[BortimusPrime]

Fascism is kind of a degenerate argument since people just throw the term around to give the opposing viewpoint a negative association with Nazis.

A liberal government is one which attempts to make laws to move society towards a perceived ideal future society. A conservative government is one which attempts to make laws to move society towards a perceived ideal past society. How this is accomplished is what best describes the political system. The thing people like to rail against or accuse the democrats/republicans of seeking isn't fascism so much as it is authoritarianism, which can occur in either a liberal or conservative society.

Conservative + authoritarian = fascist
Liberal + authoritarian = communist

Conservative + anti-authoritarian = libertarian
Liberal + anti-authoritarian = hippie

In any case, regardless of what we do, the United States is a large empire, and large empires inexorably move towards a state of increasing authoritarianism supported by an increasingly expensive and corrupt state bureaucracy. Eventually it all falls apart and we get to play Fallout 3 for realsies, but until that happens it's a bit silly to argue which party is secretly filled with nazis. Both Obama and Romney want to be able to murder you with robot planes legally.

[T and A Man]

(05-15-2012 07:27 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

(05-14-2012 11:42 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  

(05-14-2012 11:18 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

There is no alpha without excellence,

Nikolai Tesla was what we would now describe a MGTOW and probably died a virgin.

So which is he?

Just another peasant if he stayed in communist, egalitarian Croatia?

Nikolai Tesla died in January 1943. Yugoslavia wasn't proclaimed communist until November 1943, or wasn't governed as communist in effect until 1945.

He was also Serbian.

He also left the Austro-Hungarian empire in 1882 and arrived in the U.S. in 1884.

Hard to see how Tesla would have ever endured any form of communist role.

[Hooligan Harry]

(05-15-2012 01:17 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(05-15-2012 12:49 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(05-14-2012 02:48 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

This guy was a "liberal." So beta:

Yep, you're right. About being "liberal" that is.

That's why you should read this book.

That's some insanely delusional, revisionist history if I've ever seen it. He's trying to affix the term "Fascist," with all of its negative associations (mostly generic, by people who don't know what it means) to the Left--when, in fact, true Fascism is an extreme Right movement.

Words have actual meanings. This guy--who is thoroughly unqualified to write this shit--is trying to ignore those meanings and create his own. You're entitled to your own opinion, as they say, not your own facts.

Thats not quite true bud. Its just been spun that fascism is right wing, when its actually a left wing ideology.

Facism is STATE CONTROL of major assets and corporations while respecting private property rights to some degree. It just leans towards nationalism and totalitarianism, which is typical of communism too. Social democracies will gradually move towards fascism to maintain control in most cases.

You are seeing it in Europe right now and to a lesser degree the USA where the left has hijacked political discourse and speech completely.

[kerouac]

I like when a guy with such a delicate voice throws around "alpha male" and "beta male" like it ain't no thang.

Why can't we all just agree that the best route for our future is to turn to rationality. There are great things about entrepreneurialism, but there are also great things about a state that protects people's civil rights. Yet, political correctness should go to the dust bin.

I like hearing from educated conservatives who convince me of their ways through logical and rational discussion, but this faux-intellectual "beta male" bashing delicatessen voice should take a good look at himself in the mirror and realize he looks like the typical log cabin republican.

[soup]

(05-16-2012 02:03 AM)kerouac Wrote:  

I like when a guy with such a delicate voice throws around "alpha male" and "beta male" like it ain't no thang.

Why can't we all just agree that the best route for our future is to turn to rationality. There are great things about entrepreneurialism, but there are also great things about a state that protects people's civil rights. Yet, political correctness should go to the dust bin.

I like hearing from educated conservatives who convince me of their ways through logical and rational discussion, but this faux-intellectual "beta male" bashing delicatessen voice should take a good look at himself in the mirror and realize he looks like the typical log cabin republican.

hahaha
man, your avatar..

[kerouac]

(05-16-2012 02:04 AM)soup Wrote:  

hahaha
man, your avatar..

I was looking for someone on facebook and I came upon this picture on one of the search results:

   

Doesn't this picture embody everything this forum resents?

[soup]

(05-15-2012 08:11 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Fascism is kind of a degenerate argument since people just throw the term around to give the opposing viewpoint a negative association with Nazis.

A liberal government is one which attempts to make laws to move society towards a perceived ideal future society. A conservative government is one which attempts to make laws to move society towards a perceived ideal past society. How this is accomplished is what best describes the political system. The thing people like to rail against or accuse the democrats/republicans of seeking isn't fascism so much as it is authoritarianism, which can occur in either a liberal or conservative society.

Conservative + authoritarian = fascist
Liberal + authoritarian = communist

Conservative + anti-authoritarian = libertarian
Liberal + anti-authoritarian = hippie

In any case, regardless of what we do, the United States is a large empire, and large empires inexorably move towards a state of increasing authoritarianism supported by an increasingly expensive and corrupt state bureaucracy. Eventually it all falls apart and we get to play Fallout 3 for realsies, but until that happens it's a bit silly to argue which party is secretly filled with nazis. Both Obama and Romney want to be able to murder you with robot planes legally.

Actually, I always saw true left as being more pragmatism based, and the conservatives pushing the ideal.

[Kona]

(05-16-2012 02:03 AM)kerouac Wrote:  

I like when a guy with such a delicate voice throws around "alpha male" and "beta male" like it ain't no thang.

I think that guy is gay.

Aloha!

[Hooligan Harry]

(05-16-2012 01:10 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

(05-15-2012 07:27 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

(05-14-2012 11:42 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  

(05-14-2012 11:18 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

There is no alpha without excellence,

Nikolai Tesla was what we would now describe a MGTOW and probably died a virgin.

So which is he?

Just another peasant if he stayed in communist, egalitarian Croatia?

Nikolai Tesla died in January 1943. Yugoslavia wasn't proclaimed communist until November 1943, or wasn't governed as communist in effect until 1945.

He was also Serbian.

He also left the Austro-Hungarian empire in 1882 and arrived in the U.S. in 1884.

Hard to see how Tesla would have ever endured any form of communist role.

Whats the point you are trying to make? If you consider yourself a liberal, you are essentially an egalitarian. The problem with that thinking is that its based on the notion that we are ultimately born equal and outcomes are equal given similar environment without discrimination.

Yet that is completely at odds with the whole alpha/beta thing. Its at odds with game as a whole which bases its entire foundation in evo psych. Its at odds with game and how we understand and know attraction works. Its a complete contradiction if you are a liberal PUA.

Tesla was a genius who did not fuck many women. Same could be said for Alexander the great. Just because Roissy's definition of alpha = pornstar, does not make it so. Alpha males are leaders, and leaders are there due to excellence or excellence through birthright. Its not based on the amount of women that want to fuck them only, women are just naturally drawn to leaders of men.

No one rises to the top in an egalitarian society. There is no excellence. Its a race to the bottom because any achievement comes at the expense of someone else. Which is why its so fucking unnatural and I have never been able to understand why it appeals to anyone but those who are born losers OR dont quite understand that liberalism is not really about kind civil service and the greater good. Its about punishing and eliminating the strong.

Tesla may have been a genius, but he was an anti social introvert who managed to have half his ideas stolen from him. He was a ghost.

[Hooligan Harry]

(05-15-2012 04:32 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

Conservatives try to push the idea that they are for the individual, but in reality they are for whatever will make their pockets fatter. No matter who gets fucked in the end, as long as it's not them.

Liberals try to push the idea that they are for the group, but in reality they are for whatever gets them as individuals something for free. No matter who pays for it in the end, as long as they get what they feel they are entitled too, its all justified.

[Deluge]

Are conservative politicians better looking than liberals? Attractiveness in males is strongly correlated with testosterone exposure in the womb, which is also correlated with a whole range of "Alpha" traits (I'll assume you all know this so I won't bother finding and linking all the studies). So yes, on a biological level "Alphas" are more Conservative and less Liberal then "Betas" and when you think about it, it makes sense intuitively.

Quote:

Whats the point you are trying to make? If you consider yourself a liberal, you are essentially an egalitarian. The problem with that thinking is that its based on the notion that we are ultimately born equal and outcomes are equal given similar environment without discrimination.

Yet that is completely at odds with the whole alpha/beta thing. Its at odds with game as a whole which bases its entire foundation in evo psych. Its at odds with game and how we understand and know attraction works. Its a complete contradiction if you are a liberal PUA.

HH, you're making blanket statements by basically equated Conservatism and Libertarianism with one another a couple times here. They may overlap and correlate with each other but they're not the same thing. Also one doesn't need to be egalitarian (ie. we're all equal Kumbaya) to support Liberal ( and social democratic) initiatives such as easy access to education or healthcare either. You're not going to find any Liberal on this Forum who believes in total blank slate equality, but they're still Liberal (arguably less so but that's a given on a Forum like this). You also get egalitarianism amongst the Christian (especially Catholic) Right as well, it's not exclusive to and doesn't wholly encompass one side of the (artificial) political spectrum. Egalitarianism and Liberalism do not always go hand in hand, especially the closer a Liberal is to the centre of said spectrum, we're not all Commies and Greens (AKA ex-Commies).

Quote:

Liberals try to push the idea that they are for the group, but in reality they are for whatever gets them as individuals something for free. No matter who pays for it in the end, as long as they get what they feel they are entitled too, its all justified.

At the end of the day people on either side will overwhelmingly vote in their own best interests first and rationalize that choice to themselves afterwards and this goes for every income/ethnic/gender group around. The difference between most Liberals compared to Conservatives is that they lie to themselves about it to rationalize it. At the same time though there a plenty of poor overwhelmingly conservative Evangelical's in trailer parks in the Bible Belt who still accept their government handouts. There's only one contrary example I can think of, the most obvious is American and Canadian Jews "they act live Episcopalians but they vote like Puerto Ricans" but this can explained as a preservation of their prevailing ideology during their flight from the Russian Empire in the decades before the Revolution.

Anyway, I'm really cynical about politics. No matter who you are or whom you support politically 90% of us vote in our own interests. It's pretty easy to understand where a young poor urban black lesbian woman is coming from when she votes Democrat, just as I can understand why an elderly rural wealthy and religious white man is coming from when he votes Republican. I'm not going to hold it against a poor person if he votes for more social programs just as I'm not going to hold it against a rich person for wanting to scrap said social programs to pay for his tax cut. Basically, we're all selfish bastards.

[T and A Man]

(05-16-2012 02:16 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

(05-16-2012 01:10 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

(05-15-2012 07:27 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

(05-14-2012 11:42 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  

(05-14-2012 11:18 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

There is no alpha without excellence,

Nikolai Tesla was what we would now describe a MGTOW and probably died a virgin.

So which is he?

Just another peasant if he stayed in communist, egalitarian Croatia?

Nikolai Tesla died in January 1943. Yugoslavia wasn't proclaimed communist until November 1943, or wasn't governed as communist in effect until 1945.

He was also Serbian.

He also left the Austro-Hungarian empire in 1882 and arrived in the U.S. in 1884.

Hard to see how Tesla would have ever endured any form of communist role.

Whats the point you are trying to make?

The point I am making is that a guy who is probably not defined as Alpha in anyones book has achieved excellence that no one else has even come close to.

Quote:

If you consider yourself a liberal, you are essentially an egalitarian. The problem with that thinking is that its based on the notion that we are ultimately born equal and outcomes are equal given similar environment without discrimination.

Well now you're off to a false start here.

I threw in the curveball of Yugoslav communism because previously you used your bogeyman of communism, even though it didn't exist until Tesla was a geriatric.

There is a notion that structural disadvantage exists. I would fathom to guess that if Steve Wozniak was born in a rural Congolese village, he may have been impaired from accomplishing what he did.

The issue here is what is not equal treatment, but equitable opportunity. We have seen this work.

Compulsory secondary education is pretty much rigeur de norm in western countries. Universal literacy for example means the skills is easily affordable for business. If literacy was rare, private enterprise would find access to even basic skills unaffordable.

Widespread skills creates more wealth.

The prosperity of countries is pretty much proportional to their aggregate education levels. I am quite content to have a poor person who may be structurally inhibited to education, coming at the expense of a chocolate saucer... 'rich but thick'.

As a devout capitalist, I do seek to optimise potential whereever it may be found. On a parental level, its pretty rational for me to object if it is my thick kid being prevented, but when comparing to the amount of product that comes to market, much more comes from others than can ever come from me.

Quote:

Yet that is completely at odds with the whole alpha/beta thing. Its at odds with game as a whole which bases its entire foundation in evo psych. Its at odds with game and how we understand and know attraction works. Its a complete contradiction if you are a liberal PUA.

??

Much of PUA is about people not in possession of seducation skills, acquiring seduction skills. They do this by emulating behaviour. This distinctly says 'game' is made, not born. Much like feminism is made, not born.

It is behavioural, not genetic. What can be argued, and probably successfully, is that certain individuals have the propensity to develop such skills at a quicker rate and end up superior at such endeavours. There however is probably an environmental factor in regards to role models.

Quote:

Tesla was a genius who did not fuck many women. Same could be said for Alexander the great. Just because Roissy's definition of alpha = pornstar, does not make it so. Alpha males are leaders, and leaders are there due to excellence or excellence through birthright.

Then Tesla is alpha due to his excellence in physics?

This is the distinction I am trying to make, I don't subscribe to Roissy's theory of Alpha = pornstar.

OK, then the world needs more Tesla's. Knowledge throughout the world has been optimised when it has been socialised.

Quote:

Its not based on the amount of women that want to fuck them only, women are just naturally drawn to leaders of men.

OK, maybe I was quick off the starting blocks. Alpha is either leadership. via charisma or activity that others wish to emulate?

Is Josef Stalin Alpha? Sounds like it.

Under that premise, Bernie Madoff is Alpha

Quote:

No one rises to the top in an egalitarian society. There is no excellence. Its a race to the bottom because any achievement comes at the expense of someone else.

Australia was an extremely egalitarian society in the late 19th century, it had the lowest gini coefficient ever seen, it introduced the harvester ruling and was a front runner in many labour reforms.

By 1900, a society starting off as the very worst 'breeding stock' of England, utter scum and lacking any redeeming humane qualities a hundres years earlier, had the highest GDP per capita on the planet. Vocational excellence.

They believed excellence could come from any source, they provided equitable opportunity, not equal treatment.

These 'at the time' radical views were even observed by Charles Darwin, before the Beagle set off for the Galapogas Islands.

His observations were one off the major factors behind 'adaptability' taking precedence over 'survival of the fittest' or genetics.

I would assert adaptability has a major behavioural element, rather than purely genetic.

Quote:

Which is why its so fucking unnatural and I have never been able to understand why it appeals to anyone but those who are born losers OR dont quite understand that liberalism is not really about kind civil service and the greater good. Its about punishing and eliminating the strong.

Well I wouldn't say that's an accurate description personally.

Even today, the one thing big business hates is competiton, it forms cartels, it spends up big to capture the regulatory structure, it influence polity. Big business is definately in the conservative camp.

Quote:

Tesla may have been a genius, but he was an anti social introvert who managed to have half his ideas stolen from him. He was a ghost.

OK.

I still say the world needs more Tesla's and less Madoff's.

[kerouac]

(05-16-2012 07:05 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

There is a notion that structural disadvantage exists. I would fathom to guess that if Steve Wozniak was born in a rural Congolese village, he may have been impaired from accomplishing what he did.

The issue here is what is not equal treatment, but equitable opportunity. We have seen this work.

Nicely put.

What a lot of people don't take into consideration is that there was a period in history when a certain group of people accomplished great victories, subdivided the land, and kept all the wealth within their control.

What liberals believe (or at least traditionally believe) is the notion that because you were born a peasant you ought to still have the opportunity to make the most out of your life. Everyone ought to have the opportunity to make the most of their talents and strengths.

Conservatives traditionally believe things ought to be left the way they are (ie. people with their money and power, often times inherited, ought to maintain their birth-right of money and power, and the people who work for them ought to be happy to be making minimum wage, even if they are more intelligent than their boss/owner).

This is why liberals are connected with access to higher education. A son of a barber ought to be able to work his way up the American Ladder and not be left to the trade of his father.

[el mechanico]

(05-16-2012 12:19 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

(05-16-2012 07:05 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

There is a notion that structural disadvantage exists. I would fathom to guess that if Steve Wozniak was born in a rural Congolese village, he may have been impaired from accomplishing what he did.

The issue here is what is not equal treatment, but equitable opportunity. We have seen this work.

Nicely put.

What a lot of people don't take into consideration is that there was a period in history when a certain group of people accomplished great victories, subdivided the land, and kept all the wealth within their control.

What liberals believe (or at least traditionally believe) is the notion that because you were born a peasant you ought to still have the opportunity to make the most out of your life. Everyone ought to have the opportunity to make the most of their talents and strengths.

Conservatives traditionally believe things ought to be left the way they are (ie. people with their money and power, often times inherited, ought to maintain their birth-right of money and power, and the people who work for them ought to be happy to be making minimum wage, even if they are more intelligent than their boss/owner).

This is why liberals are connected with access to higher education. A son of a barber ought to be able to work his way up the American Ladder and not be left to the trade of his father.

That avatar Kerouac? Edit. I see.

[kerouac]

(05-16-2012 12:43 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

That avatar Kerouac?

True Love