Botond173
4mo ago
A couple of months ago @Goodguy left the following comment here:
I think that in modern society the opinion that men should have more control over women's sexual decisions, other than potentially in the one case of abortion (because that one has potential moral implications beyond the woman) is just fundamentally loser-coded because the Internet has made it pretty clear that the majority of men who want to police women's sexual decisions are doing so out of sexual frustration. Of course there is a small minority of rationalist-types who genuinely care about the impact of women's sexual decisions on fertility rates or social cohesion out of a detached interest in supporting pro-social policies, but the modal guy online arguing for controlling women's sexual decisions is, assuming that he is not a genuine pro-lifer, pretty clearly doing it because he isn't getting laid as much as he wants.
I tried to initiate a discussion about this without success, with my argument being that single men „policing/controlling” the sexual decisions of single women (I'm including „slut-shaming” in this category) has actually only been a social reality in the minds of feminist culture warriors. It was never implemented as a tool of women's „oppression” anywhere. To the extent that such „policing” existed (if we want to call it that), it was mainly done by other women, mainly due to the simple and understood fact that it's such policing that serves the long-term sexual interests of women as a whole. And the men that did engage in this were mostly fathers with daughters, not single men in the current sense of the word. (One can argue that in traditional patriarchal communities it was normal for single men to band together and remove outsider single men through threats or force; I guess this may count as indirect policing, which isn't saying much.)
I'm open to reading any counterarguments but anyway, this is not the subject I want to address here. I think Goodguy touched on something rather important which didn't occur to me at first, namely that society used to have a different attitude regarding this issue before it became modern. There actually used to be a group of men who were basically deputized by society to morally shame women in certain contexts despite being technically single (as I alluded to this above): priests and monks. (And this doesn't just apply to Christendom.) They were also voluntarily celibate, which is another category that disappeared with the rise of modernity. (The cultural memory of this lingers on though, otherwise the people who came up with the „incel” label would simply have called themselves celibate.)
As I was pondering this issue, it also occurred to me that secularization meant that Western societies did lose something significant not just in this respect but others as well. It appears to me that secular society and the churches/denominations used to exist in a symbiosis with the terms never being openly stated. It's well-known that Christianity used to be in a culturally hegemonic/privileged position. But it's also true that the churches basically volunteered to take care of those social groups that nobody else wanted to look after because they're socially a pain in the neck:
-
singles who can't or won't get married (see: priests, monks, nuns)
-
generally adults lacking social skills to such an extent that they become shut-ins without outside assistance
-
sick/diseased people unable to pay for treatment
-
children sired by men who can't or won't become husbands and providers
-
poor people that are so helpless and lacking in agency that they die from poverty without the charity of others
-
children of married couples too poor to pay for any schooling
I think atheists and people hostile to religion in general emotionally get hung up on the former and lose sight of the latter. Some of them who did not lose sight of it came up with the doctrine of eugenics as a solution, but we know what reputation that has today. Instead we expect the state to pick up the slack and look after all these unfortunate groups, which only results in a multitude of horror stories about police departments, child protective services etc. being a useless bunch of uncaring buffoons.
I wonder what the rationalist point of view on all of this is.
the more moderate activists got on with their normal lives, leaving only the most radical remaining, who in turn radicalised eachother.
That probably also explains much of the political unrest that took place in the young Weimar Republic between 1919 and 1923 or so.
Now that the Great Awokening is in decline, the normies are quietly removing the pronouns from their email signatures and taking down their Pride flags
It's probably more accurate to say that it was successfully completed. The youths that were indoctrinated and acculturated during the awokening are irreversibly woke at this point. Those who stopped virtue-signalling are the older ones who haven't received such indoctrination.
Botond173
10d ago
You even have to invent additional just-so stories to explain the relative "failure" of the democratization of the GDR
Yes, I argue that the democratization of the newly annexed Eastern provinces of the FRG after 1990 is at this point largely seen as a failure by the West German establishment and their supporters. I think this is pretty much bunk because it ignores that a new political synthesis should have been worked out in the first place, a process that should have made reunification real instead of just a BS word for what in reality was annexation.
even though they it should have been the most successful of all
No, I think the most successful of all democratic transitions should have been and did in fact turn out to be the Czech, because it was the sole Soviet satellite state that in fact functioned as a democratic pluralistic republic before it was Sovietized; and because the Czechs were influenced by Holy Roman / Germanic culture for centuries before that, which made the country ripe for Westernization after 1989.
Botond173
26d ago
Your post reads like the blame lies somewhere with 'attractive' men not committing to the women who want them. But chances are there are simply not enough 'attractive' men for these women.
I’d say women in the past generally understood that they can elicit long-term commitment from the men they identified as desirable partners, and that this isn’t achieved by merely offering up their orifices for use. This knowledge is mostly lost at this point, which incentivizes women to fruitlessly try out-slutting one another in order to pander to the whims of the top men. In fact, even the simple idea that young women should learn how to become eligible long-term partners if they want a happy relationship is largely forgotten.
Botond173
27d ago
If one considers the same overall phenomenon from what I assume is women’s usual perspective, I’m sure one can’t help but roll the eyes at the recent discussion on Aella’s degeneracy, for example. Shaming and punishing e-thots can only work when alternative life paths are broadly accessible for average women.
The norm of enforced monogamy (heh) in the old days of Christian patriarchy (heh) basically functioned as a life insurance policy for women. Someone was surely going to marry each woman, with a few extreme exceptions, no matter how stupid, ugly or fat she was. The same path for heterosexual women today, on the other hand, is largely up to chance and luck, something that is pretty much optional – it may happen and may work out well, but there’s a significant probability that it won’t. Just listen to women’s usual complaint about men, which is usually that attractive men refuse to commit to an exclusive relationship. Of course we see the massive proliferation of e-thotting, sugar-mommying, gold-digging etc. when the social consensus is that a happy marriage is by and large off the table.
Botond173
11d ago
It’s a bit of a mischaracterization to argue that ‘Germany and Russia gave up [Polish] territory between them’, isn’t it? It wasn’t exactly a matter of choice in either case, especially not in the case of czarist (or Soviet) Russia. I’ll concede that Wilson probably had a significant role in the creation of Poland as well, although this is not a subject I’m familiar with.
Anyway, I agree with your point in the sense that Hungary did in fact have a bicameral parliamentary system as the member state of a dualist monarchy before and during WW1, and was as such exposed to Western concepts of rule of law, civil rights, freedom of the press etc. although to a limited extent indeed. The transitional period of 1918-21 in contrast was characterized by wars, unrest, socio-economic collapse, internment, pogroms, terror and the general brutalization of the population, which hardly constitute a breeding ground for democratization. The regime that ended up consolidating itself was clearly right-wing and authoritarian, but the bicameral parliament and the multi-party system remained, which was still something. In the case of Bulgaria and Romania, I imagine whatever political role their parliamentary system was equally or even more limited.
Botond173
25d ago
It changes everything. If he's unavailable for long-term commitment, he's no longer a potential catch for women who want that.
Botond173
26d ago
so long as that man is not looking for life long commitment or is demanding sex before taking things any further
Then he's not relationship material.
Botond173
12d ago
What actually compelled the emperor to surrender unconditionally was the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo, coincidentally on the same day as the bombing of Nagasaki. This had two consequences: the possibility of negotiating a conditional surrender with Soviet mediation, which was the last hope the militarists were clinging to (as the USSR was the last remaining great power still neutral in the Pacific war), was obviously nil from that point; and that whatever remaining military units stationed in Manchukuo that they were planning to deploy es reinforcements against the final US invasion were going to be destroyed.
Botond173
27d ago
That's indeed the gist of women's usual complaints: the ones willing to exclusively commit aren't desirable, and the desirable ones don't commit exclusively.
At this point in time all this makes scant difference. French society is in terminal decline, ideologically captured and on an irreversible path of racial replacement. In this it's not different from other Western European societies, of course, but one aspect that does set it apart is its proven ability to regenerate and transform itself by itself through upheaval and bloodbath. After all, it's no coincidence that the current French republic is the fifth such in history. This is something the Germans or the British will never be capable of doing.
Ignoring all that, it's a great write-up indeed.
Botond173
19d ago
Thanks for the detailed description. I assume these matters are relative in nature. Take the gas station on the corner, for example. Had it never been robbed before, as far as you can tell? Or yes, but only on occasions so rare that the whole neighborhood remembered afterwards for a long time? What about shootings and jogging women getting ambushed by rapists on the trails? Was it unheard of back in the days? And the loiterers and loud beggars?
Botond173
1mo ago
Botond173
1mo ago
Has there ever been a case of a successful project in any large Western city to build a network of lanes exclusively for cyclists, scooter-riders and Walmart/mobility scooters?
Botond173
24d ago
Is there a specific name for the culture war dictate/guideline of "my rules, applied unfairly > my rules, applied fairly > the opponent's rules, applied fairly > the opponent's rules, applied unfairly"?
Botond173
1mo ago
I imagine Prince Harry's and Edward's decisions were mainly driven by them wanting to simply spite their families whom they resented above all else.
With regard to Reagan I'm assuming you're referring to his 2nd wife? Did she have a reputation as a thot?
And with regard to Melania, are we automatically assuming that she was a thot by virtue of being a fashion model, or is there more to know about her career that I'm not aware of?
Botond173
1mo ago
before being outed as David Cole
I think it's warranted to add that explicit death threats from Zionist terrorist groups were the reason he changed his name and identity and left the US for a longer period.
Botond173
1mo ago
I'm pretty sure it'd have been entirely possible to restrain and arrest her without resorting to lethal force. She was just an average White normie.
Botond173
26d ago
Point taken. But OP's comment and the reply only concern the effects of the black pill lifestyle on yourself. Your comment concerns its effects on everyone else. Those are rather different things especially in the case of Alzheimer's when you're unaware of what's happening to you either way.
That’s a fair point and we need to consider the steps that need to be taken to avoid that fate.
• You need to have a happy, functioning marriage that preferably produces multiple children
• Those children need to become well-adjusted working normies producing an economic surplus
• Both you and at least one of the children need to organize your lives so that you live in relatively close vicinity
• Your children need to be willing and able to help you with their time, effort, money etc. whether they are themselves married or not
You’ll avoid the sad fate you described when all four of those conditions are met.
Botond173
27d ago
These are all good points. However, I'd mention that none of that is relevant to the examples the OP gave, namely "working out, playing the same video games, watching the same tv/movies/anime, scrolling too much on social media and going traveling to similar places from time from time".
Botond173
4mo ago
The reason is simple, Europe has picked a side in the American culture war, and it is the far left side.
That accusation is a bit rich, because the causation is the other way around. It's not like a bunch of Blue Tribers somehow appeared in Europe and decided to pick a side in the US culture war. What in fact happened is that the Global American / Globohomo Empire poured lots of money and influence into its causes in Europe (among other places) through non-profits and NGOs which in turn recruited, trained and indoctrinated, directly and indirectly, the local cadre of Blue culture warriors and their sympathizers in Europe, all of whom incidentally consume no cultural and ideological products other than that produced by the US Blue Tribe, and adopt their talking points accordingly.
I guess it’s just a simple case of scarcity. Women tend to either have well-shaped tits that are small, or big tits that are often misshapen and saggy, and of course get increasingly saggy with aging, which most women are terrified of already. Only a small minority of women have the sort of ideal breasts that earn you a Playboy photoshoot, so small that it’s impossible to fill all titty mags only with pictures of them. Hence the sad and pathetic proliferation of bolt-on tits.
More options
Context Copy link