LordTerramine Archive

Upvotes	Title	Category	Author	Subreddit	Date (UTC)

Upvotes	Comment on	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
1	The Sexodus, Part 1: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society I don't know about speciation. Usually in evolution, speciation is common and one might think it only increases over time. However once a species overcomes the barriers that could separate their populations, I doubt speciation would happen. I think the closest to speciation we will see. Is the trans-humanist idea that people will have full control on their appearance and capabilities, and thus you'll have dog people and super saiyans and whatever else you can think of. But this is simply maximal…	/r/TheRedPill	07/12/14 04:02 PM
1	The Sexodus, Part 1: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society Personally I believe this is all an inevitable product of evolution, as per that mouse experiment mentioned in the article. But I think in humans, it will result in humans evolving to become asexual. It all lines up too, considering Ectobiology is almost here. That is to say, reproduction with machines. To anyone who doesn't realize the implications... remember that the purpose to sex is reproduction. Even among homosexuals, they simply have the swapped instincts. This means that, in a weird way…	/r/TheRedPill	07/12/14 08:45 AM
1	There is a "new masculinity" wherein women & betas re-label traditional markers of male success as "sexist" or "divisive". It's a comforting mechanism by which losers will try to redefine failure as success and success as wrong. I'm not arguing that "lesser" people be killed off. I'm arguing that marking them as equal and then giving them a pat on the back is being disingenuous Well technically, you're as inequal from them as they are you. and what reason do I have to value your diversity over theirs? No, humans aren't actually all the same. It's simply the fact that no specific human is the right human. We're all flawed the same amount too, just in different ways. In this sense all humans are equal, no human is actuall…	/r/TheRedPill	07/10/14 10:59 PM
0	There is a "new masculinity" wherein women & betas re-label traditional markers of male success as "sexist" or "divisive". It's a comforting mechanism by which losers will try to redefine failure as success and success as wrong. This is insane. Welfare is a system taxpayers pay for, for themselves so they can have their asses covered. Welfare isn't a fucking handout. As for reproduction, we are OVERPOPULATED. To think that reproduction is like, some ultimate "fit" thing is nonsense. It backfires, it's doing so in our species as we speak. Evolution CHANGES, at some point we use machines to reproduce and take full control of evolution. Which reminds me. Let's say we lived in a world where all prejudices were legit. That r…	/r/TheRedPill	07/10/14 09:25 PM
-7	There is a "new masculinity" wherein women & betas re-label traditional markers of male success as "sexist" or "divisive". It's a comforting mechanism by which losers will try to redefine failure as success and success as wrong. HOW WAS HE SUCCESSFUL? Look what he left behind, nothing but ruin. He did not produce anything but destruction. Successful leading is to lead your subjects to what they would consider positive outcomes. But all these men did was leave complete ruin, suffering and hatred in their path. Martin Luther King wasn't even a government official, he didn't have some official leadership. But he most certainly was a godly king compared to the men you shared. They weren't successful at all, he vastly was. W…	/r/TheRedPill	07/10/14 07:34 PM
-6	There is a "new masculinity" wherein women & betas re-label traditional markers of male success as "sexist" or "divisive". It's a comforting mechanism by which losers will try to redefine failure as success and success as wrong. Stalin, Cheney, Putin. There are exceptions, but true leaders are ruthless Machiavellians. I hope people take a good long look. You're endorsing genocidal men. You're advocating evil bluntly. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously? Those men fall, and they have nothing to their name except monstrously spilling blood over a fraction of a dot in a vast and infinite cosmos. They could never fathom being gods, they were nothing. Worse than nothing they were pathetic. Which right now you're mak…	/r/TheRedPill	07/10/14 06:46 PM
-7	There is a "new masculinity" wherein women & betas re-label traditional markers of male success as "sexist" or "divisive". It's a comforting mechanism by which losers will try to redefine failure as success and success as wrong. They're usually different in a negative way Hm, interesting. Being gay isn't negative. Being feminine isn't negative. Not being alpha isn't negative. At least, all these things are no more negative than the thing you would call positive. In terms of natural human behavior, things have pros and cons. Being alpha has it's cons, it's not even a choice. Either you are, or you aren't and honestly it's a total pain in the ass if anything. But what can ya do. Why that matters is that given an option, m…	/r/TheRedPill	07/10/14 06:31 PM
-1	There is a "new masculinity" wherein women & betas re-label traditional markers of male success as "sexist" or "divisive". It's a comforting mechanism by which losers will try to redefine failure as success and success as wrong. Not what is discussed. Disregarding the rest of your reply. You, responded to me. Ergo, I defined what is discussed as far as mine and your interactions go. If you do not see the relevance, perhaps it is you who has comprehension issues. If they are immoral, and they do immoral things. They should suffer the consequences. It'd be like saying arresting a murderer is censure. Some actions humans commit warrant control. If you're a woman, or aren't concerned about truth over social acceptance, no i…	/r/TheRedPill	07/10/14 04:57 PM
-2	There is a "new masculinity" wherein women & betas re-label traditional markers of male success as "sexist" or "divisive". It's a comforting mechanism by which losers will try to redefine failure as success and success as wrong. People who use words like "morally evil" belong in SRS, not here. Moral posturing is a feminine, passive-aggressive strategy which is repugnant and cowardly, and only effective against people too weak to withstand social censure. Men care about truth, not group acceptance. Do you not adhere to morality? What basis do you have to criticize child rapists and murderers then? This isn't a diss to you, it's a genuine question? There is logical reasons why people like that, are invalid in their behavi…	/r/TheRedPill	07/10/14 03:49 PM
-5	There is a "new masculinity" wherein women & betas re-label traditional markers of male success as "sexist" or "divisive". It's a comforting mechanism by which losers will try to redefine failure as success and success as wrong. I make shitty jokes, deal with it. What? Where is this society of gay men that created selective pressures for women to evolve into warriors. I'm sure you're not sure how evolution works. I never claimed what you're talking about. I claimed that homosexual men are good candidates for nurturers in and of themselves and are beneficial to mothers to help them with taking care of children. And homosexual women are beneficial as warriors. Not the homosexual men somehow make heterosexual women into wa…	/r/TheRedPill	07/10/14 03:32 PM
2	There is a "new masculinity" wherein women & betas re-label traditional markers of male success as "sexist" or "divisive". It's a comforting mechanism by which losers will try to redefine failure as success and success as wrong. My god look at this, could it be? Someone who doesn't shame someone for being different. This is all I was even trying to do with my own post, but people are busy downvoting it because they think I'm somehow challenging the redpill mentality. If I were going to do that, I wouldn't do it here guys. That would just get me downvoted and blocked faster than shit. And I don't necessarily want to do that either. I am an alpha myself and am interested to peruse what is going on here. The dude in this s…	/r/TheRedPill	07/10/14 02:59 PM
-8	There is a "new masculinity" wherein women & betas re-label traditional markers of male success as "sexist" or "divisive". It's a comforting mechanism by which losers will try to redefine failure as success and success as wrong. Homosexuality has been documented in over 1500 species. That's due to abnormal prenatal testosterone exposure Prove it, back this up. The only thing I've ever seen resembling this is the fact that the more male children a woman has the more likely she is to have a gay male child, because her body gets used to using estrogen, the female hormone. But see that? It's a biological inevitability, if your mom kept having sons, she'd INEVITABLY have homosexual children. Which sidenote, seems an aweful l…	/r/TheRedPill	07/10/14 02:46 PM
-9	There is a "new masculinity" wherein women & betas re-label traditional markers of male success as "sexist" or "divisive". It's a comforting mechanism by which losers will try to redefine failure as success and success as wrong. The problem with this is all the superiority talk. It's one thing to try and defend classically masculine manly men. But then to go on to say there are losers and men shouldn't be feminine, etc is barbaric. My main beef with a group is always... do they even science. And if the answer is no, it's all too tempting to ignore EVERYTHING they say. Because look here, you're ignoring science altogether. The fact that homosexuals are natural and have existed almost as long if not AS long as sexuality. …	/r/TheRedPill	07/10/14 02:18 PM