History of multiculturalism

Bash the pick-up art community. Challenge the assumptions and techniques used by pick-up art, discredit the effectiveness of pick-up art, expose ripoff products, and reveal secret info of dating gurus.

Image

Image

“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”
― Charles Darwin

"A prevention of the faculty and opportunity to procreate on the part of the physically degenerate and mentally sick, over the period of only six hundred years, would not only free humanity from an immeasurable misfortune, but would lead to a recovery which today seems scarcely conceivable."
― Adolf Hitler

"The way of nature has always been to slay the hindmost, and there is still no other way, unless we can prevent those who would become the hindmost being born. It is in the sterilization of failures, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies."
― H. G. Wells

"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind....Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
― U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Buck v. Bell, 1927

Having read most of your posts extensively I sort of know what you are trying to say in regards to that video.

But it would be good if you could make an extensive summary of the points under discussion so we can argue it further.

In regards to the issue I noticed this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAqhBOJ7O1g

The comments section showed that most people are disgusted with the force "inclusion" and it looks pretty gross to be honest, and they're waking up to this agenda, so hopefully we will have a full on backlash against this thing. It's amazing that the official Debehams channel deleted all "negative" comments and a lot of users were complaining about it when you read the comments section but this particular video was not their official channel so the comments stayed.

There also appears to be this link detailing the elites plans and where it came from:

http://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/

cperkins wrote:But it would be good if you could make an extensive summary of the points under discussion so we can argue it further.
Good articles. Do you want to expound on those further?

And in regard to the video itself, Communism/ Liberalism/ all forms of egalitarianism and humanitarianism are deceptions. Thoughtsets designed to destroy us in naivism/ false idealism/ concealism. The cope for the weak. Busted-Flush now as it's ultimately failed, and only the most overly sentimental denialist normie naivist. (Someone abiding by naive notions).

Humanitarianism is just making society unjudgmental of bad influences. Like allowing vermin into your home and calling them sentient/ soulholders/ other bullshit.

Thoughtsets eliminating the factor of merit, human judgment being innately racist/ categorical/ dark is definitely criminally dishonest. A lot of it doesn't have brutal realism. It's veyr indicative of a bullshit movement at best for making the world a truly better place. Which is impossible given human selectivity/ the inequality inclination within us all.

Going into the situation with a wrong thought process as your default is like a bird flying into a batcave. It's gonna die. Default thoughtsets should always be predicated on what is in the nick of existence. Not what isn't. And since so many women are afraid of what's taboo lest they see what will happen to them mouthing off/ living by that thoughtset, then they will be ostracized. Think about how individualistic/ primalitistic they are. They'd rather see civilization fall than be unpopular.

This is what most people don't get the reason we're humanitariani s because we're of this thoughtset from anxiety. Women are responsible of most all anxieties men have. Other men who are competitively superior (which is because they primarily get women better than they do is the essential reaosn why they're usch a nag) and the chaotic BS realm of the universe, and all of its cold, hunger, disease, predators, etc. Which is precisely why evolution made us hate eachother.

Think about it. Evolution programmed us to be competitive because we know there aren't enough resources to go around because of our greed for survival resources/ need to survive. That's why we were made to lie and detect lies in suspicion. That's why we were made to be tribal and elevate ourselves, and de-elevate others. Our evolutionary behavior implies that life has chaos and scarcity. We are greedy so as to suck up all the avenues of power, so as to control what people earn, get, deserve under what works for us in selfish desire for primacy. We're meant to be racist, and individualists.

Anyway, now. The reason white birthrates are so low is because white women are given to vanity/ are being pedestalled from an early age because of media hollywood platforming. White women expect it all, and are entirely predicated on the primarchy. Women reach for a value that only 1% of men can hold. And without that there's nothing.

Women essentially only got with men because of cultural pressure/ provision. Now with the former being an anachronism, and the latter being taken care of, now women are only going for bruce waynes/ james bonds/ brad pitts/ etc. By the time the girls who were unselected when they crowded over these guys is done, menopause. And autism. Which is a factor why I think might be responsible in the white children autism upsurge.

So yeah, a have it all or a one for none. Women want to have topdogs, not underdogs.

In the fringe cases where women get with non whites out of pressure not preference, they are trying to do that for status reasons. Not as prevalent in the 90s as being a trans or feminist though. The gangster rap scene which brings out your inner nigger isn't as big. I think people caught on to the propaganda there. But the soccer moms were born that decade, and some others too are being produced today.

Women like angular features, and often their givings are for the primal capital. They are tacitly racist and recognize the true topdogs are whites, and the obvious underdogs are non whites. They'll veneer differently for prominence and rarely for preference.

I hate how "multiculturalism" usually implies different races living together. A country can have multiple cultures even within it's ethnicity or from different ethnic groups of the same race. For example if French and Germans lived together it would not be half as bad as Somalis and Germans. I dare to say that racial differences are worse than cultural ones.

Good articles. Do you want to expound on those further?


To be honest I was shocked at the Kalergi plan. This is the first time I heard of it and it sends a shiver down my spine. It's really disturbing to say the least.

Thoughtsets eliminating the factor of merit, human judgment being innately racist/ categorical/ dark is definitely criminally dishonest. A lot of it doesn't have brutal realism. It's veyr indicative of a bullshit movement at best for making the world a truly better place. Which is impossible given human selectivity/ the inequality inclination within us all.


This is what I believe and have seen from a very young age. People will say one thing but their actions just give themselves away. I've lost a lot of friends and had bitter feuds with them over all this BS about "personality", and "looks are subjective" crap. They all believed in their BS but I just knew it couldn't be true. Some of these friends were actually not attractive at all, and I lashed out at their hypocrisy. They were really trying to forward the view that looks are subjective and personality matters implying that anyone can get anyone they want as long as they had the right "character" to attract that person. Deep down I knew it wasn't so. The best looking girls in school always had the best looking boyfriends, and some of my ugly friends would say they never got this looking girl because of bad timing, or they weren't confident enough etc. . I called them up on their retarded beliefs and just realised that they just don't want the brutal truth because it was too hurtful and they rather stay blue pilled. But what can you do with these people? I know they won't get particular good looking partners so they'll end up having average or ugly children and the cycle starts again. . .

But at the other social end I have some ugly deluded work colleague would go on about the women he was with to gain some status amongst the males. I was never impressed because I knew that most of the women he went with were ugly just like he was (he's ethnic). So some of these people aren't incel - they're just not getting the top tier stuff, more bargain basement women who you and I would never take a second glance at.

I really want to know what you think we should do in regards to this issue and how we can prevent this disgusting plan from being achieved. It would be best if we could try those behind it for treason and lock them up for life to rot away their miserable existence, death almost seems too good for them.

Think about it. Evolution programmed us to be competitive because we know there aren't enough resources to go around because of our greed for survival resources/ need to survive. That's why we were made to lie and detect lies in suspicion. That's why we were made to be tribal and elevate ourselves, and de-elevate others. Our evolutionary behavior implies that life has chaos and scarcity. We are greedy so as to suck up all the avenues of power, so as to control what people earn, get, deserve under what works for us in selfish desire for primacy. We're meant to be racist, and individualists.


That's been my observation of human nature too, no matter how people like to deny otherwise. I could just tell the undercurrent of this nature in people's behaviour over time. Even best of friends want to dominate each other from time to time. It's just something we just got to acknowledge. It doesn't mean that we're outright savages, but we can be if push came to shove.

Anyway, now. The reason white birthrates are so low is because white women are given to vanity/ are being pedestalled from an early age because of media hollywood platforming. White women expect it all, and are entirely predicated on the primarchy. Women reach for a value that only 1% of men can hold. And without that there's nothing.

Women essentially only got with men because of cultural pressure/ provision. Now with the former being an anachronism, and the latter being taken care of, now women are only going for bruce waynes/ james bonds/ brad pitts/ etc. By the time the girls who were unselected when they crowded over these guys is done, menopause. And autism. Which is a factor why I think might be responsible in the white children autism upsurge.


I personally think that there will be a swing in the other direction. I know plenty of friends who will NOT go with anyone outside their race (i.e. ethnics), especially not blacks, and they rather die childless than settle for lower status.

I know that people do want romance, love, feeling butterflies, and all the complications of a relationship - but on THEIR TERMS. And that human need won't die out just yet despite all this liberalist and feminist crap, because people are innately selfish and always will do what's best for themselves. I suppose the only issue is that those on the lower end of attractiveness either settle or try and up their level by going out with ethnics - but whatever. As someone commented on that video we aren't particularly keen on dating non whites anyway, just a small minority do so, so it shouldn't matter that much. You only have to look to Brazil to see that most of the whites have kept to themselves down the south of the country and the further north you got the more the mix the people are, and the poorer too - which is sort of telling you something.

cperkins wrote:I really want to know what you think we should do in regards to this issue and how we can prevent this disgusting plan from being achieved. It would be best if we could try those behind it for treason and lock them up for life to rot away their miserable existence, death almost seems too good for them.
Be Machiavellian as Emperor Palpatine was. The only way to defeat the liberals/ humanitarianis is to play on their highly feminine psyche/ embody the value that pulls them towards this pathetic thinking in the first place.

cperkins wrote:I know that people do want romance, love, feeling butterflies, and all the complications of a relationship - but on THEIR TERMS. And that human need won't die out just yet despite all this liberalist and feminist crap, because people are innately selfish and always will do what's best for themselves. I suppose the only issue is that those on the lower end of attractiveness either settle or try and up their level by going out with ethnics - but whatever. As someone commented on that video we aren't particularly keen on dating non whites anyway, just a small minority do so, so it shouldn't matter that much. You only have to look to Brazil to see that most of the whites have kept to themselves down the south of the country and the further north you got the more the mix the people are, and the poorer too - which is sort of telling you something.


Love, grace, inner essence bond come with stipulations and caveats. And often these bonds are not formed by inner essence traits to the point where you can gander that bonds are predicated on the soul. They're not. Often for not very lovey dovey, silver lining purposes. That's why love is not a sacred beautiful thing like how it's portrayed in Disney daisy flicks.

These stipulations exist on the hierarchical/ societal criteria for worthiness/ appraise/ loveworthiness. Human happiness/ self esteem are based on hierarchies. It's a psychcategorization system. It's why you can't give a happy ending to precious from that movie "precious" or "hunchback of notre damme" even when they deserve love. Or why Shrek didn't get human fiona at the end. This would have bucked heads/ not come off right with people.

No matter how you selectively emphasize certain parts of a movie, in chick flicks, in where they place false societal/ incidental constraints in movies that make the struggle for love seem like it's not about biology/ evolution but white racism/ society's classism/ financial struggles/ etc. all that bullshit. The Jasmine chick wouldn't have gotten with alladin because of his good heart, but because of his neat genes (for an arab).

Even you earlier commented that we have a primality to our criteria of worhtiness as well. We consider some girls/ ethnics/ low self esteem reachers as bargain basement bitches. Yes. We are just like women. We as a species are predicated on primality. For women it's regality that gets them that. For men it's prowess and power, and regality genes with good facial features/ etc. That is on the laundry list of traits girls want these days.

It's not about being the biggest or strongest anymore. It's about what can confer/ impose upon the most prominence and status. Being of the best balance of traits that gives prowess in the imaginarchy, and real life practicality.

There is such a thing as an imaginarchy which I haven't gone over yet on this site. Typically women find the unvierse ot be a base place, a boring drear place. Where brutal blunt brawn reign supreme. Women love twilight/ prettyboys even though they have low physiarchy capital, usually. Because they're not big burly monsters like ape niggers. But redeeming value is imaginarchy/ proprietarchy/ regalarchy value.

Often people create hierarchies cumulatively based on primal partialities. People want to live a life idyllic and imagined. And people want the same from people. Evne if htey are of low utility, it's the utility they can crave out which they are partial to that matters. Not necessarily being the most effective of intelligent. But it has a richocheting aspect to it as well, crosses in between.

cperkins wrote:You only have to look to Brazil to see that most of the whites have kept to themselves down the south of the country and the further north you got the more the mix the people are, and the poorer too - which is sort of telling you something.
Tells you their innate inclination to lack civilization past the stage of the ancient fagztecs. Or ASS-tech. I.E. shitty technology.

Be Machiavellian as Emperor Palpatine was. The only way to defeat the liberals/ humanitarianis is to play on their highly feminine psyche/ embody the value that pulls them towards this pathetic thinking in the first place.


I agree with this. I sort of came to the same conclusion myself. It happened last year when I rubbed some liberal work colleagues the wrong way and they fired off their usual pathetic defence appealing to emotions that divert the matter and citing unprofessionalism to shut down discussion of the matter further etc. . . If they want to play this game we can do it too, and we can fuck them up in the process and use plausible deniability in throwing their retarded shit back at them. Because their system of beliefs is illogical it won't take much to find ways to short circuit their logic so they blow their fuses. I seriously don't care if they are hurt in the process because these people don't deserve any respect whatsoever, they are retards of the highest order.

cperkins wrote:
Be Machiavellian as Emperor Palpatine was. The only way to defeat the liberals/ humanitarianis is to play on their highly feminine psyche/ embody the value that pulls them towards this pathetic thinking in the first place.


I agree with this. I sort of came to the same conclusion myself. It happened last year when I rubbed some liberal work colleagues the wrong way and they fired off their usual pathetic defence appealing to emotions that divert the matter and citing unprofessionalism to shut down discussion of the matter further etc. . . If they want to play this game we can do it too, and we can fuck them up in the process and use plausible deniability in throwing their retarded shit back at them. Because their system of beliefs is illogical it won't take much to find ways to short circuit their logic so they blow their fuses. I seriously don't care if they are hurt in the process because these people don't deserve any respect whatsoever, they are retards of the highest order.
The fempire has struck back.

But yes, we need to rot them from the inside out, the same way the Jews would do to Germany or any host community.

Reason doesn't work with retards. Them not adhering to objectivity makes you no more factually incorrect than they are, so you are not sinning away from reason more than they are if you are deceiving them into it. In fact you're better, since you're doing it for an ultimately better consequence when they are swayed subjectively.

Love, grace, inner essence bond come with stipulations and caveats. And often these bonds are not formed by inner essence traits to the point where you can gander that bonds are predicated on the soul. They're not. Often for not very lovey dovey, silver lining purposes. That's why love is not a sacred beautiful thing like how it's portrayed in Disney daisy flicks.


The novelist Honore de Balzac actually painted a more realistic picture of love. One of his observations was that lovers were quite capable of doing atrociously evil acts if they had to. He would never agree with the Disneyfied version of it.

These stipulations exist on the hierarchical/ societal criteria for worthiness/ appraise/ loveworthiness. Human happiness/ self esteem are based on hierarchies. It's a psychcategorization system. It's why you can't give a happy ending to precious from that movie "precious" or "hunchback of notre damme" even when they deserve love. Or why Shrek didn't get human fiona at the end. This would have bucked heads/ not come off right with people.


I actually read Notre-Dame de Paris by Victor Hugo. There is a scene in it when Esmeralda is held captive in the cathedral for her safety and every day and Quasimodo tries to show his love for her in singing about how inner substance is worth more than the superficial. He also places two vases in here room: one a beautiful broke crystal vase with dried flowers, and the other a plain vase, not broken with healthy fragrant flowers. Esmeralda, being in love with the handsome captain Phoebus, choose the dried flowers. . .

The user Ceran here sort of summarised what you said in stating that Hollywood is extremely red pilled (maybe getting less so because of PC and feminism etc), and the they won't make romances between looks mismatched couples because the audience just won't buy it.

No matter how you selectively emphasize certain parts of a movie, in chick flicks, in where they place false societal/ incidental constraints in movies that make the struggle for love seem like it's not about biology/ evolution but white racism/ society's classism/ financial struggles/ etc. all that bullshit. The Jasmine chick wouldn't have gotten with alladin because of his good heart, but because of his neat genes (for an arab).


I'm just surprised that people aren't aware of this - to the point of denying it absolutely. In our society you can just look around and see that, overall, the good looking guys get the good looking girls, nearly everyone is looks matched to be honest. The liberals and the feminists want to throw this hierarchy out of whack by saying looks are subjective and all that shit. All you have to do is to look at the individuals in question who have these beliefs and you'll find that the people in their lives are on about the same level of attractiveness as they are, which kind of contradicts their beliefs.

If you watch the film Pride and Prejudice (the 2005 version), you can see all this in action. Yes there were societal barriers to the match of Darcy and Elizabeth, but you can tell from their body language and how they treated each other and got in each other's way, that there was a real genuine primal attraction going on. It's all quite subliminal to say the least. The actress who played Elizabeth is really beautiful and she lights up the screen. The scene where Mr Collins tries to get with her was very telling, cringe worthy on his part. It's a very telling film, but no doubt the feminists and liberals would interpret it in different ways LOL!!!

Even you earlier commented that we have a primality to our criteria of worhtiness as well. We consider some girls/ ethnics/ low self esteem reachers as bargain basement bitches. Yes. We are just like women. We as a species are predicated on primality. For women it's regality that gets them that. For men it's prowess and power, and regality genes with good facial features/ etc. That is on the laundry list of traits girls want these days.


Or to put it more brutally, as I remember someone else commenting long ago in this forum, why would anyone want to produce ugly children? I don't. I would want my children to be a better version of myself, so only having them with a female of high physical attractiveness can achieve that. That's just obvious. There are some women who keep their looks well into their 40s and 50s and these women still get good looking men because of this.

I'm very surprised at low value men mouthing off about their number of lays and how easy they got with certain women. As Desmond Morris states it's a form of sexual status to show off to other men. But I find most men doing it to be rather repulsive in appearance, to the point of grossness. Usually the higher value the person the less inclined they are to promiscuity because they don't want to taint and dilute their value at all, and they want to prevent those of low value even being around them. I remember a time in uni when I got the best looking girl interested in me without knowing it, the reactions from some of men in the year suddenly changed to very aggressive towards me in normal conversation.

cperkins wrote:
I actually read Notre-Dame de Paris by Victor Hugo. There is a scene in it when Esmeralda is held captive in the cathedral for her safety and every day and Quasimodo tries to show his love for her in singing about how inner substance is worth more than the superficial. He also places two vases in here room: one a beautiful broke crystal vase with dried flowers, and the other a plain vase, not broken with healthy fragrant flowers. Esmeralda, being in love with the handsome captain Phoebus, choose the dried flowers. . .

The user Ceran here sort of summarised what you said in stating that Hollywood is extremely red pilled (maybe getting less so because of PC and feminism etc), and the they won't make romances between looks mismatched couples because the audience just won't buy it.


They won't buy it, and they'll find it patronizing and offensive. They'll be extremely grossed out and feel like they're being fed too much bullshit all at once. But the bullshit threshold increases the more that opposing the fauxmanitarianism that liberals are pushing is forwarded. As it is in our society. Stage 7. But back in 1999 when it was like stage 3 or 4, if they released the last Jedi back then, people might have had a greater uproar. But that was a more delicate time where the nigger thug rap scene was going strong, so maybe even then people might have been reluctant to talk shit on finn, or rose, or whatever flat face monstrosity was put on the screen.





cperkins wrote:I'm just surprised that people aren't aware of this - to the point of denying it absolutely. In our society you can just look around and see that, overall, the good looking guys get the good looking girls, nearly everyone is looks matched to be honest. The liberals and the feminists want to throw this hierarchy out of whack by saying looks are subjective and all that shit. All you have to do is to look at the individuals in question who have these beliefs and you'll find that the people in their lives are on about the same level of attractiveness as they are, which kind of contradicts their beliefs.

If you watch the film Pride and Prejudice (the 2005 version), you can see all this in action. Yes there were societal barriers to the match of Darcy and Elizabeth, but you can tell from their body language and how they treated each other and got in each other's way, that there was a real genuine primal attraction going on. It's all quite subliminal to say the least. The actress who played Elizabeth is really beautiful and she lights up the screen. The scene where Mr Collins tries to get with her was very telling, cringe worthy on his part. It's a very telling film, but no doubt the feminists and liberals would interpret it in different ways LOL!!!


A movie needs to happen. Conflict and Drama. But most of the real contrastive forces aren't in between what the main protagonists are dealing with. There are uninsisted forces as to the characters surrounding them that are far more inhibiting than what hte two characters are going through. In the background in the party of pride and prejudice, a plain party girl, not a Kiera Knightley, would NOT have a movie based on her life, and her far more insurmountable struggles. It's too red pilled/ bleak/ unentertaining/ putting the potatoes in the bare bones reality, not the subreality that movies are supposed to escape them to. Movies are for dull-minded escapists who want to put down the outlying factors of reality, and pave the way for what is enjoyable/ acceptable/ palatable/ pleasing. It's part and parcel of also having a primarchy in terms of systematic emphasis in perception... where people only emphasize traits that come off enjoyable/ fun/ easy/ dramatic/etc.

Interesting movies that are educational, and talk about the trials of people who are not often on the movie screen go at the expense of what is enjoyable for most people to watch. Think of the fish monger, or not even an extreme case of the hunchback of notre damme. But an Irish peasant. He doesn't even get ANY cosmic significance because his flaws are not even uncommon enough like the hunchback to be interesting and be made a movie of. The worst problem is not usually the worst scenario. The worst problem is to be average and filled with struggles but not in an extreme enough case to hte point where hte istuation doesn't meet people's criteria of emergency.

That's the case with incels. People find the problem of being ugly as not am ajor deal. People think of people starving in africa as a huger concern. When in reality incels are the ones who are suffering because they're being dismissed where the issue of ugliness is tragic, but not a grave emergency that triggers to sentiment from people. The orange zone, not the red zone is potentially the worst, because even people being perceived in the red zones like africans/ chinks/ etc. are given humanitarian aid.

I think women are more prone to fantasy/ augmented reality of luxuriance. And they work and toil to advance themselves to that reality at the expense of helping other people. Even when you talk about anything isnightful at the expense of any luxuriance, they will mentally melt away from you faster than an icicle in an incinerater.

Primality predicated perception is why people don't even bother to be aware of it.

cperkins wrote:Or to put it more brutally, as I remember someone else commenting long ago in this forum, why would anyone want to produce ugly children? I don't. I would want my children to be a better version of myself, so only having them with a female of high physical attractiveness can achieve that. That's just obvious. There are some women who keep their looks well into their 40s and 50s and these women still get good looking men because of this.

I'm very surprised at low value men mouthing off about their number of lays and how easy they got with certain women. As Desmond Morris states it's a form of sexual status to show off to other men. But I find most men doing it to be rather repulsive in appearance, to the point of grossness. Usually the higher value the person the less inclined they are to promiscuity because they don't want to taint and dilute their value at all, and they want to prevent those of low value even being around them. I remember a time in uni when I got the best looking girl interested in me without knowing it, the reactions from some of men in the year suddenly changed to very aggressive towards me in normal conversation.
The reason most low value men do it is becuase they don't have subtle primal command, so they have to pronounce it in insecurity. Insecurity is passively being afraid of something. Much like hate is passively being angry at something. And we are, as primal creatures, afraid of nothing less than humiliation/ low value primality. Our deepest fear-pillar points show that we are putting primality in the highest precedence. As fears indicate what we value most. When most people are insecure most especially about appearance then it shows that people are vain by nature. Why would you want looks other than to have high primality? Right? It's like questioning why someone would want to have a litter box in their house when they have 3 cats, it's clearly obvious.

Are you implying you had bad genes? And so people wanted to be aggressive to you because they didn't want you getting IOIs and P in V in a hot girl because they were closet Eugenicists?

cperkins wrote:
I actually read Notre-Dame de Paris by Victor Hugo. There is a scene in it when Esmeralda is held captive in the cathedral for her safety and every day and Quasimodo tries to show his love for her in singing about how inner substance is worth more than the superficial. He also places two vases in here room: one a beautiful broke crystal vase with dried flowers, and the other a plain vase, not broken with healthy fragrant flowers. Esmeralda, being in love with the handsome captain Phoebus, choose the dried flowers. . .
Case and point. Women like the kind of value that can withstand the criticism sequences/ mean spirit of the universe. Women have a very bleak view of value. They think all of it veins from the primal competition system. Where traits/ aspects/ properties pointed out about them are less negative in their validity than those around them. Women want to be able to think less negatively of a guy, and or for primal assumptions/ universal hierarchies of evaluation to think less negatively about the guy than other people. Women live in an eternally deadlocked competitive arena, and their inner criticism/ mode of evaluation can't be extricated from their self-opinion and the opinion of others. It's like a nigger, only instead of being prone to crime/ no impulse control... it's about constant finicking of the universe, and putting immense emphasis on primal tenor as the foremost factor behind all of their investment/ treatment in anything.

We're not righteous creatures. But how can you really expect a species to be primarily moral when good and evil/ right and wrong are secondary in regards to the logistics/ competition/ resources/ territory struggles the universe ahas to offer? Right and wrong are conscientious compasses to help us be collectivistic with other people. Like as you said, the bat and the blood distribution. An impulsive bat would eventually be seen as an impediment to the survival of the group and be killed off. A psychotic bat would further itself, and lead the tribe to ruin, and cause the other bats to rise up. But this isn't psychopathy I'm talking about. This is loftipathy, and predicated on primality.

We don't pendulum our idea of good and evil on what is right or wrong in terms of proper and improper life conduct/ governance. But on what serves us, protects us, benefits us, as good. And what is contrastive of our overall wellness in life. We're primalisitc and animalsitic in our true act of abidance of morality. To the point where it can't be that euphemistic/ popularized format of morality that the white knight follows to the hilt.

Are you implying you had bad genes? And so people wanted to be aggressive to you because they didn't want you getting IOIs and P in V in a hot girl because they were closet Eugenicists?


Not at all. These were men who had interest in her too and when they saw how she looked at me it got their anger up. The ugly guys said nothing because they knew they didn't have a chance with her, and the top looking guys in the uni were actually quite friendly to me, even the one who she was friendly with. In the end I never went with her, for whatever reasons because I was thinking about other things, and this must have pissed her off and set other men's resentment against me.

And if you really wanted to know why I would even "reject" such a pretty girl, it was because I was in "love" with someone else and the thoughts of this person was constantly on my mind.

The reason most low value men do it is becuase they don't have subtle primal command, so they have to pronounce it in insecurity. Insecurity is passively being afraid of something. Much like hate is passively being angry at something. And we are, as primal creatures, afraid of nothing less than humiliation/ low value primality. Our deepest fear-pillar points show that we are putting primality in the highest precedence. As fears indicate what we value most. When most people are insecure most especially about appearance then it shows that people are vain by nature. Why would you want looks other than to have high primality? Right? It's like questioning why someone would want to have a litter box in their house when they have 3 cats, it's clearly obvious.

Are you implying you had bad genes? And so people wanted to be aggressive to you because they didn't want you getting IOIs and P in V in a hot girl because they were closet Eugenicists?


Further to my previous post I was thinking about my line of thought when I did recall what happened to me at uni.

I realise now what I was trying to say is that I notice some low status men have a kind of liberal/marxist view in regards sexual selection of females, i.e. they think that they could get anyone and all this "beauty" and "looks" business is an artificial cultural construct meant to oppress people and conceal the real truth of what females find really attractive in men. And so these men I was talking about who brag about the women they had also seem to believe that others too can get what they had by their "PUA" techniques or their "game" or their wingman etc. . They were oblivious to the fact that the women they were getting were nothing special at all, but it didn't matter since they were at least women. Their attitude to women out of their league was that it was just a question of time till they get to score with them, and that was the excuse they were telling themselves. When that pretty girl showed interest in me (after our second chance meeting), I suppose it sort of made them angry a bit that I did no work at all in getting her interest and they had been around her for some time and nothing happened out of it. That was the point I was trying to make. This liberalism/marxism is also affecting people's perception of what they see happening, it's contributing and maybe sustaining their bluepillism. It's when they see something happening that invalidates their beliefs that the real anger flies, when what's really going on is just reality itself.

We don't pendulum our idea of good and evil on what is right or wrong in terms of proper and improper life conduct/ governance. But on what serves us, protects us, benefits us, as good. And what is contrastive of our overall wellness in life. We're primalisitc and animalsitic in our true act of abidance of morality. To the point where it can't be that euphemistic/ popularized format of morality that the white knight follows to the hilt.


This is a very good point you made, and the last sentence can be extended to highlight why Political Correctness appeals to so many people, almost as a natural leaning for the dull, stupid and unthinking - the majority if the human population. It's as if we are still stuck in our evolutionary past and the time lag effect makes such a behaviour destructive to our present circumstance, or may have been a corollary of a different evolutionary trait or traits altogether.

cperkins wrote:I realise now what I was trying to say is that I notice some low status men have a kind of liberal/marxist view in regards sexual selection of females, i.e. they think that they could get anyone and all this "beauty" and "looks" business is an artificial cultural construct meant to oppress people and conceal the real truth of what females find really attractive in men. And so these men I was talking about who brag about the women they had also seem to believe that others too can get what they had by their "PUA" techniques or their "game" or their wingman etc. . They were oblivious to the fact that the women they were getting were nothing special at all, but it didn't matter since they were at least women. Their attitude to women out of their league was that it was just a question of time till they get to score with them, and that was the excuse they were telling themselves. When that pretty girl showed interest in me (after our second chance meeting), I suppose it sort of made them angry a bit that I did no work at all in getting her interest and they had been around her for some time and nothing happened out of it. That was the point I was trying to make. This liberalism/marxism is also affecting people's perception of what they see happening, it's contributing and maybe sustaining their bluepillism. It's when they see something happening that invalidates their beliefs that the real anger flies, when what's really going on is just reality itself.


Liberal marxism is for those who have a betaclivity in their chemicular neurostructure. Where you format reality by a naivistic notion that "people should only judge others by what is in their control". Noble, but too idealistic, and foolish to believe it is a truth. And yet, somehow these retards don't recognize the mis-establishment of this as a fact. Human beings have to be pushed to judge people by only changeable features/ controllable factors. Look at what liberalism implies when it's being pushed for CONSTANTLY. It implies the natural state of mankind is overly judgmental about non-controllable factors. It's just that liberalism discounts this as a reality when you point out that people are innately judgmental.

I call this daisybraided dismission/ elation engrossed exclusionists/ obstinately optimistic ostracism.

Anyone who believes that a woman concerns herself with changeable factors above unchangeable factors is a fucking fool. People want value in largely unchangeable factors. Their lack of changeability and uncommonness makes their novelty that much more special when they're seen. Women tacitly want to be on top of hierarchies they pronounce egalitarian conditions in. Primal Hierarchies. They just won't admit to them.

Female attraction is highly predicated on what most guys CAN'T do, no matter what systematic beta-strategy they come up with.

cperkins wrote:
When that pretty girl showed interest in me (after our second chance meeting), I suppose it sort of made them angry a bit that I did no work at all in getting her interest and they had been around her for some time and nothing happened out of it. That was the point I was trying to make. This liberalism/marxism is also affecting people's perception of what they see happening, it's contributing and maybe sustaining their bluepillism. It's when they see something happening that invalidates their beliefs that the real anger flies, when what's really going on is just reality itself.

A pretty girl expects interest and investment from a guy if she shows interest. Whenever a girl shows interest in a guy, and cuts off the cold aloofness treatment for him, then that's supposed to be indicative of interest. It's a rarity. The default setting for women for a guy is aloofness. You see it's women who have ot be aloof not men ebcause men are the one who bring sex to the table. And women define the conditions of consent. Men are hormonally inclined to offer fucks to their target. Many eugenical ones may be less promiscuous and aimed only at high value genetic material.

The barrier between men and women requires consent for legal intercourse. Women decide the terms. Imagine the guy is the bank patron and the girl is the bank keeper. The bank keeper holds all the wealth needed for people to get anywhere, as do women in the sexualityscape. (Unless you're gay).

It's always the one who, in a system of requiring consent, that is the most conditional/ difficult to have come through who makes the chief stipulations on how it's going to be done.

Women are the tellers at the bank, and the Men are the Customers. The women manage what is to be sold/ transacted/ etc. Men must fit hte stipulations of the woman. To do anything out of the ordinary is to commit rape. And men will be the same.

It's just that you never see women pecking at the door of men because provision/ brawn brute strength is no longer needed/ it's an obsolete resource in the 1st world where everyoen is well fed and secure. It's all sexual market value/ high luxuriance at this point. But to be the touchstone you need genes. As you can always have money be exchanged. And status is more mutually inclusive with someone of high tier genes than money.

And the dtf rate for men is intense. FAR more intense than women. Women are okay to die childless if there's no one worthy of having gene replication with. Women mostly want to get with men for narcissistic gratification, libido appeal is not a gigantic part of hteir biology comapred to worthiness/ status.

Women are only preferrably attracted to 1% of the male population (purposefully) and Men about 40%. The power is in favor of women. Even when 1% are attracted to, it's finicky and divided. Women have a very precarious disorientation attitude towards attraction. Even the small % that are often loved are usually bucked off from because of any imperfection when it comes to their instinctive sensory primality metric. Making the game industry akin to the pump and dump schema.

IN PUA there is a ton of misestablishments to look on at the primality of women as fallacy. When in reality it isn't. Of course when you look at extreme examples of hunchback of notre damme, or nose picking power rangers player, and how they obviosuly don't get laid, then you can easily abstract that the reasons why are beacuse they rank low on the primality hierarchy.

Remember, nothing in life is mellow or in ease/ peace. Things are HAPPENING. The neural-signals are firing in our brains at an active pace.

The notion to just be yourself is NOT accurate. What if someone's true self is the nose picking power ranger? No get laid. Obviously. Then obviously being yourself doesn't encompass everything. Unfortunately people's psyche/ compass for advice and sphere of consideration is not objective/ and is lazily coordinated. Lazy/ everyman coordination is what we come to expect in the everyday discourse of mankind. Be yourself is a trope. To just not be fake. And it's a tacit indicator of high primality that if you live with conventional ignorance, then you never had to be thinking outside the box/ self aware to make it by.

Yes those are extreme examples. Some people want to think that extreme examples are not practically applicable/ common. But the traits which encompass those extreme examples will have a resonance of effect even in generally common examples. Take the extreme example of someone being a pro athlete or a famous singer. HIgh primal capital, is outgoing, imposing, sociable, etc. These are extreme examples of those cases and yet they pull girls right? They are then very VERY relevant.

Extreme examples are not irrelevant. They are underlyingly relevant, in the deeper structure, surrelevant.

Thank you for your replies.

To go back on topic, at the moment I've just started reading Douglas Murray's "The Strange Death of Europe". In the first chapter title "The Beginning" it states how New Labour being elected in 1997 began to drastically increase the immigrant intake, under the helm of Barbara Roche. It was she who relaxed the policies and strict vetting conditions that allowed anyone to enter the UK. It made no secret that she was a descendant of East End Jews, and that she purposely push for the multicultural agenda, wanting to change completely the makeup of British Society. Any criticism of her views she dismissed as racist. . .

It's people like her that makes me really sick. The liberals should just fuck off out of the West and live in the countries of the immigrants that they support and see how long they last!!

Even now we just had a suicide bombing in Kabul with 60 odd causalities at the last count. These muslims retards don't even know how to get along with each other, do we really want any of them here turning this country into another Afghanistan?

I've also start to read "Enemy of the State" by Tommy Robinson. Unlike Murray, Mr Robinson is a terrible writer and the book is grammatically unpleasant on the eyes for want of the better word, but he details what he's been through and how the state want to push the multicultural agenda and the lengths they go to to silence someone like him who actually has the decency to stand up for his country. Don't get me wrong, Robinson has been a bit of a thug and a loudmouth but he's completely right in his views of removing most ethnics from Europe and reasserting the rights of Whites and European identity.

cperkins wrote:Robinson has been a bit of a thug and a loudmouth but he's completely right in his views of removing most ethnics from Europe and reasserting the rights of Whites and European identity.
I'm skeptical of the jews and the dark elite. I'm pretty sure Trump falls into the same category as someone who paints a pathetic picture of those with the sense for having a vetting view of the value of humanity. And thus will empower/energize the snowflake left to be more clung to their concepts.

cperkins wrote:It's people like her that makes me really sick. The liberals should just fuck off out of the West and live in the countries of the immigrants that they support and see how long they last!!
Jewmanitarianism is the ultimate veneer for the sociopaths of society who are looking to make a quick primal capital buck from doing what makes people comfortable. People are half asleep, insentient, and wading through the world with mass insensate delirium and periodic woken sensibility. Sensibility only to the extent where you can say that they were even present in reality. Only when people are entertained, or given accolades of high value. We are an innately selectively/ primally attentive species, and the Jews mapped out our psyches likely before Freud was purveyed to trip us up.

Hell some people speculate the only reason human females were given bigger tits than most primates was because when we stood upright, we needed to give men a reason to face women front to front, towards their head lol.

Then again, when human formats only came in the form of black girl back 100k years when this was happening, I can see why their heads wouldn't be something marvelous in the first place. Sometimes I like a caucasian girl with sharper features even if her tits were only Bs or Cs.

I'm skeptical of the jews and the dark elite. I'm pretty sure Trump falls into the same category as someone who paints a pathetic picture of those with the sense for having a vetting view of the value of humanity. And thus will empower/energize the snowflake left to be more clung to their concepts.


My view is that when we see more societal strife and division and, unfortunately, more islamic bombings, the tide will turn and the snowflake lefties will be brutally crush under the resentment and anger in the direction they are steering society towards - because it's totally unachievable on all counts.

We need just a little more incidences that will highlight the inconsistencies of their values and logic for it to be played out in the public arena and they will see the tide turned against them. It should happen gradually but I think it will happen, you they can only keep up this charade for so long.

I'm also disgusted that someone as distinguished as Jordan Petersen has to go against retards arguing about dim witted gender issues and the use of new gender pronouns so as not to cause offence. These snows flakes should do us all a favour and get a life. I'm literally scared that if this is how some of these idiots think to make an issues of such tedious crap then something seriously needs to be done to stop this crap dead in its tracks because it's eroding common sense and social cohesion turning our society into an idiocriosy.

cperkins wrote:
I'm skeptical of the jews and the dark elite. I'm pretty sure Trump falls into the same category as someone who paints a pathetic picture of those with the sense for having a vetting view of the value of humanity. And thus will empower/energize the snowflake left to be more clung to their concepts.


My view is that when we see more societal strife and division and, unfortunately, more islamic bombings, the tide will turn and the snowflake lefties will be brutally crush under the resentment and anger in the direction they are steering society towards.
We need to make things work properly or it's just too idealistic tbh. And I have a plan set in motion.

We need to make things work properly or it's just too idealistic tbh. And I have a plan set in motion.


To be honest with you I've not had much thought to this so I was being a little naive and hoping for an ideal situation, which from the looks of it is more of a reaction, and waiting for the events to make it happen.

Maybe I should of changed the word "steering" to "suggesting" or "complaining". The liberals/feminists have done nothing but fucking complain and society/politicians/governments usually cave into their whims because they don't want to be seen as "racist"/"fascists" etc . . . and it's moving society into, as you state all the time, trying to force everyone to value everyone else equally when we are deep down judgemental and don't really want this.

It's kind of surreal that ALL the evidence is out in open view (even this conversation we are having here), and YET the retards REFUSE to process the implications, and instead warp it to fit their own beliefs - or shut it out completely!! Cognitive Dissonance of the highest order. Sort of like someone writing a mathematical proof which everyone has access to and can read BUT only a small minority actually understand it!!!

I would be very interested to know your opinion in how we're going to fix this, and like any good plan being out in the open shouldn't in any way diminish or hinder it's effectiveness - just take a look at Political Correctness.

cperkins wrote:
We need to make things work properly or it's just too idealistic tbh. And I have a plan set in motion.


I would be very interested to know your opinion in how we're going to fix this, and like any good plan being out in the open shouldn't in any way diminish or hinder it's effectiveness - just take a look at Political Correctness.
Pm me for concise details, and a medium of communication that isn't public and I will gladly service with you on it.

Return to Bash the Scene

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests