M.2

1. The ones you listed are obviously nation states. I do indeed mean city states. 200 years ago, there was no Luxembourg, no Liechtensetein, no Vatican, no Brunei, no Quatar, no Bahrain, no Singapore... We haven't had this many city states since the early middle ages. A good 10% of all countries in the world could be considered city states, and I'm not even including the island nations and small countries. Some are debatable, of course, but the tendency is clear. 2. Well, consider this: Had the German states been independent, and not under the federal state of Germany, some states such as bavaria and saxony may not have had to deal with demographic replacement. 3. There are tiny nation states, naturally. The distinction we make between city state and tiny nation is that the city state is concentrated in a city, and has no particular distinct identity of its own, such as Monaco, where they are essentially french, whereas a nation state is not based on a city, and has a distinct culture. In fact, Luxembourg is very close to transforming into a tiny nation state, as they are beginning to develop an identity distinct from surrounding nations. 4. They are close in appearance, but definitely different in essence. 5. The beauty of city states is that they very often tend to outplay large empires. It hardly makes sense in theory, but we have seen it many times throughout history. I am not saying the debate has been settled in favour of city statehood, I think there is a case to be made based on evidence.

I have posted a very long post a year ago titled "The truth about the Migrant Crisis and Hungary", if you are interested, hard data is at the end of it with links. 1. I would guess less, because both the Balkan Route and the Mediterranean are being secured more and more. We can safely say that the Balkan route is being very well policed, due to the Balkan Wall of Hungary, Austria and Slovenia. I don't trust EU estimates, but the Hungarian police report 10-20 illegal crossings per week, which is extraordinarily low in contrast to previous years of 10 thousand per week. However, it is impossible to know for sure for the following reasons: - Many are not apprehended, especially on the mediterranean, - Many escape the migrant camps - Many register multiple times under different names - Communication among the police of various countries is extremely poor. 2. I think it differs from country to country and from ethnicity to ethnicity. Also depends on what you mean by integration. The country with the worst vetting is Germany, and the one with the strictest is Slovakia. The worse the vetting, the worse the integration, as you can assume. 3. It may come as a surprise, but not many people pay attention to what the EU are saying. The ones who get the memo, usually tend to ignore it. You can look at the bahaviour of the V4. I don't think any EU legislation or action will have any consequences. What Merkel might do, that may have some blowback in Germany, especially Saxony and Bavaria.

I have served in the refugee service for a year, so I am quite familiar with the pages, as a matter of fact I have a copy on my desk right now, and I can tell you with certainty that nobody follows the Dublin Treaty. And most ironically, it is only Hungary who actually make an effort. The EU is a joke. I wouldn't worry one bit. If however you are worried that your country might not shut their doors, that is a legitimate concern.

I was trying to make a profound point with a bit of tongue and cheek. Could have been clearer I suppose. In principio was the tribe, which eventually and inevitably evolved into a settlement. A settlement always has a government, and normally, the bigger the settlement, the bigger the government. Out of these settlements, came the first city states, of which San Marino is an old relic. The city states eventually combined into a nation state, building on commonalities, such as religion, language, ethnicity, etc. Then came the era of empires, which in my opinion had ended in the aftermath of the second world war. The last real empire died 1947, although nominally the Empire of Japan still exists. We are living the era of federalism, of which the USA was the forerunner, with the EU being the newest attempt. It seems this trend will continue, and this is your proposition. My answer is: Today there are many federations, even more nation states, and a considerable number of city states. If you deduct "nation", then you will most likely end up with city states, or one federal state. My question is: Isn't there enough reason to suppose that federations are far too unstable to expand, and that city states are popping up at far faster rates, and in addition are far more stable anyway? Personally, I see an interesting trend of fragmentation in the world, especially where federalism is being propagated.

I don't know... How do you plan on convincing San Marino. If there is a book titled "The art of Independence", it was written by San Marino.

Hi, taraelizabeth21 ! 1. Yeah, a function to condense a topic would be nice. As long as you are not accusing me of trolling (like some others have), I genuinely appreciate any input. 2. I say he is a good man and I mean it because he honestly thought boys need to be beaten to some extent. Literally every boy in Mongolia is beaten, but that does not mean every mongolian is a bad person. Now, of course, there were beatings that could be classified as "disciplining", and those that are pure rage violence. He ceased the latter very early on, when I was around 5, and later he stopped beating me completely at 9. Personally, I don't think the beating or the emotionaly abuse has to do with my abusive tendencies, because neither of my brothers turned out like me, and these tendencies were observable very early on in my childhood. I don't know, but it is worth exploring. 3. This may have some truth to it. I do recognise my behaviour as that of my father's. But again, neither of my brothers took after him in this area either, despite being exposed to the same abuse. Sure, I know we all react with varying defence mechanisms; all I'm saying is that I can't be sure. If it is anything, I suspect it's genetics, not childhood.

It's not easy to criticise the God-Emperor. His magnificence is utterly blinding to the common mortal. You can forgive Mr.Molyneux for being so feeble.

I'll contact you. You will recognise my address. That is pretty smart. I have to stick to that rule. 1. Which is why I loathed myself before. 2. Like I said, either the shit has to be very miniscule in the burger, or the burger has to be gigantic. I can only fake it to an extent, but that is more than enough to beat everyone in my age bracket. If I did not fake it, I would still be extremely desirable. But this is not the point. Lying and faking is only necessary when it serves control, which is more often than not emotional abuse. Easier said than done. I don't like myself. I try, but it's hard to make peace with myself. Anyway, thanks for the conversation. Perhaps we can continue via mail, coz this moderation stuff is boring. 1. I haven't checked it out. How does this relate to what we are talking about? Sure, I may be R selected, but it's not well established yet. 2. Ok, I agree with everything here, but not seeing your point here either. 3. I am not a player, as I have already stated. So this part does not apply to me either. 4. Nothing new. 5. I appreciate the input, and I think it would fit fabulously under another topic, but not here.

1. It is not determinism, it is math. And I did say "most", not all. Maybe you are an exception. But that is all, an exception to the rule. 2. Why would I want social engineering? I don't follow. 3. I scrolled up to view the question again, which I thought I answered well. Let me try again... We can assume that 100% of men want a wife, or some sort of partner, because the ones who don't are very few in numbers and fit in the margin of error. (Please don't ask me to pull up statistics and links, because they delay my posts 20 hours or more due to moderation.) Therefore, we can conclude that men do not choose to end up alone, although they do. In the olden days, a great majority of men used to get a wife, but not anymore. Factors are: - Essentially in every part of the world, except Eastern Europe and Southern South-America, men outnumber women by a lot. - Female hypergamy has become so bloated that only the top 20% of men stand a chance in the beginning, and only 50% in the end. - Very few women want to marry thanks to the welfare state. - The quality of women has dropped dramatically, due to feminism, so much of the women have become intolerable. Men do not have a choice - that is what I'm trying to say. The ones who do find a good woman, even MGTOW, jump on the opportunity, even if they are not searching. Again, I'm happy for you, but I don't think it is relevant. You used the phrase "looking for me" a bit back. I have assumed you are in the top 20% of men, because nobody (female) is looking for you if you are not. That is all I'm trying to convey. This is not directed to you: I speak 5 or 6 languages, depending on how you measure it, but I am having a hard time finding the words to express how stupid the reputation system is. If I made a bad point, please point it out. If you simply give me a bad rep, I will learn nothing, and the quality of the forums will not improve.

Hi, barn ! Thanks for chiming in. To me, it is just basic math. Let's say there are only 10 people in the entire world, 5 being men, 5 being women. Theoretically you can put them in order according to attractiveness; the women by their looks, and the men by whatever it is that women are into. - Men would all prefer to have the woman at the very top, but for better or worse, men propose women dispose, so men may do everything right, but in the end it is down to the women to choose. - As for the women... They will also all want the top 2 men. Statistically speaking, a third of all women will never get married, no matter their SMV. Which means we can take the 3 of the 10 women completely out of the equation. The top 2 women will take the top 2 men, as it should be. However, now that the top men are taken, the remaining 5 women will have lost their targets. Statistically speaking, 3 of the remainders will somehow manage to settle for a man, but then 2 of them will get divorced, and the other 2 come to replace them. At the end of our equation, we have 5 men who are more or less happily married, 5 who never have been. We have 3 women who are happily married, 2 who are unhappily married, 2 who are divorced with cats, 3 who never have been married. Unless you, as a man of under 40, can claim with a straight face to be in the top 20%, you did not choose MGTOW; MGTOW chose you. Unless you, as a man above 40, can claim with a straight face to be in the top 50%, you did not choose MGTOW; MGTOW chose you. I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. I don't think it matters whether or not you care what other people are doing. It is a very tragic phenomenon that is very vivid in the West. Maybe you are completely unaffacted, but you can't be sure it won't affect your children or the people you love. I myself am comfortably in the top 20% of men, yet not all of my loved ones are, and that is why I care. My heart aches for women, it literally does, and it aches more for my male friends, but above all it aches for the West. The MGTOW pheomenon must be studied and discussed in order to limit its spread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYyzmIhSfrg&t=0s Mr.Molyneux made a video on this very recently. I quote him: "...Women's standards of male attractiveness have gone through the roof. Like when surveys are done of women, and they show them sort of a random sampling of males, around 80% of the males are considered below average in attractiveness. And what this means is that in general, the top 20% of attractive men are getting the sex. And this creates an interesting and terrifying challenging cohort of men, who basically can't get involved in the sexual marketplace..." 8th minute mark. If you want more info, I can recommend MGTOW101 on youtube. I found him to be the best relayer of information regarding MGTOW.

I would love to hear more of the MGTOW community, since it is a very underdiscussed and misunderstood phenomenon. My take on it is that almost all of MGTOW did not choose to be so, and are only pretending to be masters of their state. Due to extreme female hypergamy, more than 80% of all men don't stand a chance with women in the beginning. This number decreases, of course, as the men age, but in the end, there will still be 50% of all men who haven't gotten the chance. If Spladam already rates himself omega, I don't think this is even a choice. I know so many good men, many of whom I would gladly take to the siege of Constantinole, never get any attention from women, or at the best kept in reserve to fall back on after 10 badboys, 3 children and 7 abortions. Hi, Spladam If you are counting on real good quality women to notice you, you may as well go get a lottery ticket; there are simply not enough of them to go around. Also, better not forget that you are competing for them against me. I'm sorry.

There is no question that sociopathy is somehow evolutionarily advantageous. Otherwise there is no explanation for why it is so common. To be frank, I don't know anyone else who behaves like this. I don't even know how relevant this is to the topic, but at this point almost everything seems intertwined. Background is important, no question. But if you listen to someone long enough, you don't have to know their background anymore. Asking for background is like taking a shortcut in connaisance. If I know what tribe someone is from, there is a lot I can assume of their mentality without having to ask directly. To make my point, the accent of Mr.Molyneux bothered me only during the first few videos, but by the tenth video, I didn't care where he was from anymore, because I had heard enough of his ideas. We can connect over a different medium like skype, if you feel comfortable with that. Having exchange ideas for so long, it is not a concern anyomore whether or not you are actually a 56 year old unemployed gamer larping as an anarchist. I think we could have some productive conversations. Send me a message. The debate of genetics vs free will will be going on for a while. I'm pretty sure it is more about control than praise. Maybe the case is that my father had lived so long without being in control that he does everything he can to avoid that state. I believe he mentioned something like "she stole my father from me". Here is what is definitely true: There was a short while when I was controlled by a girl. I detested myself for that so much that I have never let anyone so close to myself again. I think here is where the answer lies. I highlight this sentence, because it speaks of the weird contradiction. My lust for control is my slaver. I'm going to have to be honest with you. I don't know what region you are from, but I have had a hard time understanding you from the beginning.

I think you are coming from the extreme fear of death that one can observe manifested in the secular world. And it is quite understandable, as death is indeed scary with a bad God. God is not subject to the same rules as you are, because he is God, and above gravity. He is the one who owns your life, and he has the right to take it away. The Lord gave me everything I had, and they were his to take away. (Job 1:21)

You definitely hit A nail on the head there, if not necessarily THE nail. If one has ever spent time competing with Germans, you have to admit that Uncle Hitler had a point. There is without a doubt something superior about the Germans, and empyrical evidence proves it too. So I would say their sense of superiority is more or less warranted. However, my assessment is that the moment they start estimating themselves over God, that is when things go sideways. The Germans that seem to be displaying the worst behaviour are the seculars in Upper Germany, then the Protestants in the Rhineland, and only then come the Catholics (most of whom are nationalists anyway) You are right. I have always said that the phrase "enslaved by communism" is intellectually dishonest. It was always the stupid mob that fought for communism in their masses, always outnumbering the free people where they succeeded.

Hi, PsyEythan I know exactly what you are talking about, since I am still kinda youth. You mentioned "north". How relevant is that to your situation? How are the people there in general? - First thing you have to recognise is that public education murders interest for philosophy in children. I, for example, could only start mustering enough brain power to entertain abstract thoughts when I was being homeschooled. - Secondly, we know for a fact that not everyone is able to think abstractly. Philosophy is torture for people under IQ 90. I would go as far as saying IQ 100. - Thirdly, I'm sure you know that youngsters are just in comlete awe at the world. They haven't seen anything yet, and they know it. They are waiting impatiently for someone who will broaden their horizons THE RIGHT WAY. School does a pisspoor job at that. You have Jewish pupils, which means you have a great audience with an astronomical IQ. I have studied in Mongolia for a decade, which is around 5th in the world by IQ. Yet, wehenever anyone talked to them in an abstract and logic-oriented manner, one could have almost seen their brains going blank. It did not move them at all. Some of my teachers were very wise however, so they took the route that many great philosophers do: they told the students stories from their own lives. Stories with some weight, some suffering, some adventure, some suspense, and most importantly some lesson. They employed this tactic often to silence an unruly class, as they knew that the children will be too busy pondering over the story for at least half an hour. Another method, which you may already use, is free debate over serious issues. The youth love to see who is better, and competition is always invigorating. This what I must highlight though: After the debate, you must tell them the Absolute Truth. If you don't, you will encourage sophistry and moral and intellectual relativism. It doesn't matter who won the debate, there is only one truth, and it has been revealed to us by God. (I assume you adhere to Judaism)

1. As I said in my very first post, guil-culture is definitely a thing. There are 3 nations that lost both world wars. Germany, Austria and Hungary. All three have been relentlessly bombarded with shame since 1945. Germany wasn't even the main culprit in starting these wars either. In the first, it was clearly Austra who fired the first shot. And contrary to popular belief, it was not Germany that annexed Austria, rather Austra that annexed Germany, since Herr Hitler was Austrian. It was an Austrian that fired the first shot in the second as well. That settled, what sets Germans in Germany apart from everyone else is the unusual disability to recognise mistakes and change. "Knowledge applied is the sign of intelligence", and Germans are without question intelligent. Yet they keep on voting for the exact same leftist policies that have failed them so many times before in the last century. Both Austria and Hungary have very fluctuating election rounds, because they recognise the need for change. 2. That is true, however, you can bet that communism was a much more effective guilt-machine for the Hungarians. 600 thousand Jews were killed by the Hungary, which makes Hungarians proportionally having killed more Jews than Germany. The population of the Empire at its height was 200 mill; killed 6 million jews. The population of the Kingdom of Hungary at its height was 15 mill; killed 0.6 mill. They are simply not showing the same symptoms. Hi, luxfelix ! 1. I have to admit that Monarchy had killed its credibility with WW1. Nevertheless, there are still royal families around who have not yet relinquished their titles, and they are still only marrying with other royals, just as if they were waiting for an opportune moment to resume their full control over Europe. Adding to that, there are more silent monarchists in Europe than one might guess. In Austra, for example, a recent poll revealed that 20% of the population supported the return of the Habsburg. I think you can safely double that number though, just as you can always double the numbers of the Right. 2. I always found it rather amusing how we still call the Medieval Era "Dark Ages", when we just lived through the most brutal time period in history, which we call the "Era of Progress" with a straight face. Monarchy has a proven track record; we know of no time in recorded history when there was no successful monarchy. Whereas Democracy, has a horrible, though admittedly short record. 3. There will come a time when we will return to the way humans are supposed to live, including the Germans. 4. Power, unless forcibly kept disunited, will always centralise. That is just the way power works. You can already see it everywhere in the world. There are no examples of a shrinking government. This can result in one of two ways: Dictatorship, or Monarchy. What is the difference? There is a god behind Monarchy, while behind Dictatorship, there is only a man. Seeing how things are developing in Germany, it will be a dictatorship first for sure, unless the southern catholic states secede of course.

Ah, this is my kind of topic. Willpower requires a want , because without without an aim, there is only unactualised will; will is an intrinsic human component with the capacity for free action. In order to possess willpower it's greatly beneficial to exercise it. If you don't exercise it, you will lose it.

I lose my progress very often, but when I return, it reappears. I don't know why it doesn't for you. I have "studied", so to speak, women for a while now, and very diligently with genuine curiousity. I have read Pride and Prejudice, I watched all 3 of the Bridget Jones movies, and I watched Twilight... twice... for science of course. To be honest, it wasn't as bad as government education in terms of torment. Plus, I actually learned some real things, and I have put into practice much of it. One consistent thing that always appears in these movies is the badboy character. I have learned that the badboy thing is effective, though not WHY it is effective. Yeah. Spoken like a true philosopher. Unfortunately, you cannot launch a rocket with theoretical physics. The planet is not round, but ovoid. And we are not perfect, but fallen. Now you are getting there. It is definitely a defence mechanism for me, partially at least. It projects a little bit of confidence, yet also humility and insecurity, and the capacity to self-knowledge. I don't really remember where I picked up this behaviour. I don't particularly care to ask for the backgrounds of other people, because that is not nearly as good information as the ideas one emmits. I like your ideas so far. You remind me of myself of a couple years ago. It's alright. I am working on it. As for my father, preeminently, he is not western, by which I mean he does not behave like you would in the west. Asians are much stronger in nonverbal communication, but it is just as valid, or even more so that words. Asians value actions over words. He never said sorry, but he has done a lot to rectify what he had done. I think genetics may be important here, though I think not as important as our roman compadre would suggest. I don't really remember a time when I went out of my way to earn the praise of people other than girls with potential. That said, I don't really know who I am. I have never known, but I hear it is normal at this age. What I am striving for is forming a personality that don't feel like drowning myself in the Danube every time I cross it. Yes, we are getting somewhere. Sadly, this is as far as I ever had gone myself. Well, not yet. We still have to address the question of control and my literal lust for dominance. I out-do good guys in their goodguyness. An average good guy, or even an exceptional one, cannot fully satisfy a girl's wants. There will always be something off, and that is life, that is how it should be; there is only one Donald Trump. Unless of course I come around and present them the full package. If you had the chance to buy your dream Mercedes Benz, or the same Benz in your favourite colour, you would be a fool not to pick that one. What today's men are lacking, is usually a dominant character... which makes this my lucky era. The reason I have been so successful despite my unhealthy lust for dominance, is that my dominant nature is much closer to the preferred level than that of my peers.

1. There is a reason I greeted you saying Carolus Rex. I think Sweden has been a country worthy of admiration up until the mid 20th century. I am from Hungary and Mongolia. 2. That is good news as I take it. 3. Malmö... yeah, we have heard of Malmö, putting it as neutrally as possible. If you had to put a number on it, how many muslims do you have in your country? Also, what percentage of them are up for coexistance? I don't trust official data. 4. I think you should go on.You should open a new thread on Sweden and your experiences. In fact I think you should make an effort to be on the show to broadcast your message. Especially since you are from Malmö. I'm sure you know how extremely suppressed information is. Also, personal stories will always be more convincing than any argument a philosopher can make.

Carolus Rex! If you could post detailed descriptions of what exactly you are experiencing in your country, I know many here would appreciate it. I found FDR thanks to the migrant crisis, and I came to the forums to hear the truth from people on the ground. I don't know any Swedes, but anyone I ever spoke to, outside of FDR, from Germany, Belgium and France has been in complete denial of the situation. Although I guess one can afford to be in denial while living in the white-bread countryside. I wonder what your observations are in Sweden.

Careful. You might hurt my (I mean HIS) feelings. Ok.

I am both of those and much more. Please try to keep up.

Exactly. People are illogical and irrationall. Once you accept that, a whole lot oh history starts to make complete sense. Right, thanks You make an important distinction between beta-alpha and R-K. Something I may have missed. I think my theory is still more or less correct though, either way, I will wait for violet 's response. Of course, I meant Beta-Ks. Here is a scenario that I paint for every feminist and beta male I meet: In the future, you and your spouse are going to disagree, and you are going to disagree bigtime, on values for example, and you won't be able to resolve it through negotiation. At the end of it, either one of your wills will have to prevail, or your marriage will fall apart. As you know the old saying, war is the continuation of diplomacy. If diplomacy fails (and it will), one of you will have to back down, or you will have to escalate, maybe even to the point of violence. In this situation, it helps to have a pre-established principle of dispute-resolution. Now, you never want to bring the state or a third party into it, because all that will do is destroy the man, and nor do you want your children to be your arbiters, because that is child abuse. You have to keep it between yourselves. Which means one of your wills will have to be predeterminedly (in the marriage contract) the greater will. 1. You think that's called complimenting? Well, I have to disclose that you have seen nothing yet. On a serious note, if you look at the jabs I take at myself, you will see that I m just being honest. If I wanted to truly flatter myself, and not just in the tongue and cheek manner I did earlier, I can. 2. No, it is definitely not off-topic. I have an unusual amount of female characteristics that is pretty clear to anyone who knows me. So much so that my father used to viciously mock me for being girly when I was small. There is no question that I have some overdose of female hormones, or even a partly female brain. This is what I utilise to understand how women work. I never took a class in women's studies. It just happens that I could sympathise with them more than the average dude. 3. The funny thing is that I think I am hot only as far as empyrical evidence allows. I have the exact amount of ego that I can confirm to be warranted based on my interactions with people, particularly women. Which is again, why I play with women. Personally, I don't like my face, and I don't like my body; I have to get it confirmed to be hot every single day. 1. Excellent question. I will give you an example. This happened back in high school. If you suddenly saw me show up at a school field day with a medium sized dog in my arms that I am holding like a baby, you may think it was odd, and you would be right. When I did that, guys were amused, teachers were amused, staff were amused. But of course, they were not my audience. I was putting on the show for a particular nice girl. Because I knew what it would trigger on her. At this point, we hadn't yet talked much, but I was already "wooing" her. As far as she was concerned, this incident had already answered most of her questions. She got the signal that I was family man material. As I have said before, lying outright is not my thing, that is not our element as men, plus, women sniff it out anyway. This is just one simple incident, but I hope it gives you a sense of how I lie. 2. Yeah, I got some jewish blood. In fact, let me lay it all out for you: 20% Tsahar tribe, 20% Uzemchin tribe, 10% Northern Han, 30% Magyar tribe, 10% Hungarian Jew, 10% Danubian German. 3. I have been acutely aware of my background, since I never looked anothing like any of my countrymen. One would say my Special Snowflake claim be warranted. Keep in mind though that I have 2 brothers of the exact same stock, who are very much unlike me in these tendencies towards women.

What's your problem? Isn't that how you put it in english? If you are suggesting I visit a redlight district, you better have some good evidence to support your assumption. What conversion? Oh, I get it. A reasonable objection you have. Sex is in the package only as far as it serves domination and control. What I have been saying is that sex is not the aim. I have also mentioned earlier that I don't prefer if they can be pulled into bed because it ends the game and my high. Still, I like doing it because I'm a dude. Yet again, I prefer it drags on as long as possible without it for the sake of the high.

In historical context, these guys definitely look like the saviours of their countries. One thing about Hitler is that he portrayed such an image of christian humility, that he only wore a single medal on his chest: the wound badge that he received during ww1. About Mao, the same thing. He wore the exact same grey workers suit that everyone else in China wore. These guys knew their stuff. Good question. Apparently in English it has been published as The book of Saints . My family only had it in Hungarian, and the direct translation would be The Life of Saints. I enjoy it for the same reason that one enjoys doing crack. It literally gives me a high. And you know, we all have our vices. It's alright. Thanks. There are still a few question left unanswered, but of course I don't expect you to know everything. 1. Sorry, it is Siegfried von Walheim whom I like to call Kaiser. 2. The same way one would control a horse; with a carrot. I offer them, at least seemingly, the perfectest man that they can imagine. Women are programmed to want to keep a man like that. 3. I have mentioned in my very first post that my grandfather was a womanizer. Also that my father has been warning me about engaging with women since I was 6 years old. I guess you can also note that Mongols are not particularly famous for respecting women's free will in matters of relationship. Hi, violet ! Thanks for posting! 1. That's a fair observation. I did say though "2 years ago". I have changed a lot since, but I still have a tendency to view others as non-persons. That said, the reason I feel for those defrauded women so much is because of my astronomical guilt. Whenever I see them, I am reminded of what I do. 2 years ago, this was not the case yet. 2. The important thing is that I don't think your sister agrees with you. She does not see her husband as a psychopath, and that is the point. If he is truly a badboy, he was aiming to fool her, not you. I bet she believes him to be a true masculine man, with a strong will, but a good heart deep inside. 3. You make a looooot of good points regarding the r/k theory. I grew up in the East in the developing world, not the west though, so that theory doesn't really hold up. However... Here is the theory that yours brings to mind: In a society with limited resources, they produce R-men and K-women, and in a socity of abundance, we have K-men and R-women. As far as I can tell, there are many virtuous women in poorer societies, who get married, stay married, and have lots of children. In the west, as it seems, women have become repulsively promiscuous, and have chosen only to settle for the highest status men, hence MGTOW. As for men, there are a ton of strong and masculine R selected men, who are aggressive, willing to bang a lot of women and make a lot of babies, hence the Migrant Crisis. Whereas in the west, men don't even have sex anymore, and many have even gone MGTOW, hence the Migrant Crisis. Apparently, I am the aggressive thrid worlder who is missing in the west. I suppose this is where RK theory may play a part. 4. I like beta men, because they make good husbands. On the other hand, I have a strong contempt for them because I see in them the decay of the West. Whenever I look for a friend, I look for someone whom I can take to the next siege of Constantinople. Today's guys can't even hold a flag straight. 5. When I was small, I found it rather odd and backwards that in the Bible it says women should submit to the man. But as I got older and saw the West, it has become pretty clear to me why Islam and Christianity are still so popular. There is no such thing as democracy; It will be either the man on top, or the woman. If it is the woman though, society will collapse, as we have seen with Sweden.