Should 20-40% of Male Babies Be Aborted?

[Kalinago]

'build a family'is a distraction aswell.

by your logic,hedonism is the only path,and family is a privation of thrill and pleasure,and is routine and responsibility.

It's hard to describe it. Life is just short. So much bitterness and hatefulness people carry around, it spoils it all. Like putting too much salt in a dish will destroy the taste. Aborted babies, enslaved women, people hating other races and faiths and whatever. It just feels so... pointless. I've seen the end, you know. Where it all leads. How fast it approaches. Maybe I am in a sentimental mood. But all of these discussions on this forum, none of it leads to any man experiencing more enjoyment, more fulfillment.

non-reciprocated love is suicidal,and hate is a good thing against parasites and people who's existance impedes your freedom and happiness.

hedonic treadmill will also kick in,fried dopamine receptors etc find a higher purpose alongside balanced enjoyment.

and some people like myself,enjoy hate and destruction of persons we despise.we get 'enjoyment'from it.

hatred of abominations is enjoyment to me.

there is a reason oskar dirlewanger is my biggest hero after Ammonius Sacchas.

the belief in oblivion after death logically leads to nihilism and depression though,so we cannot relate.

[fschmidt]

I'm retired from that lifestyle, retired from the pointless hedonistic chasing of cheap thrills. There is no part of me that desires it any longer. I just want to be a good father now. A good man. It's all so tiresome.

Yes, that's standard. Most Christian saints first f***ed lots of women, then repented, and then preached love. But they/you are already genetically invested, so love for humanity is logical.

As for hate, it is like salt; too much of it in a dish will spoil the taste. Too much hate, likewise, will ruin a man's life. I've never known a hateful man that was happy, satisfied with his life, fulfilled. Bitterness just prematurely ages and kills men. It's a burden, not an asset.

People should do what makes sense, not what makes one happy. Opium makes one happy but doesn't make sense. For men who were incel, hatred is the only thing that makes logical sense. This hatred should serve as a motivation to take useful action. Like screw people to make money, and support anything that helps to destroy the culture that caused incel. For us, any act of kindness to modern scum is a sin that should be avoided at all costs.

[Outcast9428]

@Tsar Your belief that wars were eliminating large portions of the male population in the past isn’t entirely accurate…



There’s actually more people per capita dying in wars now then there were in the 1400s and 1500s. In those centuries it appears that 5 people per 100,000 died each year. Over the course of 50 years, that is only 250 people per 100,000 dead. This comes out to 2.5 people per 1,000. Assuming everyone dying was male… this is only 0.5% of men killed in wars.

[Tsar]

@Tsar Your belief that wars were eliminating large portions of the male population in the past isn’t entirely accurate…



There’s actually more people per capita dying in wars now then there were in the 1400s and 1500s. In those centuries it appears that 5 people per 100,000 died each year. Over the course of 50 years, that is only 250 people per 100,000 dead. This comes out to 2.5 people per 1,000. Assuming everyone dying was male… this is only 0.5% of men killed in wars.

That chart doesn't go back to Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Assyria, Persia, Ancient China, Ancient Japan, the Babylonian Empire, etc. Also, can I read how they calculated the deaths? I need to read if there are surviving census reports or if they looked at death certificates from the surviving records to statistically estimate the deaths, or how it was calculated.

However, I'm mainly talking about the traditional time before Christianity made it so everyone remained virgins and before mass mobilization of all men to fight was a thing. It's a definite that men died much more often in battles with swords, shields, spears, and bows.

The world has effectively returned to the promiscuity of the most decadent and degenerate eras of history which is common with the decay of great civilizations, but at the same time they do nothing to make it easy for men to get a virgin female, which is what slavery accomplished in the Ancient World.

In ancient Rome, slaves could not legally marry, not even among each other. So to marry his slave, a Roman would first have to free her. This was actually one of the few exceptions in the Lex Aelia Sentia of 4 CE, which put limitations on all other kinds of manumissions. If the citizen wanted to do so, he would have to appear before a tribunal and state his case. The slave would then be declared free and the two could marry.

It was not unusual for male owners freeing and marrying female slaves. However, female mistresses freeing and marrying male slaves was frowned upon and in the later empire made illegal. Another prohibition existed for members of the senatorial aristocracy, who could not marry freed slaves either. They usually took them as concubines.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ ... ry_one_of/

Source: Grubbs, Judith: Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood. London and New York, Psychology Press, 2002 - ISBN 0415152402

Also, slavery was much more humane in many contexts in Ancient Rome, compared to the United States slavery. Here's a source:
https://wp.umpi.edu/utimes/2018/05/04/s ... ient-rome/

Only about 25% of men throughout history have ever reproduced offspring with a female.

This is a very significant number because it means 75% of men throughout history died childless, many of them also likely virgins.

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

I think Tsar is some sort of a misandrist.

[Outcast9428]

@Tsar Your belief that wars were eliminating large portions of the male population in the past isn’t entirely accurate…



There’s actually more people per capita dying in wars now then there were in the 1400s and 1500s. In those centuries it appears that 5 people per 100,000 died each year. Over the course of 50 years, that is only 250 people per 100,000 dead. This comes out to 2.5 people per 1,000. Assuming everyone dying was male… this is only 0.5% of men killed in wars.

That chart doesn't go back to Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Assyria, Persia, Ancient China, Ancient Japan, the Babylonian Empire, etc. Also, can I read how they calculated the deaths? I need to read if there are surviving census reports or if they looked at death certificates from the surviving records to statistically estimate the deaths, or how it was calculated.

However, I'm mainly talking about the traditional time before Christianity made it so everyone remained virgins and before mass mobilization of all men to fight was a thing. It's a definite that men died much more often in battles with swords, shields, spears, and bows.

The world has effectively returned to the promiscuity of the most decadent and degenerate eras of history which is common with the decay of great civilizations, but at the same time they do nothing to make it easy for men to get a virgin female, which is what slavery accomplished in the Ancient World.

In ancient Rome, slaves could not legally marry, not even among each other. So to marry his slave, a Roman would first have to free her. This was actually one of the few exceptions in the Lex Aelia Sentia of 4 CE, which put limitations on all other kinds of manumissions. If the citizen wanted to do so, he would have to appear before a tribunal and state his case. The slave would then be declared free and the two could marry.

It was not unusual for male owners freeing and marrying female slaves. However, female mistresses freeing and marrying male slaves was frowned upon and in the later empire made illegal. Another prohibition existed for members of the senatorial aristocracy, who could not marry freed slaves either. They usually took them as concubines.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ ... ry_one_of/

Source: Grubbs, Judith: Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood. London and New York, Psychology Press, 2002 - ISBN 0415152402

Also, slavery was much more humane in many contexts in Ancient Rome, compared to the United States slavery. Here's a source:
https://wp.umpi.edu/utimes/2018/05/04/s ... ient-rome/

Only about 25% of men throughout history have ever reproduced offspring with a female.

This is a very significant number because it means 75% of men throughout history died childless, many of them also likely virgins.

Slaves were not treated better in Ancient Rome? Wtf? Slaves were executed every day. They threw them into snake pits. They were beaten constantly. Or they had to fight as gladiators where they’d often get raped… By other men.

You can just add up the death toll of every war fought in the era. Each war has been recorded. You just figure out how many people died in each war, add them together and distribute it through the years that war was waged.

[dubya]

I mean the meaning of "incel" is pretty skewed.

Nowadays it's most men in western society, including alot of married men in dead bedroom situations.

So it's not like "Oh. You're a genetic fuckup."

More like "Oh shit, this country is f***ed up."

I don't know if you guys have noticed, but birthrates across the world are crashing hard.

To answer the question, no I don't think anybody should "be aborted," or at least I don't wish that on anybody, it's a cruel and unfortunate fate sometimes for ectopic pregnancies and children with extreme birth defects.

As far as unrequited love being suicidal and hate being "necessary," I don't agree.

First of all there's more than enough hate to go around, which informs most of the collossally bad decisions within the global zeitgeist.

What's actually "necessary" is dealing with people in a firm and businesslike manner and not being a goofy nice guy all the time, or a butthurt salt-encrusted weenie.

Be firm and businesslike, "Are we f***ing? No? Ok then, nice to meet you, seeya later."

That's all you have to say, not be a butthurt little bitch or a salty munchkin or mr happy.

Just be firm, clearly state what you want, and keep it moving.

[Lucas88]

@Lucas88 doesn't understand that we don't live in the stone age anymore so strength isn't as important as intelligence. A smart autistic man has more of a chance of surviving and is better for society and raising a family than a dumb low IQ thug who only survives because of welfare, food stamps, public housing, etc. paid for by the "beta males" that Lucas88 likes to insult so much. If not for public assistance paid for with beta tax dollars then these so-called "alpha males" wouldn't survive in the modern era, they only had power when people were primitive. Modern women would choose to reproduce the dumb thug over the smart autistic guy but it's not because his genetics are better. It's also very stupid to assume that because a man is more popular with women then he's a better man. Your average woman today is destroying society with their sexual choices so it's actually the opposite

Women choose for vagina tingles, not for the best genetics. Only feminist retards who have been cucked by liberal and tradcuck propaganda think otherwise. @Lucas88 claims to be a Latin soul yet he sounds more like a western feminist betacuck with his arguments more than anything. Honestly I'd say a guy like @Outcast9428 who would raise a family and prefers everyone to succeed, have a wife, etc. (as long as they work hard and are good people) is more of an "alpha" male than someone who has been brainwashed into thinking being masculine means you're a low IQ retard who has harems of bitches and bullies what he thinks are "weaker" men.

Being BOTH intelligent AND strong is obviously better than being just intelligent or just strong. We don't have to be one-dimensional archetypes. It is possible to combine multiple virtues. That is indeed what a superior man does.

I am both intelligent and strong. I've always excelled at academic and intellectual pursuits. At the same time, I began weight training when I was 13 and have been doing MMA/combat sports training since I was 15. I'm an athletic dude and know how to defend myself.

Some guys have both brains and muscle/athleticism. Maybe you're just jealous!

Keep dreaming that "alpha males" only survive on betabux welfare, bud. Many guys with stereotypically "alpha" traits are perfectly successful in modern society, often having good careers or running their own businesses. Those guys have money, intelligence, physique, charisma and a high degree of male sexual dimorphism all at the same time. In other words, they have intelligence AND all of those other virtues while the nerdy autistic type only has intelligence but nothing else. The fact that some alphas possess both intelligence plus physique and other qualities doesn't seem to sit too well with Outcast. That's because it shatters his superiority complex and exposes him as the low-quality gamma male that he is. That's why he gets so triggered. Lol!

Not all alphas are thugs or criminals. That's just a fallacy that you incels want to push.

Neglecting physical training is utter folly. The health of the body is fundamental. It is always wise to do some form of resistance training. Those who don't do any kind of resistance training will usually see their body go to shit beyond a certain age. Ironically, people who believe that all they need is intelligence while neglecting their physique are not wise at all.

Similarly, not learning some combat skills is foolish. The world around us is always unpredictable. We and our loved ones could be physically attacked when we least expect it. It is wise to learn some fighting techniques, even if it's just basic boxing with a bit of wrestling or Judo. A noble man has the ability to protect his woman. But combat skills shouldn't be used for mindless thuggery. That would be an ignoble misuse of them.

Curiously, Outcast seems to believe that I am supposed to be like him just because we suffer from the same neurological condition. That's because he has constructed a fantasy world of how reality is supposed to be in his own mind and then projects it into everyone and everything else.

In reality, I am nothing like Outcast; I have a completely different personality and psychological constitution and have a somewhat different life history. Outcast is a weakboy who got bullied throughout school and college and seemingly did nothing about it. I myself on the other hand started doing strength training, took up martial arts, made myself strong, and fought back against the bullies. After a certain point, all of the bullying stopped and people were forced to respect me (or at least leave me alone). I actually did something about the bullying. That's because I'm strong and have a fighting mentality and am neither a weakboy nor a pvssy like Outcast is.

I was always smart enough to cultivate virtues other than just intelligence. I also focused on physique, athleticism and combat skills. Outcast on the other hand isn't really that smart. He is often unable to understand simple nuances, can only think in simplistic black-and-white terms and hastily projects his own unfounded assumptions onto things. He's obviously just a one-dimensional midwit who thinks that he's much smarter than what he actually is.

Outcast seems to think that I look down on "misfits" and that my rightful place is among misfits (specifically "nerds") like him. Nah, I see through you guys' delusions and warped hackneyed perceptions of the world and want no part of your mindless groupthink or echo chambers.

I don't hate nerdy misfits. Rather I simply observe that they don't have many desirable traits and wouldn't want to be like them. Moreover, their subculture and style just don't resonate with me.

I don't see the need to bully weaker men either. Likewise, I recognize that their weakness is an undesirable trait, but at the same time I am mostly indifferent towards them and will leave them alone as long as they don't do anything to provoke me.

Outcast also delusionally believes that he has more "self-awareness" than I do and claims that he somehow knows what's best for me - namely, hanging around with nerds and social outcasts. That was the motive behind his most recent sperg-out about me going to Latin America supposedly because I don't want to be with "socially awkward people". Lol! I think that I had self-awareness aplenty. As early as the age of 15 or 16 I instinctively intuited that I needed to learn Spanish and move to a Hispanic country. And, just as I anticipated, my social life improved tremendously. I'm not compatible with Anglo culture. My own nature meshes better with Hispanic culture. I've been saying this all along. But Pastor O'Castor just doesn't want to listen.

[Tsar]

I think Tsar is some sort of a misandrist.

I'm not a misandrist, I am stating facts about nature and reality. My idea injections so some men can only produce daughters would be of great idea.

The truth is that females have:
1. A finite window of fertility and from 16-26 are when they produce the healthiest offspring.
2. Females cap the population growth.
3. Scarcity of females destroys civilization.
4. Men need a female to be integrated.
5. Females are less likely to commit violent crimes.

I am actually a moderate. Some other people want a 1 male for every 2 to 3 females ratio. I, however, only want a 84 or 85 males for every 95 or 96 females, minimum, with 2 males for every 3 females maximum. I searched it earlier today online and people on Incel forums said 1 male for every 2 to 3 females.

I will not retract my belief that the male birthrate must be lowered. I am not a misandrist..if anything, my policies will accomplish many great things for men.

Also, I seek to provide an abundance of females to a smaller population of males. Abundance always allows males to better integrate into society, greater advancement of a society, and more traditional relationships.

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

I think Tsar is some sort of a misandrist.

I'm not a misandrist, I am stating facts about nature and reality. My idea injections so some men can only produce daughters would be of great idea.

The truth is that females have:
1. A finite window of fertility and from 16-26 are when they produce the healthiest offspring.
2. Females cap the population growth.
3. Scarcity of females destroys civilization.
4. Men need a female to be integrated.
5. Females are less likely to commit violent crimes.

I am actually a moderate. Some other people want a 1 male for every 2 to 3 females ratio. I, however, only want a 84 or 85 males for every 95 or 96 females, minimum, with 2 males for every 3 females maximum. I searched it earlier today online and people on Incel forums said 1 male for every 2 to 3 females.

I will not retract my belief that the male birthrate must be lowered. I am not a misandrist..if anything, my policies will accomplish many great things for men.

Also, I seek to provide an abundance of females to a smaller population of males. Abundance always allows males to better integrate into society, greater advancement of a society, and more traditional relationships.

Still it seems that all 7 people voted "no" on your eugenics policy.

Even if you wiped out 20% to 40% of the male population there will be still problems.

1) Some men are greedy and would want more females than evenly distributed number. If everyone gets 2-3 females, some men would want 5-10 females or more. They would try to kill of other men and take his wives. Internal war may ensue. The amount of women he owns will be measured as status symbol.

2) Women are hypergamous by nature. Most of the women would flock to the richest, powerful, strongest, smartest men if polygamy is legal and most of the average joes will be left with the leftover women.

3) You can kill off all the dumb people and handicapped people like Lucas88 and you mentioned. However, not all men have the same personality, desires, needs despite being genetically enhanced with the same attributes. There will still be conflicts, egos hurt, and quest for more power.. What makes you think the men are not susceptible from all the vices of human nature unless you fully lobotomize and indoctrinate every one of them?

4) Females are just as capable of committing crimes not just violent ones but non violent ones as well. Not all females are perfect little angels.
Your men will certainly enjoy getting nagged by multiple women! Yikes! Your men might also have to mediate multiple conflicts among the wives. So much for male happiness.

5) Not all females wants to be in polygamous relationships, having to compete with his other wives to get attention, and ostracized by the other wives, and raise the other wives child. That's why you see in palace intrigues, heirs murdering each other because they are from different mother and a same father.

6) The females are more likely to rebel and kick all the men out of the nation because they have the numerical advantage. They are not going to stand by and treated as property tokens. They might even build their "feminist utopia" ruled by women, opposite of your government and it will be your worst nightmare.

7) Divorcing two to three of your wives will be a pain in the a$$. You will have to split 50-50 multiple times. You can't just simply kick them out and leave them and their kids in the woods...

8)Some men are gay, infertile, not interested in marrying despite surplus of women, etc. so that's additional 1%-5% of the male population out of the reproductive pool.

9) Corporations and government will still cater to women because they are the largest demographic, and voter base. Even if you ban females from voting or consuming, corporations will still cater to women's customer needs. If you still disempower females by brute force, your nation will lose significant amount of income and face economic stagnation because females are your largest demographic.

10) Your nation will eventually split into factions such as pro polygamous faction and pro monogamous faction. You will have to face a civil war.
The Polygamous factions are backed up by rich and powerful men with multiple wives and the monogamous faction will be backed up by majority of women disillusioned by your system and significant amount of poorer men who can't afford to support multiple wives.

[Tsar]

I think Tsar is some sort of a misandrist.

I'm not a misandrist, I am stating facts about nature and reality. My idea injections so some men can only produce daughters would be of great idea.

The truth is that females have:
1. A finite window of fertility and from 16-26 are when they produce the healthiest offspring.
2. Females cap the population growth.
3. Scarcity of females destroys civilization.
4. Men need a female to be integrated.
5. Females are less likely to commit violent crimes.

I am actually a moderate. Some other people want a 1 male for every 2 to 3 females ratio. I, however, only want a 84 or 85 males for every 95 or 96 females, minimum, with 2 males for every 3 females maximum. I searched it earlier today online and people on Incel forums said 1 male for every 2 to 3 females.

I will not retract my belief that the male birthrate must be lowered. I am not a misandrist..if anything, my policies will accomplish many great things for men.

Also, I seek to provide an abundance of females to a smaller population of males. Abundance always allows males to better integrate into society, greater advancement of a society, and more traditional relationships.

Still it seems that all 7 people voted "no" on your eugenics policy.

Even if you wiped out 20% to 40% of the male population there will be still problems.

1) Some men are greedy and would want more females than evenly distributed number. If everyone gets 2-3 females, some men would want 5-10 females or more. They would try to kill of other men and take his wives. Internal war may ensue. The amount of women he owns will be measured as status symbol.

2) Women are hypergamous by nature. Most of the women would flock to the richest, powerful, strongest, smartest men if polygamy is legal and most of the average joes will be left with the leftover women.

3) You can kill off all the dumb people and handicapped people like Lucas88 and you mentioned. However, not all men have the same personality, desires, needs despite being genetically enhanced with the same attributes. There will still be conflicts, egos hurt, and quest for more power.. What makes you think the men are not susceptible from all the vices of human nature unless you fully lobotomize and indoctrinate every one of them?

4) Females are just as capable of committing crimes not just violent ones but non violent ones as well. Not all females are perfect little angels.
Your men will certainly enjoy getting nagged by multiple women! Yikes! Your men might also have to mediate multiple conflicts among the wives. So much for male happiness.

5) Not all females wants to be in polygamous relationships, having to compete with his other wives to get attention, and ostracized by the other wives, and raise the other wives child. That's why you see in palace intrigues, heirs murdering each other because they are from different mother and a same father.

6) The females are more likely to rebel and kick all the men out of the nation because they have the numerical advantage. They are not going to stand by and treated as property tokens. They might even build their "feminist utopia" ruled by women, opposite of your government and it will be your worst nightmare.

7) Divorcing two to three of your wives will be a pain in the a$$. You will have to split 50-50 multiple times. You can't just simply kick them out and leave them and their kids in the woods...

8)Some men are gay, infertile, not interested in marrying despite surplus of women, etc. so that's additional 1%-5% of the male population out of the reproductive pool.

9) Corporations and government will still cater to women because they are the largest demographic, and voter base. Even if you ban females from voting or consuming, corporations will still cater to women's customer needs. If you still disempower females by brute force, your nation will lose significant amount of income and face economic stagnation because females are your largest demographic.

10) Your nation will eventually split into factions such as pro polygamous faction and pro monogamous faction. You will have to face a civil war.
The Polygamous factions are backed up by rich and powerful men with multiple wives and the monogamous faction will be backed up by majority of women disillusioned by your system and significant amount of poorer men who can't afford to support multiple wives.

No, no, and no.

You are making wrong assumptions:

1. Not all men will be polygynous.
2. Democracy and Republics won't exist.
3. Corporations won't exist.
4. There will be an authoritarian monarchy.
5. Females won't get anything from a male in divorce.
6. Females won't need to be in polygynous relationships if they're "Free Females"
7. There will be widespread indoctrination and propaganda, much like Nazi Germany and North Korea.

You assume that everyone would have a Western Democracy like America. No! I would have an authoritarian absolute monarchy where the monarch is an autocrat, no corporations, no Jewish or Western Capitalism, no usury, and females will support the new system. Feminism won't exist.

Also, poll was part of the clickbait. Everyone who voted "No" voted "No" on abortion. There's much more support for my injection policy to change reproduction on the Spermatozoa level.

[Tsar]

I think Tsar is some sort of a misandrist.

I think some of these posters have weird cuck or domination fetishes and take it too far.

I don't have any cuck fetish. I am also not a misandrist. I favor all existing men getting at least one female with every man who wants a virgin female able to get one.

I am actually more traditional than anyone else on this forum. Ever since 2012 when I first joined, I have been posting about why I want a virgin and the benefits to all civilization that men getting a virgin girl would achieve. Many people hated my statements because I spoke the truth, I was dismantling their brainwashing, and I was attempting to educate everyone about why females must be virgins for a man.

Instead, I was attacked, hated, and people twisted my words. I am an absolute visionary and a philosopher king. Everyone should accept my words and heed my prophecies. I am the only person in this entire world that if granted absolute power, could and would create a Golden Age, a New Renaissance, and a Eutopian Civilization. The main points of my ideology never change and they never will because all my fixed ideological points are defendable because they're absolute universal truth.

[Outcast9428]

@Lucas88 doesn't understand that we don't live in the stone age anymore so strength isn't as important as intelligence. A smart autistic man has more of a chance of surviving and is better for society and raising a family than a dumb low IQ thug who only survives because of welfare, food stamps, public housing, etc. paid for by the "beta males" that Lucas88 likes to insult so much. If not for public assistance paid for with beta tax dollars then these so-called "alpha males" wouldn't survive in the modern era, they only had power when people were primitive. Modern women would choose to reproduce the dumb thug over the smart autistic guy but it's not because his genetics are better. It's also very stupid to assume that because a man is more popular with women then he's a better man. Your average woman today is destroying society with their sexual choices so it's actually the opposite

Women choose for vagina tingles, not for the best genetics. Only feminist retards who have been cucked by liberal and tradcuck propaganda think otherwise. @Lucas88 claims to be a Latin soul yet he sounds more like a western feminist betacuck with his arguments more than anything. Honestly I'd say a guy like @Outcast9428 who would raise a family and prefers everyone to succeed, have a wife, etc. (as long as they work hard and are good people) is more of an "alpha" male than someone who has been brainwashed into thinking being masculine means you're a low IQ retard who has harems of bitches and bullies what he thinks are "weaker" men.

Being BOTH intelligent AND strong is obviously better than being just intelligent or just strong. We don't have to be one-dimensional archetypes. It is possible to combine multiple virtues. That is indeed what a superior man does.

I am both intelligent and strong. I've always excelled at academic and intellectual pursuits. At the same time, I began weight training when I was 13 and have been doing MMA/combat sports training since I was 15. I'm an athletic dude and know how to defend myself.

Some guys have both brains and muscle/athleticism. Maybe you're just jealous!

Keep dreaming that "alpha males" only survive on betabux welfare, bud. Many guys with stereotypically "alpha" traits are perfectly successful in modern society, often having good careers or running their own businesses. Those guys have money, intelligence, physique, charisma and a high degree of male sexual dimorphism all at the same time. In other words, they have intelligence AND all of those other virtues while the nerdy autistic type only has intelligence but nothing else. The fact that some alphas possess both intelligence plus physique and other qualities doesn't seem to sit too well with Outcast. That's because it shatters his superiority complex and exposes him as the low-quality gamma male that he is. That's why he gets so triggered. Lol!

Not all alphas are thugs or criminals. That's just a fallacy that you incels want to push.

Neglecting physical training is utter folly. The health of the body is fundamental. It is always wise to do some form of resistance training. Those who don't do any kind of resistance training will usually see their body go to shit beyond a certain age. Ironically, people who believe that all they need is intelligence while neglecting their physique are not wise at all.

Similarly, not learning some combat skills is foolish. The world around us is always unpredictable. We and our loved ones could be physically attacked when we least expect it. It is wise to learn some fighting techniques, even if it's just basic boxing with a bit of wrestling or Judo. A noble man has the ability to protect his woman. But combat skills shouldn't be used for mindless thuggery. That would be an ignoble misuse of them.

Curiously, Outcast seems to believe that I am supposed to be like him just because we suffer from the same neurological condition. That's because he has constructed a fantasy world of how reality is supposed to be in his own mind and then projects it into everyone and everything else.

In reality, I am nothing like Outcast; I have a completely different personality and psychological constitution and have a somewhat different life history. Outcast is a weakboy who got bullied throughout school and college and seemingly did nothing about it. I myself on the other hand started doing strength training, took up martial arts, made myself strong, and fought back against the bullies. After a certain point, all of the bullying stopped and people were forced to respect me (or at least leave me alone). I actually did something about the bullying. That's because I'm strong and have a fighting mentality and am neither a weakboy nor a pvssy like Outcast is.

I was always smart enough to cultivate virtues other than just intelligence. I also focused on physique, athleticism and combat skills. Outcast on the other hand isn't really that smart. He is often unable to understand simple nuances, can only think in simplistic black-and-white terms and hastily projects his own unfounded assumptions onto things. He's obviously just a one-dimensional midwit who thinks that he's much smarter than what he actually is.

Outcast seems to think that I look down on "misfits" and that my rightful place is among misfits (specifically "nerds") like him. Nah, I see through you guys' delusions and warped hackneyed perceptions of the world and want no part of your mindless groupthink or echo chambers.

I don't hate nerdy misfits. Rather I simply observe that they don't have many desirable traits and wouldn't want to be like them. Moreover, their subculture and style just don't resonate with me.

I don't see the need to bully weaker men either. Likewise, I recognize that their weakness is an undesirable trait, but at the same time I am mostly indifferent towards them and will leave them alone as long as they don't do anything to provoke me.

Outcast also delusionally believes that he has more "self-awareness" than I do and claims that he somehow knows what's best for me - namely, hanging around with nerds and social outcasts. That was the motive behind his most recent sperg-out about me going to Latin America supposedly because I don't want to be with "socially awkward people". Lol! I think that I had self-awareness aplenty. As early as the age of 15 or 16 I instinctively intuited that I needed to learn Spanish and move to a Hispanic country. And, just as I anticipated, my social life improved tremendously. I'm not compatible with Anglo culture. My own nature meshes better with Hispanic culture. I've been saying this all along. But Pastor O'Castor just doesn't want to listen.

Even if guys who are highly intelligent, physically strong, and socially charismatic exist, they are a very very small percentage of the population. Half of everybody with an IQ above 140 is autistic. The median autistic IQ is 110 and 16% of autistic people have an IQ above 130 compared to 2% of the general population. Given that autists represent 25% of all people with an IQ above 130, that means the chances of a neurotypical having an IQ above 130 is only 1.5%. Suppose a neurotypical did have an IQ above 130 and thus had good social skills. Approximately 70% of Americans are overweight and another 5% are underweight. Most people with a healthy/normal body weight are not really muscular either. So the number of individuals who could possibly fit the fold of a muscular, socially skilled person with an IQ above 130 is probably about 0.1%, maybe 0.2% at most.

@Mercer Its funny that Lucas says I'm a midwit for being "one dimensional." He has said this in the past...

Outcast is undoubtedly intelligent and admits that he's a bit of a nerd. Even though I rarely agree with him, I recognize that he is more than capable of writing out coherent arguments and expressing himself well. Intellect is definitely his strong point in contrast to his lack of physical development and primal masculinity. I don't know what field of expertise Outcast has but he's mentioned that he graduated from college and seems to read a lot.

I didn't just graduate from college. I got through it while admittedly having atrocious studying habits. I probably only studied two hours a week. I've mentioned before how much I hated college, being extremely unmotivated was a big part of my life there. I did not feel like there was any point in me being there, I was only doing it because I felt compelled to finish what I had started. Despite terrible studying habits, I still ended up getting B average grades. This is despite the fact that some assignments, I simply didn't do at all. Some classes, I got an A in despite not having read a single page of the textbook. The college I went to is also a pretty competitive school. The reason I got fairly good grades was because I am extremely good at essay writing. Any essay I got, I could get an A in. Even the multiple choice exams, I could usually figure out what the answer was based on simply knowing the subject matter well enough to get the correct answer. Other students I met simply couldn't believe how well I was able to do with such horrible studying habits. Pretty much everybody else I knew who acted like I did failed out. I knew one guy who studied for an exam for two days straight. He wouldn't do anything, he spend all day studying for two days. A total of 24 hours. He got a grade of 78%. I studied for the same exam for about two hours and got 92%.

I have never bothered to get a real IQ test, but my father has... His IQ is 136. I don't believe mine is quite that high. My dad when he was my age did have slightly stronger intellectual abilities, some that would appear almost superhuman. He could, for example, remember a ten minute speech word for word. I can't do that, I have pretty good memory but it isn't quite that precise. Intelligence, however, is mostly determined by genetics and having a father with an IQ of 136 pretty much guarantees a highly intelligent son.

While I am sure Lucas is 120+ in IQ, I doubt he is 130+. He claims my "one dimensional" behavior is a sign of being a midwit. The truth is, his excessively extra-dimensional ideology is actually a classic sign of midwits trying to act more intelligent then they actually are. Now, I don't believe Lucas is actually a midwit. But I don't think he's a whole lot smarter then one. What intelligence basically comes down to is pattern recognition and ultimately being able to manipulate patterns correctly in order to achieve the right result. A political ideology is basically just the human systems equivalent of building a computer. A computer requires many parts in order to work, they need to be arranged in a certain order, you need to have all the right parts in all the right places. Otherwise, the computer doesn't work. Likewise, human systems are the same way.

Lucas seems to believe that you can just switch parts and place them wherever you want and expect the computer, or in this case, human organization system... To work. Any criticism of this way of thinking is deemed as black and white thinking by him and lacking in nuance. The truth is, his ideology is a disaster and he doesn't even seem to fully understand what his ideology is. He displays a deficiency in his ability to see how ideas that may technically be different flow together and enhance one another. Not only that but he seems fundamentally confused as to what his ideas actually stand for.

He claims to be an anti-feminist, yet he supports women working, he supports sexual promiscuity, he strongly opposes marriage and advocates in favor of what is essentially "alpha male" supremacism, and he's deeply hostile to all Abrahamic religions. I'd actually argue that nobody on this forum is more consistently feminist then Lucas is. He seems to have an interest in maintaining female privilege at the expense of average guys so that the top males of society can keep their advantage over average to low status men. Any opposition he has to feminism is incredibly shallow and superficial. Perhaps most bizarrely, he actually believes that automation is going make the skills of highly intelligent, "beta nerds" unnecessary and that automation is going to usher in an age where alpha males reign supreme because of women not needing men's labor anymore. He doesn't seem to understand that even if his scenario of automation killing jobs were to occur, it would in-fact be the highly intelligent beta nerds who'd be the only ones left who have skills that robots cannot do. He doesn't recognize that his idea of automating jobs/labor away and distributing resources equally among everyone is communist by definition thus making him an extreme left-winger.

Even the anti-semitism, while at first glance, one might think of him as an extreme right-winger for advocating war against the Jewish World Order... Its actually not incompatible with extreme leftism when you examine his reasons for being so anti-semitic. His reasons for anti-semitism primarily seems to come down to what is essentially class struggle rather then having an opposition to cultural marxism pushed by the Jews. He mostly dislikes the Jewish financial system. However, he seems to support every aspect of cultural Marxism with the exception of some particularly extreme stuff pushed by the 2010s/2020s far left. His ideology is actually remarkably consistent, however, with old fashioned far left ideology. Yet he doesn't recognize that all of these ideas are what lead to the society he hates the most... The UK. A society washed in cultural marxism which he superficially opposes but deep down is in favor of.

Lucas is the type of guy who's proud of the fact that his ideology essentially "breaks the left-right spectrum" and probably believes this makes him more unique and intelligent for having come up with something completely new. The reality is, if you've "broken the left-right spectrum," its because your ideas don't flow together and create a cohesive system. You've just mixed and matched with no regard to whether the ideas actually work in tandem with one another. Being able to come up with a bizarre and unique ideology is not a sign of exceptional intelligence. It actually shows a fundamental deficiency in pattern recognition skills. You can mess with a computer all you want, but unless you put all the correct parts in the right order/places... All the work you've done is not only meaningless, but it would have been better if you had just not tried at all because you've probably broken it.

Lucas is like an unqualified computer engineer trying to repair the computer of modern society but who's ideas would actually break it even more if implemented because he is utterly unqualified to speak about political ideas when he doesn't even understand what he essentially stands for.

My ideology and behavior is one dimensional because it is actually consistent and makes sense. It was constructed by using real life examples of what happened when these ideas were put forth. I have some innovative ideas that expand on this and are intended to bring about a society which is very similar to the ones I've used as examples but they're all ideas which fit into the same basic philosophy that created the real life examples I talk about.

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

No, no, and no.

You are making wrong assumptions:

1. Not all men will be polygynous.
2. Democracy and Republics won't exist.
3. Corporations won't exist.
4. There will be an authoritarian monarchy.
5. Females won't get anything from a male in divorce.
6. Females won't need to be in polygynous relationships if they're "Free Females"
7. There will be widespread indoctrination and propaganda, much like Nazi Germany and North Korea.

You assume that everyone would have a Western Democracy like America. No! I would have an authoritarian absolute monarchy where the monarch is an autocrat, no corporations, no Jewish or Western Capitalism, no usury, and females will support the new system. Feminism won't exist.

Also, poll was part of the clickbait. Everyone who voted "No" voted "No" on abortion. There's much more support for my injection policy to change reproduction on the Spermatozoa level.

Well then, your country will be poor just like North Korea if you rule with an iron fist. One hell of a country your running, it's a very dysfunctional one.

If there is no corporations then how does your country make money or conduct business and trade?

I assume YOU, the philosopher king, will get all the women.
Free females? So the men can "F*ck and Chuck" whatever women he feels like and your marriage policy is not polygynous? Then you are going to have an army of bastard daughters and sons and an army of single baby mamas roaming around because the male population and your government have no obligation of taking care of the offspring and most male babies will be swiftly killed. This is a mass infanticide on a daily scale..

One hell of an utopia your running here...similar to many one of failed dictatorships in Africa.. I can't wait to see tens of thousands of people fleeing your country like the North Koreans trying to flee theirs.

[Outcast9428]

@Tsar You addressed almost none of @Natural_Born_Cynic's points...

1. It doesn't matter if all men are not polygynous. Some men are extremely greedy. Ancient China had emperors who had harems of 1,000 concubines. In Africa before colonialism, some of the strongmen in charge had 3,000 concubines. If you legalize polygyny then you open the floodgates for rich, powerful men to treat the entire country like their own personal playground.
2. He wasn't talking about democracy or republic, he was talking about hypergamy.
3. If corporations don't exist, then how is your country going to build any kind of economy? Somebody has to hire everybody and provide them with their incomes. Are you suggesting the state take over all businesses and essentially run every industry in the country through government power? Because that is full blown communism, and it has been proven to be an absolute disaster.
4. Even if you are an absolute monarch... Kings get assassinated, especially if they don't do what the rich and powerful oligarchs want them to. The only reason why the aristocracy in Medieval Europe was able to be controlled was because the church was more powerful then anybody was, including the kings. So the oligarchs of Medieval were forced to do what the church said was morally permissible. Nobody was above the church's rules... Henry VIII was so mad about how much control the Catholic Church had over him that he created his own church to try and escape its rules.
5. So men can divorce women at will and women will just get thrown out onto the streets? This is going to fuel female resentment towards your regime. People can handle having unequal rights but not if you make their lives expendable.
6. What the hell are free females? Also, it wouldn't matter. You can't create a polygynous system that doesn't invoke female jealousy and drama. Women do not want to be #2 in a harem, they want to be #1. Women want to feel special to the man they chose, they don't want to be one of 5 different potential items on the menu for tonight. Women in harems have been known to kill each other. Your idea that they're all just gonna lez out while you're not f***ing them is like something a teenage boy who has watched way too much porn would say.
7. Propaganda and indoctrination works to some extent, but it can only go so far. If you completely alienate the majority of the population, they will plot your downfall.