Twatter Drama Megathread

[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.

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

I'm not planning on it, just my starting point because BAP & Hakan referenced him. After that Schopenhauer because Faceberg read him, and Hegel because Thomas777 likes him. I will not be reading Kant because Kantbot is fat, and I will not be reading Carlyle because Moldbug is J*wish. This is what is referred to as an "integrated literary canon." #reading

[august]

but Tradcaths are pushing in the right direction on this particular issue for all their faults.

What can I say here? That "Tradcaths" largely don't exist either? Of course, that is also true... but I doubt that you will believe me or agree with me if you think that those who currently label themselves as Traditional Catholics are meaningfully contributing to the fixing of this problem. Until they start emphasising subjugation of the wife to her husband, which, mind you, is the literal word of the Apostolic faith, they are wasting their time. I don't expect them to realise this, because many of them blindly accept the legitimacy of what has very strongly been argued to be an illegitimate Bishop of Rome. Perhaps they should first at least set their house in order... 

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.

What I said about the existence of "marital rape" and anthony's quick reference to The Last Duel must have gone over your head. 

Rape, or the Latin rapere or raptio, in the original and correct sense is to steal or to carry off; the Sabine women were stolen, or carried off. Even that dismally low conjecture of 25% of "happy and fruitful" marriages means little to me when there currently exists the near universally accepted principle that a man can steal or carry off his own wife. In every single one of those happy marriages, the man is subjugated to his wife. 

You mention legal barriers. I presume that part of this would be getting rid of no-fault divorce, as many trads are wont to talk about. How about if another man actually rapes my wife or, even worse, what if I catch my wife in the act with another man? At least in America, I believe that you are allowed to use non-deadly force to stop someone who is actively violating your property rights (please correct me if I'm wrong on that). But wives aren't property, and you haven't explained how you plan to make them so. And, it seems that even if they were property, I wouldn't even be able to outright kill a man if I walked in on him inside my wife, nor could I kill him Last Duel-style if I learned of it after the fact. This is all to say that the situation may in fact be "so bad that nothing can possibly be salvaged," and the solutions are not as simple as you want them to be. We cannot blackpill and I don't wish to blackpill you, but in a world rebuilt completely on lies, we have to be honest and tell the truth, which most of the time is much harder than deluding ourselves.

[BillyONare]

The weasels should also create rules that punish those weasels who break the fence to prevent this from happening again.

This is the problematic part. Every weasel has his own chicken coop in Basedworld and it’s not the weasels breaking down the fences; it’s the government. It is noble and proper that chickens that are not anyone’s property are raped and kidnapped by the most energetic weasels, but this is the part you are mostly complaining about and telling telling the White weasels they need to stop it, and saying that what the government is doing is the white weasels’ fault.

[BillyONare]

“PUAs invented divorce and the government and women’s rights”

[Sunspot]

Not even the Spartans "sent their noble boys out on their own to rape, pillage, and kill their racial enemies".

"Every autumn, Spartan ephors would declare war on the helot population which would allow them to headhunt helots without fear of punishment. The chosen kryptai were then sent out into the countryside armed with daggers with the instructions to kill any helot they encountered travelling the roads and tending to fields they deemed too plentiful. They were specifically told to kill the strongest and to take any food they needed. The reason for adopting that practice may have been to reduce the repressed aggression of the hêbôntes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypteia

The Krypteia began during the period of Spartan decline, when wars had reduced the Spartan population to a small fraction relative to the helots. They were in response to helot rebellions, but these rebellions were mostly from Messenians, not Laconic helots (Laconia being the region most directly and traditionally under Spartan control).Messenia was a neighboring region whose which was annexed at a later date and whose inhabitants still harbored a desire for independence. Krypteia are best understood as coming not from an aristocracy in the peak of its bloom but rather the ruthlessly pragmatic actions of a ruling caste insecure in its position.

The relationship between the helots and the Spartans was not so antagonistic, or the society would not have endured so long nor been so successful. Helots who proved their worth as soldiers were in some instances liberated. Others would also save up to purchase their freedom. In general they enjoyed relative freedom: they had their own family units, could move throughout Laconia, and could participate in a number of different economic ventures. Better thought of as well off serfs, their standard of living was higher than slaves in slave societies such as Athens.

(Spartan history is sometimes unclear since we have no surviving records from Sparta itself. We rely much on Athenian  writers with grievances and political motives.)

[Guest]

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.

Alright, brave little man. Then who is going to step up to rape them? Like actually sodomizing them and fucking them in the ass, given that they're all men. Is it gonna be you? Any voluntaries?

[Guest]

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.

And women would say that you were betraying the White Race for not wanting to fuck them during the wheat field era years ago. What you're saying doesn't mean anything. You are the one giving 'power' to women, actually, cheerfully throwing useful signifiers under a bus because they upset you.

[cats]

Krypteia are best understood as coming not from an aristocracy in the peak of its bloom but rather the ruthlessly pragmatic actions of a ruling caste insecure in its position.

I doubt that very strongly. Even if the practice had waned and waxed over the years or the Athenians got a few details wrong, the Krypteia are clearly a continuation of the tradition of the Aryan kóryos, which is royal and thus high status in every descendant culture. The specifics aren't important anyway, since I only set out to disprove Mason's idiotic assertions on historical societies.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

but Tradcaths are pushing in the right direction on this particular issue for all their faults.

What can I say here? That "Tradcaths" largely don't exist either? Of course, that is also true... but I doubt that you will believe me or agree with me if you think that those who currently label themselves as Traditional Catholics are meaningfully contributing to the fixing of this problem. Until they start emphasising subjugation of the wife to her husband, which, mind you, is the literal word of the Apostolic faith, they are wasting their time. I don't expect them to realise this, because many of them blindly accept the legitimacy of what has very strongly been argued to be an illegitimate Bishop of Rome. Perhaps they should first at least set their house in order...

I do avoid these types, and I get that many are LARPing, but from what I've seen most "Tradcaths" (even the female ones) do in fact emphasize that a wife ought to submit to her husband. The Bible explicitly states this, as you say, even if the church is in favor of giving more rights to women. My understanding is that many tradcaths are also critical of aspects of the modern Catholic church. I might be missing something here since I don't spend much time in these circles, but this feels off-base.

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.

What I said about the existence of "marital rape" and anthony's quick reference to The Last Duel must have gone over your head. 

Rape, or the Latin rapere or raptio, in the original and correct sense is to steal or to carry off; the Sabine women were stolen, or carried off. Even that dismally low conjecture of 25% of "happy and fruitful" marriages means little to me when there currently exists the near universally accepted principle that a man can steal or carry off his own wife. In every single one of those happy marriages, the man is subjugated to his wife. 

You mention legal barriers. I presume that part of this would be getting rid of no-fault divorce, as many trads are wont to talk about. How about if another man actually rapes my wife or, even worse, what if I catch my wife in the act with another man? At least in America, I believe that you are allowed to use non-deadly force to stop someone who is actively violating your property rights (please correct me if I'm wrong on that). But wives aren't property, and you haven't explained how you plan to make them so. And, it seems that even if they were property, I wouldn't even be able to outright kill a man if I walked in on him inside my wife, nor could I kill him Last Duel-style if I learned of it after the fact. This is all to say that the situation may in fact be "so bad that nothing can possibly be salvaged," and the solutions are not as simple as you want them to be. We cannot blackpill and I don't wish to blackpill you, but in a world rebuilt completely on lies, we have to be honest and tell the truth, which most of the time is much harder than deluding ourselves.

Walking back no-fault divorce is an initial step towards living in a society that once again considers women to be property. I would support any group with more ambitious goals, for example a serious attempt to repeal women's suffrage, but that seems more than anyone could reasonably expect right now. I understand and agree with everything you're saying regarding the mockery of nature marriage has become, I just reject the conclusion that this makes casual sex morally neutral.

Casual sex has no place in the ideal world where a woman is considered property of either her father or husband, so it seems hypocritical and morally weak to promote it today. Even from your viewpoint, hedonism doesn't achieve anything other than making you feel good in the short term, which dampens political fervor as well as empowers the system through participation. If modern marriage is a farce, why not abstain from casual sex to make a point and galvanize support for creating a society where true marriage does exist? However, I would argue there is some value left in trying your best to start a family, even though you cannot meaningfully "own" her and the state will side with your wife if she chooses to randomly cheat on or leave you.

Describing the situation as unsalvageable is not just acceptance of how bad the current situation is, but also the defeated assertion that things cannot possibly get better without throwing out our entire civilization. Modern sexual norms are dysgenic and unsustainable, so there always exists some hope that the majority may come to recognize this culturally and take political action before our entire society collapses. I expect this cultural recognition to look something like the reactionary sentiments of these online "trad" movements.

---

The weasels should also create rules that punish those weasels who break the fence to prevent this from happening again.

This is the problematic part. Every weasel has his own chicken coop in Basedworld and it’s not the weasels breaking down the fences; it’s the government. It is noble and proper that chickens that are not anyone’s property are raped and kidnapped by the most energetic weasels, but this is the part you are mostly complaining about and telling telling the White weasels they need to stop it, and saying that what the government is doing is the white weasels’ fault.

Fair enough, I don't think the government necessarily needs to play any role in marriage since it's an ancient and natural thing, and the government is the source of most problems here. The "rules" could be religious doctrine or even social norms, such as the expectation that if you take a girl without the consent of her Ancap gun-owning father there will be some repercussions.

However, I'm not objecting to men who "rape and kidnap": as august points out, this is close to the traditional definition of marriage. I'm objecting to those who engage in casual sex with a woman without "kidnapping" her (committing to own and look after her for the rest of your life). Returning a woman to the decentralized whorehouse (de facto owned by the state) afterwards is the immoral act, not the act of sleeping with her in the first instance. I don't think men or women should participate in this behavior.

[august]

I understand and agree with everything you're saying regarding the mockery of nature marriage has become, I just reject the conclusion that this makes casual sex morally neutral.

Casual sex has no place in the ideal world where a woman is considered property of either her father or husband, so it seems hypocritical and morally weak to promote it today.

This is why this conversation is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Everything that you're saying is centered around moral presuppositions. This stair_fail fellow was doing the same thing, and recall who I was defending in my response to him that you took your initial issue with. Everything that I'm saying is more or less from a position that stands against this type of moralising. All the talk of morals is exactly why you (and me, and really any man, for that matter) have to deal with the situation as it currently exists, because morals are whatever Women and Wife Guys say they are... aka "Man Up!" and Marry That Fat, Ran Through Thirty Year Old Cow. 

dampens political fervor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:M...f_Napoleon. Napoleon was, and shall eternally remain, a sensitive young man, by the way.

If modern marriage is a farce, why not abstain from casual sex to make a point and galvanize support for creating a society where true marriage does exist? 

Because that's not what would happen. I'm not as much of a doomer on all of this as you may have come to think, and I truly believe that you and many others are eventually going to find a nice girl that you will undoubtedly fall in love with and experience all the joys that come with that. But a Volcel Revolt Against the Modern World is not going to lead to a massive awakening. Hypothetically, wouldn't it make sense to say that if men were unconstrained by monogamy and marriage, they would biologically seek to have as much sex with as many women as possible to ensure genetic progeny? Obviously, this isn't (or wasn't) the most effective reproductive strategy for civilisational longevity, since it was replaced by monogamous relationships. But with monogamy and marriage, does man not forego what is at least a theoretical potential for as much sex as he can attain? Of course he does. So again, the fundamental and absolutely necessary requirement to incentivise man to marry: ownership. Does he have that? Not at all. Then, isn't everything technically a sunk cost? That excerpt from Aidan's book talked about this... or maybe all of that was just "repulsive coal". 

there is some value left in trying your best to start a family, even though you cannot meaningfully "own" her and the state will side with your wife if she chooses to randomly cheat on or leave you.

I almost can't give serious comment to this. Just reread what you said here and think about this "value" in terms of economics or investing. Would you ever put all of your money (aka no diversification) toward purchasing shares of a company that gave you 0% ownership and no real guarantee of future dividend payments? Would you ever make a loan to someone who can one day just decide that they don't feel like paying you back and who can legally void the agreement that you both had with each other with no repercussions? 

Modern sexual norms are dysgenic and unsustainable, so there always exists some hope that the majority may come to recognize this culturally and take political action before our entire society collapses.

Better chance of hell freezing over. You put too much faith in today's broader masses, as they currently exist, being able to have competent (let alone eugenic!) realisations like this, I think. Wouldn't they have recognised it by now?

[Zed]

I almost can't give serious comment to this. Just reread what you said here and think about this "value" in terms of economics or investing. Would you ever put all of your money (aka no diversification) toward purchasing shares of a company that gave you 0% ownership and no real guarantee of future dividend payments? 

I don't agree with Mason, but this is such cancer. Your lover should not be thought about in such terms. This attitude is suitable to business and contractual marriages, the kind that are common in parts of Asia still. Romance still exists in this world, but it does not belong to those impose such a sterilized frame upon it. You always risk in love, and you must always be bold enough to take upon the weight of that risk. 

Imagine if you did 'own' her. What would that mean if she started to despise you even so? Would you not feel pain if she looked at you with disgust and cringed every time you touched her? You would have a hole you were legally allowed to fuck when you please, but would you feel truly satisfied? Men still ended up depressed miserable alcoholics even in traditional societies, at odds with their wives and isolated in their own beds. Aidan's utopia is false and speaks to his own naivety and immaturity. The ownership you desire is not the ownership granted by the state, but that of the woman who loves and follows you unquestionably out of a blind and absolute trust. No state or law can ensure this - because the dynamic cannot be forced. The man must be worthy in her eyes.

Would you ever make a loan to someone who can one day just decide that they don't feel like paying you back and who can legally void the agreement that you both had with each other with no repercussions?

I've done so several times with friends. I've even been burned once or twice. I will continue to do so in the future. Faith, trust, and loyalty are the real currency at play.

[BillyONare]

He is a red and as such obviously does not understand financial metaphors.

[Zed]

He is a red and as such obviously does not understand financial metaphors.

One must be irrational on matters of love, if one seeks to experience it at all. Cold game theoretic optimization applied to love/marriage/romance is atrocious and it speaks to the cowardice of the heart of those who engage with it. It's borne out of a spirit that wishes to protect itself from pain, and is terrified of the consequences of failure.

Let yourself fall in love totally. If it fails -  then you can always kill yourself, or her, or both, or neither - that is how it has always been and always should be. 

I cannot comprehend those who require the affirmation of the state and society to feel 'safe' enough to live in accordance with this truth.

[BillyONare]

Romance still exists in this world, but it does not belong to those impose such a sterilized frame upon it. You always risk in love, and you must always be bold enough to take upon the weight of that risk.

Imagine if you did 'own' her. What would that mean if she started to despise you even so? Would you not feel pain if she looked at you with disgust and cringed every time you touched her? You would have a hole you were legally allowed to fuck when you please, but would you feel truly satisfied? Men still ended up depressed miserable alcoholics even in traditional societies, at odds with their wives and isolated in their own beds. Aidan's utopia is false and speaks to his own naivety and immaturity. The ownership you desire is not the ownership granted by the state, but that of the woman who loves and follows you unquestionably out of a blind and absolute trust. No state or law can ensure this - because the dynamic cannot be forced. The man must be worthy in her eyes.

[august]

It's borne out of a spirit that wishes to protect itself from pain, and is terrified of the consequences of failure.

Fine. One point to you. Though my comparison was merely rhetorical. In any case, experience leads us to truth more often than it does happiness, "and he that increaseth knowledge ..."

Let yourself fall in love totally. If it fails -  then you can always kill yourself, or her, or both, or neither - that is how it has always been and always should be. 

[BillyONare]

I don't agree with Mason, but this is such cancer. Your lover should not be thought about in such terms. This attitude is suitable to business and contractual marriages, the kind that are common in parts of Asia still. Romance still exists in this world, but it does not belong to those impose such a sterilized frame upon it. You always risk in love, and you must always be bold enough to take upon the weight of that risk.

Imagine if you did 'own' her. What would that mean if she started to despise you even so? Would you not feel pain if she looked at you with disgust and cringed every time you touched her? You would have a hole you were legally allowed to fuck when you please, but would you feel truly satisfied? Men still ended up depressed miserable alcoholics even in traditional societies, at odds with their wives and isolated in their own beds. Aidan's utopia is false and speaks to his own naivety and immaturity. The ownership you desire is not the ownership granted by the state, but that of the woman who loves and follows you unquestionably out of a blind and absolute trust. No state or law can ensure this - because the dynamic cannot be forced. The man must be worthy in her eyes.

There is some truth and beauty in this. You have given good advice regarding women in other threads. However I think you have as much experience with biological women as St. Blackops2cel. I believe in true love and love at first site. I've seen alpha male and alpha female couples in real life (and online like with Aidan), texting each other 2000 times a day, making love so deeply that they become one being, etc.. It rarely works out. The Jews, the government, psychiatrists are all trying to break these couples apart and usually succeed. Often the female just leaves for inexplicable reasons (because she is tasteless and soulless like all holes; maybe they subconsciously self hating and believe that they don't deserve true love since they are a fallen race?). The relationships that last yes have an element of true love, but more important for enduring are banal things: the woman having a low body count, the man being redpilled or even a normie Christian or conservative, the man holding frame, being decisive about which fast food restaurant to go to, having authority and not being a cruel beta that tortures the woman with petty arguments and passive aggression, cold reptile rationality, viewing women as property, "game", implicit threats of violence, not being a slob but still keeping her busy with chores, making sure she does not get fat, making sure she has a low status/low stress career as something like your secretary or paperwork lady at the car dealership you are a big dick at. These banal things are the meta to having successful heterosexual relationships 1v1 on Final Destination. As a tranny you are playing Smash Bros with all the items turned on.

Let yourself fall in love totally. If it fails - then you can always kill yourself, or her, or both, or neither - that is how it has always been and always should be.

A noble sentiment. I would never kill myself, especially not over a woman and it would be retarded. A man's legacy is what is important in the world, and women can be an important part of that as they will bear and raise children, but they are the wine, not the meat and potatoes. Imagine if Napoleon, or Donald Trump, or Elon Musk, or any of the Great philosophers, artists, and Great Men killed themselves over a woman dropping the baton. We would live in a dumpster world. School shooters and guys that murder-suicide their girlfriend deserve medals, but if you have potential you need to be as an unstoppable cockroach that cannot be captured or killed. Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker.

[Zed]

There is some truth and beauty in this. You have given good advice regarding women in other threads. However I think you have as much experience with biological women as St. Blackops2cel. I believe in true love and love at first site. I've seen alpha male and alpha female couples in real life (and online like with Aidan), texting each other 2000 times a day, making love so deeply that they become one being, etc.. It rarely works out. The Jews, the government, psychiatrists are all trying to break these couples apart and usually succeed. Often the female just leaves for inexplicable reasons (because she is tasteless and soulless like all holes; maybe they subconsciously self hating and believe that they don't deserve true love since they are a fallen race?). The relationships that last yes have an element of true love, but more important for enduring are banal things: the woman having a low body count, the man being redpilled or even a normie Christian or conservative, the man holding frame, being decisive about which fast food restaurant to go to, having authority and not being a cruel beta that tortures the woman with petty arguments and passive aggression, cold reptile rationality, viewing women as property, "game", implicit threats of violence, not being a slob but still keeping her busy with chores, making sure she does not get fat, making sure she has a low status/low stress career as something like your secretary or paperwork lady at the car dealership you are a big dick at. These banal things are the meta to having successful heterosexual relationships 1v1 on Final Destination. As a tranny you are playing Smash Bros with all the items turned on.

Right, there are points of agreement I have with you in this -  so I'll address it in pieces.

I've seen alpha male and alpha female couples in real life (and online like with Aidan), texting each other 2000 times a day, making love so deeply that they become one being, etc.. It rarely works out. The Jews, the government, psychiatrists are all trying to break these couples apart and usually succeed. Often the female just leaves for inexplicable reasons...

I've observed the same. Although adept 'game' practitioners are generally correct, they are often substantially wrong on specifics where being correct matters the most. Heartiste wrote about the techniques needed to seduce and fuck whores, and was quite open about the fact that his techniques were aimed pussy-maximization. But if you paid attention to how he described the women worthy of love, it was clear he was describing a different subspecies. Game deludes the practitioner, because it instructs them in chasing whores, with a misaligned sense that they can fix them - and men do fall in love with whores, even in defiance of their own rationality. But the biggest delusion is generally a consistent misunderstanding of both their own capabilities and the characters of their prospective lovers. The vast majority of dating is selection, and proper selection involves loads of shittesting - that you must learn to date in the way that women do. If she passes those shittests (and low body count is typically one), the process of shaping her (and she will desire to be shaped - if she is true to herself) is a time consuming process that occurs over years. Another overlooked point is that it is generally wrong to treat her as totally subservient. Most women want to be 'owned' in a certain sense, but it's the rare woman who desires to be a bed slave and obediently follow commands. Women prefer deference over obedience, and prefer to have a sense of power and control - and they like to utilize that power by submission. In the relationships I've seen succeed, the women are not weak-willed or meekly obedient, but often defer to their lover out of respect and admiration.

These banal things are the meta to having successful heterosexual relationships 1v1 on Final Destination. As a tranny you are playing Smash Bros with all the items turned on.

It is both easier and harder - easier in that sex is cheap. I could have a harem of five 18yo's move in tomorrow if I desired, but 99.9% of them would be psychologically damaged beyond repair or - worse - too narcissistic and self-obsessed to even understand love. Any given one could be shaped into a sex toy for the period I desired to use them for, but it would just be hollow bullshit and I would grow bored quickly. Keeping a handful of trannies in collars locked under the bed is our version of the gay bathhouse and just as profane. I've played at similar things when I was younger and was immensely dissatisfied with it. 

Finding someone worthy of total love - the kind I try to preach - is fucking hard, and that part is certainly also true when you're dealing with the broad spectrum mental illnesses that come with most trannies. I don't envy the experience that men have to go through or underestimate the pain at stake.

Either way, it is fundamentally different as you noted. And my advice doesn't really come from that, it's more from observations of the 'game' community, a part of the e-right I fell into as a spectator about a decade ago. I suppose it also comes from whatever attraction to men (and opposed to trannies) I have, which jointly favors the intelligent, powerful, and the passionate (often to the point of violence). In that sense, I do not think my tastes differ from that of most women I've known (generally higher status/class). Their true tastes, not the ones they admit or acknowledge. They would prefer a man who loved them violently, up to the point of being willing to kill them if he couldn't have them. It's a difficult balance to both be that - to avoid suffocating them while allowing them to find their peace in you. Perhaps it is ridiculous to the point of an almost absurd contradiction. I think it is possible though, and some men do master this.

As Heartiste correctly noted, the most romantic and seductive three words that one can say to a woman is not "I love you", but "You are mine". The weight of these words has nothing to do with any external affirmation by the state or society, it is entirely psychosexual and it must be felt. The true win condition is a woman who desires - more than anything else - to be owned by you.

That kind of love is irrational - on both sides - and one must be willing to embrace it full stop. Be as economic and optimizing as you wish in the selection/dating phase and choose your lover(s) carefully, but recognize that the greater scope of it does not belong to the world of game-theory.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

This is why this conversation is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Everything that you're saying is centered around moral presuppositions. This stair_fail fellow was doing the same thing, and recall who I was defending in my response to him that you took your initial issue with. Everything that I'm saying is more or less from a position that stands against this type of moralising. All the talk of morals is exactly why you (and me, and really any man, for that matter) have to deal with the situation as it currently exists, because morals are whatever Women and Wife Guys say they are... aka "Man Up!" and Marry That Fat, Ran Through Thirty Year Old Cow. 

Arguing as you have that women should be the property of men is also a moral judgement. If you aren't willing to moralize, then you don't have grounds upon which to criticize our current society. Perhaps you believe that no one should attempt to enforce moral rules on another person, so natural law can reign, but this is still a moral rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:M...f_Napoleon. Napoleon was, and shall eternally remain, a sensitive young man, by the way.

Napoleon is exceptional in a lot of ways. Kinda funny how a body count of 9 isn't that high today.

I raise as counterexamples of "dampened political fervor" every normie/cyborg guy I know who stopped caring and drifted politically leftward after finding a girlfriend. As well as the Wife Guy stereotype you mentioned earlier.

Because that's not what would happen. I'm not as much of a doomer on all of this as you may have come to think, and I truly believe that you and many others are eventually going to find a nice girl that you will undoubtedly fall in love with and experience all the joys that come with that. But a Volcel Revolt Against the Modern World is not going to lead to a massive awakening. Hypothetically, wouldn't it make sense to say that if men were unconstrained by monogamy and marriage, they would biologically seek to have as much sex with as many women as possible to ensure genetic progeny? Obviously, this isn't (or wasn't) the most effective reproductive strategy for civilisational longevity, since it was replaced by monogamous relationships. But with monogamy and marriage, does man not forego what is at least a theoretical potential for as much sex as he can attain? Of course he does. So again, the fundamental and absolutely necessary requirement to incentivise man to marry: ownership. Does he have that? Not at all. Then, isn't everything technically a sunk cost? That excerpt from Aidan's book talked about this... or maybe all of that was just "repulsive coal". 

Men do have some tendencies to sleep around, yes. But we also have natural monogamous tendencies, with romantic love being the obvious example that Zed discusses in more detail. Men aren't motivated solely by the desire to have sex as much as possible. If a man marries, he forgoes potential opportunities to sleep around, but if he does not marry, he forgoes the love that he could have had for a wife. Raising their progeny to be strong is also something that many men want to do, and this becomes more difficult without marrying the mother.

Primitive human cultures and even other species like some birds also behave monogamously, nature has the ability to grasp consequences beyond the short term.

I almost can't give serious comment to this. Just reread what you said here and think about this "value" in terms of economics or investing. Would you ever put all of your money (aka no diversification) toward purchasing shares of a company that gave you 0% ownership and no real guarantee of future dividend payments? Would you ever make a loan to someone who can one day just decide that they don't feel like paying you back and who can legally void the agreement that you both had with each other with no repercussions?

Business ventures always carry some risk that someone might randomly run away with all the money or burn down the offices. Managing risk (prenups, choosing the right woman) is part of the game. In modern marriage, laws and economic incentives undoubtedly favor the woman, but it can still often be rational for a man to marry the right woman. A good wife should have some emotional attachment and financial dependency on you, as well as a shared interest in raising your children together. This control should be a lot more than it currently is, but the "ownership" you have of her is more than 0% (though not enough for a voting majority).

Even in a traditional marriage, where your wife is practically considered to be your "property", your control of her is not absolute. She still necessarily holds a partial controlling share in you because she is capable of making decisions and you have some responsibility for her welfare.

Better chance of hell freezing over. You put too much faith in today's broader masses, as they currently exist, being able to have competent (let alone eugenic!) realisations like this, I think. Wouldn't they have recognised it by now?

Every normie doesn't have to independently arrive at this conclusion, their minds can be changed by media if we obtain real political power. Even if we achieve political power by force or on the back of another issue that has little connection to marriage, it would be good to have messaging in place and an example already set to abolish the female vote and return to sensible marriage norms.

What stair_fail said earlier basically sums up my objection:

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.

Perverse anti-nature laws have damaged the fabric of marriage, as we have discussed. Something ought to be done about this (e.g. get rid of no-fault divorce, repeal women's suffrage, and get most women out of the workforce). However, if the only factor causing a decline in lasting marriages was that marriage has recently become a bad deal for men, would that not suggest that marriage is a great deal for women? So why do women often wait until they're in their 30s before "settling down"?

Of course: while they're young, women find the prospect of being sexually promiscuous more appealing than marriage, and this isn't because marriage is a farce, because from a woman's perspective it's a good deal. It's because they've been permitted by society, technology, and other men, to act like whores. My moral prescription: we should shame them for being whores, we should delete dating apps from the Apple Store, and we should not fuck them unless we're going to marry them.

BAP's view on this issue is short-sighted and self-defeating in application. He hates older nagging women who want to "longhouse" men, yet also promotes sexual promiscuity, which as a side effect leaves women (and men) childless into their 30s, who form a political bloc seeking to impose their maternal instincts on the nation instead of the children they don't have, because they wasted their youth on birth control hopping between casual relationships.

[Handi]

My moral prescription: we should kill them for being whores, we should delete dating apps from the Apple Store, and we should not fuck them unless we're going to marry them.

Thank you Mason, very based and I'm glad someone finally said it.

Oh, er, I guess I take it a little further than you. The problem with your position (which is nobleminded, and I used to agree with it entirely) is that "we" don't have any leverage to shame women with whatsoever—especially if men of our ilk remain volcel, which women could not respect any less. Their brains literally can't perceive any difference between a principled game-theoretical sacrifice, and being a creepy loser incel who gets no pussy (note how they complain about "getting pussy" as a disgusting pig man trait, and yet it's the first thing they turn to when it comes time to insult you). Women have no integrity so it's impossible to shame them except from a position of total domination, i.e. if you don't have the authority to actually stone them to death in real life without fear of retribution from government cuckboots, then neither do you have the social leverage to shame them into or out of any kind of behavior.

You're broadly right that men need to be using morals. Morality is the mechanism that makes all cooperation possible. "Not being an uncool moralfag" is nigger mindset. Morality should be real, it should be terrifying, and it should be kept utterly out of the reach of women and fags to decide how it gets interpreted. Zed delenda est.

[BillyONare]

BAP's view on this issue is short-sighted and self-defeating in application. He hates older nagging women who want to "longhouse" men, yet also promotes sexual promiscuity, which as a side effect leaves women (and men) childless into their 30s, who form a political bloc seeking to impose their maternal instincts on the nation instead of the children they don't have, because they wasted their youth on birth control hopping between casual relationships.

There is no contradiction. BAP is a wise and tasteful man because he understand that his volk are individuals with free will. All of your posts have the hidden premise that “the gubmint needs to make everyone behave the exact same way” (the same hidden premise as Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show)