Here at ROK one of the main topic we discuss is the damaging effects of feminism and the degenerate cultures that it has spawned. But what if there is another factor that has been largely overlooked? What if it is the material conditions that is having a profound influence on the cultural trends that we witness today?
My hypothesis here is that the 1:1 sex ratio we see today is abnormal compared to what was the norm throughout human existence, and that this excess of male population, in addition to the breakdown of the traditional order, is what is driving the numerous socio-sexual problems we witness today.
Historical Sex Ratio vs. Current Sex Ratio
First, we must realize that the equal number of men and women that we are familiar with is not what our ancestors had lived through. We accept the current sex ratio and monogamy as being normal because that’s all that we’ve experienced, but recent DNA studies have shown that women always outnumbered men throughout history. Another study into our ancestral roots revealed that around 80% of women reproduced while only 40% of men did, with others even suggesting a reproduction ratio of four to five females per one male and even 17 females per one male. We should also note that these numbers only represent an average; the historical sex ratio was most likely skewed to favor even larger number of females for higher status men.
So how was this possible? We could get some clues by looking at our primate cousins who frequently fight one another and drive out or kill competing males for sexual access. I believe such social norms were no different for our Stone Age forefathers, ensuring that only the strongest of men reproduced. Even with the advent of civilization, we know that countless number of men were killed in battles that raged across the globe, which laid the foundation for establishing a patriarchal culture. Even without wars, many men died from hunting, exploring, laboring, and so on. I still remember Quintus’s article that mentioned a small native tribe in Greenland where there were only ten men for 31 women because the other men perished from their hunting and fishing expeditions.
The male population likely only reached similar numbers as the female population during prolonged peace (which in turn led to decadence and collapse). And the world as a whole rapidly reached almost universal equal sex ratios in the decades following WWII, which—along with the introduction of women into the workplace and the invention of modern contraceptions—gave rise to modern feminism.
The Imbalance
From this article.
When you have too much of something, its value decreases; you don’t even need Economics 101 to understand that fact. As we’ve established that one-to-one sex ratio is an aberration unseen in human history until recent times, it becomes easier to understand all the current problems regarding the sexes in the modern world.
But of course, the material condition of sex ratio itself is not the only problem. The other major factors that disrupt healthy male-female relationships are:
- The demise of warrior culture which turns men weak in mind and body.
- Women’s entry into workplace (which coincided with the advent of service economy with less need for physical strength).
- Governments that meddle in family matters.
- The deregulation of the sexual marketplace (which was made possible by the bloated male population).
But in spite of the various other factors, I would argue that the sheer number of men is what is causing the most disruption in the sexual marketplace
If you’re still in doubt that it’s the sex ratio, you should check out the social problems in traditional countries like China and India where they have millions of more men than women. Inversely, this also explains why Ukrainian and Russian women are feminine and eager to find a man they will please as their nations suffer from shortage of men (again, I acknowledge that there are other factors involved including social norms and individual economic situation).
The Last Line of Defense
Even if the male population is a major factor, there is one other factor that has been effective in keeping the male-female relationship stable: traditional and patriarchal cultural values.
As we no longer live in a tribal order, we need to guarantee social stability by ensuring that women don’t spoil themselves by sleeping with whatever man ignites their passions or for powerful men to hoard all the women and leave the rest of the men frustrated, causing perpetual conflicts. Instead, a rule was established so that women’s sexual behavior was controlled while each man in every strata had a chance to start a family with a woman of matching value, giving impetus for them to work, thereby ensuring the society to prosper (indeed, there are people who insist that monogamy was the key factor to Western civilization’s rise to prominence). But it seems that the West’s greatest strength, it’s penchant for progress, ultimately led to its demise as the so-called progress broke down the traditional order and unleashed a new age of feminist gynocracy.
It was in the face of this social situation that Game was developed to give men a chance to experience more abundant sex life and to secure better relationships. And if you look at the principles of Game, you’ll realize that most of it is just a way of addressing the issues caused by the overflowing number of males to compete with. Whether it be the use of abundance mindset, numbers game, peacocking, as well as the numerous ways to appear as the Alpha male by working out, dressing well, and adopting dominant body language, you’re trying your best to stand out and be in the top 5% just to experience normal sexual relationships (whatever the traditionalists might say, men are hard-wired to be promiscuous; “holy” union is just an ideal). It’s highly doubtful that men in the past put in this much effort just to attract women and I imagine that relationships grew much more naturally back then.
Now, there are certain men in the corners manosphere who scream about the evils of “hypergamy.” But you see, hypergamy itself isn’t the problem. Expecting women not to be hypergamous would be like expecting men to get turned on by a 270lb ogre of a woman with dried ovaries. The issue then, is not hypergamy, but the conditions that make hypergamy excessive and therefore harmful to society—namely, the equal number of men to women.
Other issues, including the diminishing quality of Western women and their ability to be mothers, and the fact that they’re now more likely to delay or put off marriage for their careers, all exacerbate the problem to a another level.
The Consequences
The myriad of consequences of imbalanced sexual market value as a result of excess of men are all already familiar to us:
- Oneitis and other beta tendencies that come with real or perceived scarcity (which in turn bloats the self-perceived SMV’s of females even further).
- Women using social media to attention-whore and make money from thirsty men (some men are now paying money to subscribe to women’s Snapchat).
- Men becoming scavengers for sex, settling for low quality women or going as far as travelling abroad to fulfill their desires.
- Sexual deviancies and perversions of all sorts (it’s an established fact that men with no sexual access to women will seek alternative outlets no matter how abnormal).
- The high male suicide rate and the shooting rampages of genetic losers (I suspect many “terrorist” attacks are also motivated for the same reasons, hence the 72 virgins that are promised to the Jihadists).
- Modern women who let themselves go and get fat, ink their skins, and develop crass attitude as they know that there’s already a buffet of men lined up on Tinder.
- The advent of Alpha fucks, Beta bucks mating strategy adopted by many Western women.
- The feminist complaints of “harassment” as the hordes of thirsty men dare to interact with the opposite sex.
- And many more.
The dysfunctional sex ratio also explains the phenomenon of herbivore men and MGTOW as the low-value men who would’ve otherwise been eliminated in the stone age continue living in the modern world and refuse to be drones for the womankind. The MGTOWs are painfully aware that they’re the bottom 20% of men likely to be genetic dead-ends. As a result, they have three choices: 1) Be depressed about being a low-value man who has no access to a decent woman. 2) Put in enormous amount of time, energy, and effort just to have a chance with a woman who is a 6 or less. 3) Reject women altogether so that your self-esteem isn’t hurt by not being able to have sex (while pretending not to be jealous of “PUA’s”). We all know which option they went with—and I don’t blame them.
Masculine energy needs to be re-channeled to alternative outlets like video games, movies, and sports so that men don’t ever wake up.
In addition, I would argue that the Western society’s efforts to systematically repress masculinity using various entertainments and institutions represents an effort to tame the excessive aggressive and sexual energies of men that can blow up anytime. Men need to be emasculated for the system to thrive. Modern societies simply cannot afford to have all men living with normal levels of testosterone; because if they do, civilization as we know it would cease to function and governments and corporations wouldn’t be able to control and exploit men like they do now (through patriotism and consumerism of male-oriented products).
If you want to learn more about the effects of having a large number of young men without giving them economic or sexual prospects, read this eye-opening interview with Dr. Hedegaard, a German sociologist who warns of the demographic time-bomb in Europe.
Conclusion
To conclude, I would say that the consequences of having equal number of men and women are far greater than what most people imagine. But at the same time, it is something no one wants to talk about or acknowledge for it would lead to the inevitable conclusion which nobody wants to confront: that there’s too many of us.
I’m not here to suggest any solutions—I’ve previously had losers accusing me of advocating gendercide for saying similar things (I guess they’re aware that they would be the first to be naturally selected), but until the issue of sex ratio is addressed, any talk of reversing the culture back to traditional order or “defeating” feminism is as futile as paddling against the current. Unless we’re both willing and able to enforce authoritarian patriarchal standards seen only in places like Saudi Arabia (an extremely unlikely scenario in the West), or should a major war or a revolution break out, feminism is likely here to stay.
In a way, you could say that feminism is the price we must pay for living in peaceful conditions where we don’t have to risk our lives to fight for our tribes as men were meant to.
Read More: Women Who Don’t Reproduce Hurt Society
Very nice piece, dude. I truly do hope that more and more of you guys will refrain from banging SJW-mindfucked women just because they are open to the idea of spreading their legs for you.
If most men started holding out for traditional-leaning women, it would change this ugly landscape virtually overnight…kind of a combination between MGTOW and holding out for better goods.
“I’m not gonna bang you. You’re substandard. You’re brainwashed. Get a clue and I’ll think about it.” Hey, it could work.
Cum dumping is not the problem. It’s that female promiscuity has zero consequence for women thanks to betas and feminism
It might not be the problem. But it just might be an effective solution. I’ve pulled that one on more than a few femi-sluts. If more guys did it, what I wrote there would come to fruition. I have a nasty habit of predicting outcomes correctly…
The penalty for female promiscuity should be a life of cats devoid of male companionship and social respect.
Withholding dick is a leftist thought. Women’s job is to say no to sex. It’s not men’s job.
Red-pill guys who argue the fine points – that’s exactly what the social engineers want. We’re supposedly engaged in looking for the solution to a problem. If you want to argue with me, I don’t have the energy to burn on that endeavor. I’m focusing on eliminating the overall problem of feminism and cuntish behavior. But yap at me all you want. Even though it’s exactly like screaming at the choir, in the base of a canyon…
It’s not a fine point. “How” really, really matters.
Any predictions for 2017 ? I heard their will be a huge runup in the price of oil by late March/early April, price of a gallon could top $4/gallon for a few months before coming back down…
Whatever’s effective is what matters. There is more than one solution to any problem. It’s a group effort that will turn the tide. Acolytes follow pied-pipers down blind alleys. Multi-faceted avenues of attack produce faster results.
I don’t know about gas prices. I don’t profess to know things I don’t know. The rich will probably get richer, though.
Having men be the guardians of sex is a bad idea. We are guardians of long term relationships. Sex roles 101.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ab88ed22bf61e8b4cfeee5fc6c845f55f911ec12c90360e2ab600ea753c9fa89.png
I had to turn some gal down…..god the indignity she could not believe that shit and she’s been a whore since childhood soo meh no sweat off my sack. She only came around cause I had a good thing going with some cash flow.
Typical.
You know bob I was about to comment that I’d never refrain from pumping and dumping a SJW minded woman. Then i thought about it. In all my years of womanizing I have only really come across one that was a real ideologue….only one. And I didn’t bang her. It wasn’t worth it.
This further reinforces my opinion that it simply doesn’t exist out there as much as we may think it does. In a very storied, decades long career of banging women in a liberal city’s like New York (and mind you I spend years in professional academia) I have only come across one, maybe two but the second was just plain crazy, SJW mindset woman.
The comedian was the ideologue, right?
No she was fucking insane
I know. It would be tough to totally abstain. But I’m sure a campaign like I described would be effective. But…it’s about as likely to happen as an SJW suddenly ceasing to want the entire world to be as they wish it to be. Heh.
Yeah but I’m just saying I don’t see enough of these women to make it an issue. They are like aliens or the Dutch — just something I read about online but probably doesn’t really exist
I don’t have it happen to me personally either. But I think a lot of guys do. Which probably means a lot of guys bring that sort of behavior out in women. My empathy for their plight is something I can’t curtail – but that could change. Heh.
You don’t notice SJW because they are unattractive and the few that are, if you speak to them, will likely try to put their SJW ways aside knowing they want to get fucked hard by a guy who is rocking life.
That’s basically my take as well. An SJW woman who is attractive (find next to the dictionary definition of “unicorn”) knows that if she starts her blather with a man who *truly* gives her the tingles, will be rejected out of hand.
Nice in theory, impossible though.
No. No. No. stop white knighting. Feminism not sex ratio is the problem. See black urban America for proof.
Like he said Feminism comes from the sex ratio. If you’re trying to imply that black urban America has notably more women than men because of the prison system you’re right in that regard. You didn’t note that African American women are for the most part hideous, fat, loudmouths that no self respecting man would want. Doesn’t matter if there are more women than men in that situation because they’re all garbage. The other races in America are currently on the same trajectory. The Black Race has always been Americas cultural canary in the coal mine.
Feminism doesn’t come from sex ratio.
And your comment about fat and loud is exactly why you should realize feminism is the problem and not sex ratio. Shouldnt feminism be dying because of current black sex ratio? Except feminism is not dying among blacks.
How about putting forth a real argument instead of just repeating the same simplistic statement from your first post.
How about you connect the dots rather than me spoon feed you from a smart phone. You have obvious examples where women outnumber men and yet promiscuity is still the norm. Ergo it ain’t sex ratio that enables sluts. Think!
Great observations! It sounds savage but women having freedom in the sexual market place insures we all suffer. They enforce the rule of a man being Alpha to reproduce prolonging their time on the carousel. All a woman needs to do is be fertile, willing to have sex, and be decent looking enough to support a ‘qualified choice’ when paraded in public. Biggest issue with feminism is it works in favor of women all the way. They protect their own, they control the sexual market place, and they control society by controlling the sex, all while not having the burden of being the direct influencers.
A big ol world war would solve this problem.
Gee…I wonder if that’s in the offing.
Youre Karnac, you tell us
Heh. Karnac…Johnny was freakin’ awesome.
No. Europeans must never fight against each other ever again. I have far more in common with a Russian than I do with a Latino or Black American
perhaps. let all the idiotic beta go to death while red pill men would stay safe. because, who wants to fight for a country which betrays masculine men day after day ? not me.
There is no staying safe in a major super power war any longer, and fleeing to a basement and quivering is hardly “alpha”.
indeed. But I was thinking more about “seeing the fire on the other side of the river” (sun tzu style) than being a cannon fodder. At least I’ll survive a bit more longer
This is a well written and thought out article. I applaud it for that. However, I don’t believe the hypothesis ultimately works.
It is very easy to see how this breaks down when you look at NYC where the ratio is very heavily female dominated yet traditional relationships are almost non existent
As a side note, I think the word traditional is being used as “good” way too often
But sexual access is much higher in NYC, especially in regards to better looking women that wouldn’t give equivalent men the time of day in another part of the country. The lack of traditional relationships could also be due to other factors.
Good point. other factors can include the sexual access as well as the intensity of work the population density and any number of other things…including the fact that people are catching on that traditional relationships are a waste of time and really not very good anyway
The male female relationship relies on polarity. when men and women can do everything equally thanks largely to technological aids, suddenly the man is not so masculine and the woman is not so feminine. If a man was needed to chop firewood or fend off a passing bear the woman would be a lot more passive and fall into a supportive role more naturally.
When she can hop on the subway and get a 50k a year pay packet and pay her own way – it’s not the same thing.
if the bear’s just passing through: let it be!
depends whether your kids are on the menu or not.
driving while bear: forest rangers always be looking for a reason to pull a bear over. He didn’t steal no pick a nick basket. He a good bear. He dindu nuffin
bears play ice hockey these days. the world has gone mad
This is def one of the big contributing factors
Yes, one would assume given the gender imbalance that women in NYC would be known for being approachable and demure etc. In fact, they are the opposite. So, sometimes there is no correction. Sometimes, the car just goes off the road and keeps going.
Women in NYC are incredibly approachable…demure no, but demure is boring
What’s the pickup line? “Hey girl. How does cake and sodomy sound?”
I got 10 bucks that says I can use that line successfully. It’s all in how you say it
not a good risk reward if you succeed – you’ll need more than 10 bucks for the herpes medication 🙁
Ha. Nah, avoiding the herp is easy. Find young attractive women in expensive shoes. STD’s aren’t as common as they seem.
You’ve lost your bearings. On the scale of approachability nyc ass is not incredibly approachable compared to other cities let alone small towns.
I had total strike out in LA. Couldn’t get past hello…I’ve never really been to a small town so I wouldn’t know it I would think it is hard there for an outsider. Again, no experience. I had some luck in Miami but not nearly as much as I have here in NYC. I got laid a lot in college towns but that’s a given. It may just be that I have Nyc down to a science but I almost never leave the house without meeting a woman even if it is just to chat and never see again
Well because It’s feminism not sex ratio that enables this female behavior
feminism is a consequence of the sex ratio. it’s all the cucks left out in the cold giving women rights that got us to this point.
Women can’t do one thing without men’s approval.
No.
Monagamy democratizes pussy and 1:1 is not a problem.
Feminism enables hypergamy and 1:1 becomes a problem.
Females promiscuity not sex ratio is the issue
You’ve got it all backwards man.
I can lead a horse to water, but it’s up to the horse to drink.
I am not trying to start an argument. I will reply to you later about all this. Too early for a long post now.
“you can lead a horticulture but you can’t make it think”
That’s part of it, sure. There are a lot of reasons though. Traditional families are becoming extinct for the same reasons everything every becomes extinct. They are superfluous
We shall see the dawn of a new man. The gay man. More fashionable, more stylish, more refined. Truly the dawn of a enlightened age.
It never fails to amaze me. I tell people I shave every day, care about hair product, wear a suit and tie all the time and they equate it with homosexuality while simultaneously saying they want a return to a world where everyone did just like I do
The Amish are ultra traditional and do not shave or wear suits
dressing up like don draper is not a prerequisite for holding traditional values
Traditional families where *you* live, yes. They’re still thriving out here in “land that doesn’t exist”.
Traditional family in NYC means only one member of the union engages in sodomy
They are. It takes a while for you hayseeds to catch on. Really though, even though it is slower the march is in the same direction
Fuck the Amish
are you lubing up or is it my turn tonight honey ?
So then why is it that traditional families have become extinct?
Feminism!
Haha
That is one reason. I’m sure there are others. Traditional families aren’t particularly useful Anymore…not as much as they were.
sodomy in the missionary position
City life won’t be fully exported to the provinces. The economics don’t tally up. We can’t all be coffee house slaves and real estate agents
Of course, but it bleeds out. Things change over time. Old things go away and new things arise. The traditional family is one of the things that will be evolved out sooner or later. I’m not saying it’s good or it is bad, just a statement of fact. Think of 1917 versus 2017 and then imagine 2117. And onward we march
Humanity currently has a high fever. But one day the fever will break.
actually, I think humanity is doing just fine. Some people are cunts but that’s always been the case.
Shaving the face is OK. Going further than that, I would call it homosexual.
Why would you assume that? Not everything that happens in NYC or LA peculates out into flyover, and in fact, a lot of it is rejected and laughed at. Given that the large “nationalist” aka flyover country backlash going on right now (however directed or misdirected) is showing a lot of push back against establishment “big city values”.
Not entirely true. Feminism is enabled by thirsty beta males. There is a beta male making your laws, there is a beta male holding a gun to your head while stealing your money, etc. Feminism is the symptom.
No that is the reason. We have a feminist culture rather than a traditional one so of course traditional families aren’t useful anymore. Feminists made it that way. Remove all the feminist incentives and traditional roars back.
Shaving, nice suit, a nice coif, even a pocket handkerchief, are all perfectly masculine and always have been.
Going further though is indeed perceived as effeminate and was also NOT present in the “traditional old times” in men. I know not of one old school “Greatest Generation” man who was refined and well heeled, who would have even considered getting a “facial”.
Ive been meaning to ask you- Were you aware of all the Somali refugees they have depositing in your neck of the woods? 38,000 over the past decade-plus…
“The City Life” is already beyond breaking point. I can’t see it bleeding out too much outside of mostly trivial tech innovations.
Yes, we’re all aware. Very well aware. They are not welcome here by anybody I’ve met, even by “leftists”. They are a mean, bitter lot of people and their rudeness is off the charts. They also drive like they are from a third world country (well, they are) and are rude on the road to the point that they cause accidents.
The one douchenozzle who tried to run over and slash the kids at OSU was Somali.
They are not a welcome addition here, and it wouldn’t surprise me if we start seeing some…retaliation…in the future.
It’s you. You exude a metrosexuality rather than a mad men persona. Don’t you go to salons?
a pocket handkerchief??? you mean stuffing my pockets with crumpled snotty tissue papers isn’t classy?
Ah, okay. I read an article recently, dumping refugees almost exclusively in red/swing states; Maryland, for example received none last year. Only one state(Wyoming I believe) never agreed to be part of the Refugee Act of 1980. They have never received one of them
I have a pretty traditional barber. As for what I exude I don’t imagine you would be the best gauge for that seeing as how you have never met me.
I take things pretty far with the facial…then again, I have excellent skin which goes a long way in aiding my ability to have sex with women young enough to be my daughter.
Glad you put “greatest generation” in quotes. yuck hate that term.
I think in life you will find that things like this never have a single cause. It’s a complicated world out there. Loads of stuff at work,.
Maybe. I think that even the fly over values are different today than they were 100 years ago aren’t they? Of course there are old world hold outs. But where will we be in 100 years from now. Backlashes and backlashes of backlashes have always happened everywhere but if you look at the world in 100 year chunks it is always moving in one direction. No reason to assume it will stop now.
Yeah, chest shaving is pretty fucking gay…and leg shaving…well, unless you are on your college swim team or something…..
I wasn’t assuming no change, I was rather positing that change is not necessarily directed from NYC or LA. Bit of a difference.
I don’t think it is direct from the city outward. I think everyone is moving in the same direction and the cities just get there first.
whose fucking brilliant idea was “dump 40 thousand somali refugees in ohio”
I mean, there is literally no one in the entire world not to think this is a terrible idea.
dont be coy. I’m talking about your comments other than traditional barber.
I don’t think it is that the city life necessarily bleeds to the suburban area but that first world goes in one direction…the cities just go faster
I don’t. That’s a Progressive “meme”, and gives rise to the It’s The Current Year fallacy. There is no “one direction” and no inevitable outcomes for society as a whole. I think that the fracturing of the nation into hostile and heated sects these days tells us that no conclusion is inevitable. We’re just two steps removed from civil war these days, so I’d say that it’s a pretty fair bet that some want to go another way than the generally accepted “Same direction”.
yup.
Started with Clinton, exacerbated by Obama.
as a side note on the facial and the “Greatest Generation”
It has always been a hallmark of masculinity to try new things and, if you enjoy them, to continue doing them even when popular sentiment is against it.
And the air here is just plain dirty and gets in the pours something awful.
Doesn’t the state have some say in this though? I mean someone on the state level must have had to agree to it right?
Bruce Jenner is just expanding the horizons on being masculine then. I guess.
There’s a danger in taking that idea too far, is my point.
Trying new things generally has never meant “see how far you can become like a female and fuck what people think”.
Nope. No say whatsoever if some former governor 30+ years ago signed onto some dumbass act. I’m not entirely certain what it takes to get out of that, or even if it’s possible (I don’t think that it is actually).
In some ways yes, in others no.
People continue to live longer lives with more youthfulness at older ages…technology makes the world smaller, culture keeps getting more permissive.
Also, I don’t buy the civil war stuff. I really think that that is just the right wing version of liberals saying they will move to canada. just more bla bla bla
At the end of the day I don’t see enough people risking their financial future for their principles to make a civil war. At best some incident that will be on page 3 of the Daily News
that’s pretty nuts that they don’t have a say. I mean I would think that there is some money going to the state or whatever in a deal.
there is always too far and there is a danger in going there, but clean pours is well behind that line I think. I don’t think I would bother if I wasn’t living on a 13 mile long island with 6 million people and 20 million cars with constant construction going on. At some point, however, you just need to take care of your skin. It is fucking dirty here.
I am not being coy. I think you are trying to make a judgment on a person you don’t know or understand because somehow that makes you feel good about yourself which, as it turns out, is very much what feminists do. I would suggest that you stick to making judgments on things you have some understanding of.
And yet, not long ago, Yugoslavia was a nation. A comfortable fat, prosperous nation. Never say never. It’s one thing for a Leftist to sneer about moving to Canada. It takes no effort, doesn’t require follow through and requires nothing of them outside of snark. The “right” however is spending some serious time and money at ranges and “tactical shooting classes” these days to put off as being in the same “no effort” camp as the Left.
Yugoslavia was doomed from the moment it was conceived. You are enough of a history buff to know that.
All sneer and snark, right and left, requires no action. Tactical shooting classes look fun. Having fun hobbies doesn’t count. I really think that talk of revolution is just right wing snark. If bullets start flying I will log on and retract.
It was doomed because it was an attempt to artificially merge disparate cultures. I totally agree, that from day one, it was doomed.
What I’m suggesting is that we’re coming to a point where the same polarity of cultures is starting to gel here. It doesn’t matter if the polarity is artificially imposed by outside powers, or if it forms naturally, once it happens then you’re going to have conflict.
My point on guns and shooting is that we’re doing *way* more than the Left, and are starting to venture outside of gun ranges and classes. The recent standoffs out West, and the armed marching on state capitols in 2012, are small things in the larger picture, but they’re the start of what I think will be a growing trend if things don’t turn around. They’re showing that the right is starting to put its money where it’s mouth is, while the Left continues to just sit and sneer.
I think calling Somalia a third-world country is an insult to third-world countries.
Yeah. But compared to their neighbors they’re actually on top of this shit pile, even in total anarchy. Which is weird when you think about it.
I find that a bit hard to believe. I’m pretty sure that when it comes to a country being completely fucked up on every possible level, Somalia and North Korea are literally in a class to themselves.
Back when they were in full anarchy I believe that their “gdp” as it were, was higher than their bordering neighbors and their standard of living was somewhat higher. Granted, we’re talking the difference between living in a pile of shit and living beside a pile of shit, but still.
right but Yugoslavia was much closer to being like Iraq than the US. You are right about polarity. I think the larger issue is that the world has got more complicated. Eventually the US will be no more. All empires rise and fall. However, by creating a system where very few people have enough fuck you money to permanently walk off the grid, the US has open rebellion a much more difficult thing to pull off.
As for the left…they go to their kickboxing classes but I don’t see any of them traveling to japan to participate in a kumate (not sure if that is a real thing or just from a van dam movie). I watched a bunch of those tactical videos you showed me. It looks cool. but i see a bunch of cross fitters basically…just playing with different toys.
Like I said, I will believe it when I see hundreds of thousands of people leave their jobs and take a city by force. Until then its just little hobbies. Some people go to the gym, some people go to cooking classes, some people play basketball some people do this.
Same situation in 1760. Things take time. That the U.S. will dissolve into many nations may well be the outcome, but it won’t be because of some peaceful transition of power, there will either be force or a very justifiable threat of the use of force (from the Right) that will make it happen. It’s 1760. We need to wait a while to see it play out. I’m more the long slow cook in the over type of historian, not the microwave type. Heh.
Nope. only one state didnt agree to the Refugee Act. Wyoming is looking more appealing by the day
wait…so the state did have to agree?
both of our old asses will be long dead lol. I also look at things in 1000 year increments. Its a fun way to do things. 1760 and now have some similarities but also an incredible amount of difference as well. Stuff like the insane amount of debt everyone carries, the general unhealthy/obese nature of people, the laziness which technology has allowed and more than tolerated, venerated….and loads of other things make this one different.
The country won’t last forever and when big countries collapse there is violence in one form or another that’s just the way of things. But it will take a very long time….this isn’t something that will happen in your grandkids lifetime I would bet. But it is just as likely that we get conquered by the Chinese. I will never claim to understand what goes on west of 10th avenue but from what I can tell the vast majority of the swath of area between manhattan and LA is filled with junk food addicted fatties that won’t rebel as long as they have a chair to watch their sports ball from while they eat themselves to death
Im no expert, just stumbled across something on the web. Apparently, 49 outta the 50 states agreed to this back in 1980. I assume the act wasnt abused to the extent it has been recently
I see. Well, look, if the state was given an option and they took it I really don’t have a ton of pity for them. I assume some federal funding to the state and a briefcase full of cash to some politicians was involved if the state had to agree to such an ass backwards thing. Of course these lunatics would abuse something like this, but seeing the possibility for future abuse while signing legislation is kind of the job of politicians.
Depends. If you can’t get out of a decision made decades earlier by people who are now dead, then you are locked in against your will. The Constitution allows an amendment process precisely to avoid this situation.
right, but someone should kind of get on that before 40 thousand somalis show up ya know. I have a feeling that if it was your job to be a politician in ohio this would be something you might have mentioned amending by state law as soon as you realized the New Sherif was gonna be “a near”
I don’t really know how politics work, but if there was any possible way to back out of this thing it really should have been done and the fact that it wasn’t makes me less inclined to be sympathetic.
They arent lunatics, there is method to their madness. Still, if a lawyer who knows more about this could chime in, I would be curious to find out more. Arent “Acts” temporary in nature? Arent they up for review every X amount of years?
yeah, i have almost no clue how any of this shit works. I’ve never had a real interest in pLOLitics but would assume that there is some way to opt out of this. If not then wow, fucking morons.
Demographic replacement is openly shilled by the left
My point is, that I don’t think that there’s a way to get out of it. Everything today depends on D.C. giving the states a nod (well, almost everything). So if you, say, buck Federal anti-drug laws, and have Obama in office, then you’re good to go. If you buck Federal laws in places that he doesn’t approve of though, you get forced by the courts to comply whether it’s in the original agreement or not.
absolutely…but knowing this is the state really powerless or are they just taking the money and saying fuck our constituency? really asking…im curious.
I believe some original signatory states have started saying that they’re going to start refusing, and the Fed said “Fuck you” and is doing it anyway. The only safe place right now is Wyoming, since decades ago long dead politicians didn’t sign on.
Bit of both?
It’s always interested me, Wyoming. I love bleak landscapes
that seems like a really insane thing to sign up for. the incentives, both the legit ones and the payoffs, must have been tremendous.
I have long said we should put all immigrants in South Dakota for 3 years by law.
I am very curious if it is the courts that force you or if there is federal money that stops coming in if the state doesn’t comply. If the prior then you guys are getting shafted by the feds. If the later then you are just being bought off. My feelings are largely dependent on which of those it is. If the former I really feel for Ohioans (is it Ohioans?) if the later than sorry not sorry as they say.
I have totally off topic question….you on tele?
Kneeman honestly doesn’t know about life outside the island.
“Chest shaving is gay as fuck… Oh no, I’m late for my facial! Toodles”.
Right up yellow stones fallout path no thanks.
exactly. combined with social media, rampant betaness and female-centric culture
A part of the issue is couples having less children – because it’s too expensive and too much of a hassle to have more than 2.4 kids… and thus many men never have a son – only 1 or 2 daughters – thus they channel their need to be fathers to boys into those girls, making the girls more masculine. Girls only need a father to be present as an authority – the mother does the rest. A father can’t effectively bring up a daughter. Boys need a father to be hands on and guide them into the world and from a father’s point of view right from a young age are active and energetic in the games they play and toys they choose. That combined with too many mother only single parent families for boys, waters down the medium grade males having had no fathers and turbo charges the upper grade females by giving them way too much male encouragement as daddy tries to turn his daughter into a son.
not that old canard of “it’s too expensive” – that is a pernicious meme used to depopulate Western nations. I guess nobody remembered to tell the Africans how expensive children are lolz
that’s not the point – the point is that high grade families that only have 2-3 daughters and the parents together can easily turn out more masculine females, who then go off trying to be daddies little tom boy. While lower grade families, especially those that separate or where the father works long hours and is less hands on, gives little masculine upbringing to the boys.
So the net result is a bunch of ‘you go girl’ upper middle class women and a ton of useless cucked out beta males that never had a father – it tips the balance to feminism massively over time.
Really some kind of dictator needs to come along or society needs to get its shit together and require couples to have some education, license and upbringing program for children. Its almost too late, the concept of bringing up children is just to dump them in school and buy them some expensive plastic on high days and holidays. Little boy 6 years old wants to wear a dress so book him in for a sex change operation – little girl wants to drive a racing car and fly a fighter jet – go for it – it’s beyond pathetic.
yes or at the very least, they spoil their daughters rotten, making it impossible for any man to meet their inflated expectations.
Well yes there’s that too i suppose… back in the day barely 100 years ago – if a husband had 4-5 daughters with his wife and no sons, well he made do with his nephews and other outlets for being a father figure to male children, whilst keeping his daughters as feminine as possible and good for marriage material – mother did the rest. Now having a daughter especially for a blue pill marriage type man, is considered almost the same as having a son. The tradition and structure of father to son and father to daughter has been lost. As has the mother to son – meanwhile mother to daughter is a giant bitch fest of entitlements and you go girlism.
Feminism really is nothing more than a 4-5 generational chinese whisper that started up with a few disgruntled women : mothers and daughters that wanted to get out into the world and behave like men. Even basic clothing habits of trousers and skirts have been abandoned. It all adds up.
a family in NJ is suing the school district b/c it wont let there daughter play for the boys’ jr high basketball team. I bet that father has no sons, only daughters
and he’s a cuck
I totally agree. At least, in Europe, having children it is not THAT expensive. Two kids are perfectly possible. But… what about the stupid travels and the extra pointless clothes and electronics? And what about the “careers” that many people who are not good enough attempt to follow?
Since 2000 when interest rates were lowered to create a credit/ mortgage boom (debt farming by the banks), many people can’t afford children due to housing costs. The boomer generation have organised their boomer communities to shut down 100s of green-lit housing developments, often forcing developers to go from 25000 planned houses to a few hundred. Once the boomers bought their houses in the 80s, housing developments – new towns – stopped being built. We are millions of houses short, which creates artificially high housing costs which benefits….boomer property owners. In the UK, they brought in 8 million 3rd world primitives in to compound the problem, and gave them all prefered status in social housing. Anyone who says it isn’t expensive to have kids in Europe is clueless.
Yeah, because the UK is the only country in Europe. Right?
I have the “princess crown” theory. Once a girl has been put a princess crown, she becomes an irreversible spoiled bitch.
Psychological cross-dressing leading to real cross-dressing.
I would like you to test that theory using the “Kings Back-Hand” theory.
It was one example. Almost the entirety of Europe is suffering from over-valued housing and a massive level of over-crowding, due to the housing shortage. The average overcrowding in the EU28 is 30.3%. In 2014, 11.4% of EU citizens paid 40% of their wages in housing costs. There isn’t a EU country that doesn’t have a housing crisis. You can look for yourself on the EUs website, prick.
What amount of childish bullshit, check other cultures how much do they spend on food or clothes. In most of Europe, education and healthcare is “free”. Ask the migrants how do they do it. Yeah, they receive subsidies, but still, since they have 3 to 5 children. They keep the wife at home and she shuts the fuck up. It is called priorities in life. And for other cultures, children come first.
Could you expand on that?
Let me explain it in simple terms, since you are evidently a fucking retard. Healthcare and education are not “free”, they are paid for by tax rates which go from 15-55% in EU countries. Most countries with higher standards of living, have higher tax rates in the EU. That is income tax – that isn’t counting the 10-40% sales tax added onto goods (Value Added Through Manufacture). In addition, they are taxed on property, which is called Council Tax in the UK. I pay £220 a month in that for where Iive.
Now, if I wanted to be a parasite and be unemployed for life, and live on Heinz Baked Beans, I could ‘lose’ my job and go onto the state welfare scam, which is a patry £90 per week. If I was a single female – or lets say a married Muslim woman who says she isn’t married just to get extra welfare – I could shit out a load of kids and have other people pay for them, but with the added bonus that my entire life and finances would be open for the state to scrutinise anytime they want; essentially I would be vassel of the state, producing children as future bonded labourers. The only reason immigrants are having loads of kids here is they have no shame whatsoever, and consider being so shameless just an avenue for an eventually take-over of this country via demographics. They live like absolute pigs. Not only that, but most of their husbands work full time in take-away shops or as taxi drivers, earning tax free money, so on top of the free government provided house, they are earning decent money. They don’t get caught as the state is scared to go after them. Natives can’t do any of this as they would be in jail, with their photo plastered all over the national press, calling them ‘scroungers’. Anything else you want to try and argue about faggot?
I don’t know why I even replied to your reductio ad poverty fallacy. My initial comment was referring to all the people in Europe that could afford having children and they don’t have any, because they prefer continuing their childish single/cohabitation lifestyles with travels to Thailand and stupid materialistic purchases. These people account for millions of children that were never born. Have a nice day.
Idiot, they aren’t doing it out of preference. They can’t afford it. 40% unemployment for millenials, 15% home ownership rates for millenials. Rents prices 3x higher than their parents mortgages. If your stop following a few rich millenials on Instagram who are travelling “to Thailand and other stupid materialistic purchases”, and come back to the real world, you’d see very few people of fertile age can afford children. Stats trump your stupid ass-umptions. Come back with stats or fuck off faggot.
I think it’s pretty self explanatory
Stop trolling, idiot.
Stats are trolling only to a retard.
People not having kids is cultural more than economic. It comes from much before than the 2008 crisis. It has been a 50 year old process. It is a matter of values and decline in religious beliefs.
Idiot, the past 50 years has been the neo-Liberal controlled disintergration of Europe, exporting 10s of millions of manufacturing jobs and replacing wealth creating jobs with wealth creation via house prices, whilst wages have pretty much stagnated and purchasing power down. Economics is precisley to blame. I guess “it’s the economy, stupid” is over your head, as you are beyond stupid.
The interest rates were lowered to mask the fact our assets had been stolen, and to create a psychosis where people traded mortgages/ debt like a house is a commodity. That is the reason housing is unaffordable, ergo why most millenials and younger GenX can’t afford children, and have pretty much given up.
Idiot, you only mention the economic indicators that matter to you. Good bye sir!
Stats don’t lie. If unemployment for fertile age people is 30-40% across the EU, 27% of those youth are in unaffordable housing rentals, endemic overcrowding, over 30% still living with their parents, basic logic tells you it is economic factors. As Prince Phillip said on a BBC interview “we are not going to force people not to reproduce, we will just make it too difficult”. You know there are 2 EU stats websites where you can see for yourself, though you seem to prefer just stating your opinion and thinking that carries more weight that actual facts. Delusional half-wit.
Pretty obvious that if you weaken everyone you can more easily exert global control hmmm. Then when the go juice and ebt cards run out for the last time everyone is to weak and exhausted to oppose the biggest kids on the block.
Classic divide and conquer. They know the resources and technology to preserve them will likely not be our future but more likely scarcity, war, famine, and disease.
We all need to slow down and think about what really is important.
All the while whispering in everyones ears to give up those guns and just a few more freedoms…
You keep copy-pasting simple stats while you are not reading the person you are arguing with. My comment was about people who CAN afford children but they do NOT have them. It is largely known that children are an inferior good: the more income you have, the less children you have. You can shove your poverty stats deep up your ass.
When the percentage of people who CAN afford children and don’t have them is so insignificant in quantity , due to these economic conditions, your argument is thus insignificant too. You are pulling figures out of your ass, and trying to make an argument out of them. You assume young people who are taking vacations to Thailand are doing so instead of raising children: newsflash dumbass, kids cost a lot more than a €1500 trip to Thailand, ergo that isn’t the reason people aren’t having kids, you fucking retard. How many young people in Europe are taking trips to Thailand, which you used as an example? Oh, you don’t know because you argue based on ASSumptions. Facts and stats trump your bullshit assumptions everytime. You are a joke.
As for your assumption that people with more money have less children, purchasing power is down over the past 40-odd years of neo-liberalism, so people are having less kids, which mainly dipped in the 2000 census, and have higher living costs and less disposable income, so it is bullshit. Rates of children doesn’t keep going down, it goes down and settles at 2-3 children. You can see for yourself looking at birth rates in Western countries. It has specifically dropped below replacement level due to this 40 year long economic heist by the Chicago School which has made having 2 or 3 kids unaffordable to the vast majority of current fertile age group. Deal in facts/ stats or fuck off.
A lot of African kids die in the street with fucking flies landing in their faces.
All those high-falootin overly educated career women postpone having children until they give birth to a Downs baby. All that education for what? To have less viable offspring than an 18 year old girl from the sticks?
I think anyone who wants a child must be either insane or stupid
a little from column A and a little from column B
A and B are fine. Problem is with the C
Another problem is the D.
My whole life would be so much easier without the D.
I actually thought about chopping it off.
Pardon?
You had your kids in a much different world.
If I had no Sexual desire I’d be kind of a mid sized nation by now
Wife is going off BC in a day or two. 2017 is going to be year of the baby. I’d classify myself as insane, but I’m an experiences guy and I want to see what this whole child rearing thing is about. If only to be able to tell other parents to stfu about being parents. Literally billions of people have raised children. Can’t be that damn hard.
Ah, this is a variation on the “the world is too dangerous/perilous today to have children” argument I assume?
GL man! That wood aint gonna chop itself, I hope you have triplets
Haha, thanks. Would love a son to raise to be a man, but my wife predicts w my luck we’ll have girls. At least they make pink camo now.
Yeah but stromfront trolls are psycho. This is about the general male population that doesn’t have fear of castration by jews, and doesn’t put white pussy on pedestal and worship it as religion.
On the other hand, Genghis Khan fucked enough women to create enough kids that they could have formed their own mid sized nation.
I’m always strongly suspect of the whole “If you fuck women regularly then that soaks away your ambition” meme. Way too many captains of industry have ten mistresses on the side for me to take that claim to seriously.
this is a fair point. The inner energy that leads to both things is probably the same it isn’t like if you had no sexual desire you would be the same person only with more time.
Only anecdotal, from what I’ve seen in real life, for every sexless Tesla super genius, there are a hundred sexless men who turn inward and reclusive and become either depressed or complete shut in introverts who contribute nothing to society except propping up Frito Lay’s Cheetos division.
nah, I am not about the too dangerous argument. World has always been dangerous. Hell we grew up in a world when people honestly believed we might be nuked at any moment. and 6 year old kids were taught what to do when it happened lol.
You live in a world, however, that is very accommodating to a single lifestyle in a way that at no point in history, even only 15 years back, ever was. Kids are, unarguably, a large responsibility. They used to be unarguably valuable too. Now their value is only subjective (some people just like kids). I have always hated fucking children so it never really occurred to me to have them but back when I was 20 it would have been a lot more valuable for me to have had kids then would be for a 20 year old today I think,
well of course you are insane. I can tell that by the first word of your comment! That said, no it does’t look particularly difficult to make sure the kid survives. I think the tricky part is raising kids that aren’t total cunts. That seems to be a lot harder to do.
Easier to raise kids in the Klondike than Westchester county. They’ll be non-cunty. Be making moose jerky by the time they are 6
Agreed.
I guess what you want to say is if you have 10 energy for work and 10 energy for fucking and you changed it to 20 energy for work it would be great. But in reality what you have is 10 energy which is exhibited in everything you do from cooking a steak to fucking to your career.
nah, i have to think that even Klondike moose jerky kids are cunts for the most part.
I think that the valuation of children that you see is due to your locale more than to reality across the nation. In cities I can easily see children being little more than fashion accessories. Clearly this is the case in LA and Hollywood where kids are adopted strictly for political virtue signaling, for example (or given birth to, sometimes). What value does that child (or children) provide? Very little. The nominal parent won’t care much about raising it properly once the virtue signaling value dies down, and it will grow up to despise her (it’s always the woman out adopting kids from Africa) and become a net drain on society and her “family”.
I don’t even know where the Klondike is btw and I would bet that there is a lesbian there who has some social media account where her handle is Klondyke
some people just like kids at least that is what they say.
However, you simply do not need children to ensure you old age the way people once did in a first world country…
Drive over the GW bridge. make a right. keep going. I have no doubt a klondyke handle exists, probably up to klondyke32 at this point
Yes and no.
The desire to have offspring is a biological and racial imperative. It means the survival of the people, the prolonging of the culture and values, etc, etc, etc. The problems, however, are:
– Lack of adequate femenine material. Used up feminist bitches with negative psychological and physical traits. Why would someone wants to impregnate a woman with BDP, fat and with cancer history?
– The current state of the world. The world we are living is basically a cesspool with no traditional customs nor values; filled with vices and decadence of every sort.
In that sense, its insane or stupid to have offspring. However, if we all do that, the race will perish in 2 or 3 generations. It is a lose-lose situation: have kids and they will be whiggers and whores; dont and your race will perish.
totally understand about biological imperative. Just the way people are made. I don’t really think the world is as bad as you make it out to be. I kind of like our world.
The taboo on sex is all but destroyed at this point so monogamy seems silly to me. The basic point of monogamy is trading the possibility of sex with others for the guarantee of sex with one person. I also think that a kid really should have two married parents. So if there is no incentive for monogamy it doesn’t make too much sense to have the kids.
The near thing about the race perishing in 2 or 3 generations is I won’t be around to see it. I have no real abstract care about our race. I don’t really care about our ancestors in a way where I make being defended from them a point of personal pride and I certainly don’t care about the generations that will come after I am dead.
I will never go over the GW bridge. that would take me out of manhattan
Lolknee’s right Ghost. From an economic standpoint, children are a drain. 100 years ago you needed children, they were an economic asset. Today it is the complete opposite. You have children because you want them.
Not saying I like this arrangement, but it is what it is.
Having watched my family and my wife’s family come together countless times to help our own out of dire straights, I’d say that you may be considering it from an angle or set of life experiences that are different than my own.
Good luck with your hedonism and nihilism. May your life be short and full of vices!
I doubt short…I have longevity on both sides of the family and live an incredibly healthy lifestyle. I am in this thing for the long haul.
I really hope you have some brothers lolknee because it would be sad to let your ancestral lineage just die with you. It is also a waste that you don’t want to have children because you seem the type who would raise some seriously red pill sons.
I have a shit ton of nieces and nephews (from my cousins but we grew up like brothers and sisters) and my sister has a little girl and is looking to fart out another one.
My reason for not having children is simply that I don’t like them and I am very selfish. As for ancestral lineage…I just don’t care that much about it. I have no connection to any great civilization from the past and even if i did that just isn’t the kind of thing that impresses me. I am a 5th generation new yorker on both sides of my family. The old country was brooklyn.
Good , make sure you pass your wisdom on you nephews (vaginas don’t count coz they are just means of reproduction for other men).
Also fuck civilisations , all I care about is my paternal lineage. Smth inside tells me I mustn’t let it die.
I know a lot of people that feel that way and I respect it. I truly do. As long as it doesn’t cross into the insane lets wipe out people for it territory. I just never felt that way. I don’t know why.
It’s funny, at christmas i think the boys think i like the girls better because I am fun with the girls but with the boys i am more serious. So the girls get the fun playful lolknee who gives them candy and toys and the boys get the stern lolknee that gives them books for christmas. Hopefully one day they will learn that it was actually me favoring them they were just too young to understand.
It could be a scale: on one end, you have Solomon (who wifed a 1000 women, and still found time to write and build to his heart’s content), and on the other end you have Joe Six-Pack who lives in a trailer with his over-weight shrew and brats.
the fastest way to be hell lonely for a few years, stuck in a relationship with a woman who has zero priority other than for the child. hire a nanny or two you might make it.
Project much? Or are you just throwing out things you’ve heard from other people?
Yep, youre german.
“I have always hated fucking children.”.
….
Then why do you do it?
HAR!
I have always disliked children.
I have always loved fucking, children.
and i do enjoy fucking children (see your local AOC for definition)
No reason to be mad about it since from my point of view , if you don’t reproduce it just means more “Lebensraum” for my offsprings. It would only be a problem if men in the West massively chose your path , which could result in my own successors living under the next caliphate or worst under a globalist world government. So at most I say your example shouldn’t be encouraged at this point in the West.
Haha ,you seem like the cool uncle everybody loved to have around when we were kids. Make sure you teach them about women too. Young men nowadays go through fucked up situations because they don’t know the true nature of women and are being lied everywhere. Maybe you could introduce them to RoK when they are ready.
agreed that it is better for me (and society in general) if I am an exception and not a rule.
I will do my best to teach them about women. They are still single digit age. Ill get around to it in a few years. Right now i am teaching them they getting knocked on their ass isn’t the end of the world and crying about it is harshly condemned. I got the boys boxing gloves for christmas. Their father, my cousin, approves. He and I are the same age and we grew up boxing when our cool uncle gave us boxing gloves.
It’s funny. One day you have a cool uncle. Next day you are the cool uncle. Somehow 20 years passes and you are like shit….
all politics are local as they say 🙂
Good job. The only useful thing my father taught to me was that if as a boy I would often get into fights and that I shouldn’t be a pussy.
I know that feel exactly man. Just like a couple of years ago I was a kid and now I am an adult on my own. It feels like a joke this life.
“I think anyone who wants a child must be either insane or stupid”
Or simply cannot learn from others. Guys, before you have a kid, sit down and have a 12 pack (each) with some of your guy friends who have kids. Then ask them for their opinion. I’ve done this dozens of times, and the answer is nearly always the same.. “Man, Overtaxed, I LOVE my kids. But, knowing what I know now, looking back, I wouldn’t have had them”. Over and over again I hear this from men.
Yes, there are exceptions. Men who are really rich generally don’t feel this way (their wives stay home, they work hard, and generally live the “Mad Men” lifestyle, escorts/mistresses included). And men who REALLY wanted to be fathers would be the other exception, they never really cared about the relationship with the wife, just saw her has a means to get to be a father. Both of these exceptions are VERY rare.
Or hire a prostitute. But something has to give and most men are incredibly unhappy when they have a dead sex life and woman walking through the house they’d love to fuck but won’t give them the time of day. Perhaps that’s the one positive to the fatpocolypse, most women who have kids get fucking huge, so, by proxy, you won’t have someone walking around you’re dying to put your dick in.
agreed the wealthy and people who really enjoy fatherhood aside, there is no one who is happy with the decision to have children.
I am able to live the mad men lifestyle (complete with madison ave office) but if I had to add a wife to it it would look more like that raymund schlub
Yup. Move to the country, kids have value again (mow my 15 acres of lawn!). In they city, they are nothing but a drain on time/money and resources. And, the city is a terrible place, IMHO, for children to grow up. Far too dangerous, so kids need rules stacked on top of rules.
People thought my parents were crazy allowing my brother and I to run big tractors and use chainsaws when we were younger. We lived. A few scars, a few broken bones, and some lessons learned. Quite a few of their “city kids” didn’t make it (OD mostly, but one actually was murdered).
Depends on the environment.
In NYC the family courts will murder you if the wife wants to walk. An equivalent analogy could be given to a farming society where the laws are changed so that cows who wander off to neighboring farms are promised full time support by their former owners. In such an environment, no sane man would dare raise cows.
The simple reality is that women are a resource. Full stop. A society that refuses to grasp that concept is a society that is going to fall apart.
I love that cow analogy
To me, that’s probably the worst situation for a man to have in life than even being completely single and lonely: A couple of decades of marriage to the same female that hits middle age and becomes one of those fat menopausal old-faced females. There are plenty of men in their 40s and 50s and maybe even older that still have the sex drive and zest they did when they were in their 20s, but are stuck married to an old middle aged unattractive wife that they are repulsed by. Unless they decided to cheat with a prostitute and/or divorce, those men are stuck sneaking around just so they can watch some internet porn while their old wife is at the grocery store buying junk food. Then they have to live the next 30,40, or even 50 years into their elderly lives married to the same disgusting female.
What’s always been odd to me, is that I’ve seen old men who were widowed that got remarried in their 60s or 70s to some old disgusting hag. I can see where a marriage like that could be based on friendship and companionship, but there is no way in hell I could sleep in the same bed next to some piss smelling old lady.
So irresponsible and inconsiderate of them to get fat like that..
Give her sextuplets.
Have a philosophy going in. Don’t just be an “experiences guy.” Know who and how you want to be as a father– and let your experiences guide you and course-correct you from that point.
You’ll be long dead, but they will figure it out later.
Your friends and family are your greatest assets. I sit in the middle of Europe and watch the native population being replaced because the last 60 years of European socialism made having kids so damn expensive and not needed (the state will provide in your old age). But yet all those old white Europeans expect the living standard to remain and their state pensions despite no one bothered having enough kids (aka. future taxpayers) to maintain it all.
Mate, do you know you can guarantee your missus has a son? There are two way, one is basically the acidity of the vagina effects which sperm get to the egg. The male sperm is faster but less hardy/ tough, whereas the sperm with XY is slower but can resist acidic environments better – which shows when you see fat chicks always have daughters. Your missus needs to quit any highly acidic foods, and eat really clean. Evolutionary it might be a mechanism where unhealthy women (acidic) have daughters as a survival mechanism. The other is to look into this NCBI study which shows conception time-to-moon-phase, and the effect on the childs gender. Women are obsessed with this and they are all looking into it so they can have girls, hence the West now has more female births. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16295726
I did not know that, but (minus a few holiday cookies) we eat really clean. She’s been taking prenatal vitamins and is reading a few books on pregnancy diet. Basically she’s been prepping her womb to be a top notch incubator. She’s an over achiever.
Bravo sir, Bravo!!!!
Nah man i follow an insanely healthy alkaline diet, workout daily, super clean lifestyle – we had a girl. True that male sperm is faster & female sperm stronger but it comes down to the thickness of the eggs walls – boy sperm might get there first but if he can’t break through, the female will catch up and beat him to the punch. Some women have naturally thicker/thinner egg walls so end up with all boys or all girls whereas some have more fluctuating thickness and will end up with a combo. Pretty sure time of the month can have an effect on this. But at the end of the day, no matter your kids gender you should be fucking stoked and proud of them cause obviously they were the fittest and most worthy of the lot.
You must know some realt fucking dirtballs. Who wishes there kids were never born?! Maybe if they turn out to be serial killers but damn…. would never wanna meet your low life friends. Ask them again when they are 80 if they regret their kids and let me know
How about dont marry some lazy careless bitch? Find a naturally attractive, at least moderately vain/shallow, health & fitness obsessed girl that never intends to “let herself go?” I’ve seen plenty of the opposite including my own parents. My moms 5’4, 118 lbs, recent boob job, gets her hair done every week, works out everyday, laser skin treatments, dresses really nice, occasional spray tan, naturally pretty…and then my dad who is no scrub but drinks a lot and has the gangly limbs with a beer belly body. Still very happily in love. It helps that they are best friends and care about stuff besides fucking. You sound like a bitter guy who just can’t find a quality woman. Totally fine to be anti-monogamy but shit man, its possible to be happy with or without one life partner. Damn.
I totally respect your anti-monogamous stance and think it’s definitely not right for everyone. But i’d argue monogamy isn’t solely about trading the possibility of sex with others for guaranteed just sex with one person. Obviously thats a big part of it. But its also about constant companionship, comfort, helping each other out, decades of shared experience, someone to tell all your tedious bullshit to that actually cares, some people just strongly prefer routine and a spouse fits in with that. I mean my boyfriend and i are both genetically blessed and could each bang tons of other people if we wanted to. But we have too many hobbies, interests & goals to spend time chasing dick or pussy from people that while attractive we find annoying, stupid, sleazy, etc. We genuinely love spending every day together doing domestic shit and fucking each other and raising our genetically blessed daughter. If you think thats depressing thats fine, but the people that are truly happily paired up think being single chasing pussy with no kids at an old age is depressing af. Just different strokes, ya know?
Fwiw, my boyfriend and i have no intentions to ever get married. We think legally binding ourselves to each other and bringing the government into our relationship is weird an unnecessary. If anything we’ll have a “wedding” celebration and wear rings so people stop asking but never actually legally tie the knot
Yep. Kids were a labor resource for the family business. We have corporations, big government, and busy-body neighbors now. So kids have gotten very expensive. But the socialism has often been those with children passing the expense to those without.
Look at all the programs and taxes that are paid for “the children”. The expense of children used to help keep women’s sexuality in check. But now the state will provide. They’ll tax single men so women can have a safety net and be covered for the consequences of their own decisions.
Ahhh, look at the typical outcome. It’s obviously hard to raise an excellent, exceptional kid.
I think you can have your spunk spun and raise the gender selection odds to 90%+ toward your choice. Of course, it now must go into the wife via turkey baster…
No no man. There’s a cheaper way. You go with your girl to the nearest carnival or county fair.
https://vineyardgazette.com/sites/default/files/article-assets/main-photos/2012/ab_midway_round_up.jpg
Both of you get on the ’round up’ centrifugal ride. You ‘do it on the round up’!
It isn’t about the male being insanely healthy, it is about the female, and also the time of conception (as moon cycles also affect the acidity of the female. True you should be happy regardless, but a lot of women know the trick to make sure they have a girl, as is shown when you Google search “How to have a girl”, they’re all talking about it. Muslims are breeding boys and we’re breeding more females. There is only one winner in this demographic battle, and it isn’t the West.
I know people with kids who have not had a TV in their home, and the kids are impecibly behaved and way above their age group in intelligence. Not difficult to see why.
I am a female
I can see this. I mean this is what people say. It is just that I never really felt an understanding about companionship the way you describe. I know what you describe is perfectly normal as I hear people say things like that all the time, but I am just not constituted in a way that any of what you said makes any sense to me personally…this is why being alone is probably the best thing for me
Fair enough. Glad you know whats best for you and didn’t let social norms force you into the marriage trap. Wishing you luck and happiness!
And you as well. People are all very different. I would never suggest that my way of life is better….I do know it is better for me however. Plenty of people are very happy in relationships and marriages. I don’t want to shit on the institution. The problem is, as you point out, the social conditioning. I have to defend my choice to stay single while someone who rushes into a misadvised marriage is seen as a good member of society.
Have 4 kids all grown and 4 grandchildren with 2 on the way. None of my kids were planned, but don’t regret having them.
if they are already grown it was def a different world you had your kids in. I think I would go back to my original statement and amend it for people who genuinely enjoy kids and family. If you have fun and find personal satisfaction from kids then it is a different story. I still think you are nuts but hey, that’s just me
Struggling with that today. I really, really do not want kids. On the other hand, I am able to have kids now and I am the very last of my family. Really annoyed my parents chickened out and only had one child (me). Guess I can’t blame them. The irony.
It’s a tough decision that every man needs to make for himself
Then you let that resource start pricing itself and then dictating what other equally or greater value resources are doing with their time (men).
All of a sudden the resource priced itself out of existence.
I always had this image in my head of you living in london or something like that just never bothered to ask lol.
Amen my friend and I would love to procreate but I can barely deal with the screeching of females I have nothing to do with on top of my migraines from multiple head injuries.
I will defend white cheddar cheese to the death though or at least until the bag is gone.
Yeah there is a whole lot to be said for doing as you please at any time of day or night with zero mental midget lip coming your way.
First of all, Men aren’t a resource, they are actors. Women are objects, they are acted upon. They are reactive, passive. Because they have far less control over their emotions than men, they have more agency than a beast, but not as much agency as a man.
Secondly, most of the imbalance in society is do to the artificial imposition of social constraints and regulations in addition to the forced transfer (theft) of the wealth of men to women.
Remove the artificial constraints of society, remove court imposed alimony and child support, enforce prenup contracts ruthlessly, get rid of welfare (all of it), get rid of minimum wage laws, get rid of any laws prohibiting free association both in social and business spheres, that is, remove any penalities for not hiring women, insist on a more objective standard of evidence for rape – ie, prove it, don’t just rely on testimony, etc.
Do these things and much of the problems we see will be solved practically overnight.
It’s far more common than you think. And no, these aren’t dirtballs at all, the vast majority of my friends are college educated with decent white collar jobs. The exceptions are those who are really wealthy, they typically don’t feel the same way. But there are so many sacrifices made for the middle class to have kids that I suspect this sentiment is shared more often that not.
Being college educated and working a white collar job do not exempt one from being a dirtball….. plenty of assholes fit into those categories. Wishing your innocent children were never born because you find them inconvenient – now thats what i call a dirtbag.
Guess these white collar college educated friends of yours value material possessions and “me time” more then the unconditional love of their own children. My boyfriend and i had a combined $5000 in the bank when i got pregnant but never once since she was born have we regretted her existence.
Don’t reply to her.
Have you ever read the Lost World by Michael Crichton? He argued in it that dinosaurs actually went to extinct due to behavioral changes wherein the mothers became less attentive, stopped protecting the eggs, etc. They basically went off the rails and there was never a corrective mechanism.
Dinosaurs never existed. I thought this was agreed upon a fews weeks ago
the DQ: the Dinosaur Question? 😀
Stop this BS. When I lived in this fucked up shared appatement in Munich until december there was an adventist who actually believed this shit.
I had a few conversations with him and while he was ripped af and seemed to be an aryan christian alpha male, this were his standpoints:
– The dinosaurs never existed.
– AfD are hardcore Nazis like literally Hitler – even though they support Israel.
– Merkel is a great leader. She is doing the best for germany.
– Trump is a sexist Hitler and Clinton would be a great leader because of vagina.
– Pizzagate is a lunatic conspiracy theory and all the pictures from Alefantis instagram account are faked by fake news outlets (=everything that is not mainstream).
God damn, even the guys who look redpilled as fuck are turning out to be bluepilled ass cucks when you talk to them.
Get me outta here.
Come on guys, get me outta here. :'(
The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was just fleeing war and unrest in the Oort Cloud. He a good boy. He dindu nuffin.
“Get me outta here.
Come on guys, get me outta here. :’”
I know an American friend who lives in Argentina and he met with an episcopalian pastor who stated very simular things. We also see this similar attitude from Christian leaders in the States.
Contemporary Christianity is that of full-amped cuckery with self extermination thrown in for good measure.
The pope is s fucking globalist shill.
I think that you missed his sarcasm.
member those little capsules that expanded into foam dinosaurs when you put them in water?
Agreed about american protestantism. Doctrine of unlimited forgiveness is a moral hazard.
I also attended an adventist service with the housemate.
There was a refugee from Haiti preaching while the first row was stacked up with blond girls slobbering for the black dick.
The total cuckening.
I attended two divine services in the last two years. The first (baptist church) was headed by a woman talking about sex, the second one was headed by a black pisspoor refugee telling me how the world works because ‘they wuz kangz n sheeeeit’.
There is nothing more disgusting and disgraceful than a western church.
“There was a refugee from Haiti preaching while the first row was stacked up with blond girls slobbering for the black dick.
The total cuckening”
Were these good looking young blonde german women?
Can a white American still get a german girlfriend or do die Deutschen Frauen no longer date white guys?
There’s a roided up dude I see at work every weekend and we’ve been discussing politics since before the election.
He’s been pro Bernie/Hillary this whole time, believes that the Russians rigged the elections, and all the rest of it. When pressed for evidence, he’s got nothing other than “it would be irresponsible for the CIA to release the evidence”. My response… Good thing the CIA didn’t release “evidence” that the middle East had nukes until after the US already destabilized it eh?
Just kuz a guy looks red-pilled doesn’t seem to mean anything. The red-pillers I meet are mostly low SMV high-IQ guys who haven’t gotten the rest of their shit together. They’ve got the brains to figure things out, but haven’t put the time in to build their body or their income yet. Unless they’ve got some grandmaster plan that doesn’t depend at all on conventional tropes of success, I’d say they’re pretty much screwing themselves.
Not as long as white men keep handing their balls over to the lowest bidder
Oh, german women loooove american men. Doesn’t matter which colour. Just don’t be an evil nazi german!
“Oh, german women loooove american men”
Sarcasm? 🙂
What makes white American guys popular with German women?
“God damn, even the guys who look redpilled as fuck are turning out to be bluepilled ass cucks when you talk to them.”
After this realization, your last sentence is you asking to be saved with a crying emoticon…
There’s the door you can see your self out.
(((Hollywood)))
What do you mean? German chicks are basing their opinion about white American men based on our movies? Or somply because the capital of the movie infustry in the wedt (Hollywood) is located in the States?
Is this the Jurassic park guy? Possible I guess. I’m sure there were plenty of reasons. Dinosaur feminism running wild.
Jurassic Park guy? Was Einstein the relativity guy? Was Edison the light bulb guy?
Interesting outside-the-box take on Michael Crichton, for anybody who likes big, fat, too-hard-to-swallow red pills (it’s a PDF file) –
http://mileswmathis.com/crichton2.pdf
Thanks for that. MC has been my favorite author since I was a teen. Very interesting info at that link.
I always thought it was unfortunate how his death was completely overshadowed by Election Day 2008.
No problem…
The hypothesis is not perfect for sure, and I’m sure there are exceptions, but I think it works overall. If NY was an independent city-state and it needed to defend against constant attacks from external enemies, and the male population was reduced to half due to all the fighting, I’m sure male-dominant order will rise pretty quickly.
And I agree with the connotation of the word “traditional”; it should only be used to make historical comparisons.
After reading your article, I will disagree about the ratios being the complete issue. Mind you, some aspects of it are noticed on an unconscious level by both men and women, but as women are genetically perfect, typically a society will always birth more women than men.
Even if the numbers are skewed and men and women are too close to each other in parity, something akin to the 80-40 rule would still apply. Currently we are closer to a 1-1 replacement level which means America may need to emigrate citizens somewhere down the line. Involuntary celibates were always the norm for many people who didn’t have sex during the 14-25 age range. Our society isn’t any different except we allow women to have a higher influence on partner choice to try and keep society fashionable.
It isn’t a bad theory. The numbers don’t pan out and other factors play a much stronger role. Some day I would like to see us step away from addressing it solely as a male issue and more of a structural issue. There is a bigger argument to be made that out structures to keep society going are skewing our procreation numbers.
Yup, that’s what hypotheses are for: to be challenged.
The point here is not who gets to mate and with how many, but that male demand is far higher than the available number of females and that such imbalance is inflating the values of females, leading to the cultural phenomenon we call feminism.
Of course, this is a very simplified model of human sex relations, but taking all other factors into account would turn this article into a book.
I think social factors play a far stronger role. The father to son relationship was heavily damaged by divorces increasing exponentially since 1920s. The possibility to replace that in schools and the work place has been almost completely removed.
Men and women are watered down, their polarity is lost, because so much more time is spent around each other. All male and all female classrooms are practically gone. All male universities gone. Put 3-4 chicks into a class of 100 males in engineering or physics – of course those chicks are super precious.
Even skirts and trousers hardly worn. Go back just to 1980 women wore skirts much much more. You look at a 1980s lingerie or swimwear catalogue it was all legs closed quite prim and proper – Madonna almost single handedly put an end to that. Suddenly tits out and legs spread was the go.
There’s more boys than girls born in every country without fail, so not sure about that argument.
The bottom 40% of men who are incels are nothing to be afraid of. They’re such pussies women get sick at the idea of their dicks entering their orbit. They couldn’t fight back in any meaningful way. All they can do is write emo poetry, stalk hot chicks, and go after unarmed civilians. They would never attack an enemy who was aware of their intentions and ready to fight back. The top 60% of men are absolutely ready to depussify the American male population if that were to happen.
Corp America needs that bottom 40%- Mountain Dew and Whopper sales would tank w/o them
Ratios are everything. Go to any strip club on friday or saturday night and you will pay top dollar for 5 minutes of attention. Go to the same strip club on tuesday for lunch and sit at the bar and order a sandwich and same strippers will line up to take turns to sit in your lap for free because there are more strippers than customers. Crude example, but that is real.
I upvoted your comment because you mostly had a good opinion. On the birthing rates, at the core of it, the XY combination is a human mutation that occurs. The correct combination and dominant chromosome is typically the X chromosome. Female births usually come with less drawbacks because of the XX combination. For a more accurate portrayal of how births play out by nation here is a link:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio
Which, from reading the article (which I agree with) is why we should stop punishing prostitution. One woman can provide sexual “access” to dozens or hundreds of men. The reverse is not true. I know we all talk badly about whores, but, when the ratio approaches 1-1, it really does become a necessary evil to reduce the number of crazies going off the reservation. Women have nearly unlimited sexual capacity, men, not so much. However, men have nearly unlimited drive for sex, and frankly, most women have almost none except for with a few Alphas. Pay 4 play is a reasonable solution to this problem.
I don’t think whores are the problem… I think it’s that the average girl has become unmarriagable.
What if human society always was about men serving women and feminism is just a change in demands arising from modern conditions?
If we were suddenly thrust back into a world where living was very hard I’ll wager those die hard feminists would be some of the first looking to return to the old ways. Why? those old ways that we are told were bad for women were not so bad when compared as a whole to what men faced. We’re not going to see these strong independent women taking on the manual labor that made the world of 1850 function. They’ll be first in line saying women shouldn’t work outside the home when work outside the home is back breaking labor under undesirable conditions of heat, cold, rain, snow, etc.
If prostitution is legal everywhere the price of sex drops. It has to be illegal to extract what here is called “beta bucks”.
as an american I didn’t really come into contact with pros, really just strippers and the like. but then you travel and realize that for most other countries, prostitution is somewhat normal. I think the elite took away prostitution in America for a very good reason.
But what does heavily female dominated really mean? Stats on the net show NYC is 52% female. Maybe some neighborhoods you strategically target are higher. Females in NYC are hypergamous as all hell because high cost of real estate makes family formation difficult if not impossible, so the economic forces push out them out to the suburbs to buy a house when they get married. which leaves higher density of singles for the city.
you find that percentage goes up if you narrow search to 20-35 years old and single. As for the family and real estate that works both ways. I see plenty of people get married because the high price of real estate means two incomes is necessary to have any quality of life. Two people who can kind of tolerate one another and who each make 120k can either live a good life together or a meager existence alone.
There is no question women get married at younger age and have more children outside NYC. The longer females stay single, the longer they ride the cock carousel. The economics of NYC naturally selects females who put career over children.
I daresay that, not only are traditional relationships virtually nonexistent, but that this state of affairs is celebrated. First or second dates usually lead to sex – it’s almost expected. Like, if I don’t initiate, then there’s something wrong with me. Not like I’m complaining.
I absolutely expect sex on first date and will move on if there is no sex on second.
Actually, it’s considered “boyfriend behavior” if sex doesn’t happen until the second date. We’re living in weird times.
It is funny, but you are right. And girls seem to consider boyfriend behavior “creepy”
“ewwww he is such a creep! he called me to wish me happy birthday! How fucking needy.”
I mean, for fuck’s sake. I’ll be honest, I got partial to one gal, actually started the I Like You Alot protocol (I know, I know), she freaked and didn’t calm down until we were back to fucking and eating and she suspected I was hittin off other women. She’s super sweet and feminine now.
Game is real, yo.
It really is nuts. That is why I have my 8 week rule. No matter how much I like a girl she gets 8 weeks.
But…if she’s made it to 8 weeks then clearly she’s past the “He called me to wish me happy birthday” creep out factor I’d hope? Seems a girl into more of a relationship mode setting would start to at least not give open signs of revulsion.
The context for this is nearly incomprehensible to me. While girls don’t respond well to clingy guys (at any point in history) I’ve not heard it nor seen it anywhere near as bad here as y’all are describing.
At 8 weeks, they are addicted/invested. Depending on how intensely they’ve submitted. My time frames are longer. Our individual mileages do vary, of course.
But, yes, I mean we all knew that the reality of things could be counter-intuitive to some because of the social conditioning. But this shit just keeps getting more and more bizarre.
some yes. Some no. The Russian would have found it very strange and off putting if I called her on the phone for any reason. I would have been very creepy to assume she wanted to see me for her birthday and short of my current Romanian she is as close to someone I really liked in a long time.
I think this is a genuinely urban thing. The relaxed attitudes to premarital sex happened in NYC much earlier than the rest of the country. I had a fairly high notch count by the time I graduated college. However, back then you were expected to put in a little effort…like care if they were sick or some shit. I think now the relaxed attitude to sex that I saw in the 80’s and 90’s has seeped into the rest of the country while the cities have got to the point where meeting a girl at starbucks and asking her if she wants to come over and “chill” is perfectly acceptable.
You will get there in about 20-30 years.
See what I just did there 🙂
There may be more females in NYC but are there more *suitable* ones (as in women you would actually choose to procreate with)? Women who are not too old or focused on career etc? In that sense, there may be less women than men after all.
There are no women I would choose to procreate with because I think procreation is silly. That said, young, attractive and interesting women galore!
Yeah I know, but the rest of us care about procreation. For most men, procreation is probably the most meaningful thing they are likely to do.
The thing that leaves a lasting impact long after we’re gone.
I know some feel that way authentically. Just as many feel that way because they have been conditioned that way by society. Loads of ways to be. I can only speak with any real authority on what I understand. Other people here are better situated to answer questions from the perspective of someone who finds procreation important t
I probably have kids older than most of you commenting, but the strong men always had their pick and the weak got what was left.
I’d have to agree. Except I’d add “richer men’ to the mix there…
Richer is just another brand of stronger.
it’s only stronger if we are talking about people that generate wealth. It can be an indicator of having qualities that can generate wealth but have been undeveloped. ie, the indolent son of the maverick genius tycoon.
no. Having a shit ton of money makes you stronger period.
You are talking like a man who earned his way to the top, which not coincidentally is what you are.
No, it is objectively true. If strength means ability to thrive and survive in the world you are thrown into, having, say, 500 million dollars, makes you objectively stronger. It might not help in the caveman strength way. But in attracting mates, survival, control of the world around you…a half a billion dollars is strength no matter how you get it.
That’s why I like Chateau Heartiste’s definition of Alpha. It’s just whoever gets the most pussy.
It’s brutal and reductionist, but it gets right to the heart of the matter.
You can be the greatest Man’s man, a true hero who could build a new society from the ground up if given the opportunity, you could be Zarathustra himself with all his wisdom… But that just makes you an honourable male.
To be Alpha is to get pussy.
It’s not brutal, but it is too reductionist. Alpha means access to key resources… pussy is a key resource, but not the only one.
Clark Kent- You are exactly missing the point and, since you mention Chateau Heartiste, he usually is off the mark too. Pussy is a product of being alpha, being alpha is not a product of pussy. Alpha is about who YOU are, not about what you can pull. If you are basing your self worth off how much pussy you get, a dry spell will crush you.
I never said to base your self worth on how much pussy you can get.
Who cares what women think? Their opinions change like weather.
So are there ever cases where YOU are alpha but you are not attracting pussy? And are there ever cases where not being alpha does lead to attracting pussy?
I see where you are going with this, and I agree with you that you should base your self-worth on the merits of your own character, but from a semantics perspective I think CH’s def is the most useful.
I agree except it makes beta men appear stronger. Elon Musk dating Amber Heard.
Agreed.
In any case I was referring to the genetic qualities that get passed on. There are a number of qualities that can cause a man to earn a great deal of money, those qualities would likely be passed on to a descendent. It is also possible that they have not been. In the case of intelligence or strength they would certainly be, in the case of money, not necessarily, but either way the descendent would have the money, which is a form of energy. Albeit, “social energy” which can be used to motivate other humans in social structures who recognize that currency to invest time and effort in exchange for that money.
I suppose that in the case where the descendent or family is not capable of maintaining that energy then it is an indicator of unfitness. For example, if they blow all the cash, invest it badly, or if they do not convert it to different forms of energy in the case of a collapse of that particular currency, etc.
Agreed, but understand how far that definition goes.
If a 5’1 nerd with zero conventional alpha qualities is capable of amassing a harem of nubile females who will bear him young, then by that definition he is an alpha.
someone should make a cologne called Elon Musk
I did not realize the two were synonymous…
If being alpha is who you are then that would include men who simply refuse to play the game with women. If so, then why is it judged so poorly? Because alpha by default here and at CH is by judged by how much pussy. Not that I agree with it, but that is the practice in these circles.
You think a guy who has started multiple companies and led them, mostly successfully is a beta??
Anyone who accomplishes that just can’t afford to put others on a pedestal. Some losers are overflowing with envy.
Absolutely, everyday I see young out of control 20,30,40 something losers that are absolutely in total control of their parents and their emotions with the wife calling the shots of what care they will receive and the dad just goes along. He may be a lawyer, doctor, owner of a successful dealership, famous radio announcer. Look at the son of Michael Douglas and other wealthy family’s sons that are out of control because the weak beta father didn’t tell them no and make them earn their own way in life. On the other hand, all of Trump’s kids are educated, degree carrying independent adults that act like adults. Yet the guy that has started multiple companies can fire a whole department, cut benefits, salaries and not give a shit about the repercussions to those families. Look at Anthony Bourdain, a cucked man whose wife surrounded herself with other men while he was traveling earning money for her MMA studio. A wealthy beta can be a real asshole, that doesn’t make him an alpha.
Sure ya did
There are wealthy men who didn’t earn it, and have it managed by others. Oft times they inherit it and p!ss it away within their own life time. However, this is the life that the earned strong man sire wanted for his offspring, so he should have it.
This is true, but if they don’t piss it away (have someone smart manage their unearned money) in in the time before they do they are objectively strong people. Money is power today very much the way that speed and strength would have been power to a cave man.
True, You didn’t say that. But If you are following Chateau Heartiste for anything more than semantics, it was a valid assumption. I’m not a fan of his “take the pussy from the pedestal and grind it into the dirt until im finally better than it” approach.
Of course there are time when Im alpha and it actually works against me. Some girls love fat guys and some girls love beta guys. I am neither but that doesn’t mean every female in the world is into my look or style. But that’s another conversation.
I would suggest you change your example of Alphas to reflect not just male to females, but also males to males (in a non sexual way). Look at a definition that is alpha not only in mating situations but bro situations, work situations, family situations, etc.
My issue with CH is first that I would never want to hang out with the guy cause he sounds like a douche and second that if you took the pussy away from him I think you’d have a complete personality breakdown. His mentality isn’t transferable to other situations. That’s a scary trait in an ‘alpha’.
For reference here’s and article that is about 50% CH getting it right and 50% CH being a cunt that needs a slap. About par for most of his stuff I read.
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/youll-know-youre-an-alpha-male-if/
My counter to that would be, Are you getting what you want?
Are you getting laid? Are you happy?
there are some guys who don’t get laid but are totally fine with it. They don’t want or need to get laid so yeah, not playing in that case is alpha as fuck.
BUT, if you aren’t getting laid and you want to get laid but don’t want to play the game. That’s some beta whiny BS because you can’t figure the game out. Its an excuse, a cop out for something you are failing at.
Also, not playing the game CORRECTLY will get you laid. (which is in itself another game).
Ill quote a great song “if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
Being alpha works against me in the workplace, for example when I make an employer uncomfortable somehow (e.g., drawing the attentions of his favourite female subordinate).
The best conception of male-to-male relations that I found was the book “The Way of Men” by Jack Donovan. He basically defines men’s natural relations to each other as manifestations of “the gang”, the most basic social form of male organization. Men judge each other on the primal traits of strength, courage, mastery, and honour. I genuinely believe that these are the traits men use to evaluate each other on a gut level, and it’s helped me in my relationships to keep this in mind.
I’m pretty sure we can debate about the terms “alpha” and “beta” all day long but I don’t see the point tbh. I haven’t seen you here on RoK before but I hope you’ll stick around so we can rant at each other in the future 😛
That doesn’t work either. Just because a person wants something does not mean he is willing to pay the going price. You say that’s an excuse for failing. So say I want a new Aston Martin but I don’t want to part with 1/4 million dollars plus to buy one. Maybe I take the risk and buy used one. But they are very expensive cars to keep up. Maybe I say they are really nice cars that I like but I don’t want to spend that kind of cash to buy and care for one. It’s not a question of want or failure, it’s a question of market price and risk.
What if a man finds the play acting required for game demeaning and not worth the end result? Is that whiny beta bullshit? Making the call that X is not worth Y? These sites speak of SMV, a market analogy but then suddenly drop it to attack anyone who doesn’t want sex so badly he’s willing to do anything to get it.
It’s easy to get people out of the market for things, raise the price so high they are not willing to pay it. If the price of your favorite beverage was suddenly increased a hundred fold you would likely at the very least buy less of it, correct? Is it whiny beta bullshit to say I like that stuff but I’m not paying $500 a bottle for it?
That’s the situation here. Just because a person wants something doesn’t mean he’s willing to pay the going price. The higher women increase their price (and game skill is a price like anything else) the less men are going to be willing to pay it. That’s a market reality.
You actually make a very good point, but I don’t think its the one you were trying to make.
I actually do think you have defined a characteristic of beta actions. The “its too hard” mentality. If you want an Austin Martin, you pay 1/4 million dollars. If you want a Civic you pay $10 grand. If you aren’t willing to put in the effort for upkeep, don’t get it.
There is nothing inherently wrong with buying something you can afford, knowing your limits is a great thing. Also knowing the market value as well as the personal value is just smart.
HOWEVER, the problem comes when you aren’t wiling to put the work in and you still want. You come on here and bitch and complain about not getting something and then admit you wont do the work. THAT’S beta.
You know the price. Buy or not. That’s up to you, but don’t whine about the cost.
Besides, I know a lot of girls with some seriously low costs. It’s not getting some, its the quality. And you pay for quality. One way or another. Or buy the civic.
Is it beta to be a good wingman? Or alpha? Taking every girl may be dominant but its not usually a good idea. You are rich when you can afford to give up a good deal to help someone else because you don’t really need it.
I approach the workplace as a wingman situation, make my boss look good and he’ll love me. Overstep and take the credit (due or not) and you have an enemy with a big stick.
I don’t think being alpha is being the most dominant, loudest most obvious guy in the room. it can, and many times is very good, but also knowing when to let others have their time. It’s not alpha to upstage the birthday boy, or your boss, or sometimes your date.
I read a lot of stuff and have been involved for a long time but don’t post often. Probably should more. I do enjoy a good rant every now and then 😉
So what you’re telling me is markets are beta. That if you haven’t obtained effectively unlimited wealth to obtain everything you want without putting priority to some things over others you’re a beta whiner. If you’ve decided something isn’t worth the effort it currently takes, you’re a beta whiner. Anything you want you should want without regard to cost or risk. If you wanted a ham sandwich and it for some reason it cost $100,000 you should just pay the $100,000 instead of buying the chicken sandwich for $6, because to get the chicken sandwich when you want ham is beta. You should go out there and work harder until you can afford a $100,000 lunch. If you’re not willing to or can’t, you’re beta.
Sorry, no. Markets are not beta. They are just markets. Markets get distorted by political interventions and disruptive products. The later eventually clear while the former just keep coming.
In Venezuela markets are very distorted by monetary policy, price controls, and other government interventions. How alpha or beta you are doesn’t determine if you have the steak you want for dinner. Even if you’re alpha thug you might not even find someone with a steak to take it from even though you are willing to murder someone for it. Or maybe he’s just not alpha enough to sneak out of the country and risk getting shot to get a steak?
You can always blame a person for just not having enough personal drive to get something, which is what makes it bullshit. Because eventually there is a price for everything in a market where a person passes on it. Imagine that what is top game in 2017 gets you a 300lb 40 year old woman in 2025. Are you just going to work and work at your game until you can score something better or just do something else with your time? Everyone has a personal value for things, it’s not infinite.
Markets only function properly when people say ‘no, costs too much’ and walk away. If you continually shame men into working harder all you’re doing is driving the price up with social pressure. (which shows up in politics) That’s what feminism does. It’s constantly shaming men. Applying social pressure to make life better for women, to pay more taxes for women, etc and so forth. The PUA crowd shames men into…. doing those things women respond to. Not very different. Shaming those in the market that say the price is too high and walk away.
So keep it up and expect the prices women demand to keep increasing. Expect the market to become even more distorted in favor of women. Because until men say enough, no further, and are willing to walk away women will push for more and more from men. The real beta is the man who will pay any price. The alpha is the one that can recognize the price is too damn high and walk away.
PDF file (interesting read – I mean, if a guy is truly into large, hard-to-swallow, red pills) –
http://mileswmathis.com/musk.pdf
I tend to disagree. Most guys who get lots of pussy are fake-it-till-you-make-it bad boys. And the women they get, are fake-it-till-you-make it hot sluts. Like attracts like. Water seeks its own level. You are what you eat. Etc.
even if you dress like a faggot just to get pussy from young women who are into such pretty boys?
Nature doesn’t give a shit.
The next generation is determined by those who reproduce.
Birth control makes things confusing, but the sex act is ultimately intended for reproduction.
how many kids do Roosh or Heartiste have? Yeah that’s right, no one.
There is no woman on planet earth who would prefer a fatter man.
CH is only right if we take birth control out of the picture. To get tons of pussy but sire no children is a pointless waste of time.
The idea of tons of pussy was tons of kids – like genghis khan.
Imagine the shitlordom if you fuck all the hot women in a town and have other males raise them, pay for them. This is true alphadom.
A good wingman is no question an Alpha trait, Their is no way in hell a beta could help anyone else get laid. NEVER. They would be way too jealous and petty. You’d have to have humility, so you need confidence in your own value, and would have to not feel uncomfortable at the though of another’s success. Beta’s sabotage and block, never wing.
You hit some serious points, and is exactly the contradiction the PUA community overlooks. They may not realize it, but they too serve the same interests as the feminists, the two cultural identities need each other to feed of our carcasses.
It doesn’t count if you don’t impregnate.
Ergo
If I father more children than you, I must be more Alpha than you.
I totaly agree with everything u said
I always ask the question if natural ability, specifically genius, is worth a damn without requisite societal affirmations of fame, fortune and sex.
Like the lady who spent her lottery fortune on beanie babies??
Strength, intelligence, wealth, fame are not mutually inclusive.
And random exceptions don’t disprove rules. If you would like to argue that in the modern world money doesn’t equate with power than you will need to find someone more naive than me to have it with
No, youre plenty naive. The point you chose to overlook is that strength, intelligence, wealth and fame are all types of power. And any one can be used to overcome any other.
You’re adorable
Theres nothing adorable about me. Your point of view constitutes a narrow slice of a larger truth. You can be forgiven of course, because by observation alone we are all on the inside discovering our way out.
Nah you’re def adorable. The sheer tonnage of it could stop a team of oxen in its tracks.
If you follow the conversation back you will see that my comment was that wealth is a form of power.
If you look at what you just did you said I am taking a narrow slice from a larger truth
If you look in a dictionary under “irony” then you will see your picture.
And that picture is adorable
You asserted wealth was power. I asserted wealth among other things have power; although how something works for or against you is a different subject. End of story.
See…adorable. But glad this story is over. It was frankly getting borning. Even when something is cute as a button one tends to grow weary. Have a great night!
Clark I’ve been thinking about this comment and the dynamic in men. Guys like Donovan and others have been (intelligently and rightly) looking at primordial male for what is in our core and trying to apply it to new situations. In fact, so many cultural anthropologists and critics etc have been looking at what is at our core that I am beginning to wonder if, ironically, we have been neglecting the superficial — to our own disservice.
While i obviously don’t want to suggest something moronic like you can chose to be a female penguin or whatever SJWs are claiming today, there is a lot of importance in the superficial. In our constant struggle to look past it we may have missed something.
The truth is that masculinity had evolved. So while the truth of our core masculinity is still in play it can’t simply be mapped on to present day first world scenarios no matter how clever one tries.
Your situation at work, I think, goes way beyond an alpha/beta binary. In fact, I think that alpha/beta is a terribly insufficient way to look st the modern world even if it would have worked perfectly for a far less sophisticated and less evolved world.
People have been trying to do this with omega and gamma or sigma or whatever the fuck, but it just winds up looking like all the “sexual orientations” SJWs are trying to create to me. I am a alpha with beta tendencies forced to act omega and pretending to be whatever …
I think what we really need is a new understanding of masculinity that better conforms to the realities of our world. I don’t think “alpha” is a meaningful term anymore and what I believe is actually disadvantaging you at work is that we are working on a masculinity paradigm that simply hasnt been relevant for at least a hundred years
I guess taking a deeper look at masculinity and trying to fit it into the real world is for the purpose of living authentically. Why are we bothering with this at all and not just playing along with what the TV tells us to do? In a way life might actually be easier if I were to remove my testicles and become a lesbian penguin. As far as I can tell enough people are doing just that anyways!
But I can speak for myself that I have always since I was a child needed the freedom to question what is going on around me. After seeing the discrepancy in how things are presented and the contradictory real results (e.g., women, education, government, etc.), it’s led me to this point where I think understanding masculinity is part of understanding existence itself, almost to a metaphysical level. Man’s conflict with nature, with the state, with other men, and with women seems like it really hasn’t changed that much since ancient times.
But to respond to your comment more directly, I agree that “alpha/beta/omega” is not an all-encompassing lens through which things can be understood. I used it in my comment really as a short-hand for describing the situation in more detail. I don’t immediately think in these kinds of absolutes, but I think male behaviour is in many ways predictable. Despite being in the “modern world” I think men still measure each other up in the same ways we used to, we still have a sense that we need to compete with each other, and we will often hate other men for being better than us. Social dynamics are obviously more nuanced than “alpha/beta/omega”, but wouldn’t you agree that you can tell the difference between a strong man of good character vs. a weak man of weak character? Their behaviours will become more predictable if you can tell the difference.
In my particular situation I interpreted it that the professor had feelings for a young student but that he felt threatened by me because her and I became fairly close. I figured he felt threatened by me because I was everything that he wasn’t. He was a big fat aging British nerd who hated his wife and had losers for kids. And I was this good-looking, hard-working, mid/high IQ young punk with a blue-collar edge holding the attention of his love interest in the office (a mistake I’m mindful to no longer make). I’d say having this interpretation makes his actions a little more predictable for me to navigate.
My point is that our “core” as you put it, is always going to be relevant for understanding how to deal with other men and also women, I truly believe that we are more or less animals. But are you saying that this is still too narrow a way of looking at things? I guess I’m curious what you mean by “the superficial”, and incorporating that in order to have a better life somehow. You mean adapting to the social decorum right? What would a better conception of masculinity roughly look like? And do you really believe that it could improve a man’s life? My only suggestion is perhaps to look at human psychology from a broader scope.
Hope this wasn’t too long winded.
Perhaps in the Stone Age not in the modern era: whether one died from an artillery barrage had less to do with genetic fitness and more with sheer luck.
I’m making over $7k every month doing work parttime . I kept hearing other people advise me the amount they are able to generate on-line thus I agreed to check into it . Perfectly , it was all true so has modified my lifestyle . This is where i started>>>
-> START WORKING IMMEDIATELY!!!! <-
if you have kids my age you shouldn’t know how to use a computer box.
That said, absolutely right.
I figured most men on here are young, my oldest is 31
so I figured most are around
that age.
There is a pretty good mix. A few of us are in our mid to late 40’s. There are a few scattered guys older than that too. Then there is a bulk of young bucks in their 20’s and, early 30’s as well. I don’t know what actual demographic percentage is but average is probably around 30 as you say.
We HAD a “who reads ROK” thing about two years back, before I started writing.
Societies that did that in the arbitrary manner you imply, were societies that lost out on genetic qualities that were more useful in the long run.
ie, if you are the tall strong man with great strength and intellect, then you would likely beat out the men who lacked all or some of those qualities, making you the leader.
At that point part of your job was to see who got what. If you were greedy, you took them all, and your tribe would suffer a weakened genetic pool.
If you were superficial, that is, you paired off your followers based on strength as opposed to intelligence, you ended up with a stupid strong people. Intelligence as opposed to strength, weak philosophers.
If however, you mated off based on qualities of unity, brotherhood, integrity, etc. then you would have a generation of men who were physically and intellectually average but could work together industriously.
Guess which society would have the best genetic mix.
But look at what there is to pick from.
You probably could be my kid… LoL… but I think Corey has quite the point for the majority of the readership.
And that ladder chart… I could convert it to Chutes and Ladders for post-Wall women…. whereas for most guys who may have been shut out naturally have more funds since they did not younger have the ‘benefit’ of a shopaholic wives or like me daughters in tow.
I’ve seen many writers on MGTOW and ‘enjoy the decline’. Most women who are at least a 4 are indeed rarely but enough getting a high-SMV alpha experience so they hold out too late. But the cornucopia of available sex post-50 without strings of a relationship has been quite remarkable for me. It was a blessing the bitch wanted out for me. Hang in there guys, be happy and improved for YOU… but forego the LTR dream at your core. Enjoy LTRs but be VERY careful giving away completely… even after years or decades of supposed fidelity if you get that far. I still fully subscribe to Roosh’s ‘women are like oil wells, they all will eventually dry up’ philosophy.
The Germans sent all of their warriors off to die in two world wars
But even the weak got laid 10-20 years ago.
I don’t know why this change happened but every girl now seems so picky. Even the most average of women on dating sites seem to be holding out for top 10% of available men.
I agree. I was dating this chick for months, everything was going good, then all of a sudden, one day, I wasn’t good enough for her anymore. This, after major efforts and applying constant game, and good sex. I think the juice isn’t worth the squeeze anymore, for Western women.
I think Roosh said this a while ago: Choice is the biggest corrupter of women. (or something like that).
“Choice is the biggest corrupter of women.”
Absolutely fkn correct… You won’t realize how fkn this is correct until you visit fkn middle east. Fkn period.
The other thing not being considered is the mass immigration consequences. In such, more men are immigrating into the United States, than females (due to search for work or better opportunities). As a result, we are adding more to the male population. Furthermore, all the social areas that you go visit now (nightclubs, bars, parks, etc.) are inundated with foreigners from third world countries which end up driving all the good looking women away from attending. America has gone down the gutters.
But its been empirically proven that immigrants have been having more children than the native born U.S or European population. You also so biased when you imply “all the good looking” are natives. Sophie Vegara, Shakira and Gisele Bundchen are all immigrants from South America.
Yeah, but how many Shakiras, Giseles, and Sophies are coming in the masses? The most I’ve seen are cummagens that look like pygmies. These models are celebrities were not born in the United States, and immigrated because of jobs. I would have no problem if more like them were immigrating. But that’s why they get paid more and get the modeling gig – because they are scarce and there aren’t many genetically like them around. So are you really going to use this logic to present your argument?
Thats good and healthy
It is what it is. 20% of men get 80% of the best crop out there
Gender Abortion is the problem in the Muslim World and it’s now over here . I was talking to a nurse who worked in a Maternity unit she said Muslim women were extacted when found they were pregnant. When they went for scan and found Child was a girl they wanted an Abortion. Enough said.
I’m not sure what you or this article mean by “strong men,” are you talking about brute force?
Warfare stopped being about survival of the fittest during the 100 Years War when English peasants with longbows defeated French knights.
Up until then, combat was hand to hand and the strongest and fittest usually won.
The longbow and crossbow and later firearms meant the ability to kill had no correlation with strength or biological fitness.
Modern warfare in fact exerts a dysgenic effect as during conscription (Civil War, WW1, WW2), the only people free from the draft are those deemed unfit fore combat, e.g., the mentally and physically ill, the criminal, etc.
Think about it: the strong and fit men were sent to get mowed down by machine guns and obliterated by artillery while the lunatics stayed behind safe and sound pulling their dicks.
And that is literally true: those in the insane asylum, compulsively jerking off were kept safe and sound, nice and warm while the creme de creme of Europe was put into a meat grinder.
Absolutely right. This is the reason europe is so cucked – the best DNA has vanished. Now the pussy beta faggots rule – until the muslim invaders get their hands on the steering wheel
True. But then I see photos of rebels in the Ukraine and they looks tough as fuck. And that is 75 years after the Holodomar.
That never existed.
The World Wars only had 6 million victims.
All of them jews.
:’-(
Not the Holocaust, the Holodomar or Terror Famine where Stalin starved 7 million Ukranian peasants due to death through forced collectivization and grain confiscation.
oh you were being ironical. I get it now
No, stupid goy!
I was freakin real, okay??
Understand that there was no such thing as Holodomar (it’s fake news!) and that the only Holo-thing was Holocaust.
My whole family and my kids died at Auschwitz and they were all turned into lampshades because the nazis where using an insecticide in gas chambers with leaking wooden doors.
It was so cruel.
I even talked to one guy who was turned into a piece of soap the day before.
that sounds like an insult: “Yeah? Well your mother was a lampshade and your father was a bar of soap” lolz
The Nazis were far too lenient: it was safer to be in a “death” camp than in Dresden or Berlin
Your mistake is to equate only strength with fitness. The agility and talent to fire a longbow successfully many times in combat and survive is pretty high, and that kind of agility, good vision and quick reaction time is a prime indicator of fitness.
Longbowmen in England were prized troops, given the long amount of training required to successfully wield that weapon in battle (and survive). It ain’t just shooting haystacks ya’ know.
As well, I can rather tell that you’ve never served in the military, as you consider weapons as the standalone factor regarding strength. The amount of equipment that you’re humping when getting from point A to point B would have put a medieval serf on his knees under the weight. Consider also that your modern combatant has to not only carry his entire life’s provisions on him, he has to be able to run, dodge, seek cover and fight effectively with it on a moment’s notice. When you’ve humped a 60-80 pound pack and totted an M-60 with a couple of belts of ammunition twenty miles through the mud like I have, then come and tell me about strongest and fittest, Waldemar.
The longbow marks a paradigm shift in combat.
Previously, combat was incredibly personal: you had to wield an axe or sword, wear encumbering armor etc.
The English longbowmen were more akin to modern day troops manning a machine gun nest. In modern warfare, survival comes down to sheer luck not experience or training or strength. All the tactics or expertise will not protect someone from an artillery barrage.
The argument that I make is that modern warfare – as compared to ancient warfare – exerts a dysgenic rather than eugenic effect.
Bows predate longbows by a huge factor of centuries. When those axemen were out clunking melons, the bowmen were firing large hails of arrows. Eventually, just as with longbowmen, a break would occur in the lines and the bowmen themselves would have to draw their dirk/sword and get bloody.
The entire point of “eugenic effect” is not lost on me, rather, I’m noting that you’re disregarding all other factors in favor of physical strength. While that factor does play a role in survival, it is not the prime human strength. As animals we are pathetically weak in a physical sense, ergo, strength is not our forte even against each other. Where we excel, and survive, is in pursuits that require fast thinking, strategic thinking, tactical thinking and being able to out smart and out maneuver the enemy. Here the longbowman (or bowman) has many of those prime traits where your axe slinging former peasant, eh, not so much.
Perhaps strength is a poor choice of words: training / fitness may be better: As previously, soldiers had been trained for combat: grappling, swords, etc. The longbow changed that as did the advent of gunpowder.
And we come back around to “training” at which the bowmen (and later, gunmen) had to do plenty of, although it was of an altogether different nature, as well, fitness especially in the modern era has to necessarily be much higher in order to accommodate the amount of equipment that you carry onto the field. I guarantee you that fitness wise, I could easily best your greatest knight of antiquity (although clearly, he’d get my goat using a sword or jousting). I could put my marching load out on him and he wouldn’t make it two miles.
I respect the warriors or old, but I don’t think that the factors you’re equating as somehow the best, actually are, in regard to human beings and survival. They are factors, clearly, but strength/fitness are but one of many, and not at the top of the list.
My argument is against those who claim another world war would somehow exert a positive eugenic effect on the population:
Whether someone survives in modern warfare comes down to luck not fitness.
No training or level of fitness can keep you safe from an artillery shell landing on top of you or an aerial firebombing.
In an earlier era, it could be argued that warfare exerted a eugenic effect where the most fit survived and the weaker were eliminated.
I love to play the Britains in Age of Empires 2 because of the longbows.
But at the moment I’m playing ‘Angry Goy’ instead.
The official video game of the alt-right.
You can get it here:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/qcu2vgccwbsy578/RUNANGRYGOYASADMINISTRATOR.rar
And here is a game trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNbOE1ga7ZM
Check out games by the Polish developer Destructive Creations:
Hatred
IS Defense
You can hear shells before they arrive (hence “Incoming!” where men would run like wild cats away from the perceived landing point of the shell), and when you’re running for your life against an incoming strafing by aircraft, I’d bet you that fitness plays a large role in whether you can make it to effective cover or not.
And again, there is a HUGE amount of fitness required just to get on the field these days even for the “peasants”, so in effect it can be taken as an indicator of eugenic fitness just to get on and survive a battle scenario. You don’t even have to be in battle, just go on a few forced marches and then train for days afterward without sleep for a few years and you’ll see.
I kind of take your point in part, but surviving a modern war isn’t just luck. Sometimes, yes, clearly (you can’t dodge a tactical nuke). Other times, you are taxed physically in ways that meet and may well surpass those axe wielding dudes in the year 200 A.D.
In essence I’d wager that the modern foot soldier 91 Bravo with jump wings (the real ones, not the REMF”s and women sitting safely back home) is far more physically fit than any knight of yore. If he survives then he passes on his genetics, regardless of whether that survival was due to some kind of mano-a-mano thing, or out of sheer luck.
Taking a shot through a sniper scope at 1000 m is not the same as grappling with a foe or riding horseback wielding a claymore
The IS Defense gameplay trailer has over 1000 dislikes. Hating terrorists is edgy, evil and nazi now. Wow.
And of course the games are not allowed to be purchased in germany :). Thanks to the leftwing totalitarian state.
Have you seen Battlefield 1? The WW1 FPS? When you’re the German side and you’re selecting your avatar (medic, assault, etc), one of them is black. on the GERMAN side. Talk about diversity run amok. Historical revisionism
You have never served in the military have you? This is all theory to you, I’m assuming?
And again, you come back to one man, one weapon and apparently zero real training, endurance training, logistical equipment necessary to transport and other highly physical and intelligence based factors that make that 1000 m sniper extremely fit.
I’m not doubting your fitness but the average soldier today is more like Gomer Pyle not Braveheart
A pimply gawky geek can sit in a trailer controlling a drone: he is far from genetically fit
The fuck?
You think all of the Scottish rabble that fought with pitch forks and clubs for Wallace were shining examples of physical endurance and fitness?
You’re missing my point entirely. The “knights” represented very, very few, a very, very select elite that you could probably fit inside a single castle in Germany during medieval times (from all nation states). The average soldier, the ones actually wielding the axe, were usually disease ridden, in piss poor medical health and generally nowhere near the modern “peasant warrior” in strength or training.
You keep moving the goalposts. This is becoming intellectually dishonest on your part. You went from soldier, to 1000m sniper to “drone pilot”. What next, are you going to start citing REMF motor pool NCO’s to try and make your point?
Longbowmen did not need to worry about survival: they were ranged units. They picked off French knights at a distance.
And the bow was easy enough to learn that peasants could be recruited. Very unlike the decade plus of training it took to become a knight.
Oh lord, you cannot be serious.
The French frequently broke through English lines and fought and captured longbowmen face to face. They’d cut off their pull fingers (index and middle) of their dominant hand to keep them from being bowmen ever again.
Do you think that after firing a few volleys the bowmen gave each other high fives and then retired to tea on the battlefield and watched the progress of the battle going on in front of them? The very notion of “fire at will” suggests otherwise.
Yep that’s where the middle finger gesture originated from: English units raised their middle fingers to taunt the French.
Actually…the middle finger predates that (I used to think that was the case too actually). It was a well known gesture even in the Roman Republic. Kind of like how people think “Fuck” means “Fornication under consent of King” but, turns out, it’s a long standing germanic word existing in many Germanic languages in one form or another, that existed probably back to the root proto-Germanic launguage.
This is not to suggest that English bowmen did not frequently flip off Frenchies. Heh.
Gotta say, I’m a bit disappointed that the word “Fuck” did not originate as that acronym.
“When you’ve humped a 60-80 pound pack and totted an M-60 with a couple of belts of ammunition twenty miles through the mud..”
I vaguely remember those days. It was the last time I was under 200 lb.
The article is accurate up to the point of characterizing mgtow.
Nope. Sex ratio theory states mgtow are sexual losers. You see mgtow could never be just dudes sick of all the feminist bull.
Many mgtow pull prime ass, so you know. They’re just not into slavering for the female via cohabitation or marriage. Some are losers just as in any group.
Exactly. And just 1 more reason to know sex ratio is bull
If you are a tradcon you should be happy for mgtow. More women to slave for for you. I don’t get it…
I don’t care either way. But I do need people to realize mgtow is a reaction to feminism and not sex ratio
Mgtow is a reaction to both feminism and traditionalism. They’re both advocating for the man staying on the plantation and supplicate to women’s needs. This is where tradcons are getting it wrong.
MGTOW is well explained with the rat experiment:
I don’t know what that is but I’m sure it’s wrong. 8 minutest is too much.
The video is nearly 9 minutes long. You responded after 2.
The only thing that’s wrong is your brain.
I implied i didn’t watch it. Seriously?
No, not seriously.
Just kidding.
Tradcons don’t own most of the media and the educational system. So unless you are a church goer.
maybe he saw the video before hand. the only thing wrong is your brain.
Look at this sexual loser, he looks ten times better than you:
Why are you so sensitive and why are you checking out other guys?
Because I like to lick assholes.
I mean besides the obvious
It is a well known fact that in most states in the urban envorionments there are a bit more females than males because of anonymous cock carousel riding.
In the rural areas there are way more males than females.
In germany there are a few cities where there are more females than males (Hamburg, Berlin, Munich, Passau) but in general our gender ratios are as fucked up as in China since the refugee crisis and it will probably be worse in the next years.
Sweden and Germany will become the countries with the worst ratio ever and there will be civil wars because of that.
Actually didn’t read the article.
Will do it now.
Yes, People want to argue what is 1 or 2 million refugees in a nation of 80 million. They fail to understand that those refugees are almost all males between the ages of 15 and 30. The only demographic bracket that matters is the 15-30 range as it is those who date and reproduce. Sweden and Germany now have a gender imbalance of 115-120 men to every 100 women in that critical bracket. Meaning 20% of European men will never find a mate.
50 year olds don’t matter. 80 year olds don’t matter. They are not the ones mating.
hey there. what do you mean? lol.
it means the most important demographic is the 15-30 and it is just that one that is being skewed due to the mass migration into Europe. If it were a bunch of elderly invalids seeing help, there would be less of an issue.
yeah. I was just pulling your leg. I know what you mean.
Its also a great age range for fightin’. With guns n such
We could go to Jordanian refugee camps where they left their women behind and take them. I’ve read that it’s 75% women and children there.
Let’s do the whole fucking village 😉
I wanna participate!
We can post a datasheet on RooshVForum.
‘The great refugee camp datasheet’.
You book the flights, I book the appartements.
Let’s do it!
“Bunny”…hahaha! He should have won an Oscar for that.
the bolus has already entered the national body
Merkel accomplished in 1 year what took China and India decades of female infanticide and gender-specific abortion.
It’s the total cuckening in this shithole.
Now the media are blaming the police for being racist because they were engaged in racial profiling in Cologne yesterday.
How many more attacks do they need to wake up?
Oh, I forgot that they will (((never wake up))) and Merkel is actually engaging in a german genocide.
At least I will move to Gießen at the end of the year where there are 40,000 students while there are 90,000 inhibitants. So when it comes to proportion it’s the biggest student city of germany. Of course it’s left-wing af but at least there are some sluts to fuck.
In the long term we swedish and german males have to migrate because the whole system is stacked against us. I will probably move to Ukraine or Russia.
Yea. But they’ve had the worst virgin to slut ratio for a long time. This is just more symptom not cause
In the rural areas there are way more males than females.
Living in and around rural areas, I’m going to have to say that you’re off the mark here. There are plenty of girls in rural areas.
Now of course, that’s disregarding the question of the *quality* of those girls.
Well, I’m just pointing out that the statistics show that there are way less young females in rural areas (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Pfalz, Brandenburg for example) – because they move to the city when they turn 18.
I’m in the U.S. If you mean Europe then that’s clearly not where I was pointing. So if you didn’t mean “in a general sense across the West” then my bad. If you did, then I stick with my original objection.
The problem in rural areas is that the really hot girls generally move out between 18-25 to go ride the CC for a decade or 2 in a major city. If you want them, catch them early; they are there, and some of them would make fantastic wives. You just have to get them before they get the “city” experience (become cum rags).
This article makes the mistake of conflating two different things which admittedly have similar results. It confuses the number of men who ever lived to an age at which they could have reproduced with the number of men who ACTUALLY reproduced. These are two entirely different things. I’m no historian/anthropologist/whatever, but I reckon that the men who died while fighting wars and hunting were more or less balanced out by the women who died while pregnant and giving birth.
What was different back in the days of yore was that being alive didn’t guarantee a man’s ability to reproduce; the rich/strong/powerful would horde the women, leaving the poor/lame/weak with none. In contrast, being alive pretty much guaranteed a woman the opportunity to reproduce; even if she was ugly as sin, there would be some poor peasant who couldn’t do any better because the Lord had hogged all the decent women. If you allow a few percent here and there for women who were infertile, died during their first time in childbirth, became nuns (or temple virgins or whatever their ancient equivalent was) etc then 80% basically means that almost every woman who was willing and able to reproduce did so.
TL;DR: It’s not the number of men alive which has skewed things differently from how they used to be back in the good ol’ days, it’s society’s attitude to wealthy successful men hoarding women. Even just a couple of centuries ago it was accepted that Kings, Princes, Dukes etc would marry for politics and keep a few mistresses for pleasure, whereas today if a member of the royal family (or a prominent politician) gets caught with his pants down it’s considered news-worthily scandalous.
It’s not about men. It’s about society’s tolerance of female hypergamy/promiscuity
So you wanna be cucked by Mark Zuckerberg, heh?
Have you seen photos of his wife? I doubt that he and I are after the same women.
you know you want that chubby chow 😛
I was about to make some wisecrack about free milk when I reread your post and realised you actually said “chow”. Curse you for thwarting my inner hack comedian!
Good article, but there are some points I don’t understand.
“governments and corporations wouldn’t be able to control and exploit men like they do now (through patriotism …”
can somebody explain why patriotism is a way to be controlled by corporations and Govs ?
and second point, in the picture comparing 1955 and 2015, why is the top girl in 2015 not linked by anyone ?
And where are interlinked females, as nowadays, some girls judge themselves to be too good for any male and prefer another girls ? (as a result of too much narcissism and for the others, the fact feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice)
Because when they blow the “for your country” whistle and you jump without conscience then you are being controlled. And a lot of people are being controlled.
exactly, the current form of patriotism is actually globalism. true patriotism would be a call for 1776 and overthrow the current ruling elite…George Soros and company
I’d love to have way more females than males except for… female suffrage. That should be banned first.
The fact of the matter is there are more women than men out there right now. You just need to man up and take what is rightfully yours.
That’s probably if you count the grannies. Women outlive men by 5-7 years on average.
What i think is happening is feminization hasn’t eliminated women, but has eliminated quality women. Lower quality men are alone with their video games while old bar skanks are alone with their cats.
yes, technology has removed the need for polarity between the males and females.
“21 What i think is happening is feminization hasn’t eliminated women, but has eliminated quality women. ”
… leading us back to what some of the other reponders said. I agree with you that there may be more women then men, but when one breaks it down : specifically go for the 18 to 30 age demographic of females – within that demographic filter out the fatties and women who have not obtusely mutilated themselves e.g. ear gauges, large piercings, and a fuck load of ink, then narrowing it down even further to women who keep the healthy fit slender physique and feminine demeanor…. well it is truly difficult to find a eoman today.
Probably only true of married men, because they want a few years in the afterlife with no nagging. Heh
Slim pickings though. Sluttery is out of control
There are NOT more female than male, get your fact straight. Yes, technically there are more females BUT only if you include people over 55 since men tend to die younger. Who would want to bang a 60yrs old granny.
If you only include the age group between 18-55, then men outnumber women by the millions. AND considering younger women are willing to sleep with rich old men over 55+, you now have a bigger sausages fest. So now we have a large group of men (18-80) competing for a small group of women (18-35).
This is why every social gathering you see is a sausage fest. Any women that show up are either already taken or extremely fat.
“As a result, they have three choices: 1) Be depressed about being a
low-value man who has no access to a decent woman. 2) Put in enormous
amount of time, energy, and effort just to have a chance with a woman
who is a 6 or less. 3) Reject women altogether so that your self-esteem
isn’t hurt by not being able to have sex (while pretending not to be
jealous of “PUA’s”). We all know which option they went with—and I don’t
blame them.”
You left out one other option:
4) Use their intellect to makes lots of money, and bang hot young escorts and/or sugar babies.
Oh yeah, that 4th one. After a certain age there is nothing else than making money. And making it for fun, not because you need it to survive.
We don’t talk about escorts around these parts but there is an article on the archives on fucking sugar babies at a much lower rate than their sites suggest. Sometimes this can be done while someone else is financing their livelihood.
“We don’t talk about escorts around these parts”
Why not? It beats the hell out of settling for “boring and ugly” or the 270lb behemoth.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree about using what is within your means to have an enjoyable sex life for yourself. It is just rarely entertained as a topic of discussion, even by the crowd who may likely use it during those times when all they can do is pull all nighters at school or office.
“Why not?”.
Because banging escorts is seen as detrimental to the development of becoming a man. Which I can see and kind of agree with. However, I’m also something of a resident P4P expert, so I talk about it anyway. Is it good for you? Fuck no, let’s not try to claim otherwise. It’s fast food sex, unfulfilling and bland. But I also would never tell someone else not to do it, it can be an amazing experience and really open your eyes to how women work. The first time you’re with a pro and “forget” you’re with a pro, you’ll realize that all women are basically “pros”. There’s no difference, it’s just when you pay.
“Because banging escorts is seen as detrimental to the development of becoming a man.”
Agree 100%!
But some of us have have no choice!
Perhaps if my alpha father had trained me to be like him, this could have been averted, but no such luck. If you are an omega with a crappy childhood, shitty parents (especially an evil witch for a mother) and females have never shown one ounce of attraction to you, what are the alternatives? Bang plain janes and ugly fuglies? No thanks! Better to focus on making $$$ and banging the hot, young ones. BTW, I am neither proud nor am I ashamed of this. It’s just what I do. Been doing it (believe it or not) for over 30 years, since I was 19! I never really had any other options, that I could see, anyway.
according to one C. Sheen… you only pay her to leave. Also, sex is at the bottom of maslows hierarchy, which means you need it before you can climb the pyramid towards self-actualization.
http://redpillyoga.wixsite.com/rpyoga/single-post/2016/12/12/Maslows-Hierarchy-and-the-800-Pound-Gorilla
try whatsyourprice.com see all the whores (posing as good girls) there lining up to bang you for $150 bux. and a meal.
MGTOW is a strong reaction to the feminist movement, but not as extreme as the feminist movement itself! I disagree that 20% of those guys would be eliminated by the alpha males in there groups; because their primal instinct would have allow at least 80% (of that 20%) to adapted to there environment for genetic survival. MGTOW men mostly come from Rural areas of western societies. They have been told if they do this they would have that! Since that (having love and respect from a woman) is not happening. Instead of adapting to there environment they are choosing not to participate. So I can see how the writer would assume they would not survive in medieval times. The writer has to take into account the options MGTOW men have today. These option are: Prostitution, Porn and masturbation; which allow MGTOW or any man to relieve him self of any sexual frustrations. However, women do provide men with some social qualities (like motivation,recognition and reproduction) that helps boost a mans self esteem. Women are hypergamous! That definition explains women nature to a T. So men just need to concentrate on making money and the women will come. Once they come make certain not to give your wealth away but instead make them work hard for it. Make sure they respect your wishes before you give them a dime (don’t be a SIMP)! You need to make women aware that, the only reason she is in your space is because she provides a need! She also needs to understand once she stops providing that need she is out the door!
But if more men decide to become women, won’t that help to correct the imbalance?
Exactly this.
In nature, this happens in the parrot fish: in a population of only female parrot fish, the largest female spontaneously changes gender.
I predict a large increase in transvestism / transgenderism due to the gender imbalance and the high degree of misandry in society.
Please, don’t use the word gender as substitute for sex.
Rather than continuing to try to insult and disparage and belittle the so-called “MGTOW’s” why not appreciate the fact that such a *strategery* goes a long way towards re-balancing the currently distorted sex ratio in a relatively non-violent and potentially productive and helpful way? Those men who think they cannot live without female companionship will have better options as other men who decide they can live without it go their own way. Being MGTOW does not have to mean living in a basement or under a bridge somewhere never seeing no one nice again, though it could. It could just as well mean living a normal life except without some woman in it always threatening to use the law and the police and the courts and the military and all the rest of organized society to make a chump out of you.
To remedy the situation, we must not allow any man to become left of centre. If all men were traditional and conservative, only women, homosexuals and transsexual freaks would remain dumb enough to subscribe to “progressive” politics. These men would insist that any woman entering a relationship with them be traditional as well and while the woman would fight it for as long as possible, she would eventually submit to the idea as a result of her uncontrollable desire for affection and intimacy with a real man. Rinse, repeat and before you know it, women are conditioned to believe that sexual gratification can only come from behaving like a traditional woman and society’s biggest problem is essentially resolved. Men don’t let men turn into liberals.
You do understand there is no going back to what you’re describing before the whole thing collapses. It’s cyclical.
If it’s cyclical then by definition it goes back.
It will go back, yes. But a lot of blood will be spilled just before.
It will go back, yes. But a lot of blood will be spilled just before. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/45d28a402f4d2aa702bb258184abc9b4f82ad85feba9c76216f77ad89db6e09f.jpg
Strong men don’t create anything. The mongols set back the areas they took over by a good number of years.
Straw men arg. How about the Romans or the Greeks? Or the British Empire?
The Hellens were not strong. They didn’t do anything of geopolitical significance outside of there area of demographic majority. The Romans became geopolitical powerful through technological and economic superiority.
No one besides armchair historians and Confuciusists accept this notion of cycled history. Rome didn’t “fall” due to decadence because Rome never really fell, Western Europe simply changed. Besides Chinese History, there is no example of these cycles ever taking place.
All empires fall in the end. What was your point again?
So the Romans just appeared on the map, started inventing teleporters and warp drives, and the rest of the nations said “Hey, that’s cool, let us join you!”
Strength did in fact play a factor, insofar as the Romans could field healthy strong men who, turns out, conquered most of the known world at the time. This allowed them the ability to set up a huge trade network as well as to advance technology.
Not really. In fact, no empire has had a “collapse” except maybe the unconditional surrender of Germany during world war II. the UK didn’t’ collapse. France didn’t collapse. Rome didn’t collapse (according to any non-history channel historian).
Semantics.
Yeah actually, many states did voluntarily join Rome. I understand your point of view, however, your wrong. The Romans didn’t win military conquests by having an exceptionally large percentage of the population being these strong men. All states have strong males who can go to war. No state has ever had a collapse because they didn’t have any strong men. So why did Romes military do so well? For starters, Rome in its middle and late stages had a very large population, this directly made them have a bigger pool of strong men, this again, only applies AFTER Rome and has to do with being large, not “tough”. Rome had superior technology and military tactics, and most importantly Rome had extremely good logistical support for its military.
The strength created the space up front to give them the time and room necessary to make the other changes. It’s not reversed, and they didn’t enter the battlefields during the Republic beginning (which you purposefully excluded) with laser guns.
At the time of the start of the first republic, Rome actually got its ass kicked a few times. Ever heard of the Battle of Allia? Rome didn’t become a powerhouse until they had developed a standard army. Rome was never in a position of having stronger men anyways. Romans were most likely probably shorter than Gauls and many of the surrounding peoples. Why did Rome start taking large amounts of territory? Simple, they started using a very advanced structure for their army, they had good logistics, and they had good weapons (and not laser guns). Ask any historian, none of them will deduce than an empire did well because of “Badassery”. The fact is, even if you were to take a stereotypical hipster dude, and you were to put him in a military situation, he most likely will be able to adapt. That is what makes humans so effective, they can adapt.
” only women, homosexuals and transsexual freaks would remain dumb enough to subscribe to “progressive” politics.”
Throw in minorities and wouldn’t this already be the case?
Minorities are not automatically liberal. In fact, many of them see that the values of any conservative party are more in line with their own, often religious, values so as long as they read or listen to a candidate’s platform, they should not automatically be assumed to be liberal voters. The problem is that the media tends to treat them as a mob and essentially dictates how they should vote. It conditions them to believe that if they are black or latino, they have to venture to the left regardless of what they might believe as individuals and without offering any kind of reasoning as to why they should do that. Those who don’t want to think will just go along with this mob mentality; those who are capable of critical thought will not. Changing the way that they think would require a total overhaul of how the “objective” media and education systems work but since that’s not going to happen, fixing the situation is possible by simply discussing these matters with them openly.
Transsexuals would be harder to convince because their very nature suggests that their minds aren’t functioning properly but homosexuals can be swayed, especially now that it has become clear through Trump that Republicans are beginning to embrace them. The homosexuals who are very “open” and “proud” of who they are aren’t likely to enjoy the conservative platform but many homosexuals – those who don’t feel a need to advertise the fact that they enjoy being plowed by a person of the same gender – embrace a traditional lifestyle which is more in line with conservative values.
As for women, it’s actually not very hard to convince them. If men value them for their intelligence, they are likely to subscribe to traditional values; if men are however prompted to value them for their looks and continuously give in to their desire for compliments, they are likely to become liberal. Men need to restrain themselves from “liking” their selfies and commenting on how “beautiful” they are when they are obviously whoring themselves for such attention. The less men respond, the less they will become whores who in turn become liberal.
As for the ugly women, they will become liberal no matter what because they need a scapegoat for how things turned out for them and men are an easy target. There’s no point in trying to convert them; let them rot and die with their dozens of cats.
embrace the gay!
East Asians and Jews.
ABSOLUTELY NO REASONS for either of them to be liberals, but…
Sorry, but some men rather enjoy things such as civilization and progress. The whole idea of a political compass is rather bullshit by the way…
There are more men than woman by a little . WIki has all the stats.
I live in a smaller population area so the numbers are not as good as larger metros. ……When I go to a bar – occasionally-as I am almost over the hill and potentially on it…. I see a giant sausage fest in a lot of places in bigger cities. This was not the case in the 1980’s. If I go online, there are some women that are just butt ugly and the pretty ones that can be are hyper fat. I am not captn save a sperm whale – I tell you that….. The ones that are premo’- know and play hypergamy games. “White Female would love to live on a lake”.. Yes baby, I have 500k just to please you- not.
ln my mind, woman are all the same when it comes to hypergamy at all adult ages in all generations. Man needs to come to grips with their own reality. Even the good ole days of the farmers wife etc… realize their own security and their alpha fucks. The nursing homes are filled with woman for this very reason. Males want to be outside or die off while woman don’t mind the constant clucking of the other hens. In fact, the security of assistance makes them want to break down further.
MGTOW is not a bad idea for males who will never be alpha driven for sex 7 days a week but are self aware of the matrix. The real reality is Men are born to fuck and Men also have a mental image of that perfect gal in the disneyland picture that doesn’t exist in most cases – and especially for middle aged men.
“The real reality is Men are born to fuck and Men also have a mental
image of that perfect gal in the disneyland picture that doesn’t exist
in most cases – and especially for middle aged men.”
See my post below…
oh, I agree. I have a couple of friends that do nothing but go up to canada and hire prostitutes a dozen times a year. Its not a bad deal and much better than the rest of the alternatives. I am an extremely late red pill bloomer. I didn’t have the internet and grew up catholic . A triple whammy.
Ever see the 1969 movie, “The First Time”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8op4E0glTwY
When you go to a wine bar it is a fish market. When you go to a sports bar it’s a sausage party. Set your expectations accordingly
no wine bars in my area or I would agree. I realize that the best odds are happy hours etc. my bigger issue is I haven’t decided what I want on my terms. I mean, I can fly to costa rica 3-4 times a year and get premo or do I get some old hag to deal with. Part of my “blue pill upbringing” wants to believe there is a possibility of a “disneyland” and I know its not. I watched my own tough german farm wife mother eat/let her self go and end up in a NH. No desire “to get better”. My dad is in his late 80’s and is just realizing that their entire existence-6 kids was about her hypergamy.
Go asian.
I like asian. I dated several asians in my 20’s. Fked like no tomorrow. Still, you run into the same problem. Woman are the same world wide.
All the same wave, But it’s a matter of amplitude. Asians dont age and don’t have the gender issues with the intensity that other breeds do.
Hit a karaoke joint attached to a Country-Western-Rock themed join on a Saturday night and it’s 70% women to 30% men and at least half of those women are smoking hot.
I was in vegas one time and noticed the number of conferences that were 70% young females. Wedding crashers on steroids !
China spent decades throwing female babies in dumpsters or feeding them to stray dogs. Then eating the dogs. India has the same problem.
Their problems are not caused naturally, but it makes for a good case study on population control.
Military planners predict the imbalance of men to women in China could eventually give rise to large armies and more agression in Asia.
Beat me to it by about 2 seconds.
BIggest historical reason for war/invasions.
China is gearing up…
I scrolled through the responses and saw one guy argue that men should be more selective about choosing women and say no to women who they see as low value, too feminist etc. Which makes sense.
Then someone responds with:
“Withholding dick is a leftist thought. Women’s job is to say no to sex. It’s not men’s job.”
What? Women saying no has been one of the principle complaints on sites like this, hence GAME strategies. But if it makes this fool feel more hopeful that we can bring this back to a traditional way of life by having women turn up their noses at his dick, ok then.
And what really is the meaning of traditional society/family/marriage/etc? Some people seem to think it’s like the show Mad Men and some people see it as a death sentence. How many guys here, who complain about women choosing careers over babies actually want to have children and be the sole financial support for their families (a known traditional value?) This is talked about a lot here but it seems that it’s talked about in the context of an economic time that no longer and will never again exist. The cost of living is high in most places. ‘So I would take my family to the country or live off the grid’ – are the responses I hear to counter argue that point. Raise of hands for who wants to give up their current way of life and learn how to farm, build a log house or boil lake water for drinking for the rest of their lives.
How many men here feel that it’s the women’s job to nurture and raise children? ( a known traditional value). How many men here lament how family court favours the mother and awards her primary custody of the children, reducing fathers to glorified babysitters? This is based on a known traditional view that women are natural caregivers and men are not. We now know this is bullshit.
I’m not saying that things are great now. They certainly aren’t. Some aspects of tradition should be brought back, like an acceptance that some gender roles complement each other rather than oppress women. And this rape culture mess needs to go away. But there should also be acceptance for women who choose not to live traditional lives while at the same time no ridicule for women who choose to. Women are shamed by men for being slutty and shamed by women for being chaste. It’s crazy. Not all women want to be virgin brides to wives to mothers and there are men who want women for casual sex only. There should always be a market, so to speak, for like minded men and women.
For the guys here who advocate tradition, be careful what you wish for. Think about what you truly value in your life, what you value in your sexuality, the lifestyle you want to sustain and ask yourself does this line up with traditional values that existed before feminism? If it doesn’t, what will you do differently? If nothing, then don’t post here shouting for a rewind to traditional life if you yourself will make no changes to make that happen.
Your comment reminds me of the plover and the hippo:
That’s hilarious but how is this applicable to my comment?
symbiotic existence
Traditionalism is the other side of the coin. In a gynocentric society men are being shat on. In a traditional one, they’re given a pat on their head. Either way, in any of these arrangements they are slaves on the woman’s plantation.
You must mean after feminism when “traditional” meant you couldn’t spank your wife.
What do you feel would be the ideal situation?
Soft patriarchy, where men are in control of their families and where women are stripped of most of their rights – the right to vote in particular.
What will you be doing to make that happen for you?
Nothing can make it happen now. A war, and male scarcity will accomplish it. We are on the inevitable path to that end.
As long as the society is gynocentric (as it is right now), nothing will happen. Gynocentrism will fly right out the window during hard times. Problem is, men never learn. This cycle has been going on since forever, and it will happen again.
As soon as the good times settle in again, women will start screaming, and the beta cucks will give them what they want, again.
nothing will ever make it happen because removing the rights of half the population would require what would basically be a war against women because no one will happily give their rights away. On a more realistic note I do feel like some changes could be made to balance things out a bit more and I see movement away from hard core feminists. There are women run anti- feminist sites now. Of course these women are not adovcating to have their rights removed as you would like but they are seeing the bullshit that exists within hard core feminism.
“There are women run anti- feminist sites now.”
Of course there are. Women figured out feminism is a strong male repellant. They do what they have to do in order to get access to your resources. Nothing new…
Don’t get fooled. Women’s nature never did and never will change.
Attila, would you describe a soft patriarchy vs traditionalism? “Stripped of most of their rights” Voting, yes, and what else? “Soft” suggests women might still own property, initiate divorce, attend school, drive, etc? I suspect the consensus here is no, but these terms have such loose definitions I’m not sure. Curious as to what you have in mind.
Think about it this way. Hard patriarchy is when you have war lords, harems, etc. You don’t want that.
Women should not be allowed to vote, and that’s about that. They should be allowed to initiate divorce, but should never get lifetime access to man’s resources (money), just because they were together for 5 years or whatever. Children should not go to the woman by default. It should be a case by case situation.
The problem with our society is that men are still responsible for everything without any authority. Men want to be responsible, but they need that authority back. Men have no reproductive rights, women have all the rights. This has to be rolled back as well (whatever that means).
You see, the very moment you put women on the same level with men, you are putting men at disadvantage because women are already one step ahead due to the fact that they make the babies, and choose who reproduces and who does not.
Traditionalists think they can bring women back to the table, and they still believe in Unicorns. Women will never come back short of being forced.
That’s very helpful, attila, thank you. 🙂 Sensible, as well.
I don’t know what will force women, short of catastrophic circumstances, but a cultural shift might draw more than you would think. I knew many girls in highschool who you might call “closet housewives.” Girls who wanted to marry and have children and lead generally submissive lives but were told by teachers, media, even parents that this wasnt empowering. You must be “more.” The gogurl speech. So they did. If our culture – men included – didnt endlessly denigrate motherhood, marriage, fidelity, and homemaking more women might feel free to pursue those aims without shame.
I guess guys like you that are afraid of rejection (does it happen too much to you? )feel compelled to go against nature and have men rather than women be the choosier sex, but that’s an abomination.
Men choose who to protect and provide resources to. That bullshit you propose is gender bending lunacy
Maybe we should disregard this alpha/beta male nonsense, and work on including and valuing men as equals, and welcoming the positive values they bring to society.
Except reality doesn’t work that way mate. Women would rather share top tier males, get pumped and dumped, than settle for beta males. Its a bitter pill to swallow.
Very, very true.
How many women do you know that want to share men? I can’t think of a single one in my circle. Yes most women want the best quality man just like most men want the best quality woman but women don’t like to share their men. There may be exceptions but generally, no sharing.
Judge women by what they do not what they say.
So how many women do you know that are doing this sharing of men? Two or more women sharing one top tiered man?
No one *wants* to share, but plenty will. Plenty will look away and tolerate the other women in his life, crossing their fingers they’ll out maneuver the competition and win that ring. Middle aged women dont seem so willing. They’ll eventually accept a beta.
Half of the girls I went to college with shared…. and some even at the same time.
What positive values to Millenial Hipster males bring to the table that make them our equals?
a refined taste in microbrews?
I didn’t need them for that, I was able to taste beers in Germany and France and England and develop the taste for fine brews without their “genteel” low-T assistance. Heh.
They prove red pill theory
That’s hardly a value in the sense we’re speaking about. A band of marauding raiders chopping people up in the street may prove why law is necessary to society, but they are hardly a net benefit to that society overall.
I was kidding
Smoothie maker.
…..erm I’m all out
They can frap the fuck out of a cappuccino, I will give them that.
The can frap … period
Potentially any sort of skill they have, whether it be in engineering or whatever.
Yeah man, I can’t tell you how many Hipster dudes I know that are engineers and physicists.
Note that I specifically said “Hipster” and not just “Millenial”.
okay, but then again, I don’t consider a lot of those men anyways, so I find them a bit irrelevant to Mr. Mans comment anyways haha
What you consider them is irrelevant to his comment and actually makes my point. I don’t see them as men either, although if we go by his equalist statement, we’d have to include them in our camp and “take value” from them.
an irrepressible snarkiness?
Apparently more than you’d like to think. I think one of the biggest issues is that women seemingly only date within a social circle. For example a buddy of mine is engaged to a girl and all of her friends dated within a small group.
All of the guys in this group are hipster douchebags. To answer your question, they probably dont bring much to the table except for daddy’s trust fund and the financial security that comes with that.
Im just being honest in saying that everything I’ve seen from living out in the country, to dabbling with city folk is that girls seem to be heavily invested in the metrosexual/hipster types. I saw it with the explosion of the lumber-sexual trend (which seems to have died down recently). Women fawned over skinny jean wearing bros who had these fancy hair cuts and grew out zz top style beards but have never been anywhere near an axe or have done an ounce of manual labor in their lives.
For me, I have muscle on me, more than fat but could definitely cut some fat and bulk up. I fully intend to work out more this semester and stop with BS excuses. But im not sure it would greatly benefit me. Obviously women notice men who are in good physical shape and its definitely very important to be muscular and physically fit. But I’m not sure its as important as it used to be for reasons I cant quite figure out.
Repeat after me… Alpha isn’t a construct anymore than sex is a construct
What do you mean its not a construct? Its just a perception of human groups, and a crappy, overly simplistic perception at that.
Disagree.
Think back to high school (for me that was the early 80s).
The football players and jocks get the girls.
The skinny nerds, geeks and nobodies got nothing. That pecking order follows through the rest of life, unless you can make enough money to pay for what you need.
Are you a democrat?
What do you mean am I am democrat? Do you mean I support democracy? Do you mean I am a member of the (American) Democratic Party? A member of any other unrelated democratic party?
None of that exists anymore. In the early 2000s, you had the jocks, the preps, the goths, the nerds etc. Now everyone is the same bland tepid average person. There aren’t the cliques or group identities anymore
You *really* need to get out of NYC. Your perception of society where you live is constantly extrapolated to the whole of the West and generally could not be more inaccurate as a result.
Seriously?
I have to believe it still exists.
I see it all the time. Girls fawning over muscular guys.
Did you grow up in like a movie or something? I mean don’t get me wrong – I am not part of that age group, but I perceived that its guys with intelligence (cognitive ability) and social skills who get women. I knew plenty of what you might call “debate nerds” or people who do forensics who got girlfriends.
edit: fucked up first submission
I am in NYC metro area and I disagree with him as well..
Yep.
He just watched a lot of “The Wonder Years” lolz
It was reality then, and I believe it still is.
the only girls who dig muscles anymore are hood rats with big hoop earings
No worries. I meant him specifically, not that he simply lives in NYC. He’s an academic, lives in an ivory tower, and tends to be very myopic to the point of fault. He’s a good egg, but his observations on humanity are crippled very harshly by his myopia.
Nah, always hated that show!
Wrong.
Do you have aspergers?
look back at my edit…
Are you just trying to be an asshole? I can pretty clearly tell you live in America, you know some people don’t live in America dude. Saying am I am a democrat means jack shit to me, its not relevant…
What?
You must disavow!
I have the autism
winnie cooper was hot as fuk…
It doesn’t still exist. And if you think being muscular is the single think that attraction is based off, then your wrong.
He didn’t say it was the single thing that attraction is based off of.
Just giving it back. You know damned well I meant question 2. But you went full international bitch.
i know she wasn’t 18 but honestly I don’t care. They could give me the chair if I got to do the Coopster
Let me restate, its not even one of the primary things. I don’t know a single woman who fawns over muscular guys. All the tests/polls I have seen show women actually find men with average healthy bodies to be more attractive than men with muscular or skinny bodies.
Okay, ill take your question seriously. I am not a democrat. I don’t think either of the major parties in the US are good, and I don’t even support the idea of a left right spectrum. Neither leftism nor rightism are ideologies, they are lifestyles, or attitudes. Rightists are conservatives, they inherently hate any and all change, and want to preserve existing power structures and institutions, regardless of how effective or the outcomes of them. Leftists are harder to pin down, but they generally are just mindless idiots who want to be fashionable, and seem progressive, regardless of how effective their proposals actually are.
I am a muscular guy. Women fawn all over me, unbidden.
Of my circle of friends, a good 60% of them are muscular guys. They have a line of women waiting to take the place of whomever he has on his arm that week.
If you’re talking the super roided up guy in professional competition then duh, no kidding, nobody finds that particularly attractive. But a well muscled guy like The Rock or Vin Diesel (in their prime) will get a woman with ease and she *will* notice and like his look.
“Are you a democrat?” (spits chewing tobacco into spittoon and reaches for shotgun)
Are you the guy on Brawny Paper Towels?
I still disagree with this. Look at the 70s: Guys in bands like Three Dog Night, the Doobie Brothers, etc looked masculine: big mustaches, had deep baritone voices etc. They got tons of women because that’s what was in at the time. Look at what girls listen to now: feminized, androgynous, metrosexuals.
Do you know what Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson both have in common? They are both skilled actors. At the same rate, I know plenty of women who fawn over Johnny Depp.
they’re both negros
No. But @Unabashed is, oddly enough. Dude is nearly a Sasquatch in hair volume.
I don’t even know how to describe “who” I look like. I look like me. I’m tall and muscular with a goatee and #2 razor buzzed hair and wear a cowboy hat. Women make it a point to “accidentally” or purposefully touch me, and I have had no small number of women *with their men* flirt with me when his back is turned.
lol true
Oddly, I’m not a Hollywood actor, yet it still applies.
The point isn’t that Johnny Depp (or actors) get women, it’s that a good build on a man is attractive to at least some women. It is. Period. Full stop.
I have no verification on your statements about yourself, they don’t count as evidence, but besides that, I don’t deny that some women like really muscular men, but its not all women. Its not even most.
She drove Kevin crazy! what a great show
Actually yeah, it does count as evidence to me at least, when I see it happening with all of my well built male friends as well.
Your initial post that I responded to was this:
My answer was that he was not saying that it was the sole basis of attraction, but rather it is (or can be and often is) a factor in attraction. Where “all women” comes in I don’t know. And “not even most” you have no way to prove at all. Maybe the girls where you live don’t.
“Actually yeah, it does count as evidence to me at least, when I see it happening with all of my well built male friends as well.” Its an anecdote, and at that, its an extraordinary claim without any sort of evidence. Sorry, but I have zero reasons to believe you aren’t talking out of your arse…
“And “not even most” you have no way to prove at all”
Actually, I do. And of the three men used, the muscular guy was rate the LEAST attractive. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3985644/Do-women-REALLY-prefer-muscular-men-fit-10-ladies-eye-tracking-glasses-meet-three-nearly-nude-guys-different-physiques-just-did-look.html
Oh please.
You live in or around a big city I’ll bet. I’m also betting you fit into the non-muscular category and have a vested interest in not getting in shape. The guy in that article isn’t extremely muscled, he’s more or less the Greek statue standard (for non-Gods, which is to say, the standard most women like when a guy takes off his shirt).
I’m hedging my bets on you being a city boy.
except I can often tell which women in a room are ovulating. We are talking about muscular as in looks like a boxer, rather than body builder.
Johny has status. If he worked at Starbucks he wouldn’t be so coveted
Possibly.
What has that to do with anything? I’m not stating that there is no other factor, I’m stating that “they don’t go for muscular guys, like, ever” is silly on its face. Some do, some don’t. With some it’s a huge factor, with others it’s one factor of many, with the rest it may or may not come into play depending on her mood. Given as I find women who like well built guys all the time in the real world as do my well built friends, I’m going to go ahead and assume the “women don’t!” stuff is bogus.
I don’t know either of those bands but guessing skinny Jimmy Page got more than both of them combined. Artists have always been able to get away with this, though. Average man on the street, not so much.
Lemme guess. Bad science. They used a small number of feminist writers. They included the dudes faces.
Has he left this site for good? No spicy or goingsane lately either
Agree with you entirely (as another well muscled guy). However, just one complaint, Vin and the Rock are both very much “super roided up”, that look isn’t natural at all and will not be achievable to 99.9% of the population without serious amounts of juice. Not saying that you don’t look like that naturally, but, if you do, you’re a big time outlier, almost everyone that looks like that is juiced up big time. To “stand out” with a muscular build in most cities, you’ll need to be on juice. However, as you said, most women don’t really care for that look anyway; be thin with good definition and most women will be attracted to you just fine. The women who go for the bodybuilder types aren’t generally good women anyway (take it from my experience, I used to weigh 240 at 5’11 with almost no body fat; taking a ton of steroids, just to set the record straight).
Do you think feminists would have anything against “objectifying” men they find sexy? No, they do it all the time. Why would feminists be attracted towards weaker men? Anyways, its the daily mail, it would be like Fox news using a panel of feminist writers.
I don’t live anywhere near a big city, but I will admit, I don’t work out as much as I should. I don’t deny exercise is important, in fact its really really really important, but its not nearly as important as the “red pill community” makes it out to be. As for Greek statues, even the statues of regular people were pretty much dramatized.
Nah girls go for the high status guys. High status in high school was being a jock
Women fawn over popular guys not muscular guys. There are so many muscular forever alone guys its not even funny
but even if you make the skrill, your woman will be secretly be craving the athlete.
100%. looking back on it, that was 100% conditioning in progress. They wanted you to believe that Kevin actually had a chance of tapping that.
let me guess…you are not particularly muscular
problem is…you will actually never know if muscles matter or not UNLESS YOU GET RIPPED YOURSELF. you can keep referring to study after study and shouting from the hilltops “Look muscles don’t matter, see here is report such and such!” My advice – go to the gym every day for a year and then report back!
exactly. and of course, there is no study asking all the women attached to some skinny beta provider just how much they would love to jump on that well built guy at the gym. Where is that study, Jezebel?
http://www.coolest-homemade-costumes.com/images/coolest-homemade-brawny-paper-towel-costume-21403628.jpg
That goes without saying.
Just have to you go in knowing that and be ready cut her off in a heartbeat if she acts on those impulses.
Sorry, that anecdotal, in other words, completely useless bullshit. My guess would be people who are part of this redpill get all muscular, gain confidence, ask girls out, have more success because of the confidence, and then attribute it to the muscle. So really, if working out gives you more confidence, then yeah, do it, it will probably help you with dating, but besides that it doesn’t really have to do with it.
unfortunately you will never know with 100% certainty because you were simply too lazy to hit the gym. the number one prescription for any beta male is to hit the gym like it was your job.
Yes I will, I have statistics. A personal anecdote is not evidence.
“I have statistics”…spoken like a true BETA twit
Yeah, because that stupid science shit is just for” beta’s”… /s
Me and Pabst hang out in NYC. It really is disgusting how degenerate the culture is. Basic bitch culture is like a virus. They all want their “freedom,” to explore cocks and fatty foods and every other vice the city has to offer.
Don’t think you are immune out in Middle America. The same (((media))) is broadcasted and the same fattening foods are pumped into your women.
Wrong.
Never underestimate the value of having a good grocery store game as it has helped me significantly as a short, dark skinned Indian man in Toronto. Rather than blame society, culture, or ‘the white man’ for my previous struggles in dating, I have simply decided to take matters into my own hands and turn the game on it’s head. Thanks to Roosh V, I’ve banged many middle aged, yet still very doable, white women soccer moms in my area (Thats what Im into). Some divorced, some still married, but all cock hungry no less. Its the suburbs yo. Some fucked up shit around here.
“Hey, nice melons!”
we both reached for the same pudding cup snack pack and it was then and there that I knew I had to have her, I just had to have her!
“Excuse me miss, do you know anything about pie?”
just remember your doing them the favor and not the other way around.
Precisely.
spoiled milk game ftw
Upvote.
spoiled milk game in action
The trick is to get there just before the expiration date. But hell, even if its a few days later, it’s still good.
That ain’t game. That’s exploitation. Haha.
So what’s your secret buddy? I’m also an Indian man from Toronto and don’t have much luck with women. And w hite women from Toronto are notoriously racist in their sexual preferences.
Well heres the thing, I know exactly what you are saying and the vast majority of white women simply wont date you. You got to get over that, it’s just a fact. I’ve had the experience and learned life the hard way, so trust me, I know.
Step 1, is to be approachable and presentable. Most white women, when they see a dark skinned fellow, they become apprehensive, some immediately, so you have to get them comfortable with you right away. Also, don’t use slang or jive and if you have an accent, lose it. I’m actually west Indian (Guyanese parents), so I don’t have the ‘Indian’ accent. But still, pay attention to how you speak. Talk low, talk slow, and dont talk too much. Also pay attention to body language. Dress well and casual and look comfortable. Smile and be upbeat generally. I don’t know you, but it also helps to be fit. I’m a short guy with a small frame but I’m still very fit for my size. The other thing is your disposition. As a colored person, you need situational awareness in a white community. Don’t look out of place, don’t look like you’re out on the prowl or hunting. When you go to the grocery store, be there because you are actually shopping for groceries, and not because you’re trying to pick up white women. Just remember: confidence, security, easy-going, and relaxed. You want that sort of aura around you.
Once you have yourself sorted out, well its onto Step 2: Filtering. A key to having good grocery store game is in to know how to filter and this is easy. As you are walking by a women in the isles, look them directly in the face and at there eyes. If, as they are passing, they look in every direction but yours, then walk by them and say nothing. 100% its not happening with those. For the ones that make eye contact and/or smile, well those are the ones you say ‘hello’ to.
This brings to Step 3- Idle conversation. White women love to talk about themselves. Ask them things like ‘how was your day’, or comment on what’s in their basket, weather it’s pie or something. This is the thing, it takes practice, I can’t really tell you what to say in every situation. You kind of just have to feel it out. Sometimes I’ll ask what they’re making and about the recipe, sometimes I’ll pretend like I’m trying to figure out a recipe and I’ll ask her about ingredients and if she could help me. Whatever the conversation is, you have to read her body language. If she’s trying to get away while talking, if she isn’t facing you, well then let her go. But if she lingers, well then that is your opening. You ask her if she wants meet for a coffee. I’m a bit lucky in the sense that there is a pub right next to our local store. But I would say, if you can get to this point, and shes a local cougar, its 50/50 you’ll nail her. The whole point of grocery store game is that you need some sort of engagement outside the grocery store. It’s basically an adaption of Day Game.
Now, your best chances are with these middle aged white women. In fact, you probably have a better chance with them than the younger dark skinned Indian chicks. I’m sure you know how it is in Toronto, doesn’t matter, yellow, brown etc, they all seem to want white guys. But that’s ok. You need to know some basics about the suburban white woman and what they do on weekends. In my area, they like to jog, they like to hike. Some like to go bowling others like to meet at the coffee shop. They have these little groups, which reminds me, you should check out Meetup.com for this specific purpose and join a group in your area. Anyway, after the activity, whatever it is, you invite her over for some cheese and red whine. Once she’s plastered, she’ll start to open up about her divorce, lament her ex-husband or how her current husband does not pay her any attention. Be prepared for quite a bit of crying. But once you get there, you have her in your arms and you go in for the kiss. And all of a sudden, you’re her dark skinned exotic fellow she just met.
Thus my friend, you have grocery store game. Just don’t follow this exactly. You have to be quick on your feet and adapt to the situation as it plays out, but you get the idea. But also, I would seriously suggest joining Meetup.com and joining a hiking group. That’s the best place for an Indian guy to start. Simply put, you’ll meet more dateable women there than you will anywhere else in Toronto. Forget about the clubs, gave up on that long ago. If you don’t score, well at least you get some exercise out of it. I know some people say it’s for losers, but fuck-em, what do they know? I find the older women are a little more flexible and accommodating than the younger broads. Grocery Store game is simply day game. It comes with practice. But I think Meetup is more practical. You’ll also get some white friends. When white women, of any age, see a colored person with white friends, they;re more comfortable and less apprehensive than if they see you with a gang of black dudes or brown fellows.
That’s my advice. Let me know if you have questions.
Thanks buddy. That’s some very solid and real, practical advice t here. I appreciate you taking the time to write that and lay it down. I definitely wouldn’t mind getting some of that older and middle aged white suburban wife and woman action as I’m around the same age as them and older than you, I’m guessing. I’m 40 now.
I’ll definitely try meetup.com. I don’t care if people say it’s for losers or whatever. If it works and gets results, that’s what matters. Can’t be worse than fucking online dating, which I’ve tried and get practically zero results with. But it’s winter now and I can’t imagine hiking groups are going to be that busy or full at this time. Maybe in spring and summer.
I’m not comfortable or good at approaching women, white or otherwise, in random like in a grocery store and striking up a conversation with them… but I guess I have to force myself to get good at it if I want to get any action.
Yeh Im 35. Grew up in Whitby when it was really white back in the day. I kind of confuse people because with my complexion, some think I’m Sri Lanken, but then I open my mouth and they hear my country western accent (long story). The thing about grocery store game, it’s hit or miss. Basically day game in a grocery store. The same thing applies if you’re in a library or a mall.The thing with the cold approach is that it’s only ‘cold’ if it starts that way, and that’s where the body language and eye contact comes into play. You have to be observant and know when to quit. But you need to be a bit bold too sometimes. It comes with practice, but dont come off like a douchbag either. Just be simple and friendly. I would start by just making idle conversations and not worry about sealing a deal. You can work up to that later as you build your own method.
The advantage with meetup is that its better in terms of numbers. You’re more likely to meet more people closer to your own age with similar interest and generally, suburban white women are more comfortable dating within groups rather than random online hookups anyway. I’m sure there are other groups to join. Maybe see if there is skating or something. The thing with groups like that, you’re purpose there really needs to be on the group activity and not hooking up.Its if the opportunity presents itself, well then you make a move. That’s sort of the philosophy that I have. I never make meeting women a primary goal in anything. It’s always secondary to whatever else I am doing, weather that be hiking, going to the gym, or grocery shopping.
But don’t do online dating. You’ll get nothing and nowhere very fast. Aaron Clarey just responded to this black dude who was a 75k a year Denzel lookalike, and that guy couldn’t land anything either. Online dating is a complete attention whore shit-show. And whatever you do, do not, I repeat, do not go on Fetlife.com.
That site is the shit-stain of humanity.
bro in all seriousness, its a mistake to locate yourself in Toronto. your best bet is is finding one of those indian hotties (i’ve seen quite a few) back in the the mother land. Take that Canadian income and score a nice one, stop going after white chicks (they are bitches anyway).
Well it’s not that easy for me. I’m not from the motherland so as to speak.. even if I’m of Indian background. I’m 3rd generation.. great grand parents were from India and migrated to East Africa. So I don’t really fit in with regular Indians from the motherland, and don’t have any real connections or family there.
Also, I’m not looking for white women to settle down with.. just to bang and have fun with. When I’m ready to get married, I do intend to find a nice indian hotty from either India or Pakistan.. although I’m not sure bringing her back to Canada is going to work in the long term.. Feminism and Western liberal culture will corrupt her and any children I might have. I don’t want to raise whore daughters. .and that’s exactly what most men and husbands are doing in the West these days.
Competition makes you improve your product. Those who don’t adapt will be bred out of existence. Its evolution and adaptation at work.
Hypergamy in females is evolutionary biology hard wired. But cultural restraints developed to control it. Feminism destroyed those restraints. Now in the west we have hypergamy on a level not seen before by previous generations. Women are flipping through tinder pics while they are sitting on the toilet.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKSrb1kWUAAQ0dc.jpg
“Hypergamy in females is evolutionary biology hard wired.”
Just as dominance is hard wired in men. Nothing wrong with either. What is wrong is the gynocentric society where men have no means to mitigate the woman’s hypergamy. That’s what needs to go. Take the women’s right to vote away NOW.
Feminists haven’t just destroyed restraints. They are aggressively promoting hypergamy
Seriously man. You keep on writing the same wrong thing over and over again. Feminism is the direct result of the gynocentric society (look up what it means), and the gynocentric society is the result of cucked beta males giving women equal rights.
I’m not the one repeating the wrong shit in every comment. He’s right and so am I. You however…
Dude, women by themselves can’t do anything without men’s permission. Think about this for a second.
This is the very point that you are missing.
You really believe that? Anything like Never….
Yeah. Take away the civilization (that men built to begin with) and women will physically die without men. It’s just a fucking fact.
Feminism could not have happened without beta male support, who foolishly bought into the idea that they would get greater access to sex by being “supportive”.
tell that to summer walk.
More poon was not the reason male law makers supported women’s voting rights
No???? Why don’t you go and figure out how did the women’s right to vote came about? Then come back here and report.
Sorry dude, but the vast majority of men who believe in “equality” are brainwashed by public education before they even know what pussy is. But by all means keep believing it’s because dudes are “thirsty”
perfect example is silicon valley which is 99% beta dorks. they are providing technology that further removes the necessity of man. they are unknowingly cucking themselves.
more poon for them, less for the common man
which is why MGTOW is 100 times more commendable that beta orbiting
Another thing is that women 16-29 mate with men 16-45 and sometimes higher if he has money. Basically eggs are more expensive so there needs to be more men than women.
Also, humans are not a pair bonding species, we are a tournament style species.
And Mgtow and herbivore are different. Herbivores drop out for economic and social reasons, not because they can’t attract any mates.
Then factor in that the male sex drive is higher, and it is being amplified by females dressing skimpy and porn, and add to the fact that women’s sex drive is decreased due to being on the pill, and you have more men than women and a much higher sex drive in men, leading to a major imbalance.
Amanda is looking for a silver fox 🙂
Stay away from any “girl” named (a man duh!)
Female fertility burns out long before male fertility. That contributes to imbalance of males chasing females.
Data set is small, but I’m noticing a greater willingness on the part of younger females to overlook otherwise socially stigmatized age gaps, i.e., >10-15 years.
It could possibly also involve a subconscious perception that the economy is shaky (or that their personal finances are unfixable). So the extreme selectivity we saw, what, 3-5 years ago is showing subtle signs of subsiding. Again, personal data set is small so I could be off-base.
In western culture males in their 20s and 30s have zero incentive to get married. The entire society is structured to punish them. I understand why females would date men 20 years older. Older male has more money and less likely to think with his dick.
I’m relieved to hear that younger men are smarter about such things these days.
Trump is 20 years older than melania. It’s more than just the economy. It’s biology with less feminism.
Melania is old world eastern europe with strong accent. She almost certainly grew up with traditional mother who wasn’t feminist.
Exactly
He also had a slight more net worth of $8 billion than she did which probably enhanced the attraction.
and that part of biology is what pisses off feminism.
Who gives a toss what pisses off feminism. That is natural as the sun rising in the east.
yep i’m surprised that wasn’t mention in the article. in general men from 20-60 will go after women from 17-35. those are not great numbers for men.
another plot of the global elite IMHO. older men won’t serve as slaves but younger men can be forced into slavery. let the older men take what would normally be reserved for the younger men, thus creating even further imbalance and dissonance in the sexual marketplace.
Don’t forget the depressingly high rates of SSRI consumption. Primary literature shows, and personal experience with SSRI users confirms, a very adverse impact on women’s sex drives.
Humans are a pair bonding species… because human babies are dependant as hell. This modern slutty behavior is only possible in a feminist not primitive society.
Wait until the money spigot stops flowing. Then we’ll see about the sluts and “The Future Is Female” pabulum puke.
Haha.
I did not think that sex drive decreases when women go on the pill
Some formulations more so than others, but the pill always decreases unbound testosterone in women. And testosterone does the same thing to women as it does to men.
Shut your mouth danielle.vos or I will put you a bullet in your bot head.
She’s gone, Comrade.
Colleges seem to suggest otherwise:
“As I explain in my book “DATE-ONOMICS: How Dating Became a Lopsided Numbers Game,” when men are in oversupply, the dating culture emphasizes courtship and monogamy. But when women are in oversupply—as they are today at most U.S. colleges and universities—men play the field and women are more likely to be treated as sex objects.”
http://time.com/money/4072951/college-gender-ratios-dating-hook-up-culture/
Well if there’s one place you can trust to get things right, it’s Leftist colleges as reported by the far Left Time Magazine. It’s like this shining light of truth in the world.
Haha.There is sarcasm and then there is curb stomping. Damn!
Nope. Women are sluts because it is supported and gives women benefits in our feminist culture. Female promiscuity is not a function of sex ratio.
Agree and disagree. It is sex ratio issue when you consider that females are willing to share top tier males.
Sex ratio does not cause promiscuity in women.
But hook up culture is the norm outside college where the ratio is more 50/50. So it is a greater cultural shift with females openly sharing top tier males, which creates the imbalance.
This is a powerful article in that it finally brings a very unbiased and neutral analysis of the sexual dynamics of modern times.
While it’s very easy to blame the many many many shortcomings of modern women, we have to admit playing the blame game and making excuses is a loser’s mindset, and is counter productive to one of the most natural and satisfying instincts of men: procreation.
however, fat shaming serves a purpose. its not so much playing the blame game as it is an F-U for women not holding up their end of the social contract, leaving millions of western men with limited choices.
the problem is too fold. too many men and far too few qualified women.
“far too few qualified women”
What I think you’re really trying to say here is:
“far too many fat women”.
Fat women have no use in the sexual marketplace. It’s kind of like we sent all the women to battle at Burger King and only about 30-40% of them survived. The rest were “killed” by the fat explosion. Therefore, of course the sex ratios are terribly skewed, 1/2 the women are dead to men.
Another analogy. Imagine if 50% of men were homeless. Women would be desperate to find a man with some resources and the “where are all the men” and “game” articles for women would be non-stop. That’s kind of what happened to women, there’s plenty of them, just too many that have no value to any man and therefore, in our eyes, don’t exist.
I’ve talked about this before, but I’ll quickly reiterate. I fly a lot for work, and often, when sitting on a plane, I’ll take note as the people who walk by. It’s not all that uncommon that I’ll be on a plane with 150-250 people and there won’t be a single fuckable woman on the entire plane. Sure, 30% of the plane is female, but 100% of those females are fat (or old). That’s the fundamental imbalance, not the overall birth ratios, IMHO.
And sluts
wow… solid observations. I’ve had the same experience when i fly domestic. I scope out the passengers in the waiting area before I board looking for females to chat up, and I see nobody. I estimate 200 passengers on the plane, 100 female, therefore identify top 5 attractive females to approach. But nothing there. Day game in general.
Get out of the US. The ratios get better.
RE: Fat women: did it ever occur to you that becoming obese is the means women choose to not have to deal with “the sex thing”?
I hear this a lot. Women who are super happy to be “invisible.” They don’t want male attention, or, one step further, they exaggerate their unattractiveness to annoy you.
Perhaps. However, if so, it’s beyond stupid. Like becoming a heroin addict when you’re making 1M/yr to not have to deal with the “money thing” anymore. Sex is THE source of female power. Not, A source, THE source. Women can get as rich as a sultan and it won’t make one difference to how attractive they are to the men who find them attractive. So, sure, you can get fat so you “don’t have to deal” with the adoration of men who are lining up to buy you drinks, clothes, vacations and basically put your life on “easy mode”. If you’re a fucking retard.
Totally agree. I live in Wisconsin, bitches are fat! lol. The combination of dairy, excessive drinking and feminism allowing for them to be happy with who they are is a death sentence for vast majority of the women around here. There are a some thin and attractive women, but they have an inflated sense of worth due to the sea of land whales.
I went to UW MADISON so I know exactly where you are coming from brother.
first off…the battle of burger king…made my day. second off, if you are on a plane that seats 250 people and not a SINGLE fuckable woman, that is the canary in the coal mine that it is time to GTFO and remove yourself from that geography (USA). I’m in Asia, plenty of amazing girls on every. single. flight.
you-go-girl culture has enabled women to degrade themselves beyond repair. this is the biggest crime of our time.
Feminists would certainly glory in reading this article.
Wouldn’t they be delighted in knowing “feminism is likely here to stay.”
Feminism has been calling for male gendercide for years. As males are considered disposable by society in general, is it really that hard to believe the day will come when low end betas will be exterminated? Higher end betas no – they have to much value as work horses.
Does anyone here truly believe Barack and Hillary would have a problem with male genocide?
The first step in exterminating any group of human beings is to dehumanize them. With men, this has already happened. The second step is, because they are not human, remove their human rights – with men, this is happing right now.
The third step…. genocide.
Think it’s impossible? Think again. Staggering numbers of people were killed in concentration camps in World War Two just a little over seventy years ago. They were classed as “non-human” too.
It’s hard to feed prisoners in camps when all your railroad tracks are bombed and your means of food production are interrupted.
It’s easy to heard them into gas chambers and kill them though.
You are debating with a woman, of all things, the validity of the holocaust. You should be thrown into an imaginary gas chamber yourself for doing that.
“The first step in exterminating any group of human beings is to dehumanize them. With men, this has already happened.”
The dehumanization process is apart of the lefts tactics. However there is a reason that in the US weapon sales were over +100 million in the last 8 years. We are aware and preparing accordingly.
I am astonished how many otherwise intelligent people – both men and women are so blind they simply can not see the endless institutionalized misandry that has saturated all levels of American society and is evident one hundred per cent of the time. The prevailing attitude at present is that it is perfectly acceptable to degrade men – no one questions it. Hell, if Barack and Michelle do it regularly it must be okay.
The moment a man questions this bigotry he is immediately ridiculed, laughed at, and made out to be some kind of “beta” schmuck who can’t get a woman. Then of course he is hit with the standard lies about how he is “privileged” and how tough women have it and he should be ashamed of himself for being such a wimp – even though he doesn’t even have basic human rights anymore. Astonishing how most people refuse to see or believe this dehumanization.
You can bet if women. Jews, gays, blacks or any other minority were told over the public air waves by the First “Lady” of the united states they “simply had to do better” the ensuing backlash would be staggering. Can you believe Michelle Obama said that to Oprah Winfrey and got a standing ovation for doing so? Yes, the left’s tactics.
The dehumanization of men is continuing and escalating. Once dehumanization is complete comes extermination.
“However there is a reason that in the US weapon sales were over +100 million in the last 8 years.” Isn’t that interesting. Obama – the ultimate Marxist man hater has been in office for 8 years. Coincidence? Nope.
The hate has been around for while, but .. meh. We aren’t going anywhere and have the guns. Bring it.
that all comes to an end in just over 2 weeks…after all we will have a pres that openly grabs women in the pussy and still received approx. 50% of American votes. sayanara shitlibs!
Precisely most people are blissfully unaware that the folks in control of powerful nations are preparing for a really fucked up world of their own creation where all is a battle space where the battles are being fought for all kinds of control.
While we are argue over who gets to sit with the pretty girl on the roller coaster at the clown show the real alpha wolves are planning for what really matters. Long term planning for survival and the ability to win wars.
It is about control and the facade about “serving the people” has pretty much dropped and the scramble for raw power through global institutions is pretty obvious.
“.. real alpha wolves are planning for what really matters. Long term planning for survival and the ability to win wars.”
Have you heard of the sheep dog analogy? When the sheep dog leaves, or worse — joins the wolves, the sheep pay a heavy price.
“S̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶m̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶ Approximately 6 million p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ Germans were killed in c̶o̶n̶c̶e̶n̶t̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶c̶a̶m̶p̶s̶ World War Two just a little over seventy years ago”.
Fixed it for ya. This place relies on narratives of Truth, not fabrication. You would fare much better on mainstream media sites that accept lies as truth if you wish to partake in engaging rounds of social intercourse.
I’m considering going to Ukraine later this year as part of match making company. Figured might as well give it a shot.
Adding minority men into the mix adds to the imbalance of white women versus white men. White men typically just do not chase black women. But every minority guy around including black guys, middle easterners, etc will go after white women which can upset the balance that much more. The globalist elite know this, which is one of the many reasons why they love to import 3rd world trash of which are going to jump into the mix by ignoring their ethnic counterparts and chasing white women instead. Plus the black culture is typically to get one of their ethnic counterparts pregnant at a young age and then move on. That’s why most black females 9 times out of 10, always have a kid and aren’t married. The black father that’s long gone is out chasing white women. If we lived in a more religiously moral society, that black father would be married to the black girl he got pregnant and would be raising his “keeds” with her and not be out chasing white women. He would be off the market the rest of his life as any husband/father should be.
I was friends with a guy that was from Iran, a muslim, living here in the states. He was very dark complected and very middle eastern looking. He was on every dating site and would only email white girls. No white girls were ever interested in him, but that’s all he would pursue. He would not pursue any other girls that were persian or indian or closer to his race.
Even though the supposed demographics of male/female population is supposed to be 1:1, the dynamics of economics and societal conditions make it seem as if it’s 100 to 1 guys to girls.
Also…way back in the past over a hundred years ago, there were no 401Ks or retirements, etc. So it was always important to have male babies for obvious reasons. So I believe if the first born was a male, the couple probably decided to not have much more children because they already got their male. If the first born was a female, then the couple kept trying to have more kids until they had a boy not quite realizing that the father’s sperm determined the sex of the child and there was a high likelihood the father might only be able to have girls. So they ended up with 3 or 4 girls. Therefore, naturally the population would always have many more females than males. TODAY, couples just have 1 or 2 offspring and stop having kids regardless of whether their kids are boys or girls.
It all adds up. You have a society that doesn’t produce as many female offspring as they did in the past, you got “career” females that go into dating limbo putting off marriage, you got non-white men chasing the same white women, you got 80% of the women in that are in the dating markent only chasing the top 20% of men. All of those factors add up to where it makes it seem as if the ratio was 100 to 1 guys to girls. It’s as if this situation we have was planned that way, and I believe it was.
Don’t forget the ant white male rhetoric and the pickup technique employed by non white men of accusing white females of being racist for rebuffing their advances. Who needs game when you can just play the race card?
Additionally, I would wager that only a very slight imbalance is needed to create the illusion of abundance. It need not to be that men outnumber women 2:1 but perhaps only 1.2 to 1 to make women become entitled.
You put the white in white knighting. A billion asians to bang and you worry about low ranking immigrants who do slutty lefty mud sharks. Here’s a hint. It’s the job of women to say no.
Asians are notoriously loyal to their men. Unlike white women, they actually take pride in their history, culture, and heritage
This is cultural though. If the divorce rate in Japan today is about 30% and the US divorce rate in1950 was 10%, it’s nothing to do with race.
They do value those things, but don’t pedestalize them sexually, They cross breed like other women, but they do so more in a long term way. Rather than a Saturday night way
nothing to do with race and everything to do with keeping human slaves
Exactly. Not only do white men not find black, hispanic, or middle eastern women attractive, even if they did, they come from cultures where they are expressly forbidden (or will receive disapproval, rebuking, censure) for dating outside of their race / culture
Also, anytime a white male dates outside of his race, he is accused of “yellow fever” while colored men who exclusively date white women never receive such ostracism
Of course they do. And from both sides! A black man dates a white women and he’s a sell out and traitor among his race.
Asian women for asian men.
Black women for black men.
Hispanic women for hispanic men.
White women for EVERYONE.
Except it’s no true
HUH???
MGTOW are men choosing to follow their dreams and goals and not chasing pussy. Which doesnt mean that we reject it. Stop bashing MGTOW for making healthy choices. Fucking idiots.
Wtf. You sound like Clinton. Does all that pussy grabbing upset you?
You complain about being bashed while that’s exactly what you just did.
yes it does. mgtow have feelings too ;(
It’s one thing to be a man going his own way. It’s another to be a self-proclaimed MGTOW.
and it’s another thing altogether to be a 4th level going galt ghosting MGTOW wizard
I’m level 40 with fire-buffs on my master-troll keyboard.
MGTOW macro keys FTW
lol that’s OP
nerf incoming!
I can’t decide what I think of MGTOW. Are they enlightened or just a bunch of damn queers ?
It’s all too much. Men peeing in women’s bathrooms, women peeing in men’s. Men wanting to cut their dicks off and thiink they’re women. Women cutting their pussies off and trying to get a dick put on.
So many people so confused. It’s all too much
IMO, a mixture. I find I have to “thin slice” the individual stories with this group — they have differing avenues for arriving at MGTOW. Unfortunately, I sense the majority have winged in from the outlands of rejection, humiliation and ineptitude.
It’s all so sad.
You know you wanna be a MGTOW wizard. 4th level MGTOW. Wizard shit
Just don’t uderstand a young man who does not want to get him some. I respect the asceticism of those who do without.
But I think the fluoride in the water and feminazis have damaged the young.
I don’t shit on MGTOWs like some others do. I actually think it makes sense in The Current Year not to burn away long-term opportunities for pussy.
But I agree with you heartedly that a lot of young guys right now will not get to experience any kind of legitimate romance, and it has to be damaging to them. Combine that with this practically anti-human modern culture and I’m glad I wasn’t born in the mid-90s.
I look at what’s out there and understand these dudes. I guess if you reach a critical mass of Triggly Puff’s, MGTOW starts to look pretty good.
They get shit on because they talk shit first.
I just turned 30 and even I’m becoming more preoccupied with growing my bank account than chasing girls. Freedom is gradually becoming my #1 priority.
I understand. Good long term strategy. But at one point, you may want a wife and kid.
Nothing brings me greater joy.
The ones that get defensive about it are probably not the ones that chose it as a lifestyle
if you take women out of the equation, freedom is a lot lot cheaper than most guys think.
Well if you include monks… I think they are ok, but without them mgtow needs some work
Just what I was thinking. MGTOW gamers and porn watchers. It’s unnatural.
Most of them have a hard time getting women. So do I give them credit for checking out rather than becoming annoying orbiters.
Really really interesting stuff. It’s interesting how as technology has gotten better and thus our lives have gotten more comfortable that these kind of problems arose. Good article
First of all….top 3 disqus names. well done.
I saw some show a month or so ago about how aliens are probably fucking morons because if they have tech to the point where they can get to earth then they are so advanced that they no longer use their brains for anything.
Not sure if it is true or not, but an interesting perspective
Fucking morons and kinky and gay as hell.. because they only seem to be into anal.
Complete shit I have seen tall whites they are real for sure. Even saw the hardware up close a few times. It would be too fun flying around in such a craft exploring to give up on using the brain for at least navigation and sex.
My theory is that in a primitive, non-technological era, human females, as the physically inferior mammalian birth-givers and caretakers, were only able to survive through manipulating and exploiting men. This biologic imperative created a gender dynamic which ensured the propagation of our species. Sapience caused human males to be able to create and innovate resulting in our dominance as a mammalian species and giving females more to exploit. As parasitic and opportunistic creatures, females would naturally see the world as revolving around their own wants and needs, and that would cause them to have little or no regard for those they exploit, men. To women, men are merely a necessary evil whose contributions should primarily be to benefit females. That is the source of intrinsic female hubris and misandry. Sapience allows human females to rationalize their chauvinistic hubris and justify their hatefulness. Now that modern man-made infrastructures and technologies have mitigated female deficiencies and diminished male strengths, females rarely need to directly exploit males anymore to survive (just the results of millennia of male hard work and innovation), leaving modern females free to express their own chauvinistic vanity and innate contempt for men. This is just their nature. It’s part of their psyche. This is how the marketing companies pander to a female demographic. This is why females always see themselves as being in charge and dominant and then see themselves as abused when they are not obeyed. This is why females feel that they have a right to judge and criticize, to spew misandry at will, all while expecting absolute deference. That is why women see themselves as superior and feel free to denigrate men and demoralize our sons while blaming men and society for their own female gender failings.This is why females can have such high expectations of boyfriends and husbands yet see their own value in just showing up.This is why females are so easily offended and become spiteful and vindictive when anyone challenges their perceived rights to chauvinism, collective victimhood, and misandry. This is why the female philosophy is, :What’s his is mine and What’s mine is mine”. This is why females can neither acknowledge or appreciate the many, many positive contributions made by men, and instead cherry pick and focus on the negative in order to rationalize their hateful, chauvinistic narrative and their gynocentric agenda, and yet are still able to see themselves as morally and intellectually superior. Modern technologies have muddied the gender dynamic waters. Man power made girl power possible.
[enjoy with grain of salt]
Sorry gents, it was me. Been beating them off with a stick since middle school. Same with my buddies. According to the article, it looks like we are “the problem.”
We’re not lazy, ugly, socially inept or unsuccessful enough. We work hard for what we’ve got, offer real-world solutions, stay up on the intellectual pursuits, say witty, age-appropriate stuff, and take everyday setbacks in stride. We’re self-made, resourceful and know how to fix the lighting, the computer, the heater and the busted sink pipe without calling anybody. We love the competition of other men, welcome it with enthusiasm. Others have judged our worth and SMV from the outside, and found us attractive — we didn’t need to bargain, campaign or resort to lame self-referential “image marketing.” Even the married monkey-branching ladies can’t resist the chemistry.
Women — what can you do? Most of them are selfish, faithless and acquisitive to no end. We operate well within these realities, but retain a sense of fun and romance (for the select few). That’s life; all other dudes can go choke on their bitter lot and get nothing but 2s, 3s and 4s (if anything at all). Adaption and survival — same as it ever was. Good times. ;^)
Yours truly,
“The Problem”
“intellectual pursuits” HAHAHA you think women want to hear what science channel documentary you watched last night. Nothing gets a girl wetter than fun facts about the Oort Cloud lolz
You’d be surprised! Some like “fancy book learnin’ ” haha
Maybe we just do that for ourselves…having a girl bewildered by your intelligence is also good.
I think you posted this by mistake. Exactly how are you responsible for bad sex ratios?
No mistake; to a degree, I thought there was a a key sub-topic here that resonated with meaning or truth in my life…in the mathematical or ratio “overage” of men, there are breakaway groups that wind up getting the lion’s share of high-value women (ratio never mattered to them). It’s viciously competitive out there if you haven’t noticed. 🙂
Like the article says, “Masculine energy has been re-channeled to alternative outlets like video games, movies, and sports so that men don’t ever wake up.”
In my experiences, the top women don’t get hooked on dudes who over-focus on that stuff too much. The rest takes care of itself per the usual primal rules of attraction. Their problem isn’t about “demographic math” as much as it is something internal (strictly IMO).
I’m OK with the skewed numbers in a modern age — I wouldn’t care if the Earth was 75% men and 25% women…I’m going to try and cut a path right through it.
Like I said, take it with a grain of salt — everything I wrote could have been uttered by an alpha-signaling poseur who’s a complete Nobody using a fake Discqus handle (and I’m sure ROK draws in plenty of those).
ok got it. But I think you are kinda off in your pedestalation of women.
Top women are good looking, but they are damaged goods not worth keeping just like all the rest of women
I rarely run into virgins anymore. You?
In slightly contradictory fashion, I agree. I’m a little bit too optimistic and hopeful at times. It’s a flaw. I’m pretty cynical when it comes to judging other peoples’ intentions but have faith that “good ones” exist (which is a soft form of pedestalizing the concept of a fabled “good woman”).
It’s me finding solace in the concept of NAWALT, which may be a weak spot in my emotional armor. But I think it’s because I’ve found and have truly enjoyed the company of “healthy” women along the way. I have evidence they exist, even if they are still vastly and inherently different than us. It’s an extraordinary tension. I’d be “lost at sea” in the culture of MGTOW, hence the somewhat *forced* optimism. I think anyone interested in a truly productive Game has to adopt this attitude to some degree.
Even nice women I meet/met 99% have sexual histories and that’s a relationship dealbreaker for me. So I fuck them but nothing more
And you add to their sexual history. The situation will not change until men stop putting up with their behavior altogether and just walk away.
Listen. A woman is either a virgin or not. One more dick in a slut doesn’t change a thing. And I don’t put up with their behavior, guys who date and marry sluts are the ones you need to chastise.
Problem is, women mature very slowly, especially when they are treated like princesses from birth and oogled over since 15. They think slutty behavior is of no consequence at an early age. While they are young, they are basically right. It isn’t until they want to marry off that they reap the consequences of their actions. By then it is too late, they are old haggard bar flies with no redemptive value. They need to be trained from an early age that slutty behavior is not acceptable. Otherwise, the rot will continue.
You are probably right for women over 24 or so, they are beyond redemption.
That was refreshing. Reminds me of the good ole days of ROK. Cheers.
“..accusing me of advocating gendercide for saying similar things..”
China has been doing that for 40 years and have an imbalance of having 130 males : 100 females due to the 1 child policy. The Chinese government suggested the single men should go abroad to find wives. From the glance at today’s news, they also seem to have a wave of populism challenging the ruling regime. What a coincidence.
“Unless we’re both willing and able to enforce authoritarian patriarchal standards seen only in places like Saudi Arabia..”
Bad example. I spent some time there in the past unpleasantness and from what the local Saudi men told me, they need to have at least $80k in order to secure a bride. This was a local requirement to ensure the man has the means to the provide. This gave the Saudi elite who had more than enough means, and permissible to take on many wives, left the majority of men on the fringe. There is a reason Wahhabism has taken such a strong hold on men from Saudi Arabia.
Very good article! I think demographics has a big impact on gender relations. There is slightly more men than women in most parts of the US. However if you factor out unattractive and feminist women, the sintuition is much more bleak. I’m from generation X. We were the first generation of men in the US not to be drafted and sent to war. I identified this as anissue when I was younger; that there were always more dudes than girls everywhere I went. Luckily, women were still slimmer, nicer and more feminine than they are now.
I feel bad for the younger guys. I have a 14 year old son. I am drilling the red pill into him with hopes that he will be prepared for the ever worsening sexual market place.
Im on the fringe between Gen X and Millennial (had an argument over new years where someone said im not a millennial but Gen Y, but I’ve always known Gen Y and millennial to be synonymous). Anyway I noticed the same thing that everywhere I went it was all dudes.
BUT! the weird thing now is that anywhere I go (especially college) its dominated primarily by females. For example, my university is approaching 60% female to 40% male enrollment (their “stats” suggest 52/48 but everything I see on that campus is contrary to those numbers). Still these girls want nothing to do with real relationships or getting to know people who aren’t in their social circle when it comes to men. Most women aren’t attractive and are fat and most likely campus feminists, which makes it even more difficult to connect with the attractive ones since they have an inflated sense of worth.
I hope for your sons’ sake that whatever he chooses to do (whether it be university or trade school) that he ends up in a good social circle and is able to date that way. It didn’t really work out that way for me and I kind of feel like my college years were a total waste as far as dating/notch counts. But unfortunately as the article says, much is stacked against us as far as the market is concerned.
It is sad to think that millions of young men have no hope of access to sex and affection from a woman, facing an incel life with maybe getting rolled into a sexless marriage by a jaded, post wall, ex carousel rider.
Hence the rise of VR porn, sex bots, and other artificial means of intimacy.
Pretended affection, I’m not sure it was ever real, just a game women played to secure and keep the house and all the goodies that came with it. As for a sexless marriage, fairly normal after pumping out a few kids …… sex in the west was always over for most married men by age 40.
As a friend once theorized ……. Sex keeps men happy, if your wife loved you she would want you to be happy. And he posed this question: Sex doesn’t take much of her time, not much effort required, it doesn’t cost her any money, so why doesn’t she have sex with you whenever you want? Answer: Your wife doesn’t actually love you, or in many cases even like you. She doesn’t want you to be happy!
Funny that you morons believe this yet you are all right wing extremists. There are no such problems in leftist societies. Were there such problems in the USSR? Nope. It was only socialism and the Platonic construct of Christianity which produced societies with equality of this sort.
Leftist socies are sexual utopias??? No. Liar.
Where do you think does craze over ‘Eastern European’ women come from? Because they were in the Eastern Bloc untainted by the decadency of liberalism.
You seem to have suggested you can have socialism without liberalism. That does not make sense. And it’s always the elites under any system who are more decadent than anyone. Especially the politicians.
Uhm what? The Eastern Bloc was not liberal. In fact what you most likely support is. What do you think the British Empire was built upon? Liberalism. Who do you think Thomas Jefferson was? A liberal. Who do you think are the modern day libertarian Tea Party lovers? Liberals. Mises, Hayek, Friedman, all liberals.
I don’t even care about socialism tbh. I’d be ok with a left wing economically nationalist country similar to de Gaulle’s France. Since I am from the ex-Eastern Bloc I do have my sympathies though.
“There are no such problems in leftist societies.”
Like Veanzuela? The have bigger problems… like food.
“Were there such problems in the USSR?”
They had the same problems. Hence they collapsed.
They dissolved from within. Socialism was ended, it did not collapse.
The USSR is gone. You are defending a false premise. Russians and the denizens of the “Stans” are still there, but the soviet socialism model is gone. They went broke like all socialist countries have and will.
You left out, that more females are aborted than males. So one could either outlaw abortion, or abort more males than females. You think feminists would go for the second option like gangbusters.
More important than male:female numbers are the trends that are driving down the quality of men and women. Women are fatter and you might as well not include obese people in the MF ratio just as you wouldn’t include infants or the elderly. And obesity probably strikes more of a blow to the female numbers than the male numbers. Also, men aren’t hurting because there’s just too much competition for the number of available women as much as they are hurting from ruining themselves on video games, porn, weed, etc.
also considering a female’s sexual market value is mostly tied to her looks, a rise in obesity is a significant hit to the fairer sex. no wonder men are GTOW, nothing to fight for or earn a living for.
Which is why there is a growing movement of female led relationships. Men seeking dominatrix’s to be made into “slaves”. Which includes cock cages, and corporal punishment. The ultimate goal seeming to be, to turn as many men as possible into cuckolded toilet-slaves sucking dick while taking one up the ass.
I’ve noticed significant increase in last year of female dating profiles seeking subs. Society is approaching peak beta. Wouldn’t surprise me.
I found the author’s vision of the wonders of a man scarce world, to be as depressing as the current condition. On the other hand, a large scale war just might be the wonderful answer.
Life is short, so i guess there are two ways of looking at it: chase pussy or reform your soul, i chose the latter.
chase pussy THEN reform your soul
Reminds of a roughly paraphrased quote from somebody I should remember the name of…
“Lord make me chaste. Just not today.”
😀
What is it with ROK and advocating polyamory lately? degenerates…
Lately?
https://www.amazon.com/Too-Many-Women-Ratio-Question/dp/0803919190/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1483400528&sr=1-1&keywords=too+many+women+sex+ratio
While I agree with the premise, I’d also have to say that when it comes to finding women at bars and clubs, many more men go to these places vs. women which makes things that much more difficult. That’s one of the reasons why it’s so hard to satisfiy your thirst these days.
You’re going to the wrong clubs, where I live it’s about 20-30 women in their early 20s, and a couple of old guys like me, browsing the goods.
Sounds about right. Hordes of fat feminist chicks and thirsty betas in the industrialized world… sex-selective abortion in India and China… polygamy in the Muslim world and Africa… global sausagefest.
This is a line of reasoning that has never occurred to me but it makes absolute sense and is very thought provoking. Usually I read ROK articles and they are about something that I’m already aware of and have fairly strong opinions about but the writers of the articles themselves are better at delineating and substantiating their contentions than I. In that case, I gladly add my ideas to the conversation. For me, reading this article has been a learning experience and given me additional information to process into my own theories about the dangers of modern hypocritical and adversarial feminism. Great article!
The women are too fat and gross….if white women, each, collectively lost 20-30 lbs, there would be a lot more fuckable women. Now, I just let the black guys fuck them.
Hence the problem is society is too safe. Perhaps it’s akin to medicine – all your doing is allow the weak to survive as generally make people more susceptible to diseases in the long run.
Corey,
You have it exactly backwards.
A surplus of men is built into God’s design: The sex ratio at birth is (for caucasians) 104 males for every 100 females. And in The Good Old Days before modern obstetric medicine, death for “maternal” causes was a *huge* killer with no corresponding killer for males in agricultural societies. (And no, war was not at all a big a killer.) In parts of sub-Saharan Africa, death in childbirth is still in the double digits. (Remember that without modern birth control, women are pregnant or lactating during all their fertile years so *one* of their kids will eventually kill that percentage.)
The Sexual Revolution ignited when Hillary Clinton came of age. The leading edge of the Baby Boom (Hillary was born in 1946) hit the marriage market, causing the *effective* sex ratio (women vs. men 2 or more years older) to collapse. Hillary’s age cohort was 2X the size of the WW-II cohort or the Great Depression cohort. W.E.B. Du Bois wrote of the effect of sex ratio skew (due to urbanization, rather than modern medicine) in:
http://www.academia.edu/207566/Du_Bois_and_the_Sociological_Effects_of_Low_Male-Female_Sex_Ratios
While more recently:
https://www.amazon.com/Too-Many-Women-Ratio-Question/dp/0803919190
I am writing this note in the lobby of the Ritz-Carlton Marina Del Rey where I await the arrival of two women twenty-five years my junior. One of them I met once in a business setting, the other is her best friend, whom I have never met. They *claim* that they are going to have their way with me on our first in-person meeting. This would seem incredible to me had not a lady blogger half my age not driven 15 hours round-trip to Washington, D.C. two weeks ago to double-team me with *her* best girlfriend on my first meeting with both of them.
That is what I get for posting intelligent comments on the wrong blogs, I guess. I don’t expect anything like these “double dates” to happen because of *this* blog post. But how do these ladies “Just Know” that I am “easy” (that I will let them have their ways with me sexually) and I am a “Sure Thing” (even if (so they claim) they have never before climaxed for partner sex they will with me)?
Apparently, women’s preference to have sex with a girlfriend along has selection pressure behind it:
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-evolution-of-female-bisexuality/
and
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/female-same-sex-attraction-revisited/
but why me? And why now? I am 68 years old and too sick to do anything but lay in bed. (Which seems to be all they *want* me to do.)
You younger, healthier men must be feeling Really Used…
The main problem is men looking for romance and women looking for financial security.
That’s it in a nutshell!
Is ‘romance’ a euphemism for sex?
To be honest, I think that “romance” may be more aptly described as the male desire to provide and protect, while “financial security” describes the female desire to be provided for and protected. Of course sexual desire is a necessary component for species propagation but it’s really how females attract and manipulate the men who can benefit them the most. In a primal sense, men feel compelled to seek sex because women use it as a reward and control system. It’s part of the gender dynamic. I say this because I believe that men get a bad rap for being sex driven. Most men are able to rise above their animal instincts and are less motivated by sex and more motivated by their need to take care of their families. Sex is a bonus.
To females, ‘romance’ is a euphemism for moonlit walks, candlelit dinners, back and foot massages, and gifts. All done for its own sake, with males having no ulterior motives.
Which is why more women are seeking submissive males willing to wear cock cages. Because that is what women have wanted all along. An obedient male servant who can’t masturbate, or even get a hard on, without their permission. A female wet dream come true.
The kind of thing I regret even knowing about. But is happening out there.
1:1 sounds a lot better than the truth- there are over one million surplus men between 18 and 30.
One million men who die alone or poach from the next generation
What is becoming annoying about this site are the articles that have to needlessly attack men who won’t worship at the alter of “game”. Again, this notion requires that all men value sex to the same degree and that degree is rather high. All men don’t. It follows a distribution.
Putting on the act that game requires is an expense of resources and effort. Because we have a distribution of how highly men value sex but have over the last couple decades greatly increased the costs to get it there will naturally be men who are unwilling to pay that price.
There have always been mountain men, monks, frontiers, and other outlets for men who for one reason or another have little use for the society as it is. This is nothing new. The proportions may have changed but that’s because the effort women are requiring from men (and the risks to men) have increased to the point that more don’t find it worth it.
As to this M-F ratio theory:
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_vault/2013/12/09/LargePredominatingSex.jpg
Males in excess covered a considerable portion of the nation and the frontiers were the worst off.
I live in SEA, I don’t need game to get a woman, I need $25.
It isn’t an excess of men that’s the problem in the west, it’s governments and courts giving women free money.
We call that feminism.
That’s one of the major distortions in the sexual marketplace. A man has to be worth more than government will give her from him and other men without any commitment on her part.
Yup, subsidization of manhood.
The government floods the market with cheese, and the price of cheese decreases. People suddenly don’t have to do as much for cheese.
Women now have to do artificially little for men.
Sometimes society and it’s trappings along with women’s bullshit is a slap in the face to some men’s intellect/spirit.
Highly speculative main premise to the article. Women in Russia are just as hypergamous as women in the West; even with the greater ratio of women to men. Other than the population argument, the author simply makes observations we’re all familiar with anyhow. It doesn’t break new ground. The author concludes we need a civil war to drive change or become like Saudi Arabia; clearly the author isn’t thinking hard enough here. One comment on the last part of the article. There are “naturals” who score more than PUAs without ‘reading up on inner game’. Yet they barely earn $30K a year. There are MGTOWs who earn $200K a year and don’t worry about competing with PUAs on pickup; who get escorts or line up what’s needed with FWB’s. There are plenty of paths for a guy in the modern world. We don’t need to oversimplify it or creating a pissing contest between guys who chose different paths.
Russian women take a lot less Dick!
They get married on average under 25. The west is pushing 30. Five more years of carousel and feminist brainwashing makes it no contest
Biologically, 20-80 rule worked as the norm.
Neurologically however, male sex drive and female hypergamy create a lot of instability within the societal whole. Marriage was a great solution before feminism caught on.
Let’s see if a new solution presents itself or reverting back is the only option.
In peacetime a 33%-33%-33%-1% sexual division of labor will emerge (following a slight ruckus to scrap anti family laws and unseat stubborn anti family figures in authority posts)
As for polygamy/monogamy, IT IS UP TO YOU the man to assert your right to claim the number of women that will make your family/clan function well and sustain itself and that will allow your women to be able to properly care for the rearing of young without being overburdened. A man who can control, keep disciplined and retain the loyalty of two women shouldn’t be hounded by authorities. Bigamy and anti polygamy laws need to be scrapped.
A man who is not polygamous but who can manage one wife also shouldn’t worry about no fault divorce and divorce rape industry predators. The state needs many stacks upon stacks of intrusive family law cannon and past verdicts invalidated under patriarchal convention. Throw it out and burn it. Liability and long knives for the pharisees and divorce rape industry predators.
Now, let’s start at the bottom. The lower tier and whore women are unmarriable. Someone should have told me that when I was in my early 20s, but at the time, it seemed the acceptable thing to expect loyalty from a whore upon signing a marriage contract. Things are fine to the best of a young man’s understanding if he lands a used whore so long as he doesn’t expect too much from her in the way of service and loyalty in the long run and so long as he can discard her without a hitch if she screws up. Pass around whores and used women belong in the lower tier. When I was 20, I didn’t know better. Sluts were sluts. If you marry one, you learn the hard way.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THEREFORE – I propose a new scale: (33%-33%-33%-top1%)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
33% – lower tier, pass around leftovers (the men don’t care anyway) shiftless, transient, sporadically employable or employed but with loose morals. Trashy women will always pair with men who don’t mind sloppy seconds or who don’t desire family.
—————————
mid 33% – man is able to support one wife and build family size to earning capacity. The man has foundation in morals/tradition and won’t bite off more that he can chew or bleed the system. He’s a man of backbone, competent skilled worker and teaches his sons to defend the patriarchal nation/culture with rightful weaponry. Many men would opt for just one good wife. With polygamy, the mechanics of psyching two women into peacably cohabitating and regularly assembling themselves into the inverted swinging cat’s cradle cantilever wratchet position is the SALT of patriarchal culture but may cause overexertion for the average hardworking stiff. Many men just want a good missionary wife to rest their mantle after a hard day’s work. The polygamous ‘twin tango’ home requires slightly more athletic balls but that’s fine. Do as ye be able. And don’t undermine your neighbor who has two wives. He earned them. Just like everyone in suburbia doesn’t have a pool or a 100k class c RV parked in their driveway. You don’t petetion out of jealousy to persecute the guy. He worked hard – or worked smart. Same with a guy with 2+ tight clan wives.
—————————
top 33% – More than one wife. (avg 2) both breeders, either concurrent breeders or see saw. Any claim of the excess pussy being hogged by a poly is negated by the pass around tolerance and economy of the less strict and less disciplined lower tier. The mid 33% is out of the lower tier pussy jungle by virtue of patriarchal discipline. When a man has the kahones and wisdom to manage a woman properly, he doesn’t have to reside in the lower skank pussy ghetto. The upper 33% is yet another level removed from the wild pussy jungle, raised also above the mid tier by gradually increasing game, patriarchal prowess and professional/career gains. With the addend of means in the upper 33%, influence and/or income, plus the desire to fulfill the plan to be a clan man with more than one wife can be realised. Professionals, enterpreneurs, successful restaurantiers, landlords, respectable citizens and even farmsteads or family farms that have sizeable areas of land to cultivate or herds to tend would all justify the family clan head utilizing more than one wife for tasks, breeding and care of young and raising related family operators for the enterprise whether it be small or large. Why should a family owned citrus grove or apple orchard haul in mestizo migrant workers when six farm wives could produce fifty blood related and productive heirs to the farm?? Exactly. Patriarchy is all about keeping your house/business/enterprise cemented and bound with BLOOD, FAMILY AND TRIBE.
—————————-
Then finally – the uber top 1%. Now we’re talking 17 wives or how ever many the tycoon can house or afford to put shoes on. The amount of ‘ubers’ is negligable so again, the pussy pass around economy pool of the lower tier doesn’t grow or threaten to become widespread. Only when the state throws gasoline and toarches the trad family does whoredom sprout up like bamboo shoots.
Mormon polygamists who had wives in the double digits but who couldn’t support the clan without public assistance aren’t included in the uber top 1%. Don’t take more wives than you can support. Now Bill Gates could support 10,000 wives but the anti family/clan laws allow him only one. Is that fair? Likely he still lacks game. 15 wives wonld suffocate him. But with the resurgence of patriarchy there will arise a few leaders and captains of industry, gurus even perhaps, and maybe some wealthy manosphere novelists who aren’t pimps but like a pimp, can multi manage a corps of loyal women under their fold, not selling their women’s asses on the street, but rather by keeping them in a good way as loyal family wives/breeders.
Tribal seedlines have their multitude of small corpuscles everywhere about the body of mankind, and the uber top 1% are in a position where they can form a mainline artery of their own branch bloodline with the accentuated number of women they can potentially keep under their wing. Polygamy should not be illegal. Leave polygamy be. It will occur in its natural niches where it only proliferates to its sustainable capacity. Where the economy allows and where the will to manage as per patriarchal spirit exists. But two wives will still serve a man well who has modest means, morals and 3-4+ offspring. In a typical young family, having two wives makes child rearing 200% easier because there’s no down time where the breadwinner man has to drop everything. The sisterwife picks up the slack, running erands, care of sick wife. Man tasks and house improvements are constant and never interrupted. Vehicles and machinery are maintained tip top and restoration projects shine when skilled daddy hands don’t have to stop what they’re doing to wipe butts. The women keep the little butts shining gladly.
Choose your woman or women carefully. Go virgin if you’re contemplating a family business in the future. A used whore wife can crash a house hard but a whore wife can crash a built up family business even harder. If you witnessed with your own eyes and none other as your young wives’ tight nubie hymens all went POP, then you can all keep up your SHOP.
Well written, but polyamory is part of the gender imbalance. If the top men take multiple women for themselves, where does that leave men in the middle?
Polygamy is obviously taking place in an unofficial capacity and it is a primary concern for gender imbalance.
Like I mentioned, the top 1% is uber rich or successful. Not all uber rich have the wherewithall to manage a harem. Ted Turner sexually is a tremendous beta to pair with Jane Fonda. Gates is another sexually clueless man. But if a tycoon has a harem of 50, then the pass around mores of the bottom 1/3 would more than make up for the tiny fractional amount of large harems. Whores and omegas service the bottom gleefully like the demons that gleefully dance in hell. A whoring pussy at the bottom makes up for any shortage. The pass around bottom whores would also allow for a large 1/3 ‘middle class’ that could sustain 1-2 or 1.5 wives per man. An average plumber or hvac guy could have and support two wives and six kids easily! A righteous patriarch EARNS the right to live in the pussy surplus tier. Feminism would also exist confined to the bottom dwelling 1/3 that is rife with defficiency in life skills, morals and general productivity. Feminism would in effect be crunched down to the ghetto where it belongs alongside whoredom, prostitution, the last surviving rainbow brigade marchers and others not mindful to the true nature of women and the ammens necessary to harness and control the shebeast and keep her as a clean and loyal servant and breeder as per patriarchal order.
The order of patriarchy is one important facet that lifts mankind up and above the lowly animal existance of baby eating, sloth, foraging and living in stick nests. Patriarchy exhalts mankind as human, more human than the wild grunting, chirping, neck and head biting insects and beasts of this orb. Polygamy is for a strong man of means who can will his bloodline furtively as well as envision a plat for civilization. He has the streetmaps of Atlantis II and Rome III in his head and is aware of his place as a species in the world. A monogamous man also proliferates to the capacity of his own personal level of industry. For men of all levels of achievement, CONTROL OF YOUR WOMEN is paramount for keeping our order and survival civil here on spaceship Earth.
Some men are MGTOW or simply have no interest in propogating their bloodline, or maybe they’re too busy or lack patriarchal wisdom or tempermant to effortlessly manage women. Maybe they have a neuro sensitive glitch that throws their train of thought when they’re around the same woman for too long. Well . . . the oily bottom tier is always there for them to dip their dick. No one is stopping them. The bottom along with its dwellers will always be there, but the patriarchal order freefloats above the bottom, more like a gas cloud. There is decency, order and excellence in the higher tiers. The patriarchal tiers compare like the cartoon depictions of heaven in the clouds with gold mc mansions lining gold streets situated up in the clouds which contrast to the pit at the bottom. Not everyone is perfect and some may fall or dive back to the bottom, but with feminism neutralized, quarantined and deweaponized, it can no longer be sprayed over the earth like a sewage cannon. It stays down in its place.
AND there is mobility between tiers. Everyone starts at a bass level. Maybe your mother was a whore. No one is stopping you from climbing from the muck. Just leave the old used strumpet to dog paddle. Patriarchal culture exhalts the virgin mother/wife/breeder but shuns the whoremother. Still anyone can fall to the oil sludge below and go splash. It’s a sea of cum and smegma down there. I guess some could subsist on a diet of mucous swill but I prefer a good steak and veggies. In the patriarchal tiers up above, the fluids slung about a patriarchal bedroom are proprietary HOUSE FLUIDS. Not an alien drop of mystery source fluid shant taint a patriarch’s bedroom with THE RULE of only taking crack clean virgins under your wing. Let only thine virgins gush in ye stead.
I guarantee this all becomes very clear and lucid once you attune your receptive senses while concurrently growing a large and robust POWER BEARD.
While this is an interesting perspective, what about the high number of world shaping men that never engaged in the sexual marketplace (Lawrence of Arabia and Nikolai Tesla come immediately too mind)? Why is it that the intellectually superior are often LESS likely to reproduce than others?
Secondly, while statistically interesting, how relevant is it. And what is the author’s aim? Is the author saying he is better than some of his readers? That even if they were to compete they would either be making people like him better because competition makes everyone better. So why not just tell people to give up? It’s circular and doesn’t hold up. If that’s the author’s point, which maybe it isn’t.
While the author is right about Supply driving Demand (letting 3rd wave feminist ideology drive male behavioral tendencies) the author is very honest in saying they have no solutions. They admit that gendercide is something they’ve been accused of (something no rational or moral human would (see China’s 1 child policy)), but they do not advocate. So what is the point of this article? I’ve always liked the idea that you don’t bring up a problem unless you provide at least three solutions (while 3 solutions is not always realistic the principle applies).
We’re also back to the issue of if this is how betas get bred out of the population finally or the uncomfortable issue of which of us are going to reproduce, are worthy of reproduction etc.
So why are we discussing the negative repercussions of living in a world where our populations are not dictated by our war casualties? Are we really talking about a root cause here (Too many men for the number of women), or just a symptom?
Nietzsche, Spengler and Schopenhauer are three more examples of genius incels.
(Tesla, Lawrence of A) In the case of Tesla, the neuron fields within his brain were hyperactive, uncontained and his hardwire neuro bridges would ‘electro-arc’ and extend outward several feet into the open air, thence looping back and re entering his cranium. ‘Sparks’ coming out of your head come to mind. Ner a woman or mother or mentor could near him without squinting like they were in a severe rainstorm. A new crop of hallmark exceptional seedline like Tesla’s needs tribal contemporaries to exchange stories of advanced game needed to propogate. Find him a suitable intelligent woman who isn’t femshit but agape to womb up for him and serve him and he’d still likely be one standout among a community of dummies. His breeder woman would need the same temperment as his own mother, able to encourage open ended perceptions with a toddler without enforcing rote enforced stupidity and droll conformity. Tesla wasn’t raised to be an average wanton shagger of any random slimy hole. He just needed help and tribal support and ‘way to go’s’ from an equivalent legion.
I really enjoy your writing. It’s kind of lyrical. I gotta admit that sometimes I have troubling following your train of thought but that’s just because it’s above my conceptual level. I always get your gist though and nearly always agree with the spirit of your message. You rarely leave me a reason to respond or engage in a dialogue other than to agree with you. Do you ever write articles?
LIke myself I am a pre-cognitive psychic but why bother to procreate in this society that when it comes right down to it is allowed to exist as a host for psychopathic parasites and also a meat shield for their protection.
Call it what you want but keeping ones boots clean in a piss and shit filled medieval alley is just plain smart.
Trump needs to implement a young female immigration policy.
https://i.imgflip.com/2f7qp.jpg
Yup, either a 50/50 mix, or no women whatsoever. It pissed me off if one guy brings his girlfriend to a night of whiskey around a bonfire. If the ratio is bad, you will bring out the beta orbiter in half the guys.
Nothing worse than a woman that adds 5 dudes to her count… in just one night. Feminism…
Nora O’Donnell?
Utter nonsence crap. If the women are significant majority in the West, they will vote for Hillary and the likes of her again and again. A few men left will be further emasculated under watchful gaze of a hostile majority and breed no better son than the fucker who wrote this piece of shite. Also Hiddegard warns about Europe is failing to breed more sons (unlike the muslim world), not curbing them.
Women are a resource. Whenever a resource is denied to a group of men the imbalance leads to one of several outcomes
1. The outgrouped men do nothing and starve to death
2. The outgrouped men band together and wage war on the established men of their communities leading to the following outcomes
2a. One side wins and the losers are exterminated or severely demoted in power.
2b. One side wins and graciously allows the losers a more equitable arrangement.
2c. Both sides exhaust themselves and are in turned destroyed by a foreign group of men who have their shit together.
3. The outgrouped men are encouraged by their more established brethren to go seek out and acquire resources from other socities
3a. Colonization, e.g. Englands’ colonization of the America’s, China’s colonization of Africa
3b. Jihad. No need to explain this one.
4. The established men and the outgrouped men realize things are going in a direction neither wants, and choose to rethink the foundational principles of their society in such a way as to achieve a more acceptable result for all. And example of this would be the election of Trump.
But the one thing that must, absolutely must be understood in order to have anything that resembles a stable society is this:
WOMEN ARE A RESOURCE.
That is, they are passive objects acted upon. They are REACTIVE. Contrary to the Victorian delusions of women being angelic beings whose toe fungus deserves to be worshiped, they are, as Rooshv famously pointed out, water that fills the shape of whatever container they are placed in.
If the men of the West cannot control their instincts to put their dicks in every single female they see, then we are going to be in for a Hell of a ride. Much the same as if every man would not be able to control his instinct to piss in every lake or river he saw, sure, it’s no big deal if we occasionally do that, it becomes a massive problem if hordes of men are shitting and pissing into the drinking water. At that point the water is poisoned and totally unusable. ie, Western Women.
A lot of men bitch endlessly about the way Western women act. Russian women don’t act like this, neither do Middle Eastern women. This is not because of some magically quality that Russian or Middle Eastern women have, it is because the men of Russia and the Middle East do not put up with shitty female behavior. Since the women are reactive and want to please their men, they comply.
Therefore, the problem is not Western women, it is Western men. I see it all the time, with the insane male supplicating, the disgusting vile shit that men regularly say, and I mean this in both directions. Both with the depraved filth, and with the equally depraved pedestalization. Neither is sane or made for sustainable environment. But I would rather have a depraved PUA around then allow a God damned white knight to even be in my general vicinity. The former I can work with, albeit with some distance, but I have no end of curses for the latter.
This is because the former is open and straightforward about what he wants. I know how to check it, at least to some degree. The latter is a dishonest coward who has exactly the same intention as the former, only he wants to destroy everything I have and am so that his cowardice will give him breathing room.
The PUA will only attempt to steal my girl or make temporary use of her, it’s as much the hunt as the woman he is after. That is also very destructive, but it can be managed.
The White Knight on the other hand, is going to do his level best to cut my balls off and will pretend he’s doing the will of God, that makes him far more dangerous and destructive. He will establish laws and courts that give him every excuse to get the other cowards to rally together against me and steal everything I own or have worked for. There is no limit to how much destruction he will cause because half the time, he himself is not really aware of what he really wants since he is too much of a coward to be honest with even himself.
Hence, why I keep saying: we must recognize that women are a resource.
To sum it up: we got plenty of cannon fodder
1:1 ratio is unnatural, indeed; yet, it is the fruit of the advent of modern medicine, combined with toxic influence of the tenets of French Revolution that made “every baby MUST survive” (because of “egalité”…) policy, the primary directive.
Earlier, the initial LACK of robustness in male infants made natural selection (and the ratio, accompanying it..) – natural and simple.
Screeching liberal “opponents of eugenics”, by defying nature, became enforcers of DYSGENICS/CACOGENICS, that we witness today…((
It sounds like this article is saying that feminists who want to reduce the male population by 90% are correct. I thought this was an anti-feminist site, not an anti-male site.
You should understand that the pussy beggar who write that is afraid by the competition of betas 🙂
I haven’t even read the whole article yet but just wanted to say this is an expressed manifestation of what I’ve implicitly thought for awhile. I’m on a voracious reading spree now. Thanks!
The other problem is the government/corporate complex wants cheap male labor not female labor(cause that is where the money). Men make money, women cost money.
The legal immigrants let in are based on increasing the tax base. The illegal immigrants are cheap labor for corporations. There are villages in Mexico where all the men have left to be construction and farm laborers.in the USA. Whenever there is an economic boom such as Silicon valley or North Dakota oil fields, its men that do the jobs.
I will never understand females living in this feminist matrix. How can they, so easily, throw away a good guy with whom they spent years in a relationship? I will never understand that– sure, they do have a lot of options but this lack of empathy and coldness will always intrigue me.
There are an infinite number of variables in the dance between men and women. For example, among 20 year old males and female, the female has more power in the area of dating. Ten years later, the females are often divorced with kids or never married. The men tend to notice a different attitude among the women. Women are less likely to be picky when they start going downhill. The old saying is: men age like wine and women age like milk. In other words, women get old in a hurry.
When we live in a dysfunctional society, what will happen is that all the women will start chasing the top 10 percent of the guys…
The rest of the average 90 percent of the guys will end up with nothing but his right hand (left hand if you are lefty or both if you are ambidextrous)
I suggest we kill all the antifas.
There are MORE men than women in the world by a sizable margin, there are around 600 million ” surplus ” men worldwide , and ever growing , most of the cultures doing the breeding , favour males & between 7 -20 % more boys are born than girls naturally , depending on where you live. My daughters class is 70% boys !!
The very best solution is develop an effective sex drive killer for men , that has no adverse side effects & does not dampen the ” male drive ” to get things done. Even more desirable men would use this , & this would also make women even happier , no more ” thirsty ” men pestering them.
I wonder if in China, many men are resorting to faggotry so they have something to stick their dick into
I wonder also , if they have the common courtesy to give each other a reacharound ??
Sorry, haven’t dwelt on the subject.
They’re going to Vietnam, Thailand, etc to look for wives
This would mean that in the “old days” men were more valuable than women, as women cannot survive in the wild without male strength, courage and willingness to protect them and their children.
Thus, this upsets the eggs are more valuable than sperm argument of so many sites. Although, with so many men here now, it is true.
Also, in the present day the quality of men has greatly declined through the gene pool not being weeded out as is needed periodically.
So let’s see, I had 2 choices. Spend a shitload of money on a fat bitchy cunt, or spend money buying dual Titan X Pascals and run those suckers in SLI, and play every single video games maxed out in 4k.
I think the choice was clear.
You ladies should settle for the not so good looking and ugly men, cause all of the pretty boys are gays
In a way, you could say that feminism is the price we must pay for
living in peaceful conditions where we don’t have to risk our lives to
fight for our tribes as men were meant to.
Put beautifully. Can’t overcome demographic reality with spot fixes.
Some just don’t get it. Some get what they deserve and others get what they need. Been married 40 years,great kids, grandkids. You have to want it.
How many words to just suggest that when there are much more women than men, then the men have more chances to feel “alpha”.
I especially loved this part:
“Oneitis and other beta tendencies that come with real or perceived
scarcity (which in turn bloats the self-perceived SMV’s of females even
further).”
Translation:
“Betas begging for sex makes my chances even lower – betas are harmful to alphas”.
It’s not how it works: feminized pussy-beggars actually make masculine men looking better, looking special.
You are still unable (or unwilling) to understand how it works and that women operate a selection, no matter how many men there are around: in a world with just only 20% men and 80% women then women would go for the top 20% men, that is 4% actual population, still 1-in-5 men. Other men would all settle, due their scarcity, but women would settle with them due desperation, not due genuine attraction.
>Masculine energy needs to be re-channeled to alternative outlets like video games, movies, and sports so that men don’t ever wake up
We can be awake and recognize game but find it all too bothersome and make an informed choice to game instead of working on game.
Way to alienate your audience, genius. I have read this site for years, but this one article kills any loyalty, because you obviously have none. Maybe you’re the one who should be killed off. If this is a joke, better explain in a hurry asshole.
At this stage, the most advantageous action for Western Men to do is to embrace a soft form of globalism; western men travel abroad and marry foreign brides. American culture is too gone and american women have too many options.
i dunno; i doubt MGTOW are the low-value men
painfully away they are the bottom 20%.
That sounds more like TFL to me.
If society ever goes rogue, I’m turning to the first tribe willing to kill male feminists. Beta men don’t bother me as I don’t think all great male qualities are concentrated in solely the alpha. Some of the best men I’ve met were Beta so I have no hatred towards that alone…. But those male feminists; the simps that created half these problems. Traitors will be the first to taste dirt before the great purge begins. Many of us will be sure of it.