Twatter Drama Megathread

[stair_fail]

I'm sorry but BAP is a joke, and the fact that so many young men on this website idolize him just goes to show far Amarnism is from being a movement worth taking seriously.

Because liking BAP is indirect cuckoldry. BAP's primary thing is women, just like that mystery meat MedGold, and what does he talk about?

He says that you shouldn't invest in serious relationships with used up roasties. Pretty sound advice. He says that the women you should marry or invest time in should be virtuous, and submissive, and like all the stuff people talk about with the trad wife meme. Pretty sound advice. He, and his ilk, go on to tweet every day about how he usually is in multiple sexual relationships with these women. Pressuring women who otherwise would have remained relatively chaste into a relationship that he is going to end once it's no longer enjoyable for him.

"Oh but it's different when I/men do it." There are hundreds if not thousands of men like BAP who go around preying on young, mostly innocent, women who would otherwise make nice wives and girlfriends and by his actions turns them into the exact kind of women he says people should only use for practice. Call me whipped or whatever, but men take the lead in relationships. Men set the standard for women. There were always men who prowled, but when everyone acts like BAP how can you be surprised that women turn out to be whores when that's what these so-called "what women want" turn them into? Would anyone idolize BAP as much as they do if they found the woman of their dreams, and she said he fucked her for 3 months and then ghosted? I wouldn't.

[august]

BAP's primary thing is women

I follow him for the dating advice and PUA tips and tricks.

[JohnnyRomero]

I enjoyed BAM when I read it (and re-read it, and re-read it, and marked it up in the margins, etc.), but now that I'm reading Actual /lit/erature I am realizing that it is, by and large, a worse version of Beyond Good & Evil. As Mikka said, still worthwhile in that it repackages revolutionary ideas in order to be more easily distributed to the masses.

[anthony]

I enjoyed BAM when I read it (and re-read it, and re-read it, and marked it up in the margins, etc.), but now that I'm reading Actual /lit/erature I am realizing that it is, by and large, a worse version of Beyond Good & Evil. As Mikka said, still worthwhile in that it repackages revolutionary ideas in order to be more easily distributed to the masses.

Now women understand that if they use "dysgenic" and "low-t" as synonyms for "bad" they can enslave even more men.

[Guest]

Women would be evil even if the BAP book never existed, they’d just be repackaging the words of other people to try and make men hate themselves.

[obscurefish]

Is cats soft and fluffy like a feline? She is so cute 
Hail cats! Hail her soft feline pussy!

"..."

[Okeener]

I enjoyed BAM when I read it (and re-read it, and re-read it, and marked it up in the margins, etc.), but now that I'm reading Actual /lit/erature I am realizing that it is, by and large, a worse version of Beyond Good & Evil. As Mikka said, still worthwhile in that it repackages revolutionary ideas in order to be more easily distributed to the masses.

Don't stop on BGE, BAM pulls a lot from other N's works.

[JohnTrent]

There are hundreds if not thousands of men like BAP who go around preying on young, mostly innocent, women who would otherwise make nice wives and girlfriends and by his actions turns them into the exact kind of women he says people should only use for practice.

I think you're attributing a causal link that simply cannot be found here. The woman mind is infantile (as we can all agree) but she still has responsibilities to bear, just as a child would. You would consider a child responsible for "antisocial behavior" if he engaged in it, and however advanced or cruel that behavior may be proves how responsible he really is for the act. The age of seven years old was once considered the point where a person could possess reason and could be tried in courts for illegal actions. Even if people attempt to deny now that children are unable to possess reason, the existence of juvenile courts still indicates an element of responsibility for one's own actions. The reason I'm bringing this aside up here is that you seem to believe that BAP (or other men) are singularly corruptive influences for young girls — are they really?

Maybe I was just sent to a bizarro world bacchanalia middle school, but a lot of girls began having sex around that time. That was their initiation into the detached dating world. I am not sure where you're getting these details from (BAP prowling around, so to speak), but if this is really true, you must consider the life histories of those involved. How long have they been sexually active, and should we begin to raise doubts about corruptive influences if it long precedes a person like BAP? Furthermore, we should begin ask ourselves if someone like BAP is at fault when whores begin to accumulate — such a problem goes well beyond the realm of internet figures. It strikes me as odd that we should not condemn the whore first for whoring. Why shouldn't she be responsible?

[I had some a longer post planned but omitted the second half. I am more interested in how you reply to these statements first before anything else.]

[Trevor Bauer]

Blaming political problems on 'us men' as some kind of gestural act of ersatz masculinity is normgroided and norwooded beyond comprehension. As we continue to win in an ongoing rheotorical/statistical blowout and shift culture, more and more spiritual faggots are appearing in right wing clothing pushing these sorts of angles to subvert the right wing discourse into something they're more comfortable with. They should be dealt with much like an irate woman, with a hard raping and a cuddle at the end.

[stair_fail]

There are hundreds if not thousands of men like BAP who go around preying on young, mostly innocent, women who would otherwise make nice wives and girlfriends and by his actions turns them into the exact kind of women he says people should only use for practice.

I think you're attributing a causal link that simply cannot be found here. The woman mind is infantile (as we can all agree) but she still has responsibilities to bear, just as a child would. You would consider a child responsible for "antisocial behavior" if he engaged in it, and however advanced or cruel that behavior may be proves how responsible he really is for the act. The age of seven years old was once considered the point where a person could possess reason and could be tried in courts for illegal actions. Even if people attempt to deny now that children are unable to possess reason, the existence of juvenile courts still indicates an element of responsibility for one's own actions. The reason I'm bringing this aside up here is that you seem to believe that BAP (or other men) are singularly corruptive influences for young girls — are they really?

Maybe I was just sent to a bizarro world bacchanalia middle school, but a lot of girls began having sex around that time. That was their initiation into the detached dating world. I am not sure where you're getting these details from (BAP prowling around, so to speak), but if this is really true, you must consider the life histories of those involved. How long have they been sexually active, and should we begin to raise doubts about corruptive influences if it long precedes a person like BAP? Furthermore, we should begin ask ourselves if someone like BAP is at fault when whores begin to accumulate — such a problem goes well beyond the realm of internet figures. It strikes me as odd that we should not condemn the whore first for whoring. Why shouldn't she be responsible?

[I had some a longer post planned but omitted the second half. I am more interested in how you reply to these statements first before anything else.]

I'm not saying BAP is the sole, or even a proximal cause of the current situation regarding the Female Question. However, it is the duty of men to lead by example. Yes, there are a lot of women who are whores, but fucking said whores gives them a certain validation. After all, the "fatherless" behavior is there precisely to fill the void that the love and affirmation of a parental figure would otherwise be there. Do they feel awful after, or later down the line? Maybe. But in the now, all this advice given out by BAP and his adjacent does is enable whoredom.

It makes zero sense to preach about how strong apollonian men should RETVRN to the epic and trad aryan chariot society, grab the bull by the horns, etc. and then build that on a foundation of fucking whores, getting drunk, doing psychadelics, etc. I believe BAP even stated that the reason (the absolutely tiny amount in real life) women racemix is because "Jamal is more masculine and doesn't take shit from women". If you take off the golden laurels and tanning oil, BAP basically tells people to act like niggers. Be loud, rude, obstinate, and fuck whores, cheat on your wife because it's your right as a man, etc.

Maybe this is part of that "ride the kali yuga" bullshit, but the current system wants people to debase themselves and turn into animals. Going around fucking whores "but in a masculine, trad way" is just playing right into the hands of the people who have torn down western society. I understand that women and men by their nature have different standards, but "fuck whores, and maybe a few women who aren't, until you find your tradwife and settle down" is literally the same as what roasties do just this time with a Nietzschean veneer.

I think BAP says a lot of good, or at least interesting stuff, but I don't take him that seriously. He's just some old pervert from Lithuania or some shit.

[Guest]

As time goes on, the cycle repeats. "It is the duty of men to lead by example." PUAs are the ones who made whores. This has been said many times, for the same reason each time, and it is always funny.

I will lead a woman I only met today out of all her past decisions. I will lead...the world...to based moral "we're nice people" civilization. Every great man is a polite man, who never has sex except out of purest worship of God.

I have unfortunate news that will never be accepted. A woman will fool you, and it will be very easy. Because you wish to believe you have "lead her" into what she performs as. This is one of the most common sights to see when men "settle down."

[august]

It makes zero sense to preach about how strong apollonian men should RETVRN to the epic and trad aryan chariot society, grab the bull by the horns, etc. and then build that on a foundation of fucking whores, getting drunk, doing psychadelics, etc.

There is something seriously wrong with the types that come on here, likely only having ever read half of a Compact Mag or American Mind ( ... A Claremont Publication ... ) article written by a Very Serious Adult Who Totally Understands THE PERVERT, and now think that they're totally ready to pwn The Nietzscheans (≤10 people total out of all living human beings alive at this very moment). I know men just like you in real life (that is, if you even are a male) that genuinely believe reality and women exist exactly as you describe, and they are largely why the term "cuckservative" exists. You should be doing more reading and less typing when it comes to the "Female Question". If your understanding of it matched the confidence with which you explain it, you'd have been redpilled long ago to see that the only suitable 'answer' to the question is for most women to be the property of either their father or husband and subject to the property rights of said man. Since you don't even understand this, you don't understand social dynamics, you don't understand politics, and you definitely don't understand elementary history or science. 

"Don't have sex with women... it debases them and encourages them to be disgusting whores!" I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you that they are totally capable of being disgusting whores perfectly well all by themselves, and it's always been that way, and always will be whether they're getting sexed or not. Go check out some female "romance" novels if you want to see who the most twisted sexual deviants really are. Men only decided for thousands of years to not allow them to make any decisions because... erm well... Egoism and Patriarchy... yeah! 

I believe BAP even stated that the reason (the absolutely tiny amount in real life) women racemix is because "Jamal is more masculine and doesn't take shit from women".

Where or when has he said this? Women racemix because they're generally retarded. You think Jamal (a slightly evolved, or devolved, ape) is more masculine because you're an idiot and you're projecting your own racial cuck fantasy views onto BAP. Blacks are possibly the least masculine race in existence, which is saying a lot considering that Han Chinese exist. Almost everything about them is feminine, from their neuroticism, narcissism, and lack of agency, to their blind desire for material appearances and disregard for any and all consequences of their actions. They're cowards and might have the lowest pain tolerance across all races. Please, don't look into homo and tranny percentages by race, or Who Is Doing The Raping in American prisons... it will completely shatter every view that you have on these topics.

I understand that women and men by their nature have different standards, but "fuck whores, and maybe a few women who aren't, until you find your tradwife and settle down" is literally the same as what roasties do just this time with a Nietzschean veneer.

Again, where or when has he said this? Sadly, your "tradwife" doesn't exist, because marriage itself no longer exists. Marriage, as the term is currently employed, isn't marriage at all. He, along with many others, has talked about all of this at great length. 

He's just some old pervert from Lithuania or some shit.

"The Bronze Age Pervert is just some pervert. You know he's just some pervert right?" 

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

If your understanding of it matched the confidence with which you explain it, you'd have been redpilled long ago to see that the only suitable 'answer' to the question is for most women to be the property of either their father or husband and subject to the property rights of said man.

This makes sense.

"Don't have sex with women... it debases them and encourages them to be disgusting whores!" I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you that they are totally capable of being disgusting whores perfectly well all by themselves, and it's always been that way, and always will be whether they're getting sexed or not. Go check out some female "romance" novels if you want to see who the most twisted sexual deviants really are. Men only decided for thousands of years to not allow them to make any decisions because... erm well... Egoism and Patriarchy... yeah!

Men having casual sex with women doesn't just "encourage" women to be disgusting whores, it's an exact requirement for the behavior to occur. There is no way for a woman to be a disgusting whore without there also existing a supply of men willing to sleep with her and then move on without commitment.

If women have a fixed nature and are short-sighted whores with little maturity or agency (I largely agree), then how could the current situation be anyone's responsibility other than that of men? Isn't it the responsibility of men to enforce a culture of norms and laws that prevent men and women from having sex 9999 times out of wedlock, which leaves these women miserable and childless at 40?

Patriarchy places restrictions on men too (and that's a good thing). Fucking random whores is not patriarchy, it's sexual anarchy. You can't be considered to own a woman as property unless you commit to looking after her in the long term and prevent other men from sleeping with her.

Marriage, as the term is currently employed, isn't marriage at all.

So we should erode monogamous sexual norms even further? Why stop at destroying marriage, we could normalize polyamory next. This seems like nihilism.

[Guest]

"you're doing a heckin nihilism"
"that's not very tradpilled of you"
"..."
"here on amarna-forum.net we don't do le heckin nihilisms we listen to based trannies like zed"

[august]

Men having casual sex with women doesn't just "encourage" women to be disgusting whores, it's an exact requirement for the behavior to occur. There is no way for a woman to be a disgusting whore without there also existing a supply of men willing to sleep with her and then move on without commitment.

If women have a fixed nature and are short-sighted whores with little maturity or agency (I largely agree), then how could the current situation be anyone's responsibility other than that of men? Isn't it the responsibility of men to enforce a culture of norms and laws that prevent men and women from having sex 9999 times out of wedlock, which leaves these women miserable and childless at 40?

Marriage, as the term is currently employed, isn't marriage at all.

So we should erode monogamous sexual norms even further? Why stop at destroying marriage, we could normalize polyamory next. This seems like nihilism.

"Marriage" is no longer strictly a property contract, it is no longer strictly an irreversible sacrament, and it is no longer even something that exists strictly for the proliferation of progeny or the creation of family units in organised society (see faggot ""marriage""). None of the original incentives that had to be included for men to accept it exist anymore (i.e., man's ownership of his property in antiquity, or coverture later on) ... I've no idea why anyone takes offense to this since it is just a fact. You say that what I've described seems nihilistic, but explain how you aren't already living in a world consumed by nihilism. You understand that so-called "marital rape" exists today and is routinely and unremorsefully used by women as the basis to ruin many a "married" man's life? This would be entirely inconceivable to any man outside this tiny blip in time that we currently live in... the idea that you, a man, can "rape" your own wife. What?

I've already given too many of my thoughts on this, in a number of different threads on this site, to retype. Read them if you want, or don't. You disagree with the "annihilate everything that exists" metaphor, so please skip the rhetoricals and just say what your ideal solution would be whereby you presumably are able save something that, for all intents and purposes, exists almost entirely in name and vestigial sentiment only. Basically, since you've already said that this is the only sensible answer to the Female Question, tell me how you plan to Make Women Property Again in a way that is incompatible with anything that I've said or anything that BAP has said (given that he is the subject of this discussion, and because I believe understands the issue better than most and I largely agree with him).

[BillyONare]

“Why do you put a fence around your chickens? It’s the weasels’ fault for being willing to eat the chicken. Take responsibility as a carnivore and put a fence around the weasels instead!”

The communist is always a feminist too.

[BillyONare]

Mason is like those libtards in 2005 whose slogan was “don’t teach your daughters how to not be raped, teach your sons to not rape”

[anthony]

You guys seen SIR Ridley Scott's 'The Last Duel'? I really liked that one.

[Guest]

This conversation reminded me of this.


https://br.ifunny.co/picture/bronze-age-...-i0LWQhNSA

Read the comments(or don’t).

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

Men having casual sex with women doesn't just "encourage" women to be disgusting whores, it's an exact requirement for the behavior to occur. There is no way for a woman to be a disgusting whore without there also existing a supply of men willing to sleep with her and then move on without commitment.

There are women who are whores in the proper sense without having had sexual relations. Many femcels...

This minority of women possess narcissistic delusions of self-worth (they are all waiting for Chad who has plenty of other options) that are dependent on the narcissism of the larger group of promiscuous women. If "femcels" (I despise this term) weren't highly conscious of the fact that they could easily sleep with hundreds of men if they lifted a finger, they would behave more appropriately.

Fucking random whores is not patriarchy, it's sexual anarchy.

I don't see why all men need to be bound, lest they fall into temptation. The act itself matters not.

Say a man comes home to a Quality Tradwife, after a hard day's work making decisions on Foreign Policy at State and posting on Amarna Forum 2.0, and then later in the evening, after a good meal, when restless and in need of stimulation, heads to a choice location in town for a little fun. He doesn't lie to himself about what he does and nor does he leave his wife, taking it as all part of his manly nature.

I hope one in Love would not do so but cannot condemn one who goes without that Idea/Yoke.

You are Chaste and a Virgin, or regretfully not, given your Opinions, yes? May I ask, if you are content to remain in that state until the end of your days, awaiting True Love, settling for no compromises that may induce Lustful Thoughts?

It's the right way, of course; though, not the easy or homely path that flippant language makes it appear.

An adulterer should be condemned, he's damaging his marriage. There aren't that many acts that are more destructive to one's family than adultery. I won't absolutely condemn all sex that is not between married couples, I think young love is okay and it's not realistic to expect every person's body count to be either exactly one or zero. However, we should be suppressing sexual promiscuity, and certainly not encouraging it.

I wouldn't be content to die a virgin, but I'd rather die a virgin than create a Tinder profile. I don't think chastity is a hard path to follow for rational minds; sexual immorality will only satiate your personal lust for a brief moment, but with shared moral strength we can build legacies and civilizations. From what I've gathered from friends, chasing trashy women is an unfulfilling waste of time and energy anyway.

---

"Marriage" is no longer strictly a property contract, it is no longer strictly an irreversible sacrament, and it is no longer even something that exists strictly for the proliferation of progeny or the creation of family units in organised society (see faggot ""marriage""). None of the original incentives that had to be included for men to accept it exist anymore (i.e., man's ownership of his property in antiquity, or coverture later on) ... I've no idea why anyone takes offense to this since it is just a fact. You say that what I've described seems nihilistic, but explain how you aren't already living in a world consumed by nihilism. You understand that so-called "marital rape" exists today and is routinely and unremorsefully used by women as the basis to ruin many a "married" man's life? This would be entirely inconceivable to any man outside this tiny blip in time that we currently live in... the idea that you, a man, can "rape" your own wife. What?

I've already given too many of my thoughts on this, in a number of different threads on this site, to retype. Read them if you want, or don't. You disagree with the "annihilate everything that exists" metaphor, so please skip the rhetoricals and just say what your ideal solution would be whereby you presumably are able save something that, for all intents and purposes, exists almost entirely in name and vestigial sentiment only. Basically, since you've already said that this is the only sensible answer to the Female Question, tell me how you plan to Make Women Property Again in a way that is incompatible with anything that I've said or anything that BAP has said (given that he is the subject of this discussion, and because I believe understands the issue better than most and I largely agree with him).

We live in a world that has been partially consumed by nihilism. I can imagine lots of ways the world could get worse. LGBT activists are demanding further concessions. The modern vestigial sentiment of marriage has significant albeit lesser value, and its existence is better than many alternatives. We both agree that sexual liberation has harmed society in a variety of terrible ways, so why would we want more of it?

My ideal solution to this problem begins with the ascendance of a secular counterculture that values marriage and family, and shames those who engage in casual sex. It will need to eventually overcome significant legal and economic barriers that stand in the way of bringing back marriage in the true sense (divorce laws, economic effects of immigration, etc.), but Tradcaths are pushing in the right direction on this particular issue for all their faults.

Conversely, promoting or engaging in degenerate hedonistic sex is making the problem worse. You claim that the situation is so bad that nothing can possibly be salvaged, but I disagree. If about half of the US population are married, and about half of marriages end in divorce, it's still worth protecting and trying to improve on the 25% share of lasting marriages which I imagine are mostly happy and fruitful.

---

“Why do you put a fence around your chickens? It’s the weasels’ fault for being willing to eat the chicken. Take responsibility as a carnivore and put a fence around the weasels instead!”

The communist is always a feminist too.

To correct your analogy: The weasels are the ones who built the fence because they are cultivating chicken. Some of the weasels broke down the fence and are eating the chicken. The weasels are the only ones capable of rebuilding the fence. The best place for the fence to be is probably around the chickens, but the weasels have to be the ones to construct it. The weasels should also create rules that punish those weasels who break the fence to prevent this from happening again.

I'm not a feminist, feminists demand women are given more power with less responsibility, which is delusional cultural suicide for a lot of obvious reasons. Women ought to have less power and about the same responsibility for childcare and homemaking that they were traditionally given. If you reflexively name-call anyone who vaguely resembles a group you disagree with, you're preventing your ideas from being challenged and improving.