Having a distaste for slutiness hurts your game.

a real man would never have quads that let him fit into skinny jeans.

Bullying, to a degree, is necessary; it's beyond good or evil, just natural.

Homosexuality doesn't mean anything. It's a null lifestyle that has no positive/negative effects if kept to oneself. AKA I couldn't care less.

If a man can lead men, but not a single woman, he's not a complete man. See Obama.

race-troll-content:

I can't understand people who say they would only marry and breed offspring with someone from their own race. When they prefer certain types simply because of physical attraction, fine. All other reasons usually mentioned in that respect ('I wanna preserve my heritage/culture/...') sound like a lot of bullshit to me. Outbreeding is good for humanity.

The majority of blonde white women looks plain and boring. Even Heidi Klum, Pam Anderson or Marilyn Monroe are overhyped prototypes that have nothing enticing about them.

I'm Agnostic - but find this line of reasoning accurate.

Quote:Evil and bad exists in the world because God allows free will. Some people choose to be evil and do evil things....

Being feminist/fat/liberal/evil is a choice.

This is why feminists find it hard to grapple with the concept that RoK and RVF exist. "How could someone be so misogynistic!?"

Wald

Saying "No Homo" is gay.

Only gay guys feel the need to declare their sexual orientation.

If you are so afraid that people might think you are a homo, then you probably are.

Game doesn't work for everybody. There are some dudes who have such bad social skills that nothing will work for them. They should stick to porn and video games.

Driving age should be raised to 18- most 17 year olds are too immature and drive recklessly

Game can help but other things matter a lot. An average looking guy with nothing special going on in his life but thinks game alone is going to get him a hot girl with options is odd to me

Rimjob feels better than blowjob.

.... Is that bad?

(01-10-2014 12:50 PM)Scuba_Instructor Wrote:  Rimjob feels better than blowjob.

.... Is that bad?

The real question should be asking is, "Was that beta?"

Wald

(01-10-2014 01:17 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

(01-10-2014 12:50 PM)Scuba_Instructor Wrote:  Rimjob feels better than blowjob.

.... Is that bad?

The real question should be asking is, "Was that beta?"

Wald

You're right.

I fucking love it.

For hunting: Compound Bow > Hunting rifle

Ride: Aston Martin V12 Vantage < Gibbs Phibian

MMA Training > Gun(you can't carry it internationally)

Test+Provigil+Viagra > Drug free

Today's laws < An eye for an eye

To have a disrespectful member title such as "Chubby chaser" or "Beta orbiter", even "Wingman" etc. and not say anything about it - is beta. Whether it changes or not - this member title system is shit, I'm calling it for what it is.

Say you're with a girl and someone calls you "mangina" or "loser" - are you going to just ignore it again?
Notice the difference between alpha and beta when disrespected
http://www.myvideo.de/watch/4264629/A_sh...Chad_vs_Bo

The world needs a huge pandemic. Not necessarily because people are evil, but because there are too many of us.

(01-11-2014 12:04 PM)turbopg Wrote:  To have a disrespectful member title such as "Chubby chaser" or "Beta orbiter", even "Wingman" etc. and not say anything about it - is beta. Whether it changes or not - this member title system is shit, I'm calling it for what it is.

(12-22-2013 01:04 AM)runsonmagic Wrote:  Unpopular opinions:

Circumcision is genital mutilation

...except this shouldn't even be the least bit controversial

We strive to bang as many women as possible, at the same time that we deride women for slutty behavior. This is stupid. What's the end game? The very things that we rally against in women are the things that we instill in them when we cum in their orifices, pull their hair, and persuade them to clean up our sperm via bj. Actions have consequences. Treat a woman like a slut and she'll act the part.

A woman who bangs a lot of men can still be a good woman, she just won't be as good. It's more difficult to trust her.

Much of being a player is mental masturbation for men.

(01-09-2014 10:07 AM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  I'm Agnostic - but find this line of reasoning accurate.

Quote:Evil and bad exists in the world because God allows free will. Some people choose to be evil and do evil things....

Being feminist/fat/liberal/evil is a choice.

This is why feminists find it hard to grapple with the concept that RoK and RVF exist. "How could someone be so misogynistic!?"

Wald

I consider myself Christian but I agree with you

(01-11-2014 12:12 PM)WesternCancer Wrote:  The world needs a huge pandemic. Not necessarily because people are evil, but because there are too many of us.

I disagree with this. This is a common debate I have with my dad who also claims we're highly overpopulated.

There is enough space and food to sustain 20 billion people, easily. It's how we do it.

I know this is some utopian fantasy shit, but imagine if we took all the world's spending on defense and channeled that towards social programs. Imagine if we radically changed how people live. Vertical cities, sustainable agriculture, electric driverless cars. People spending their resources on raising a family instead of luxury goods that depreciate in value and serve zero purpose.

There are too many of us in the current competitive, capitalist ideal where everyone wants to have a mansion and 6 car garage. But there definitely aren't too many of us if we change our paradigms as to how we exist on earth.

(01-10-2014 12:50 PM)Scuba_Instructor Wrote:  Rimjob feels better than blowjob.

.... Is that bad?

That's a bold statement. I can't get into it myself. Honestly it tickles.

Maybe if I got a Rimjob from one girl WHILE getting a bj from another, that could be something.

Unpopular in the red pill world:
I have no problem with homosexuals/gay marriage.
I don't always eat pussy, but when I do, I don't mind.
I don't enjoy getting head, and I rarely cum from it.

Unpopular in the blue pill world:
We could learn a thing or two about how to run our country from China.
I would rather die alone and never have sex again than be married.
Any of the following looks are totally unacceptable and should get you thrown into a gulag- crocs, slides and socks, pajamas during the day, camouflage as a fashion statement

Is eating pussy unpopular in the redpill world now?

I knew some guys didn't like it but didn't realize it had become a thing.

Fuck that - I LOVE eating pussy!

One of my favorite past-times, actually....

I guess I must be "beta."

(01-11-2014 10:20 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  Is eating pussy unpopular in the redpill world now?

I knew some guys didn't like it but didn't realize it had become a thing.

Fuck that - I LOVE eating pussy!

One of my favorite past-times, actually....

I guess I must be "beta."

I was kinda wondering this to is it beta to eat pussy?

My unpopular opinons:

1. English girls are actually quite attractive in terms of looks. Many Europeans think the average English girl is fat, has a witch face and crooked teeth but this is far from true.

2. Spain is a country of losers, and this is coming from a Spaniard. Krauser said we are lazy but I think it has more to do with our mentality, there's just so many wrong things ingrained in our culture. Specifically, economic success is seen in a bad light. The word for entrepreneur ("emprendedor") usually carries the connotation that the person is a small business owner, doesn't make a lot of money and therefore is a hard working, productive member of society. On the other side, as soon as the entrepreneur begins to make a lot of money, he becomes a businessman ("empresario") and this is somehow frowned upon, since people think he probably exploits his employees, doesn't pay taxes and bribes members of the administration/government. While these things are not totally unheard of, the idea of the poor and working class people being morally supperior is quite present in society. If you couple that with the risk aversion, unambitious nature of many spaniards who often want to secure a stable, 9-5 job in their home city (many have what I would call a "small village mentality") you get a country where even the younger generations expect big daddy government to take care of everything and get them out of unemployment. Many young spaniards also prolong their (government subsidised) studies until their late 20s or even early 30s as an excuse to live off their parents and extend their student years where they have little responsibilities (many students even live with their old folks, it's a normal thing in Spain). The common myth says that the modern generation is the best prepared Spain has ever had but the reality is that many millennials feel entitled to a good job just because they have 2 college degrees and a masters, although at the end of the day they've barely learned anything while at uni and have zero real world experience. It's no surprise that the far left party Podemos (similar to the Greek syriza) will probably make it to the government.

(02-21-2015 05:52 PM)L M McCoy Wrote:  Reading what Krauser wrote had me thinking

What is it that Western/Northern Europe and the anglosphere doing that makes the people indigenous to those regions so successful?

You look at the middle east and its not hard to see why they're collapsing both as a society and economically. Its hard to thrive when your entire middle class I.E. Expulsion of its Jews during the 1940s-1970s. 90% of those Jews were highly educated and many held important government or military positions. That region needs feminism (it is the unpopular opinions thread after all) Even today the entire middle class is leaving which is leaving the region with a few (corrupt) rich and mainly lower uneducated population. People talk of democracy in that region, forget it because it cannot be done without a middle class.

Africa can be a major power house. Africa even has the most billionaires but what is holding Africa back? Why is there no emphasis on education and "modernization?"

You look at these other continents or regions and you see the opportunity for greatness/enlightenment-perhaps even another golden age.

Is it evolution? Life in Europe was much harder (think basic survival) than warmer climates. If that is the case than why is eastern Europe such a shit hole?

Was it the emphasis on divide and conquer in its earlier life? Perhaps the inventions of advanced weaponry?

Look at the education results from Finland or the quality of life in Western/Northern Europe and compare that to everywhere else.

All the Europeans that came to America weren't well off yet look at how America turned out. The question is how/why?

Why aren't other countries following these examples?

If anyone is uncomfortable replying feel free to PM me. The internet hasn't been too helpful.

Also if you have a degree or are educated in economics feel free to use graphs

I am listening to Guns, Germs and Steel and it seems to answer this question to some degree. This book won numerous awards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

Quote:The theory outlined[edit]
Diamond argues that Eurasian civilization is not so much a product of ingenuity, but of opportunity and necessity. That is, civilization is not created out of superior intelligence, but is the result of a chain of developments, each made possible by certain preconditions.

The first step towards civilization is the move from nomadic hunter-gatherer to rooted agrarian. Several conditions are necessary for this transition to occur: 1) access to high protein vegetation that endures storage; 2) a climate dry enough to allow storage; 3) access to animals docile enough for domestication and versatile enough to survive captivity. Control of crops and livestock leads to food surpluses. Surplus frees people up to specialize in activities other than sustenance and supports population growth. The combination of specialization and population growth leads to the accumulation of social and technologic innovations which build on each other. Large societies develop ruling classes and supporting bureaucracies, which in turn lead to the organization of nation states and empires.[2]

Although agriculture arose in several parts of the world, Eurasia gained an early advantage due to the greater availability of suitable plant and animal species for domestication. In particular, Eurasia has barley, two varieties of wheat and three protein-rich pulses for food; flax for textiles; goats, sheep and cattle. Eurasian grains were richer in protein, easier to sow and easier to store than American maize or tropical bananas.

As early Middle Eastern civilizations began to trade, they found additional useful animals in adjacent territories, most notably horses and donkeys for use in transport. Diamond identifies 13 species of large animals (over 100 lb / 44 kg) domesticated in Eurasia, compared with just one in South America (counting the llama and alpaca as breeds within the same species) and none at all in the rest of the world. Australia and North America suffered from a lack of useful animals due to extinction, probably by human hunting, shortly after the end of the Pleistocene, whilst the only domesticated animals in New Guinea came from the East Asian mainland during the Austronesian settlement some 4,000–5,000 years ago. Sub-Saharan biological relatives of the horse including zebras and onagers proved untameable; and although African elephants can be tamed, it is very difficult to breed them in captivity;[2][3] Diamond describes the small number of domesticated species (14 out of 148 "candidates") as an instance of the Anna Karenina principle: many promising species have just one of several significant difficulties that prevent domestication.

Eurasians domesticated goats and sheep for hides, clothing, and cheese; cows for milk; bullocks for tilling fields and transport; and benign animals such as pigs and chickens. Large domestic animals like horses and camels offered the considerable military and economic advantages of mobile transport.

A crucial and unintended product of animal domestication was the transmutation of viruses from livestock to humans. Smallpox, measles and influenza were the result of close proximity between dense populations of animals and humans. Through chronic exposure and centuries of intermittent, but non-decimating, epidemics, Europeans developed significant resistance to these viruses. Though malaria is often considered the most dangerous micro-organism to humans, it is geographically limited. Smallpox is geographically unlimited, and Europeans took it with them wherever they went.

Eurasia's large landmass and long east-west distance increased these advantages. Its large area provided it with more plant and animal species suitable for domestication, and allowed its people to exchange both innovations and diseases. Its East-West orientation allowed breeds domesticated in one part of the continent to be used elsewhere through similarities in climate and the cycle of seasons. The Americas had difficulty adapting crops domesticated at one latitude for use at other latitudes (and, in North America, adapting crops from one side of the Rocky Mountains to the other). Similarly, Africa was fragmented by its extreme variations in climate from North to South: crops and animals that flourished in one area never reached other areas where they could have flourished, because they could not survive the intervening environment. Europe was the ultimate beneficiary of Eurasia's East-West orientation: in the first millennium BC, the Mediterranean areas of Europe adopted the Middle East's animals, plants, and agricultural techniques; in the first millennium AD, the rest of Europe followed suit.[2][3]

The plentiful supply of food and the dense populations that it supported made division of labor possible. The rise of non-farming specialists such as craftsmen and scribes accelerated economic growth and technological progress. These economic and technological advantages eventually enabled Europeans to conquer the peoples of the other continents in recent centuries by using the "Guns" and "Steel" of the book's title.

Eurasia's dense populations, high levels of trade, and living in close proximity to livestock resulted in widespread transmission of diseases, including from animals to humans. Natural selection forced Eurasians to develop immunity to a wide range of pathogens. When Europeans made contact with America, European diseases (to which they had no immunity) ravaged the indigenous American population, rather than the other way around (the "trade" in diseases was a little more balanced in Africa and southern Asia: endemic malaria and yellow fever made these regions notorious as the "white man's grave";[4] and syphilis may have originated in the Americas).[5] The European diseases – the "Germs" of the book's title – decimated indigenous populations so that relatively small numbers of Europeans could maintain their dominance.[2][3]

Diamond also proposes geographical explanations for why western European societies, rather than other Eurasian powers such as China, have been the dominant colonizers,[2][6] claiming Europe's geography favored balkanization into smaller, closer, nation-states, bordered by natural barriers of mountains, rivers and coastline. Threats posed by immediate neighbours ensured governments that suppressed economic and technological progress soon corrected their mistakes or were out-competed relatively quickly, such as the counter-progressive Polish regime, whilst the region's leading powers changed over time. Other advanced cultures developed in areas whose geography was conducive to large, monolithic, isolated empires, without competitors that might have forced the nation to reverse mistaken policies such as China banning the building of ocean-going ships. Western Europe also benefited from a more temperate climate than Southwest Asia where intense agriculture ultimately damaged the environment, encouraged desertification, and hurt soil fertility.