One of the main reasons that bad faith actors like Andrew Tait are so popular is because many people in our society dont want to confront various hard truths, that many in red-pill spaces actively expose: Looks, Money, & Masculinity matter.
I like Andrew Wilson's take on the reddpill/manosphere: they have correct description but incorrect prescription. Many of the mainstream people are unable to even debate inside the redpill sphere purely due to a fear of being tainted by it, and then ganged up by male and female feminists. So all these prescriptions are living on without any serious challenge with a few notable exceptions. I can also give an example where Andrew Wilson (an orthodox debater) was debating I think Fresh & Fit when it came to their prescription that you should sleep at least with dozens of women before getting into relationship. Andrew had an interesting strategy for it:
-
Did you not say that easy women are of no value to a proper high value man? If yes, then how can easy women be of low value if they provide some value to high-value man in form of this mythical "experience"? So now hoes from the club and dumb prostitutes and OF bimbos are hidden masters of love, who will teach high value men about successful relationship? How?
-
Also why it is necessary to sleep with all those women to get this "experience"? Is it not maybe sufficient to get their number or some such and then dump them, maybe even saving yourself from some nasty herpes or something?
No matter what you think about these arguments, what was interesting was how their edifice crumbled. It was no longer enough to go through the standard redpill talking points of divorce rates or hypergamy or paternity fraud stats etc. As soon as the discussion was taken over to prescriptions and moral oughts, it collapsed.
It was the norm for Allies as well, the prime example is ethnic cleansing and atrocities in East Prussia, but there are also additional atrocities after war related to ethnic cleansing of Germans in Poland and Czechoslovakia. I hope you know that Stalin decided to move Poland couple of hundreds miles to the left - just because he could. So much for third worlders whining about "artificial borders created by ignoramuses during some stupid conference of superpowers". Welcome to borders of the whole Europe - especially after WW1 and WW2. All in all around 12 million Germans were ethnically cleansed from lands they lived in for up to 1 000 years with 500k-2.5 million deaths.
But there were also atrocities committed by allies. French and especially colonial forces committed mass rapes in Stuttgart and other cities, carpet bombing of allied cities such as in France with tens of thousand of casualties, and of course we can also mention how Allies and especially French just waltzed into Indochina and especially Vietnam and committed atrocities during the liberation, basically turning WW2 into Vietnam war. Many other bloody anticolonial wars were ignited right after the WW2 such as war in Algeria against France or war in Kenya against British Empire or "Malayan Emergency" - which also included a nice masaacre an ethnic cleansing and it was also a test of new chemical weapon called Agent Orange by Brits. You know, a cookie cutter (and very successful) allied police action. Post WW2 was incredibly bloody period, let's not kid about that.
Late 1940ies and early 50ies were a completely different period, it was still very much a period where carpet bombing, ethnic cleansing and huge conflicts was a norm. It is not as if it was not a norm after that, you still have sanctioned ethnic cleansing if you have the right backing such as ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Croatia during operation Storm, or if you are not interesting for international audience various atrocities now being perpetrated in whole Sahel region including Mali, Northern/Central Nigeria, Sudan and many other places.
georgioz
14d ago
To be precise, you linked THE GIFTS AND THE CALLING OF GOD ARE IRREVOCABLE which has the power of reflection and thus it is not an official doctrine or dogma. In fact it is highly disputed and disagreement is absolutely tolerated and if held, it is still in full communion with catholic teaching.
IMO Christian Zionism falls apart on every important level. It is absent from the writings of early Christians, who more often see the destruction of Israel
Agreed. But this is common weakness of most of the protestants who tend to ignore church history for obvious reasons, when they want to minimize everything up until Martin Luther. The fact is, that current Rabbinic Judaism is relatively modern offshoot of traditional or biblical/sacrificial Judaism which ended 70 AD with destruction of the Second Temple and with rabbis doing the sleight of hand, where they supposedly wrote down oral Torah by year 200 AD. Funnily or interestingly enough, the current Rabbinic Judaism is direct evolution of Pharisees by adopting most of the Pharisaic doctrine, while many other pharisees including apostle Paul turned into Christianity as the fulfilment of Pharisaic hope in form of Jesus as messiah.
It really seems strange to have bunch of protestants who basically say that it is not Jews like Apostle Paul - or any other apostle or Jesus himself as they were all Jews - but it is blokes like Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi who are the true authority over oral Torah and thus biblical tradition. Heck, it is even worse as it is not only the modern rabbis who are supposed to be the legitimate continuation of old testament tradition, but it is also government of state of Israel who posses such an authority and legitimacy for some reason, including legitimacy of doctrines like belief in coming of Jewish messiah, which would be directly against core Christian belief in Jesus as the true messiah and fulfillment of the old law. It is insane.
Those rat bastards are going to get what they deserve, We are the inevitable victors of history and every setback is temporary, We're gonna be alright".
Leftist music was always kind of antiestablishment, revolutionary and disruption coded. The modern paradox is, that many of these themes are kind of right coded nowadays. Rage against the machine and and their Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me refrain from Killing in the Name was quite popular for COVID-19 anti-lockdowns crowd to great dismay of band members themselves. I saw similar movement from some punk celebrities which also moved over to mocking progressives as cultural hegemons.
I'd say that it is both. In general all the movements have the element where the enemy is immensely powerful and evil and he destroyed everything that we hold dear, and our future is on knife edge - which sounds whiney. But at the same time the enemy is also stupid and uncultured and prone to conspiratory thinking, so we must mobilize to mock and beat him. So the culture reflects both sides of the propaganda. For conservatives there is the whole religious leg, which literally says that everything is gonna be all right, Jesus himself promised us that no matter how bad it gets, the faithful will prevail in the end.
LLM Bulls: Current SOTA LLMs are capable of replacing a sizeable portion of human knowledge work. Near-future models or future architectures promise AGI, then ASI in short order. The world won't know what hit it.
One thing that consistently elude any of the forecast are financials. If LLMs/AI are posed to completely disrupt all the knowledge work, why do we not see it in stocks? We are talking insane money, knowledge work employs around 1 billion people globally with total compensation of at least $50 trillion. Should we not see some huge impact if this technology is so near? For instance MS stock is the same as in 2023 - it does not seem as if Open AI is posed to be key for replacement of tens of trillions of dollars of value a year.
I would even be for the reverse signal - e.g. AI will be so cheap, that all this $50 trillion work will be done by $1 trillion of AI agents with some electricity etc, so no surge in AI stocks. Okay, so where is the pandemonium and stock apocalypse of the companies, which will be for sure worthless in the face of AI where investors should shift into something less AI prone such as construction or whatnot?
Maybe, maybe not. Nevertheless the nonviolent nature of these protest did not win anybody some moral high ground or anything like that, it won them maybe mockery. Even for popular issues like those related to Occupy, it just fizzled out like a fart in outer space.
It also works the other way around such as when violent protests are made successful thanks to media shielding. Prime example are BLM protests/riots, which were turned by establishment into massive success with wave of capitulation from government to corporations to the agenda. Similar example is violent outbursts after some high profile Quran burnings which led to laws banning such burnings under hate speech and other laws. If you want something maybe right-coded, then I'd say that violent yellow vests protests in France were much more successful compared to let's say trucker freedom convoys, which were safely ignored with some of the organizers personally attacked and unpersoned.
Agreed. Even in modern context without sympathetic media nonviolent protests are absolutely ineffective. Just a few examples, two from conservative and two from leftist side:
-
March for life/abortion clinics vigils. These were largely ineffective, in fact they led to oppressive laws where praying in a buffer zone around abortion clinics is punishable offense which in fact got some people arrested.
-
Antiglobalist protests in early 2000s in Seattle and other places. They did not achieve their goals, all the trade deals went as planned and in fact globalist agendas went through just fine. If anything meeting in places like Davos to embark upon Global regulations is even more popular than in the past.
-
Occupy Wallstreet was complete fiasco, a lot of ink was spent if it was sabotaged possibly by introducing woke as a new topic or what. Nevertheless this movement is dead in the water.
-
Tea Party and wave of protests for their policy demands died similarly to Occupy.
Is it really true? As far as I am aware in all studies related to quality of relationships, the lower the number of previous partners, the better relationship satisfaction reported - for both sexes, like with this graph. Again, it may just be a correlation as for sure low number of sexual partners also may just be proxy for things like religiosity which is then tied to life satisfaction etc. But it sure is at least a hint and definitely evidence against the contrary narrative.
As for my personal anecdote I cannot say that my previous experience was too useful, not that I had a lot. I got married relatively young and I am still with my wife. If I compare my current wife even at the time we got together and my ex of 2 years before, it was a completely different experience. Attitudes, hobbies, relationship expectations and yes also sexuality - all of that was quite different.
I actually think it is absolutely counterproductive. I do think having so many escapades has negative impact on a person, at minimum it has to be a time and resource hog even discounting emotional damage. Speaking of which - I know of three separate womanizers who slept with dozens+ women, who admitted that they have severe trust issues and experience severe jealousy with huge negative impact on their ability to keep a serious partner, just because of their previous experience with easy women. By severe jealousy I am talking about checking if the bed is warm after coming back from work to satisfy their OCD imagination of unfaithful wife. God forbid their wife took afternoon nap.
More options
Context Copy link