CertainlyWorse
No one is coming to help. It's just you.
One of the great unwashed.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=p_TLzmjbhG0&t=1368 I couldn't do this, but the philosophy is correct.
Friends:
The boys know who they are.
User ID: 333
The fertility decline/rapid aging of the citizen population doesn't help either imo.
I might sound like a broken record, but I think TFR is the root cause of all this. Western governments see population decline (and consequent tax base erosion) as a sovereign risk and will do whatever they can to forestall it. Immigration is the only tool they think is feasible to 'fix' this, so we continue to see uniparty policies of mass immigration despite it being grossly unpopular.
Everything else is downstream of this. I've heard speculation that AI based productivity gains might obviate the need for immigration, but I'm not holding my breath.
Its not surprising some young men feel resentment at being set up to fail, and instead choose ruthless self interest (whether that looks like checking out of the dating market or sexual exploitation of women). You can't break the social contract and expect young men to unilaterally honour their side.
But as long as we have the state capacity to stop the non-anglified groups from being too much of a problem (and we definitely do), it is a total non-issue for our civilization and way of life.
American exceptionalism aside, in the non-American Western nations there is definitely a lack of will and state capacity to assimilate foreign cultures. It is cheaper in terms of political capital to double down on indoctrinating the host heritage populations to accept the 'eccentricities' of immigrant groups over mandating assimilation. There's also perverse incentives where host politicians (and parties more broadly) can benefit themselves by championing immigrant groups over heritage citizens. The US isn't immune to this in pockets, but broader American culture may be more resilient against cultural infringement.
Noticing the 'two tier' celebration of immigrant cultures over the denigration of the host cultures is building resentment. The UK seems to be the first of the Anglo nations to reach a crisis about this with free speech infringements used to keep a lid on things.
That leaves the third, which is handily rephrased as "what percentage of guys who only got a date at all from studying dodgy PUA-type techniques will proceed to flounder once they have the real flesh and blood woman in front of them and need to engage her in conversation?", to which I would be very surprised if the answer was in the single digits.
There were a lot of socially awkward men that mistook the map for the territory and took the Red Pill ideology quite literally. There seemed to be a correlation between those likely to make the mistake of 'talking about Fight Club' on dates and their place on the autism spectrum.
The older theory was designed to bootstrap dateless guys enough to get them on 'dates' and provide some encouragement as they discovered 'landmarks', or correlations between the theory and what they encountered in reality. They were then meant to build experience through repetition to bring themselves dating success (whatever 'success' meant to them). Unfortunately a lot of guys fell into a pattern of talking about the theory endlessly online over actually developing themselves into better (which is to say more attractive) men.
In the worst case you had weirdos autistically trying to 'force the territory to match the map', by using jargon in the field or even trying to 'correct' women's behaviour to match their own understanding of the theory rather than accepting reality as it is. This was one of the many contributing factors to the 'brand' of PUA/Red Pill cratering once it gained more mainstream awareness.
This is how you get Havel's Greengrocer. 'Are you a Soviet Spy? I think you're a Soviet Spy!'
Funnily enough this never happened to me despite long ago spending time in the PUA sphere. Never punished.
It also, reminds me of recent forced polarisation of neutral parties in the influencer sphere into stating their (non-existent) party membership.
Feminism, as an ideology for advancing women's interests, cannot survive in an open marketplace of ideas. It's Motte is 'Feminism is about equality between men and women' which is indefensible when presented with the flood of examples of Bailey exploitation where 'feminists' pick or discard gender roles according to whatever is most in their interests in the circumstance, equality be damned.
Boys and men can now drink from the firehose of the internet which facilitates easy noticing. Like many other ideologies crumbling in the face of evidence, Feminism's supporters have started pushing for suppression of information to allow the gaslighting to continue.
It's this broader desire for suppression to allow narrative control that worries me about the West right now. Its happening along other fronts such as Multiculturalism which also seems to now require suppression of speech to get incompatible cultures to coexist.
Yeah his predictions are real 'alternate timeline' stuff. Deliberately or not, his predictions are things he would like to see (or more cynically, things his followers want to see and will spike engagement).
I remember his flameout post here seemed designed to be as polarising and ostentatious as possible.
I think its possible that the US did the hit, but we're not certain. By their stalling I think its likely or they would have denied it already. Lets be honest, they have the intelligence and they've had a week.
That said, I've talked to a persian expat friend and he's highlighted Iran's history of false flags going back to the 80's. He isn't upset at the way the narrative is playing out. He thinks if this isn't the toppling of the theocracy, that Iran will suffer as is for another 30 years+
3-6 months. CENTCOM requests for intelligence analysts. Start your search with that.
I asked Grok about this, and it came up with this (unverified):
- The complaint centers on an intercepted communication (likely by the NSA) involving a conversation between two foreign nationals (possibly linked to foreign intelligence agencies) discussing a person close to President Trump. Later reporting specifies this involves Jared Kushner (Trump's son-in-law) and connections to Iran.
- The whistleblower alleged that Gabbard's office restricted or interfered with the normal dissemination of this intelligence for political reasons, bypassing standard procedures (e.g., Gabbard reportedly took a paper copy to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and directed limited routing back to her office instead of broader sharing).
- Under intelligence whistleblower laws, such a complaint should be forwarded to Congress (specifically key committees) relatively quickly, but it was delayed for roughly eight months—only shared with lawmakers in late January/early February 2026, and even then in redacted or limited form due to classification concerns (officials cited potential "grave damage to national security").
The right is fresh out of fucks to give. We are far enough in the polarization cycle where no amount of emotional or ethical pleading will have effect.
This type of mining of trust and collective goodwill happens in other spheres as well, and its just about the most corrosive thing you can do to social cohesion. Eventually the abused side has zero empathy and actual legitimate pleas to ethics and morality are ignored in some sort of cultural 'Chicken Little' effect. I'm concerned that you can't maintain a shared civilization with liberal freedoms if things continue to be abused in this way.
He knows what he meant. The women will keep picking the bears if men don't up their game.
Are Iran really in a state where they can attack shipping directly (perhaps via drones) as compared to proxies like the Houthi kicking off again? (Apparently it was Hezbollah that droned the UK RAF base in Cyprus).
They're a little busy right now and my understanding is their centralised command and control structures have been decimated requiring devolving command decisions to regional/unit commanders.
I guess they are relatively undefended and Iran looks like its swinging in all directions to cause as much chaos as possible.
I'm pretty sure, is that if the US government really wanted Israel to not strike, Israel would not strike. Would Israel ignore the US if it was faced with a genuinely existential, immediate threat? Yes, I think so. But this situation was not an immediate existential threat.
Yeah, this is pretty much where I am. I think Rubio is playing up the 'we had to because Israel and we couldn't let Iran strike first' as a cassus belli. It does make the US look like the tail is wagging the dog though.
Now, was there sophisticated data hacking and analysis? Probably. But I don't quite believe the details presented. It would be stupid of the Israelis to leak the actual details of how they did it, thus educating their enemies.
I've seen people (ex spooks) talking about targeting analysts in the public sphere. I think there's a fair bit of tradecraft guides and other bits and pieces out there, so it seems like contemporary govts aren't that concerned with basic methods that have been around for decades getting out into the public sphere.
How do we even know the method described in the Times is the one they used rather then disinformation?
I've done this twice with 2 different guys at two different stages in my life. They had a habit of getting into fights. I sat down (with others in our group) and told them to stop or it would end our friendship. One guy pulled his head in and we stayed friends. The other did not and we are no longer friends.
Israel and the US have been 'friends' for decades. Israel has an established habit of getting into altercations and dragging the US into it. The US has had many many opportunities to sit them down and put them straight.
'Friends' don't drag their friends into fights time and again.
Edit: Should say I backed my friends in the moment, but read them the riot act afterwards.
This is a common theme among all forum users. I've been on plenty of tiny forums where a relatively obscure topic is discussed in an effortpost and then it appears on the world stage some time later.
I don't necessarily think its being collected or monitored, but it could be a case of multiple discovery.
That being said, I have seen some strangely professional counterposts on here and other forums by obscure lurkers trying to downplay certain lines of thinking against strong logical arguments, so who knows.
"Defective altruism". Now I know Hegseth has ghost writers to pump out zingers like that.
Keep doing what you're doing.
I've never had to go through a drawn out situation like yours, but like any other in life I guess you can just do the best you can with what you have.
All the best.
Really enjoyed this one, thankyou.
This doesn't seem like a good precedent. If you rent a book on law from the library and take notes to help your case, your notes aren't protected? Your lawyer can make the same notes and they are? How can you mount a legal defense by yourself without a lawyer if the opposition can just access your notes? This isn't planning a crime, this is mounting your defense.
It doesn't smell right. It also smacks of protectionism of the legal profession. Making a precedent like this to preserve a space for lawyers and judges into perpetuity.
Ironically there's probably a market for that. Get a gimmic and enjoy your side hustle.
Lol, sorry. I really shouldn't drive-by post like that.
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but there's a video doing the rounds of a woman who didn't want kids changing her mind after being exposed to a baby. The government may want to consider this type of exposure in any final year sex ed/home economics programs in high school.
Basically the theory is that people (women) don't want kids because they aren't exposed to babies and young children in a childcare environment. They don't really have a trigger for their childbearing instincts. Not sure if the various European governments tried this in their studies.
I don't want to make a general statement about which sex is, on average, happier, at least, not without a lot more research, but I would at least say that there probably isn't a vast difference.
Yes, and for a lot of the intrinsic problems that men and women face, the coping mechanisms are discovered through hard learned experience. I think it's probably better to deal with 'the Devil you know..' then trade it in for perceived greener grass on the other side.
The transman I linked above for example. Most men have a gradual change from being a child, through teenage years, to being an adult man. They can slowly transition from being valued intrinsically as a child towards being more disposable as the years pass and develop emotional resilience to cope with that in a controlled manner. It must have been rough to go to sleep being valued and then wake up and realise suddenly no one cares about you at all expect perhaps for the value you can provide them (I'm exaggerating here to make a point, but guys will get what I mean).
- Prev
- Next

Refugees are definitely a money sink. Young educated tradespeople or professionals going through a strict points based system are normally positive in lifetime contribution.
Its difficult to do direct comparisons on net lifetime contributions across the anglo countries because a lot of the studies seem to be gamed to create the strongest arguments for immigration.
Regardless, as soon as you look at non-economic impacts, multiculturalism has so many downsides over homogeneity.
More options
Context Copy link