Raze

Studies find women are more attracted to men higher in dark triad traits, disagreeableness, and you can find plenty of women themselves on attachment issue videos discussing how they are drawn to toxic men for starters. On average they want a man who earns as much or more than them, which becomes an issue when they are also in the workforce and outcompeting many men. Another is preselection and wanting men who are smooth or great in bed, these are all signals he has been with many women. Even something as simple as confidence, how do you get more confident? By doing something a lot. A guy who has approached 1000 women will approach more confidently than a guy who did it once, but does that mean he would actually be a better prospect? You can also have delusional confidence such as being high in narcissism. It makes sense biologically when we lived in tribal collective societies which is what we evolved for, but if you want loyal and caring partners long term in modern society being drawn to massive players isn’t an asset. Women make it socially taboo to approach them. The wider culture they push is constantly demonizing men for approaching women. I can give plenty of examples if you don’t believe me. You may deny this, but that’s because you have influence from the pickup industry possibly through Leo, but that itself is a underground subculture because women push against most mainstream truly effective dating advice for men. It’s now taboo to approach women in their day to day lives, or at places like work that used to be commonplace, at least that is the messages men who listen to the social conditioning get. You even get mixed messages from women saying they want to get to ‘know a guy as friends first, but then bemoaning how their male friends eventfully pursue them romantically. You yourself brought up looking for signals. This is also told to men, but it’s nonsense. Studies find men are bad at reading signals and usually assume things that aren’t signals are, and when they aren’t it messes with their head and they become paranoid about misreading them. At the same time most women don’t give signals, in fact they will purposefully scowl and look away, but if you do cold approach you’d know how often you can approach anyway and it goes great. This is yet another duality that causes problems. A man who doesn’t want to offend or bother women will fixate on looking for signals, he now has a massive disadvantage to the guy who doesn’t care and approaches all without looking for a signal. Whereas he limits his prospects massively and will spend time overthinking before going for it damaging his approach, the other guy may get rejected more but he will get more results. And again, women themselves will say they don’t signal or give signals that are so small there is no objective way of knowing it’s a signal. At the same time, they demand men chase and aggressively pursue them, even discussing how they purposefully make themselves unapproachable. I saw a New York post Article about how the PUA Todd v was teaching students at some park and women walking there kept getting approached, and the article called them creeps and perverts and celebrated some random musician who tried to embarrass them. Then a couple years later the post had a new article from a woman talking about how men should be approaching women. This discourages men higher in empathy or with less experience, and gives a massive advantage to players. A study was done where they measured men for narcisissm then had them approach women, and found that the higher the narcissism the more likely the approach would succeed. I’ve seen PUA instructors discuss how if they got a sociopathic student they’d usually do much better. It isn’t normal for a guy to brush off hundreds of rejections feeling nothing and walk up to complete strangers being confident. If they do they either have some psychological issue that stops the social conditioning from penetrating, or they’re a PUA with tons of practice, either way that isn’t an indicator of them being a better long term partner, but it is what is encouraged. Then these traits will have other side effects, and you’ll see the women complaining men are jerks and used her, see the situationship discourse, and now she is just embittered towards men as a group. Women when they say their standards usually basically ask for men to be simps. They’ll say they just want kindness and he should pay for dates and buy gifts. There is even a new phenemeon of “if he wanted to he would” which is basically covert contracts about wanting the guy to support them in ways he wouldn’t even realize. The average guy without access to underground advice will believe this and get destroyed, it’s very common for a guy who pursues women this way to be put on a multiple date track before she gets at all sexual with him because she sees him as a long term prospect, meanwhile she sleeps with a player type right away, and often this bonds with him and she ends up dropping the long term prospect. This results in the bitterness you see from “nice guys” or redpillers. But guess what, rather than acknowledge this they just double down. I’ll attach some more examples of the kinds of confusion guys will face.

It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about what’s sustainable and what they themselves say they want. In that regard, yes some traits they go for are wrong. And really the idea that this wouldn’t be the case is illogical if you understand how attraction actually works and where it comes from. The standards are often contradictory with each other and what they themselves go for, which is exactly the point I am making, so no they aren’t. So on one hand you acknowledge the system has issues, but one of the biggest relevant factors is irrelevant? Things like a PUA industry, radical movements like incel, FDS, etc. are all signs of the system failing. Also a high rate of things like infidelity, divorce, single parenthood, singledom, and low rates of marriage and fertility, are signs the market inputs are failing.

The things that our baseline instincts evolved to be attracted to =/= the best traits for long term relationships and societal stability today. Obviously there are many different factors, but women themselves play a massive role in it through the standards they set and the demands they make. Today women are individually empowered to make their own choices & have far more influence over dating culture and etiquette than perhaps ever before. The idea that’s not a driver of the current situation is silly.

Whwn the boomers are no longer a major voting block and Gen Alpha / Gen Z is it’ll be a 80 - 20 issue in 10-15 years the way things are heading. As strong as the lobby is, it can’t withstand that little support. It’s a race between if that happens before israel can finish off Palestine or totally flames out with a civil war or Samson option.

The testing is itself often the problem, it is one reason why they end up with men use use them, have problems etc. The issue isn’t filtering, it’s how they filter. Then there is the issue of how their tests are contradictory to what they say. Again you keep looking at it from your individual perspective. I am talking about the wider society. Just because it doesn’t effect you personally doesn’t mean it isn’t causing issues across the spectrum. Also like I said, that’s just one example based on the signal example you brought up. There are really examples at every level of the courtship process at this point. Right now half of young men have never even asked a woman out in person, the social etiquette and standards for behavior being confusing and contradictory absolutely cause scalable problems. It being easy or not like it’s a game is not the problem, it’s about is it producing sustainable results. It isn’t. The average man is getting beaten down and not gaining the right skills, and the skills he does need to train have little to do with making him a better long term partner. Women are being manipulated and used and becoming bitter, we are headed for record single hood and childlessness and huge amounts of bitter people.

The UN can’t take major action unless the resolutions pass but the US vetoes them.

The amount of women who regularly complain about the men they date disproves this. I already pointed out examples of contradictory standards, you just said none of that makes it “difficult”. The things I listed do, and I can point out many others in the same vein. But if you won’t even accept the example I gave is there is no point in pointing out the rest. That’s true for any individual person who wants to get better, but on a societal scale when their opinions on what the dating etiquette and climate are taken seriously while they also have free roam to date how they want plus all the complications of modern technology it among other behaviors results in them making it as hard as possible for men.

You’re not getting my point. It’s irrational because the way they test can filter for men who have the traits they don’t want leaving them as their only options, and they’re doing it on a societal scale. The testing is just one symptom of a psychological phenomenon that is just one of the ways they are doing it when it shows up in other areas. Its not really an exaggeration, the entire dating market has become extremely frustrating and toxic for many people partly for this reason. You essentially just said I should ignore it all and assume everything is a collaboration and that women test men naturally so there must not be a problem, That is narrow and biased, it’s not even acknowledging the wider problem which I’m saying this is part of the reason for.

It’s irrational in that it can conflict with their own interests I’m not saying every woman is doing it on purpose, I’m saying generally as a collective they are driven to do that Nothing in my attitude is combative or toxic, I’m analyzing the situation, not giving dating advice. Assuming a collaborative frame is self deluding yourself into a perspective more likely to work, doing that for socializing is fine, saying it should also be done to avoid looking at the wider situation objective isn’t.

They had a leader in exile who wanted peace named Marwan Barghouti, but israel keeps him in prison now. Since Oct 7 they’ve been torturing him.

Right, but their desire to test is often subconscious so it expands in ways that are irrational and they just rationalize or defend it, which is how they make courting them more and more difficult. This is a good example of the issue. While this is true, you will also find just as many examples of women - purposefully making themselves unapproachable, even in situations where they like the guy, and bragging about this - dismissing and deriding men for expecting to get signals from them or the idea they have to signal a man in any way - getting upset at and deriding men for assuming their signals are interest when they aren’t, and even seeking to give him social or legal repercussions That is just one example of the layers of contradictions, and I can give you a dozen worse ones. This is how they make approaching and “chasing them” more and more difficult, yet they’ll only justify doing this while also complaining about the results.

We can use AI to give everyone access to training from enlightened masters

That’s not what I said. I said if a Muslim is claiming a Muslim country or group represents Muslims, then that country or group behaves badly and some people blame Muslims as a group for it, that Muslim can’t turn around and complain about that because they themselves were saying that group represents them. Radical groups that claim to represent Muslims while doing bad things are obviously partially responsible for islamaphobia, that doesn’t mean that anyone bashing Muslims as a group for what said group does isn’t also responsible. Saying israel represents Jews is adding to antisemitism because if people believe you and dislike what israel does, they’ll blame Jews as a group. That doesn’t make it correct or fair, but it will happen.

They are, but paradoxically they also make it hard for men to not approach them, and they’ll always refuse to acknowledge any contradiction.

They’ve had multiple leaders or potential leaders like this who were popular, israel killed or arrested them. Even radical leaders like the founder of Hamas offered a ten year ceasefire in exchange for a state.

That’s 22 entire settlement blocks, for comparison the current settlement blocks are 160 which house 700,000 Jews, many armed to the teeth immersed in a radical ideology. They’ve also ramped up attacks against Palestinians.

One thing I noticed was this was at a pro Israel protest, but it said the victims were 60-80 years old. From what I see pro Palestine protests are usually younger people, and pro Israel protests are usually much older. Polls reflect this as well, israel has lost the youth. They basically have 15 years to complete the ethnic cleaning of Palestine before international opinion is 80 20 against them, in which case they won’t be able to function with that level of pushback and boycotts.

Guys wouldn’t have a problem with this if women weren’t constantly doing everything in their power to make this as hard as possible

The settlements are just doing what was original done to create israel, but at a slower pace. Settlers themselves argue this.

Is half of Americas population Native Americans?

No, first Gaza was the home of some Palestinians, than Israel ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and pushed them into Gaza. Egypt briefly controlled it but even they didn’t brutalize Palestinians nearly as much as Israel. Israel constantly engaged in raids into Gaza to attack the people there. Such as in 48 when they poisoned a well used by Arabs to try and kill civilians or in 56 when they briefly occupied it and made civilians line up on a wall and shot them, ultimately killing hundreds. When Israel retook it they began colonizing it and allowing in violent settlers to seize territory and demolish Palestinian homes. Later they realized it wasn’t worth the cost and moved the settlers to the West Bank. When Hamas wrote its charter it was during the first intifada. In the first year of the first intifada Palestinians killed 0 Israelis, Israelis killed 22 Palestinians including multiple children, in the second year Palestinians killed six Israelis and Israelis killed over 600 Palestinians. By the end of it Palestinian had killed 110 Israelis (many soldiers or settlers) whereas Israelis killed 1100 Palestinians mostly civilians. IDF soldiers later testified they were ordered to snap the bones of protestors, including children. Palestinains voted for Hamas after a two state deal failed to materialize. Israel immediately tried to stage a violent coup which failed in Gaza then blockaded Gaza crushing their economy. The civil wars didn’t kill thousands of civilians, and were supported by Israel to try and remove Hamas. Israel’s blockade itself collectively punished the civilians, rockets were in response to this.

- Again, fighting back when people try to steal your homes and keep you occupied is not “starting” it, it is self defense. When the occupiers try to genocide you they aren’t “giving consequences”, they’re engaging in the elimination you accuse Palestinians of. Palestinians have no other option because Israel was actively taking their homes, blockading them, and killing them. - Weakness has nothing to do with who is the victim, the victims are the ones being occupied and brutalized, which was the Palestinians. It doesn’t matter if the Sioux were stronger or weaker, they were the victims because they were the ones being removed from their home - I’m not a Muslim. It isn’t just Muslims siding against Israel. Nearly every single country votes against their occupation at the UN, and a recent global poll found israel was one of the most hated countries in the world. It’s just that some people have a basic moral center and dislike racist violence. I’ve explained this to you I believe four times now, and each time you ignore that part of the comment and repeat what you already said. If you aren’t capable of addressing this don’t bother replying because it just goes nowhere.

They only invaded after israel already began expelling Palestinians, deir yassin was for example a motivator There weren’t attack plans, Egypt believed Israel was planning to attack so it did a blockade. If you think blockades mean you started a war, then Hamas hasn’t started a single war as Israel blockaded Gaza first. False, they attacked to regain territory that they lost previously. So you admit it’s not about security but rather hatred and elimination of Palestinians

The three wars weren’t with the intention of extermination. 1948 was to stop israel from exterminating the Palestinians. Israel committed far more massacres of civilians when they captured territory. 1967 began with a israel first strike 1973 was followed by Egypt making a peace deal and never attacking again. How exactly does that show “hatred” and “extermination”? it’s not about stopping Palestinians from developing for security, it’s about exterminating the Palestinians, the group engaging in extermination based on hatred is israel. Israel at one point funneled Money directly to Hamas. Tell me, how does it make sense to help Hamas develop its arms if the issue is they are afraid of their “hatred”? The stated reason was to make Hamas stronger and the PA weaker, because Hamas was still engaging in armed resistance while the PA ceased doing so. As they were fearful if the PA was stronger international groups would start pressuring them to stop killing and stealing from Palestinians as the PA gave them less of an ability to excuse it as “self defense“. The reason is because they want Palestinians to try to defend themselves against Israel to give Israel the excuse to kill more Palestinians and seize more territory, as bad faith actors and useful idiots can’t comprehend the idea that Palestinians are humans who will naturally fight and resist the people who perpetually destroy their lives. The idea that because the people who constantly kill and oppress hate you is a reason why you jut continue to kill and oppress them is the argument of immoral simpletons. You can find people who said slavery shouldn’t end because the slaves hated white people for what they did to them. You can find people who said apartheid shouldn’t end because the south africans hated the afrikaneers for what they did to them. It’s really just an excuse to consider exploiting people. In Israel’s case it’s particularly ridickois because oppression of the Palestinians has only worsened their security over time as the attacks become larger and more complex the more they are oppressed, and their internal stability and international support is lost more and more.