The whole reason "Some of my best friends are black" became a boomer-cringe punchline is that it was actually true for a lot of people! They did have black friends, and yet they also had racist opinions about blacks in general.
Why the past tense?
One predictable perpetrator of this was Jimmy Kimmel during the manufactured outrage around the death of Cecil the Lion.
Hold up. Both the girls and the rioters in question were college students. How is that a case of sexual predation? I doubt rape was their intent.
Also, early Nazi and fascist groups usually formed among veterans of the world war; in other words, all of them were men and most of them were young. To state that they were disproportionately gay isn’t exactly saying much.
Hold up. Both the girls and the rioters in question were college students. How is that a case of sexual predation?
Also, early nazi and fascist groups usually formed among veterans of the world war; in other words, all of them were men and most of them were young. To state that they were disproportionately gay isn’t exactly saying much.
Well, in one case a woman simply surrenders to her prejudices and instincts. In the other case, an illegal immigrant would have to transform into an entirely different human through sweat and tears.
There was also a rather banal and evident factor at play. In the old days the average young woman was either pregnant or caring for small children. Both situations render her vulnerable and dependent. For the man that is her provider, this makes Game unnecessary and for other men it makes it ineffective. Game is basically a modern response to female infertility.
Scrambling an egg is technically a violent act because're breaking the egg first, acording to the dictionary definition of the word as well. Also, robbery necessarily entails at least the threat of violence. But anyway, my point is that illegal immigrants didn't appear by forcing their way in, and it's not like they're trying to stay by threatening violence either.
https://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com/2012/12/who-killed-brandon-l-woodard-manhattan.html
https://theweek.com/articles/469437/why-anyone-commit-murder-during-day-midtown-manhattan
https://abcnews.go.com/US/killer-lay-wait-brandon-lincoln-woodard-shot-south/story?id=17929640
Unfortunately I misremembered; there was also a getaway driver assisting the hit, so the hitman used a car, not the subway. Either way, he was never found. The man who supposedly ordered the hit, on the other hand, was arrested and sentenced.
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.
- Prev
- Next

I remember when this sentiment was prevailing.I think it was mostly based on the recent memory of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, both of whom were willing to surrender (in effect) territories in exchange for (in effect) bribes. It was probably tempting to believe that some new version of them will step up and carry out a successful palace coup. People were also forgetting that an armed force that stumbles and bumbles may later actually learn and adapt. There was also wishful thinking that the Ukrainians will receive and learn to master Western wonder weapons that will sweep the orcs away.
More options
Context Copy link