@Botond173's banner p

Botond173


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

				

User ID: 473

Botond173


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 473

A long time ago I was watching one of these "Top 5" true crime videos on Youtube. One of the discussed cases was the murder of some law student, as far as I can remember, in NYC. He was an associate of some local organized crime group and a drug runner between NYC and LA or something like that. For whatever reason they decided to whack him in a rather simple but effective manner. Apparently two assassins followed him around and waited for the moment when he was passing the entrance of a rather busy subway station. One guy called him on his cell phone for a made-up reason in order to distract him. As he was talking on the phone, the other guy shot him in the head and immediately left for the station. It happened in broad daylight and the killer was never caught. No eyewitnesses, no CCTV footage that was worth a damn as the suspect was wearing a hoodie, nothing. This happened in 2012 or so. So yes, it can be done.

There are tens of millions of illegals in the United States, especially if one counts those present on legal but dubious pretense (previous amnesties, asylum, birth to an illegal migrant, etc.), which seems to be the bailey. A campaign to expel them all would be a monumental geopolitical undertaking, dwarfing anything in recent US memory (e.g., the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan). It would be a challenge even for Stalin.

It was Richard Spencer of all people who repeated his view on alt-right podcasts that anything that was done without violence can per definition be undone without violence as well. In other words, illegal immigrants entered the US due to incentives without force; change the incentives, and they will leave peacefully. You don't necessarily have to agree with him of course, but this argument surely has some legs to stand on.

As far as I remember what I read on now-defunct Red Pill sites about this matter, the general consensus was that importing a woman from the Third World to a Western environment that is suffused with feminism and thus subjecting her to that ideology is generally not advisable.

I'm pretty sure that no, actually not one PUA ever promoted acts that legally count as fraud.

I see. Thanks to you all for clearing that up.

It's important to differentiate trickery from fraud here. PUAs never promoted such illegal acts.

Regular girls will whore themselves out for canned beans and coffee among ruins and during famine, which is a rather understandable and unsurprising state of affairs. If your argument is specifically about GIs making false marriage proposals then I have nothing to comment on, because you’d be hard-pressed to find any PUA guide anywhere that advises you to do such a thing.

Stability and bright future of plenty of money/food as opposed to not starving to death. Got it.

How does any of this equal paying for sex with canned beans and coffee in a famine?

Thanks for the reply; I was about to make largely the same points but you were faster.

For the soldiers/conquistadors/pirates etc. taking advantage of their physical power, almost everything above holds true as well, just that the arrangement is usually less voluntary in nature.

The explanation is much more mundane, I think. "American soldier picking up young desperate girls in occupied Germany using chewing gum, can of beans and coffee"? Well, yeah. This was happening during a famine. Elaborate pick-up skills weren't exactly needed.

Rockstars? A very tiny minority of the male population. Nothing to conclude about it in particular. There will always be men who stand out of the crowd for whatever reason, and will thus command a disproportionate amount of female attention. Nothing new about it.

The yuppies, as far as I know, were also a strictly GenX phenomenon, by and large. No argument about that on my part.

PUA is based on the idea of a stranger seducting women entirely with social trickery.

I'd add two more caveats. PUA as a phenomenon specifically entails men codifying pick-up artistry and teaching it to other men.

It's conceivable that the woke Left has burned up so much social capital that we're at a point where even a significant segment (but not yet majority) of normies aren't that bothered by racism anymore.

The period from the first Opium War to the eventual reunification of the Chinese mainland at the end of the Civil War lasted about a hundred years, hence the Chinese Communist narrative regarding "the century of humiliation", the main consequence of said humiliation being that the regime that lost legitimacy cannot reunite the country and thus needs to be replaced by another.

I suppose you meant to write 'advantage' instead of 'handicap'?

Just to nitpick: the Red Pill/PUA community, to the extent that it actually existed*, was pretty much a GenX phenomenon, and a ‘90s/’00s phenomenon in particular. All the prominent PUAs are GenXers. I’d be surprised to learn that there are any GenZers out there with any familiarity with it. According to Wikipedia, Morgan was born in 1965, so he’s more of a GenXer than a Boomer. I’d guess he’s more likely to be aware of Red Pill stuff than a young homosexual like Fuentes.

*In a practical sense it’s dead. I discussed it here.

I agree. Isn't it the alleviation of big, unpredictable disasters that result in ongoing costs that insurance as an institution was invented to do in the first place?

I'd say we had a rather good discussion on this matter here. I agree with @coffee_enjoyer - teenage rebellion is very much real in the sense that when the average teenager encounters a grumpy old man or woman who wants to block him/her from pursuing sex, partying and fun in general while at the same time lacking any authority to actually control the supply of sex, alcohol and drugs, that old Boomer will only get laughed at.

Wasn't it standard in the US before 1990 or so for high schoolers to perform as part-time workers most of the crummy jobs that were later given to illegal immigrants?

Hold up. Weren't they aware or should they not have been aware of the structural defect from the moment they decided to provide that insurance?

That is exactly the point I was going to make. Being openly in porn as a man not only will not erode your social standing, which is the case if you’re a woman, but will even elevate it on average. Having the opportunity in itself to bone multiple beautiful women is generally seen as its own reward if you’re a man, which largely explains why male porn actors are indeed paid less than female ones on average. In fact, I think the idea of even getting paid to bone women on camera is seen as a sort of absurd idea by normies. After all, we can all imagine how many men would gladly be doing the same thing for free.

I’d argue that the working-class men outraged by Bonnie Blue would be much more outraged by a male porner earning the same sum of money (for whatever reason), because it’d seem even more unfair.

(The sex scandals involving women teachers that you mentioned is a different matter with a peculiar explanation in my view, but I won’t start discussing it in this comment.)

Arts, music, and culture can all be readily found on the internet. If you want to go experience it in person, it's typically a 20-30 minute drive away from the suburb. You can easily manage that a night or two a week.

But you're supposed to be doing all that socially, with other like-minded peers.

Since this is Themotte, the main factor I'd definitely bring up is that the US suburb is a heavily blue-pilling environment.

I'd also ask to consider what's the point of being a normie in a decadent, degenerate society.

How do you find a potential wife who is presumably outside your social circle in a US suburb?

OP’s argument appears to be that American suburbia is specifically structured around the sole consideration of enabling young children to play in yards and on lawns, and that this is done at the expense of everything else (walkability, services etc.). I’d add that this consideration doesn’t even hold up, because children nowadays scarcely use their free time to play in yards instead of staring at screens, and the period in their lives when they are even interested in playing in yards at all is rather short.

4 years from 14 to 18 perhaps? Substantial but a minority fraction compared to time one is a kid, and not that large fraction of human lifespan.

It's a rather important period for psychological development and social maturation though.