mexicel
Self-banned
-
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2017
- Posts
- 234
Good postExtremely based and true.
And you also need extreme intelligence to succeed if you are an unattractive male, which is a genetically determined trait (like looks) that cannot be changed. And even if you have high intelligence, you also need a high portion of luck again to be able to make it while also displaying extreme discipline - just to get a damaged product. Jfl, even Moneymaxxing/Betabuxxing cannot be done by everyone - even if it was desirable. Furthermore, to compensate for a lack of looks you must be a millionaire/even richer nowadays, even belonging to the middle class doesn't mean anything anymore - and even if you were a millionaire or even richer you would be absolutely stupid to get a woman because she could just divorce rape you and then it's over.
Always remember: The richest woman on the planet is only so rich because of her divorce and women nowadays have far better job/education opportunities than men - they don't need a provider, it's a cope to think that women can fail nowadays, everything works in their favor. The luck of others is not your luck, it's your bad luck - the greatest lie is that everyone can be satisfied/happy in life, when someone suceeds others automatically fail because life is a zero-sum game, winning means someone else has to lose.
Absolute freedom was never a desirable goal, because when there is absolute freedom without any responsibility/regulation only the A-list benefits from it, while their freedom comes at the direct expense of others - this is true for economics and also for social phenomenons.
Total economical freedom without regulation leads to monopolies, the same thing goes for total social freedom which created a bourgeoisie of attractive males and women who live in sexual overindulgence and a precarity of most other males who have (almost) nothing. We see no egalitarianism in our totally free society, but rather "Winner takes it all"-dynamics.