[WestIndianArchie]

(04-26-2013 01:58 PM)aphelion Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 01:53 PM)BLarsen Wrote:  

I've witnessed the phrase "red pill" originally mean that you realized women weren't little angels; it was used in the context of getting laid. Now, along with alpha and beta, it is being used to describe conservative/libertarian political points of view. I don't like this development.

Oh yeah, this too. Fuck all that politics noise. If Heartiste didn't have such incisive game advice I'd never read Chateau at all.

I wish somebody would just repost his game shit.

WIA

[DVY]

The manosphere can poison your view of women and the world. The truth is people vary greatly. A whole spectrum of people. Character is a difficult quality nowadays to find.

[DBCooper]

(04-26-2013 04:19 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 04:14 PM)DBCooper Wrote:  

I'm genuinely interested to hear why you think it's problematic to define evil in terms of the health of our species, even if it is slightly off topic (sorry OP). I mean, isn't that what we're here for? To survive and reproduce? If that's the case (as it has been for millenia) then it would make sense to define evil as that which impedes human (arguably just yours and your tribe's) flourishing, be that spiritually or physically.

Easy counter-example thought experiment.

Let's say I killed off all of the world's men with a super-virus that affects everyone but me.

Then I replicate my sperm by the billions using technology and tell women if they want kids they must use my sperm to have children. I also go on a massive fuckfest.

All of the world's women have many children because there are no more men to take care of them. The world's population then explodes threefold in just one generation.

Am I a good man in this scenario?

You are a good man in the sense that you perform the biological functions of a man - to the nth degree in this scenario. But what about your affiliations with other men? You would not be a good man in the sense that all those absentee fathers would have a negative impact on the child's upbringing and thus the future of the species.

I agree with you that to define evil, or rather the absence of, in terms of the numerical quantity of humans is too narrow.

Rather it is the quality of the life in relation to natural order - your analogy would upset the status quo and thus your act of killing off all men except yourself may be considered immoral in spite of the consequential and exponential increase in the number of humans.

Also, from an evolutionary morality standpoint you assume in this scenario that your genes are the very top tier. Having never met you face to face, I can't comment on that, but statistically speaking it is unlikely. In that case, what your analogy proposes is immoral in that you take potentially better genes out of the pool in favor of your own...

Of course, this could come full circle - I have to admit, you really got me thinking with that one. I don't claim to know exactly how to define evil...but I think if push came to shove morality based on the extent to which humans flourish and reproduce would be a good place to start.

[soup]

(04-26-2013 02:23 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 02:13 PM)ghostdog Wrote:  

This "looks" more attractive.

Now you understand the fascination.

It's pretty cut and dry.

Quote:

for as long as she has the shoes on.

I tell girls to keep the high heels on the whole time.

Problem solved.

Hell's yes to this..

[soup]

(04-26-2013 04:43 PM)DVY Wrote:  

The manosphere can poison your view of women and the world. The truth is people vary greatly. A whole spectrum of people. Character is a difficult quality nowadays to find.

You got it backwards. The view of women that most people hold is poisoned with lies. Manosphere spreads truth.

[JimNortonFan]

Problem 1: Some manosphere ideology criticizes globalization despite the spread of wealth and communications all over the world. A general rule is that those who criticize the spread of the global economy are wrong about a lot of things. The pro-Putin stuff is some of what I'm talking about.

Problem 2: Game is still giving women what they want.

Problem 3: What is the goal of the manosphere? Spreading knowledge is one thing, but what to do with it? Civilization started due to weather and beta males getting a piece of the pie. Now the betas are being demoted to eunuch status. We tell people this every day. What next? Lying by the pool enjoying the decline, watching it burn, putting gas on the fire, going to lift, getting another notch, drinking yet another kale shake don't seem like the best we could be doing.

I don't mean to criticize anyone, but:

My maternal grandfather survived the Depression, fought in WW2, held a job until retirement, then flipped houses to make more $.

My paternal grandfather managed a business he co-owned.

My father let my mother run his household then did drugs until he died.

We should be more like our grandfathers than our fathers. Sitting around watching it burn and hoping that calling it out will be enough isn't.

Against us is feminism, the welfare state, and the white knights. I think the WW2 guys would take those over the fascists.

[soup]

Game is getting what you want from life, regardless of whether or not women get what they want.

[Samseau]

(04-26-2013 05:03 PM)DBCooper Wrote:  

Of course, this could come full circle - I have to admit, you really got me thinking with that one. I don't claim to know exactly how to define evil...but I think if push came to shove morality based on the extent to which humans flourish and reproduce would be a good place to start.

You'd be interested in utilitarianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

[MikeCF]

(04-26-2013 03:30 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Is game an evil?

We're fucking and chucking through tons of women which spoils them for other men and makes the women less likely to reproduce with stable betas because they will always dream of the days they spent with alphas.

Is there another path besides game?

^Question that keeps me up at night^

How many of us were "nice guys" who had to learn game in order to get laid?

I was, on paper, a quality guy.

It got me nowhere.

Now I don't even talk about my credentials, I don't engage women in serious conversation, I'm a dumb fucking ox. Sometimes I look at myself and just laugh as it seems so farcical what works.

Now I get laid plenty.

Is giving women - who under the law are adults who can own property, vote in elections, and enact legislation - what they demand evil?

To paraphrase HL Mencken: "Game is the theory that the women know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

[tiggaling]

(04-26-2013 03:58 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Is there another path besides game?

Well, I don't know if there is actually a path. Perhaps off the path there is a wild forrest with brambles and crazy prickly plants that sting, golden mushrooms, shafts of light, booby traps and the occcaisional unicorn!

Quote:

For example, I remember a girl in college I turned down and never had sex with because I did not think she was attractive enough to have a relationship with. She ended up becoming more hateful and bitter, at least towards me, no different than had I pump and dumped her.

I've got that too.

[MikeCF]

My "dissent" points have always been:

1. Shit talking women who actually did something with their lives. If a woman accomplished something on her own merits, there's no reason to shit all over her. I don't agree with Hillary Clinton but I have no hate for her personally. She'd shred me and any of us here - on her own merits and not because of "affirmative action" - in a political campaign.

2. Broke dicks talking about how fucking alpha they are. What is alpha about sitting on the Internet all day and not having any money?

3. The denial of the male wall. A lot of guys here are in for a rude awakening when it comes to male aging. Unless you're on good drugs and have cash, you're not going to live a player lifestyle in your 40s.

4. Holding women to higher standards than men. Women need to stay fit, wear high heels, be feminine, give up sex on demand, manage a household....But every guy deserves to get sex just because he has a job selling insurance at State Farm and read the Mystery Method.

[Samseau]

(04-26-2013 07:45 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

My "dissent" points have always been:

1. Shit talking women who actually did something with their lives. If a woman accomplished something on her own merits, there's no reason to shit all over her. I don't agree with Hillary Clinton but I have no hate for her personally. She'd shred me and any of us here - on her own merits and not because of "affirmative action" - in a political campaign.

2. Broke dicks talking about how fucking alpha they are. What is alpha about sitting on the Internet all day and not having any money?

3. The denial of the male wall. A lot of guys here are in for a rude awakening when it comes to male aging. Unless you're on good drugs and have cash, you're not going to live a player lifestyle in your 40s.

4. Holding women to higher standards than men. Women need to stay fit, wear high heels, be feminine, give up sex on demand, manage a household....But every guy deserves to get sex just because he has a job selling insurance at State Farm and read the Mystery Method.

Although I disagree with all four points, this is one funny ass post.

[ghostdog]

(04-26-2013 07:45 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

3. The denial of the male wall. A lot of guys here are in for a rude awakening when it comes to male aging. Unless you're on good drugs and have cash, you're not going to live a player lifestyle in your 40s.

I agree with this. I'd say 50+ players will definitely not have it so easy without money.
They become just another non-breeding aging group just like childless women over 35, gays.
another thing that would suck is that players can only be friends with players. Family men distance themselves from players and partiers starting at age 30 or so.

I don't know concretely that the quality of sperm stays exactly the same as we age, so I would not want to take chances and have a defective baby way too late.

[Timoteo]

Actually, heels help women get shapelier legs. They do wonders for a woman's calves.

[Tex Pro]

Game will never become universally accepted, and not because of feminism or political correctness.

No, game will never become universally accepted because most men want to stay in the Matrix. The pull to be a family man or a beta or a fool or etc. is too strong for them and they are too afraid of acknowledging the painful truth that is game. Acknowledging game is like looking in the mirror and admitting that you are a fat fuck who needs to lose weight, and that is too painful for most sheeple.

On the bright side, the fact that game knowledge will never be universally accepted means that those of us that have accepted and implemented game into our daily lives will always have a competitive advantage over the average beta.

[Hannibal]

My biggest point of dissent has been about the manosphere blurring itself into a political movement.

If the west turns it's back on the beta men that support the infrastructure, they should expect it to crumble as a result.

[JimNortonFan]

There won't be a war or anything climactic.

Just slow gradual erosion of rights, raising of taxes and more interest on the debt.

Higher and higher rates of illegitimacy.

More Clockwork Orange shit going down every day because kids aren't raised.

More people falling out of the middle class economically, psychologically, and socially every day.

Gaming chicks will get a bit tougher every day because it's just like bass fishing. More game, more resistance to game because they've seen it before.

Eventually you're either famous, if only on youtube or locally, or you're a wanker.

What happens when men just give up? That's why it's a political issue.

And any fool who thinks culture matters truly is a fool. America has no longer has culture. America is the first country where people were unleashed to be themselves. American women are behaving as women naturally behave when freed from traditionalism. Globalization will spread affluence and after affluence comes the aqua regia of filthy pop culture, feminism, etc. So, you can run but the next generation can't hide when the entire world becomes like America.

When there is no country to go to in order to find a wife or Bang, when there are no men who give a rip about the system, what then?

[Quintus Flaminius]

^^^^
This is what I don't understand about leftists in the manospehere, Social Democrats have no reason to protect the nuclear family.
Feminist societies kill the high IQ, high testosterone male, that flourish in a free market, the thugs and effeminate Betas flourish in a Social democracy, I've been talking to guys in non western countries, trust me, there's a pattern here, in every case, they're going after the Libertarian leaning votebank.

[NY Digital]

my little rant from the rooshv Google Chat..

There is no reason to not instill terrorism artificially. You can cause worry and justification for building more auomated machines under your control that can deal firepower while taking away guns from citizens and creating more of a sheep herd that will eventually do everything the high and elite want them to do. there is no reason to not do it. heck if i was rich, id probably be doing the same thing every other scumbag is doing.

its so easy to see

but when were all submitting to the elite, and we wonder what went wrong

Feminism works perfectly in this plan. By taking power away from men who can actually fight and create science and new technologies to counter the government, and by making men feminized, they are less likely to rebel. Females won’t rebel for shit as long as there are males feeding into the female welfare system.

Even then,females lack the intellect and genetics to rebel in proper formation. Nor do they care as they don’t have pride or integrity like men.


I read a post on RVF that caught my eye. The topic being discussed was progression of DNA in the human race. With men so plentiful and unnecessary, over time only the best looking, smartest, and genetically capable men will spread their genes as it becomes a genetic push to superiority. Not to mention, they have to be low on testosterone.


EDIT: I change my mind about the superior part. Only the elite will continue to pass their elite genes. The general population will pass on extremely feminized men just for the sake of sperm and continuation of human race.

[soup]

I think it's crude to just dismiss all leftist ideas and even some feminist ideas.

Look, feminism has gone overboard. But, if there wasn't any acceptance of party girls, it would be a lot harder to fuck lots of girls. So, that said, I think the best time would have been pre-1970s maybe somewhere in the 1920s because you had girls who wanted to have fun, and it was probably a lot easier than ancient times.

So, I don't want things to be going in the crazy extreme direction of androgyny and shaming of males etc., but maybe things don't have to be so extreme black/white on our side.

I think a lot of the left hating that goes on around here and in the manosphere is lame. I like Tuthmosis' post on this in ROK.

I wish that there was a more subtle way to get things the way we want them.

[Quintus Flaminius]

(04-26-2013 11:21 PM)soup Wrote:  

I think it's crude to just dismiss all leftist ideas and even some feminist ideas.

Look, feminism has gone overboard. But, if there wasn't any acceptance of party girls, it would be a lot harder to fuck lots of girls. So, that said, I think the best time would have been pre-1970s maybe somewhere in the 1920s because you had girls who wanted to have fun, and it was probably a lot easier than ancient times.

So, I don't want things to be going in the crazy extreme direction of androgyny and shaming of males etc., but maybe things don't have to be so extreme black/white on our side.

I think a lot of the left hating that goes on around here and in the manosphere is lame. I like Tuthmosis' post on this in ROK.

I wish that there was a more subtle way to get things the way we want them.

Such as?
And cultural Marxism is the offspring of actual Marxism, if not its clone, every single one of those cultural Marxist asshats is a social democrat, not libertarian.

[tiggaling]

Sometimes I find the manosphere quite nihlistic and reductive.

For example, I think American men are quite right to see American women as being quite often corrupt freaks, but there seems to be a lack of reflection on the corruption of American men or how not to be corrupt and *part of the problem* (I'm not American btw)

I think there is a certain kind of ontological insecurity facing modern day men. Some men like myself like to look at this and see a potential for a way that is more beneficial than what is generally occurirng out there.

[tenderman100]

OK, this post deserves some specific responses. Here ya go.

(04-26-2013 07:45 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

My "dissent" points have always been:

1. Shit talking women who actually did something with their lives. If a woman accomplished something on her own merits, there's no reason to shit all over her. I don't agree with Hillary Clinton but I have no hate for her personally. She'd shred me and any of us here - on her own merits and not because of "affirmative action" - in a political campaign.

Hilary Clinton is a piss poor example of a woman who "did something with their own life" Oh sure, she was smart, went to Wellsley and Yale Law School, but the fact is she hitched her wagon to an Alpha male and rode it to the success she had. Margaret Thatcher is a better example, or Madame Curie. Women who made it WITHOUT a man greasing the way.

(04-26-2013 07:45 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

2. Broke dicks talking about how fucking alpha they are. What is alpha about sitting on the Internet all day and not having any money?

Is Roosh a broke dick? Gmac? El Mech? I don't think so.

And, just so you know, my dick is intact, thank you very much. It just spent a couple hours this afternoon plowing one of my married babes. Tomorrow -- or rather later today -- my yoga babe is coming over on her "girls night out." I am cooking her a pork tenderloin with a nice Merlot, and then I am going to shove my broke dick right up her ass before she heads home to hubby.

(04-26-2013 07:45 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

The denial of the male wall. A lot of guys here are in for a rude awakening when it comes to male aging. Unless you're on good drugs and have cash, you're not going to live a player lifestyle in your 40s.

Hey I was married in my 40s, and now I am 61, and I am banging the 40 somethings. How long will it last? Beats the fuck out of me. I have had some nice women in my time, and I have had some fantastic sex. If, for some reason, it all ended tomorrow...well...so be it. I've lived the freaky dental assistant who squatted on my dick. I lived the smooth skinned babe with two different sized breasts who liked to watch how we did it in her dresser mirror. I lived the working class slut who gave me the greatest blow job in the history of mankind in a sleazy motel. I've lived the slim multi-orgasmic chick who used to send her 4-year old daugther next door when I came over so we could fuck with abandon.

Meanwhile, though, I intend to fuck.

(04-26-2013 07:45 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

4. Holding women to higher standards than men. Women need to stay fit, wear high heels, be feminine, give up sex on demand, manage a household....But every guy deserves to get sex just because he has a job selling insurance at State Farm and read the Mystery Method.

Hey...I don't sell insurance...and I have to work to get sex. But I get it.

[Way Cool Jr]

1)I don't know why some people here are totally against LTR.
If you found a nice girl that treats you well and given that you are not pussywipphed, etc..., I don't know what's so wrong about this. Especially if you happen to live in a place where for different reasons you can't have or don't want to have a player's lifestyle.

2) Can someone explain the whole SWPL frenzy?
Maybe I can't understand it fully since I live in a society that's not very multicultural, but what's so bad about being white and liking things like Ralph Lauren, college degrees and all the stuff that is "SWPL"?
Please provide me some clarity or correct me if I didn't understand the whole point xD

[JimNortonFan]

SWPL isn't about Ralph Lauren.

It's about feeling superior to other people because of your beliefs.

It's about believing that beliefs are more important than actions.

It's about viewing minorities and poor people the same way you view endangered animals, ie "I'm the superior being and I show my superiority through condescending faux concern."

Here is the definition of SWPL:

I had a sociology class. Lots of hands up wanting to make comments on a point the prof made. White woman, married, wore sandals, didn't take care of her hair, threw whatever clothes on. Big lib. Prof calls on her. She says "I'd like to hear what the woman in the front has to say." Now, you all know something about the "woman in the front" without me telling you. You all know what feature of the woman in the front had that SWPL noticed without me telling you. I've never had douche chills like that in my life. Cringe, cringe, cringe. And of course the SWPL said it in the most condescending tone of voice imaginable. The prof just said "I get to call on whoever I want." and moved on. He, an SWPL himself, was bothered by being exposed to 100% pure SWPL.

Yes, just to confirm, the "woman in the front" was black.