They exist, but they become rarer by the day. Most women, at their core, are followers, though. Weak men, and omnipresent media, have allowed the current state of affairs, but it would quickly change if men became strong again, and media influence declined. Both are likely to happen, just because of the current state of affairs is self-destructive to society. Men will be left to pick up the pieces and rebuild, and that's okay.
I think you obsess over this stuff but you're rarely wrong.
It's because he's rationalized the motivations and causes of ills we see in society by working backwards towards generalizations (inductive reasoning) that may not necessarily be the exact motivations or causes of those ills, even though the result is the same and his logic is sound. Because his logic is sound and it all "makes sense", he has no need to explore alternatives, so further evidence merely reinforces the "model" or framework of reality.
It is not even surprising that he can make hypotheses that turn out to be correct, when his model is not mutually exclusive with alternative models, and most likely overlaps with reality. I can neither say with 100% certainty that he's wrong, but I have no need to accept his conclusions when other explanations exist. (which would need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis)
tldr: i dunno about all that but maybe he's right about some things
Ahhh...I know a few for goodness sake. And they complain they can't find a guy who's got his shit together. And they usually settle for these guys. It's bad out there but not hopeless.
Not always. There is a group that are aware of then being taken advantage of by such men and will go to the other extreme and seek non-threatening males (I dare not call then men) or goofy/dopey guys and then complain about that. Balance can be elusive. Though I do think that this group of women has potential for a decent man, one who can protect/guide them. They may even grow to love each other.
Fair enough, but we made it about 100 years without too many ill-effects. Women weren't so much a root problem, just an easily exploitable vector of subversion.
Exactly. Every society has it's weakest points, and women can be a large one. This is why treating women exactly like men and expecting them to act contrary to their nature leads to many problems. If they under-perform you're not simply allowed to say that without facing backlash.
Much worse is the force that drives that wedge deeper into society in order to break up power and take it for itself, knowing full well the amount of suffering and destruction it can cause.
Women cannot be that ultimate cause, especially in a monogamous society. For humanity to exist it needs men and women, and either one needs to be suppressed or they work in tandem. If deep down men or women in general wanted the other utterly destroyed, it would have already happened by now and there would be no humans.
They don't want all the men gone, just those who don't have a hot body, are shorter than 6 ft, don't have a huge dick, and don't have 6 figures in the bank.
We're probably 6 or 7 generations into that. The single mother and patriarchy things were products of the 60's, and the fashionable rejection of tradition that came with it. That's when Marxist infiltration really started to find broad success in the US, though it had been brewing and adapting, largely in NYC, since the 1890's.
It's a psychotic sadism that has been nurtured, though. The numbers have absolutely increased, but that's to be expected when everything around them tells them that this is "right" and "true" and "virtuous". Bad people control the zeitgeist, and the zeitgeist controls women.
If the whole world media told people that incest was good, would people start screwing their siblings?
Give it time. It's an angle being worked.
Granted, I think we're going to reset things before we get to that point, but no bridge seems too far.
Edit:
I don't believe this theory, no one can convince you to do something you don't want to.
This should be addressed. You're not looking at this correctly. We all want to do terrible things, at least at some level. That's human nature. The issue arises when society (or at least the perception of society) gives you license for your terrible desires.
Given enough time, almost certainly they would. Our behavior is shaped by social norms, which the media has a big part in shaping. Human nature isn’t as set in stone as you seem to think. In Ancient Greece, buttfucking little boys was the norm.
Your origin story is what I'm most curious about. Was it one event that turned you or were you slowly turned? Did something happen to you or someone close to you that opened your eyes to what was going on?
I understand if vagueness is required to avoid identifying information, of course. Or is this too close to personal info?
Other questions: What do you envision as the best way forward for humanity? And, if you could change the world right now to fit your ideal, what would that world look like?
The Left is an ideology of warfare. The means of warfare must be broken apart, and they must be forced into engaging in individual and voluntary interactions.
That requires that the anti-Left create a decentralized defense in depth to resist Leftist penetrations, while not allowing them to seize keystone positions of power and giving themselves centralized control over any particular institution that would have enough sway to co-opt or subvert the population generally.
It also requires that the anti-Left seize Leftist possessed institutions and destroy them utterly, and replace them with decentralized structures that allow for few if any keystone positions of power.
The Left relies on seizing power, to create momentum to seize power. As such, they are a beast that exists to feed and expand until they can't grow any further and collapse. Our objective must be to starve the beast at every opportunity to push for it's collapse, and then continue to starve it by denying it something to feed off of.
Seizing institutions alone will do nothing. The only good seizing institutions will do is that we can destroy those institutions and force people to not rely on Leftist Rackets/Syndicates for protection, slowly teaching slaves how to live as free men, and incentivizing those people to enjoy the profits of that freedom.
Cultural Effort will have to be our focus since that is the only way we can a) seize the initiative in the first place, b) not be pulled into a different syndicate that will only grant another avenue of attack to the Left.
Each protectionist effort doe not minimize harm, but delays it. Unfortunately, to low time preference slaves, there is no difference between delaying harm and preventing it. We will have to slowly teach slaves how to live free with longer time preferences.
This will only minimize harm from us. As the Left recognizes progress against them by denying them a food source, the response is inevitably going to be more and more violent. The Left will maximize harm as much as humanly possible to keep their slaves, at the cost of all things.
However, the Left has great difficulty understanding the threat arranged against it from a decentralized system, because they only think in authoritarian terms. If the Soviet Union genuinely believed that Estonian efforts to document the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement would have destroyed the Soviet Union, they would have killed every living thing in Estonia to prevent it. Instead, everyone went "Ha! Fuck off Estonia" until it was too late and the crisis had taken on a life of it's own.
Human freedom is the most subversive possible weapon that will generate the least possible harm to society at large against the Left. It's just not an easy task, and it won't prevent the Left from occasionally lashing out and killing a thousand people in a fit of rage.
Human freedom is the most subversive possible weapon that will generate the least possible harm to society at large against the Left. It's just not an easy task, and it won't prevent the Left from occasionally lashing out and killing a thousand people in a fit of rage.
Or millions.
Your "solution" doesn't seem so much like a solution, just a constant battle of attrition. Not sure how that inflicts the least harm.
Either way, when they lash out, it will invite inevitable, justified reprisal.
Don't get me wrong. I'd like you to be correct, but it seems like a path of prolonged suffering more than anything.
Take it from someone who occupied a foreign country without their consent. You need legitimacy to hold power because all power is illusory. If you go for whatever feels good, you will sacrifice your strategic advantage.
How about totally off topic to the usual women and entertainment media? Any non-related hobbies? Travel was one of my things but with the virus killing that off along with the fact I've cut TV watching by 90% in the last couple years it gave me some free time too. I've started piddling with my car again and it's been good for my mental state to spend some time away from electronic stuff. Thought about doing some sort of a full-on project car, if I can make the space and money.
I forget you're the other one I've seen talking F1 here. I had planned to go to Montreal this year. Monza trip was a definitely maybe for 2022. At this point I don't care if I ever go to Canada again. I'll probably still try for Italy some day if things ever get normal enough to enjoy it.
Hopefully Hamilton can lose some more. Maybe he will get Bottas' wheel nut fitting guy. Or hell I'd donate to Mazepin just to get him to intentionally go out to screw up Hamilton's qualifying laps. Just drive around until Hamilton is on a hot lap then spin off into the gravel for some yellow flags. Or really anything that keeps him off a podium, I'll take it.
Do you think Islam got it right when it comes to women? What parts, if any, do you disagree with? There are variations of Muslim society, pick the closest one to your tolerance.
Personal: Other than the onset of hormones and the handful of years required to get them under control, I've been anti-modern?-marriage even as a child, and extremely nihilistic when younger than that. My view might be warped. But I wasn't necessarily anti-feminist originally, it started maybe 10 years ago and grew into a raging inferno over time.
It's the radical feminists, and the Cultural Marxists, and the charlatans pushing Critical Race Theory, and the hucksters pedaling Intersectional Black Feminism, and the sexual degenerates using LGB* as a motte and bailey to prey upon kids (yes, I resorted to 'Won't someone think of the kids', alas).
So, tell us, where do you get the energy to be right all the time?
They are attacking us from all sides because they want the white race to die screaming because our achievements and Christian spirituality makes a mockery out of their claims to be a divine master race.
They exist, but they become rarer by the day. Most women, at their core, are followers, though. Weak men, and omnipresent media, have allowed the current state of affairs, but it would quickly change if men became strong again, and media influence declined. Both are likely to happen, just because of the current state of affairs is self-destructive to society. Men will be left to pick up the pieces and rebuild, and that's okay.
What would cause media influence to decline? The only things I can think of are either a miraculous anti-media revival, or widespread censorship laws.
(or do you mean that media just stops pushing feminism?)
Backlash and breakdown, mostly.
It's because he's rationalized the motivations and causes of ills we see in society by working backwards towards generalizations (inductive reasoning) that may not necessarily be the exact motivations or causes of those ills, even though the result is the same and his logic is sound. Because his logic is sound and it all "makes sense", he has no need to explore alternatives, so further evidence merely reinforces the "model" or framework of reality.
It is not even surprising that he can make hypotheses that turn out to be correct, when his model is not mutually exclusive with alternative models, and most likely overlaps with reality. I can neither say with 100% certainty that he's wrong, but I have no need to accept his conclusions when other explanations exist. (which would need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis)
tldr: i dunno about all that but maybe he's right about some things
Ahhh...I know a few for goodness sake. And they complain they can't find a guy who's got his shit together. And they usually settle for these guys. It's bad out there but not hopeless.
Not always. There is a group that are aware of then being taken advantage of by such men and will go to the other extreme and seek non-threatening males (I dare not call then men) or goofy/dopey guys and then complain about that. Balance can be elusive. Though I do think that this group of women has potential for a decent man, one who can protect/guide them. They may even grow to love each other.
But everything is the fault of the jews. They have a stranglehold on media, education, politics, and the law.
You haven't noticed?
They've always been teachers, and they've always been office support staff. The politics part is the only thing vaguely new.
Not always. Teaching used to be a male-dominated profession.
Fair enough, but we made it about 100 years without too many ill-effects. Women weren't so much a root problem, just an easily exploitable vector of subversion.
Exactly. Every society has it's weakest points, and women can be a large one. This is why treating women exactly like men and expecting them to act contrary to their nature leads to many problems. If they under-perform you're not simply allowed to say that without facing backlash.
Much worse is the force that drives that wedge deeper into society in order to break up power and take it for itself, knowing full well the amount of suffering and destruction it can cause.
Women cannot be that ultimate cause, especially in a monogamous society. For humanity to exist it needs men and women, and either one needs to be suppressed or they work in tandem. If deep down men or women in general wanted the other utterly destroyed, it would have already happened by now and there would be no humans.
They don't want all the men gone, just those who don't have a hot body, are shorter than 6 ft, don't have a huge dick, and don't have 6 figures in the bank.
We're probably 6 or 7 generations into that. The single mother and patriarchy things were products of the 60's, and the fashionable rejection of tradition that came with it. That's when Marxist infiltration really started to find broad success in the US, though it had been brewing and adapting, largely in NYC, since the 1890's.
It's a psychotic sadism that has been nurtured, though. The numbers have absolutely increased, but that's to be expected when everything around them tells them that this is "right" and "true" and "virtuous". Bad people control the zeitgeist, and the zeitgeist controls women.
Give it time. It's an angle being worked.
Granted, I think we're going to reset things before we get to that point, but no bridge seems too far.
Edit:
This should be addressed. You're not looking at this correctly. We all want to do terrible things, at least at some level. That's human nature. The issue arises when society (or at least the perception of society) gives you license for your terrible desires.
Given enough time, almost certainly they would. Our behavior is shaped by social norms, which the media has a big part in shaping. Human nature isn’t as set in stone as you seem to think. In Ancient Greece, buttfucking little boys was the norm.
There were a few diseases known "aristocratic diseases" that were the result of royalties preference for marrying their own cousins.
Not as far off as you might think.
The disdain for the peasants which was highly encouraged by their social group?
Sounds like the same thing that's actually happening to me.
Your origin story is what I'm most curious about. Was it one event that turned you or were you slowly turned? Did something happen to you or someone close to you that opened your eyes to what was going on?
I understand if vagueness is required to avoid identifying information, of course. Or is this too close to personal info?
Other questions: What do you envision as the best way forward for humanity? And, if you could change the world right now to fit your ideal, what would that world look like?
We're at war, but not with women, just the Left.
What's the path to winning against the "Left", while minimizing harm?
The Left is an ideology of warfare. The means of warfare must be broken apart, and they must be forced into engaging in individual and voluntary interactions.
That requires that the anti-Left create a decentralized defense in depth to resist Leftist penetrations, while not allowing them to seize keystone positions of power and giving themselves centralized control over any particular institution that would have enough sway to co-opt or subvert the population generally.
It also requires that the anti-Left seize Leftist possessed institutions and destroy them utterly, and replace them with decentralized structures that allow for few if any keystone positions of power.
The Left relies on seizing power, to create momentum to seize power. As such, they are a beast that exists to feed and expand until they can't grow any further and collapse. Our objective must be to starve the beast at every opportunity to push for it's collapse, and then continue to starve it by denying it something to feed off of.
Seizing institutions alone will do nothing. The only good seizing institutions will do is that we can destroy those institutions and force people to not rely on Leftist Rackets/Syndicates for protection, slowly teaching slaves how to live as free men, and incentivizing those people to enjoy the profits of that freedom.
Cultural Effort will have to be our focus since that is the only way we can a) seize the initiative in the first place, b) not be pulled into a different syndicate that will only grant another avenue of attack to the Left.
Each protectionist effort doe not minimize harm, but delays it. Unfortunately, to low time preference slaves, there is no difference between delaying harm and preventing it. We will have to slowly teach slaves how to live free with longer time preferences.
This will only minimize harm from us. As the Left recognizes progress against them by denying them a food source, the response is inevitably going to be more and more violent. The Left will maximize harm as much as humanly possible to keep their slaves, at the cost of all things.
However, the Left has great difficulty understanding the threat arranged against it from a decentralized system, because they only think in authoritarian terms. If the Soviet Union genuinely believed that Estonian efforts to document the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement would have destroyed the Soviet Union, they would have killed every living thing in Estonia to prevent it. Instead, everyone went "Ha! Fuck off Estonia" until it was too late and the crisis had taken on a life of it's own.
Human freedom is the most subversive possible weapon that will generate the least possible harm to society at large against the Left. It's just not an easy task, and it won't prevent the Left from occasionally lashing out and killing a thousand people in a fit of rage.
Or millions.
Your "solution" doesn't seem so much like a solution, just a constant battle of attrition. Not sure how that inflicts the least harm.
Either way, when they lash out, it will invite inevitable, justified reprisal.
Don't get me wrong. I'd like you to be correct, but it seems like a path of prolonged suffering more than anything.
It's not a battle of attrition, but it's a perpetual war against power mongers, which is simply the way of things.
Whatever reprisal happens, it will still need to be proportionate in order to be legitimate.
Complete seems to give lasting legitimacy better than proportionate.
You don't see Picts bitching about things, do you?
I don't see the romans bitching either.
Take it from someone who occupied a foreign country without their consent. You need legitimacy to hold power because all power is illusory. If you go for whatever feels good, you will sacrifice your strategic advantage.
Occupation isn't the only option, though. It's probably the worst option, unless you just need human resources that badly.
How about totally off topic to the usual women and entertainment media? Any non-related hobbies? Travel was one of my things but with the virus killing that off along with the fact I've cut TV watching by 90% in the last couple years it gave me some free time too. I've started piddling with my car again and it's been good for my mental state to spend some time away from electronic stuff. Thought about doing some sort of a full-on project car, if I can make the space and money.
I forget you're the other one I've seen talking F1 here. I had planned to go to Montreal this year. Monza trip was a definitely maybe for 2022. At this point I don't care if I ever go to Canada again. I'll probably still try for Italy some day if things ever get normal enough to enjoy it.
Hopefully Hamilton can lose some more. Maybe he will get Bottas' wheel nut fitting guy. Or hell I'd donate to Mazepin just to get him to intentionally go out to screw up Hamilton's qualifying laps. Just drive around until Hamilton is on a hot lap then spin off into the gravel for some yellow flags. Or really anything that keeps him off a podium, I'll take it.
For context, I find many of your posts enlightening, even if your other posts go to the absurd.
My Qs:
what is your stance on individualism?
is there a single woman in your life that you consider to be a decent human being? (don't dox yourself)
Both I guess. How do you view individualism as a core value for a government? As a core value for a person?
Do you think Islam got it right when it comes to women? What parts, if any, do you disagree with? There are variations of Muslim society, pick the closest one to your tolerance.
Personal: Other than the onset of hormones and the handful of years required to get them under control, I've been anti-modern?-marriage even as a child, and extremely nihilistic when younger than that. My view might be warped. But I wasn't necessarily anti-feminist originally, it started maybe 10 years ago and grew into a raging inferno over time.
what's good, blood?
if there were any sense in the world, china would be isolated right now.
Boxers of briefs?
Are you actually 6"8 or was that a meme?
Absent a strong male backbone women become the most vile, evil, rapacious and violent harpies your mind can imagine.
Do you actually use light theme? And if so, how's your eyesight?
They did all that stuff 20 years ago
What's the origin of your username? It's always fun to find out how other people come up with their handles.
It's the radical feminists, and the Cultural Marxists, and the charlatans pushing Critical Race Theory, and the hucksters pedaling Intersectional Black Feminism, and the sexual degenerates using LGB* as a motte and bailey to prey upon kids (yes, I resorted to 'Won't someone think of the kids', alas).
So, tell us, where do you get the energy to be right all the time?
All of this is because Harry Potter Banking Goblins have infiltrated Hollywood and our mainstream media and our academia.
They are attacking us from all sides because they want the white race to die screaming because our achievements and Christian spirituality makes a mockery out of their claims to be a divine master race.
Have you tried dating Japanese women or women from non-woke countries?
What's your favourite vtuber?
https://youtu.be/mfkwlSVMS0M
https://youtu.be/lxHeKWhmDgY
"Do you suck dick?"
"Are you a peter puffer?"
It's a joke referencing the movie Full Metal Jacket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqa5CPLlw-U
RIP R. Lee Ermey. One of my favorite actors.
You know you are a badass when you get carte blanche to improv from "Mr. Perfectionist" himself, Stanley Kubrick.
Drill Instructor Improv has always been pretty good.