BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
No bio...
User ID: 3614
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
14d ago
Lidia Thorpe is the whitest black person I’ve ever seen, and I’m old enough to remember Rachel Dolezal.
Do the noble Aboriginal people not have some kind of paper bag test they can use to keep these carpetbaggers out?
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
14d ago
I guess I just don’t see a way in which property rights aren’t a social project.
Do you? If so, do you have the time to explain your point of view?
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
14d ago
I think it would be fair to say that Point 2 is smuggling in the idea that it is not a social project, but it appears to me that it is in fact a social project. Civilization is nothing if not a social project and so defending its key cornerstone must also be a social project, I would think. That would then make Point 3 contradictory, as libertarians would appear to be just as willing as anyone else to deploy violence for their social project.
Which would seem to indicate that this:
Its all just special pleading by each specific author on why their specific social project deserves an exception.
is a statement that applies just as well to libertarianism.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
17d ago
would prefer if you just spoke directly.
Do you think there is any utility at all to marriage, for a billionaire?
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
17d ago
My priority is winning, because that’s how you execute power. If EHC needs to be appealed to in order to understand that having power is better than not having power, I question how elite they actually are.
Again, what is EHC actually going to do? If they are so elite, why are they incapable of directing the herd of unwashed sheep?
Traditionally, a shepherd demonstrates his superiority over the sheep by making sure the sheep do what he says. If he’s not capable of leading them, he’s not much of a shepherd.
So, again, assuming your Nietszchean WTP movement is more aligned, even if only a tiny bit, with MAGA than with bio-Leninism, how do you propose to build on that opportunity? How will you lead the sheep?
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
17d ago
I participate in fighting sports, some very mainstream, a couple a bit niche. I enjoy doing it and used to be very competitive in one of the mainstream ones. But I broke a leg a couple years back and have been slow to get back into things.
That is changing this week, and I aim to be sparring once a week again consistently and training three times a week, plus general fitness stuff. I have, I think, the benefit of decades of experience that will keep me from overdoing things.
I will autistically let the Motte know how it goes, whether you’re interested or not.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
17d ago
Trump is demonstrably capable of gaining power though, and you’re not, so assuming your Nietszchean WTP movement is, as seems tautological, more directionally aligned with him than with current bio-Leninist leftists, how are you going to build on his provable successes?
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
17d ago
I feel like if I report this as a quality contribution, the mods will start ignoring my other positive reports.
But this is a quality contribution.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
17d ago
I mentioned my coworker as a shorthand for the pervasive phenomenon of people complaining about their marriages in relation to a pontification that marriage was easier than having an employee as a billionaire. To that extent you're not even elevating a point by imagining things about my coworker, just bloviating a cope.
Call me Copius Maximus! Call me Blovius Rex! Call me a delusional faggot wife guy, let it all out. Get it all out of your system, it’s good for you. But you’re finally admitting that approach was a weak support for your argument, so we’re making progress.
Now we’re talking about what you consider to be a pervasive phenomenon. But there is also a pervasive phenomenon of people complaining about everything. People like to complain. People also like to say positive things, often about the same things they complain about.
If you are only hearing complaints, and only listen to the complaints while ignoring countervailing feedback, you’re closing off your intellectual space. There is no difference, besides the perceived rudeness of the language, between you dismissing all the “wife guys,” and me dismissing your loser coworker.
'Some kind of utility' is not relevant as a point of comparison between whether or not delegating a duty to your wife or an employee is an easier way to go about organizing your lives together. The post I replied to gave examples of the utility of having a marriage. I asserted that these examples and others categorically like them are not relevant for a billionaire and are therefor not arguments in favor of marriage for a billionaire.
Do you think there is any utility at all to marriage, for a billionaire?
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
17d ago
I will just say that I think fertility is a bit of a crisis in a lot of places, but not necessarily in the way people think.
If the concern is “Lowered fertility makes the GDP line stop going up,” that’s not a crisis. GDP lines should be allowed to fluctuate up and down as populations grow and shrink. It’s not the end of the world, especially in the nuclear age.
From that standpoint, there is no deficit that needs to be made up with foreigners. The native population will organically wax and wane over time if not interfered with. It’s only when a lot of foreigners are brought in that a native population might begin to feel pressured to spur increased fertility rates as a way of not being boxed out by invasive newcomers, which creates a fertility crisis.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
17d ago
they've been around as long as most of the white people have, and so deporting them is not possible.
One quick conquest of Liberia, and you don’t have to let your dreams be dreams anymore.
You don’t even have to move every black person. For males, 2 or more felony convictions should surely be adequate justification to send them to our new prison colony. For females, you could craft some lifetime welfare income calculation. And for kids, well, better to not break up families, so they have to go as well.
Is this an idea that would take two decades to percolate out of the fever dreams of the right and into plausible reality? Sure, but that’s no reason to give up on it out of hand. Leftists sure don’t!
Fascinating. Are they agitating to reset jus saguinis?
I can see that being a valid approach for a Westphalian nation-state, every couple hundred years or so as its culture slowly shifts.
“Everyone who is here right now, and has some percentage of original stock blood, gets to be a citizen. Everyone outside that circle, you are more not like us than you are like us so we don’t want you anymore.”
Presumably you would get some churn in the population genetics without experiencing a total overturning of the original culture.
Could work out.
You paint a picture of my coworker in your head based on two lines of text. It holds no value to reality beyond whatever delusions you need it to hold in your own mind so that you can express yourself.
I would quibble with this. The picture in my head is the picture you have painted! You are using him as a witness to bolster your argument, but you still haven’t given me any other description of him to change my impression that your witness is weak and unreliable. If he has other laudable qualities that might change that opinion, what are they? Because you make him sound like a loser, and based on that picture you are painting, I am suggesting to you that you shouldn’t listen to losers.
Beyond that, people having issues with marriages is not a thing that exists within the confines of my workplace. There are examples of this all around us. If you want to ignore that fact and pretend my workplace experience is unique or unrepresentative go ahead.
I don’t think I’ve said anything to imply that your coworker or your workplace experience of men griping about their wives is unique or unrepresentative? I have heard plenty of guys who constantly gripe about their wives. These guys are just always very unimpressive.
Look, if you’re going to bring your coworker in as evidence for your case, don’t be mad when a competing lawyer looks to dismantle your witness. That’s the whole point of Internet autistic debate club.
Which brings me to me final point.
I would however argue that you need marriage as proof of commitment for some long term goal, like children. Marriage, I'd argue, is a 'utilitarian' or 'materialist' contract.
To that end, marriage is not of any utility for a billionaire. Bezos doesn't need the utility of marriage to experience any of the love a woman could give him. And I'm not saying that in some 'penis into hole' utilitarian sexual gratification kind of way. Bezos can get the purest love of any man and would never need marriage to deal with any of life's problems because the material problems marriage can help ameliorate will never exist for a billionaire to begin with.
You have an axiom, expressed above and you are arguing in favor of your axiom. So far, so good, that’s what we’re here for.
A useful analogy here is that we are discussing a box. Your priors, your axiom say that the box must logically be black. But the evidence of your own eyes indicates that the box is white. Rather than reassess your axiom, you insist that something is wrong with the box.
We are discussing marriage. Your axiom says that marriage is a materialist, utilitarian contract that is not of any utility for a billionaire. But the evidence of your own eyes is that very nearly every billionaire on Earth appears to find some kind of utility in it. These are, rationally, men who are smarter, more ruthless, and more charismatic than probably any “wife guy” you’ve ever met. They’ve very likely had any number of utility function thoughts regarding marriage run through their heads, and their revealed preference continues to be for marriage.
I am saying that the box isn’t wrong, your axiom is. There is something more than material utility that billionaires are finding in marriage, because marriage is about more than ameliorating material problems.
P.S. I went back through your older posts to get a sense of your philosophical foundations.
Now, women have already made their choice. And I think their choice was made before you saw any widescale acceptance of black pilled nihilism about life and the lack of value placed on work and pushing yourself. Exhibited by many men in the thread you linked. To that end I think the chain of causality that leads to many of our issues, though certainly not all, lies at the feet of women having the power to make that poor choice.
The last part of that last sentence is (paraphrasing), something that I have said to my wife and we are still married. Men have been getting suckered by women and letting them out of the circle of protection (or abuse) to make poor choices ever since Adam. I (strategically) proselytize this message in real life as much as I can.
I just take a similar or related stance to you from a starting point of non-material axioms. Marriage is a gift from God that reduces the unpleasantness of this world, and in a way above materialism, makes two into one. So when the box is white, I’m not surprised. The evidence fits the axiom! Billionaires are finding something materially inexplicable in marriage. The evidence fits the axiom!
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
17d ago
Look, maybe I’ve wildly misinterpreted the character of your coworker. It’s possible.
Maybe he’s a genuine stoic and competent and successful badass in a way that an internet tough guy such as myself can only dream of.
Unfortunately, I only have the anecdotes you provide, and which you are using to bolster your argument, and you don’t paint a flattering picture of him.
Having a wife is a job in itself - my coworker every day.
My recently divorced coworker begs to differ.
I've never had a single person tell me it's easier to have a wife. In fact it's the one thing I hear most guys complain about at work.
Maybe these are different guys, but I’ve never met someone who complained about one thing as often as you allege this guy complains, who wasn’t just a generally bitchy loser at life. Telling you what it looks like from outside of whatever pre-existing relationship you have with this guy is a suggestion, a blunt but fair one in my opinion, to take stock of the amount of credibility you give this guy.
Because the male winners of the world are clearly finding something in marriage that is valuable enough to keep going back for it. A quick glance at the world’s 10 richest men tells me that they are all either currently married or have had multiple marriages. Larry Ellison, 80, has had 6! He clearly thinks his current 33-year old Chinese fuck doll/trophy wife is bringing something to the table that he couldn’t get from a rotating stable of prostitutes and 3 additional assistants. Even Elon, who seems most willing to break the mold, appears to pine for marriage in general and Grimes specifically.
The richest men who ever lived, wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of kings and potentates, easily able to move to Thailand or Dubai and have more concubines than Solomon, are still choosing to get married. So maybe “wife guys” are more directionally correct than your coworker, because his constant griping does not appear to bear out in reality.
Maybe to you I’m just another internet tough guy loser. That’s fair if you want to think that way! But Bezos isn’t. Shit, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un aren’t. These are guys who are still ruthlessly having their opposition beheaded or AA gun’d to death.
So maybe “wife guys” are more directionally correct than your coworker, because his constant griping does not appear to bear out in reality. Maybe he is just the male version of:
Why should the women who win at life pay heed to the women who lose? And why should anyone take the advice of the women who are by comparison losers?
Which is the same as my argument, except mine had more rude words, I guess. Although I want to reiterate; you paint a very unflattering picture of your coworker.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
18d ago
Wish I could find the original example, but nevertheless, here is the gist:
At its shortest, sum it up as “There’s a reason there’s such a demographic split between readers of mil sci-fi and readers of romantasy.”
I find the common disconnect between this obvious statement, and the equally obvious corollary that it indicates real differences between women and men that play themselves out in the real world, to be humorous. Maybe I’m the only one!
A longer description:
In general, male writers writing for a predominantly male audience write battle scenes that focus heavily on externals. The protagonist, in some fashion, displays earned talent in both personal combat and, if he is the leader of some force, overall tactical acumen. There will be descriptions, good or bad, of actual battle tactics such as flanking, ambush, etc. There is often a pre-battle planning scene that mostly focuses on nuts and bolts, maybe some political wrangling. If the protagonist’s friends or loved ones are involved, the primary concern is that they be best positioned to aid the chances of victory, despite the protagonist’s personal feelings towards them. The battle will be won or lost on the basis of plausible military outcomes. Overall, while the scene includes interior glimpses of the protagonist, the topic is the battle and its aftermath.
In general, female writers writing for a predominantly female audience write battle scenes that focus heavily on internals. The protagonist, in some fashion, displays innate, generally effortless or nearly so, talents that she naturally possesses. That is, if she is a great swordswoman or brilliant tactician, it is not generally a result of a training period of grueling effort. If she does engage in training, it simply improves her already significant natural gifts. In general, her talents will not be shown, but merely told. Because of this, there will not be any significant emphasis on the actual cut and thrust of the battle itself. The scenes involving the battle will primarily focus on the protagonist’s interiority, frequently including thoughts about whether she prefers the handsome and powerful general or the handsome and powerful mercenary captain. The battle will be won off camera, and the aftermath will again, mostly feature the protagonist’s emotional state. Overall, while the scene includes glimpses of the battle and its aftermath, the topic is the interior state of the protagonist.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
18d ago
I guarantee you your coworker goes home to his wife and bitches about you/his job all night long.
You have a coworker who is just a bitchy wuss of a person. You can identify this by all the bitching he does. You should exclude his bitchy opinions from your mental map of the opinions of capable people.
In fact, you should do this with more people that you meet, even online. Bitchy whiners should be ignored. If they can express a solution, even a crazy solution, that’s different, but if all they do is whine, ignore them.
Anyways, to countersignal your coworker, my wife and I have our ups and downs for sure, but she is not a “job in herself.” She’s the best part of the day, for which, through the struggles, I remain grateful.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
18d ago
There may be some actions being taken that contribute to affirming the success of West African immigrants, over and above similar things for other groups, especially since they are not held back by ADOS culture.
That being said, urban Whites are cooked, this has been a reactionary belief for a while.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
18d ago
But the women who have this preference do not subjectively experience it as "I enjoy looking pretty for men." They experience it as a kind of endogenous preference for a certain mode of dress or appearance.
If this is a statement of your interiority, I value your anecdote because I think off-the-cuff anecdotes are often much more valuable than any amount of social “science.”
But if it’s not a description if your interior experience, on what are you basing this statement?
My experience is that women will be generally pretty willing to admit privately, to the right man, that they do enjoy looking pretty not for “men” in general (and perhaps that differentiation between “men” and “some men” is the whole sticking point), but for the sort of man they want to attract. The fact that this generally parses out to her looking pretty to a large majority of men is just one of those things that she mentally glides over.
However, it also seems to be a fairly recent turn of events that there is some mysterious source of social pressure that causes a significant number of women, as a class, to then turn around and publicly deny that they are trying to look pretty for any man at all.
I have personally been in relationships with women who were quite capable of holding both these thoughts in their head and didn’t see them as conflicting, which feels like it’s a point both for and against the vibes-based interiority you are describing. Another point against it might be that women 40, 50, 70 years ago seemed to be much more willing to say that they wanted to look good for a man or their man. Discounting for the moment the idea that women of either era are lying, it seems strange that internal understanding would regress to vibes.
To use a spear counterpart example, men who become absolute freak beasts at the gym are very willing to admit that they are doing it to compete with other men, out of a desire to move up a hierarchical ladder. Past a certain point, looking attractive to women becomes secondary to them. But they are not experiencing an endogenous preference, they are very clear about their actions being driven by a desire to exceed the men they see as their competitors.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
19d ago
Fascinating watching Redditors from 7 years ago argue.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
21d ago
I see Nybbler beat me to it, but this is a useless thought experiment because it can just as easily be rerun for kitchen knives and screwdrivers.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
22d ago
If they are already married (and you express that as a goal), then in what way are they going to really fuck up their life by using natural family planning?
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
22d ago
Was it dead center average by modern standards?
I’ve lost the studies and to be honest I don’t remember how they were coming to these conclusions, but I have heard that there is evidence that testosterone levels have been dropping over the last 60 years or more.
So it may be entirely possible that he is dead center average in 2025, and also that he is significantly less “masculine” than a dead center average man in 1950.
Maybe one of the Motte’s more organized posters will see this and can chime in with the statistics.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
22d ago
It seems fairly effective in East Asia, France, and Sweden.
It’s not perfectly effective, as it is fighting significant headwinds, but it is effective.
I’ve got to admit, it would be pretty funny if, 80 years from now, there are just a bunch of lily-white, blonde, “Aboriginal” people leading the various tribes, like some sort of real life Burroughs or Haggard novel.
More options
Context Copy link