The Other Internet Tranny Sociology Thread: Pooner Edition

[BillyONare]

People did not enjoy being evicted from their houses and being forced to sell them to Michael Burry at half of what they paid. He was a genius at war with society who saw The Truth before anyone else and dragged them down kicking and screaming. Same goes for George Soros and the men who are going to become trillionaires off of Bitcoin. It has nothing to do with what others think, rather it has to do with what the true value of things are, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Alpha comes from a mismatch between what society thinks and what things actually are. Anthony could make a lot of money off of it (if he wasn't so lazy) because he is intelligent, incisive, and "disagreeable", but you would be doing something like investing in facebook because "people are gonna like VR in the future". Your money multiplies when you mentally crush and checkmate inferior people and they are forced to sell their assets to you to stay off the streets.

[FlyWithYou]

Just silly girls being silly. (With their society perversely backing their silliness as if it were something serious and deeply rooted in nature; backing it with the kind of stern force with which they ought to be backing marriage and proper childrearing.)

[cats]

One small contention: FtMs trend younger than MtFs do, as a general rule, but there's a significant cohort of older FtMs who are culturally distinct from the phenomenon you describe.

One portion of this group is old guard dykes who are too old to understand the web but came into contact with this phenomenon either after it received full-bodied support from the western branch of ZOG, or when it was an experimental fetish thing in sexual outcast circles during the 90s and early 00s. I don't know much about her, but it might make for an interesting case study. I've met one like this in real life, from an utterly dysfunctional Jewish family (there is quite a bit of Jewish overrepresentation in FtM troonery in particular). I'm not quite sure what compels these types to "transition". Possibly the same thing that made them become "lesbians".

The other portion of this group generally tend to be in their upper 20s or early 30s, and all of them are defined by essentially trying their damnedest to look like Johnny Depp; tattoos of witches and warlocks, canvas pants, floppy bonnets, the works. The most famous FtM in the world comes from this group: Ellen Page, who picked the suitably poony name of "Elliot". This demographic didn't really differentiate itself to me until I overheard a co-worker in my ZOG workplace talk about how "Depp gave a lot of trans men 'gender euphoria'," and suddenly previous encounters with this type began to make sense. I suppose their desire for a man like Depp was so intense but so unattainable that they instead decided to become him, or at least who they thought he was. A weird effete (despite the contradictions), metrosexual man who loves "queer art" or something. Build your own boyfriend. Men like this probably never actually existed outside of these women's heads. There's a stronger element of philia to these ones than there is in the ones you describe (although I don't think the philic element is totally absent from these younger ones, either).

Otherwise, yes, I agree wholeheartedly. The majority of these younger ones are confused, or afraid, about becoming a woman and all that entails, and options for them to express or find themselves grow narrower and narrower as western ZOG tightens the noose on the internet and on young people in general. I struggled to understand for some time why some "transitioned" but didn't make even the barest attempt to appear masculine in any way, but this seems to be the most holistic answer; a confused, imposed response to a world that is hostile towards them for reasons they cannot comprehend. Young White men are unquestionably the most oppressed and scorned group living on planet Earth today, but it's clear the longhouse is hardly much better for young women to live in, either.

To give credit to nigs, they're racist as fuck. Towards chinks and whites.

[...]

It was a mistake on my part to imply they weren't longhoused however (They are, just in a different way).

Niggers are genuinely incapable of racism. They breed like rabbits with any other race that will let them and completely lack the fundamentally White conception of racial purity. The ethnic resentment they and the colorless brown hordes of the Third World feel for Whites is wholly distinct from the scientific art of racism.

A little bit of media literacy on both #ANAG and Bronze Age Pervert, who invented "the longhouse" as a sociological concept, would do you some good. The longhouse is the societal model of the Afro-Oaxacan-Semitic monoculture which is now preeminent in the West. Even a baseline level of real world experience with blacks and browns would've revealed the farcicality of the idea that Whites are more "LGBTQ+" than them. All of these trends are Afro-Semitic through and through. The only people saying otherwise are literal fed demoralization ops.

In the future, please stay on topic and do not engage in unnecessary negrophilia.

[Cyber Viking]

Niggers are genuinely incapable of racism. They breed like rabbits with any other race that will let them and completely lack the fundamentally White conception of racial purity. The ethnic resentment they and the colorless brown hordes of the Third World feel for Whites is wholly distinct from the scientific art of racism.

You're completely correct, niggers aren't really leftists in the sense that they don't actively hate their own race, but implying that there's any conscious ideology on their part was stupid on my part. They're an entire race of NPCs.

The longhouse is the societal model of the Afro-Oaxacan-Semitic monoculture which is now preeminent in the West. Even a baseline level of real world experience with blacks and browns would've revealed the farcicality of the idea that Whites are more "LGBTQ+" than them. All of these trends are Afro-Semitic through and through. The only people saying otherwise are literal fed demoralization ops.

I agree, I would still argue that the longhouse is fundamentally still rule by the old rather than women however. I still stand strongly to my belief that women are not true historical actors.

In the future, please stay on topic and do not engage in unnecessary negrophilia.

Noted, won't happen again. Like I said, was dumb.

Just silly girls being silly. (With their society perversely backing their silliness as if it were something serious and deeply rooted in nature; backing it with the kind of stern force with which they ought to be backing marriage and proper childrearing.) 

I think the real problem is that we don't allow girls to be silly. We fill their head with obligations, schooling, and work. When they really just want to play games, larp as witches, and get fucked (By someone who they feel won't leave them). They're like kids, and we're treating them like men. Telling them that they need to "man up" and think rationally and productively.This is what is driving them insane and miserable. Look to Varg's wife, Marie Cachet, if you want to see a happy woman in her natural environment (She's still brilliant btw, just in a feminine way). You can hate on women, and deride them for not being the same as men, but all that will do is push them into the arms of bad actors who want to turn them into monsters or slaves and continue the problem.

[Unformed Golem]

I had to buy zogceries today and was reminded: it is the norm in many places now for women to just be fat bitches. Imagine you are a little girl looking around and your horrendously disagreeable impulsive landwhale mother and her equally spiritually- and physically-disgusting friends and relative and associates. You live 24/7 with this bloated harridan who probably smells terrible to boot and then when you get a little bit older you get to go to skrewl where, you guessed it, fat bitches are in charge. "Growing up" literally means nothing more or less than becoming a fat bitch. Is it surprising that a few girls see this and start looking for alternatives?

[Cyber Viking]

I had to buy zogceries today and was reminded: it is the norm in many places now for women to just be fat bitches. Imagine you are a little girl looking around and your horrendously disagreeable impulsive landwhale mother and her equally spiritually- and physically-disgusting friends and relative and associates. You live 24/7 with this bloated harridan who probably smells terrible to boot and then when you get a little bit older you get to go to skrewl where, you guessed it, fat bitches are in charge. "Growing up" literally means nothing more or less than becoming a fat bitch. Is it surprising that a few girls see this and start looking for alternatives?

That's a good point, it actually reminds me of what @Zed wrote about here. Where he found himself disgusted with his own gender at a young age due to the depravity of his father figure.

I do not know why I was predisposed to this, and I wish I could give a satisfying answer to your first question. Though I felt no feel dysphoria when I was very young, I found adult men extremely unrelatable. For most of my early childhood, my mother (who had severe BPD and Borderline Personality Disorder) dated a low-IQ Italian man whose idea of entertainment was getting drunk and watching football/NASCAR - or getting high with his guido bros. And the man who I considered my father was miserable and self-hating, with terminal case of oneitis. Either way, I felt a revulsion towards this peasant masculinity as early as eight years old, and I could not see myself in any of them, or in my peers. I could not understand men as anything but brutish. Ariosophy (Sunny) once suggest that those who posses higher latent sensitivities are more naturally drawn to fantasize and explore a variety of alternative aesthetic experiences, and are apt to have more balanced sense of maleness/femaleness. tending towards harmony as opposed to polarity. This felt like a deep intuitive truth when I read it, but it is perhaps too flowery for this discussion.

[obscurefish]

All this has happened because of the darkening of the image of God in man. Some misguided fellows attempt to combat this by reinforcing the definition of "man" and "woman" in biological terms, but it is this reduction of man to an animal that created the problem in the first place. If Man and Woman are conceived zoologically, then there is no freedom in them; blind to the freedom that naturally belongs to them, the people seek out a paltry substitute in the counterfeit ability to "choose".

[capgras]

All this has happened because of the darkening of the image of God in man. Some misguided fellows attempt to combat this by reinforcing the definition of "man" and "woman" in biological terms, but it is this reduction of man to an animal that created the problem in the first place. If Man and Woman are conceived zoologically, then there is no freedom in them; blind to the freedom that naturally belongs to them, the people seek out a paltry substitute in the counterfeit ability to "choose".

Freedom is an empty concept

[anthony]

I believe that a lot of social issues, interesting as they are to discuss in depth, would just roll up and go away if the libtards got rolled up and put away.

So libtardism is the root of the evil that we need to get rid of. Okay, so what exactly are we reversing here? How far does libtardism go and where do you draw the line? Obviously troonism and the alphabeticals are included. What about the Civil Rights? Feminism? Enlightenment? Protestantism? Roman Christianity? Neoplatonism? How separable are these? What ills can we ascribe to libtardism? Wave of mental illness? Divorce rates? Infertility? Atomism? State expansion? Mass politics? Ideological persecution? Totalitarianism? Immigration? Of who, niggers? Southern Europeans? Papists? But all that began a long time ago. What drove it? Are you sure all this fits inside “libtardism”? At what point are you fighting all of modernity? Something even bigger? These aren’t rhetorical questions. You have an entire life history of a civilization in front of you, and you are the doctor. How do you delineate a disease? What if the worsening decline is just aging? Should you be really entertaining reversal here, or prophylactics? I see not even an attempt at putting forth a cogent case. Oh, it’s the “dull wide-open zealot eyes” that’s the driving factor... Some untermenschen with their addictions that sprung from the woodwork… Come on...

I would like to think this image would be sufficient. But I believe that a sufficient case has been made several times over by now, so let's just keep going to see if anything of interest happens.

As I was saying in the shoutbox, these questions are unnecessary. One can easily imagine some faggot in the El Salvadorean parliament condescendingly putting these questions to Bukele between the heaviest sighs you've ever seen and implying that it's all doomed because of his lowstatusunseriousness in this approach. But it is unnecessary. I know libtardism when I see it and so does everyone else, just like they know us. They don't fuss around with the obvious connections of "extreme" and "racist" beliefs to the foundations of civilisation, or their necessary connections to the functioning of important things we still have. They have far more important questions that would actually need answering for clear practical purposes, and they just don't.

What are you suggesting? I have to find the first libtard impulse before I'm allowed to do anything about it? Why? What are you going to do, call the referee? Of course that's basically what "human rights" is, a global referee who says it's not allowed to disagree with libtards, with anything said beyond that point being excuses. Certain El Salvadoreans are trying to call the ref, and if anything stops Bukele's steamroller of peace, it'll be them. That's the thing, it entirely comes down to politics and this fundamental and obvious division. It's on you to explain the relevance of these questions you raise.

And as for your tone, I am growing increasingly impatient. The strained attempt at maintaining an impression of tired superiority, patience, condescension. You aren't calling me a faggot nigger, but that does not make you polite. I consider weaponising an affected status you haven't earned to be very rude. You either feel very, very superior to everyone present and aren't afraid of showing it at all, that is rude. Or you are getting anxious and feeling cornered, and are trying to weaponise an affected superiority to make your opponents doubt themselves, that is even worse.

This is why I banned Green Groyper. Not over any particular thing he said.

Tell us why. What has your superior will to see revealed to you which is lost on me?

Well if you look at the big picture Western history, you can clearly see a progression take place: Christian universalism lifting group-based restrictions, protestantism those of a religious hierarchy, capitalism traditional restrictions, Enlightenment political, socialism economical, feminism gender-role related, and now troonism biological. (To some extent these overlap.) A gradual shedding of all external limitations and particularities in favour of a universal yet individual inner “abstract human,” comparable to the “soul,” but going way further than just Christian eschatology. What this is, is socio-technologial progression gradually dissolving previous modes of living with their previously necessitated restrictions, which become perceived as violently oppressive immediately upon becoming outdated. It's just scalar stresses (archaeological term) from new modes of complex living (eg. modernity) that propel people towards social innovation (eg. feminism, troonism). But it's not some neatly packaged "libtardism" that you can flip on/off by banging the heads of a few apparatchiks against the wall. It entails all of society and reaches as far as one cares to look. There is no delineation to be found. How do you reverse "libtardism"? Just how much of the genie would you have to be attempting to put back in the bottle? Even hypothetically, if you rewind the society 20 or 40 or 140 or howevermany years, what makes you think it's going to be any different? You've no positive program, remember? What remains, blind hope?

This progression you propose doesn't look clear at all. Biological differences are not something that just fades away as culture becomes less fixed. Gender ones, yes. Again, I am an Illich man. He wrote in 'Gender' that the progression of cultural decay had reduced things to the point where the difference between a man and a woman was "the presence or absence of a bulge in their blue jeans". To this point the progress sort of holds. But biological restrictions are biological. We cannot lift them. A woman can wear pants, she can even exercise your touted "technology" to cut her tits off and take male hormones until she grows a pooner wisp-"beard". But this is not a simple fading away of another restriction like people recognising that christianity no longer meant anything in their lives. People do this because their sex matters a lot to them. It requires active decision and active maintenance and work. It is not an effortless falling away. It is a strained newly constructed identity and institution. One which is very difficult and demanding. You propose an inevitability to this in order to cast me as a crude, brutish moron trying to fight the tide like the dad from footloose or something, but nobody is buying it. In the most free age humanity has ever experienced FtM remains a very small minority phenomena, spreading following the pattern of a subculture, not a new wave of consciousness.

I am quite certain that by banging the heads of a few apparatchiks this could be pretty much stopped dead with minimal resistance. But let me quote you a little further

This may sound way more abstract than what a green-haired acne-ridden pooner would seem to warrant, but go tell them their brain structure is determined by their evolutionary role as a baby-machine, and then go figure how far back the roots of the resulting backlash of a response exactly go. What is this if not someone protesting being constrained into an outdated mode of life? If you interviewed them, that's what their sentiment would reflect. And it's very visceral!

You get off on imagining that you're arguing with the dad from footloose. This isn't a movie. I am not angry boomer dad yelling at his daughter that she simply IS A GIRL. I am an observer on the internet with no FtM acquaintances (do you have a dog in this fight? You sound like you might actually be a woman. You have the irrational complex against an idealised tyrannical dad to match one). If I were fighting in the name of asserting woman's rightful evolutionary status as breeding stock I would be discussing practical plans for mass rape camps or polygyny, with this being an irrelevant sub-issue of the woman question (what do their particular neurosis matter if they're all destined for Camp Elliot Roger?).

Beyond that, again, fuck yourself, I would be justified in killing you at this point if I could, etc.

What is this if not someone protesting being constrained into an outdated mode of life? If you interviewed them, that's what their sentiment would reflect. And it's very visceral!

If you have read up to this point and believe that you are the only one aware of pressure upon girls you are retarded. But I don't think you are, I think you just have no respect for me or anybody else present who is giving you their time. You prefer to get off on the idea of owning footloosedad than talking to us, but the fantasy works better apparently if you use us as blanks upon which to project your preferred opponent. In your head you're owning him so hard that these twee little exclamation marks are now appropriate. At least you're having fun! If I ever gain the means I am going to have a team of large men sent to your home to scalp you!

And I'm not saying this is some endless progression either, for there is nothing sustainable here. It’s energy-intensive and regularly overextends itself, requiring cyclical “corrections.” This is something all civilizations go through, somewhat equivalent to the Behavioral sink. But despite the regular corrections, the overall trend has been proceeding upwards since prehistory.

The trend is towards female subcultures and greater participation in mass culture in general. That is the thing that occurred naturally and irresistibly with all women.

Now this is just an interpretation of mine. But I think it gives quite a decent explanatory hypothesis, and allows for causative analysis, without assuming irrationality, absurdity on any other inexplicability on the actors' part. Socio-technological advancement is the backbone of the changes. Conservatives are simply representatives of whatever's the last "previous mode of life with its previously necessitated restrictions." This is why their arguments don't sell, except maybe during "corrections." Progressives OTOH are those most hard-pressed by the restrictions and thus who dismantle these as soon as made possible by socio-technological advancement. One could say the current psychological degenerates are the canary in the coalmine of just how constrained people are becoming between the rock and a hard place of socio-technological pressure and lagging behavioral restrictions.

You believe that the entire human race is tending naturally towards mass transsexuality and anybody who disagrees is the dad from footloose impotently screeching and shrieking and stamping their feet and spitting their dummies while you calmly own them over and over again, yes. Very highstatuschristlikeeugenics. Pointing out the extraordinary support lent to these (still rather minor in the grand scale of things) tendencies and force leveraged against all competing social forces is lowstatusunchristlikedysgenics. The right has truly been outmaneuvered. Libs were the real overmen all along.

Obvious point against transsexuality as any kind of natural progression, is that it's very obviously not a superior solution to any present problems. Of course this is also true of certain past instances of progress too, which obfuscates the issue somewhat. Did feminism really make women's lives better? Sort of short term at extraordinary long term cost for every. You can pour excess social capital and money into maintaining a bad idea and creating an illusion of progress for only so long. Psyching up girls to believe that they'll only be happy if they cut their tits off is expensive and unsustainable. It does not constitute a social revolution or a new way of life. It's just a fucked up thing to do to individual people.

How does "way of life" significantly change if we basically just ignore the trans issue and let it carry on as is. Every generation there are just loads of miserable people coping by joining trans communities, trans flags everywhere, is society seriously different, or do we just have the same world plus what are basically really violent and expensive social clubs that sterilise their members all over the place maintained by taxes? Again, technology has not actually solved the nature of biological sex. Maybe we work out artificial wombs or whatever one day, but if that happens that would be something that we could expect certain responses to. But you can't say that this is happening in anticipation of that. Because you haven't yet. If you say you had this in mind all along, again, once I become Bukele SCALP Team Six is coming to your house.

We would expect responses, but even then not necessarily this one. It would not be an easy or effortless transition into mass troon and poonery. And even then assuming it's artificial wombs (the most plausible post-biological means of reproduction) what people do to their bodies would have no bearing on or relation to reproduction. It would in fact remain a lifestyle and subculture decision. Now I'm just trying to predict steelmans for you and knocking them down anyway. This is getting dumb. You are dumb. Scalps. Etc.

Libtards are not an inexplicable factor. They are an irrational one. Again, they're like drug addicts. They have a very destructive satisfaction feedback loop set up for themselves and they're addicted.

Well first of all irrationality is inexplicable. Secondly, there’s nothing irrational about addiction, neither from the addict’s nor the observer’s viewpoint. Addiction for the addict: addiction vs pain; addiction for the observer: susceptibility x environment. An understanding from both perspectives is necessary to fix and prevent addiction. Thirdly, addiction is destructive compared to what? Are you sure removing the opiate from the pained results in less destruction? The knife, the emo.

Again, despite how DESPERATELY as you wish it to be so, I am not in fact John Lithgow's character from the hit motion picture 'Footloose'. You can find records of me arguing with people on the internet going years back now that most psychological disorders and serious social problems have their causes in the lives people are subjected to. I believe this. Probably more soundly and thoroughly than you do.

I believe this and also believe that we should cut the fentanyl change. Yes, that doesn't fix all users or potential users on the spot. It should be taken for granted by intelligent people not driven by strange pathic drives that in any hypothetical where I have the power to cut the fentanyl chain I also have the power to enact other changes in society. And if my motivation for cutting the fentanyl chain is human flourishing I will not leave these people to rot the moment I have taken away their poisonous palliatives.

"But what IS your solution? Define crime. Define scalping me with a dull knife."

Step one. Annihilate libtardism. I believe the rest can kind of emerge from there. If I'm actually on track to become a Bukele I figure I'll be working out more practical answers as I get closer.

Is Fentanyl "superior" to literally every other possible human activity because people choose it?

I think you’ll find the people opting for fentanyl are very constricted in options. In a similar vein, one could ask why do people kill themselves if they could be doing literally anything else? I think you know this.

If you already know the answer, then why ask the question YOU PIG FUCK?

I've heard every point you're making here before coming out of the mouths of hard drug use apologists. People who tell you we should let people inject krokodil until they rot to death outside our homes if they want.

The nature of the example should make it clear enough how a mere negative program of dismantling big krokodil isn’t going to solve the problems facing these people. At best, you will end up with another drug. At best.

You either believe I would take away the krokodil and then leave its users exactly as is because I believe literally the only thing wrong with drug use is the drugs, or you don't believe that but act as though I do for the sake of argument. I don't know which possibility makes you more deserving of scalping.

We're on the same forum having the same discussion. There is no superior outcome earned by superior insight.

Insight is crucial. Ask Hitler or Stalin, who shared bunks with numerous historical non-entities during their cellar years.

Sure, with this level of insight you could one day leave us behind and get Richard Hanania's job.

speculate on the existence of a conservative elite movement […] Unlike theories of conservative civilisation-serving global elite networks pushing poonerism to save the world.

Why speculate? Why conservative? Why movements and networks? Was Constantine the Great conservative when he adopted Christianity? What are you even attempting to say here? That elite interests are entirely separate from those of their society?

Speculate because there is no positive evidence that this stuff is AGGRESSIVELY PUSHED for the reasons you suggest. You don't even try looking for any because any investigation into this only finds secular religious mania (irrational) and malevolence.

As for Constantine, depends who you ask, even in this thread there is disagreement. And again, your Rome comparison is offensively retarded. You have yet to explain how poonerism is an inevitable force that must be integrated by those interested in social harmony and the continued progress of civilisation. Pooners are sterile and almost incapable of surviving beyond small networks of individual eccentrics without enormous top-down support. Your shared understanding of inevitability is extremely weak and unconvincing.

"What are you even attempting to say here?"

You don't get to play at good natured bewilderment. You have proven over and over again that you are not willing to engage with this subject in a good natured way. One way or another you simply won't look straight at what's happening in front of you. I don't know if you're emotionally invested to the point it's making you blind and stupid, or if you have some deranged idea that you need to convince people here of this and so are willing to get dishonest about it, either way you are impossible to talk to. This is all mental exercise. I consider you unreachable and believe you have nothing to offer any of us.

Because committed liberals gained positions of power which they used to harass their opponents and stigmatize the spread of their views.

Wow stimulating. Now riddle me where had all the committed non-liberals gone? Why were positions of power open all of a sudden? “LOOK STUFF JUST HAPPENS OK??” Get glasses for that myopia.

[perhaps they lost due to lowstatusunchristlikedysgenics. nietzsche said might makes right after all!]

Every addict would have a fairly well-improved life by kicking the habit. [...] The TorchTheEarth Nietzschean gigachad who is able to rationally consider the cost-benefit analysis of fentanyl addiction or suicide is incredibly uncommon.

Just because people don't break out the SWOT test doesn't mean they're not applying jugdgement. In fact most of judgement is intuitive, automatic. Addicts self-medicate their pains. You've nothing to offer them.

We offer a world without libtardism. I believe this would solve most pain. We can draw far more rational lines between crushing libtardism and better life outcomes than we can from further enabling of poonerism.

You are retarded. Your entire worldview rests on an incredibly ridiculous assumption that people will be left worse off if anyone takes decisive action against societal ills. You haven’t provided any proof of this, nor have you explained why you believe so, besides invocations of “le Chestertons Fence”. Defend this principle.

Which ills? (See first point) What decisive action? "Umm ok guys STOP taking drugs. And STOP being miserable. No I will not put forth any positive program of what the fuck you should be doing instead. TTYL love you." Would someone put Sakana in office? His ingenious methods may yet solve countless problems...

Since you seem to have decided you like this analogy now (because it enables you to make these scalpingworthy dodges), how would you deal with drugs? Safe injecting rooms and tolerance-campaigns in advertising space?

Of course my answer is a question, if I pushed my magic red button and annihilated all hard drugs on the planet tonight, and let's say it also breaks existing chemical addictions in the brain and so on immediately, no dependency, what do all the drug users do? Do they all immediately kill themselves with the first method available like 'The Happening', or do people in pain adapt and cope based on what is available and presented?

This whole post should have just been a picture of Kantbot. Fuck you. I'm genuinely disgusted with you.

[isotope]

Anthony's reply to KimKardashian reminds me of the discussion Peter Hitchens had with some shitlib. Hitchens decided to leave after 40 minutes of unproductive discussion on legal status of drugs.
But will it be Mr Hitchens leaving this time?

[ourokouros]

This is not how trading works. All successful traders are geniuses who go against the majority (myself included). Start with the Greeks. Agreeing with the majority is called zero alpha; it’s just being a mediocre normalfag/boomer, not even trading.

The idea is to correctly predict and then ride the trend of the majority, not to go against it. The trick lies in being the first, not in being alone. Your money multiplies while people find themselves in agreement with you, and diminishes while they don't. Ask Michael Burry. It's a betting market on what others think. And it applies so beautifully to the ideas market that I can't but pat myself on the back for the comparison.

Michael Burry was one of several who independently saw what was coming, and acted accordingly. Functionally, he was alone, not just "the first". As was everyone else who shorted.
I'm take your word about patting yourself on the back though, because to me it looks like the only thing on your back is a sign that says "Kick me"

[KimKardashian]

People did not enjoy being evicted from their houses and being forced to sell them to Michael Burry at half of what they paid.

Nobody said they have to enjoy giving you money. Who are you replying to?

It has nothing to do with what others think, rather it has to do with what the true value of things are,

You're misunderstanding economics 101. Ever thought what "markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" means?

he was alone, not just "the first"

Big difference if you're the first, or alone at your birthday party. A slight overlap with a critical difference.

[ourokouros]

he was alone, not just "the first"

Big difference if you're the first, or alone at your birthday party. A slight overlap with a critical difference.

I didn't know birthday parties are a zero-sum game where you directly compete against others.

[BillyONare]

You're misunderstanding economics 101. Ever thought what "markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" means?

Midwit day trader statement. Prices tend towards being rational extremely quickly. If you think Tesla is a scam that will never be profitable then you shouldn’t invest in it on the basis that “people’s feelings are what matters”. You also shouldn’t put all your money into shorting it at high leverage which is the charitable way to interpret the statement, but that’s simply a matter of not taking extreme risks, rather than a matter of how “Economics 101” works.

[BillyONare]

>be le me
>tfw forever alone on my birthday party
>make 100 million dollars
>epic

[anthony]

KimK is gone. Sorry if any of you were holding out for answers to particular questions or wanted to see this play out further. The exchange leading up to his ban can be read on page 579 of the shoutbox archive. As was the case with Joseph Bronski, I have no interest in talking to someone who can be caught in chatbot style loops because they just can't follow a point. You can't talk to someone who consistently misunderstands you and thinks they're smarter than you for that.

Edit: And of course if anybody feels this is unjust feel free to say so for posterity's sake. I won't bring him back of course, but you can say so.

[Edge]

It's for the best. This forum's strengths (so far anyway) are in cultural and media analysis.
This really isn't the place for debunking someone who still parrots all of the worst 2018 era defeatist coal dust.

[august]

I agree, I would still argue that the longhouse is fundamentally still rule by the old rather than women however.

Hey Green Groyper. Pro tip: When you use a shiny 'DISSIDENT RIGHT' buzzword incorrectly (like the entryist that you are), and someone is kind enough to explain to you what that word means by direct reference to the word's originator, and you "agree" with that person, you typically aren't then in a position to proceed to "argue" that the word ackshually means what you just incorrectly said it did. You don't use or understand any of these terms or concepts correctly. Like ressentiment or Sensitive Young Man, the latter of which you went out of your way to manually set as your user title here, which shows pretty accurately how quickly ~semantic drift~ can set in and completely ruin very good ideas when very low minds get ahold of them.

I still stand strongly to my belief that women are not true historical actors.

Remember when yesterday, during one of your way-too-common fits of unanswered posts/messages, you insisted that I am an Elagabalian tranny? For someone who knows so much about ROME, I at least figured that you'd have been aware of the chain of events that led to Elagabalus's ascendancy to the purple and who exactly it was that set it in motion. I know, you don't care for 'muh degenerate' late ROME, though. Fine. How about all of the men who took "true historical" action because of some esoteric mutterance made by a Vestal Virgin or Greek oracle? Didn't you read the "What is Woman?" thread before Striped deleted everything and left (probably due to people like you specifically, i.e., faggots who should lurk more)?

I think the real problem is that we don't allow girls to be silly. We fill their head with obligations, schooling, and work. When they really just want to play games, larp as witches, and get fucked (By someone who they feel won't leave them). They're like kids, and we're treating them like men. Telling them that they need to "man up" and think rationally and productively.This is what is driving them insane and miserable.

No. That's actually all "we" "allow" them to do. More importantly, who is "we"? Wasn't the reason for your banning that you only ever speak in these stupid abstractions?

No one treats women like men. Whether they're "trans" or not, no man on Earth genuinely treats them the same as he would another man. Men don't "fill their head with obligations, schooling, and work". Other women are the ones doing that, and I promise you that they aren't treating them like men in the process either. The only people being told to "man up" and to stop complaining in light of all this are men, and that's what's driving MEN insane; reinventing every single standard of behaviour within less than a lifetime and getting beat down and berated the entire time.

People did not enjoy being evicted from their houses and being forced to sell them to Michael Burry at half of what they paid. He was a genius at war with society who saw The Truth before anyone else and dragged them down kicking and screaming. Same goes for George Soros and the men who are going to become trillionaires off of Bitcoin. It has nothing to do with what others think, rather it has to do with what the true value of things are, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Alpha comes from a mismatch between what society thinks and what things actually are. Anthony could make a lot of money off of it (if he wasn't so lazy) because he is intelligent, incisive, and "disagreeable", but you would be doing something like investing in facebook because "people are gonna like VR in the future". Your money multiplies when you mentally crush and checkmate inferior people and they are forced to sell their assets to you to stay off the streets.

Kim's analogy sounded good but it was wrong because financial markets are actually bullshit and so is "the ideas market" that he tried comparing them to. I believe that you are more correct, but unfortunately only in theory. I'll try to explain why I think so.

Consider who was bailed out after 2007-2008: JPM, Bank of America, Goldman, Wells Fargo, etc. $700 billion to be paid by American taxpayers to eat up all the debt that these banks accumulated (at the expense of those very same taxpayers in the first place!). That $700 billion, by the way, is just what it said on paper. The real number is a not-so-small amount of trillions. Some banks, unlike the obviously too-big-too-fail bulge brackets, apparently did see "what the true value of things" was. So wouldn't one expect those institutions to reap the whirlwind of spoils that should have fell in their laps as a result of going "against the majority"? That's what happens in so-called 'capitalism' and 'competitive markets' right? Wrong. 





If markets do work that way, where is Santander on either of these lists?





I have to ask myself: does anyone involved really even care? Remember that it wasn't until 2008, ironically (or perhaps not), that Bernie Madoff was arrested for something that he was doing for at least 20 years. At least. People knew. It was just time to clean things up a little bit. 

Anyway, back to the main point. What does this have to do with Internet Tranny Sociology? What is this all to say? I guess it's to say that it's too naïve to believe that being "intelligent, incisive, and 'disagreeable'" is enough for one person (or bank) to wind up coming out on top. Nor should we dismiss as wholly irrelevant the very real fact that there are always, shall we say, "market makers" and "market movers" in these types of unfortunate situations that spit at someone's calculated and rational plays... because it's not really about calculation and rationality, it's about taking money from someone else's pocket and putting it into yours. Replace "money" with "political power" and it's all the more easier to understand why Civil Rights, Big Gay, feminism, poonerism, and whatever else always seem to have the backing of state power. This is basically why Kim was wrong. The "market" doesn't make sense, and it's not supposed to! If it did, the more intelligent, incisive, and disagreeable would be dancing atop the stars by now... except they're on The Amarna Forum (for now).

[Cyber Viking]

and someone is kind enough to explain to you what that word means by direct reference to the word's originator, and you "agree" with that person, you typically aren't then in a position to proceed to "argue" that the word ackshually means what you just incorrectly said it did.

I was agreeing about what Cats said about niggers, and the historical origins of longhouse societies. cats didn't say much on my opinion on women or the old. I then elaborated on my main point. If cats or anyone else wants to correct flaws in my thinking they're more than welcome to. BAM doesn't seem disagree with what I said. Aztec savages just as longhoused as modern world, didn't even have matriarchy, it's rule by old. The matriarchy is just another tool used by the longhouse to keep young men in-line, not all longhoused culture have it, but it is the most obvious example for a longhoused culture.

"Modern world not bad just because modern; and it is better than some ages in the past. Many parts of past were as bad, or worse, than our situation, and for the same reasons. The modern is “nothing new”: it is the return of a very ancient subjection and brokenness under new branding, promoted by new concepts and justifications. If you want to see our future look to Europe as it existed before 1600 BC, or much of the world as it was until recently and still is….the communal life of the longhouse with its young men dominated and broken by the old and sclerotic, by the matriarchs, the blob and yeast mode in human life overtaking and subjecting all higher aspiration. Aztec “cities” with twenty morons sleeping and eating off the floor, demagogued in the masses by blood-hungry priests with dead eyes. It is no different if they use the doxies of Reason and Logos to cart us off to this life."

You don't use or understand any of these terms or concepts correctly. Like ressentiment or Sensitive Young Man,

Sorry, I'm clearly not as bright as you. As someone who is clearly my intellectual superior, it should be easy for you to give me a proper definition and clear some things up.

Remember when yesterday, during one of your way-too-common fits of unanswered posts/messages, you insisted that I am an Elagabalian tranny?

Yes, you shove a dilator through your axe wound for the glory of Cybele while thinking about teenage arab boys, and I'm a fat spic and also the Green Groyper, correct? Yes or no will suffice.

How about all of the men who took "true historical" action because of some esoteric mutterance made by a Vestal Virgin or Greek oracle?

Yes, guess what, the real world application of the Oracles was still something done by men. Women are powerful as Oracles and Priestesses, but that's all they can be, all they can do is teach men about the spirit. Those men were based and worthy of respect too, not even all late Romans were even bad (Just like how not all modern Americans are bad, despite most of them being so) Flavius Claudius Julianus was based.

I'm sorry I used Rome to contrast my point about the greatness of the Germanic people. I understand you're a Sensitive Young Man yourself, and that things can get heated. I honestly didn't want to turn that thread into a debate about Rome, because I honestly don't even care about Rome (Knowing and caring are two different things). I was just being patriotic, the best way to be patriotic is to talk about how your nation is superior to others.

Contrasting my people with a race of subhumans like niggers or arabs would only demean us; I had to use a culture of comparative greatness for my narrative. You have a caricature of me in your head, and you project me onto some other random user on this site in some desperate attempt to do something (I don't really know what.)

Didn't you read the "What is Woman?" thread before Striped deleted everything and left (probably due to people like you specifically, i.e., faggots who should lurk more)?

Nah, I've been lurking here, and the only posters I've paid much attention to are anthony, JohnnyRomero, and Zed. Never saw that thread.

No. That's actually all "we" "allow" them to do. More importantly, who is "we"?

"We" means "our current society" Yes, society tells girls they're worthless if they just want to be housewives or neets or whatever. Society is what puts them through school, that indoctrinate them with feminist bullshit that men are evil and that they need to be girlbosses and compete with them. We also includes the trad larpers that just want to enslave women, if you hate women and want to treat them as nothing but baby factories and fast food, they're generally going to choose the girl-boss lifestyle that gives them the ILLUSION of dignity rather than something that is such obvious drudgery and oppression. Feminists and the Trads both treat women as if they should be rational economic actors (You need to contribute to benefit society/your husband, society/your husband is the only meaning you can find in life, so shut up and do what you're told.) Yes, this drives them insane and neurotic. 

Are you blind? Teenage girls are chopping their tits off and chemically sterilizing themselves to escape from all this. You celebrate the Oracles? That's the most based thing I've heard from you, women are happiest as woo woo magic girls, that's the life they need to pursue to be happy. You can see vestiges of this desire in femoid culture, they love things like astrology, it's one of the few things other than being pretty that they're truly passionate for. As priestesses, women can do what they truly good at (Spirituality) and have a respected position in society, without infringing on the world of men. In Germanic Pagan societies, women were minor priestesses of the hearth. They lead the rituals to appease the feminine deities and minor spirits like elves. (Deities which played a bigger role in normal life than war Gods like Odin or Tyr, which are exclusively for men.) Paganism needs to return, and it needs to be all-encompassing in the lives of both men and women. We can keep Christ as one of our Gods (I interpret him as Baldr), but there needs to be others. Gods and Goddesses for every aspect of human society, everything needs to be seen as spiritual and holy.

No one treats women like men. Whether they're "trans" or not, no man on Earth genuinely treats them the same as he would another man.

You're right, men lie to women when they act like they're our equals. Jews lie to women when they tell them they can compete with men in the workplace, and Trads lie to women when they say they love and respect them for being their personal slaves.

Other women are the ones doing that,

Yes, on behalf of institutions (The system) which was built by men.

The only people being told to "man up" and to stop complaining in light of all this are men,

Nah, it sounds like you honestly just don't understand the lives women live. Do you have any sisters? Women feel just as much pressure to conform and wage slave as men, I suppose the difference is that it's socially acceptable for them to complain about it, while not doing anything to change their lives.

[anthony]

I actually am interested in the pooner question beyond calling KimK retarded. I'll make a 'Longhouse General' if you want to continue this tangent any further.