Aaron Sleazy's take on manhood, dating, mating, and gender issues
Awesome video.As he said, fuck these fucking white knights that actually allowed this. I actually hate much more these fucking white knights than feminists. It's their fault.So now that Unwin basically said we are doomed, what do we do ? Should we flee ? I really hope the "East" doesn't give women sexual "freedom". As if by chance, the next most powerful country in the world will be China, a country where women are sexually "repressed".
Your definition of East should also include Eastern Europe. I'm tempted to say that the demise of Europe is only a matter of time at this point. Germany is likely to implode first, followed by France and Britain. The word, demise, is relative. For someone from a third-world country a future second-world country like France or England will still be a very attractive destination. However, if you've grown up in a more prosperous Germany or England, you'll realize that even the current situation is a lost worse than it was just about 10 or 15 years ago.I see a few possible ways to deal with this, all from the perspective of a man between maybe 20 to 40:1) If you're well-off, look for a gated community. I predict that some parts of Germany will look like South Africa in a decade or two.2) If you aren't well off, but want to stay in Germany, leave the big cities (if you can).3) If you are geographically mobile, consider moving abroad. Either accept lower living standards like in Eastern Europe (in a decade or so, Poland may very well have a higher standard of living than Germany), or move to Asia.Those are the clear cut cases. If you are somewhere in-between, try to move to a 'safe' area. So-called 'white flight' has become a phenomenon in Europe. You may not be able to afford a gated community (I'm not either), but you may be able to live in a better area. In short, a smaller place in a more expensive/safer area is, considering current trends, strictly preferable to a bigger place in a less safe one.
I'm living in Eastern Europe and was planning to study engineering in one of the German-speaking countries. My country doesn't have manufacturing sector so I would have hard time finding internship and eventually a job.Germans do have better education, at least in technical disciplines, and I could probably get some work experience during my study.However with the recent developments I'm no longer sure Central Europe will be a safe place to live.What is your opinion on smaller university cities or Switzerland in general which has better immigration laws?
For engineering degrees, employers normally want people to have a Master's degree, if I'm not mistaken. This means that you need to commit yourself for five years. In the case of Germany, this strikes me as a somewhat risky proposition. Smaller university towns may be an alternative. However, this hugely depends on the particular city. For instance, in Tubingen, which has a relatively well-known university --- probably not for engineering disciplines --- government is considering confiscating (!) apartments for refugees. Run this through Google Translate:http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article151185848/Palmer-stellt-Eigentuemern-leerer-Haeuser-Ultimatum.htmlSwitzerland is an expensive country. They also have weak political elites, and, on a smaller scale, you have the same issue as in Germany. Switzerland has been letting in tens of thousands of "refugees" from Eritrea, costing hundreds of millions of CHF a year. The rhetoric of the elites is similar to Germany. Long-term prospects are clearly better than Germany's, but Switzerland also has problems with various ethnic minorities. I'd recommend studying in Switzerland over Germany, though.
You can always try. Study, keep your head down, have a bug out bag ready. And skip town when shit hits the fan.Having a degree is better than none. (Trust me I know, by bitter failure).
I will try Budapest(I'm the OP). Last time I went, I stayed 2 weeks and fucked 2 girls, met 2 others. One I didn't fuck was (sadly) a fucking SJW that complained the government was "fascist", which is good news.I will try there again. The 2 girls I fucked respected masculine men, so it's a good start. Hopefully, the economy is developing too like this there is more opportunities.
I agree mostly with this video. I do not see any defense against what is coming. The women are basically fair game for the males of the new migration wave. But they wanted it, because white knight male let them want it. I say, let it happen. I'm soon out of Germany and watch the downfall from afar. I am not a defeatist, just a realist. I actually prefer asian women anyways.
Where are you moving to?
I will move to Eastern Asia. Reasons are the average high IQ scoring. Germany's score will sink, which will create a lot of problems, among them rising religious fundamentalism. Of course you don't need the IQ concept to understand that, but it is helpful to see, what the real problem is and that it is not easy to cure. All imho, of course.
We in Eastern Europe aren't particularly happy to see Germany destroying itself. There is still hope they will stop immigrant inflow soon and stabilize the situation.
@Anonymous 4:08AM: Could you please contact me via email (aaron.sleazy at gmail.com)? I've recently been talking to a few people who have either left Central Europe, or have been taking steps towards emigration. I'd like to ask you a few questions, if you don't mind.
Reason why elites want to import immigrants is probably because of low European natality rate.Why is the natality rate low? I don't think it has much to do with female hypergamy ie. women only being interested in top 20% of men.Even married couples tend not to have children.http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-land-without-children-why-won-t-germans-have-more-babies-a-779741.htmlSurveys done in Germany indicate that people don't have children mostly because they don't want to lower their own comfort and because bosses don't look kindly on women taking maternity leave.Russia faced the same problem of low natality before the West. During communism women were expected to work like men rather than be housewives. During Tzarist Russia average woman gave birth to 6 children, during Communist Russia number quickly dropped to 2.http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/?p=509We as society admire The Professional but don't think much of the Housewife who stays at home and raises children. And that is the critical mistake. If society respected mothers more then less women would choose career over family.Now some might point out that women like screwing with "alphas" and then expect the State to finance them as single mothers. However only 10% of households are single mother households and half of those include women who got divorced. Far larger contributing factor is that women choose not to have children or have 1 or 2 children because they would otherwise have to sacrifice their career or lose their job.
A government has it in its hands to influence the fertility rate of its people. Further, it would be a lot cheaper to pay for child care and parental leave than it is to pay for millions of unskilled immigrants. Feminism is a social engineering movement. You could just as well launch a movement to promote the ideal of a woman as loving housewife and mother. The Nazis did it, and these days Israel is heavily promoting motherhood, with resounding success. Israel has by far the highest birth rate of the developed world.I strongly suspect that Germany's ruling leftist mob does indeed want to replace the native population, out of an exaggerated white guilt complex, and the ideal of having only one human race in the end due to cross-racial breeding.
"..having only one human race in the end due to cross-racial breeding."In my experience Syrians marry Syrians and Somalis marry Somalis, etc. It has a lot to do with the fact that the patriarchs in the extended family have to approve of any wedding, and they would see it as a smear on the family honor if their sons and daughters married the "wrong" ethnicity. It will be a LONG time before they start to breed cross-race, if ever. These ethnic groups will grow in Germany, but I'm not so sure they will abandon their culture and core values.
just to add,i live in israel i was born in east europeand i prefer east europe girls, and russian girls in particular i think russian girls prefer russian more from middle east men.maybe the GIMMEGRANTS follow a similar pattern.and also WEST ideals are always that,just ideals.germany should stay germany and not some mixed shit or,2 shits with sub group germany and sub third world nonsense.and this nonsense is spreading like wild fire for now.
Somewhat off-topic: How much is Israeli public life affected by the conflict with the Arabs in your country?
The predominately leftwing tilt of the political discourse in Germany (I'm born there and have lived most of my life so far in the Southern parts of the country) is due to a backlash after the Nazi dictatorship, combined with massive Communist propaganda and disinformation activities throughout the post-WW2 era. Unless with the Nuremberg trials, there has never been an official committee to clear up the Communist atrocities, the Communist collaboration of West-German elites in the Western part of Germany and to cleanse German media, politics and public life from those people. The predominantly left-green-leaning views of German mainstream media and the continuous hyping of a "growing right wing neo-Nazi-majority" by those left-wingers is all due to those past influences.Luckily the generation of post-1968 is about to slowly loose its pestilential grip on German public opinion, but it is their far reaching influences, that have Angela Merkel basically run a political agenda akin to that of her Green and leftist opposition parties and wreck the country big time and with long-term implications.Aaron's suspicion about a deliberately engineered change of the composition of Germany's population is well founded. This malicious trend has been in effect for quite some decades and it is born out of a deeply rooted, leftist German self hatred. E.g. former German foreign secretary, airhead Joseph Martin "Joschka" Fischer, who still loves to crawl deeply into Madleine Albright's a***s, once stated in a 1996-interview, that Germany "is an evil nation" and that its nativ population "must be diluted (!) by foreigners from abroad" in order to turn Germans into sympathetic and amiable folks. So the agenda is clearly there (which btw. again is crude neo-communist ideology dating from Germany's 1968 student protests… which had been heavily fueled and indoctrinated by the likes of Soviet KGB and East-German state security, the STASI – but, of course, this is run of the mill info for insiders…)Btw. the video forgot to mention two other very important female heads in contemporary German politics: Ursula von der Leyen, the total joke of a female German "defence" ministress – Hannelore Kraft, female prime minister of the ailing state of Northrhine-Westfalia, – Manuela Schwesig, the openly feminist minister of family & women, gone totally nuts – and …last, but not least!… Beate Baumann, Angela Merkel's diabolically secretive personal secretary – and, finally, Eva Christiansen, Merkel's "chief of staff". The last two women in particular are said to have organized an almost dictator-like regime of the suppression of dissent within Merkel's party & government, suppressing anybody (mostly male), who might wish to challenge Merkel's position and authority. Which is one reason, why the political and media discourse has been so stifled since 2005, when that post-communist bitch took office, and why almost everybody in the media considers her to be a political heavyweight "without alternative". The only thing Merkel seems to heed are her poll numbers, she literally runs her politics as if the was "painting by those poll numbers". Of course, the presstitutes in German media (many of whom are either female or feminist suckers) are eating Merkel's shit up like nothing else – mainly, because in her bluntness and verbal ineptitude they wish to view her as some kind of plain canvas, onto which they love to project their leftist, "progressive" phantasies (needless to say, with almost no connection to reality).
Do you think German self-hate is the real cause behind this crisis or are those self-hating leftists just a tool someone else is using to gain more power?
I am not the one you asked, but: of course the self hate was instilled from outside. Instilling shame etc. was always a strategy used by socialists and communists to force the people to do things against their wills. The strategy is also used by religion. If you can get people to doubt they often look for external authority to decide for them. Or they look for what "society" expects them to do. International Socialism (=open borders) is the group to gain power. The more welfare dependent come to Germany, the more votes welfare promising parties will get. And the socialist state gets a new version tag each time.So, yes, the original cause behind it is socialism with it's strategy to instill doubt, shame, fear, self-hate in people. They are not doing this in Germany alone, but they are trying to get people with white european ancestry to self-hate everywhere in the world. It goes so far that in certain circles science is dismissed because it is a power conspiracy of white males. I am not kidding.
I don't understand people's obsession with "socialism". Everything is the fault of socialism. Government impose taxes ? Socialism. Social insurances ? Socialism. Your dog died ? Socialism. You stink ? Socialism.Do people really know what socialism actually is ? It is the collective (meaning : everybody, not just several people) ownership of the means of production (you know, the things used to produce other goods).So how the fuck women oppressing men is socialism ? It would mean "when a woman says you are a creep, the whole economy becomes collective". ??? It doesn't even make any sense.Socialism has to do with economy. Nothing else. If the government steals your money, it has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism has nothing to do with redistributing the riches either.You can be socialist (communist) and anti-feminist, you can also be aware of the problem of multiculturalism and I think Stalin wrote a pretty good essay on it."A nation has the right freely to determine its own destiny. It has the right to arrange its life as it sees fit, without, of course, trampling on the rights of other nations. That is beyond dispute." (Stalin, On the national question)End of rant lol.
Posters above you are not talking about socialism in general but:1)Current of socialism (i.e. socialism + stuff that is specific to that current)2)in Germany3)which was heavily influenced by USSRDo you see the difference? They are talking about political current in Germany which identifies itself as socialist but also seeks to realize goals which don't have necessarily anything to do with socialism as theoretical construct. The idea that German population needs to be diluted doesn't have nothing to do with socialism in general but it is espoused by people in Germany who identify themselves as socialists. You won't find right-wing or center parties espousing such idea.
That's true. I nonetheless have the impression to read everywhere that everybody is a socialist or communist. Like stupid people saying Obama is a communist because Obamacare lol.I have the impression also that the only difference between the left and right in western countries is : where will we take the money (taxes) and how will we use it ? Taxes are a (legal) theft no matter how the government will use it, be it giving it to the poor or using it for war.Also a lot of guys that sympathize with "our" ideas about women and society still fantasize about the capitalism of small properties (18th century and 19th century in some countries) without realizing that it is over and we since long have entered a capitalism of monopolies/oligopolies. They don't understand we cannot go back and that the capitalism of small properties lead to monopolist capitalism anyway.Monopolists like to divide us, that's why they will never stop the immigration and the feminist movement (and they won't let you stop it).That's why we need a radical proposition.
The true definition of "socialism" or "communism" for that matter, goes somewhat like this: "Hey, there's something that we might need! … but it doesn't belong to us. So we're just gonna take it anyway." Just take away all the flashy phrases and the stupid, unrealistic idealism and that's what you end up with. It's never been anything more than this phrase.The influences that have lead to Marx' Communist Manifesto are manifold, ranging from religion to materialism (beginning with ancient Democritus) and Hegel's dialectic philosophy. "Dialectic materialism" is the core aspect of communist thinking and the very root of its inherent despotism. It is their statement, that the communists were to have found out the core laws of how societies work and history develops. This knowledge, disguised as the pinnacle of scientific insight, in their opinion gave them the sole right to control society and to modify (aka. social engineering) it. Communists thought and think very highly of themselves and they are more absolute, than any absolute monarchy has ever been. Communists may say and publish a lot of things as long as they're not in power, but once they've got hold of it, they're never gonna let go voluntarily and they'll also act in an entirely different way…Comrade Stalin can only be quoted (if ever) cum grano salis. He was probably to mediocre anyway, to pen two stylistically bearable sentences in his own handwriting, haha….. A more entertaining quote of his would be: "One man – one problem. No man – no problem." ;) Stalin's "books" are tedious and a waste of printing & paper. Probably the better (if not one of the best) book on "communism" is Milan Djilas' "The new Class – an Analysis of the Communist System" (Nova Klasa: critic savremenog komunizma), Djilas being the post-WW2 Yugoslav vice-president, a highly educated poet and intellectual who saw through the system and its nomenklatura, couldn't hold back anymore and had to speak out. It's available for very low prices nowadays, you might wanna get hold of a copy…
Well, Comrade Stalin was writing for the masses and not for some privileged elite. If you want to read an obscure pseudo-philosophical writer, check Slavoj Zizek. I bought his fucking book about christianity and I couldn't understand even a goddamn sentence.Also, check this out : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin's_poetryStalin was highly intelligent and proof of it : he was one of the most powerful man of the world for 30 years.Oh yeah and, more related to this blog, he was also a "player".Also, don't be hypocrite : you think highly of yourself too and I don't see anything wrong with that. Personally, I love being an arrogant prick !
Well, on the whole I’m fine with women, but they’re just unacceptable as heads of state or as CEO or running businesses in any other function – unless they are really competent at it. It should not come as a surprise, that almost all great civilizations of the past followed this simple but very effective precept.E.g. the ancient Romans – about whom I know quite a bite – were like this. Women were generally not allowed any political influence, except for very few ones, who had the intellectual and moral capacities, e.g. like Cornelia, the mother of the Gracches. And those women were held in high regard and their memory was treasured.Apart from that, women had their spheres of influence in public life, could realize their biological imperative and had to be supported by male labour and resources – the way it has always been (the expenses for female luxury goods like silk, golden jewelry etc. led to a continuously mountain trade deficit in gold coin with the far off empire of China! Pliny the Older wrote about this at length…). Btw. in republican and imperial daily life many women also must have been as much engaged in business and as interested in speculations as the men. As with all women today, $$$ and the security which flows out of it must have been one of their paramount objectives. Women worked their estates, invested their funds, lent and borrowed. For instance, among Cicero's creditors there was one woman and there were even two among his debtors.Female choice and their insatiable lust and hunger for (male) resources is a negative female trait. Furthermore, men are borne with a psychological predisposition, to see women as the weaker sex which must be supported and taken care of. And men have always been competing for female gratification and sexual access to females, thus being the sexually weaker and subdued sex. Each of the sexes is NATURALLY self-serving and completely egotistical. Men have always tried to monopolize their access to females, and females have tried the same from their side of the spectrum. In that sense Feminism is just another scheme where women can further monopolize their variety of choice over available men and their resources, by further demonizing men and breaking their resistance by breaking their societal power. In a way feminism is THE greatest blow by the real "alpha-males" of the elite to the average guy. By having women raise their standards to a ludicrous degree and by enabling women to become somewhat economically independent from the average male provider, the "elite alphas" have rendered even the average "good men" almost worthless in the eyes of most choosy women, and in particular in the eyes of the sexually most desireable females – to whose pussies those "elite alphas" then have much better access to, since they got rid of a lot of their younger competition. LOL
The current, ever-growing demographic catastrophy of Western Societies is – as Aaron and many others have stated before – to a great extent due to the poisonous workings of feminism and due to the sense of misandry, which accompanies it. The sexes have always been in open conflict, it is part of their evolutionary design. Those conflicts CANNOT be solved, merely mitigated (if at all). And no sex can really "win" against the other, because every advantage gained by one sex is quickly followed up by a reactive adaptation of the other, e.g. the adaptation to feminism and "female empowerment" is MGTOW and/or the highly efficient, naturally masculine, visceral kind of "game" Aaron has outlined. If Western societies were to revert to a state of stable demographics, strictly monogamous relationships had to be enforced again. This would mainly require a massive limitation in female sexual choice and female sexual freedom. Just brainstorming off the top of my head, this could entail:1. We need more stable, and better paying jobs – particularly for MEN.2. Women and girls must not be given preferential treatment in the workforce and in the educational field3. Women, who wish to be mothers and housewives should be respected by society, and not ridiculed.4. The hype of academic education has to be stopped and reduced to a more sensible level.5. Women must not be the sole person to benefit from a divorce. Women should be economically discouraged from filing divorces.6. The moral values of monogamous relationships must be actively enforced. This includes value of family and of stable, heterosexual relationships.7. Women must be effectively discouraged from untertaking abortions. The right to live for unborn children must be stressed. (Abortions are an additional means for women to increase their range of female sexual choice.) 8. Online dating sites of all kinds must be banned, as they do offer women a hitherto unknown opportunity to pre-select and select male prospects. Such dating sites promote a polygynous dating scene, which is detrimental to stable demographic development of a population.9. Tax breaks should be granted to married and/or unmarried PARENTS.10. The population has to be informed about the lethal dangers, which a totally liberated dating market inflicts to the stability and peace within society…The BIG problem with all of this is: most of those necessary measures which would have to be undertaken and implemented, cannot be enforced within the framework of "open" societies…
The argument in this video is very handwavy. It would take a couple of hours to show the relationship between the mind of a woman and acceptance of immigrants using some shady publications from the evolutionary biology domain. It doesn't take into account womens' contraceptives which ignited sexual revolution and the reluctance of modern men to have children.
There are a few problems with that video.1) He stresses that "women always sleep with the alpha, choosing the criminal over the hard-working man". While 100% true for some women, that's not close to accurate for all women. Take the recent James Bond movie, lots of women would rather sleep with Q than Batista (the guy who is the henchman).2) He brings up research that female chastity correlates with civilizational success. Of course it does, because societies that evolved with different sexual mores have (vastly) differing IQ's. I'll bet that when you control for IQ you find very little effect of chastity.3) He claims that women don't care about their in-group. This was almost an interesting and insightful point, because he's almost there. Women do not care about their in-group as much as they care about their status inside of it. That's why you see so much more signalling behaviour from them as opposed to men. When you see someone (male or female, just usually female), talking about how horrible it would be to not allow these poor refugees to flood into x country, rest assured they aren't interested in engineering the best outcome for x country, they're just trying to portray themselves as virtuous and kind.
Actually, to expand upon that last point:How many guys do you know that just don't give a fuck? Say what they want, are relaxed, etc. I'll bet the number is a hell of a lot higher than for women. Everything is on a spectrum, but the personality trait "Cares what others think", is way higher in women than in men on average. Everything follows from there, from men taking more risks, to being better CEO's, to being better at actually running things.Real shame that the video couldn't have stumbled upon that point, instead opting for some pseudo-manosphere garbage.
I think you're barking at the wrong tree. The changes are more likely to be due to the ease of daily life in the West. The western countries are on such level economically that one doesn't have to think of how to make ends meet but is more concerned with the "spiritual" side of life. It like loosing touch on reality. Why Eastern Europe and Asia are different? It's because one still has to earn their living and doesn't expect the government to help you out. This hardship of life makes people focus on what's really important.The boredom of easy life is what destroy healthy human relations.It's typical Mouse Utopia experiment, but without mice this time.
I don't think so. See the West in the 60s : standards of living were very high and women were still feminine and men masculine, there was no pc-culture (Charles de Gaulle in France, Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, etc. take a look at Hara Kiri magazine covers if you understand french and if you don't just use a translator, humorists were much more controversial and funnier at that time), family was promoted, etc.Now you can say that "everything" started precisely in the 60s but that's because they allowed the pill and other feminist politics rather than the standards of living.I think the glorious 30 is the ideal society and what we should aim to.
The "glorious thirties" were indeed mostly a good time for France. Mass immigration started then, but wasn't a problem yet, and PC was not even born.However I kinda agree with Anonymous (the first one) when he says that a higher standard of living is correlated with a lower birth rate. I mean, low birthrates are mostly present in Europe and... Japan. North Africa is quite fertile right now, but it's going down as the economy goes up, and in a few decades they will be on the demographic level of Europe if it continues that way. Unlike in Subsaharan Africa where birthrates are exploding, overpopulation plagues entire countries and the economies/governments are among the world's worst. Yes, that means that in 2050 or something, North Africa will encounter the same problems as us if not worse if they also develop a PC mentality of letting any immigrant come in (which I highly doubt given how racist many are, especially against Blacks... but then again we also were and look at us now !).China being obviously an exception, with their "one-child" communist policy (that was quite understandable, they didn't want to have to deal with a country of 5 billion people), abolished recently.
I think nobody is denying that high standards of living = less children.But without sexual "liberation", family would still have enough children to replace the old people without having to resort to immigration.Look at this : http://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/between-1960-and-2012-world-average-fertility-rate-halved-25-births-womanAnd this : http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.htmlIn the 60s, 3 children per woman.
This was an interesting monologue, but by its logic, Islamic countries would be vastly superior due to the strict control of women and sexual relationships. Instead, by every measure, the Islamic world is economically, socially and culturally behind the west. Consequently, that is why when borders opened you saw a flood of muslim immigrants rush into the west. Most of them definitely are not doctoral students, but it was pretty obvious that a welfare existence in Germany beats normal life in Syria or Tunisia any day of the week.The green politician from Hamburg shown is a great example of fuzzy thinking though. In her mindset, scrapping a "mono-culture" by bringing in diversity will lead to more prosperity. The type of diversity being imported is not exactly progressive and will not exactly develop much except social welfare spending and rising crime. Too bad about the Swedes, though, they had a good thing going.
Interesting video. There is some truth in there but I think it would be too easy just to blame certain woman (in power) fucking things up. I would suggest to take a closer look at the aforementioned men who letting them do that. Those are not only the "white knights". Another player in this dangerousgame applauding the whole situation (at least in Germany) is in fact influential men in the economy/industry. Here you can read what Ulrich Grillo, the president of the biggest industry union in Germany has to say. Keep in mind that they have extraordinary influence on political decision making:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-06/german-business-makes-case-to-welcome-refugees/6753510So why are some industrialists so eager to sell-out there culture? The obviousbut short-sighted reasoning of them is to get cheap work-force. In fact there is an increasing lack of people willing to do quite low-paid and non-prestigious jobs under given conditions anymore. To fix that you either make a job more attractive (i.e. better paid) OR you get undemanding work-force willing to work under these conditions. Seemingly that is the agenda the heads of the german industry are following right now. So I guess we have also a mindset problem in these guys that don't value economic sustainability but quick profits (cheaper labor) at any cost. Even if that means to put the sociocultural stability at risk. Sure enough they won't suffer from the consequences living in some isolated wealthy area with security patrolling there yard.GL
This economic argument, to be honest does not make much sense: those Muslim immigrants are terrible workers, do not know and will not learn the language and have incredible entitlement mentality. They will be only a loss. Besides, wouldn't it make more sense for companies to import labour from Eastern Europe, like Poland, Ukraine and Romania?! Better educated and more hard-working folk. It is easier too-they are just in the neighbourhood. So I don't think it is just greedy capitalists who want to drive down the wages. That may be one of the reasons for the current demographic disaster, but I doubt it is the central one.
@ GL: you are right, of course. Feminism & the entire "female empowerment" movement wouldn't have taken off that well, if (some) men hadn't allowed it in the first place. And if most ordinary men hadn't kept quite and just endured it.
you could also theoretically automate the work in question,for a machine to executewhich is what should be chosen.
Sleazy, I'm interested in what you think of the future prospects of the United States? To me it seems like it might also be in decline, but if it is, it will take much, much longer than Europe. Long enough that it will be a fine in our lifetimes. (Fine that is, if you are skilled and educated)
I've found this video so full of absurdity it got me thinking for an entire week. Anyway, actually I thank you very much for that, I'm fond of hearing diverging opinions around the world every now and then.
Feel free to try articulating your criticism. As it stands, it's drive-by trolling. I once had a professor who would kick students out of seminars who were "critical" of something but were unable or unwilling to substantiate their position with an argument. These days, though, people are apparently raised that merely having an opinion is already good enough. Try holding yourself to a higher standard!
I didn't mean it, sorry. I actually had written a longer piece with about 10 paragraphs. But then Chrome decided to autorefresh the page and everything was lost. As I like to keep you feedbacked, though, I decided to quickly write a short message.Also, I didn't mean the video is shitty. It obviously demanded a lot of effort to be done, was very well articulated and has made some very good points. That's why I like hearing diverging, apparently absurd opinions: one can always learn something unexpected, like women having a genetically verified higher chance of mating, or revisit some canonical knowledge, like the Pareto principle.I respect many of the points made by the video guy. I've even subscribed his channel. Yet, I couldn't resonate with his apocalyptic and reactionary conclusions, but I wouldn't like to make any reasoning on that for now. I guess his argument isn't complete with just that video, I'd have to see many more and have a look at his references to really get a more complete picture of his thinking. Because, for instance, from just seeing that video, some people might think it's advocating a more religious society or saying Islam is superior. But I'm guessing these aren't what he was trying to say.
I'm not Patropi, but what I found annoying was the usage of a photoshopped image in the background. (I could not quickly find it, something about a girl welcoming rapists or something. Not sure, but the image was shopped).Think patropi should read this article: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ (I think it is the right one) about how hard it is to criticize your own ingroup. Should provide some food for thought why it both stuck in your mind the whole week, and you have not provided any arguments why it is absurd.
Hey!I posted a comment on the open thread but it is not appearing?
I've been busy.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.