushing anti-White agendas. And that those Jews tend to operate on an in-group/out-group dynamic from an ethnocentric perspective, using antisemitism as a binder, it still doesn't establish a motive for their behavior. Unlike “the blacks,” it's hard to say, “that's just how they are.” True or not, that doesn't scratch that itch. The essence of the Jewish Question is establishing motive for their anti-White behavior.

While many may disagree, I don't think it's possible to understand the JQ without incorporating Christianity into the equation. In fact, the Jew/White dichotomy is actually a Jewish/Christian conflict dating back to Biblical times. I don't want to make this a religious experience, or attempt to hold a Bible study, but one of the most important things to understand is that those who call themselves Jews aren't Biblical Jews. Jesus himself said this:

Revelations 2:9 I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

Revelations 3:9 Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie--indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.

Many of the most fervent “antisemites” have no problems acknowledging the conspiratorial, deceptive nature that Jews often exhibit. But for some reason those same people tend to overlook the biggest lie the Jews have ever pulled off, which is claiming to be God's covenant people of the Bible. Jesus wasn't a Jew anymore than Beethoven was black.

Almost all of the Jews in the US are Ashkenazi. If you believe the Jew Arthur Koestler's theory, Ashkenazi Jews are 8^th century Turkish-Khazar converts who migrated into Eastern Europe in the 12^th and 13^th centuries. Ironically, he wrote his book The Thirteenth Tribe to “prove” that modern Jews weren't the descendants of ancient Israelite's, so people would quit blaming them for killing Christ, and thus eradicating antisemitism.

Anyone who has even a little bit of Biblical knowledge should know that modern Jews don't fulfill any of the prophesies that God promised his covenant people. Jesus refers to those who “say they are Jews and are not,” as being members of the “synagogue of Satan.” It only makes sense that Satan would want to genocide God's people. If Jews are Satan's people, and Whites are God's covenant people, then The White Genocide Question is fairly easy to answer.

I'm almost certain that there are people reading this and asking,“But, what if we just did away with Christianity?” I suppose that's a valid question. But, isn't that what the Bolsheviks did? I'm not a student of Soviet history, but I don't think that worked out very well. Nonetheless, just because you quit worshiping your God doesn't mean they will quit worshiping theirs. And I suppose without Christianity the Jews technically couldn't lay claim to their ethnostate Israel, but where would all those Jews go? I doubt they'd be on the planes to Liberia with the rest of the asylum seekers.

Whether you're Christian or not, the genesis of the JQ is rooted in Christianity. Eliminating Christianity to answer the JQ would be like blowing up the sun to fix global warming.

Once the motive has been established, there's no longer a question.

What Narcissism Looks Like

As you well know, dear reader, "narcissism" is just the "N word" that jaded women use to describe their ex. Or really, just any man that doesn't cater to their feelings. It's a very feminine word.

It's quite the interesting phenomenon the way that words can catch on in the social realm.

Seriously, have you ever met a woman in the last 5 years who doesn't have that word on speed dial in her vocabulary?

It's gotten so popular that now you even see men using it. Sure, they're typically beta males, but still. 

I think the word does have meaning. I think the word does have relevance within the field of psychology. But when words take flight from their nest, they tend to evolve into something else.

Narcissism is a self-centered personality style characterized as having an excessive preoccupation with oneself and one's own needs, often at the expense of others.

As I said in my previous post on the subject, pretty much everyone is a narcissist to some degree. Those who scream "narcissist" the loudest are those who exhibit the highest levels of narcissism.

Digressing.

I recently watched a 3-episode documentary titled A Killer Story:

If you plan on watching it, I wouldn't recommend reading any further.

Unlike Amy Bradley Is Missing, which I thought was a lame attempt at entertainment (Amy obviously jumped off the ship), A Killer Story is actually pretty good.

I don't want to bore you with a review, you could easily just watch the series yourself. But to outline the plot, if you don't want to watch the trailer I posted above, a woman was convicted in the early 00s of killing her ex-husband and his wife.

The story is rather strange, because the killing was pretty much a professional-style execution. The ex-wife was a middle-aged accountant that lived like 600 miles away in a different state (Colorado). There was no evidence she was in the state (Kansas), no DNA at the scene, she didn't own any weapons, etc, etc. All the evidence was basically circumstantial based on her being crazy and making threats.

A couple who were aware of the story believed that she was innocent and devoted their entire lives to proving it. They were the ones who contacted the journalist responsible for making the documentary. They sent him over 3,000 emails before he ever responded to them. They were obsessed, to say the least. 

Ten years later she gets a new trial. The trial ends up in a hung jury and a mistrial is declared.

As I stated, there was very little evidence to convict her. It seemed pretty realistic, based on the evidence in the documentary, that a conviction wasn't going to be easy. The previous trial was 7 guilty vs 5 not guilty. The case was 20 years old. There wasn't any new evidence. It was going to be a tough conviction.

Here's where the plot twist comes in, and the point of this paper. 

As I said, it would seem like it was going to be a tough conviction. But on the day of the retrial, which was like 20 years after the original conviction, the accused killer (Dana Chandler) fired her attorneys and decided to represent herself.

She obviously thought she was smarter than everyone else in the room, which is one of the so-called traits of narcissism. Since she was acting as her own attorney, she took the stand and was subjected to cross examination. She had never taken the stand in the other two trials, which is common for murder cases (the burden of guilt is upon the state to prove). The DA caught her in lies, and the jury convicted her of murder in less than 3 hours.

It was hard to come away from the show thinking she actually did the murders. She doesn't fit the criteria of a hitman. But maybe she did. Or maybe she hired someone. Who knows? Regardless, she will spend the rest of her life in prison because she made the decision to represent herself, and I'd be willing to bet that she has no regrets about doing it. She turned her back on the jury after they read the verdict. I'm sure she blames them, instead of realizing how ignorant her decision was.

Sticktoitivness

The recipe for greatness isn't a big secret. 

Everyone seems to have this idea that if they read this book, or do this person's regimen, or have this guru's mindset, that they can achieve anything. I suppose some of that is true. I don't think those things will hurt you, or decrease your chance of success. 

First of all, if you want to be "great" (keep in mind that to some degree "greatness" is a subjective concept), you have to have above average ability in whatever thing your trying to be great at.

Greatness can be summed up formulaically as follows:

determination + ability + 10 years = the potential for success

The acquisition of knowledge on anything is irrelevant if it's unapplicable. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say "I read this book and I've learned so much from it," only to leave me wanting to ask: "Oh really. Prove it."

In fact, I recall once talking with someone who said, "There is no amount of money I would trade for what I learned reading Rich Dad, Poor Dad." And yet, this person doesn't own one piece of real estate and doesn't have 2 pennies to rub together. How was that book so valuable?

Another great example is the 48 Laws of Power. This is a book I've read more than once. I think it's a great book to read. Not necessarily from a practical standpoint, just from an entertaining standpoint. But if you have this idea that you're going to read that book an suddenly become this powerful person, you're either a sociopath or naive.

Are there concepts in books that are worth knowing? Absolutely. 

But if you don't have the ability or personality to apply what you're "learning" in those books, then it's useless. An overwhelming amount of one's knowledge is completely useless.

The amount of effort it would take to apply the "laws of power" to your life is a daunting task that would essentially require an entire personality makeover. You literally wouldn't be the same person, unless you were already a power-hungry sociopath who just didn't have the skillset to accomplish the power that you were after.

If you want to be great at anything worth being great at, the first thing you need to do is have the personality trait of sticktoitivness to devote yourself to that which you want to be great at for at least 10 years. Hardcore determination will override some deficiencies in ability, to the point that you can probably get good enough to be satisfied with your results.

Reading books, or acquiring information, could aid you on that journey, but it's not a shortcut for success. 

People love to recite cliches. One is "knowledge is power." 

Certainly knowing is half the battle, but the true relevance of knowledge comes from experience.

Remembering the Manosphere

Remember a decade ago, when the "manosphere" was a thing, back before censorship became a bigger thing?

I stumbled onto the "manosphere" when there became somewhat of merger between identity politics and masculinity. "Merger" might not be the right word, but lets just say that those teaching the art of game to systemically emasculated males understood why they had a voice. In a healthy society, men wouldn't have to be taught how to deal with women.

I'm sure there were several different manosphere personalities, the only one I followed was Chateau Heartiste. He had a sound understanding of women, but more importantly (at least to me), he understood the societal causes from an identarian perspective. 

I'm not sure if he coined the phrase or not, but that was the first place I saw diversity + proximity = war. 

Sometime around 2019 he was scrubbed from the internet, just like every other pro-White dissident was. I'm not sure exactly why, but it probably had to do with his atheistic view of Saint Floyd. Actually, it was probably because he was showing white males how to be White Men. 

It's hard to believe it's already been 7 years since he hasn't been around. Does anyone know if he has a voice anywhere? It seems like a few years ago he was posting on Gab. 

There was so much talent and energy back in those days. I used to look forward to drinking my coffee and reading Heartiste and AA, now both are MIA.

Is the manosphere still a thing?

Maybe I'll do manly writing. You know, to help the youth. And show respect for those that paved the way.

Unlike sin, there is no original thought. We are all parrots. 

It's not what you know, but who you believe. You can trust me.

A billion hearts, one beat.

I'll leave you with Heartiste's 16 Commandments of Poon:

I. Never say ‘I Love You’ first

Women want to feel like they have to overcome obstacles to win a man’s heart. They crave the challenge of capturing the interest of a man who has other women competing for his attention, and eventually prevailing over his grudging reluctance to award his committed exclusivity. The man who gives his emotional world away too easily robs women of the satisfaction of earning his love. Though you may be in love with her, don’t say it before she has said it. Show compassionate restraint for her need to struggle toward yin fulfillment. Inspire her to take the leap for you, and she’ll return the favor a thousandfold.

II. Make her jealous

Flirt with other women in front of her. Do not dissuade other women from flirting with you. Women will never admit this but jealousy excites them. The thought of you turning on another woman will arouse her sexually. No girl wants a man that no other woman wants. The partner who harnesses the gale storm of jealousy controls the direction of the relationship.

III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority

Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.

IV. Don’t play by her rules

If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.

V. Adhere to the golden ratio

Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.

VI. Keep her guessing

True to their inscrutable natures, women ask questions they don’t really want direct answers to. Woe be the man who plays it straight — his fate is the suffering of the beta. Evade, tease, obfuscate. She thrives when she has to imagine what you’re thinking about her, and withers when she knows exactly how you feel. A woman may want financial and family security, but she does not want passion security. In the same manner, when she has displeased you, punish swiftly, but when she has done you right, reward slowly. Reward her good behavior intermittently and unpredictably and she will never tire of working hard to please you.

VII. Always keep two in the kitty

Never allow yourself to be a “kept man”. A man with options is a man without need. It builds confidence and encourages boldness with women if there is another woman, a safety net, to catch you in case you slip and risk a breakup, divorce, or a lost prospect, leading to loneliness and a grinding dry spell. A woman knows once she has slept with a man she has abdicated a measure of her power; when she has fallen in love with him she has surrendered nearly all of it. But love is ephemeral and with time she may rediscover her power and threaten to leave you. It is her final trump card. Withdrawing all her love and all her body in an instant will rend your soul if you are faced with contemplating the empty abyss alone. Knowing there is another you can turn to for affection will fortify your will and satisfy your manhood.

VIII. Say you’re sorry only when absolutely necessary

Do not say you’re sorry for every wrong thing you do. It is a posture of submission that no man should reflexively adopt, no matter how alpha he is. Apologizing increases the demand for more apologies. She will come to expect your contrition, like a cat expects its meal at a set time each day. And then your value will lower in her eyes. Instead, if you have done something wrong, you should acknowledge your guilt in a glancing way without resorting to the actual words “I’m sorry.” Pull the Bill Clinton maneuver and say “Mistakes were made” or tell her you “feel bad” about what you did. You are granted two freebie “I’m sorry”s for the life of your relationship; use them wisely.

IX. Connect with her emotions

Set yourself apart from other men and connect with a woman’s emotional landscape. Her mind is an alien world that requires deft navigation to reach your rendevous. Frolic in the surf of emotions rather than the arid desert of logic. Be playful. Employ all your senses. Describe in lush detail scenarios to set her heart afire. Give your feelings freedom to roam. ROAM. Yes, that is a good word. You’re not on a linear path with her. You are ROAMING all over, taking her on an adventure. In this world, there is no need to finish thoughts or draw conclusions. There is only need to EXPERIENCE. You’re grabbing her hand and running with her down an infinite, labyrinthine alleyway with no end, laughing and letting your fingers glide on the cobblestone walls along the way.

X. Ignore her beauty

The man who trains his mind to subdue the reward centers of his brain when reflecting upon a beautiful female face will magically transform his interactions with women. His apprehension and self-consciousness will melt away, paving the path for more honest and self-possessed interactions with the objects of his desire. This is one reason why the greatest lotharios drown in more love than they can handle — through positive experiences with so many beautiful women they lose their awe of beauty and, in turn, their powerlessness under its spell. It will help you acquire the right frame of mind to stop using the words hot, cute, gorgeous, or beautiful to describe girls who turn you on. Instead, say to yourself “she’s interesting” or “she might be worth getting to know”. Never compliment a girl on her looks, especially not a girl you aren’t fucking. Turn off that part of your brain that wants to put them on pedestals. Further advanced training to reach this state of unawed Zen transcendence is to sleep with many MANY attractive women (try to avoid sleeping with a lot of ugly women if you don’t want to regress). Soon, a Jedi lover you will be.

XI.  Be irrationally self-confident

No matter what your station in life, stride through the world without apology or excuse. It does not matter if objectively you are not the best man a woman can get; what matters is that you think and act like you are. Women have a dog’s instinct for uncovering weakness in men; don’t make it easy for them. Self-confidence, warranted or not, triggers submissive emotional responses in women. Irrational self-confidence will get you more pussy than rational defeatism.

XII.  Maximize your strengths, minimize your weaknesses

In the betterment of ourselves as men we attract women into our orbit. To accomplish this gravitational pull as painlessly and efficiently as possible, you must identify your natural talents and shortcomings and parcel your efforts accordingly. If you are a gifted jokester, don’t waste time and energy trying to raise your status in philosophical debate. If you write well but dance poorly, don’t kill yourself trying to expand your manly influence on the dancefloor. Your goal should be to attract women effortlessly, so play to your strengths no matter what they are; there is a groupie for every male endeavor. Except World of Warcraft.

XIII. Err on the side of too much boldness, rather than too little

Touching a woman inappropriately on the first date will get you further with her than not touching her at all. Don’t let a woman’s faux indignation at your boldness sway you; they secretly love it when a man aggressively pursues what he wants and makes his sexual intentions known. You don’t have to be an asshole, but if you have no choice, being an inconsiderate asshole beats being a polite beta, every time.

XIV. Fuck her good

Fuck her like it’s your last fuck. And hers. Fuck her so good, so hard, so wantonly, so profligately that she is left a quivering, sparking mass of shaking flesh and sex fluids. Drain her of everything, then drain her some more. Kiss her all over, make love to her all night, and hold her close in the morning. Own her body, own her gratitude, own her love. If you don’t know how, learn to give her squirting orgasms.

XV. Maintain your state control

You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her.

XVI.  Never be afraid to lose her

You must not fear. Fear is the love-killer. Fear is the ego-triumph that brings abject loneliness. You will face your fear. You will permit it to pass over and through you. And when your ego-fear is gone you will turn and face your lover, and only your heart will remain. You will walk away from her when she has violated your integrity, and you will let her walk when her heart is closed to you. She who can destroy you, controls you. Don’t give her that power over yourself. Love yourself before you love her.

***

The closer you follow the letter of these commandments, the easier you will find and keep real, true unconditional love and happiness in your life.

Best,

Your Lord and King

Time as a Commodity

We've all heard it said that, "time is the most valuable commodity there is."

But have you ever had a lot of time on your hands? It's weird how time is so valuable, but when faced with excess time our nature is to find some escape from that time.

I wonder if people really value time, or if they just fear death.

For the most part, I think philosophy is goofy, but if you were to cite the philosopher's take on time, they would associate it with "being," and conclude that time finds its meaning in death. 

I've always found it interesting how the "big brain" philosophers hang their hat on making simple concepts complex. Of course the essence of time is understood by death. 

The more interesting part is that time is the only commodity that matters to the human conscious, yet too much of it leads to boredom, then ultimately to nihilism. 

What becomes of boredom? Why don't we bathe it, in an uninebriated state, incapable of escaping pure bliss?

Humans weren't created to think, we were created to survive. Once we evolve into a cognitive species, we will quickly think our way into extinction. We are witnessing this phenomenon.

There is an old parable that says the first man to develop the ability of reason went down to the river and killed himself. I assume he wanted to end his suffering before it began.

Is the glass half full, or half empty?

God bless. 

Individuality is a Lonely Path

Most people assume they're unique, but they're not.

Many years ago I wrote a poem titled The Liberal, that I often think about when I think about human uniqueness:

Same old regurgitated nonsense.

Stop assuming you're unique.

I've met you a thousand times, 

only a different name and physique.

There is no such thing as a "unique" conformist. They're all the same. They dress the same. They say the same things. They believe the same stuff. 

I'm not here to say that I'm different, or unique. In fact, I think when people say that they're different, they're actually just lonely, or have believed some manipulator's lies. If they were to socialize much they would quickly realize they're just like everyone else. Even if they have blue hair and nose ring.

I watched a movie last night about this eccentric Jew. The movie was stupid, but it was based on a true story and I was bored, so I watched it, which probably says more about me than the movie.

The premise of the movie is that this loser chronicles his miserable life biographically via comic books. It's honestly not worth watching, but if you're going to spend 2 hours doing something you might as well try to take something from the experience.

Early on in the movie his black co-worker quotes a stanza from the poem The Eagle and the Mole.

Avoid the reeking herd,

Shun the polluted flock,

Live like that stoic bird,

The eagle of the rock.

The idea is to reject the herd, and either stoically perch yourself above the crowd with ambition, or be like the mole and remain humble and out of sight. Either path is one of individuality, which is just another way of saying isolation. 

Individuality is always a lonely path because people are sheeple. 

Most of us aren't as pathetic as the movie's main character Harvey Pekar, who literally married a woman the first week he met her cause he was so lonely. People who can't be by themselves are people who don't like themselves. So, as the miserable Pekar does, he seeks company. Not as a way of making his life better, but to unburden his misery onto others. These kinds of people are pathetic human beings.

If you ever meet someone who can't be by themselves for an extended period of time, stay away from them.

Harvey Pekar

Escapism Enables Indifference

The collective conscious has concluded that the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference.

I use the phrase "collective conscious" from the philosophy that original thought is extinct. We could debate if it ever existed, but we will save that discussion for another day.

The essence of life is time. We all have an allotted amount of time, in which we have the free will to choose how it's spent. Historically speaking, that would basically be used almost entirely in some form of survival. In the modern world, it's spent escaping nihilism.

We do the best we can to become "comfortably numb."

As time goes on, one can't help but ponder their existence. 

We are stuck asking the question, "What's this Life for?"

At some point time becomes synonymous with boredom. When that occurs we begin to stare into the abyss. After staring into the abyss long enough, the abyss begins to stare back. 

That abyss is a mirror named Karma for which one cannot unsee.