Eastern religions are full of abstracts, they don't have canons. It's good and bad like everything else.
Y
That again though depends on what you consider civilization. Is a village of mudhuts and rudimentary irrigation something that constitutes civilization? Some would argue that it is. And this might have first arisen in Africa before humans had migrated to other continents.
The Old Testament is considered part of Christianity. The Old Testament setting was in the Middle East in places like Israel, Iraq and Lebanon.
Many western archeologists still ascribe to the understanding people in western countries had when people in western countries were more religious. As you know people in western countries used to be more religious in the past prior to the mid 20th century.
Very interesting theoryLast week, I was in Dubai with my folks and I met a curry guy who showed me this thing that is sort of half a book, half a website. I read through some of it and it looks pretty based. It can be accessed in website form here or as a stand-alone PDF document.
It is like novel and it explains how at the beginning of history in ancient Mesopotamia, incel-like people invented civilization and then Chad and Stacy (under the guise of Bilgamesh and Ishtar, two Sumerian gods) showed up, hijacked the whole show and turned the world to shit. The theory is that in order to roll-back the influence of Bilgamesh and Ishtar, people had to invent something like an anti-viral mental cure and that it turned out to be Christianity eventually. Credit Masturbation is what people do when they believe in mythical characters like Ishtar and stuff or feminism and modern bullshit. It is like you are catching a mental virus and then it spreads and screws up more ppl.
According to the curry who showed me this, the author is a German guy who currently lives in India somewhere.
Recently there was a thread on here about how Foids consider that you are automatically wrong if you can't get laid:
The author has a pretty blackpilled theory about why this is. He calls that Authority-S (S for sex) vs. Authority-L (L for Language). Authority-S is the Chad-style, alpha-monkey clout that foids love. The guy says that civilization is a battle against that in order to establish Authority-L instead which is what we would normally call "being right" in a non-clown world.
Women's main go-to argument: "you cant get laid therefore you're wrong"
fucking whore also the male equivalent is either: i could beat you up irl therefore you're wrong i get laid and you dont so your argument is invalid (ironically its often betabuxers saying this, completely oblivious to their wife fucking chad on the side) this is the intellectual level of...
The AS vs AL part is a stricking observation
I see you as something who has had a hard time understanding the book and was not able to get more than a superficial grasp of it but wants to reassure himself that he is smart by taking a few jabs at it and getting support from "allies", SJW style.
If you want to prove me wrong, please start building structured arguments based on historical data that actually address the points made in the book. No more nebulous statements about "polytheism", "primal" instincts or "Abrahamic religions"
This is the foundation of the book's whole anthropological model. It is also what got me hooked.
Last edited:
Y
No I am just looking this book critically and not buying into everything that is said. I'm not trying to reassure myself of anything. But I am curious about the input of other people that also may be more critical of what's said in this book (knowing they do not necessarily believe in monotheism to start with) to see what they have to say. Otherwise this thread just becomes all about praising this book and Judeo-Christian values without any views to the contrary.
How are "polytheism", "primal" instincts or "Abrahamic religions" nebulous statements? They refer to specific things.
No they don't. These are tired cliches which do not correspond to anything concrete. If you do not see that, there is nothing I can do to help.
Y
How are they tired cliches?
polytheism = belief in many gods
primal = instinctual behaviors
Abrahamic religions = Judaism, Christianity and Islam
They are classifications and nothing more.
And as a result, you cannot use them in an argument, except in an opening statement.
Real arguments deal with the details (where the devil is) not with overstretched categories like these. Any argument based on such general notions is necessarily a tired cliche. As you can see, the book does nothing of the sort. In particular, it DOES NOT use any of the words above (except to reject them) and uses newly coined concepts instead.
Y
You can use classifications in an argument to refer to specific things though?
You are objecting to the words I use instead of the argument I'm making. Even if you have a problem with the specific words can you address the argument I'm making
that this book engages in too much apologetic views toward Christianity and takes a negative view toward non monotheistic religions like Hinduism and Buddhism and tries to suggest (like many Christians and Jewish people have) that such religions belong to a deficient Ishtar biobehavioral belief system and warrant intervention to correct this?
What is the difference if both those newly coined concepts and allegedly over-used cliches mean the same thing?
Not if they are too wide.
The words you use impact the quality of the arguments you make. For example, "apologetic" refers to promotional activity BY A MEMBER OF THE FAITH in question, which the author obviously is not. If you indulge in such approximation, there is no argument to answer to, just a negative feeling.
They don't. If you do not realize that, it means you have no more than a very superficial understanding of the points the book is making.
I would not be surprised if the author of this book looked a bit like that ...
Y
The argument the book is making appears to come from a view that is biased toward one that Culture Christians have. It's not much different than Jordan Peterson trying to put a scientific angle and modern outlook into stories from the bible being doing that indirectly by appealing to a skeptical person's need for an irreligious context first. But the goal ends up being promotion of the idea that western civilization and monotheistic religion is superior and should be a system that all people should live by and live under.
If there isn't a difference what does it matter what words I use. Unlike "apologetic", "polytheism", "Abrahamic religion" and "primal" desires are neutral terms.
B
Yeah and from my following of anthropology they changed what "civilization" meant to pander to leftist. Civilization in Iraq was more advanced and came before anything resembling civilization in Africa !
For fuck's sake no! If someone concludes in favor of Christianity after building an elaborate argument to that effect, IT DOES NOT mean his is biased. It means he has thought about it and reached that conclusion. A biased attitude is when someone says "Christianity is best, isn't that obvious?" without giving any argument. Or when someone tries to support Christianity by saying that the Earth is 6000 years old. That is absolutely not what the author of this book is doing. He reaches THE SAME CONCLUSION as many biased people. But that fact alone does not mean he is biased.
Did the author of the book say that we should all be living according to Western civilization? No. You ASSUME that this is his hidden agenda. This exactly how SJWs paint all Incels as Nazis because there are a few idiot stormfontcels on the forum.
They are not neutral. "apologetic" is negative and so is "Abrahamic religions" (the SJWs have done that, you can't undo it) "primal" assumes the author has disparaging intent when he talks about instincts (he does not). "Polytheism" is inherently anti-Christian (i.e. biased, for real this time) because it was coined to replace words like "pagan", or "heathen" by people who were against Christianity. The word was purposefully designed to influence you into thinking that "monotheism" and "polytheism" deserve equal respect. Here, the book makes the argument that it is not the case. It says that Christianity is superior to what preceded it (even though it does not argue from a Christian standpoint) If you use a word like "polytheism", it automatically predisposes your thought against the book's argument (again, a real case of bias)
Putting a spin on words that people are unaware of is exactly how we have been made to swallow things like Feminism. The blackpill is first and foremost about freeing ourselves from this kind of manipulation. If you think that the four expressions above are "neutral", it means you are not as blackpilled as you think
Y
It's hard to tell when so many biased people reach the conclusion the same way and with the same methods. Also I don't know who wrote this but from the story, context and role of people in the story it seems informed by a western cultural Christian view of things.
Well if western civilization is concluded to be superior and the author talks about the need to live under such systems to maximize societal trust doesn't it follow that some people will take that as an incentive to try and make others live under the precepts of western civilization and Judeo-Christian morals or at the very least start treating people that don't live according to these beliefs differently and in a worse way than someone who believes the same as they do?
Again that is ceding control to SJWs over the netural term "Abrahamic religions". They are Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) because they share similarities in belief of a messiah and one true god and how he created man and woman to serve him in the story of creation.
That was not my intention but if it comes across that way "instinctual" can be used in its place.
Proof of that?
polytheism | Etymology of polytheism by etymonline
"belief in more gods than one," 1610s, from French polythéisme (16c.), formed from Greek… See origin and meaning of polytheism.
www.etymonline.com
It's not a question of respect. They are just classifications meant to distinguish between the different types of religious worship that humans have endulged in.
Mono = one
Poly = many
theism = having to do with belief in existence of god or gods
There's no evidence of this. You could just as easily argue that using the term monotheism is predisposing me to be against the book's argument. But you haven't and have instead focused on how the words I am using that don't refer to Judeo-Christian systems or values show my bias when again, monotheism versus polytheism isn't being used in as a matter of what is saying what is better, but to neutrally distinguish between the different belief systems.
Not necessarily. Anyone that knows what equality truly means will see that from the actions of Feminism, feminism is not equality even though feminists claim they are about equality. Even MRAs and egalitarians that seek equality know this.
You are again focusing on the words and not addressing the argument.
Advocating for how religions like Judaism and Christianity are more orderly and ideal for society than Hinduism and Buddhism has been used as a veiled pretext to justify treating people of those religions as lesser beings and trying to convert them over to the way of Judeo-Christian thinking. Can you not see how some people would find that objectionable?
Last edited:
Trust me...it's mostly bad.
Many people might find it questionable yeah..mostly the Leftist SJW's and now days mainstream normies who have come to believe it is "bad" to say that Christians had a leg up on other religions which came before it. Just my opinion and I am definitely not a biblical Christian!It's hard to tell when so many biased people reach the conclusion the same way and with the same methods. Also I don't know who wrote this but from the story, context and role of people in the story it seems informed by a western cultural Christian view of things.
Well if western civilization is concluded to be superior and the author talks about the need to live under such systems to maximize societal trust doesn't it follow that some people will take that as an incentive to try and make others live under the precepts of western civilization and Judeo-Christian morals or at the very least start treating people that don't live according to these beliefs differently and in a worse way than someone who believes the same as they do?
Again that is ceding control to SJWs over the netural term "Abrahamic religions". They are Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) because they share similarities in belief of a messiah and one true god and how he created man and woman to serve him in the story of creation.
That was not my intention but if it comes across that way "instinctual" can be used in its place.
Proof of that?
And if polytheism isn't the correct term to refer to religions like Hinduism and Buddhism which term do you suggest instead?polytheism | Etymology of polytheism by etymonline
"belief in more gods than one," 1610s, from French polythéisme (16c.), formed from Greek… See origin and meaning of polytheism.
It's not a question of respect. They are just classifications meant to distinguish between the different types of religious worship that humans have endulged in.
Mono = one
Poly = many
theism = having to do with belief in existence of god or gods
There's no evidence of this. You could just as easily argue that using the term monotheism is predisposing me to be against the book's argument. But you haven't and have instead focused on how the words I am using that don't refer to Judeo-Christian systems or values show my bias when again, monotheism versus polytheism isn't being used in as a matter of what is saying what is better, but to neutrally distinguish between the different belief systems.
Not necessarily. Anyone that knows what equality truly means will see that from the actions of Feminism, feminism is not equality even though feminists claim they are about equality. Even MRAs and egalitarians that seek equality know this.
You are again focusing on the words and not addressing the argument.
Advocating for how religions like Judaism and Christianity are more orderly and ideal for society than Hinduism and Buddhism has been used as a veiled pretext to justify treating people of those religions as lesser beings and trying to convert them over to the way of Judeo-Christian thinking. Can you not see how some people would find that objectionable?
@K9Otaku - Just because we say that Christianity improved on the positive aspects of previous religions while downplaying their negative ones, which obviously didn't work, then it doesn't mean we are Christians right? I think that's what you are saying and I agree wholeheartedly.
Last edited:
Y
That doesn't mean everyone that is wary of people asserting the superiority of Christianity to religions like Hinduism or Buddhism is a leftist SJW.
I never claimed either of you were Christians. But I did say the book appears to try assert that Judeo-Christian values are more desirable to follow than beliefs in many gods (as is common in Hinduism and Buddhism) which historically is used as a justification to intervene in ethnic countries and try to convert others to beliefs that people of Jewish and Christian faiths believe in. By itself stating that Christianity has more positive aspects then other religions is not bad.
But if it's just left at that then the remark has little effect. It would then need to be enforced to have merit. And historically enforcement of the idea that Judeo-Christian values are superior has resulted in a lot of violence and invasion of countries that don't believe in the god outlined by Judeo-Christian scriptures or that don't worship such a god in what is considered the correct way. People aren't just content believing their way of thinking is superior. They want to force it on others.
It's similar with how cucks aren't content just worshipping women but want other guys to be subservient to women too @Robtical
Fuck those soyfags. They can jump into the grand canyon but don't force me into it too.
wokes are just liberal or left-liberal, not neoliberal (which implies some degree of economic centrism)
Yeah bro! R and K! Or something... I didn't study it too hard because pointless at this point.
Nice for you to be a Gupta! Enjoy your false credit bro! At least they can't take that away from you...
Yes. I should have paid more attention credits to it...
Y
A lot of wokes have neoliberal ideas like how social media can censor whoever they want because it's a private company, that immigration is good because it helps grow the workforce and contribute to the economy and opposition to it is nativist and racist, that focusing on working class issues is class reductionism.
immigration is good
Forget it. You are trying to win, not to understand.It's hard to tell when so many biased people reach the conclusion the same way and with the same methods. Also I don't know who wrote this but from the story, context and role of people in the story it seems informed by a western cultural Christian view of things.
Well if western civilization is concluded to be superior and the author talks about the need to live under such systems to maximize societal trust doesn't it follow that some people will take that as an incentive to try and make others live under the precepts of western civilization and Judeo-Christian morals or at the very least start treating people that don't live according to these beliefs differently and in a worse way than someone who believes the same as they do?
Again that is ceding control to SJWs over the netural term "Abrahamic religions". They are Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) because they share similarities in belief of a messiah and one true god and how he created man and woman to serve him in the story of creation.
That was not my intention but if it comes across that way "instinctual" can be used in its place.
Proof of that?
And if polytheism isn't the correct term to refer to religions like Hinduism and Buddhism which term do you suggest instead?polytheism | Etymology of polytheism by etymonline
"belief in more gods than one," 1610s, from French polythéisme (16c.), formed from Greek… See origin and meaning of polytheism.
It's not a question of respect. They are just classifications meant to distinguish between the different types of religious worship that humans have endulged in.
Mono = one
Poly = many
theism = having to do with belief in existence of god or gods
There's no evidence of this. You could just as easily argue that using the term monotheism is predisposing me to be against the book's argument. But you haven't and have instead focused on how the words I am using that don't refer to Judeo-Christian systems or values show my bias when again, monotheism versus polytheism isn't being used in as a matter of what is saying what is better, but to neutrally distinguish between the different belief systems.
Not necessarily. Anyone that knows what equality truly means will see that from the actions of Feminism, feminism is not equality even though feminists claim they are about equality. Even MRAs and egalitarians that seek equality know this.
You are again focusing on the words and not addressing the argument.
Advocating for how religions like Judaism and Christianity are more orderly and ideal for society than Hinduism and Buddhism has been used as a veiled pretext to justify treating people of those religions as lesser beings and trying to convert them over to the way of Judeo-Christian thinking. Can you not see how some people would find that objectionable?
In a way, denial of lust behavior is a denial of the blackpill.
Perhaps instinct is transformed by culture, my bet is its been weaponized.
I said as much earlier in the conversation. It was ignored. Humanity is much older than a paltry 10,000 +/- years! As is agriculture. Grain agriculture may be said to be the start of civilization. Since it stores well and can be measured like money. Perhaps that is what is meant? Yet civilizations left plenty of garbage laying around that didn't eat bread!
The whole notion of "fairness" and "justice" is false. It's very subjective! Indeed there does need to be some standards.
I suggest, don't hurt people and don't steal their stuff. Just that. All else comes afterwards.
I know a few White folks that think Whites are responsible for all ancient artifacts and architecture! But there's evidence they MIGHT have also been giants! (Big cover-up there...)
There's also a lot of evidence that the pre- Asians did it all!
I really expect better of you as op.
This was a great read! I'm grateful for it. It's changed/ opened my mind about a few things. Christain guilt yoga! What a stunning concept!
In fact, the whole tone of the thead turned into a college brawl of nerds! LOL.
I guess that was bound to happen since its a smart read for smart folks. Thanks everyone!
Last edited:
Nothing to add. Thanks Emba
Who is this guy? I know he's some American criminal but not sure who..
Ted Kaczinski, the Unabomber. I mentioned him as a joke
Haha thanks Emba! Agreed mate, it is pointless in the larger discussion, which has become qute interesting I'd say. And thank you again, I will try and enjoy my remaining "fake Gupta credit" (though it hasn't done shyt to break the hold Chad/Stacy have over society). Ugly means ugly, Goptri or Gupta or whatever!
...Oh and I spent too long in the U.S. to say "bro bro bro" like these purebred Curry cels do here thinking its fashionable. Haha :-O
Ooh got ya.Ted Kaczinski, the Unabomber. I mentioned him as a joke
I thought maybe American actor who has been accused of "sexual assault" by some slut who wanted sex then after the deed told everyone "RAPE" Happens almost every other day in the States from what I can see.
Last edited:
B
Hi just finished up to Chapter 8. I really like the Wittgenstein stuff. Saying that he supported a "trust vs. truth" paradigm goes a little further than what he ever published irl. However, if he had lived longer, it is quite credible he might have gone in that direction. The unpublished material about "certainty" definitely go in that direction. Anyway having him shot by Turing is priceless. It is a fantastic allegory of LW's own struggle with Logical Positivism.
Regarding Buddhism and Hinduism, I agree with @K9Otaku Being Korean, I was also raised as a Buddhist, I can testify that in that religion, the kernel of valuable stuff is completely buried under a mountain of superstition, lucky-charm amulets and factional bickering. By the way, this valuable kernel is interestingly reflected upon in the book. That is why I do not think that it is the run-of-the-mill Christian apologetic stuff we are accustomed to. Like similar to what @Emba said- I think that the idea of Christianity being 'guilt yoga' is truly original and well worth considering. Using guilt as a yoga posture to cleanse your mind makes a lot of sense to me, if you consider it from a Buddhist/yogic perspective.
Regarding Buddhism and Hinduism, I agree with @K9Otaku Being Korean, I was also raised as a Buddhist, I can testify that in that religion, the kernel of valuable stuff is completely buried under a mountain of superstition, lucky-charm amulets and factional bickering. By the way, this valuable kernel is interestingly reflected upon in the book. That is why I do not think that it is the run-of-the-mill Christian apologetic stuff we are accustomed to. Like similar to what @Emba said- I think that the idea of Christianity being 'guilt yoga' is truly original and well worth considering. Using guilt as a yoga posture to cleanse your mind makes a lot of sense to me, if you consider it from a Buddhist/yogic perspective.
Interesting thoughts @BoramHyunKi. Reading this book and the comments has been an experience for sure.
I do not know that much about Wittgenstein, but he is considered the greatest philosophers of the XXth century, right?
It seems to me that the book takes what is best in Budhism and Christianity and shows how they are related on that level. I am really impressed by that. It is not the usual ecumenical mumbo-jumbo, all religions are the same, God is one, bla, bla ... This is far more specific and deep
I also think the shooting was because that turing dude was a gay professor. He probably gave class "credits" for masturbating his male STUDents lol. Hence his freakout.
I still think it was a VERY eye opening booklet! It sure improved my perception of the Christain mind. I regret not being high iq enough to discuss the topic in much depth. But from what i know about history, the book speculates fairly accurately.
It's almost as if they really had access to the minds of the past.
Last edited:
I just finished the PDF. I read it straight non-stop since I discovered it yesterday. Mind blown. Seems like the story is incomplete or what we read was a draft? Regardless, some very powerful ideas in there. I haven't fully worked out the consequences of it all yet, or what the Boffins might conclude about communism.
The author also explicitly uses the term "incel" at one point but not in a spiteful or scornful way as someone from IT would, which makes me think he's written this with a particular audience in mind. Are you sure you didn't write this yourself K9Otaku?
The author also explicitly uses the term "incel" at one point but not in a spiteful or scornful way as someone from IT would, which makes me think he's written this with a particular audience in mind. Are you sure you didn't write this yourself K9Otaku?
I wish.
Yes, the text seems unfinished. It is a work in progress apparently
Yeah. That is the way I felt too
Yes I also agree. Felt the same, mostly. I think it's alright to discuss it in basic terms however we understand it...
Last edited:
My understanding of philosophy is also quite basic, but it did not prevent me from seeing that the book has implications on all sorts of levels. "credit masturbation", "Autority-S vs. -L", "Ishtar worship", "guilt yoga", "credit pollution", ... all these things have a direct impact on everything we experience as Incels.
B
What I can tell you is that the one who wrote this book knows their philosophy. I have an MA in Philosophy from Columbia University (which adds absolutely 0 to your SMV) and it is clear the guy knows what he is talking about.
The whole "trust vs. truth" thing in particular is groundbreaking because it pulls the "trust" thing out of the religious sphere and puts it right back in the middle of the philosophical arena. Until now, Philosophy rooted for knowledge (i.e. "truth") while religion rooted for faith (i.e. "trust") And religion was losing for the last 500 years. But this is a game-changer.
Haha! Clever. And agreed, could be the case. I knew a professor at Colombia who was definitely giving better grades to Chads !
Yes, from everything I have read and studied about him, he was pretty heavy duty in his later years.. The earlier work centered more around "logic". This he would later abandon for something that makes more sense.
Last edited:
This book was first time I heard of Ludwig Wittgenstein..then went back to look up the dude and research who he was. Was worth it but a bit over my head.
B
It can be confusing at times that Wittgenstein but he is ultimately right I find. Must spend time on it.
Sure. I guess if someone is along to help me interpret what his conclusions all mean then I am fine with following it. I am now finished with this digital book K9 showed us and interested to discuss more.
L
Just finished reading . took me 3 whole day. well written and well researched.
I always wanted to know the beginning Now I know.
I always wanted to know the beginning Now I know.
If you liked the book, you might be interested in this:
A Blackpill order of Monkcels - Should we create one ? [Clarifications and improvements]
Clarifications first. This is not about: larping in robes, believing in anything supernatural NoFap The basic idea is this: "Science" and "Reason" have lead us where we are. They are the indirect cause of our misery. Religions were far more based and fought inceldom and foid worship, often...
incels.is
K
Started reading, pretty interesting ngl.
What Chapter are you at?
L
Blackpill order of monkcels is based.If you liked the book, you might be interested in this:
A Blackpill order of Monkcels - Should we create one ? [Clarifications and improvements]
Clarifications first. This is not about: larping in robes, believing in anything supernatural NoFap The basic idea is this: "Science" and "Reason" have lead us where we are. They are the indirect cause of our misery. Religions were far more based and fought inceldom and foid worship, often...
Agreed.
Wtf is this? Website doesn’t openLast week, I was in Dubai with my folks and I met a curry guy who showed me this thing that is sort of half a book, half a website. I read through some of it and it looks pretty based. It can be accessed in website form here or as a stand-alone PDF document.
It is like novel and it explains how at the beginning of history in ancient Mesopotamia, incel-like people invented civilization and then Chad and Stacy (under the guise of Bilgamesh and Ishtar, two Sumerian gods) showed up, hijacked the whole show and turned the world to shit. The theory is that in order to roll-back the influence of Bilgamesh and Ishtar, people had to invent something like an anti-viral mental cure and that it turned out to be Christianity eventually. Credit Masturbation is what people do when they believe in mythical characters like Ishtar and stuff or feminism and modern bullshit. It is like you are catching a mental virus and then it spreads and screws up more ppl.
According to the curry who showed me this, the author is a German guy who currently lives in India somewhere.
Recently there was a thread on here about how Foids consider that you are automatically wrong if you can't get laid:
The author has a pretty blackpilled theory about why this is. He calls that Authority-S (S for sex) vs. Authority-L (L for Language). Authority-S is the Chad-style, alpha-monkey clout that foids love. The guy says that civilization is a battle against that in order to establish Authority-L instead which is what we would normally call "being right" in a non-clown world.Women's main go-to argument: "you cant get laid therefore you're wrong"
fucking whore also the male equivalent is either: i could beat you up irl therefore you're wrong i get laid and you dont so your argument is invalid (ironically its often betabuxers saying this, completely oblivious to their wife fucking chad on the side) this is the intellectual level of...
Sounds high iqLast week, I was in Dubai with my folks and I met a curry guy who showed me this thing that is sort of half a book, half a website. I read through some of it and it looks pretty based. It can be accessed in website form here or as a stand-alone PDF document.
It is like novel and it explains how at the beginning of history in ancient Mesopotamia, incel-like people invented civilization and then Chad and Stacy (under the guise of Bilgamesh and Ishtar, two Sumerian gods) showed up, hijacked the whole show and turned the world to shit. The theory is that in order to roll-back the influence of Bilgamesh and Ishtar, people had to invent something like an anti-viral mental cure and that it turned out to be Christianity eventually. Credit Masturbation is what people do when they believe in mythical characters like Ishtar and stuff or feminism and modern bullshit. It is like you are catching a mental virus and then it spreads and screws up more ppl.
According to the curry who showed me this, the author is a German guy who currently lives in India somewhere.
Recently there was a thread on here about how Foids consider that you are automatically wrong if you can't get laid:
The author has a pretty blackpilled theory about why this is. He calls that Authority-S (S for sex) vs. Authority-L (L for Language). Authority-S is the Chad-style, alpha-monkey clout that foids love. The guy says that civilization is a battle against that in order to establish Authority-L instead which is what we would normally call "being right" in a non-clown world.Women's main go-to argument: "you cant get laid therefore you're wrong"
fucking whore also the male equivalent is either: i could beat you up irl therefore you're wrong i get laid and you dont so your argument is invalid (ironically its often betabuxers saying this, completely oblivious to their wife fucking chad on the side) this is the intellectual level of...
The first link (website) works for me
The second link leads to a PDF. It is quite big so you have to wait for it to download
Did you finish it?
Last edited:
Keep trying man. It's worth it I thinks !
True !
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
