Imagine being Anatoliy Karlin and thinking that because Ballot boxes weren’t stuffed (which is in itself a debatable proposition but we will accept it for the sake of argument), that having US advisors, strategists and money won’t change the election results in your favor. Which the ‘data’ (if Clinton archives are to be believed) shows – around the time when Clinton started helping Yeltsin, there was a turnaround of Yeltsin’s fortunes, compared to the KPRF which for all intents and purposes did no campaigning lol

Yes, I privilege official Russian statistics

Which is your error. As Bashibuzuk demonstrated to you on numerous occasions that ‘official statistics’ do not paint the full picture. As most women go to private clinics for abortions anyway.

over the rants of an embittered emigre

I am not an emigre. I live in Asia and use a VPN lol

many “powerful” ideas on all sorts of topics

Says the guy with a blog on an obscure site trying to justify his ‘powerful’ ideas on all sorts of topics with ‘statistics’ lol

As Mark Twain said, “There’s lies, damn lies and statistics”.

The definition a “rigged” election hinges on whether ballot stuffing

Definition of “Rigged” according to who? Anatoliy Karlin? Wasn’t aware he was an ‘authority’ on election rigging.

Besides you want to tell me that supporting favored candidates with money, propaganda, staffers, and advisors is not ‘rigging’? Okay then.

the like changes its results relative to what they would have been in its absence

Which is why the KPRF was doing much better than Yeltsin until Clinton started helping him, as ‘official data’ from the Clinton archives shows. Clintons help turned the situation around entirely for Yeltsin. Even Medvedev admits it. Oh wait, you ignore that because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

God damn you’re a shit for brains moron. Or entirely dishonest. I can’t tell which.

Karlin relies too much on ‘polls’ or ‘statistics’ that he digs up from somewhere. Many of these ‘statistics’ do not give context or are devoid entirely of nuance. In fact looking at ‘statistics’ only obfuscates the picture even more because ‘statistics’ can be easily manipulated, or if its not misses many contextual issues that can be only obtained by trying to understand the situation from a more empirical context.

He made the same error regarding the ‘fall’ in abortions in russia – because official statistics showed they decreased, but did not account for them moving to private clinics rather than government owned clinics.

Same with they Yeltsin 1996 – where he gets fixated on votes by region rather than seeing the big picture that the election was ‘rigged’ in so much as Yeltsin had support from the US and was essentially a US puppet. Whether the ballot boxes were stuffed is irrelevant.

The percentage of Afghans who said they sympathized with the Taliban in 2019 was just 13%, shrinking to 8% in Kabul.

Do you know how i know that this poll is wrong? Afghanistan is famous for “green on blue attacks”. Basically an afghan soldier or a policeman will suddenly start shooting at his “comrades” or at americans.

If you followed the war, you would know that every week there was an attack of the sort “a soldier/policeman killed his comrades at the checkpoint and brought their equipment to the Taliban”. It was a very common occurrence in the conflict.

And the were more such insider attacks in Afghanistan than in Iraq. Very dangerous. US special forces got owned in such attacks too, and even the commander of US forces Gen Miller barely escaped such an ambush.

Also, a strong Taliban that agrees to keep terrorist out of Xinjiang in exchange for Chinese investment also plays to increasing stability at China’s borders and to further bringing the region under its influence (China has strong influence over Pakistan due to BRI), Taliban rule only strengthens this further (particularly if the Taliban continues to cooperate).

The rapidity and efficiency with which the Taliban took over Afghanistan (Kabul in particular), their discipline when taking the Presidents Palace, their ability and desire to work with Russia (they took it upon themselves to protect the Russian consulate)/China (agreed to Chinese investments) and Iran indicate that they are going to be an efficient state (this is unlikely to change at least for one generation).

I think you are unnecessarily pessimistic about the future of Afghanistan under the Taliban. Everything we’ve seen of them so far suggests that they intend to govern Afghanistan as a proper state, and not as the radical militia we saw in the 90s (though of course intentions aren’t always actualised). Put simply, they seem to have matured as an organisation. Both in military terms, able to perform coordinated multi-front offensives in a reasonably organised fashion, and from a governance perspective too — they have long had a political office in Doha and have prospective governors and other government officials lined up. 20 years of war is likely to make any organisation more pragmatic — just look at how their Islamist rhetoric has moderated. Even the Hazara regions simply rolled over for them, which is obviously as a result of their multi-decade effort to become more than radical islamist Pashtuns (I believe they even have a Shia Hazara in a high position internally).

Plus, soon-to-be President Ghani Baradar was not just in China, but in Iran and Russia too. If I recall right the Russians had good things to say about the productivity and professionalism of their dialogue.

It remains a hub because it is a global vision.

Global vision? US doesn’t have a global vision. It has momentum. Due to being the dominant cultural force for the better part of 50 years, people are accustomed to US media and it continues to use this to spread its ideas. However, at this point I think that US culture is beginning to lose appeal and is slowing down – especially with the rise of Asia and asian powers beginning to replace it (look at how Saudi Arabia allowed BTS concerts, whereas it would not allow US bands to perform. Moroever, look at how North Korea allowed a South Korean band to perform but not a US band)

China is using its national champions like Tencent to set it up for future cultural dominance. Rather than buying up newspapers and TV stations (that would have met opposition in other countries), Tencent is buying up video game companies the world over and nobody is the wiser. This is a clever play to control the mass medium of the future – mainly video games. Tencent is making a bet that video games are the future. We will see if they made a good bet.

Not really. Those laws are nuanced and mainly meant to act as protectionist measures and to not have any directly seditious materials produced (like Leviathan).

I’ve watched many similiar movies and they have even had excellent critical acclaim within China as well.

I don’t know why everyone is surprised by this trend. I wrote about it multiple times in comments on this blog. The reason for LGBT spread is very much the same reason for low TFRs. Just like women have been brainwashed by media not to have kids, because they view having kids as ‘not modern’ or ‘not fashionable’, so too do younger generations view ‘being gay/supporting LGBT’ as ‘fashionable’ as that is the predominant media trend and is very much a symptom of US cultural hegemony. This is also why places with strong exposure to US culture will have coincidentally low TFRs and also tend to be the gayest. Adjacent countries will have youth consuming US media because it is viewed as the ‘cool’ thing to do and therefore adopt these views – which accounts for why China is so pro-LGBT – there is a strong western worship contingent amongst the Youth there. Especially given the fact that many Chinese go back and forth between China and Western countries and bring these ideas with them.

A smart government can reverse this trend by flooding its media spaces with the opposite propaganda.

The data it seems is only confirming what I said earlier.

The theory that somehow early sexual abuse creates homos or causes ‘trauma’ seems rather strange to me…how can a child who doesn’t understand the greater implications of what is happening be ‘traumatized’ by it, especially if its not a painful but rather is a pleasant event?

Rather it seems it becomes a problem in retrospect, after social conditioning gets its hands on them or alternatively when they want to win pity points.

That will approach some sort of central planning which can work suboptimally for some time and have serious inbalances building up later on.

No. Central planning is precisely what makes a powerful and functional economy. It gives a ‘goal’ for the economy to move towards. A bunch of people doing many things at once is unproductive and a waste of resources. ALL states that produced ‘economic miracles’ from the US, to the USSR, to Japan, South Korea and China used Central Planning. “Free market” only works when there is a certain baseline established. Removing government functions and putting it into the hands of the ‘free market’ is only a recipe for disaster.

food, but their population are too small for warfare.

I suggest you read the article then. They may not be nomadic tribes but they are far from an agricultural civilization. In the article I posted it says that what surproised Chagnon the most was the ever present pervasive state of warfare the tribes had. Also, roving bands of gatherers have non-permanent settlements sinilar to nomads. This is more applicable to the Yanomamo. But point is that even though population where small, they all still fought constantly.

As a kind of Hermetic, I do like him but I think he allowed his worship of the Sun element to be a bit too extensive. The Jupiterian aspect, without counterbalance, can lead one to some unusual ideas into hubris.

Yes I agree, however this was not the reason I brought up Evola. He has a very good definition of Aristocracy that was applicable to the situation.

Hunter-gatherers lacked the resources for significant warfare capacity.

Look at the yamamato tribes. They engage in constant warfare with their neighbors for resources – mainly women. They are ruled by a band of strongmen (the mightiest warriors). This was the case for hunter gatherer bands in general in the stone age – which is what I was referring to.

individuals into a dedicated soldier-caste.

Again, look at the yamamato tribes – they have a dedicated soldier caste that rule the tribes and fathers want to marry off their daughters to this caste. These are not city states.

the start of settled chiefdoms, which allowed for wealth to exist in the form of grain, and the existence of a strongman chiefdom and an entourage of warriors, where you get things like the Fierce People and 70-80% mortality among men by warfare.

Hunter gatherer societies were based around a group of men who had sufficient strength and knowledge to defend their tribe from slaughter by wild animals or other tribes (for example to take their women). Those men who could not participate in warfare where of lower status.

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/the-yanomamo-and-the-origins-of-male-honor/

The Evolian conception of aristocracy and nobility had nothing to do with what you mentioned. Which is why I suggest you read “Revolt Against the Modern World”. But I will briefly summarize his conception of aristocracy. Aristocracy in his conception was primairly spiritual. As was the concept of race. He was was racist in so much as different races where archetypes for a particular person. For example a negro/jew is viewed as a somebody that is petty, conniving and lying. The exact opposite of an aristocrat of the soul.

According to Evola, modern man lacks a laundry list of virtues, but only two are absolutely essential for societal health and success. These are the virtue types that correspond to what Julius Evola termed “True Virility.” They are, Heroism (warrior bravery) and Asceticism (transcendent discipline). Without some measure of these two components, man will fail to achieve true manhood.

Those with a shard of this “True Virility” are termed “Aristocrats of the soul” or are aristocratic in general.

According to this definition, AP is not aristocratic. As I have said.

but the ability to coordinate information, work with a number of individuals, and accurately make decision

And yet AP is a sophist and frequently presents incorrect information as ‘correct’ information, and dismissing facts to the contrary if it does not suit his narrative – as my previous debates with him have shown. So even by this metric he falls short.

much more than the notion of an army that marches upon its biceps or genitals, however protuberant or vast they may be

Logistics and coordination is important – but if we speak of Roman legions or Greek hoplites – often they would refuse to follow those who did not exhibit heroic qualities and promote those who did to emperor. As we saw with Juilius Casear for example.

Then again, much of the aristocracy didn’t engage in leadership, much of it was just small time landowners who didn’t even have any peasant working for them and didn’t even fight. And if they did, it was mostly as foot soldiers. In other words most of the medieval aristocracy was useless. And if AP was a big name, he sure as hell wouldn’t be living a middle class life in America.

Technology is a tool that can be employed either to push society in one direction or another – it does not inevitably lead to changing of gender roles – it can be instead used in solidifying gender roles if used properly.

Exactly.

If I show women that careerism is the only choice and use mass media to make fun of having children – that is what they will believe.

If I show the opposite – then that is what women believe.

Yes, if merchants are in power – then career women
If Brahmins – then muh STEM grilz bro
Kshatriyas – then:

The activities I most enjoy are perfectly consistent with a Stone Age lifestyle.

A stone age lifestyle is characterized by rule by sheer strength – might is right. The only law is the law of the jungle – an eye for an eye and what you can take and hold. And men’s minds where ruled by both superstition and wonder. Something that no longer exists.

From your previous comments on this thread, you do not subscribe to this view and thus you do not support a stone age lifestyle as you abhor any form of might.

But he is a simpleton. I would also add some narcissism into the mix

Judging by your comments on this site as a whole, I think you describe yourself. You were called a sophist at one point – where you not? And I think for good reason.

brag about spending a lot of time in the gym exercising for the sake of being able to serve as a living dildo for hundreds of loose women.

Firstly you put words in my mouth that I never said. I said I workout, but never specified my motivations.

Like I said, you are too simple to realize that you are envious of a person with a great body because you do not have the discipline to get off your ass and exercise, and likely weren’t popular with women in your youth – hence are jealous of those who are – because I promise you if you had the opportunity to be with many beautiful women you would have taken it. But you didn’t, so here you are with Sour Grape Syndrome.

I think that improvements in mass media technology (from movies to TV to cable TV to the internet) inevitably led to changes in gender roles. They exposed women to the idea that different options existed.

You are confusing cause and effect – “the cause” that leads women to being ‘exposed to the idea that different options exist’ comes about as a result of how this technology is employed.

If I show women that careerism is the only choice and use mass media to make fun of having children – that is what they will believe.

If I show the opposite – then that is what women believe.

Its in the manner that the tool is employed that matters.

Improvements in contraceptive technology are an example of technological development inevitably leading to changes in gender roles

.

Contraceptive technology would lead to a decline in fertility but would not lead to changes in gender roles, as it did not (and does not) in many traditional societies or in the USSR for example.

The cultural software plays a big role in how contraceptives are viewed.

Improvements in transportation technology (first railways then cars) changed people’s whole concept of what a community was, which in turn inevitably led to changes in gender roles.

Another way of looking at it is that improvements in transportation technology changed how food can be distributed meaning it became even easier for women to have kids as they didn’t need to work in the fields anymore as they did in the past.

Technology is a tool that can be employed either to push society in one direction or another – it does not inevitably lead to changing of gender roles – it can be instead used in solidifying gender roles if used properly.

I am sorry you have penis envy and hate everything virile and masculine. I can’t imagine how this envy must feel.

I am sorry that you feel despised by women.

He may be from noble stock, but he is not of noble character or body or spirit.

In the Platonic conception of society, nobility has a physical and spiritual component. Judging by APs comments regarding a beautiful physique (and in general), he is not aristocratic in demeanor at all.

Neither is he aristocratic in the Evolian sense. He lacks any sort of nobility of the soul or virility. I cannot fathom how anyone can see him as an ‘aristocrat’

So I think that my assessment is correct – in a more beautiful (platonic/evolian) world he would be ostracized or turned into a peasant.

It means that you communicate in a way which is understood as intended.

Its understood by almost everyone but you. Why? Because you are a woman, and probably shouldn’t be on this forum.

yet I seem to be the only one who has the desire to treat you with sympathy.

LOL cute. I don’t care for your ‘sympathy’ *facepalm*

You are playing to the closest thing you may ever have to a crowd which is open to your performance, and nobody is buying it. This is what communicating ineffectively mean

LOL. What performance? Honestly sounds like penis envy.

I feel like Laxa has penis envy and any outpouring of masculine virilism is met with the her desire to put a stop to it.

This female desire to kick men in the dick whether literally

By censorsing male speech

Taking men’s money in a divorce

Or just shitting on masculine excess

Women don’t have a phallus so they are always trying to rob men of having one while trying to become the phallus.

So basically women want to ban the masculine while becoming a cum-less impotent dildo version of it

The erect penis is despised by the woman for its virility and ability to upset the sterile corporate status quo. However women have no problem giving each other infertile dildos.

Women are phalusless (gay impotent) and the more women are in an organization there are they (impotent gay phalusless) the organization is.

In a healthier and more beautiful society (like say that of the Ancient Greeks), people like AP would be ostracized for their envy.

AP is literally of aristocratic extraction. In a better world, he is a nobleman.

And what does ‘communicate in a more effective manner’ even mean? That is just word salad

It means that you communicate in a way which is understood as intended.

You are on a board which has commenters who are far more sympathetic to your persona than is the mainstream; yet I seem to be the only one who has the desire to treat you with sympathy.

I also don’t think that anyone has the impression that you are this ultra-successful, extremely dashing and wise Chad, that you want them to believe.

You are playing to the closest thing you may ever have to a crowd which is open to your performance, and nobody is buying it. This is what communicating ineffectively means.

My guess is that he is a young fantasist. It isn’t that real individuals, like he describes himself, don’t exist, it is that, even if they felt they needed to convince strangers on the internet of their truth, they would communicate in a more effective manner.

A nonsensical reply. Again, I merely mentioned things about myself to prove a point, not to convince some internet stranger let alone a woman of anything.

And what does ‘communicate in a more effective manner’ even mean? That is just word salad

immaturity

Typical feminine shaming language. Sounds like you yourself are abusive towards men in your own life. Which is why I said that you are emotionally broken and hate men.

I would guess that his mother has distinct problems with emotional regulation

I would ask that you don’t speak of my mother. Another guy speaking in such a manner about my mother would have his face caved in.

and his home environment was unsafe for his own emotional expression.

LOL. Laxa, you don’t understand men very well. You write from a feminine perspective, and its wrong. I don’t see the need or have the desire to scream like a headless chicken, or release crocodile tears to get sympathy from strangers. Doesn’t mean I don’t ‘express my emotions’. Like what does that statement even mean lmao

Just an observations and exploration of an interesting phenomena, but the problem with you calling him a “sociopath” before, an accurate description of his persona, is that it is exactly what he is trying to convince you is actually him. You are validating his false identity. He obviously isn’t a sociopath in the “I just use people and have no feelings sense”, because he would hide it.

Thanks for trying to dissect my personality. Problem is your “analysis” makes little sense. You use some weird ‘therapy talk’ mumbo jumbo that is popular right now, but has no relation to how actual psychiatry works.

I knew a woman who was like that

Ah here’s the crux of the issue. You knew a WOMAN. You don’t know men.

He isn’t like my female friend at all. She had to really care for you to try to convince you of her sociopathy, in order to protect you from herself. You’d have to be cared for so much, that it broke the wall separating her conscious from her unconscious. This was the closest she could get to an expression of love – to momentarily break free of those bounds, solely in order to desperately keep that loved one away.

More mumbo jumbo that makes no sense lol

Laxa, I suggest you write less particularly about topics you don’t understand and listen more. This is another reason why I do not think women should work – they develop big egos but don’t actually know anything beyond a small specialized field.

If it is a “natural phenomenon,” then why is it not a reality

Is it not reality? Is there not a natural social hierarchy, whose complexity reflects the development and refinement of each society?

Why would someone even need to argue that it was a natural phenomenon? Do natural phenomena need justification? Aren’t they merely things you observe?

His argument comes across as an observation.

One can also observe that a breakdown in order and hierarchy reflects a decline in the society. Such an observation may seem like an “argument” in favor of maintaining a hierarchy, I suppose.

justification for why people should submit to his control

Is it really about his or anybody’s control though? In the natural hierarchy individuals’ roles depend on their personal attributes. These roles can be beautiful or honorable, simple or complex, depending on the beauty and honor of the society.

A crude simpleton such as your other interlocutor, “Xi-jingping”, has admitted that he has worked so hard building up his physique so that he can serve as a dildo for hundreds of women. He is probably a tool in all other areas of his life, too. In a healthier and more beautiful society he would be a hardworking honest peasant, or a foot-soldier.

“Daniel Chieh” on the other hand is more intelligent, thoughtful and moral. Whatever he does is much more complex. Most importantly, in a healthy and beautiful society his role involves more obligations and no less work. Such people are not some sort of parasites as modern (leftist) propaganda implies, no more than a neuron is a parasite compared to a cardiac muscle cell.

has worked so hard building up his physique so that he can serve as a dildo for hundreds of women.

This reads like the words of a jealous man, a man who wished he had a good physique and was full of strength and beauty, yet lacks it. You sound envious and I am sorry for you.

dildo for hundreds of women

More words of envy.

What makes you think there isn’t love and warm relations with these women? (Rhetorical question)

He is probably a tool in all other areas of his life, too. In a healthier and more beautiful society he would be a hardworking honest peasant, or a foot-soldier.

It is jealous/envious men that are usually the ‘tools’. Sorry to break it to you. I promise you, I have a great career and earn more than most people here in all likelihood.

This post confirms what I already suspected – AP is a small man who thinks he is smarter than he is as well as adding envy to that.

I would be glad to be proven wrong, but I do not think I am based on what you write. In fact, it seems to me you are simping towards Laxa – for what purpose I cannot fathom.

In a healthier and more beautiful society (like say that of the Ancient Greeks), people like AP would be ostracized for their envy.

I do not see why technological development would inevitably lead to change in gender roles. Technology is just tools, but human biology (in which gender roles are rooted) do not change. If anything Technological development makes humans more arrogant, leading them to think they have mastered their biological instincts moreso than previous generations and that biology no longer applies to us. This leads to delusional ideas like feminism or pushing women into the workforce en masse.

I am honored to be in the presence of one who’s confidence in her psychic ability to read the secret intentions of others exceeds her reading comprehension. Continue being brave and courageous, just like everyone on Twitter.

Good night, Laxa.

You’re intimidated by your own emotional needs

LOL. another one of those feminine nonsensical statements. I am fully aware of my emotions, i just don’t see the need to share them with the world like a faggot.

Say you do manage to convince me that you are a heroic, masculine man who knows everything and has no needs, how will that feel?

I don’t need to convince you of anything. Just that you don’t understand me or men as well as you think you do. (Typical feminine solipsism).

It is funny that you quote Nietzsche, because the way you describe yourself is pure slave morality, but you think it is the opposite.

It’s funny because you don’t understand Nietzsche. Can you even explain his main points without resorting to wikipedia or sparknotes or something like that?

because game ultimately represents a form of defection against other men

I am not sure what you mean by this? Can you clarify.

women are the glue within and arbiter between tribes.

If anything women are the thing that brings conflict within and amongst tribes. Tribal warfare amongst the Yamamato is primarly driven by a competition for women not any other resources. Wars where started over women (if the legend of the Trojan War is to be believed – it was started over Helen). Even now, it is quite possible to be jumped by guys who think you are trying to take their women.

looking for a strong owner

This is what I have been saying – women attach themselves to whoever they view as strongest within the vicinity/social group. The State is the strongest actor. However, an average male can bypass this position by projecting psychological strength and showing an ability to be stress resistant in adverse situations.

Yes, they will get you killed and to control them you must be prepared to die; they also bring forth life.

Nietzsche wrote:

“The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.”

His self-conception is very extreme, feels desperate and born of a deep lack of unworthiness.

This is one of those hilarious female quotes similar to “men are just intimidated by a strong independent woman”. No. Why would I as a guy who is 6’4 at 223 lbs be intimidated by a woman who is 100 lbs? That makes no sense. Same applies to this. I see women for what they are and respond accordingly. To not adapt is stupid. I just do not allow emotions to cloud my judgement, as many guys do. One could say I am first and foremost a pragmatic. I cannot change women, once they change – so will I.

You are going by partial ‘feelings’ and trying to project some female conceptions onto the male mind.

Yeah man. Usually the best thing to do if jumped is to run. Its not always possible though. That’s when boxing and wrestling come in. Boxing allows you to keep them at a distance. Grappling for when they’re close.

Women in general hate on guys who speak openly of Game, as it bypasses their ‘mate selection mechanisms’. Doesn’t mean that they cease to be susceptible to it.

Stop hating on dude for having game, Donate to Karlin if you want his digits.

His approach is probably better than breaking rules n shit in public to get girls.

I don’t have the emotional depth or patience to do the muh game way though||

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ

Where I currently reside does not allow carrying/owning of firearms.

I see no point in carrying knives as stabbing someone would land me in more trouble than beating the shit out of them. Which is why I used to do boxing and now do Greco-Roman Wrestling (I do not think that BJJ is practical in a street fight as you are more likely to encounter multiple assailants than a single one).

Why do you ask?

How do you want your marriage to be?

I would only do any form of marriage with a virgin. As women who have had extra martial sex are no longer capable of pair bonding.

So far you have asserted that you want to control her economic security.

LOL. Having a loving husband bring and hand over his paycheck to the wife (as was the case in the USSR) is ‘evul male controlling her economic security’…

Most men are incredibly malleable to a womans whims because of the magical thing that women carry between their legs.

abuse

Yes I agree. Women are far more prone to emotionally abuse men and there is little recourse to the authorities as it is hard to prove. Another reason why I do not recommend marriage unless it is towards a virgin.

If women are so easy to manipulate then why have I gotten such a nightmarish view of what it is you want?

Because you are 1) American (or from the West) and brainwashed by feminist propaganda 2) because you are emotionally broken 3) because you are a man hater (likely due to guys you liked either not paying attention to you or breaking up with you).

You are partially right i think. That’s a good point. But, we should ask ‘why is US media more relatable’? That mainly goes back to my first point about US dominating for so long, having longer to develop its soft power and instituting puppet governments everywhere.

Oh… well that is interesting. In that case, the time honored tradition of the internet (that bodybuilding forums and 4chan popularized) applies, she should post tits or gtfo.

US culture is able to appeal to much of the world

US culture appeals for two reasons

1. Because US has been dominant for so long and has had long to develop its soft power

2. Because of a ‘perception’ of US being wealthy and ‘cool’. And as we know perception = reality. For example, one could make a case that South Korea makes cooler movies/music. But watching/listening to it is not mainstream (yet). But this is changing with the growing popularity of BTS.

China hasn’t had long to develop its media and its not viewed as ‘cool’ because of propaganda to the contrary – but if you actually watch Chinese movies and shows – many of them are well made and ‘cool’.

Ultimately – the predominance of US culture is about perceived status – people think that associating with it gives them higher status.

Are you autistic, or rather sociopathic?

It depends on whether you were truthful about your claims about your personal life. If you weren’t, then your obvious cluelessness about women suggests autism. You would do well to learn from your interlocutor.

If you were truthful, then sociopathy comes into play.

But Triteleia really manipulated you well. That must burn 🙂

I am not boasting of anything. I am just saying that greater economic development leads to greater economic independence for women.

There is no relation between ‘greater economic development’ and breakdown of traditional gender roles.

One does not preclude the other. It just so happens that with greater economic development you also get more propaganda to get women into the workforce (in capitalism – to increase the labor pool and reduce wages; in communism – to garner maximal public support).

So again, it has everything to do with propaganda.

And as we both know – you don’t get women, so you don’t know their nature and how easily manipulated they can be.

Any politics that stands against this current, dooms itself to ever increasing marginalisation, because not even the most tradded up online teen wants to actually enforce the laws which would be required.

Which is why these politics must not be blatant. And why I said it needs to be in the form of media.

Feminism used to be an entirely marginal position – and women in the 50’s in America would rightfully ask, “Why would I want to go and work and lose the great deal I currently have?”, but then there was a concerted effort of the CIA together with corporate donors to run a propaganda campaign that resulted in the Sexual Revolution of the 60’s.

I poasted a pic to confirm truth of my words.

But Triteleia really manipulated you well. That must burn 🙂

LOL. Whenever someone goes ‘you go first’ it becomes obvious they won’t do it (because they have nothing to present – because if they did they would have poasted without trying to turn it over to the other person).

The reason I did it was two fold
1. To humiliate Triteleia – because by not poasting he merely shows like he talks a big game but has nothing to show for it.

2. To prove what I say is true.

So no. Triteleia is just trying to cope with the fact that he doesn’t get laid. lol

I personally tweeted on their Twitter account that the article is biased. For example it sees possible negative scenarios only for China, but not for the US. For example that economic crisis may happen in China, but not in the US. This is one sided, an economic crisis may happen in the US too, actually they regularly happen. They did not mention the issues with US debt, only the chinese one, or the issues with US birth rate drops, only the chinese ones.

Didnt know Karlin is a Jew. If he is, that explains alot

Jews are less than 0,2% of the population, so Karlin is showing 15 times higher levels of Judaism than a normal sample .

If international guidelines for normal safe levels of Judaism in a person are 2000 ppm (parts per million), Karlin’s blood is measuring contamination rates as high as 30,000 ppm, at which point we might might begin to see the neurotoxic effects with symptoms like an interest in stock market and collecting multiple passports.

Im not certain how far moneyhelps in raising fertility. In Russia, maternity capital has not had any significant effect in raising birth rates anongst young women.

In fact, giving money to promote “breeders” especially in Asian societies like China that had families with many kids – doesnt make sense – since it seems logical that only breeders would have outbred everyone in the first place (judging by sheer population size). This propensity for “breeding” has not gone away over the course of 2 or so generations. Evolution does not work that fast. This indicates to me that this is more of a “mental software” than “hardware” issue.

Money promoting “breeders” only works in societies with a relatively small population as there would exist a much larger percent of “non-breeders”. I do not think these exist in populous countries like China.

No, you hate your emotionality. It makes you feel scared

On the contrary I recognize my own emotions and deal with them as they come. However I do not show them to wonen bc women despise emotionality in men. If you had any experience with women, youd know that.

We’ve already established that you are not qualified to speak of women bc you did not poast bitches.

Its like in a Roman court where veterans will expose the scars on their chest to show they always faced the enemy and never ran. This gave their words more gravity as they proved their word through deed. You did not prove your word through deed whereas I did. Which means that you are not qualified to speak on the matter bc you dont get bitches.

don’t think you know what this means, but you’re right, even a lot of what feminism sincerely and openly wants men to do, is encouraging them to be psychologically stronger.

For example, while poorly articulated, the campaign against “mansplaining” is encouraging men to recognise their epistemological limits and to be more curious. This is good advice.

LOL. No. Feminst complaining about “mansplaining” is about power not epistemological limits or being more curious *facepalm*

You dont know what “psychological strength” is judging by the drivel you wrote. In this context it means resistance to stress. Women need somebody to ground them and look for this in a man. This happens by her being able to feel that a guy is unperturbed by whatever is happening around them.

I’ve just manipulated you to post an outre photo of a supposed “conquest” so that I, a stranger, can affirm your masculine value. You are too funny!

Haha no. I was perfectly aware you wouldnt poast your own bitches. The reason i did it was to humiliate you not to have some (probably fat) internet stranger to “affirm my value”. Since i knew you wouldnt poast, me poasting affirms that I did not lie. Whereas you not poasting merely indicates you get nothing. This puts whatever you say into doubt.

This is very much the method ancient romans used in court to confirm the truth of their words.

People instinctively push others to develop. They do this in manifold ways. You have taken a thin slice of human interaction and made it the whole. I would strongly advise you to avoid entangling yourself with women who cause you to be constantly defensive. Your intuition is telling you to leave that situation. Listen to it.

If you must stay with them, try opening up about the way you feel hurt by their behaviour and see if they care. If they don’t care, have the courage to leave. Lying to yourself that you’re not actually hurt is just playing yourself, not them.

If you want to improve your “psychological strength”, start by admitting, to yourself, just how much you want my validation and what that means given that I am total stranger. Have the courage to build yourself on foundations of truth, and you will be far more resilient. Lying to me, or other people, is fine, often necessary, but lying to yourself is stupid.

LOL this reads like a cope. Women hate emotionality in men. It makes them scared.

I dont care for your validation, but I did prove a point.

fact easily explained without your long diversion, by the story of the Sabine women. When war was more frequent and more local, and humans operated in much smaller groups, sometimes the men of one group would all be killed in a battle and the women would be still be alive

You described the concept of “War brides” where women are able to rapidly adapt to a new man or the loss of an old one. Which manifests itself in the ability of women to get over men easier than men get over women.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success

Realistically speaking there is “no inherent value of humanity”. A predator will eat you just like it will eat a rabbit. Nature will destroy you in one way or another. If humans had “inherent value” in the eyes of the Universe, we would not be so easily destroyed. We are less insignificant than dust to the Universe because dust makes stars and planets that last for millenia whereas a human is lucky to live a small insignificant speck in the history of the Universe.

Humans like to ascribe themselves value but are ultimately worthless. This “inherent value” is a meme intended to increase social stability but even our human elites do not think that – if they did, theyd make greater effort to take care of their flock. But they do not.

Game states that women are not just about social status lol. If you think that you know nothing of Game.

Women and men have different biological imperatives and methods of achieving them.

Women have a dual mating strategy that can be broadly described as “alpha fucks, beta bucks”. Meaning that they’d rather fuck (and potentially have the kids) of a guy they think is psychologically alpha and have the weaker, provider type pay for it. This explains why women are more prone to cheat then men. If a man can embody both archetypes, that is ideal but very very rare. In youth when theyre beauty (and social status) is maxinized they will seek to date and sleep with the best guys. As they get older and their beauty (and this social status) declines, this becomes harder until they settle down with some poor schmuk who will be happy to provide for them and a kid blisfully unaware of their sordid past.

Men on the other hand want to maximize their ability to sleep with as man women as possible (biologically speaking) while minimizing their investment.

In traditional societies (before the social pact of monogamy was made), women where concentrated around a few men in harems. This accounts for why men have 17 female ancestors to 1 male ancestor (measured by variation in mitochondrial DNA for the female line and Y chromosomal variation in the male line). Eventually a social contract was made that guarenteed one woman for one man (however the powerful still ended up having harems), and this was done to ensure social stability and that men have a reason to contribute to society without going GALT or trying to overthrow it. This social contract broke and we are seeing a return to traditional times – most men arent having sex and most sex is concentrated around top 20% of men in a pareto distrbution. This has been even more exacerbated by online dating and womens enfranchisement . Game evolved as a response to that.

Now you ask what makes a guy “alpha”? Of course social status, looks and money plays a role but ultimately women are willing to overlook that if you can project psychological strength. Looks money and status makes things a great deal easier, but psychological strength is what women want. They will actively test for it by trying to stur up conflict, drama or seeing how you react under pressure. This explains why some guys who “shouldnt” be able to get with hot women, do whereas rich men have to pay women (such as yourself) to get with them.

So again, sleeping with alot of women does nothing to enhance my own social status. Guys dont care beyond trying to get the same thing. Its fun for me.

https://ibb.co/b6Qg8Tw

Poast bitches. It will autodelete in 2 hours

I understand peoples desire for political independence but when was the last time governments left a popular thing unregulated? Or freely gave people political independence? I predict crypto.will be attacked by governments at every turn in the future

The reason why governments encourage women in the workforce is that they would like more GDP per capita; this was explicitly the reasoning behind Abenomics.

I agree. Once a certain lvele of prosperity is reached (and in especially dire straits like Korea or Japan), the emphasis should shift away from GDP/capita and towards fertility. I wonder if we will see this.

The corporate encouragement of female employment

It seems the entire feminist movement that is seen in the West is derived from corporations trying to brainwash women into entering the workforce to increase the labor pool while decreasing wages.

I don’t think men particularly favor large families either though

Most Men are more romantic (ironically) than women and are essentially open to doing whatever the woman wants. However on social media (especially om the right), it seems that “Trad lifestyles” with large families are being propagandized for men. This is bound to subconciously influence mens preferences.

In general, urban environments don’t since children are costs rather than potential employees.

I dont think people think this far ahead. Rather they see glamorous lifestyles on TV and want to continue having “fun” (usually “fun” is also whatever they see online/on tv)

Its also possible that there’s just some sort of mental effect against crowding.

I dont think such a mechanism exists. Though I may be mistaken.

I personally think that pro-natalism policies should resemble Hungary’s, which seem to encourage women already with children to have more children. That’s particularly useful in East Asia, where many women have one child – but then stop at one. Encouraging increased fertility from those who have more, and thus already have sunk costs into children, is likely an effective trend.

Probably if you create enough mothers like that, they’ll basically form their own political bloc. Housewives can have a surprising amount of free time for politics once the children are older, or if they have older children taking care of younger ones.

Interesting idea. And how has this worked for Hungary thus far?

Also, the question arises is how do you “encourage” women to have more children? The only way I see is to flood them with propaganda. Good propaganda is strong enough to bypass peoples natural aversion/dusgust to gays or transvestites, i’m sure it will work particularly strong on things that are biological imperatives like child raising.

crypto

Crypto is a meme that will not last long. Its entirely speculative and has no value. As a result it will eventually crash. Already China has banned Crypto, India will follow suit. More countries will ban crypto (probably all of EU) once they start releasing their own digital currency. Governments do not go long without regulating, unregulated markets. As more places will ban crypto, its initial value will rise as it becomes scarcer and then collapse entirely as there is not enough people “mining” or “using” it. At most bitcoin will remain in use for the dark web/criminal enterprises but I do not imagine it having long widespread use.

If you think im using “my story” to acquire more social status on an anonymous board, why dont we poast the quality of women we get and see who gets the hotter women? If you presume to make judgements about them, im sure you arent afraid of such a challenge?

that you are tricking those women into sex, with the implication that you owe them something

Sure women like sex with good looking men. I wasnt always good looking (looks is often a function of how you dress/your physique and less so about face, imo). Still had no problems then.

They’re just giving you that impression so that they get free use of your credit card, 

Further proof you dont meet many women – if you need a “credit card” or money to get laid – then you’re a beta! In fact, if you want good relationships with women never pay for them and get them gifts. Ever. And never let them use your credit card. Spend money freely on yourself not on them.

If you need money to get a woman, you’re doing it wrong. I’ve had women pay for expensive hotels while i was a broke student living on a matress with my mom.

I agree in general – however men seem to be more susceptible to xenophobic/status quo/militiristic propaganda. Women are more susceptible to social propaganda (social media, movies, etc). Anecdotally, men have no opposition to large families, its mostly the women who dont want them bc they seem to think that a career is glamorous and desirable and pleasant (never mind to womens happiness levels being lowest in history) – this view seems to come from the media that actively pushes women into the workforce and shows motherhood as something “oppressive” and “undesirable”. Given womens inherent emotionality, desire for social status and social conformity, and predeliction for following trends – a strong propaganda campaign targeted at adolescent and teen girls showing them how desirable a large family is and how miserable career women are will see a large efflux of women from the workforce.

I agree that federal power will go. Many of the multinational corporations in the US (especially large ones) will either move overseas or collapse (moving overseas is more likely.

I think that although the dollar may stay as the de facto currency, eventually each seceded state will develop its own currency to “legitimize” the rule of their new government. Also, a “specialization” and alliance of states will form to be able to acquire food (as many of the costal cities are not self sufficient.

But this is getting deeply into theory land – i may be wrong about my thesis and US central power is stronger than i thought – but it seems like the “State” system along with the social tensions in the US is a ripe combination for splintering (I know i’d want to be my own boss if i was the governor of a State and the opportunity to secede aros, i’d take it).

This merely supports my idea that women can be brainwashed into having more children just like they can be brainwashed into the workforce.

When you one day meet a woman, you will be wrapped as tightly around her finger as a Chinese finger trap.

I’ve had sex with more women than most guys will in their lifetime. I’m tall and good looking asian guy who lifts 5x a week.

Point is not to brag about my sexploits – point is to say women are easily manipulated if you are the right guy. You can turn a Jewish girl into a rabid Nazi. You can also brainwash a feminist into becoming a housewife (whether she’ll be a good one is another question). Women will adopt the views (and lifestyle and hobbies) of a guy theyre with (if they like him alot).

Women will go after what they think gives them more social status – society (and men) can use that to their advantage. They are also incredibly emotional

women who do lunch” which emphasizes how pleasant it is. Women can’t make it into doctors, often because their grades are sabotaged, but that’s basically fine because if they can’t think they can, and then no one else tells them they can, then they’re pretty happy about it. And yes, then there are the exceptional cases I mentioned.

This merely supports my idea that women can be brainwashed into having more children just like they can be brainwashed into the workforce. The solution for China and Japan to reverse their poor fertility rates is to make it seem that having many children is a very pleasant and socially desirable thing for women. If combined with good social/financial planning, I predict demographic trends to reverse in a generation (with good enough propaganda and strict censorship).

You should read Weibo, people constantly complain about stuff and protests are encouraged in China and the government seems to be far more responsive.

Check out the below article for more on the matter:

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/02/surprise-authoritarian-resilience-china/

You are making one crucial assumption that needs to be examined – that the US will remain intact as it is now. The uncentralized nature (ie each State is semi-autonomous) of the USA where each “State” is essentially its own country with a unified currency and protected by a central government, means that if the US economy declines, stops being first,’ its productivity falls, has too many people of a certain ethnicity (say Latinos) concentrated in one place – it can so happen that States begin to remember historical grievances or suddenly “discover” a new identity (like Ukraine or the provinces of the Roman Empire) that is suddenly at odds with the rest of the US and may attempt secession – especially if the power of the Feds weaken, some governors may figure it will be better for them if they where the President of their own country.

This often happens to States/Empires that begin an (even modest) economic decline. This happened to Rome, Britain and USSR. It doesnt usually happen to relatively homogenous states, but the US is not homogenous and will become less so over time. Moreover the semi-autonomous nature of its State system seems like it would lend itself well to splintering. A splintering will ruin any projections of econokic growth.

So do you think its likely the US will remain intact in its current State or splinter based on ethnic, economic or Racial lines?

is one of the most innovative countries in the world per capita, as well as with higher GDP growth rates than most other western countrues.

The only reason the US is “innovative per capita” than most countries is due to immigration. It does a poor job at raising local talent. As the rest of the world improves amd catches up (and Europe declines), I predict fewer people will emigrate from their countries (a reverse brain drain may even occur) and “US innovation” will greatly slow down. We are already seeing this in China, where many large Chinese tech companies are ex-Silicon Valley employees coming back to China to make their fortunes (ex Anker CEO). Currently China is undergoing a reform of its university system, I predict this will raise its Universities to a US standard (at minimum) so there will also be less motivation to go abroad, as the gov opens up more high quality universities throughout China.

The World’s 3 Leading Western Sinologists

All Western China Watchers follow their work religiously.

This is more related to cargo culting of the West and lingering cultural perceptions of the UK being a colonial superpower with mainland China bein an underdeveloped backwater.

HKers figure that moving to UK gives them greater social status than being part of the ‘unwashed mainland’ totally ignoring the fact that Shenzen is almost as rich (and nicer) than HK for example. They have quite a culture shock when they arrive to the UK though as it does not fit what they are used to and their romanticized and outdated expectations of what it is like living in the UK.

I believe it is mostly about percieved status. Just like Russians/Ukrainians wanting to be more ‘European’ or Russian youth being more aligned with the West.

It is impossible to predict, but whites still absolutely dominate all the fundamental breakthroughs anywhere, and Asians, especially China, are, in my opinion highly overrated:

Dude you’re quoting laowhy and serpenteza on china *facepalm*. That instantly discredits anything you say on the matter

Europeans have higher risk tolerance

Not really. I think this attitude is evident in European vs Asian approaches to life. Euros are more concerned about ‘being safe’ vs Asians. This indicates a lower risk tolerance and extends to business as well.

As an aside, I think Operation Paperclip guys contributed more to American technological might than the rich fat cats.

Innovation is driven more by government military projects than by individuals. This is why the claim that ‘capitalism breeds innovation’ is false.

Lets take a few historical examples – Silicon valley was heavily funded by DARPA and other US government agencies as a way to decentralize and have many parallel research operations going. Those technologies developed for military purposes by DARPA where thereafter pushed into the commercial space and modified to make them more palatable for commercial consumption.

Another example is NASA – the space race forced a rapid leap forward in material science and computing technologies. This material science (for example designing cloth that is resistant to high temperatures) was then used in everything from tent fabric (expensive tents are fire resistant) to phone production.

Another example is the innovation that occurred in the USSR – it was mostly driven by national institutes (due to its position as a “Garrison State”) rather than private enterprise leading to the production of Sputnik, the first space suits or even fully automated buran rocketry or hemodynamic machines for cardiac surgery.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/foreign-war-has-not-made-america-garrison-state-189023

Modern China also sees most of its innovation driven by SOEs rather than private enterprise.

The question we must ask is ‘why’ the educated elites have taken such a position? And also, educated people are not likely to take up arms if Russian tanks were to roll into Odessa. They will either move to Ukraine or change their view to the predominant one and say they have been Russian supporters from the outset.

Maidan was an American op and perhaps they will turn on America if it where to weaken or if the Euro integration never occurred.

Right now, Galician Kiev has a stranglehold on the provinces. This needs to be broken before a separation of Ukraine can occur.

Should Putin risk allowing an Operation Strom like action taken against the Donbass rebels? Doing so increases the likelihood of a refugee problem for Russia, along with the Russian government disappointing pro-Russian sentiment among a good portion of the Ukrainian population.

I have been convinced since back in 2014 that Putin’s best and only option is to split Ukraine into East Ukraine and West Ukraine (ruled by Galicia and its ‘Ukrainian identity’). I stand by this view to this day. I was an ardent supporter of Putin until he disappointed by not proceeding with a conquest of Kharkov, Chersoneses and Odessa (given that people where ready and willing to revolt at the time). It would have likely triggered NATO to enter West Ukraine, but West Ukraine was a loss anyway and would have triggered sanctions (but Russia got sanctioned anyway).

The national interest says Putin’s position may be ‘hardening’ but I highly doubt he will do anything, if he didn’t do it when the situation was more in his favor. This is disappointing.

You do realize that that’s not his ‘opinion’? Rather its him acting for his constituents. Zelensky has been pro-Russian and barely speaks Ukrainian.

His true opinion is the one he gave multiple times when he said Russia and Ukraine are the same nation. And the fact that he acted in Russian film industry for years (including after 2014) also indicates his true position.

He’s simply a cynic and observes the way the political winds in Ukraine fly – since the Rada is controlled by West Ukraine (with its corresponding weird nationalist position) he simply parrots their position. Once that changes, don’t be surprised his ‘opinion evolves’ to be more pro-Russian.

The sad thing is, the Soviets had a working prototype of the internet working before the Americans. But US disinformation campaign convinced them it wasnt worth pursuing further. Otherwise the USSR GOSPLAN would have transitioned to a computerized system in the 60s.

It’s time for him to bring in someone younger and more energetic.

Thats what they said in the USSR about Gorbachev, who then proceeded to dismantle/destroy the country.