Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    Senior Member Alik Sakharov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Soviet Union
    Posts
    5,033
    Reputation
    14548

    Is it possible ?

    That single mothership was the natural state of raising children .

    And nuclear family was forced upon weaker hunter gatherers to make them slave peasants .
    You cant keep a player down!
    Dont hate him , hate your fuking bullshit game !

  2. #2
    Moderator Unboxxed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,380
    Reputation
    9226
    Type
    enigmatic

    Re: Is it possible ?

    When I imagine how cave men lived, I can't imagine women on their own.
    The two most important days in your life are the day you were born and the day you find out why. - Mark Twain

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.
    - Henry David Thoreau

    There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

    Suitable for bookmarking: www.fakehatecrimes.org and www.breitbart.com/tag/hate-crime-hoax

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    53
    Reputation
    119
    Type
    Monk

    Re: Is it possible ?

    A female is weak against the enviroment as herself alone . Pregnancy on top of that makes her utterly incapable of defending herself against danger . The human offspring is the only one amongs the animals that needs so much time to develop . A woman that chose a deviant man that left her after pregnancy died in the past. That's why I say that woman choose extinction today. Because they aren't making correct options according to evolution . They choose scumbags that leave them after pregnancy . This causes the offsprings to be weaker and weaker each generation. Bad choices always lead to one thing evolutionary....extinction. And women are headed there.

    Pair bonding is necessary for evolution. The man and the woman have to bond to raise the children successful. Women today self destruct by destroying the pair bond mechanism(society helps to that too, telling them to do nasty stuff , hehe). So with a little push with the help of the society,peers and observing the behavior of their mothers(who left their dad to go after scumbags) they do all kinds of stuff. They engange in infidelity, they have countless sex partners , they choose losers over good men. Destroying their pair bond permanently. Without the pair bond , no child can successfully grow up. And the daugher copies the behavior of her mother. Then the cycle begins all over.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gizzard Gulch Or.
    Posts
    1,840
    Reputation
    7173
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Is it possible ?

    When we moved to farming I think old time kings tried to get the unpopular guys wives. That might of changed the gene pool some.

    But cave man days? With no men around a women's chances were likely slim to none. Thing is though, the lesser cave men probably kept many a cave woman alive long enough to reproduce. When the choice was beta cave men or death, I bet your average cave woman was a lot less picky.
    Every day I make the world a little bit worse.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Alik Sakharov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Soviet Union
    Posts
    5,033
    Reputation
    14548

    Re: Is it possible ?

    Quote Originally Posted by frog View Post
    When we moved to farming I think old time kings tried to get the unpopular guys wives. That might of changed the gene pool some.

    But cave man days? With no men around a women's chances were likely slim to none. Thing is though, the lesser cave men probably kept many a cave woman alive long enough to reproduce. When the choice was beta cave men or death, I bet your average cave woman was a lot less picky.
    Maybe there were groups of women helping each other separately from men ?

    ( young women would trade sex for food and come back to share with old women )

    Cause i somehow do not see a caveman hanging around his lol wife
    You cant keep a player down!
    Dont hate him , hate your fuking bullshit game !

  6. #6
    Moderator Unboxxed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,380
    Reputation
    9226
    Type
    enigmatic

    Re: Is it possible ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alik Sakharov View Post
    Maybe there were groups of women helping each other separately from men ?

    ( young women would trade sex for food and come back to share with old women )

    Cause i somehow do not see a caveman hanging around his lol wife
    Ha, I would think so, too. The men stay out all day, the women and children congregate. They probably lived communally. I'm just guessing. Too lazy to look up what the scholars believe.
    The two most important days in your life are the day you were born and the day you find out why. - Mark Twain

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.
    - Henry David Thoreau

    There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

    Suitable for bookmarking: www.fakehatecrimes.org and www.breitbart.com/tag/hate-crime-hoax

  7. #7
    Senior Member #Redpillbible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    204
    Reputation
    814
    Type
    # I AM THE WAY

    Re: Is it possible ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alik Sakharov View Post
    Maybe there were groups of women helping each other separately from men ?

    ( young women would trade sex for food and come back to share with old women )

    Cause i somehow do not see a caveman hanging around his lol wife
    One word the cave men knew, just like modern man, was the word cunt.
    #HE IS THE ONE #LEGENDARY CROSS #MGTOW JESUS CHRIST

    #(DEFENDER OF MGTOW FORUM GO YOUR OWN WAY)

    #LIKE A DOVE FROM HEAVEN. (Luke 3:22)

    #I AM THE WAY AND THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE, NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME. (John14:6)

    #IN MY VISION AT NIGHT I LOOKED, AND THERE BEFORE ME WAS ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN, COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN. HE APPROACHED THE ANCIENT OF DAYS AND WAS LED INTO HIS PRESENCE.(Daniel 7:3)

  8. #8

    Re: Is it possible ?

    A woman would not even be able to survive in the prehistoric world without a man or men to protect and provide for them. She certainly could not provide for a child. You think women went out stalking mastodons and sabre-tooth tigers? Hell no. They wouldn't have the endurance for the days/weeks long hunting trips, covering miles of ground. They couldn't bring their children with them, or leave them alone for that long either. They wouldn't have the physical strength to drive a spear through one. And if they did, they certainly wouldn't be able to bring back the meat from whatever giant primitive animal they killed. They relied on men to do the hard work, just like they do now.

    Women have always been provided for by men. It's the way it has always been, and it's the way it will always be.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Alik Sakharov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Soviet Union
    Posts
    5,033
    Reputation
    14548

    Re: Is it possible ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xanthine View Post
    A woman would not even be able to survive in the prehistoric world without a man or men to protect and provide for them. She certainly could not provide for a child. You think women went out stalking mastodons and sabre-tooth tigers? Hell no. They wouldn't have the endurance for the days/weeks long hunting trips, covering miles of ground. They couldn't bring their children with them, or leave them alone for that long either. They wouldn't have the physical strength to drive a spear through one. And if they did, they certainly wouldn't be able to bring back the meat from whatever giant primitive animal they killed. They relied on men to do the hard work, just like they do now.

    Women have always been provided for by men. It's the way it has always been, and it's the way it will always be.
    I think women were gathering and surviving but the ones that were offered fish and meat for sex had better chances . Only the sexy enough females were offered food and of course with that comes protection .

    With the introduction of meat in their diet women turned more intelligent while men turned dumber and dumber because they would give away all their meat for that ass

    And we have what we have

    PS.

    As im looking up one of my high school thots i come to believe that her female ancestors definitely were very accepting of all that meat
    You cant keep a player down!
    Dont hate him , hate your fuking bullshit game !

  10. #10
    Senior Member Zoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    375
    Reputation
    2995
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Is it possible ?

    It seems many of you project today’s individualism and nuclear family back in time. But humans evolved in small groups, as hunter-gatherers. That is how we lived for the longest time—tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Everybody relied on the group, not on a lone individual. Raising children was a communal thing, like pretty much everything else, from food to shelter.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Alik Sakharov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Soviet Union
    Posts
    5,033
    Reputation
    14548

    Re: Is it possible ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
    It seems many of you project today’s individualism and nuclear family back in time. But humans evolved in small groups, as hunter-gatherers. That is how we lived for the longest time—tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Everybody relied on the group, not on a lone individual. Raising children was a communal thing, like pretty much everything else, from food to shelter.
    Yup .

    So a nuclear family was somehow forced upon people . That is why it fails all of the time .
    You cant keep a player down!
    Dont hate him , hate your fuking bullshit game !

  12. #12
    Senior Member Don Keyknob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Mum's Basement
    Posts
    926
    Reputation
    3792
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: Is it possible ?

    It was probably a lot like the animal kingdom still is. Little tribes gathered together for food gathering and general protection from predators. Big Chad monkey gets to eat first and fuck all the women monkeys. Little monkeys get to do an equal amount of man monkey work - but get none of the rewards.

    Hard for most men to win either way. Is the nuclear family system any better for men than the animal system we probably had as cavemen?

  13. #13
    Senior Member mgtower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    144
    Reputation
    704
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Is it possible ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unboxxed View Post
    When I imagine how cave men lived, I can't imagine women on their own.
    I can, cave women followed their men around doing everything they could to be useful and drained their balls every day! The ones that didn't soon starved to death. Without modern gynocentric government, equality, real equality, would thrive! The only equality now is in the life of a monk as women are put in their rightful place they earned by the deeds of their doings, and that rightful place is ostracized! Ya see, we're still cavemen, we just go about things differently now to get the same results!

  14. #14
    Senior Member #Redpillbible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    204
    Reputation
    814
    Type
    # I AM THE WAY

    Re: Is it possible ?

    I would also like to add, that even in the animal kingdom, relationships don’t last, hardly any animal stays with its “metaphorical unicorn”, and the reason for this is because the male animals are like man too, as in they know they’re female counter parts are cunts. Even the males know they’re cunts.
    #HE IS THE ONE #LEGENDARY CROSS #MGTOW JESUS CHRIST

    #(DEFENDER OF MGTOW FORUM GO YOUR OWN WAY)

    #LIKE A DOVE FROM HEAVEN. (Luke 3:22)

    #I AM THE WAY AND THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE, NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME. (John14:6)

    #IN MY VISION AT NIGHT I LOOKED, AND THERE BEFORE ME WAS ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN, COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN. HE APPROACHED THE ANCIENT OF DAYS AND WAS LED INTO HIS PRESENCE.(Daniel 7:3)

  15. #15
    Senior Member Manfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    241
    Reputation
    2536
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Is it possible ?

    People like to compare humans to apes. But a female ape is a lot closer to a male ape in size and strength.
    A female ape can defend herself and their offspring from the average male, but not from the dominant male.

    For humans this does not apply. The weakest males can dominate most females. This would make the "cavemen" environment really interesting. I would say men did what they very well pleased, and women would simply bow down to them.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Azure Nomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,193
    Reputation
    15019
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Is it possible ?

    Nuclear family is a result of not only agricultural discoveries but also because of the need to know you are passing on your genetic legacy by giving your resources to that genetic legacy.

    In hunter gatherer societies the women of the village raise children and they all pool resources and share resources. So men do not have a vested interest in knowing if they are the father or not of their own children. But they are providing resources for their village.

    It is more of a socialistic, and communist mindset which is why small hunter gather tribes tend to be matriarchal. In comparison patriarchies have evolved to have a top down authority with an individual (eg father) is the head of the house hold and responsible for resources and for caring for their parents. Confucianism is a good example of this.

  17. #17

    Re: Is it possible ?

    This according to evolutionary biology professors/text books

    Single motherhood was never the natural state of raising human children. For the majority of the time that humans have been on this planet, 'nature' was indifferent at best, and pretty hostile at worst to the survival of a double digit percentage of human offspring before they were old enough to reproduce (and this is with 2 adult humans trying to keep the offspring alive). Nature is pretty harsh and the environment will extinguish any species that does not adapt itself for survival under the prevailing conditions of the local environment.

    When primates lived mostly in trees, and found most of their food there, an offspring could be provided for adequately by a single mother. And to this day, apes and monkeys and other primates that remain in the trees have an arrangement where the offspring are raised only be their mothers. In these species, males compete one on one for mating, and the winner (alpha male) ends up mating with every female in the local group. Every offspring is the offspring of the alpha male. No other male in the group will invest any effort or risk in providing for any of those offspring as they are not theirs. But it doesn't matter. The environment provides easy access resources in adequate amounts. It's easy enough for a single mother to provide. Their food literally grows on trees.

    When these primates evolved to what are now humans, they transitioned from trees to the ground, and things changed. They had to change. There is much greater competition on the ground for what food can be found there. There are also predators on the ground, but primates/early humans didn't have scales, claws, or particularly great speed, teeth or strength. And to this day, primates don't spend much time on the ground. The only real advantage those primates/early humans had was larger brains. And the 2 critical results of those larger brains were the ability to communicate and work in teams, and the ability to make and use tools and weapons. While females might have a large enough brain to have had these skills, they would still be at an enormous disadvantage trying to use these skills while pregnant, or carrying a recently born child. And if a child does not survive long enough to reproduce, from an evolutionary standpoint, the effect is the same as if you had no child at all.

    Fortunately, there was about half the population (males) that could use tools and weapons, and who worked so well in teams that they could provide food for both themselves, the local females, and their offspring. They were never pregnant and never at that disadvantage. But providing involved personal risk to themselves, and they could not be motivated to do it for the mates and offspring of some alpha male, regardless of the outcome of any mating competition. These males could and would provide for themselves. But they would not provide for mates that weren't their own mates, and offspring that they were not confident were their own offspring. An alpha male primate might win the competition for mating rights among other male primates, but against this hostile environment, he had little chance of being able to provide for all the females and all the offspring for which he'd successfully competed for mating rights...

    Enter the rewriting of the mating rules. No male human, then or now, is going to make the effort and risk of providing for a female with whom he is not mating, or for an offspring that he is not confident is his. So the onset of monogamy was actually a demand of males from females, and any female that could not convincingly provide it would have starved, or had offspring that starved. Monogamy was a requirement by males from females in exchange for the effort and risk required to provide for them. Females that formed the strongest emotional bonds were most likely to be monogamous, and therefore most likely to be provided for. Historically, those females were virgins, and they were valued for that reason. Mate with a virgin, and bond accordingly, and you can be confident that the offspring are yours. This is not a random coincidence in human behavior.

    Males who were not good performers/providers/protectors were unlikely to successfully reproduce poor performing males because they were unlikely to be able to reproduce at all. And polygamous females were unlikely to find anyone to feed them or their offspring. Nature is unforgiving and the natural environment extinguishes both traits and behaviors that aren't adaptive.

    This all worked well until fairly recently. In just the last 2 or 3 generations, this changed. After eons of struggle, males made the environment so safe that there was essentially little risk left to a lone female. And having big daddy government readily available to provide everything that individual males had provided meant that, for women, the original conditions of primates had been recreated. Welfare checks are as easy to come by as food growing on trees, so a lone female human could provide for her offspring by herself. And as a result, their behavior devolved into the behavior of monkeys.

    As harsh as that sounds to say, the similarities between a monkey who bangs and alpha male (who is not involved in providing for the offspring), and provides for it alone with food provided essentially free by the trees, and the human female who gets knocked up by a chad and then gets the government to provide... are not a coincidence. Intended or not, when our civilization re-created for women he conditions of the primate, the behavior of monkeys was the result. Many women now readily mate with the alpha chad, but when finding themselves to be abandoned single mothers, they run immediately to the government for resources. (Setting aside for the time being that the 'government' is just the confiscated resources of all the other beta males that would not otherwise willingly provide for her and her offspring).

    When women say they that "a woman can do anything a man can do...", they are trying to communicate that they don't need men. And deep down, they are trying to tell themselves that they can both adequately provide for themselves and their offspring, and simultaneously provide that offspring all the maternal attention it would have otherwise received in a two parent home. However, when women say that, they aren't speaking in a complete sentence. The complete sentence is, "A woman can do anything a man can do, including reproducing viable offspring... as long as there is a government that will go out and forcibly extract all the resources from all the most productive men, and provide them to her for free... without any requirements placed on her behavior to reciprocate anything at all to those providers...". Then, a woman can do anything a man can do.

    The exception, even with all those societal adjustments, is that a woman alone cannot reliably raise a boy to be a man. A woman who raises a boy alone, and presents herself to that boy as being his sole provider, apparently has a hard time raising that boy to be a man who then becomes the sole provider to another woman. As one commentator put it, "How does a boy grow up to be a 'good man' if he never sees a 'good man'...?". And this is the actual answer to the question about, "Where have all the good men gone?". The real answer to that is that a single mother has a very difficult time producing a good man. But the courts are still giving single mothers custody about 85% of the time...

    So in answering the original question about wether single motherhood was ever the natural state of humans, the answer is that it was and still is the natural state for monkeys. But it hasn't been the natural state for humans since we became humans. And it only exists at all in humans because our civilizations have created such an unnatural set of circumstances for present day single mothers to exist in. Without very powerful civilizations making enormous and unnatural interventions to keep nature at bay and allow this behavior to keep going, nature would impose extinction on it in about 1-2 generations.

    Ironically, mgtow are just those males who, in a much earlier time, would look at a promiscuous but starving female monkey and her starving offspring from another (unknown) male and say, "Not my problem...".

    And today, if it weren't for the larcenous, gynocentric government confiscating the resources generated by my time, effort and risk and redistributing it to disloyal single mothers, it would not be a problem at all.

    In fact, nature would have already made it extinct.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Alik Sakharov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Soviet Union
    Posts
    5,033
    Reputation
    14548

    Re: Is it possible ?

    Quote Originally Posted by BrainPilot View Post
    This according to evolutionary biology professors/text books

    Single motherhood was never the natural state of raising human children. For the majority of the time that humans have been on this planet, 'nature' was indifferent at best, and pretty hostile at worst to the survival of a double digit percentage of human offspring before they were old enough to reproduce (and this is with 2 adult humans trying to keep the offspring alive). Nature is pretty harsh and the environment will extinguish any species that does not adapt itself for survival under the prevailing conditions of the local environment.

    When primates lived mostly in trees, and found most of their food there, an offspring could be provided for adequately by a single mother. And to this day, apes and monkeys and other primates that remain in the trees have an arrangement where the offspring are raised only be their mothers. In these species, males compete one on one for mating, and the winner (alpha male) ends up mating with every female in the local group. Every offspring is the offspring of the alpha male. No other male in the group will invest any effort or risk in providing for any of those offspring as they are not theirs. But it doesn't matter. The environment provides easy access resources in adequate amounts. It's easy enough for a single mother to provide. Their food literally grows on trees.

    When these primates evolved to what are now humans, they transitioned from trees to the ground, and things changed. They had to change. There is much greater competition on the ground for what food can be found there. There are also predators on the ground, but primates/early humans didn't have scales, claws, or particularly great speed, teeth or strength. And to this day, primates don't spend much time on the ground. The only real advantage those primates/early humans had was larger brains. And the 2 critical results of those larger brains were the ability to communicate and work in teams, and the ability to make and use tools and weapons. While females might have a large enough brain to have had these skills, they would still be at an enormous disadvantage trying to use these skills while pregnant, or carrying a recently born child. And if a child does not survive long enough to reproduce, from an evolutionary standpoint, the effect is the same as if you had no child at all.

    Fortunately, there was about half the population (males) that could use tools and weapons, and who worked so well in teams that they could provide food for both themselves, the local females, and their offspring. They were never pregnant and never at that disadvantage. But providing involved personal risk to themselves, and they could not be motivated to do it for the mates and offspring of some alpha male, regardless of the outcome of any mating competition. These males could and would provide for themselves. But they would not provide for mates that weren't their own mates, and offspring that they were not confident were their own offspring. An alpha male primate might win the competition for mating rights among other male primates, but against this hostile environment, he had little chance of being able to provide for all the females and all the offspring for which he'd successfully competed for mating rights...

    Enter the rewriting of the mating rules. No male human, then or now, is going to make the effort and risk of providing for a female with whom he is not mating, or for an offspring that he is not confident is his. So the onset of monogamy was actually a demand of males from females, and any female that could not convincingly provide it would have starved, or had offspring that starved. Monogamy was a requirement by males from females in exchange for the effort and risk required to provide for them. Females that formed the strongest emotional bonds were most likely to be monogamous, and therefore most likely to be provided for. Historically, those females were virgins, and they were valued for that reason. Mate with a virgin, and bond accordingly, and you can be confident that the offspring are yours. This is not a random coincidence in human behavior.

    Males who were not good performers/providers/protectors were unlikely to successfully reproduce poor performing males because they were unlikely to be able to reproduce at all. And polygamous females were unlikely to find anyone to feed them or their offspring. Nature is unforgiving and the natural environment extinguishes both traits and behaviors that aren't adaptive.

    This all worked well until fairly recently. In just the last 2 or 3 generations, this changed. After eons of struggle, males made the environment so safe that there was essentially little risk left to a lone female. And having big daddy government readily available to provide everything that individual males had provided meant that, for women, the original conditions of primates had been recreated. Welfare checks are as easy to come by as food growing on trees, so a lone female human could provide for her offspring by herself. And as a result, their behavior devolved into the behavior of monkeys.

    As harsh as that sounds to say, the similarities between a monkey who bangs and alpha male (who is not involved in providing for the offspring), and provides for it alone with food provided essentially free by the trees, and the human female who gets knocked up by a chad and then gets the government to provide... are not a coincidence. Intended or not, when our civilization re-created for women he conditions of the primate, the behavior of monkeys was the result. Many women now readily mate with the alpha chad, but when finding themselves to be abandoned single mothers, they run immediately to the government for resources. (Setting aside for the time being that the 'government' is just the confiscated resources of all the other beta males that would not otherwise willingly provide for her and her offspring).

    When women say they that "a woman can do anything a man can do...", they are trying to communicate that they don't need men. And deep down, they are trying to tell themselves that they can both adequately provide for themselves and their offspring, and simultaneously provide that offspring all the maternal attention it would have otherwise received in a two parent home. However, when women say that, they aren't speaking in a complete sentence. The complete sentence is, "A woman can do anything a man can do, including reproducing viable offspring... as long as there is a government that will go out and forcibly extract all the resources from all the most productive men, and provide them to her for free... without any requirements placed on her behavior to reciprocate anything at all to those providers...". Then, a woman can do anything a man can do.

    The exception, even with all those societal adjustments, is that a woman alone cannot reliably raise a boy to be a man. A woman who raises a boy alone, and presents herself to that boy as being his sole provider, apparently has a hard time raising that boy to be a man who then becomes the sole provider to another woman. As one commentator put it, "How does a boy grow up to be a 'good man' if he never sees a 'good man'...?". And this is the actual answer to the question about, "Where have all the good men gone?". The real answer to that is that a single mother has a very difficult time producing a good man. But the courts are still giving single mothers custody about 85% of the time...

    So in answering the original question about wether single motherhood was ever the natural state of humans, the answer is that it was and still is the natural state for monkeys. But it hasn't been the natural state for humans since we became humans. And it only exists at all in humans because our civilizations have created such an unnatural set of circumstances for present day single mothers to exist in. Without very powerful civilizations making enormous and unnatural interventions to keep nature at bay and allow this behavior to keep going, nature would impose extinction on it in about 1-2 generations.

    Ironically, mgtow are just those males who, in a much earlier time, would look at a promiscuous but starving female monkey and her starving offspring from another (unknown) male and say, "Not my problem...".

    And today, if it weren't for the larcenous, gynocentric government confiscating the resources generated by my time, effort and risk and redistributing it to disloyal single mothers, it would not be a problem at all.

    In fact, nature would have already made it extinct.
    Write you professor and say - thank you dude !!!
    You cant keep a player down!
    Dont hate him , hate your fuking bullshit game !

  19. #19
    Senior Member Alik Sakharov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Soviet Union
    Posts
    5,033
    Reputation
    14548

    Re: Is it possible ?

    This turned into a nice thread . One might think that he knows everything about why it is how it is but its not that simple .

    I especially like that every child is an offspring of an alpha male and i enjoy being one . I dont know about you though
    You cant keep a player down!
    Dont hate him , hate your fuking bullshit game !

  20. #20
    Senior Member mgtower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    144
    Reputation
    704
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Is it possible ?

    To add to Brain Pilot's post, we are at a social evolutionary turning point where men are walking away from commitment, marriage, and relationshits in astonishing numbers! Literally going our own way and not giving a damn about society, government, women, family, and the future. We can see this in the black community (first to be conquered by governmental monolithic family). Blacks have the highest mortality rate of any segment of our society as they were first to be robbed of their monogamous culture and sacrificed on the governmental alter of gynocentrism by feminism and the woman's liberation movement. They were the test subjects.

    Where are all the good men? I'll tell you, we're letting doors slam in the face of women and abandoning chivalry and all that encompassed the Victorian age and all generations before it. Now because we're vanishing from tangible material existence to women, their frustration had turned to misandry and open slander and hatred of us, further exacerbating the problem and causing the single largest migration of men to abandon this now molested culture and leaving the plantation permanently to turn to ruins.

    The real question now is where have all the children gone? What happened to multitudes of children that once played in the streets? Why is the population mostly aged and single without offspring? Why are all the men refusing any and all commitment? These unintended consequences can be seen in the millions and millions of MGTOW and Japanese Herbivores doing without women, marriage, family, and children.

    This catastrophe leaves the entire gynocentric western civilization open to cultural takeover by cultures that afford women no consideration in politics, property, and legal proceedings. This gynocentric culture is primed and ripe for picking by other cultures that have a much greater number of offspring and still honor the family unit and men being the head of the family, NOT THE GOVERNMENT! In other words equality by female standards and demands is a social poison and cultural cancer, and we all know cancer consumes absolutely without reprieve or relenting its consumption.

    The West has stage 4 cultural cancer and is certainly dying. Feminism is death personified.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •