Female Corruption Events

redpillschool · 2019-03-01T19:28:31+00:00

Short but sweet from Heartiste- but I thought it was worth posting: Female Corruption Events Excerpt: There are three events in modern human history one may...

[–]jason1009 36 points37 points38 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imperator_Red 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]archaic-guy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SeizeTheGreens 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]1SeasonedRP 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwlaca 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]8380atgmaildotcom 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheUnsteadyDonut 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SKRedPill1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]seedster5 -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]SeizeTheGreens 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

personal liberties

Why?

Why is the family unit not more valuable - as the family unit is the basis of a strong healthy society? Why is the word of the soldier not more valuable? He spills his blood for the country. Why not the word of man - who builds everything?

The point is the collective will always be stronger than the individual - who wins: me and my boys with a bunch of baseball bats or you with your individualism?

Repressing half the population

Who said anything about repression?

you’re afraid of what they might do with their freedom

Freedom? What is that? You are told you have freedom, but do you know what it really is? Is a man truly free if he is dictated to by a government?

Less than 5% of these fucks even show up for congressional elections. Barely half show up for presidential elections.

Lol at thinking your 'vote' is actually gonna change anything.

Look at the shit show America and the rest of Europe is in. Then look at China. In a nation of 'individuals' with 'muh freedom' everyone will pull in their own direction and nothing of importance can be accomplished - hence why a bunch of boys with baseball bats are stronger than one gritty American individualist.

rying to strip individuals of that right is even dumber.

Why?

Who said that democracy and the concept of 'natural right' (which is based on Christianity btw - meaning its based on religious dogma not rational thought - i'm only mentioning it because you shit on people who believe that the sun is carried into the sky every morning by a guy with a chariot. How is that any more wrong than believing that some dude on a cross thinks everyone is super special?)

[–]Proto_Sigma 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

China is an absolute fucking mess with a distorted sex ratio and an Orwellian spying system that decreases the quality of life for everyone in the country. The US and the West for all their problems are far better places to live and this authoritarian fetishism is both baffling and troubling to me.

There are secular frameworks for Natural Rights Theory. Robert Nozicke asserts it a priori as an assumed moral standard while Ayn Rand justified it as the metaphysically demonstrable proper state of man. From a strictly utilitarian argument free countries tend to be overwhelming wealthier and happier than enslaved ones.

The Red Pill is predicated on individualism. Get YOUR shit together, live by YOUR own rules, satisfy YOUR desires. Build and shape YOUR tribe, don't let the tribe shape YOU. If your tribe sucks, leave it. You have the power to shape your own destiny. Anyone who wants to get in the way of that can get fucked.

Also, any self respecting gritty American individualist would be carrying a gun. Your boys with baseball bats would get torn to pieces.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

distorted sex ratio

Right as if US doesn't have a problem with that too.

Orwellian spying system

So does US. In fact the US is worse. China doesn't have drones flying over its cities to monitor civilians. This was recently implemented in the US.

The US and the West for all their problems are far better places to live

How so? You can make more money in China, girls aren't fucked in the head, infrastructure is in better shape, no handouts, lower taxes (you don't pay taxes out of your ass), the population is well educated and not fucked in the head.

troubling to me

Why? You are just short sighted - unable to see past the Matrix, unable to think outside what you were taught/accustomed to. That's the same thing as the Bluepill.

Robert Nozicke asserts it a priori as an assumed moral standard

Assuming a moral standard is where his argument fails. A 'moral standard' has to first be 'proven'.

Ayn Rand justified it as the metaphysically demonstrable proper state of man

If it's metaphysical it can be discarded.

If we purport to live in a secular, RATIONAL society, how can we base our laws on 'metaphysics'? Our laws should be based on pragmatism, and 'natural rights' are not pragmatic.

From a strictly utilitarian argument free countries tend to be overwhelming wealthier and happier than enslaved ones.

I think you are confusing correlation and causation. Are Western countries wealthy because they are 'free'? Or are they wealthy because of history/geography? Western Europe is wealthy because it was rebuilt by the US as part of the Marshall Plan, but in return they have to obey the US and let themselves be occupied by US soldiers as part of NATO.

And the US got wealthy because it was separated from WW1 and WW2 by an ocean and thus invaded. So it could afford to give warring countries loans that they had to repay at exorbitant percents (for example Great Britain had to repay their WW1 loan from the US at a 3000% interest and just finished paying it off in the mid 2000's). Then because the US managed to rope Europe and parts of Asia into its influence it made USD the fiat currency. Bloomberg recently wrote an article that the USD being the international currency is the only thing keeping the US afloat and the State Department is doing everything it can to prevent other countries from dumping USD as foreign currency.

Who said they are happier? Western women have the highest levels of happiness in history, not so for women in more authoritarian countries. Western suicide rates are also some of the highest in the world for men. Seems like 'free countries' aren't that happy after all, are they?

Also, any self respecting gritty American individualist would be carrying a gun. Your boys with baseball bats would get torn to pieces.

LOL. A handgun won't help you against a bunch of bois with baseball bats. Especially if they bum rush you or the gritty American individualist is in close quarters. You think baseball bat bois are dumb to run at him from a distance with baseball bats? lol

[–]Proto_Sigma1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Proto_Sigma1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I hate Christianity and all other religions with a deep and abiding passion rivaled by few other people I've ever met. Let's make that clear.

However it originated, Natural Law is an intelligible theory independent of religion

Also, here's the actual definition of metaphysics according to Merriam Webster, verbatim.

Metaphysics(noun)

1a(1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology.

(2) : ONTOLOGY sense 2 b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience.

Your definition is a perversion of the second definition. Metaphysics is above physics; that means typically it is how we comprehend observations in reality. Does the world operate according to certain physical laws and are those laws constant and knowable? You have to assume the answer to those questions is yes before you can conduct any meaningful science, thus science is predicated on metaphysical assumptions.

[–]Proto_Sigma1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Also China's social credit scare is far more pervasive and systematic than any espionage and social control in the US which is generally more dispersed and private and easier to break.

The US was already the wealthiest and productive economy before World War 1 and World War 2, and though it has exceptional geography the free market system, due process of law and individual rights are conducive to productive societies.

The US is 38th in male suicide in the world. The countries above us come from multiple regions of the world and many of them are not Western.

I think you vastly overestimate the wealth of China given that the average income there is actually 1/4th of the US rate. Also the air quality is shit in most of the country.

Pragmatism is dependent upon what you are trying to achieve. If personal liberty is my highest moral good it would be far from pragmatic to submit myself to an authoritarian state. You have yet to demonstrate why your values are more desirable than mine.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Also China's social credit scare is far more pervasive and systematic than any espionage and social control in the US which is generally more dispersed and private and easier to break.

LOL. The chinese social credit system was built on the basis of the one in the US. Tey getting a job/loan if you have a bad credit score. Also, lets see you break any of the elements of social control. The difference between the social control in us and china is that china doesnt give a fuck, so their social control.is more obvious while that of the US is more insidious.

Us was amongst the richest countries at the tip but it wasnt the richest by far. Germany/UK or Russia were doing better. The wars and americas geogrpahical seperation from europe allowed it to survive not democracy.

Thats not the claim i was making. The US is dodoidodoindodoidodoing amongst the worst it has in its history amongst suicides. Plus you are comparing the US to small/poverty stricken countries, its an unfair comparison. When you do that comparison, you cant say that the US has lower suicide rates due to "muh democracy" but because of better economic situation. I did a quick search on wikipedia and it shows suicide rates (according to WHO stats) that China has a lower suicide rate than the US. This is a more fair comparison because you control for economy. In fact the suicide rate in the Us is so bad that its lowering life expectancy.

GDP wise China is ahead of US but the GDP per capita of china is lower because China has 3x larger population and its still developing but the absolute value of people of china living in the middle class and above is greater than the population of the USA. Last time i checked the amount of people in the middle class in china was 350 million compared to US population of 300 million. And about 70 million people are leaving poverty in china alone. So yes, china is doing better. Im on my phone, its slow amd difficult to post links. Search it yourself. China has been developing for 40 years and brought more people out of poverty with an authoritarian centralized system in that time (particularly in the last ten years) than the US has in the last 250 years of its existence. This arguably makes an authoritarian system superior.

Pragmatism is dependent upon what you are trying to achieve. If personal liberty is my highest moral good it would be far from pragmatic to submit myself to an authoritarian state. You have yet to demonstrate why your values are more desirable than mine.

Its not YOUR values that are the highest moral good its the values tht you were taught to believe in by society/tv. Read my earlier posts in my search history, where i talk about how indiviualism.is a means of effective population control - its easier to control groups.of splintered people than it is to control a unified group of people pursuing the same goal, and the collective is always stronger than an individual and because its unhealthy for people to be individualists. Also you are confusing what 'pragmatism' means. Just because for you individual liberty may be the higuest moral good, doesnt mean its not pragmatic to live under authortarian rule as it may actually improve your life in many other aspects (for example). Whether or not you like it is another matter and irrelevant.

[–]SeizeTheGreens -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imperator_Red 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Proto_Sigma -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imperator_Red 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Proto_Sigma 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Proto_Sigma 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

While there are undoubtedly benefits to both female suffrage and the birth control pill, (respect for consent of the governed, more consequence free sex) there have also been more negative consequences (a general shift of the electorate towards collectivism and more government intervention due to temperamental differences between men and women making men substantially more individualistic on average, more promiscuous sex and damage to the previous system of marriage and pair bonding as well as hormonal alterations negative psychological and physical consequences).

One can argue that the positives outweigh the negatives; one can not argue that these changes have not made dramatic alterations to the style of government and dynamics within the sexual market place and that many of these changes have had a negative effect on men.

[–]Rand2024 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PS2Errol 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]All_Hail_TRA 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endorsed Contributorex_addict_bro -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]elgodo7 -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (70 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imperator_Red 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

You guys are fucked up if you don't want half the population to vote.

Why? The vast majority of humans who ever lived believed this. Were they fucked up? They may have lived in simpler times but none of them ever got divorced for no reason and had to pay his ex wife to have sex with other men in his house. None of them ever had the state tax them to give their money to the offspring of other men. I think that they would look at the things you believe and say that you are fucked up.

The pill is amazing it allows us to fuck so many girls without having to marry them and allows them to work. Now we don't have to provide for girls win for men.

No, you have your causality backwards. Women decided that they wanted the world to be like this after we gave them power, and red pill is just a logical reaction to that shift. Red pill wouldn't be necessary in a sane world.

Social media is good now people don't know how to socialize and talk in person.

Lol

Sounds like you guys just want to control women smh

Shaming language. Against the rules.

[–]elgodo7 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

LOL majority of human civilisation never lived in Democracy?

women voting does not equate to you marrying a girl and getting fucked in divorce. You marrying is your own fault. I dont know what you mean about taxing them to give money to offspring of other men? explain please...

After ww2 there was not many men, women took advantage and it help society build itself up again also we live in a new era the agricultural era is dead. There is no need for man to marry 1 women and raise a family on a farm....

would you rather go back 100 years? and just have 1 wife and a family or the opportunity to fuck so many girls like you do now?

you just took my social media comment out of context i had a sentence after that which said it makes it easier for us to get girls if we do know how to socialise...

What shaming language that i said sounds like you guys just want to control women? lol

[–]SeizeTheGreens 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

women voting does not equate to you marrying a girl and getting fucked in divorce.

It literally does. It means politicians have to appeal to feminine issues such as abortion and no-fault divorce.

> money to offspring of other men?

Welfare system, paternity fraud, etc.

> would you rather go back 100 years? and just have 1 wife and a family or the opportunity to fuck so many girls like you do now?

Easily the former. Would you rather buy a laptop or rent one every time you need to use it? Would you rather have a washer/dryer or go to the laundromat? Would you rather own a house or rent spending the same amount?

Fuck a ton of girls, then what? Is that going to improve you? Your family? Your bloodline?

If I had no stake in this world, then sure I'd take the latter, because life would be nothing more than "Get pleasure before dying."

[–]elgodo7 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]AwakenedSovereign 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]elgodo7 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AwakenedSovereign 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]elgodo7 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imperator_Red 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]elgodo7 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]SeizeTheGreens 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SeizeTheGreens 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]elgodo7 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Vikings allowed women to vote

Only people who voted in Viking societies was men and shield maidens...feel the difference?

Greeks were bisexuals

What does that have to do with anything?

allowed rich men to vote

Freemen and citizens to vote. FTFY.

Also how are these 2 civilisations majority of human civilization?

Well considering how Greeks conquered most of the ancient world and brought Hellenic culture with them (including assemblies), its safe to say that for a long time everyone voted.

Also, most of the world consisted of nomads back then. Go look at the territories the scythians or mongols covered/conquered. These were all 'democratic/communistic' peoples.

India China

They did, amongst various city states. China and India were not a monolith for a very long time - just like Europe.

most of Europe

Most of Europe was either nomadic tribes (Geramanics) which we established as being democratic, or under the Greeks or under the Romans for most of history...so yes, they did vote.

[–]elgodo7 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

You guys are fucked up if you don't want half the population to vote.

Why do you need half the population to vote? Voting used to be 'voting as a family unit' so that the vote of one family member reflected the opinion of the entire family. Hence women voted 'by representation'. It's kind of like how American Representative democracy works.

By 'supporting half the population' in the vote, you are indeed serving to break up the family unit - implying that the family does not vote as a unit anymore.

Social media is good now people don't know how to socialize and talk in person. If you are good at approaching and socialising it makes it so easy to get girls.

Actually, no. since everyone is always on social media and social media replaced 'dating' for many women, approaching a woman makes it 'weird' or 'creepy' (unless you are very good looking/have a lot of status in the environment, etc) and makes it even harder to get girls.

Sounds like you guys just want to control women smh

Nothing wrong with that.

[–]elgodo7 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]elgodo7 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]elgodo7 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]elgodo7 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Well the current leaders learn to adapt to the system

Or we could tear the system down and build a new one. Why does one have to adapt to a system made by someone else to benefit themselves?

Your 2 examples are shit societies

Says who?

They are not sustainable so that's the point having family unit in these societies shows it doesn't work.

How is the societies being/not being sustainable relate to having a functional family unit?

Are you a sperg that you don't understand nuance? Like with anything, these societies have aspects that work and others that don't. That's not too hard for 'a gritty American individualist' to understand is it?

Our current system exists as it's the best we have had in history.

Who said?

There's many different systems throughout the world. So are Boko Haram of Nigeria the best because they still exist? They have a system. What about the Taliban? They have a system that still exists, its a quite old one too. Is it the best?

Why would you want a athlete ruling who has to spend most time training and won't know much about ruling

Why would you want a random joe off the street ruling when everyone votes for him?

Also, an athlete is more likely to be a better ruler anyway (as history shows) as he learned many lessons from training that transfer over to life.

Bes

[–]elgodo71 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You act like functional family unit does not exist in west.

it doesn't. hence social media, family law, lowest marriage rates in history, gender wars, single mother households, inceldom, etc.

The current system evolved from past ones we made this one for a reason

No it happened by sheer accident.

America is the most powerful nation thanks to this system.

Actually, that's China. China has a bigger economy than America, fewer problems and less debt.

Boko haram Taliban have no power compared to USA. There system is shit and won't last.

Taliban system has lasted for thousands of years. And the Taliban beat the USA - the USA invaded them but they're still around and the USA left. So they're the last guys standing in the fight.

Politicians work and play the system it's a skill to be voted in

I never said its not. but just because someone has the skill to get voted in doesn't mean they're a good ruler.

Go read, Plato's 'The Republic' for what constitutes a good ruler. That is not what we have now.

[–]elgodo71 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

he current system was a experiment USA started and it managed to beat everyone so most people copied it.

No. They didn't beat anyone. They forced their ideology onto other countries. Look at NATO. and the wars for 'democracy' America fights in the middle east.

If you have to fight a war for 'democracy' its not very democratic is it?

Why is a functional family unit so important?

Because its the foundation of the state/society. In a family unit, you have stability - a man who WANTS to work to support his family (many men doing this because each one has a family), a happy wife who is under the leadership of her husband and is taking care and helping to raise healthy kids (single parent households are the leading cause of crime and poverty).

Hmm Taliban is hard to beat as gorillas warfare

So I guess the Taliban system is effective then is it not? More effective than the USA if the Taliban won.

Russia tried and failed too I guess the Taliban can defend but they can't attack other countries

So what you are saying is the Taliban has such a stable system that no amount of attacking will cause it to collapse? Sounds like a more effective system than the USA that is always undergoing one crises or other! Also, who said they can't attack, who do you think pulls off all the terrorist attacks?

You are right about not making them a good ruler. I think Socrates was against democracy as idiots got to vote.

Socrates and Plato are different, but yes you get the idea.

Democracy has NEVER worked throughout history whenever its been tried - not for the Greeks, not for the Romans, not for anyone else.

[–]elgodo71 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Taliban is funded by rich middle eastern countries. As is isis.

So? They're cultural system has endured for 1000 years. USA is 250 years old

Why did Europe become democratic?

Because after WW2 America came and occupied them and never left and told them they're going to be democratic or else they'll be attacked.

The British empire was most powerful but copied USA in becoming democratic.

I have a creeping suspicion you're a kid.

The British Empire came BEFORE the USA and the British Empire was NOT democratic.

America uses democracy as a excuse to invade they are still a imperialist nation.

So other nations adopt democracy not because 'its the best system' but because they're forced to by an imperialist power?

Why can't a man work just to support himself?

Because a man is stronger in association with others. Because men want a woman (as part of biology), because they want kids. Because men and women are not biologically equal.

Listen kid, I tire of this conversation. Go do some reading, then come back in a few years and we can talk then.

[–]elgodo71 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Britian became democratic in 1918 the British empire was still strong then and in 1928 it gave vote to all men and women over 21.

Taliban cultural system hasn't lasted that long. You do know Taliban came to power in 1996 and the rise of extreme Islam was brought back by them. Iraq Afghanistan were very westernized before the Taliban.

Majority of times if people vote they choose communism or socialism... America does not want there enemies to be strong. They use democracy as a excuse to invade they don't care about it in other countries that they hard as puppet states. They get to take all natural resources from these countries.

Like I said you can still marry and have a family in USA it's just harder then before which is good as betas don't get pussy for being weak. Women had no freedom to be financially independent so women had to marry weak men.

America has democracy and is strong enough to control other nations so they must be doing something right....

[–]Imperator_Red 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]elgodo7 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]elgodo7 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]elgodo7 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

A Taliban army would struggle against a special forces unit.

Would they? I'm not so sure about that. Go read the histories of Soviet/American occupations of Afghanistan and the actions of spec ops against large number of mujihadeen fighters. Then go read about operations of spec ops units against concentrated numbers of opponents.

Special forces are not meant to go toe to toe with large numbers of enemy combatents, but that's semantics. The point is they would still lose to the collective.

Also mike Tyson in prime could fuck you and you boys up if no weapons that is what I meant by a guy who improves himself. A master would fuck up a bunch of unskilled masses.

Did you not read the part where I said that a group of mike Tysons could fuck up a single mike Tyson.

And if you've ever done a martial art like boxing, or muai thai or karate, the first thing they tell you is to not fight a group by yourself. To beat up mike Tyson in his prime, all we gotta do is attack suddenly and surround him and bring him down. No way he's gonna win.

The point is the collective always win.

The collective rarely wins as they can't unite.

That's only in the West, because their mindsets are fucked up with 'individualism'.

The Chinese collective is doing quite well.

[–]elgodo7 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You wouldn't want to live in China?

Yeah I would. Problem is language barrier and they don't like immigrants.

I see individualism as something a superior man will aim for as it's his freedom.

So are you saying that man cannot be free as part of a collective? What makes you think he is free as an individual? An individual is easier to manipulate/control and will not be able to work towards his goals as easily as a collective.

A man as part of a collective is actually more free, if he an the collective work together towards the same goal - he will always beat out the individual. He will be safer, he will be harder to manipulate/control, he will have a higher cause to work towards, he will have more opportunity and if he doesn't like something he can always leave the collective.

People are not equal.

Exactly why individualism doesn't work. A man without legs is less free than a man with legs, or a stupid man is less free than a smart man. But if a man with legs and a man without legs work together, or a stupid man and a smart man work together - they both reach their goals easier and are thus 'more free'.

The weak will be brought up by powerful men

Who is easier to enslave, a bunch of individuals or a collective?

A bunch of people who are 'gritty American indvidualists' or a bunch of boys with a common goal who can tell those they don't like to fuck off?

[–]elgodo71 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]elgodo71 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]elgodo71 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Imperator_Red 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]elgodo7 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AwakenedSovereign -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

The vote should be available to women. I haven't read C.H. article yet tho so I can't really speak as to why he believes this to be a key factor. Sure it would be EASIER for men if women didn't vote, but would that be right/better? Probably not.

Birth Control is good, but in its current for is shit for men, because.. we have 0% control over it. There is no equivalent contraception for men except Condoms, and who the fuck likes those. This puts control of conception firmly in a woman's court, which is bad, bad, bad news for valuable men.

Making 20mil a year as a sports all star but one drunken night you made a bad decision and rawdog some barslag? Oops. 18 years bitch. That's a bad dynamic for us.

Careerism is also a shit deal for men. 60-70 years ago a regular Joe's daily labor could provide for a wife and family, a house, vehicle, food, all of it. That's because all of the women were at home, not competing with men for jobs and driving the real-wages down.

Point blank fact, every drop of your sweat is now worth less because women are working more. You think of supporting females and children as this horrible burden because well.. these days it is a fucking bad deal. A while ago, it was easier. Being the breadwinner also put man in a position of power which is no longer really valid, as the State & Corporate Welfare & Affirmative Action will care for her instead.

Social Media is the one hold-out from your comment. There are pros & cons that come with social media for both men and women, it is just the way it is. Adapt.

[–]Imperator_Red 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AwakenedSovereign 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Felons make a choice to get where they are. Children are inherently undeveloped and thus unsuited.

Can an argument be made that most women these days are barely more than children? Sure. But I also know you've met women smarter than you. Even, dare I say it, women more Alpha than you.

Same could be said about fat beta blob men. By your logic we should exclude all men under 6 foot, all men who aren't ripped, all men who aren't presently financially & sexually & socially successful, etc. It's a bit like the Ubermensch advocated by Nietzsche. "Rule by the Ubermen"

I've actually written short stories based on the idea and bounced ideas off several of my smarter and more creative friends.

One particular malignance that creeps out of this thinking is that you end up with "celebrity" or "icon" or "hero" or "genius" culture at the top of the pyramid. This can sound good on paper but in practice you may quickly find out that it's really Hitler and his ideas might sound really super good today but.. the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

Another one is that in such a culture you are robbing the "lesser caste" of their opportunity to change. No voice no change. If you're on top already why let anyone fuck with that and tear you down? That's right you don't people Blue Wall up, Trustfund brigade, exclusionary tactics, etc. This happens in the world whether we like it or not but institutionalizing it in our politics and specifically in our paradigms about "who is allowed to XYZ" can make it so hard to escape the shit end of the stick that even intelligent, rational people find it impossible to escape.

Short answer? Because even dipshit betas and toxic women deserve an OPPORTUNITY. If they didn't get one we wouldn't be talking. Ex dipshit Beta, over n out.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Same could be said about fat beta blob men. By your logic we should exclude all men under 6 foot, all men who aren't ripped, all men who aren't presently financially & sexually & socially successful, etc

That would not be a bad idea. Why let unfit/unintelligent/unsuccessful people a voice - all they will vote for is to take from the strong and redistribute to themselves, further enabling their weakness. Society instead should shame them and demand that they raise themselves up.

One particular malignance that creeps out of this thinking is that you end up with "celebrity" or "icon" or "hero" or "genius" culture at the top of the pyramid.

Which is the basis of many Epics such as the Iliad and Gilgamesh and why many men of antiquity strove to emulate the heroes of the stories and what motivated them to great deeds like the stand of the Spartans at Thermopylae.

Another one is that in such a culture you are robbing the "lesser caste" of their opportunity to change

You have it backwards. Look around you - most of society consists of dregs - physically disgusting, weak minded, petty human refuse. Where are the heroes? Where are the champions that rise up and inspire? A society such as the one I suggest would instead shame weakness and a man who desires more would be forced to improve himself to win the respect of other men and the affections of women. This was the societies of the Past.

If you're on top already why let anyone fuck with that and tear you down?

You don't. But that's the beauty of the system. It creates competition, because men want to become strong so they strive to defeat those at the top and take their place. This was the beauty of monarchies/the leadership of antiquity - a petty king would rise up and when he/his dynasty became weak and unable to hold power, other men would rise up and take his place. This generated change and improvement.

With the current system all we see is stagnation for the weak are afraid of the strong and want to keep the system the way it is so that they do not have to make an effort to become better. It is easier to be weak - the pursuit of Virtue (as Aristotle puts it) is much more challenging and in order to be successful it needs a 'man that is of a different race than his contemporaries' (Julius Evola) or a city that pushes him to greatness.

dipshit Beta

Take this community - it shames weak men and gives them legends to believe (field reports) and it motivates men to make legend reality and to stop being a dipshit beta.

[–]1SalporinRP 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Why let unfit/unintelligent/unsuccessful people a voice - all they will vote for is to take from the strong and redistribute to themselves, further enabling their weakness. Society instead should shame them and demand that they raise themselves up.

The man you're responding to already addressed this in his comment.

Another one is that in such a culture you are robbing the "lesser caste" of their opportunity to change. No voice no change. If you're on top already why let anyone fuck with that and tear you down?

Look I'm no fan of the welfare system and the handouts people receive but if you remove the "lesser" people's voice in government then the people in power will make sure they cannot raise themselves up.

Ideally a society would give all people a voice while incentivizing hard work and dedication but that seems like a pipe dream.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]1SalporinRP 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]elgodo7 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

bro a guy does not have to buss a load in a girl. get your pull out game up? or have a vasectomy.

Careerism is good that women are in the game it means only the best get the best jobs. Why would i want to be married and have to support a women it would make it harder to fuck all these other girls? as they would be at home raising babies of some beta male who only got to marry her as she didn't have many options?

i think its good for evolution that women are working as beta males dont get pussy no more where before they got it because women couldn't provide for themselves. Now only the top men get the best choice of female pussy. The beta gets the women when shes in a decline and cant lock down a alpha.

I dont see supporting a women as a burden i just think would be harder to have sex with more girls. i dont want to marry or raise a family i want to have freedom to do what i want.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AwakenedSovereign 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]centaursg -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Title	Female Corruption Events
Author	redpillschool
Upvotes	32
Comments	105
Date	March 1, 2019 7:28 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/aw8opu/female_corruption_events/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/female-corruption-events.786717 https://theredarchive.com/post/786717

Comments