[iknowexactly]

(01-18-2015 06:19 AM)AngloHispanic Wrote:  

I am a man of European descent (English father, Argentine woman of Spanish descent as mother), but was born and raised in Argentina, probably one of the most politically incorrect places in the world. ....

I moved to the UK about half a decade ago, to pursue studies and then settle down. In my short years here, I have realised that English men are violently forced to kowtow to the notion that women are men's equals in every respect - actually, they are violently forced to accept anything which may maximise women's liberties, even if that comes at the expense of men's liberties.

+1 rep point for fascinating and very well-written account based on unusual cross-cultural experience. Thanks.
You're a great contributor, hope to see more from you.

[Caveman]

(01-16-2015 11:34 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 05:17 PM)Caveman Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 11:12 PM)Suits Wrote:  

The book addresses this. It argues that in pre-agricultural societies, everything is a group commodity, especially food and sex.

It was typical in these societies to shame anyone who withheld anything that another person desired, whether it be food or sex.

So, basically, there was never any reason for sexual tension and there was no "I have a headache."

Men had a pretty much guaranteed access to sex from any woman of reproductive age.

That author is completely disconnected from reality. Why would a good looking woman in her fertile years when her body is in greatest demand, why would she give it out to any and every loser she isn't attracted to???

I'm pretty sure that in caveman times men were not equal in resources and ability to provide, just like they are not equal in it today.

If there ever was a time in human evolution when woman could give out free sex to everyone, that time is TODAY when an elaborate welfare state does almost all the providing for her.

Yet today there's more imbalance of sexual access for men than there ever was in recorded history.

(01-15-2015 11:12 PM)Suits Wrote:  

Based on the chapters I've read so far, I'm going to tentatively suggest that this books should be required red-pill reading for all.

I suggest you read a basic lesson on supply and demand, how that applies to all spheres in life, not just economics, and then if you really want a bitter red pill read "The Rational Male" by Rollo Tomassi.

Thanks for your response.

Your thoughts are clearly limited by mainstream modern day thinking. So far, the book has addressed all of your points.

I don't know how a basic lesson on supply and demand would apply to pre-agricultural societies that had

(1) no monetary system to act as a score card for achievement

(2) few possessions

(3) no permanent housing

(4) no private property

and where survival demands on the group, not the individuals basic achievements.

I suggest you read a basic lesson on game theory so that you can understand why individuals may be driven to co-operate for mutual benefit.

Suffice to say, the authors point to contemporary hunter-gatherer societies where sex is a community good and the alpha-beta dichotomy is a non-issue.

However, I don't think it's fair for me to strongly advocate for a book that I've only read a third of.

At present, it's raised some very good points and made some compelling arguments that I think justify a discussion at minimum.

I'll finish up reading it, and start a new thread where we can discuss it in more detail.

If there's something to be learned, we'd all be served better by exploring it.

If the book is bullocks, we'd best have our ducks in a row to shoot down its suggestions because lies are dangerous.


If you're serious about this discussion, I hope you'll consider putting the time into reading the book fully. If it's full of bad science, there's nothing I'd like more than for you to tear it apart.

At present, and at no fault of your own, as I've only posted a few notes about the book on the forum here, your comments don't satisfactorily contradict the arguments of the book, which goes to great depth to unearth the mainstream bad science that has painted the arguably incorrect view of the natural human state, a potentially incorrect view that you are currently arguing for.

Ok since you like to be as scientifically correct as possible, let's do it that way.

(01-16-2015 11:34 PM)Suits Wrote:  

If you're serious about this discussion, I hope you'll consider putting the time into reading the book fully. If it's full of bad science, there's nothing I'd like more than for you to tear it apart.

There are a zillion books to read out there, most of them are crap, so I must have some kind of a filter to limit my input. The simplest and most effective filter is to reject data which contradicts what we can already see and confirm with our own eyes.

In this specific case the main contradiction here is that we see daily how selective women are when it comes to sex, their selection might not be very smart (i.e. falling for tatted criminals or starving artists), but still they are as selective as they can be.

(01-16-2015 11:34 PM)Suits Wrote:  

Your thoughts are clearly limited by mainstream modern day thinking. So far, the book has addressed all of your points.

I don't know how a basic lesson on supply and demand would apply to pre-agricultural societies that had

(1) no monetary system to act as a score card for achievement

(2) few possessions

(3) no permanent housing

(4) no private property

and where survival demands on the group, not the individuals basic achievements.

I'd say your thought are limited if you think that you need a monetary system or private property to see how supply and demand dictate behaviour. How about this case:

A young and pretty woman is the most desired sexual object by all men in the tribe. Even all young women are usually not equally attractive, so some will be more in demand than others. However women get pregnant from having sex, especially pretty ones, good looks usually indicate good health (also meaning higher fertility), and men are more inclined to deliberately squirt their load inside if having sex with a prettier woman.

So the prettiest woman in the tribe is the most likely to get pregnant. But what about provisioning for the child?

So we come to the next major contradiction in the book: Male jealousy. If a man considers a certain woman his own, he won't let anyone touch her, period. Otherwise she'll be raising the child herself.

So it's normal that the sexual object in greatest demand will in return demand the man with best ability to provide. This is at an instinctual level and I can't conceive how those tribal people would override this very basic instinct. Not to mention that it is exactly this instinct which ensures that species survive and evolve, the best want to pair only with the best, no one wants to share his fortunes with losers, this applies to animals as well, not just people.

Also I can't conceive how all the food is equally shared in the tribe. From the little I've read about tribal life the best hunters are the most respected in their tribe and I'm pretty sure this is not purely out of gratitude, there must be some politicking with the food sharing as well as with everything else in life.

(01-16-2015 11:34 PM)Suits Wrote:  

I suggest you read a basic lesson on game theory so that you can understand why individuals may be driven to co-operate for mutual benefit.

I wonder which model of game theory are you applying to this situation? If it's the most basic case (cooperation vs conflict), then you're clearly oversimplifying the whole system and leaving out critical features from analysis.

A much more useful way to understand it would be through an evolutionary analysis, if you haven't studied anything I recommend you first read about genetic selection, "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins is a great start.

Then if you're into programming you can write simulations of evolving populations. One very important condition necessary for evolution you'll discover (for many of us it's actually obvious) is that there must be an individual reward for having positive genetic traits, and this reward can only be more procreation, because for evolution nothing else matters. If you give the reward to all members of the population, then no evolution happens (and with biological organisms you get DEvoluiton, but I don't want to elaborate that now).

You might be tempted to explain evolution on a group vs group level, but that is a painfully slow evolution, if that were the case then other species would've driven us to extinction long time ago, and it still doesn't explain many of the mating instincts we can see in human with our own eyes today, and all these instincts point to everyone desiring an individual evolutionary reward.

I can rant a lot more on this, but see no point in it, I've already dismissed the book completely...

[philosophical_recovery]

This popped up today. Decent discussion, and the younger guy had some interesting things to say, including mentioning the obesity epidemic and the number of women taking meds. I still find Bill Whittle a bit tiresome, but overall it was good.

[Teedub]

^ That was a great debate. Rational, fair, and scientifically accurate. Shame it's not a mainstream TV show.

[TheWastelander]

They're still leaving out a lot. Unless women are dependent on men in a few different ways (financially, emotionally, etc.) and society enforces strict rules against their licentiousness, marriage will not work. The current laws are constructed in a way to not only give them complete independence but preference.

Obesity and the average American woman's lack of femininity makes them unmarriageable. They're good for sex, but that's it.

Another huge problem is the fact American men under 35 have been raised in a feminized society. The majority of their teachers were women, society pushes grrl power crap and a lot of the junk they see in the media is not uplifting and masculine but goofy emasculating shit. Then there's the issue of their fathers. If there's no father in the home the sons are likely going to be screwed up. If they have a weak father, same situation. An alpha father, a patriarch, who is willing to raise his sons and teach them is necessary for their success. Otherwise you end up with a situation and culture like we have now.

I'd like to know when the hell men started taking women so seriously and not telling them to shut the hell up when they step out of line. Women are like children, they need to be led by a dominant man who's not afraid to correct them. They like being led. They want to be led and dominated. But because they're naturally narcissistic and not that analytical or capable of deep introspection, they can't see that it's feminism's raging success that has created a bunch of betas they despise.

You can kind of tell what's going on by observing their reactions to the few fictional alpha characters in media and shit that's popular with women. They'd all jump at the chance to be dragon princesses getting fucked by Khal Drogo or the bitch who gets tied up and whatever by the 50 Shades of Grey dude. They know what they want, but there are fewer and fewer men capable of escaping the feminist programming and giving it to them.

Outside of all that, no sane man should marry a girl who lost her virginity to another man. That disqualifies a huge amount of women. Add up all of what I wrote above and the fact that a lot of them here in the West are such pains in the asses they're not worth dealing with any more than it takes to secure bangs and you've got yourself a recipe for the destruction of the institution of marriage.

It will take a financial catastrophe the likes of which we've never seen to reset things or some religious awakening. I don't think either will happen in my lifetime. In Europe the institution of marriage will survive, but not in the traditional Western form.

All you can do is improve yourself and do your own thing.

[Royale]

(02-10-2015 04:28 PM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  

This popped up today. Decent discussion, and the younger guy had some interesting things to say, including mentioning the obesity epidemic and the number of women taking meds. I still find Bill Whittle a bit tiresome, but overall it was good.

It great to see an discussion that is based on rational fact and reasoning, instead of being entrenched in unalloyed pathos. No way will this ever reach the MSM because it goes against the whole perverse agenda of the mass. While I enjoyed the whole clip, the last point Bill Whittle made in the video resonated with me (CHECK 23:10). If you take away the masculine imperative from a society, you leave that particular society vulnerable to outsiders and/or external forces yearning to take over (i.e. dark triad guys, sociopaths, theocratic fundamentalists, etc.)

Where are the feminists when the shit hits the fan?

Where are they when the chips are down, and rhetoric is no longer the name of the game?

Bill Burr illustrates this point...

Their movement is built off the backs of those who believed in something greater than themselves. Now, out of some weird distortion of what "equality" is, they're essentially pissing on the rug of those who gave you a place to stay. No wonder the other patrons (i.e. men) are checking out of the hotel. The place went from the Ritz-Carlton, to a roach-infested motel off the highway.

[la_mode]

I might be the only one to believe this, but if the US had even ratios and the average woman was not fat - feminism and divorce laws might not even matter.

[iknowexactly]

(01-18-2015 08:21 AM)AngloHispanic Wrote:  

Power can be accumulated, and it can be dissipated, sometimes through sheer luck, more often through deliberate effort or carelessness. There is nothing to indicate that it consistently and always happens independently of a person's will.

You're right that of course there are disruptions, for example, the ascendence of Apple over IBM, forty years ago Apple was considered a company of kooks relative to IBM, now they dwarf IBM.

But there are two aspects to these types of large changes that are important:

1) They require a disruptive event ( genius of Jobs and Woz) which by definition is an anomaly. You hear about them a lot because they are unusual in history. For instance, over the same time period Johnson and Johnson, 3M , Colgate-Palmolive have NOT been superseded in their power by upstart companies as Apple as upstaged IBM. But you don't hear a lot about that.

2) These things usually take enough time that they are irrelevant to the life spans of a particular individual. For instance, the children of Jeb Bush, totally privileged, connected, and wealthy, will almost certainly have far more power than any of my own children, even out to the next 2-3 generations.

UNLESS one of my children is a one in a billion character like Bill Clinton.

One in a billion events are too rare to plan for with any clear methodology.

To summarize in pragmatic terms, "The first million is the hardest." After that, you just keep buying more apartment buildings and raising the rent.

That is the normal course of things.

[Samseau]

(02-10-2015 05:43 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(01-18-2015 08:21 AM)AngloHispanic Wrote:  

Power can be accumulated, and it can be dissipated, sometimes through sheer luck, more often through deliberate effort or carelessness. There is nothing to indicate that it consistently and always happens independently of a person's will.

You're right that of course there are disruptions, for example, the ascendence of Apple over IBM, forty years ago Apple was considered a company of kooks relative to IBM, now they dwarf IBM.

But there are two aspects to these types of large changes that are important:

1) They require a disruptive event ( genius of Jobs and Woz) which by definition is an anomaly. You hear about them a lot because they are unusual in history. For instance, over the same time period Johnson and Johnson, 3M , Colgate-Palmolive have NOT been superseded in their power by upstart companies as Apple as upstaged IBM. But you don't hear a lot about that.

2) These things usually take enough time that they are irrelevant to the life spans of a particular individual. For instance, the children of Jeb Bush, totally privileged, connected, and wealthy, will almost certainly have far more power than any of my own children, even out to the next 2-3 generations.

UNLESS one of my children is a one in a billion character like Bill Clinton.

One in a billion events are too rare to plan for with any clear methodology.

To summarize in pragmatic terms, "The first million is the hardest." After that, you just keep buying more apartment buildings and raising the rent.

That is the normal course of things.

You forgot about war. Which consistently happen every century and turn rich men into beggars and vice versa. Never rule out chance.

[Renzy]

(02-10-2015 05:23 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

They're still leaving out a lot. Unless women are dependent on men in a few different ways (financially, emotionally, etc.) and society enforces strict rules against their licentiousness, marriage will not work. The current laws are constructed in a way to not only give them complete independence but preference.

Obesity and the average American woman's lack of femininity makes them unmarriageable. They're good for sex, but that's it.

Another huge problem is the fact American men under 35 have been raised in a feminized society. The majority of their teachers were women, society pushes grrl power crap and a lot of the junk they see in the media is not uplifting and masculine but goofy emasculating shit. Then there's the issue of their fathers. If there's no father in the home the sons are likely going to be screwed up. If they have a weak father, same situation. An alpha father, a patriarch, who is willing to raise his sons and teach them is necessary for their success. Otherwise you end up with a situation and culture like we have now.

I'd like to know when the hell men started taking women so seriously and not telling them to shut the hell up when they step out of line. Women are like children, they need to be led by a dominant man who's not afraid to correct them. They like being led. They want to be led and dominated. But because they're naturally narcissistic and not that analytical or capable of deep introspection, they can't see that it's feminism's raging success that has created a bunch of betas they despise.

You can kind of tell what's going on by observing their reactions to the few fictional alpha characters in media and shit that's popular with women. They'd all jump at the chance to be dragon princesses getting fucked by Khal Drogo or the bitch who gets tied up and whatever by the 50 Shades of Grey dude. They know what they want, but there are fewer and fewer men capable of escaping the feminist programming and giving it to them.

Outside of all that, no sane man should marry a girl who lost her virginity to another man. That disqualifies a huge amount of women. Add up all of what I wrote above and the fact that a lot of them here in the West are such pains in the asses they're not worth dealing with any more than it takes to secure bangs and you've got yourself a recipe for the destruction of the institution of marriage.

It will take a financial catastrophe the likes of which we've never seen to reset things or some religious awakening. I don't think either will happen in my lifetime. In Europe the institution of marriage will survive, but not in the traditional Western form.

All you can do is improve yourself and do your own thing.

One thing I wished they focussed on more was how biased the divorce industry is against men. *Nobody* would be surprised if women were reluctant to get married if they faced the prospects that men face. If it were reversed:

- High likelihood of divorce and he'll be the one to initiate it

- You'll be forced to pay out alimony and child support irregardless of your financial situation. You lost your job, tough shit. Not only that everyone will stigmatize you as a dead beat if you miss a check.

- You potentially become a visitor in your own children's' life and you have little recourse if he decides to use the kids as a pawn against you or deny you visitation.

You think women would be lining up for those odds?

You know any shrewd businessmen who'd sign a cofounder contract like that? "You take all the risks and I can dissolve our agreement at any time in which case I get the money, assets, and you not only inherit any liabilities accrued but you're also responsible for sending me checks with the threat of jail time every month." Gee... what nobody wants to sign up? How come I can't find a co-founder? Where have all the good businessmen gone?

[Grit]

Ask anyone, man or woman, the following question:

"From a man's perspective, what good are women other than sex?"

There really is no politically correct answer to that question.

Mother? Not very feminist. Office worker? If the hypothetical man isn't the office superior, he doesn't profit from her labor. Angelic savior? Please

[philosophical_recovery]

From Roosh's twitter:

Milo Yiannopoulos goes to battle with shrieking british harpies.

That red shirted bitch keeps on screaming over any man who has anything to say. When Milo calls her a darling, she flips her shit. It's now clear to me what this is: faux indignation. They invent the need to be offended by something and obsess about it to the point that it finally causes an emotional outburst.

As men, we avoid that at all costs, because we want control over our emotions. We don't some stupid idiot calling us a name and that triggering us to bash his skull in. We have to have self control.

These female creatures are engendering that outrage, because they know there is very little risk when they have an outburst. Men cannot afford the luxury of being easily emotionally triggered.

[jariel]

When women start going on diatribes, I just start zoning out and think to myself:

[philosophical_recovery]

(03-15-2015 02:14 PM)jariel Wrote:  

When women start going on diatribes, I just start zoning out and think to myself:

Also from Roosh's twitter, reposted here because it's golden:

[Dark Knowledge]

(03-15-2015 01:56 PM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  

From Roosh's twitter:

Milo Yiannopoulos goes to battle with shrieking british harpies.

That red shirted bitch keeps on screaming over any man who has anything to say. When Milo calls her a darling, she flips her shit. It's now clear to me what this is: faux indignation. They invent the need to be offended by something and obsess about it to the point that it finally causes an emotional outburst.

As men, we avoid that at all costs, because we want control over our emotions. We don't some stupid idiot calling us a name and that triggering us to bash his skull in. We have to have self control.

These female creatures are engendering that outrage, because they know there is very little risk when they have an outburst. Men cannot afford the luxury of being easily emotionally triggered.

Wow what a great vid.

Right off the bat : "Lad culture is a fairly new thing." This tells you everything you need to know about feminism in a nutshell. Women have no idea what male nature is. These morons have no ability to look at things in context. Boys were always boys. Boys will be boys. Until you start genetically modifying men to be the little girls that you want, this fact will not change. There was always macho lad culture.

Also the tranny was hilarious. "I didn't know the fear that women experience till I put on the wig and the skirt." NEWSFLASH No one is stalking you you ugly turd. You fear is manufactured. Sticking feathers in your ass will never make you chicken. A real woman's fear of men is innate. It has more to do with female nature than "toxic masculinity".

Milo was fantastic as always, but the blond hair is awful

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Saw that little duel where a gay man like Milo stood up for all of us against the harpies. See how he says "darling" to one and another one flips out.

Also funny how one says that pornography is a new phenomenon:





But I guess that is patriarchy, because female porn is less creepy in it's written form:



Also note how the only argument is that the boardrooms are mostly male. And no one voices the argument that men are actually the betters in practically all endeavors - that is why they sit at the top and women will never manage that unless you enforce it from below.

It's basically useless to debate them, because their entire dogma is built on lies and is even promoted by the presenter with only Milo standing up to the lying crazies and transgender-"women" who tell how unsafe they feel with their dress on. Dude - if I looked like that as a "woman", then I would feel insecure too knowing full well that I am not fooling anyone with my dress.

[Suits]

(03-15-2015 02:16 PM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  

Also from Roosh's twitter, reposted here because it's golden:

I was there and watched this go down. I've seen a lot of fatties and weirdos in my time, but I've never seen a female who I wanted to have with less than this evolutionary mistake in the red hair.

The old woman in the blue "this is what a feminist looks like" sweater in the background is struck me as someone who had mental issues. I've seen her at other feminist protests and judging by how she reacted to events occurring around her, it seems like she got some sort of sick pleasure from it. She'd smile intense, evil smiles at odd moments, like any time any other feminist bitch was screaming at a man or using profanity.

This is the face of feminism. Utterly unattractive pigbeasts and mentally unstable, elderly women.

[TheWastelander]

(03-15-2015 02:50 PM)Dark Knowledge Wrote:  

The longer I'm away from all this crap, the more meaningless and petty it seems. Looking at this from the outside, they look absolutely insane. It is crazy that we're even having these discussions. These women need to be put in their places, but the "men" were all raised in a feminized society so they can't or won't do it. This feminism comes from penis envy, lesbianism, and these chicks being upset they can't get a good dicking.

That any of them are taken seriously is a sign that the West has gone mad due to a combination of overabundance, great levels of wealth, stupidity and a whole host of other issues.

[RexImperator]

They cancelled Top Gear? Crazy. Clarkson and that show were one of the best things about the U.K..

[Patriarch]

I don't think I've ever seen a more punchable beak than the one on that red vested harpy. And holy shit that tranny seriously thinks men want to rape it.

But Milo killed it.

[CJ_W]

(03-16-2015 02:47 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

The longer I'm away from all this crap, the more meaningless and petty it seems. Looking at this from the outside, they look absolutely insane. It is crazy that we're even having these discussions. These women need to be put in their places, but the "men" were all raised in a feminized society so they can't or won't do it. This feminism comes from penis envy, lesbianism, and these chicks being upset they can't get a good dicking.

That any of them are taken seriously is a sign that the West has gone mad due to a combination of overabundance, great levels of wealth, stupidity and a whole host of other issues.

There's a proverb that says: "Be careful what you wish for"

It's applicable for the whole feminist movement.

I feel that moment will hit hard once Feminism has complete control of western society, it will take a while and may not succeed but when/if it happens, the ones who fought so hard for feminism will realize what a mistake they made all this time. . . but it will be too late then.

[BronzeAgeGuy713]

posts, arguments, debates like this piss me off, this is how I see it, a woman just needs to have a vagina in order to be called a woman, feminine, meanwhile a man needs to have more than just a penis in order to be called masculine, manly, I remember someone told me "Women are born, Men are made".