“Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.” ~ Rousseau
I made this.
I’m tired of the lies.
Fight me with your shitty string theories and un-predictive climate models.
Best is the 9/10 MIT tries to pass off ancient science as ‘radical innovation’.
You, American taxpayer, are paying for their ego trips. Here’s some wi-fi pin art.
It’s getting like modern art.
If you disapprove of the misuse of funds, you just don’t understand it because you’re stupid, right?
Creative people know most of what they make e.g. author first drafts, sucks. It completely sucks. You have to embrace the suck. Unless you’re being state subsidized to suck.
I tried watching some basic videos I’d never normally click on as a test.
Topics I knew from reading and speaking to experts.
This was the average level of offender. Little scientism neat stories there.
Raises no eyebrows with the Pitbull IQ host who talks too much.
LISTEN AND BELIEVE.
ANYTHING I LIKE IS EVOLUTION.
What is free will, the law or the naturalistic fallacy?
This is him without prep, he only sounds smart when he’s prepared for the conversations.
Jordan Peterson either thinks he’s smarter than he is (read more) or he’s trolling internet intellectuals for shekels, knowing they won’t look it up because who cares about the truth? I bet 2.
He is not an evobio guy, you’d be better off asking Richard Dawkins!
Someone, on Twitter! Please!
The men wouldn’t have been allowed close enough to GET rejected.
Society invented courting and bachelorhood to keep order, once all males were allowed to survive for labour.
Hypergamy doesn’t even mean what these people think, it’s a marriage construct. Nothing to do with sex, especially sterile sex. Biology of fertility and children (evolution) doesn’t apply to the infertile or sterile. STDs don’t apply to monks for the same reason. Where do they get it???
Marriage construct because marriage is how you access resources? Duh?
We have twice as many female ancestors because 1. they did less stupid things, 2. they were more connected to tribe, 3. no intersexual competition that ends in death, 4. no survival based rite of passage (throwing them out when of age) and 5. no need to display to the opposite sex. Most men would have died beforehand or been killed in the attempt to access them long before social rejection was possible. Tribes were NOT PC. There was NO benefit of the doubt, especially for a stranger trying to access the nubile, do not be dense. Men were known to be rapists and that is why rape developed as a strategy, the losers who wouldn’t be permitted mating opportunities any other way. The contempt for everyone in that. Our disgust is a wholesale rejection of our being.
This age is incredibly eugenic because the rapist types are usually sterile/frigid/impotent, pick a term, the kids don’t breed/are aborted or the woman is on the Pill. This is the most eugenic time period in living memory, and in all of human history. It’s a cleansing. Trust Malthus to take out the trash that appears successful in false conditions (socialism). Liberals aren’t even breeding, smart ones!
He’ll never ever talk about that. He would drag his raw balls over broken glass first.
Women would get a say, but more the parents. It wasn’t just the father. Brothers might take the father’s place, say, for a fight, but the mother held sway over the brothers. Experience and blood connection counted.
Mother Nature is a eugenicist. It’s about quality and survival.
Human genocide and rape after war aren’t accounted for either, despite occurring in chimps so he does know, I can assure you. Plenty of men are poor quality, stop stroking their cock Peterson. We aren’t “meant to” evolve for anything, ask JF, a biologist. It’s such a romantic view? What a strawman. Courtly love is recent you dumb fuck? Like I could disprove that with wikipedia, it’s mostly a French thing too, what, did nobody else evolve? Was the memo to the whole species written in Frog?
The sneaky fucker thing is rape because they have to present themselves dishonestly, knowing their poor quality. They want to force acceptance. You’ll always have the stupid ones as exception thinking it’s about body language or some shit like “alpha dominance” *cough* but even they know to hide, it’s instinct and hardly a social thing, they would sneak into the tribe once the real men were away hunting and the females were vulnerable. They rarely interacted with the men. They’d also be deadbeats after any rape, classic r-type. A male just wanting sex and no investment is not viable, in society, to society, to women or in biology.
This is painful to watch.
Mammals are different. Harlow’s monkeys?
Taking a real thing, interesting and twisting it into shit. It’s like modern art with science. I hope you’re not paying this man.
Of course heroes exist but they hardly bred more than average, Genghis Khan was a rapist. This is known. The shitty males weren’t romancing themselves with stories, what are you on, Jordan? What are you smoking?
We tell stories about bad people far more than good ones. Fairy tales? Old ones?
Beta male has three meanings
- shit internet one, means nothing. Used here.
- Evobio, deference but not sexual, social with sometimes sexual outcomes, it’s seen in the military and chosen, earned. Royalty’s ancestors were at some point battle victors.
- Sexual attractiveness, subpar but chosen nonetheless. This is sometimes used to refer to parents, a little inaccurately. Evolutionally, breeders win. All parents are in the running for alpha but it’s based on quality. Beta bux is not true, as I’ve linked to studies before. Parental Investment shows that doting fathers have better odds than the sneaky fuckers who call themselves alpha but are truly deadbeats. You could relate it to masculinity but it isn’t bravado or aggression, those are low class status signals to get attention. Masculinity has always been the Patriarch, the father figure who stays and is a good man. Greece fell because Zeus fucked around, pagans are scrubbers.
Male feminists (SJWs) have many issues, I cannot list them all here.
They hate themselves, it needn’t be about the women, that’s why they often wanna become women. Trying to gain trust based on lies is the act of a sexual predator, which most douchebags viewing this would call alpha “game” (the game is lying) because they believe all the tropes about cavemen in cartoons, when rapists were brained with a rock (yes, I agree, let’s do that again). You are not smarter than them larping Johnny Bravo. Did anyone respect him?
Just let it.
Just let it happen.
Stop bailing them out like a doting father does his Princess because they begged for mercy, bleeding heart in hand. These are not your people, they are not your problem. They can go to their own, the politicians and the people who donate less to charity cases in studies, the ‘nice’ people.
Don’t be afraid to laugh at them. Their situation, their stupidity, and the fact narcissists think they can always fool you into paying for their decisions with “I didn’t know”.
This is their greatest thrill, to trick you and get everything free, on you.
The proof positive is how they back down once it’s clear you’re onto the lie: I didn’t know becomes I don’t care, you still owe me.
That isn’t a special appeal for mercy (still a fallacy), an appeal to exception, it’s a threat.
A psychopath is essentially a malignant narcissist, they are interchangeable
The psychopathic tendency to not care about the consequences of their actions, no matter how badly they affect others, can be linked to their “remarkable ability to rationalize their behavior,” according to Hare.
While their friends and family may be physically or emotionally hurt by the psychopath’s actions, he or she will typically just deflect the blame with excuses or flat-out deny it.
And common sense.
Like it isn’t a personal defect or a compulsion?
A list of the common ‘Devil made me do it‘s would be funnier.
..I had to? I was drunk? I didn’t know what I was doing? It was one time? It was your fault? If you loved me ___? This is normal? I did nothing?
never trust an r-type
weak pair bonds are literally a defining attribute
People miss how beautiful that expression is. However, in specific cases, they should be able to break it down precisely why or they themselves have no reply, no argument, simply an assertion.
You have no requirement to answer a non-question, it’s a habit of socializing that we speak upon the completion of a sentence, it doesn’t require that sentence have merit. The Burden of Proof rests on the initial speaker, still.
Yet it can’t be used to outright deny or dismiss without having a specific reason why.
Meanwhile, the only way to effectively deal with r-types, ignore them, however loudly they scream.
You only protect your own, but they have made it clear they are against you. Don’t lift a finger.
They say strength is bad until they want you to use it on their behalf.
Hey, if they’re so strong without their weapons, if their arguments have the same calibre as a bullet, go right on ahead and let them stand independently, you oppressive shitlord, and die that way if necessary. It’s what they would’ve wanted.
If evil imports evil, what is there to save?
Yourself, is the answer to that question.
Self-interest is rational. Pathological altruism is insanity.
You help those who would help you, the other side of the golden rule. Darwin’s rules. Sacrifice for people who would sacrifice you is patriotism dialed up to the incredible level of a cartoon character.
I swear most of Molly’s job is talking down the autistic from their pedestal of self-righteous stupidity.
If anyone deserves the Rasputin treatment, it’s a terrorist. Thankfully, your taxes go to pay people with guns already. The Parliament attacker guy? Shot, if memory serves, by a white guy with glasses. In a country that stupidly restricted guns. Even we don’t need you, Gun Bro. If the State can’t do the basic thing of shooting the bad guys for us…
I’ve never, ever heard of a liberal defending a conservative from any attack, ever.
They are not like you. They do not like you. Partially because you would defend them, implicitly stating they’re too weak to do it themselves. If you respect them as adults, leave them be. Let them live (and die) free. You are not their precious State, you have no duty to them, you are not getting paid, that is not your job ~z-snap~. You can’t play hero to two villains. They have engineered this setup on purpose. By importing violent left-wingers, they get the distraction to sneak off (reward of cowardice: survival) and the claim to victory (reward of victory). They literally do not lose.
If they don’t value their own safety, why should you?
America is too diverse to be united. You have the Diverse States of America.
He’s wrong about signalling (thinking) as a sign of tribe. Anyone can signal, its value is nil. How many of those diverse callers would help him, if he needed it? The odds are against, aren’t they? There are plenty of r-types signalling K as the idea spreads to new groups and creeps into mainstream awareness. The other day I heard a random cafe-owner say, “I want to protect this country, I’m like a wolf.” R-types invade by signalling. It’s a social invasion, they’re the fifth column, the barbarians sacking Rome from the inside, a swarm of locusts crying out as they hit you. History has taught us the hard way that ideological unity comes from genetic homogeneity.
The culture war is one of ideas. The weapon is a meme. A tiny little piece of information, a snippet of truth.
Signallers are, more often than not, liars.
They signal whatever ‘virtue’ is powerful, hoping for scraps from that table.
They are the begging dogs of society, asking you to hunt for them. It’s like every time Roosh calls for “someone! do something!” and his little internet boyfriends scurry to rescue the damsel and White Knights whatever he asks for. What are you, his wife? At least “think of the children!” defends the helpless. Adults have no business defending other adults. They rise and fall on their own merit, raised or dashed on their own petard.
K-society says: They do it themselves or it doesn’t get done.
R-society? It’s very espionage, ultra deceptive.
They offer you friendship while holding a knife in their other hand. They extend an olive branch first because it’s less effort, not because they like you or believe in the healing power of metaphor. There is a bargain they author, that you never asked for, and if you don’t like it, the carrot, they’ll ‘offer’ the stick. This is called a con. Con artists rely on confidence and trust. Virtue signallers rely on confidence and trust…
They want control over you, that is their power, to wiggle you like a little puppet.
In a victim culture, they are the biggest victims. In a K-shift, they are magically K-leaning.
Occam says: It’s all a lie.
I warned you, years ago. I knew these interlopers would pop up like fleas.
They don’t mind you dancing the right-wing jig as long as it’s to their exact tune.
Guess which is which.
If your friends are your enemies, you’ll never succeed. How to test?
A k-type invented the expression: actions speak louder than words. Until I see you sacrifice for this tribe, it owes nothing to you. If all you have are words, speak to the birds.
Just because someone is smoke-signalling your tribe doesn’t mean they’re on your side. Indeed, this makes it less likely, a friend doesn’t feel the need to keep reminding you they’re not a foe, not a threat, like they’re anticipating something…
DO NOT TRUST A DODGY SIGNAL.
The incongruence should ping to you. What’s in it for you?
In the super-complex theories of strategy, this is called A Trap. It’s a primitive form of distraction by claiming Ally while wearing the coat of your enemy to cuckold him for whatever reason before attacking when factors are on your side and you can turn your coat back and show your true colours. This is the problem with games like chess, where the colours never change sides because they were bribed or got bored. You never get betrayed in chess because the enemy never falters and it’s all very polite and open, two equal lines fairly opposing one another with Queensberry rules. That was 2nd generation warfare, we’re on four. Then again, maybe it’s a commentary on the reality that a leopard can’t change its spots. Who knows? I certainly don’t.
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.”
They don’t fully quote it for some strange reason. The Bible is actually very witty.
Ask – why do they want your trust? Why aren’t they doing literally anything else? What’s their game?
It’s a great way to buy time when you know you’d lose in a fair fight.
If this was the 15th century, a ship running up your flag is probably pirates.
And they won’t kill you with rum.
Newsflash: BAD GUYS LIE. THEY LIE OR THEY WON’T FOOL YOU LONG ENOUGH TO WIN.
Back to terrorism. All the way back, centuries and centuries and centuries, like the ideas.
Self-proclaimed liberals have a lot in common with the mythological ‘moderate Muslim’; that is to say, they will claim to be loving and giving until they have power and numbers to be the opposite of those things.
The ‘American Indian’ only gave with the expectation of receiving more in future.
A liberal is a dictator waiting to happen. Biding their time until everyone else has disarmed and made nice.
They know exactly what they are doing. That is what guys like these do not get. Everyone else is slowly waking up. We make memes.
“So if I’m understanding Stefan’s argument correctly it is: “While you certainly have the right to defend yourself, you have zero obligation to defend anyone else against a threat.” Is that the argument you are taking issue with? If so, what is your counterargument? If there is an obligation to defend others where does it come from?”
They want all conservatives to rush to protect them, like the police. While we are occupied, they survive and screw over the next batch of rueful idiots. The type who, at the Gates of Saint Peter, would claim the moral victory is more important.
The self-styled ‘liberals’ scoff at loyalty to children, nuclear family and country… until it comes to discussions of noblesse oblige (without class???), pensions, the social contract and human rights (without property rights). Then it’s all about universalism, collectivism and helping those who can’t/won’t help themselves. They are morally relative, liberal with logic ….wrong, in bad faith (100% deliberate). What they say is usually ‘not an argument’ because it comes from a hypocrite (no-proof), a deceiver (valid use, not ad hominem) and they argue it from bad faith, really pushing something else entirely under the radar.
They are loyal to their own body, especially the neck. They don’t want to save the pandas, they want to save their own skin.
In common speech here, they’re ‘trying it on’ i.e. they know they’re lying to get what they want and disappear when their half comes due, but they’re hoping you don’t know that.
All their virtue signals are overt pleas to get, without giving.
Argument and clause. Devil and detail. Plan and plot.
>HELP THE OUTGROUP! THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOTHING TO THE GROUP! SACRIFICE AT ALL COSTS!
>…STOP DEFINING THE INGROUP! THAT MODEL IS REDUNDANT AND EVIL!
and that, my friends, is why we mock them.
See: Why mockery?
It is also why you shouldn’t trust ambassadors. 300 was right.
That diverse cast of people calling into Molyneux are attempting to appease him while he gains power (they smell a whiff and cannot yet crush him) and then to advise him to his destruction once he has gained it (and after they have gained his trust). That is what high-IQ r-types DO. The toxic friends of the world. The fairweather traitors and degenerate preachers.
Clinically, they have many names. Sociopath tops the list.
Question a normal person: #crickets
Question a sociopath: you are (lie), (lie) and (lie), evil person! Appease me! Account for your sin!
They’ve found a scapegoat to slaughter.
Sociopaths especially detest those who describe their tactics to the masses for protection.
You can’t defame the truth, though, can you?
I know I’m late to the party but we needed distance and this is a sound point.
“For those of us familiar with these issues, however, it is obvious that instead of being an attempt to understand the alt-right, it is an attempt to redefine it as what they want it to be.
This is the official beginning of the great co-opting. We knew it was coming.
Basically, they claim that everything the alt-right says it believes they don’t actually believe, but simply say they believe it as a part of a joke to piss off feminists and Black lives activists. Because they think it is funny to piss people off.
This is not the exact opposite of what’s actually happening, but it is close enough.
At the same time, they say “well, some of them maybe believe it, but they don’t really care that much.”
Contradiction is the sin of the liar.
I think they’re covering their arses for a lawsuit for peddling some of the ideas.
It won’t work.
And why do usual outcasts think they have a right to lecture the core thede?
Like, why are Americans ‘advising’ Europeans? We made you.
Why are we taking non-White opinions on White issues? Are some of us that desperate for approval?
How would an abnormal sexuality have a valid opinion on the regular?
I don’t mean abnormal in a bad way, that would be reading too much in, but the statistical sense.
Why are we even consulting the minorities on majority issues?
They want to take our Narrative and control it – for shekels.
Nope, you can’t do both.
You have your issues, we have ours.
That is the entire point of identity politics.
These people, along with the Whores of Patreon, want to water us down and make us irrelevant. In pretending to appease us first, the instinctive reaction will be to change ourselves to appease them. It’s like the SJWs, everything has a core message: control. Stop what you’re doing, evil people.
They aren’t out and out calling us evil yet, but in trying to pit us against one another with the tropes of the 88ers for example, they’re testing the waters. Let’s you and your shock troops fight. Are you guys seriously dumb enough to fall for this, let alone think it’s a good thing? They’re using social justice tactics. Know thy enemy by his lies. Anyone who twists the ideologies and does it for profit is naturally suspect. You shouldn’t expect monetary reward for doing the right thing.
Ask yourself: do you really think the Fifth Column or other interested parties wouldn’t try to make us infight, and hence, neutralize the threat the truth presents?
For example, in describing AR, most people would like to focus on the most scientific aspect: HBD. This goes without mention. Isn’t that suspicious? The thing that would turn most logical people’s heads? The science behind the bulk of our opinions? The logos to their pathos?
And yet, they push pathos.
They didn’t care before we began affecting their precious MSM politics.
These people are part of the system. Maybe not a big part, but would we trust a big part?
Trust our platform, they whisper. You don’t need your own, they promise.
Big money in the system, big incentive to keep it – whatever the cost.
We saw off the manosphere and according to their top people, the manosphere is now dead (I don’t believe that). The degenerates of the lot, the PUAs especially, have tried to ingroup with us low time prefs and it failed, in fact, the heat of our burns scorched their degenerate faces off and they’re still mewling and trying to claim we’re ‘irrelevant’ as we go from strength to strength. We rightly (chuckle) refused to take any manosphere manwhore refugees. Who are you, to tell us what to do? was the dominant theme of the backlash to their usurper attempts.
We’re racking up a serious body count and deserve to be taken seriously.
In the meantime, we mustn’t lose or forget ourselves. Do not be tempted by false promises of status and power. What we’ve been doing is working.