Men of the West

[M.2]

I would like to open a thread regarding masculinity, and also the lack thereof.

(I really hope this gets past moderation despite some of the unorthodox claims I may make, because I consider this topic very very important.)

 

I'm sure we have all seen the meme comparing a Young male model, essentially indistinguishable from a 9yo girl, to a grim medieval Templar knight ready to behead some heathens.

Seeing all the memes comparing the wussy men of today and the badass men of the past, there seems to be a certain awareness arising among young men in particular that something is headed in a terribly wrong direction pertaining to masculinity.

 

I myself am a young man, but I have only noticed this problem when I moved to the West. In my case, at age 11, when I had a conflict with another western boy, I was shocked to find that it was strictly prohibited to engage in... aggressive physical dialogue. I was completely baffled, since until then all I ever got for fighting was the slight wagging of a finger. In my mind, the mutual agreement to fight a duel was a completely legitimate way to solve a problem. It did not traverse the non-aggression principle, since both of us took part willingly.

 

Getting to the point... What I witnessed was that prohibition of fighting never solved any underlying problems between boys. Instead, the boys began learning what the girls were doing. Boys no longer sorted out conflicts between themselves as men, but they gossiped about each other, ruined each others property, or worse, ran to the teacher (government) to resolve the conflict. This never in my experience resulted in reslution, rather it simply deepened the distrust between boys, added more injustice upon injustice, and in the end boys never truly learned how to behave like a man would have to in the real world that lies beyond the walls of Hadrian.

 

Contrastly, in Eastern and Northern Asia, men still fight. (You may want to look up how members of the South Korean Parliament behave on special occasions, because it is pretty funny.)

There are several reasons why fighting is still culturally acceptable in Japan, Korea, Russia, Mongolia and Taiwan in particular.

• Conflicts will happen. These countries live in an eternal awareness that an invasion from... China lets say is always a possibility. And the sheer man-power of the PLR suggests that every single man will have to take his part.
• In more everyday situations, individual people, just like nations, have, always will have insoluable conflicts of interest. Therefore, some conflicts will have to decided though brute force (see WW1 and WW2).
• Contrary to what the Victorians said, a duel is not a barbaric act of violence, but in fact it is mere communication. If a man is willing to fight me for his interests, that indicates a lot of good qualities: perseverance, backbone, courage, stamina, and provided that he keeps the unwritten rules of war, he is also a gentleman. Therefore, I no longer would want him as my enemy, but as my ally, and no matter who wins the battle, my respect for him is undying.
• Most fights in East-Asia are basically duels, and they hardly ever get legal authorities envolved. Even when one party is severely injured, if the fight was fair, nobody takes it to court, and in such cases, the prevailant takes the victim to the hospital.
• It teaches a few vital of life lessons such as: life isnt fair, there is no mommy nor a government, humility, independence, the value of male friendship, alertness, the fragility of Human Life.

This is my opinion on what is wrong with the men of today.

[grithin]

The west, now, has such varied collection of men with varying levels and qualities of masculinity that I'll confine my focus to US white males.  The primary issue I gather is what Stef has mentioned before: schools are engineered to raise females.  And, females are generally forced to aggress in indirect ways as a consequence of meekness.  And, those maintain direct aggression are either stupid, and become criminals, or are intelligent, and become hyper dominant predators.  And, the becoming predators is, I would guess, a consequence of having no cultural tribe.

[Donnadogsoth]

"I'm a dick, and I want to break your nose" is the epitome of masculinity?

 

How about a nice rap battle?  I hear Mr. John Skelton's got some rhymez...

[M.2]

"I'm a dick, and I want to break your nose" is the epitome of masculinity?

I'm sorry. Could you point out where I said something like that? I would be happy to modify my point, were it so misunderstandable.

 

if it helps, I'll try clarifying something.

When I look for a male friend, I only look for those whom I can go to war with, those who will not "shoot me in the back" either because of stupidity, incompetence, mental problems, physical weekness, dubious moral fibre, or the ​unwillingness to punch someone in the nose.

​In order to become able to punch somone inthe nose, you have to have been punched in the nose before, and also to have punched a number of others in the nose. Whether it happened because you were a jerk, or a hero, I really don't care.

[Donnadogsoth]

I'd be happy to, but where did your original post go?

[M.2]

I'd be happy to, but where did your original post go?

This was the third time I tried to start a conversation on this topic, but apparently this is the only thing on FDR not open to intellectual discussion, hence subject to removal. Funny thing is that I visited the Community Guidelines multiple times to see what I did wrong. Oh well... I tried.

 

​​NO LONGER RELEVANT

Edited March 10, 2017 by Mishi2

[Donnadogsoth]

This was the third time I tried to start a conversation on this topic, but apparently this is the only thing on FDR not open to intellectual discussion, hence subject to removal. Funny thing is that I visited the Community Guidelines multiple times to see what I did wrong. Oh well... I tried.

 

Perhaps if you rephrased the matter in terms of sports.  Men often define themselves in terms of ritualised conflict like sports and games, so perhaps that is where you should locate your argument.

[grithin]

"It teaches a few vital of life lessons such as: life isnt fair, there is no mommy nor a government, humility, independence, the value of male friendship, alertness, the fragility of Human Life."
These things are all teachable outside of fighting.  A video game, for instance, can teach most of these things.  Not only that, but not only are some of these things not taught in fighting ("life isn't fair", "humility", "there is no mommy ..."), but some of these things are specifically taught against ("humility" (for the winning party), "independence" (reliance on groups)).  And, the "fragility of Human Life" is only observed upon injury, which, when young, is usually much confined due to the lack of strength.

I think your perspective might be skewed by having had schoolyard squabbles.  And, perhaps Stef's recent video on "play" might illuminate wherein lies part of the present deficiency of parenting practices.  But, as far as I got into the video, it lacked a recognition of how the inter-negotiation of some sports, and of some video games, serve a similar, though not comprehensive, method of learning to socialize, negotiate, and experiment.
 

[Donnadogsoth]

Rereading what you wrote, you talk of what amounts to honour, that mutually agreed-upon fights are honourable.  Yet what mechanism should there be to police and punish dishonourable men who are simply bullies or thugs dressing up their assaults as "duels"?

 

EDIT:  Yes, I'm curious, what are the Mongolian rules of engagement?  And, why ask you here instead of in a new post?

[M.2]

I can see your point, grithin. And I have just listened to Mr.Molyneux's last speech as well, and I found every word true. But he talked about "peace-time" situations. I would like to discuss situations that go beyond that, meaning... war.

 

What first prompted me to write this long rant was an experience of mine at one of the refugee camps. Where we (refugee service workers) arrived to the sight of 100 newcomers (all military age men) lined up for some reason in front of the building we were supposed to go to. This was most unexpected, but it was the April of 2016, so the Second wave was already underway. We (the refugee service workers) were not well acquainted, but all the women suddenly lined up behind me as a squad of troops would behind a Tiger1 Tank, even though I was the youngest male of the team. This was because the women all recognised the situation for what it was, and they all instinctively knew that I was the only one who knew how to deal with physically dangerous situations. And I myself looked around and immediately knew that none of the men around me ever had a physical confrontation in their lives, and that I could not count on their help. Thankfully, nothing happened that day.

 

• ​Life isn't fair: nothing teaches this better than when you have to protect your little brother of 6 years from three boys of 10 when you are only 8.
• Humility: when when you get your a$$ kicked for having a big mouth, that is when you first learn what humility is. Cheapest course available.
• No mommy: When you get effectively 2 seconds to decide whether you want to get a knife in the belly or 3 broken ribs, that is when you realise how little you are allowed to whine in the real World. And you still have to figure out a way how to drag yourself to a hospital.
• Friendship: No friendship is tested until only the two of you stand before 6 older guys all ready to grind both of you to shreds. It's truly fascinating how much one can learn about his best friend in 2 minutes.
• Fragility of Human life: there is no moment like the one you experience when you stand over your beaten, pathetic, stripped of his pride, borderline weeping opponent who you were ready to murder only 5 seconds ago. Then you suddenly realise that you could just as well be in his place, because we are all pathetic, weak. Then you realise how terrible violence truly is, and next time you will do better to avoid it.

 

Rereading what you wrote, you talk of what amounts to honour, that mutually agreed-upon fights are honourable.  Yet what mechanism should there be to police and punish dishonourable men who are simply bullies or thugs dressing up their assaults as "duels"?

Thanks for the question.

The answer is simple. You. You will punish them. Because remember, there is no mommy, no government. By the time they arrive, 7 germans are already dead.

As I mentioned earlier, there are certain unwritten rules of war in every Society that everybody knows. I only know how the rules in Mongolia are, but I would be happy to write them down for you in detail if you are interested. Just edit your post above to let me know.

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎03‎. ‎10‎. at 11:14 PM, Donnadogsoth said:

Rereading what you wrote, you talk of what amounts to honour, that mutually agreed-upon fights are honourable.  Yet what mechanism should there be to police and punish dishonourable men who are simply bullies or thugs dressing up their assaults as "duels"?

 

EDIT:  Yes, I'm curious, what are the Mongolian rules of engagement?  And, why ask you here instead of in a new post?

I thought it may be simpler for you to edit your already existing post instead of writing a new one.

 To be clear, I am in no way advocating for violence. I am simply describing how cultures in East Asia, particularly how Mongolians view violence in everyday life.

All rules apply to men only. Catfights are unacceptable in East Asia.

 

Rules of War of the Mongols

 1. What a fair fight means:

·         A fair fight is essentially what we call duelling. They are consentual by all parties, and have unwritten rules. Unfair fights are by at least one party unconsentual, and at least one party does not honour the rules. Both are considered war.
·         A duel is communication. Primarily it is a statement that two or more parties make, claiming that they cannot coexist, but also that they would be willing to do away with each other “honourably”. Not because they respect each other, but rather because they respect themselves.
·         Unlike the Japanese, Mongolians use no tools or weapons.
·         Allies, meaning people who haven’t been offended, but support one side, are not expected to take part in the fight, unless of course the opposite side breaks a rule. (This rule does not apply in China and Korea.)
·         Big no-nos: Laying hands on an innocent person, insulting somebody’s mother, or hitting below belt can warrant your death even in the eyes of your allies.
·         What I mean by “offended”: In Eastern Asia, social harmony is paramount. Even the slightest hint of hostility may send a signal equivalent to saying that you want the other to die. The word “offence” is not the same as understood by the SJW of the West.

2. Prelude:
·         Violence begins where words fail... When circumstances arise in which at least one side deems there not to be room left for words. This usually happens when one party has been severely offended either by words, actions, or simple disrespectful gestures of any sort.
·         The severity of the offence is immediately evaluated by the offended, and discernment is made about whether or not a reaction is worth it. The ages of the parties, the statuses of the parties, potential collateral damage to persons or property are all taken into account. If the offended judges that it is worth it, then he makes the first move towards escalation.
·         The offended party has to make a clear statement that they have been offended. This can manifest itself through the making of a relatively loud and harsh verbal statement, and demanding compensation.

·         Next the supposed offender has to recognise the situation and make evaluations for himself the same way by judging if escalation is a sensible option. Is the offender admits fault, and extends an apology and a hand, then the offended is in most cases expected to accept and cease escalation.However, supposing that either the offender does not admit fault, or that the offended does not accept an apology as worthy compensation, then they are both bound to fight.

 

 3. Cold War:

·         Before the first punches are thrown, parties attempt to discourage each other from fighting through display of strength and willpower, specifically by making menacing eye-contact, throwing and breaking something, being loud, or in classy ancient roman fashion, being dead silent and calm.
·         After the fighting parties have demonstrated how offended they are, the one best demonstrated is expected to throw the first punch. However, this honour can be handed over to the other party by a simple tap on the opponent’s head. (I believe this gesture only exists in Mongolia, and maybe Japan in another form.)

 

4. The fight itself:
·         In Mongolia, the first punch is most often a blow in the face, or if humiliation is a goal, a very big slap. As far as I know, Koreans love to start by kicking (horribly inefficient), and Russians by pushing.
·         After the first few punches, it is customary for the allies to step in and offer to break up the fight. By this time, both sides have ideally gotten a punch in, and also felt that of the other. If both still strongly insist on continuing, they should not be restrained, for that would not be proper. That said, in 80% of cases, this is where they end the fight
·         In other cases, the fight is usually over within 4 minutes. With the end result being one party utterly destroyed, or one party running away.
·         It is customary to end fight when someone gets injured, or if they do not get back on their feet.

5. Conclusion
·         When a victor emerges, supposing that the initial cause of the confrontation was not unforgivably severe, and if both sides have shown flawless honour and courage, it is customary for the victor to extend a hand and make peace. In this case, if my experience means anything, these two parties will never fight again.
·         If peace is not made, either because one ran away, or if in some other way shown dishonour, he will have forever dishonoured himself, and therefore, nobody will ever trust him.

 

 - Nobody who is healthy likes fighting. However, it is a fact of life that men wage war.

After the world wars, the West has picked up this unorthodox notion that violence only brews violence, therefore violence must be avoided AT ALL COSTS.
Basically all other cultures tolerate violence, and see it as an acceptable form of communication. Like all communication, this too has rules in every culture.

[Iron Horse]

It is the qualities that make a good fighter that are lacking in masculinity.  Aggression, confidence, risk-taking, strength physical & mental, the need to compete, the urge to be better than others and more.  All of these are discouraged in males.  Said it many times in chat, a draft would remedy this.

[RichardY]

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that in large parts of the west the populations and cultures are so diverse and numerous that uniform rules of engagement don't apply in any way. I think it would be great if political leaders would fight each other to the death rather then declare war, but it ain't happening. For the rest of the population, choosing between a shiv in the side or a more honest form of aggression, no contest really imo. Can see on Youtube gangs of Serbs and Muslims fighting each other in pitched fights. Serbs basically win, because they have way more upper body strength.

 

Western culture is also very hedonistic and materialistic. Family ties are generally pretty weak, especially in the northern countries. I mean thinking of the Northern European countries housing is pretty dispersed, with the exception of former industrial cities. In the more southern European countries they have the families living much closer together, tend to live much more in apartments.

 

I think it would be great if the welfare state was ended Or as large sections of the population depend on or want social welfare(single mums especially), pay for it all locally, without debts. Pursue principles of equity to their logical conclusion which would end up investing authority in small groups and at the individual level. How this could be implemented and what groups would be willing to implement this again I do not know (I'd really like to), but traditionalism is going to take generations to implement if at all, unless its Sharia.

[grithin]

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that in large parts of the west the populations and cultures are so diverse and numerous that uniform rules of engagement don't apply in any way. I think it would be great if political leaders would fight each other to the death rather then declare war, but it ain't happening. For the rest of the population, choosing between a shiv in the side or a more honest form of aggression, no contest really imo. Can see on Youtube gangs of Serbs and Muslims fighting each other in pitched fights. Serbs basically win, because they have way more upper body strength.

 

Western culture is also very hedonistic and materialistic. Family ties are generally pretty weak, especially in the northern countries. I mean thinking of the Northern European countries housing is pretty dispersed, with the exception of former industrial cities. In the more southern European countries they have the families living much closer together, tend to live much more in apartments.

 

I think it would be great if the welfare state was ended Or as large sections of the population depend on or want social welfare(single mums especially), pay for it all locally, without debts. Pursue principles of equity to their logical conclusion which would end up investing authority in small groups and at the individual level. How this could be implemented and what groups would be willing to implement this again I do not know (I'd really like to), but traditionalism is going to take generations to implement if at all, unless its Sharia.

 

It's lose the welfare state or else be outcompeted and lose the dollar reserve status, and turn into venezuala.  And, based on what Trump has said, he recognizes this.  However, along with the power section that is trying to subvert the culture (turn the country islamic (obama)), theres a older power section (socialists) bent on world government who's step in that goal is the destruction of the US.

 

Even if you lost the welfare state, the combination of qualities of our public schools of being inefficient and being indoctrination systems still renders our ability to compete marginal.

[Donnadogsoth]

This is fascinating stuff, Mishi2, thanks for posting this.

 

I agree that the West has effectively pronounced all real violence an evil, as we see for example with schools where boys who start fight clubs are seriously reprimanded amidst scandal and all the good people get a chance to feel "shocked," rather than organising the boys into a nice, healthy boxing club.  Paradoxically, Western movies and tv shows are filled with horrific and extreme violence, murder, and torture.  You say this attitude has come from the World Wars, I would second that, but ask, why the West, why then?  Other times and places have endured terrible wars, China has been bathed in blood.  Did the major bloodspillings there lead to ages of pacifism?

 

Also, could this be related to Western obsessions over what constitutes consent in romantic relations?

[M.2]

Hey, thanks for reading, Donnadogsoth.

 

When I brought up the Wars, it was not as the cause, but rather as an approximate point in time where I can see the seeds of this problem of immasculation sprouting. If you have an idea of what event may have kickstarted this issue, I would love to hear it.

 

- I think all of this, in some way, ties back to the question of totalitarianism vs libertarianism. It all depends on how much the people of a Society trust each other to run their personal lives the way they want to.

- I know the title says "west", but the symptoms of immasculation are already showing in the East, for example in Japan, China, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, India. Whereas to the West, (as RichardY pointed out) countries like Serbia, Russia, Bulgaria, have far yet to see this trend get as bad as it has in Sweden or Germany.

What this trend correlates with very earily, is increasingly  intrusive government. You can spot the trend even among US states.

 

And to your question probably yes, as Gavin McInnes often points out, feminist politicians have basically made it illegal to flirt with a woman, as they deem it sexual harrassment. Even though most of what flirting consists of has been a natural part of the mating ritual since the beginning of time.

Just as they want to outlaw perfectly consentual male communication, they want to outlaw communication between the sexes.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

Hey, thanks for reading, Donnadogsoth.

 

When I brought up the Wars, it was not as the cause, but rather as an approximate point in time where I can see the seeds of this problem of immasculation sprouting. If you have an idea of what event may have kickstarted this issue, I would love to hear it.

 

- I think all of this, in some way, ties back to the question of totalitarianism vs libertarianism. It all depends on how much the people of a Society trust each other to run their personal lives the way they want to.

- I know the title says "west", but the symptoms of immasculation are already showing in the East, for example in Japan, China, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, India. Whereas to the West, (as RichardY pointed out) countries like Serbia, Russia, Bulgaria, have far yet to see this trend get as bad as it has in Sweden or Germany.

What this trend correlates with very earily, is increasingly  intrusive government. You can spot the trend even among US states.

 

And to your question probably yes, as Gavin McInnes often points out, feminist politicians have basically made it illegal to flirt with a woman, as they deem it sexual harrassment. Even though most of what flirting consists of has been a natural part of the mating ritual since the beginning of time.

Just as they want to outlaw perfectly consentual male communication, they want to outlaw communication between the sexes.

 

 

From my reading I'd say the Nazi Holocaust is what killed the West. Before, the West could have been taken to task for the Great War or for colonialism or for busting up Gay bars or for disputing whether women were persons under the law, but, the Holocaust laid bare a festering potential for total evil that demanded a social response, whereas Communist crimes were too peripheral and unknown to have a similar effect. The response was the Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, which spawned a hydra movement known as cultural Marxism, to annihilate the white, the male, the heterosexual, and the Christian by hook or by crook.

 

Totalitarianism and libertarianism are goals, not groups. The groups in tension are the oligarchs versus the republicans: the rule by the few for the few, or the rule by the all for the all. The grand strategic methods these groups use are, respectively, synarchism and conservatism. Synarchism involves funding and fostering contradictory political movements to achieve the end of totalitarianism: these movements include cultural Marxism/international socialism/communism, national socialism, corporatism/free trade, zionism, and include such strategies as mass migration, television/Hollywood, pornography, anti-male/white/Christian censorship, drug legalisation, and the drug war (as currently constituted). Conservatism, on the contrary, as I use the term, involves the deployment of Christianity, Classical humanism, and nationalism to provide standards, templates, and principles for the construction of, as Schiller says, "the most beautiful of all works of art...true political freedom,"

 

Oligarchy --> Synarchism (Marxism/fascism) --> Totalitarianism

Republic --> Conservatism (Christianity/Classical humanism/nationalism) --> Liberty

 

Christianity without Christ essentially equals Marxism, but without the checks to totality and cultural liquidation that Christianity imperfectly gives. Christianity serves as a partial innoculation against Marxism but now that Christianity has been all but hounded out of the public sphere we are open to infection.

[meetjoeblack]

I would like to open a thread regarding masculinity, and also the lack thereof.

 

There are several reasons why fighting is still culturally acceptable in Japan, Korea, Russia, Mongolia and Taiwan in particular.

• Conflicts will happen. These countries live in an eternal awareness that an invasion from... China lets say is always a possibility. And the sheer man-power of the PLR suggests that every single man will have to take his part.
• In more everyday situations, individual people, just like nations, have, always will have insoluable conflicts of interest. Therefore, some conflicts will have to decided though brute force (see WW1 and WW2).
• Contrary to what the Victorians said, a duel is not a barbaric act of violence, but in fact it is mere communication. If a man is willing to fight me for his interests, that indicates a lot of good qualities: perseverance, backbone, courage, stamina, and provided that he keeps the unwritten rules of war, he is also a gentleman. Therefore, I no longer would want him as my enemy, but as my ally, and no matter who wins the battle, my respect for him is undying.
• Most fights in East-Asia are basically duels, and they hardly ever get legal authorities envolved. Even when one party is severely injured, if the fight was fair, nobody takes it to court, and in such cases, the prevailant takes the victim to the hospital.
• It teaches a few vital of life lessons such as: life isnt fair, there is no mommy nor a government, humility, independence, the value of male friendship, alertness, the fragility of Human Life.

This is my opinion on what is wrong with the men of today.

 

I love and listen to FDR/Stefan religiously. No matter how long or absurd length of time, i listen. I am tuned in. A similar theme I notice is that, Stefan points out to a problem which is quite evident even if it goes to deaf ears amongst the mainstream media. Still, I feel like Stefan fails to point out to a solution. For example, the single mother victimhood, the prey and spray, jump of generation of women, children out of wedlock, sloot gonna sloot, and Stefan's solution is basically; wait for the state to fail. So, a woman then needs a man because the parade of free money and government welfare state runs dry. This is not a solution. Nor an ideal way to find a good mate, wife, mother of my future children.

 

Similarly, you point out the problem and I completely agree with you but, I fail to see your solution? Or are you coming in seek of an answer?

 

 

 

 

Is it all ironic? We see how society and mainstream media demonizes man. Man is putz shamed, made to look stupid, being cucked is promoted on tv or in hollywood movies, and being a limp dick is the place of man in society. The aftermath is neo-masculinity, pua, Julien Blanc. WHen you snub and trash masculine behavior, it comes back with a bite. The same is with radical feminism. It is a counter balance.

 

The most ironic part is that, women despite everything are so fucking unhappy. They want the top 1% percent of man. This is female hypergamy. She cannot find that because they are so few and far between. Most importantly, it is a monopoly that the dude owns. I see a problem to but I cannot escape the reality. Marriage is a nightmare for men. Dating is rotten. The majority of women are liberal, are adverse to competition, perpetrator one money, female victimhood the next.

 

 

 

 

I came here because I want to explore my consciousness; continue as a free thinker, seek self knowledge, self awareness, and start a family one day. The problem is that, it is an absolute mess. The nuclear family is in ruins. Women think it is cool to sloot gonna sloot. its ok because some cuck will still marry her and raise her kids allocating his resources to fix her problems. 

 

 

I am going to stake my claim in the free market and dating world. I will approach a lot of women. I will take numbers, I will get rejected, and flaked but I will date, bang, and through this process, I will meet someone idea or I never will. Regardless, I wont look back and regret not taking a chance.

[meetjoeblack]

 

Hey, thanks for reading, Donnadogsoth.

 

When I brought up the Wars, it was not as the cause, but rather as an approximate point in time where I can see the seeds of this problem of immasculation sprouting. If you have an idea of what event may have kickstarted this issue, I would love to hear it.

 

- I think all of this, in some way, ties back to the question of totalitarianism vs libertarianism. It all depends on how much the people of a Society trust each other to run their personal lives the way they want to.

- I know the title says "west", but the symptoms of immasculation are already showing in the East, for example in Japan, China, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, India. Whereas to the West, (as RichardY pointed out) countries like Serbia, Russia, Bulgaria, have far yet to see this trend get as bad as it has in Sweden or Germany.

What this trend correlates with very earily, is increasingly  intrusive government. You can spot the trend even among US states.

 

And to your question probably yes, as Gavin McInnes often points out, feminist politicians have basically made it illegal to flirt with a woman, as they deem it sexual harrassment. Even though most of what flirting consists of has been a natural part of the mating ritual since the beginning of time.

Just as they want to outlaw perfectly consentual male communication, they want to outlaw communication between the sexes.

 

 

They can go fuck themselves. I am still going to approach. I am just more chill about it. Instead of asking a woman out, I will just be casual about things, and keep it as such.

I think it would be great if the welfare state was ended Or as large sections of the population depend on or want social welfare(single mums especially), pay for it all locally, without debts. Pursue principles of equity to their logical conclusion which would end up investing authority in small groups and at the individual level. How this could be implemented and what groups would be willing to implement this again I do not know (I'd really like to), but traditionalism is going to take generations to implement if at all, unless its Sharia.

 

I do to as does Stefan but, it is not a solution to the problem of female crazy.

 

Its like, well, sexual market value has plummeted or a woman just hit the wall. Not she is putting on the good girl act and "isn't like that anymore." She isn't going home with alphas or running through playboys anymore. No. Its not maturity. Its that the alphas and playboys are now banging the hotter younger women.

 

The same applies here. The welfare state failing so, women fallback on men, on going back to the kitchen and sandwich making means shit since it is pretentious. It is not real. It is not her nature. There is a identity of crisis. If not for war or a zombie apocalypse, women don't need a man until, whoops, now she does.

 

If there was a breakout of refugees here the way of Germany, women and feminists voted it in here in the west, I wont be there going down on my shield to protect the women. I would be there for my mom, my family, wife, and children plus friends. Not this Woman's March manipulative absurdity.

 

I want a solution but, the parade of free money ending because the government failed is not the answer. This would mean they would starve and genes are weeded out of the existence. Women would change out of necessity. Now, finding a woman of substance is extremely tough so, men suggest to red pill her or hope to find one who has unplugged from the Matrix.

 

In approaching lots of women, I cannot describe how challenging it is, how gross the dating pool is but, what other alternative does a man have? So I continue to approach.

 

Online is a cesspool of single moms and sloots. In approach, there is an abundance of liberal, democratic, lieftist, SJW women. Absurd kill count. Will soon be posting on reddit in egg freezing threads and throwing cats in her old age. Its never self ownership. Its always female victimhood. Approaching is time consuming and yield is obnoxious more times then not.

[M.2]

I love and listen to FDR/Stefan religiously. No matter how long or absurd length of time, i listen. I am tuned in. A similar theme I notice is that, Stefan points out to a problem which is quite evident even if it goes to deaf ears amongst the mainstream media. Still, I feel like Stefan fails to point out to a solution. For example, the single mother victimhood, the prey and spray, jump of generation of women, children out of wedlock, sloot gonna sloot, and Stefan's solution is basically; wait for the state to fail. So, a woman then needs a man because the parade of free money and government welfare state runs dry. This is not a solution. Nor an ideal way to find a good mate, wife, mother of my future children.

 

Similarly, you point out the problem and I completely agree with you but, I fail to see your solution? Or are you coming in seek of an answer?

Thanks for the posts!

 

In short, I don't necessarily came here for solutions, but merely to discuss problems issues and to acquire helpful info, and if someone has a solution for anything, I shall take it. So if you say there is a solution, please shed some light on it.

 

I think you mistake the role of Mr.Molyneux. He is a philosopher. A philosopher does not have to come up with a solution, as that it the job of politicians and scientists. In fact, it would be quite concerning if he claimed to know the answer to everything he talks about on this show.