Wuzzums

*yes, I did mean "tread", sorry You sound like a victim which is not the mindset you want to have. You know the state is evil and that it's getting bigger and bigger. An option is presented to you that at the very least will slow its progress. So what do you do? There is no courage or consequence in doing nothing. Here's the key to success at whatever it is you want to achieve, be it good or evil, that I got from Dan Pena: "You just fucking do it." So whatever it is you think might bring forth your desired outcome, doesn't matter what it is, just go out and do it. And please, please for the love of Kek, don't just sit in the middle of the road and take away the momentum of others.

Is there a "I let people thread on me" principle you follow? Because it sounds you have a "I let people thread on me" principle. With the death of a lot of people. With the death of a lot of people. Trump.

No, you won't. If Trump loses doing so will mean jail-time, financial ruin, and/or social ostracism. Are you ready to face that? Because posting some comment on some voluntarist forum doesn't count as "echoing the voice of freedom".

What are you talking about? Everybody knows about cultural marxism and the socialist agenda. What has changed however is people's reaction to these things.

/pol/ has been on the case for almost a day now. I had to stop looking into it because 4h in and I still had no idea what was going on. Stuff like child-friendly pizza restaurants linked to doctors linked to practices located ina basement next to a jewish school of little girls. What is known that there is video proof, picture proof, evidence of treason, spying, etc. On November 5th everything will be revealed because Anon cannot pass up this excellent opportunity to make a meme out of this whole thing. "Remember, remember the 5th of November..." It also seems that Alex Jones has been 100% correct all of this time. He said Clinton smelled like sulfur, Podesta confirmed this. He said Clinton was a demon from hell, it was revealed she's a high priestess of some satanic cult. He said all elites end up dressing up as werewolves raping children, this was confirmed today by multiple sources in the FBI and NYPD. At this point I'm wondering if he's even right about vaccines and chemtrails.

NAP anti-spanking free association identifying arguments reasoning from first principles real-time relationships UPB

Heresy !

So a lawyer who went bankrupt should stop wearing suits and start wearing t-shirts?

CHOO CHOO !

A nice car, a nice watch, a nice phone, these are all trappings of success. However success is sufficient but not required to get those things therefore a man can just make himself look successful without having any success. Indeed financial status is a factor in mate selection for a woman therefore a man can raise his sexual market value by simply putting on the "I'm successful" costume/make-up. When you find out that the nice car is just a nice car and wasn't acquired through success-enabling characteristics won't you feel somehow tricked? I don't consider your workplace scenario to be manipulative. Indeed when dealing with customers professionalism is a must and not wearing the business attire, make-up included, might be an indication of how serious you take the job or not. I think what we should've done in this whole conversation is make a distinction between the scenarios in which make-up is involved. I immediately assumed we were talking about women wearing make-up in a first date/first impression type of scenario. Someone going nude on a beach is considered to be "meh, whatever". Someone going nude in a mall is considered to be mentally deranged. A married woman wearing make-up on a date with her husband most likely falls within the parameters OP first described, how it's an indication of her taking care of herself and appreciating her man.

I'm not the one who voted you down. I'll vote you up to set the record straight ! Trump is the greatest businessman that has lived and will ever live. It's irrational not to go with whatever new business he's concocted.

Trump won a long time ago. I'm so certain I'm taking bets.

I never said that it's bad or good. Not in a moral sense at least. No. Humans can understand and therefore control our instincts. This is what defines us as a species. Yes, she has power over me that I do not hold over her. In order to level the playing field I have not only to look good but also start a successful business and work 12h a day. Compare that to spending about 30min on make-up each day. I'm really not impressed by the fact a woman has make-up on. Intention cannot be manipulation, manipulation is a process, intention is a result. Therefore you could say her intention is to make me feel good fullstop or her intention is to make me feel good in order to get something else out of me. Would you not consider the latter to be manipulative seeing how I cannot resist because pretty?

You're not looked upon favorably because you're wearing make-up, you're looked upon favorably because you're prettier. Make-up just accentuates that. Speaking as a man I shouldn't be the one to explain this to you, a woman, but men lose their fucking minds around a pretty woman. It's an unconditional response. Animals start salivating when they see food, men go insane when they see an attractive female. It's biology. Attractiveness is a form of power. Make-up enhances attractiveness. A woman wearing make-up while not engaging in mate-hunting is akin to a guy with an open-carry firearm. Neither have the intention of using it but they do sure feel better (more powerful) with it at their side. Here's another analogy. There are 2 identical twin brothers that you find equally attractive. Who do you go on a date with, the one driving a Porche or the one driving a Lada? What if you find out the Porche is a rental? Do you shrug it off or is it deceit? What if he rents a Porche out even when he has to do groceries. What would that say about his person?

I never said men should expect women not to be wearing make-up. I think we're having a disagreement on what constitutes make-up or not. Again, to me make-up is any applied tricks to make someone look more attractive than they actually are. I don't consider some foundation to hide some acne to be egregious. Zits are temporary but in that particular day she's less attractive than she normally is, so some make-up of that sort doesn't say anything about her person. I do think there's a lot to say about the character of a woman that's attractive naturally and still wears glam-level make-up. None of which are good things. Personally speaking, I have a trained eye so what make-up does is just hide features that I would normally pick on which bothers me. However professionally done make-up is a different beast entirely. The type of make-up we see in movies that makes it seem they're wearing zero make-up yet are somehow way more attractive than in real life. Gotta say that's just amazing to me and I have nothing against it.

The contention people have with make-up is not that it's for attracting men, it's that it's for tricking men into finding women more attractive than they are. Or it's to hide how unattractive they are. The male equivalent of make-up is not shaving or grooming of any sort. The male equivalent is me telling lies about my life/job/person in order to appear more desirable than I actually am. I think make-up is a great invention and should be supported 100%. Whenever I see a woman with a lot of make-up on I know for a fact they're to be avoided at all costs. Saves us all a lot of time.

Yes, but lucky for me I really enjoy my own company.

You cannot live your life by relying on others. If you're your own person a time will come when the people that have shun you will have to ask something of you and because they need you and you don't need them you'll be shocked by their kindness and politeness towards you. Suck it up, become self-reliant, take notes, and have patience.

He didn't. The only axiom it uses is that 1+1 = 2. UPB basically just says that a moral rule in order to be valid cannot contradict itself if applied universally. This in turn leads to the conclusion that murder and rape are immoral because they cannot be applied universally. Stefan does say that a moral code to be a worth a damn cannot possibly condone murder and rape and it just so happens that UPB doesn't.

A lion shouldn't concern itself with the opinion of sheep.

I think it's because of the conversation format. Him and Stefan are talking and he's assuming the listening party, Stefan, knows what he's talking about, and rightly so. However Stefan always keeps in mind that there's other people "in the room" listening in which might not know the full information. The left is one giant echo chamber which is why it always comes as a major shock to them to find out there are people out there who do not know what they're talking about, or care/agree with what they're talking about.

Yes. I once wondered why this always happened and then found out about cultural marxism. There are several stages to pass through in order to achieve a communist utopia one of which is capitalism. What socialists/communists didn't expect is that people don't want to move beyond capitalism. They believed a capitalist society will inevitably collapse by itself after which people will freely accept communism as the solution. They waited, and waited, and waited, and capitalism still didn't collapse. So they decided to give it a helping hand. You know a movement has been infiltrated by the upsurge of conflict within its followers. Feminism, a movement for both men and women now the major cause of conflict between the two. Unions, atheism, conservatism, libertarianism, civil rights, and so on. Divide and conquer. They cleverly achieve this with the use of ambiguity. This youtuber called Victor Zen had a great analogy for this. Let's say you want to kill babies but killing babies is frowned upon by society. So you create/join this movement called the nutritionist movement. Within this movement you continue to kill as many babies as you want and when someone points out that's wrong and you should stop it all you have to say is: "Hey! Are you saying you're AGAINST NUTRITION?? What's wrong with you?! Hey, everyone! This guy is against nutrition, GET HIM!" What do feminists say when you attack their actions? = You're against women's rights !! What do democrats say when you attack welfare? = You're against civil rights !! What do atheists say when you attack their nihilism? = You're against science !! What do libertarians say when you attack their passivity? = You're a fascist !! What do conservatives say when you attack their snobbery? = You're rude !! This is why I always have to remind myself to judge people by what they do and not what they say. Once you spot a cultural marxist by his verbiage it's already too late.

I agree. There are leaders and there are followers. Leaders pave the road ahead and followers one by one start walking on it because it's nice, or cool, or it's what smart people do, or it gives them the moral high ground, or maybe they're just swept away with other followers, and so on. The more people accumulate the more people gather behind the follower giving him a sense of leading the heard. When the original leader takes a turn the follower cannot judge for himself thus he continues in the same direction lest he lose the other followers behind him. Kinda like inertia, if he goes the same way he's assured to remain in front of the pack because he knows the followers will do the same. He can indulge in the fantasy that he's a leader a while longer. However, the follower not being a leader cannot build any road thus it's only a matter of time until he loses his way. Same goes for the others. The ones ahead might create a faint path in the dirt for the other to follow but it's only a matter of time until they stray off and disperse in all directions until they come across another road and the whole process repeats once again. I still remember the drastic spike in atheism after a study linked atheism with higher intelligence. Their train of thought is basically: "X is sexy. X is wearing a shirt. I am wearing the exact same shirt. I am as sexy as X." Also who's Stephan?

Yeah, I dunno about that. Speaking for myself, I want an athletic looking woman, no soft body or gentle mind. There are 2 explanations I have for this. 1) Weakness of body is weakness of mind. We are not born weak or strong (yes, exceptions do exist), we become one or another through choice. When I see the classical attractive woman I just see more work for myself. If I were to choose her as mate all I have achieved is giving to myself the extra workload she's physically incapable of doing. That's not a teammate that's just some extra load on my back. 2) I remember back in highschool having crushes on traditionally feminine girls. Now I'm just annoyed by them at best. I have seen a lot of men make this switch and what they all have in common is working out or any other type of sport that makes you feel like a manly man. On fitness forums there's a general consensus that no matter how generally attractive a woman is, physically, mentally, or whatever, if she has no quad definition she is instantly docked 2 points. Please check out The Evolution of The Lifting Man for further details. Thus it might in fact not be the fault of feminism entirely. The situation we are in right now might just be a consequence of us raising our standards as a whole. What was considered a gold medalist almost a century ago now won't even make the cut. What was considered freakishly fat, like circus level fat, now is just seen as "obese". What was considered an olympic level bodybuilder now is seen as just "fit". There was a time when movies used to play the credits before the movie started, now the credits are getting closer and closer to becoming a small novel. So it stands to reason that we expect from women not only to be able to do the things they used to do in the past but also have a job. Same with men. The standards women have for men are arguably even more ridiculous. It's just human nature, infinite desires. The question is whether or not women, or men, are up to the task. So here comes an ideology that tells us that "Yes, women can do whatever a man can do and then some". Of course it's in the best interest of men to accept it because now they can ask for more from women. Of course it's in the best interest of women to accept it because it literally says i's the road to happiness and sainthood. Ultimately what feminism does is raise the expectations to far beyond what's reasonable. This results in paralysis. It's like I keep promising you I'm gonna give you 1000$ for free for years. Then I give you 100$ for free and say "That's it, you're not getting any more". You're gonna perceive it as a net loss, like I just took 900$ from you even though you're up 100$. The relationship is now tainted because you'll always be thinking and hoping of receiving what I convinced you to be "rightly yours". When women forgo their instincts and go into the workforce seeking careers, not jobs, they quickly notice that what they get is not what was promised. Naturally they should turn against feminism for lying to them but feminism has a trick up its sleeve. It created this scapegoat called the patriarchy which can be clearly defined as "that which makes women unhappy except feminism". Men are only interested in squashing it now because it just recently turned on them completely. Yes, women watch The Real Housewives and men watch WWE. Because the genders are different it stands to reason that their escapism would also be different. Do you honestly find that fainting couch type of woman attractive? I don't. In fact I'm repulsed by them. Why would I preserve her bubble? I want someone that lives in reality so it's not my duty to preserve anything.