623
624
625

Red Pill TheoryIn societies where women are not dependent on male labor to survive, women choose their mate based on immediate attractiveness alone, not his providing abilities (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by Endorsed ContributorPopeman79

tdlr:

Where women are not dependent on male labor to survive, women choose their mate based on immediate attractiveness alone, not his providing abilities. This has been the case historically in tropical societies, and now is becoming the case in Europe (and the US).

Body:

Found this on a blog (it’s in French, but here is the link anyway: http://leplouc-emissaire.blogspot.cl/2017/05/la-derive-tropicale_22.html)

Societies have been based on agriculture for almost all their existence (it just changed in the mid 19th Century). Thousands of years of habits have been developed by that.

In tropical societies (Caribbean, Africa, etc) agriculture is easier as soils are fertile all year long and are bland to work on. As a result, women would mostly be in charge of agriculture, gathering food, whereas men would serve a political role (making decisions for the tribe), train as warriors (defending the tribe against other tribes) and serve a reproductive role.

As women don’t need a provider because they have access to food, they would choose their mate based on their immediate attractiveness, not on long-term criteria such as whether the man will be a good provider for the child. As women are less dependent on men, men could have multiple children with different women without too much cost. In African tribes, the closest male to a child would often be a relative to the mother, not the actual father.

In European societies, agriculture is rougher as soils are hard and are infertile at least a quarter of the year during winter. To work the soils, which are riddled with roots, means hard work to plow the grounds, often with the help of a strong animal like a horse or a cow. As a result, men would be in charge of agriculture, and women would be dependent on them to survive. Where tropical women look for a ‘reproductor’ (i.e. Alpha), European women looked for a ‘provider’ (i.e. beta).

In Europe (and I think this can be expanded to the US) a man and woman would therefore make an alliance, with the man monopolizing his hard-earned resources for his one woman, and the woman monopolizing her fertility for one man. Worst-case scenario for a woman would be to have to raise a child on her own, and for a man to be out of a job, or to raise children who weren’t actually his. European societies set a lot of rules (about marriage, adultery, etc.) on this premise.

As women became independent in Europe during the 20th century, men’s strength wasn’t needed anymore. Automation, women labor, and welfare mean that women were no longer dependent on men for their survival. The provider is now mocked as the ‘nerd who can’t get laid’ and spends too much time working. Women now seek a reproducer (alpha) rather than a provider (beta).

Before that, male ideals for women were the knight, the businessman, the aviator who were seen as attractive providers. They have now been replaced by the bad boy, the rapper, the boy-toy with muscles. Like in African tribes, the accent is now put on the immediate attractiveness of the male for reproduction. Europe has become culturally tropical before it even started becoming ethnically tropical through mass immigration.

CONCLUSION:

We’re going towards a society where fatherless children will be the norm.

Lift

If you’re in the top 20% you’ll be able to have plenty of women at the same time


[–][deleted] 42 points43 points  (10 children)

Dont write off BetaBob the provider so fast boys

Todays women consider Luxury SUVs, Beach homes, and shopping trips Surviving and they dont want to work for it

[–]Endorsed ContributorPopeman79[S] 19 points20 points  (5 children)

Luxury SUVs, Beach homes, and shopping trips

This is not BetaBob. This is RichRick. BetaBob has a mortgage, a suburban SUV, is balding and has belly, and does just enough not to get fired. He's also a good, mild-mannered guy. He (or his equivalent) used to be in high demand just a few decades ago. Now even if he can find a wife she'll fuck him out of duty for a couple of years until the dead bedroom.

Not the same thing.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes it is. You're just not familiar with the "high beta" designation that is assigned to guys as rich and famous as Elon Musk.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

plenty of richricks have no spine

[–]Endorsed ContributorPopeman79[S] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Yeah, and some do. We don't disagree, I'm just saying that having money doesn't equate to being beta and/or a provider. It's another line of divide.

The fact that women will always seek to tie down RichRick, no matter how spineless he is or isn't, doesn't change the fact that they are less attracted to Betabob than ever before.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Women in every society reading this post are absolutely dependent on male labor and leadership.

This is not advice to be a pushover beta. its an observation

[–]yomo86 0 points1 point  (0 children)

RichRicks usually made money with their own hands or lucked out after a long dry spell. They know money can essentially purchase people - and women. The risk of being tied down in holy matrimony is imho significantly lessened.

[–]simplisticallysimple 4 points5 points  (3 children)

"Dead bedroom" is a very real thing for beta providers, surely you know?

[–]SiulaGrande 7 points8 points  (1 child)

hes just saying how BB are still in demand by women who want to spend a bunch of money without making any, which actually is in line with your comment, because the women wanted the BB only for their money and not sex (at all), so dead bedroom ensues... aaaand wait a second, isnt that like, part of like, the whole core of TRP? like, this sub that we're on right now? omg! it all makes sense! wow!

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Cant believe I need to explain this but its not a "Pro" Beta Provider comment. Its an observation that this sexual strategy of indenturehood exisits contrary to the OPs thesis it is less important.

Im saying it exisits and be aware of that fact. Im not saying one should employ this thankless imefficinet method

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Beware not inferring that Looks is everything in women's sexual attraction.

  • I have a friend who is an aviator and this tidbit of info (he knows how to bring it up without bragging: he just waits for her to ask, then tell awesome stories of his adventures while downplaying them) allows him to pull many girls for ONS in party environment (aka, girls looking for a sexual adventure rather than a provider).

  • Also, PUAs of the Mystery/Style period are the most obvious examples that you can more than compensate for bad looks by huge amounts of confidence, social mastery and social proof, again to pull party girls looking for sexual encounters.

  • Girls still sexually desire the lead singer of that struggling, shitty band on stage. Guy might be poor as fuck, and ugly as fuck, but hey he's the top man in the room so tingles.

  • Girls stay in terrible relationships with a "jerk" boyfriend who's no good to them but living in his Frame only. Irrespective of his looks, it is his attitude of not giving a fuck about anyone (including her) that makes him sooooo hot.

There are crazy amounts of real-life examples of women getting the real tingles (read, alpha ones, not the beta sex-for-resources ones) for men independently of their looks. What's happening is that many feature of social status and mastery are still massive factors in women's sexual arousal. Such features may be correlated to a man's ability to provide (high status -> wealth -> beta candidate) but they remain firmly alpha arousal characteristics, just like good looks.

[–]1Entropy-7 18 points19 points  (2 children)

The classic definition of hypergamy is "marrying up" and women do that. A rich women will want a man who is even richer, at least for any LTR. But yes, with no scientific evidence I would say that bad boys and cads have it better now to get STRs

[–]insoucianc 13 points14 points  (1 child)

They absolutely do. Tinder is like shooting fish in a PVC pipe.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 105 points106 points  (71 children)

As women don’t need a provider because they have access to food, they would choose their mate based on their immediate attractiveness, not on long-term criteria such as whether the man will be a good provider for the child.

Which would explain why a large number of these people have been wiped out by invaders. Successful mating does not equate to successful genetic lineage.

[–][deleted]  (51 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 77 points78 points  (40 children)

    On top of that all, the west is going through some kind of cultural existential crisis right now. Part of the reason why the radicalized Muslims have so much punch right now is due to their camaraderie revolving around their sick twisted ideologies.

    The west has set Christianity to the side and has no religious faith en masse anymore like it did when the Catholic church ran everything. Most western people have been obsessing over the problems inherent in religion, nationalism etc.. And while there were problems, there were also a lot of good things that came with those ideas.. Like this camaraderie I speak of that gets men to step up and be men.

    I don't know how it is in Europe, but a big sign of this cultural existential crisis in America is the drug epidemic happening. I'm from a working class town and I hear about a kid I went to high school with ODing like every other week at this point. Heroin/fentanyl overdoses are practically as common as car accidents here right now.

    Then you have this whole "NEET" generation which is essentially overgrown man children whose parents coddled and sheltered them to the point where they never developed any social skills. How is a person like this going to carry on the torch of their ancestors when they're having a literal meltdown over a video game and can't even muster the self-discipline to complete higher education, some workforce training, or even simply just getting an entry level job somewhere?

    Western culture is in trouble and what's happening right now, oddly enough was prophesized in the bible (along with other religious texts.. Religious texts are merely records of the wisdom of social consciousness portrayed through the lens of a metaphorical narrative (mythology)).

    Look at the painting "The Garden of Earthly Delights" by Hieronymous Bosch. In the first panel of the triptych, is the joining of adam and eve in the garden of eden. The beginning.

    In the second panel, there is a depiction of the growth of society from human ingenuity. The building of architectural facades, games and leisure activity, bountiful harvests, etc.. The height of a civilized culture similar to the high points of Rome or Athens. But also this looming harmless eroticism that marks a spiritual transition, or "playground of corruption", the turning point for the third panel.

    Hell. The humans have succumbed to the temptations and lusts of evil. They have lost their faith in the religion that moralistically bound them culturally. So without that moral binding, they devolve and degenerate toward evil. War, torture chambers, and demonic figures personifying the darker side of human consciousness. Demons and victims parade around singing together (probably a metaphor for their dependence on one another; evil needs victims and victims need evil to cry out against.. The circle jerk that divides society making it more easily conquerable). Lewdness and lust being humanity's fall from grace.

    Look at that last panel in Bosch's triptych, then go to your nearby working class town with high crime rates and drug problems. Doesn't it look eerily similar to the painting? Burnt out buildings, zombie looking junkies, drug dealers capitalizing on all of it like an evil sorcerer concocting an addictive potion that will make you feel happy no matter what, seedy bars, porno shops, youth going hungry and living in poverty, prostitution.. The list goes on.

    I truly believe this is what "hell" is. It's not a place you go when you die. It's a place that happens when human faith and cultural interconnectedness dies (the fall from grace). It's happening to the western world right now.

    [–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 32 points33 points  (15 children)

    It's not prophecy, its history repeating itself. The rise and fall of the Roman empire follows the pattern of the Greeks, Egyptians, and every other civilization before this one. The one we have now is going on the same path. It's not exactly new.

    Religion has proven to be the greatest enemy of knowledge, reason, and our advancement as a species. From before burning the library of Alexandria, burning people alive for attempting to fly, to trying to force religion into science classes via intelligent design and even sharia law. The greatest advancements came after we shed the laws and limitations inherent in religion.

    Just because the clock is right twice a day doesn't mean it's useful.

    There is a pattern to civilization, they rise and fall, but now with more technology and instant communication, faster travel, less pressure from food resources, it will happen faster and faster. Innovation is the reason for the rise. Rome had roads, and the legions with their tactics. The Greeks had the phalanx. The Dutch were a super power due to trade and commerce. The British due to their navy. The U.S. was built by technology and industrial might. If you sit around and expect the world not to develop past your innovations and use them against you, your civilization crumbles.

    Who looks ahead and plans for the future? Expanding, growing, building, inventing?

    Who looks at right now, doesn't plan for tomorrow or next year, doesn't innovate, invent, build, or grow?

    Both men and women think the second way, mainly men think the first way. The downfall of great civilisations comes from no longer thinking ahead, and only thinking of getting yours from everyone else. The next great advancement is coming, and it probably will not be the USA that does it. We aren't looking ahead, we are only thinking about right now.

    This is so much larger than religion. Religion is myth, ignorance, and an attempt at control of the masses. Nothing more. Look how effective it is when the laws are based on it. How advanced are Muslim countries? How many theocracy are flourishing with high tech and innovating?

    None.

    [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (6 children)

    It's not prophecy, its history repeating itself

    History repeating itself is what the true meaning of prophecy is in my opinion. Most high up religious folk in the past were quite scholarly, despite not being scholarly in a scientific sense. Their religious institutions hoarded knowledge because religion was all about that eternal search for truth and understanding of this world.

    The so called "prophet" probably saw these cycles in civilization and were thus able to say things like "homosexuality is an abomination" because they saw their children become perverted transgender other kin hentai worshippers who sat around fapping all day and got conquered easily by an enemy tribe. Like what happened when the Spartans invaded Athens.

    IDK though, just speculating here.. But it seems logical that that's what went down.

    Also, the catholic church pretty much laid the foundation for scholasticism in the renaissance. I definitely agree that it also hindered knowledge/intelligence.. But probably for political reasons.. Like Galileo calling the Pope an idiot. And possibly for ethics/morality. (e.g.. wrong to scientifically experiment on a human by chopping its head off and trying to attach a dog's head to its body to see what would happen.. Or force a human to bread with a chimp to create a man-panzee).

    [–]maurelius2 8 points9 points  (2 children)

    Sorry, that doesn't hold water in my worldview. As a Russian American, my observations and experiences of what's currently going on here and in broader Western culture is (to steal from Solzhenitsyn) - "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."

    Whether you are a believer or non-believer, the separation of the day to day living from the understanding of the obligations (not burden) of cultural traditions no longer exits in Western society. Tradition (by which religion is a significant component for many ethnic groups) is seen as a vestigial appendage that is to be shed as one enters mainstream American way of life/cultural awareness/fitting in.

    You may claim this sort of transition is replaced by a higher set of ideals rooted in secular fulfillment - not happening there either, I don't see Google as Multivac/find comfort in Musk landing another one of his rockets on a ship. While I am a highly educated individual I have very little in common with career academics - their disconnection from the machinations of the real world seems to grow more extreme year over year. ps - to hell with the Fed/Yellen.

    The happiest times in my life have been around the table at Easter sharing a traditional meal, following (what Americans would believe) nonsensical religious traditions.

    Once again, to quote Solzhenitsyn - "If the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge: We shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era.

    This ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but -- upward."

    [–]joh2141 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    There's science that proves tradition preserves society and community. They explain that traditions/culture/religion are all products of a society/community's self preservation. This explains how xenophobia and downright racism exists in all races. While treating outsiders like enemies may not be a "right" thing to do, it is certainly a way to prolong the peace and preservation of your community. Outsiders can pose a threat/liability.

    But at the same time, some of it simply is the product of half-assed "see and do" approach. Thousands of years of trial and error that can only be revised by line of sight. This means that while some of its values definitely do help preserve society, much of it is also simply wrong/inefficient/counter productive.

    The point is no matter what, you need to find balance.

    Your argument is nice but you can say the same shit about some junkie saying the happiest he's ever been was shooting up heroin in a junkie house. I'm working at hospitals and you see this shit on the daily. Happiness is just the product of hormones being released from your brain.

    You feel happy because you're enjoying a time spent with family. It has nothing to do with Easter itself or the nonsensical religious traditions. It's a sense of familiarity and peace. You're treading the lines of purple pill I feel like which is selective red/blue pilling.

    Not trying to talk trash about your time spent with family though.

    [–]BargainBinBoyfriend 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    The next great advancement... the rise of the machines. But with or without them, western civilization's cultural and genetic self-induced cuckoldry will reduce the human world into a typhus, tb, and radiation infested cesspit.

    [–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    The US does have people looking toward the future in secretegovernment labs like DARPA. Any technology released for the consumer has been in existence for years with the government. In addition, big corporations buy patents to great technologies and ideas and hide them away because it goes against their monetary interests. If a technology is needed to fend off someone, it will be unleashed.

    [–]yomo86 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    The experiment of substituting religion with nationalism failed as soon as nationalism becomes a thing it evolves into imperialism instead of religious convertism. The US had a nice stalemate from the 60s to the 2000s when unpolitical and personal flexible patriotism took over. Then came the progressives the equivalent of the lazy hedonist of ancient times and all started to crumble.

    [–]2012Aceman 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Religion is how knowledge was passed on before writing, the stories from each can be used to improve yourself and serve as a warning should you go to far off the suggested path. But in my opinion most religions just serve as a guide for the type of system they wanted to run. Loosely:

    Buddhism - How to run your self

    Paganism - How to run people

    Judaism - How to run an organization

    Christianity - How to run a society

    Islam - How to run a government

    [–]PowerVitamin 23 points24 points  (5 children)

    We need an archetype to strive for. A hero. But the heroes have all been taken from us. Without Gods, the hero has to become our God. But, when the hero in popular culture (hollywood) has been a black man saving a white woman, while the dumb white man stands aside. I wonder where our creative spirit and heroism went?

    I wonder why the fetishes of our women have substantially changed to favour the foreigner? Sexual energy plays itself out in archetypes. Heroism plays itself out in archetypes. We have inherited an entire decade of cuckage at the highest level of entertainment and godliness. Hollywood and MTV.


    Don't even get me started on the cucked level of the political class in governments. There are no heroes for this generation anymore. There are less and less male teachers every year. 96% of children will have 0 male teachers in primary education. There will come a day when a student has NEVER had a male instructor EVER for social studies, history, or religion. The culture has been LOST.

    [–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

    I wonder why the fetishes of our women have substantially changed to favour the foreigner?

    Honestly this has always existed, and its taboo isn't anything that's strictly white/euro. Lots of black people hate seeing black women date white men and vice versa. Lots of Asians are the same way.

    Women have always chased their tingles and always fetishized "bad boy traits" it's just that we were a lot better at dealing with it culturally (same thing for homosexuality/pervertedness) and "suppressing" it.

    It's weird how liberals and far left individuals think that it's just okay to act on any human instinct of perversion/lust these days as if nothing bad can come of it.. Like unwanted pregnancy, disease, emotional confusion/mental illness/depression. It's strange how so many White europeans of judeo-christian ancestry totally disregard 2000+ years of recorded wisdom recorded by the most intelligent men of those times and from a political body that essentially laid the foundation for MASSIVE progress in civilization, science, and overall intelligence is tossed out the window because the local Catholic priest Father James got caught diddling a choir boy.

    Like I'm not a strict christian by any means.. And I see it's not perfect, how it can affect people to be just as twisted as radicalized terrorists.. But I also don't deny it as the foundation of western wisdom either and that there's probably LOTS of reasons why they say stuff like premarital sex, stealing, being lazy, eating to much etc.. is wrong.

    [–]1OneRedYear 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    Black men? Really. Fuck off. Go to the movies right now. Look at the summer block busters for last 10 years tell me who was the hero of the highest grossing films. Not black men you shit for brains.

    [–]socalsolja 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Lol I know I was cracking up when I read that, like wtffff?! Shouldn't it be poc saying that about white heroes only in cinema? But anyway, I digress.

    [–]El_Duquee 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    That is the point with the whole red pill philosophy, it is focused only on genetics but it forgets about the ideas, which are also important. They are selling a type of man on the series and TV that it is not the 1950s man. That is the thing and the ideas influence too, as well as instinct and genetics.

    [–]OneLifeSucks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    White men past their physical prime showcase athletic, black studs on TV in their homes and drag their families to games and let their kids listen to hip-hop and then wonder why women find black men sexually attractive. If you're a 40+ slightly out of shape man who wears the jersey of another man (probably black) on gameday, you can't get mad when your wife wants to fuck Tyrone after 10 years of dead bedroom.
     
    The other day I went to my sister's 5th grade graduation. After watching a bunch of white kids get academic awards they presented the athletic awards. They presented some black kid an award and basically sucked his dick in front of over a hundred people because he won two first place ribbons in track, talking about how excited they were to see how he does in middle school/high school sports. This dude was probably 10 or 11. They didn't even give the straight A kids any personal acknowledgement. The point is the society we live in (which is mostly white) LOVES black men because of the entertainment value they provide and this in turn gives your average black dude higher SMV based on nothing but assumptions. I'm mixed so I have a pretty good perspective on this. Honestly though if you're a stud white guy you're guaranteed to fuck high value women. Some white dudes in my fraternity fuck girls who are hotter and of much better quality than alot of the ones the football/basketball players are smashin. An alpha will always be an alpha and society can't change that.

    [–]Adeus_Ayrton 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    This is one of the best comments I've ever come across on reddit, if not the best.

    [–]Okynrom 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    Then you have this whole "NEET" generation which is essentially overgrown man children whose parents coddled and sheltered them to the point where they never developed any social skills. How is a person like this going to carry on the torch of their ancestors when they're having a literal meltdown over a video game and can't even muster the self-discipline to complete higher education, some workforce training, or even simply just getting an entry level job somewhere?

    Great comment. But even without any notion "faith" or "religion" :

    When I was a Beta, being productive working my ass off without ever scoring pussy, I ended up realized I was losing. That I was, in fact, losing for being productive to the society.

    Then I discovered TRP, and ended up being 100% selfish. I could become selfish by turning at-home-nerd-MGTOW, or improving for myself. But any way, the fact is, I was now winning (or at least losing less) by being less productive to the society.

    Think about this. How fucked up this is, and what this means to the West as a construction who used to favor its hardworking and talented members. Western young men are becoming lazy or psychotic dark triad; because they are realizing that being what the society wants them to be, makes them lose.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    I don't 100% disagree with you. I definitely get how one can easily lose motivation when they work a shit tier low paying job. But even then, it's better than sitting at home not making any money. But that's just my opinion. I suppose if you really wanted to, you could sign up for EBT, somehow scam the state and collect disability, etc.. But personally I'd feel like absolute garbage doing that, and there's the risk of someone snitching and getting fucked over in court.

    People are becoming psychotic dark triads because money has become idolatrous. Americans worship the dollar and let its economics govern their decision making, rather than ethics and morality.

    From my own perspective/opinion.. This is just another sign of the fall from grace in the western world. The rich no longer value concepts like charity. "Nobility" has no meaning anymore other than simply having a lot of money, where nobles used to be there for the poor and peasantry and provide for them. People in western culture no longer value valiant deeds but only ask themselves "how much of that can I get for as little as possible in exchange?". It's sickening.

    [–]Okynrom 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    You're saying this as if people, overnight, decided to become greedy and selfish. I agree with you for the most part, but am trying to bring what I think is the last missing piece to your reasoning.

    Look : a few years ago, I would have agreed with you.

    Now I'm just asking : what does your "nobility" buy me ? I tried to be "noble", but was fucked over and over by people who weren't !

    You may think that I'm playing devil's advocate, but I'm not. I really think, right now, that caring and noble people are ingenuous losers. And I think so because experience, drove by the current state of things, prove me right : because society did not reward me for being good, caring, and hardworking.

    And the kill is : if religion and public morality lose grip, you cannot save things until you enforce it by law. In order words, "reward the noble, reward the beta". Chase corruption, make living as a welfare queen hard, lower fiscal pressure on men. Without this last part, which is what both liberals and big-business-conservative refuse to consider, all your reasoning is right but without concrete implementation.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    what does your "nobility" buy me ? I tried to be "noble", but was fucked over and over by people who weren't !

    Being "noble" is a similar dynamic to a father raising his kids..

    A dad has their kids acting like brats, treating him like an ATM, occasional temper tantrum, challenging his authority etc.. But the dad, being the patriarch understands he has a responsibility to raise these kids and provide for them so they have opportunity to grow and flourish in this world. The dad is not "equal" to the kids so he expects nothing from them to aid his own personal existence because that's his own responsibility.

    The dad is rewarded by his kids carrying on his lineage (hopefully). They might also help take care of him in old age.

    IDK. I get that some good people get fucked over and taken advantage of.. But that's going to happen whether you're a good guy or a jerk off. Sometimes if someone's a jerk off someone might go out of their way to fuck with them simply out of spite/pettiness.

    You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. IMO.. it's better to set your ego aside and just be the better man and do what feels right to you. That doesn't mean you have to bend over backward and be a doormat for people.. But you don't want to be some tit for tat super pragmatic guy who would try to sue his tenant for paying rent a week late just to "show him who's boss" (even if the tenant's a fucking dickhead).

    [–]An_All-Beef_Engineer 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    The west has set Christianity to the side and has no religious faith en masse anymore

    Nature abhors a vacuum. What did you think would happen?

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet 9 points10 points  (5 children)

        They're too busy congratulating themselves for their open-mindedness. Meanwhile, the sensible ones who see the coming trend will flee.

        One country will have to fall, to be an example to the rest, before there is any hope of reversing the trend.

        [–][deleted]  (3 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet 8 points9 points  (0 children)

          LOL doubleplus good link.

          Get your affairs in order and laugh as the world collapses around you.

          Get some money and some women as they freefall past you.

          You alone can save yourself.

          [–]goldnhorde 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          I can not wait to watch that "celebration" when it happens.

          and that is how it will be spun ... "Our country has FINALLY completed the transition we have been working towards for so long. Celebrate with us in our unity of tolerance, understanding, and peace".

          [–]30fretibanezguy 8 points9 points  (5 children)

          I dunno. I feel like most women would much rather have their financial and working burdens completely alleviated by someone who can provide just that for them, ie beta bux , allowing them to sit on their arse as they please.

          [–]Endorsed ContributorRunawayGrain 16 points17 points  (0 children)

          Yeah, but they can always rope in some guy to provide for them, and then fuck Chad on the side. It's like a job for a man. You might stick with it because you need the bills paid, but that doesn't necessarily mean you like it.

          [–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 6 points7 points  (2 children)

          Which is why there weren't very many female explorers and conquerors. I know, it's hard to remember, but there was a time men ran the show.

          [–]wiseprogressivethink 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          men could again, in an instant, if they really wanted to...

          [–]n_dois 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Or was it about hard lands increase technology research and exploring new lands?

          [–]pilljourney 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          Um. Is that why? Historically? Couldn't have to do with anything else? That's just seems a bit strange, the implication being that these invaders are their genetic superior, which we know is not true, scientifically. I agree with so much of red pill rhetoric but this thread has a few troubling posts for me, yours far from being the only one.

          [–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 4 points5 points  (1 child)

          genetic superior, which we know is not true, scientifically.

          Well, we don't know that scientifically. Discussing this topic and science is like gargling polonium.

          I like to think of it a different way; one that doesn't require us to die of radiation poisoning. The invaders had a couple traits that made them more successful in the endeavors of invading--aggression and ambition. A lot of the people that wiped out had neither; they were pretty ok with their living situation. Sure, they built empires and entire civilizations, but they could not succeed against aggression and ambition.

          Just look at the Vikings. Freezing your nuts off every winter promoted a need to raid other lands and warm your balls on their women. Don't even get me started with the Mongols and horses.

          Anyway, this should be a lesson to everyone here. Aggression and ambition are winning traits. Have themb. Just look at the long stream of Indian posters that come to complain about their height and their lack of touching white pussy. Every. Single. Time. I tell them the problem is they just aren't showing any aggression (and no, that isn't slapping that ho in the mail room and demanding a blowjob, so be careful here).

          [–]zephyrprime 79 points80 points  (45 children)

          True dat. This is also a big reason why the reproductive rate has fallen below replacement level. Many women are unable to find sexy enough mates for themselves and they use contraceptives to prevent casual fertilization.

          [–]kasper138 47 points48 points  (0 children)

          Uh some of us don't wanna have kids with them either.

          [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 29 points30 points  (0 children)

          CONCLUSION: We’re going towards a society where fatherless children will be the norm

          True... and it's worse than this. Society is already enforcing the removal of fathers from their children. Single mothers are becoming the norm. As men we have to be the most physically attractive... and then as fathers we are reduced to beta bucks by the state.

          In a world where the woman has state-enforced child support from the man, what motivation does she have to behave well or even allow him to stick around?

          [–]DontTreadOnSnek 24 points25 points  (1 child)

          Well of course - Maslow's hierarchy of needs

          Women will first cover their basic needs for survival - food, water, shelter

          Then they cover their "higher" needs for emotion and advancement of the species - tingles, getting railed, reproduction

          [–]Denver_Luv3 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          This is the sort of thing I've been pointing out in posts like “Supply, Demand, and the Rise of the Man-Child:” Lessons:

          Be a fun-loving bad boy with lots of lovers and a good solid squat and good dancing skills over the stolid guy sitting in a cubicle somewhere.

          At least if you want to get laid a lot with hot women.

          [–]__reboot 10 points11 points  (3 children)

          So you are telling me that I must go tropical.

          [–][deleted]  (2 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]squidracer 8 points9 points  (0 children)

            This is why marriage is so dangerous now.

            Sure, she may be broke now, but first chance she gets her own money and she's out the door

            [–]Jokengonzo 16 points17 points  (0 children)

            Yes women now have more free rein than ever to exercise their hypocritical stance on sex bashing males for wanting sex with beautiful women than turning around and letting Chad enter them after telling some simp he has to earn it. Thing is this plays to our advantage many of these empowered women will feel the strain of biology when they realize all that fucking and career chasing mean so shit all cause they don't have a family

            [–]Throwawaysteve123456 8 points9 points  (4 children)

            I just have to add my own info that somewhat contradicts this. Studies show that high status women (doctors lawyers, etc.) tend to place a GREATER emphasis on high status/high resource males than lower status women do. This is why we see so many successful good looking women being single. All women love status, but high status women love it more.

            Note: this was done in western cultures.

            [–]Endorsed ContributorPopeman79[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

            It's true. Women need to be attracted by guys above their SMV. But it's not about providing, it's about status. If a wealthy woman has to introduce the guy to high social life and pay for his expenses he won't be a good partner not because she'll need the money, but because the guy feels low-status to her.

            Also, provider type doesn't mean rich. It refers to the betas, i.e. the majority of the male population: compliant, working people who will do enough not to get fired and will bring groceries every day to the house. Those guys were highly sought after back in the days

            [–]Blind_Accountant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Where is the hard evidence for 'Those guys were highly sought after back in the days' but not today? The argument is solid. But just because it's valid and logical doesn't mean that the factors producing a shift away from the betas are these women who work and don't need men for 'stuff'. "Betas" today probably differ from betas back then and this produces differences we take to be a result of women working. To say that women choose the alpha because they don't need a provider is too simple and and misses factors which I think might include the tiniest mechanisms such as today's obvious spread of 'gold digger' videos. Sure, the videos seem unrelated in respect to having a role in the shift away from betas, but I've definitely heard people shame others for going out with a rich guy - be it alpha or beta.

            [–]Blind_Accountant 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            Further, if provider doesn't mean rich then the alpha and the beta are equal to each other in respect to the amount they can provide. Thus, it is obvious that the more attractive dude will be chosen.

            [–]Endorsed ContributorPopeman79[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Provider/beta is the guy who will dedicate his earning abilities to satisfy a wife and family. Obviously, between two guys looking the same, the woman will choose the most attractive, and between two attractive dudes, she will choose the ones that earns most.

            It's not about that. It's about the fact that before, a girl would go out in life and think (and be told by her mom) "I'm gonna find myself a nice, hard-working man, with whom I'll build a family". Now she'll go out looking for the hot, charismatic dude who's got bitches hanging from his neck. Incidently this guy will not stick around and will not spend money on her.

            [–]OneLifeSucks 26 points27 points  (5 children)

            I mean I think most of us pick women based on their immediate attractiveness as well. Nobody is really out here trying to get married anyways so who cares what they bring to the table. If your most attractive feature to women is your ability to provide, you're fighting a losing battle.

            [–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat 23 points24 points  (4 children)

            Women's SMV is purely her looks and youth. Men's SMV is more complex, and depends on whether you target the AF or BB side of women's sexual strategy.

            [–]SiulaGrande 3 points4 points  (2 children)

            i would argue that if youre screening for an LTR, looks and youth (basically the same thing) are obviously one of the most important criteria, but other things like how she treats you and how she brings value to your life are just as important. and women looking for boy toys judge us just on looks and youth as well, as long as we're simplifying things. but i understand your point and i agree that SMV is very different for each gender.

            [–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            Talking about sexual arousal.

            Men are sexually aroused by features of beauty and youth in women. Our "screening" for those other criteria you cite are trifles in comparison to those criteria that influence us subconsciously and are manifest by the raging boner we get when we see a woman that fits those criteria.

            Women are sexually aroused by features of beauty in men as well as a flurry of other "masculine" features including all those that demonstrate physical, mental and social strength. You do not get a boner when you see an ugly girl leading a famous band on stage. Women do get aroused when they see an ugly man leading a famous band on stage.

            Your idea that other criteria are "important", "when screening for a LTR", are just as "important" as when women say they want someone who is "sensitive" and "listening to her". These are rational wants that do not stand a second against emotional desires.

            [–]SiulaGrande 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            i think i understand, you interpret SMV to literally be someone's sexual attractiveness, not mate worthiness/mother material, etc. I was interpreting SMV to include criteria for other objectives besides just sex, but since it's sexual market value after all, i can understand the point you make. i already agreed with you beforehand, being wife material does not give me a boner (duh), but now that I'm keeping to a stricter interpretation of SMV i agree with your previous comments as well.

            this is the gayest shit ive written all week. internet debates about trivial details make me feel like those other reddit faglords who actually tie their emotions and self-worth to the result of conversations like these. but anyways i agree with you bra

            [–]OneLifeSucks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            You're completely right but fuck the Bitch Boy strategy. It'll get you laid but so will being a real man and with better women. No one on here should ever consider that a real valid approach to women. You can be rich, fuck hot girls and not be BB. We honestly shouldn't even mention it here. If someone's like "hey what about those chubby guys with good jobs and hot wives" I'd ask if they are truly happy, which should be the priority. Not that this is my lifestyle personally, but I'd rather smoke weed, play video games and fuck hot girls with a simple job and lifestyle I enjoy, then come up with this entire image of "security" with a whack ass mortgage and an suv so hopefully some used up hottie will pump out a couple kids for me and then hopefully not divorce rape/cheat on me later.

            [–]Snazzy_Serval 20 points21 points  (21 children)

            Seems accurate.

            That's why the cute blonde girl in the office would chose the black guy with big muscles who is in a dead end job and close to getting fired over me, the short guy making more money and on a great career path.

            Same company: Completely different positions

            [–]virueld 11 points12 points  (8 children)

            time to hit the gym bro.

            but short guys really have it hard, whatever race they may be.

            people are shallow, what can we do?

            [–]TheyCallMeVinny 5 points6 points  (7 children)

            Short people can't sit around all day crying about it, but damn it's so difficult for me.

            Great personality, just no presence because of my height. It's ducking terrible.

            [–]Hiimusog 10 points11 points  (3 children)

            I'm short too, 5'7, so I know the feeling. But we have some advantages too, particularly when it comes to the gym. I hit the gym hard for 2 years, gained 12kgs and now have a much much better body then anyone else i know personally at my age (19).

            Shorter people need way less muscle mass to look good, easy aff to get aesthetic.

            [–]Shakydrummer 4 points5 points  (2 children)

            5'7 as well and I agree. I hit my 1st plateau of weight loss goal and have been going hard in the gym for about 6 months and the difference is nuts even now. Losing 10 pounds for us is like 25 pounds for someone who is over 6 feet.

            [–]omega_dawg93 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            LOL. 5-7" tall is probably average or slightly above average height for men here in south Louisiana.

            but that doesn't stop anyone i know from approaching women CONFIDENTLY and getting pussy delivered by the pound.

            being tall(er) might be more attractive upfront to women but lacking confidence or not having it because YOU feel you're short is a self-inflicted death blow.

            tell the bitch you're taller when you stand on your wallet... and that you get taller when you're horizontal. and ask for some pussy like a man.

            [–]wiseprogressivethink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            is that really a thing? short guys in Louisiana? never heard of that before.

            [–]wiseprogressivethink 2 points3 points  (1 child)

            define "short."

            if you're 5'2", then my advice is work out like a maniac, make a bunch of money, and find a 5'1" girl.

            but if you're 5'7" or something, then height isn't your "biggest" problem. sure, it's not exactly an advantage, but it's not crippling.

            one of my college roomies was probably about 5'8", but he was fit, attractive, smart, extremely social, had a solid alpha vibe, and had zero problems bedding hotties.

            you don't need to be a 6'3" chad in order to attract women. I mean, it helps...but it's not necessary.

            [–]OneLifeSucks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            It's true. One of my good friends in college is shorter than me and probably fucks more honestly. The solid "alpha vibe" will get quality girls in your bed way more than being tall. I say quality because obviously there are plenty of sluts with no substance who will fuck a dude from the club based purely on physical features. I think if you're a true RP man, you don't even consider those girls as sex partners unless they're like 9+ or you're in her location for a very limited time. I swear to God I could post pictures on here of dudes who look like scrubs but have 8.5+ girlfriends because their personality. To me, seeing that is what makes you swallow the pill.

            [–]virueld 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            good news is, when you do find someone, you know she's not a vapid, shallow whore.

            maybe give your son HGH too to make sure he won't suffer the same fate.

            [–]CallMeHaseo 1 point2 points  (10 children)

            This guy 🤣did this really happen?

            [–]Snazzy_Serval 20 points21 points  (9 children)

            Yup.

            And that guy went on to tell somebody in the office everything that girl did sexually to somebody else who then began to tell every one in the office.

            The blonde girl was completely humiliated, said she never wanted to talk to that guy again. Two weeks later and it's like nothing ever happened. Bitches be stupid.

            [–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat 26 points27 points  (8 children)

            The other conclusion you should get from it is:

            If you wanna get laid, stop thinking your money and career are relevant, and get big muscles already. And become black

            [–]Snazzy_Serval 13 points14 points  (0 children)

            Working on the muscles.

            Could try black face. Will update later.

            [–]OneLifeSucks 1 point2 points  (3 children)

            I hate to say it but I'm mixed and look black and the one thing I've learned is the type of girls who like black guys are not worth your time. She can like guys who are black, but if she "likes black guys" that's a red flag straight up.

            [–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat 0 points1 point  (2 children)

            Mind developing why? The way I see it is that women liking black men is the natural expression of their desire for an extreme masculinity that they can't find in white men of their generation. So I don't find this unnatural. If anything, the knowledge of women's natural attraction triggers thanks to TRP makes me wondering why not all girls don't prefer black guys for the AF side of their strategy.

            [–]OneLifeSucks 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            Because a girl looking for an extreme "alpha" as a partner has a skewed idea of what a man is. She probably wasn't exposed to a strong, confident man (daddy issues) growing up and has let her tingles control her dating preferences to the point she doesn't even fuck with her own race. Either that or she's the rebellious type (also bad and probably from daddy issues). These women are more irrational and the type to pregnancy trap you (happened with my dad and a different girl, always flush condoms) or get you in some other drama or even carry diseases (one gave my boy chlamydia) not because they're slutty but because the dudes they normally fuck are also fuckin some trashy girls. They were cool to smash in high school but if you're a grown man on your RP game, you won't mess with em. Most girls might want a black guy who is also a stud with status (football/basketball player) for a one night fantasy fuck but they don't "like black guys".

            [–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Cheers for developing. That would be a dual strategy skewed massively towards AF... Makes sense.

            [–]Cuisinart_Killa 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            We’re going towards a society where fatherless children will be the norm.

            You mean children with legally mandated / enforced financing, paid by men under threat of imprisonment or worse.

            [–]g8TUNESbra 4 points5 points  (3 children)

            Dude your agriculture lesson is wrong. Come on! Tropical soil is less fertile that soils in the temperate zones. The great bread bowls of the world are in eastern Europe and the Midwest in America.

            [–]RuisuRauru 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            But they were in the middle east in ancient times. You can throw a mango seed on the ground in the tropics and you will eventually get a mango tree. That's how easy it is to grow food, but you can't grow enough food in an organized way and industrial scale.

            [–]wiseprogressivethink 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            Equatorial regions produce crops 12 months out of the year.

            The American Midwest and Europe don't, because Winter.

            [–]g8TUNESbra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            soil quality. wealth use to come from the land. Think of what everything is made out of (wheat, corn, soy beans) it all comes from Temperate zones.

            [–]traveldeedee 5 points6 points  (0 children)

            A casual stroll on yikyak reveals the mass promiscuity among modern day women. They talk about using birth control pill in such a fluent manner as if it's a mastery to be proud of. A provider is not needed anymore. A sex toy, a manipulatable sex toy is their primal choice.

            [–]TheGreatAssFairy 4 points5 points  (2 children)

            "We’re going towards a society where fatherless children will be the norm."

            That is not true. You do not know that.

            [–]wiseprogressivethink 2 points3 points  (1 child)

            It's only where all the trend-lines indicate we are headed.

            [–]TheGreatAssFairy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            The future is hypothetical. It doesn't exist yet. Trending or not, you can't be sure of the outcome of something that doesn't exist yet.

            Ex: I thought I was gonna fuck today. I knew I was. Mid blowjob the girl that came over had a panic attack and we stopped.

            [–]NeoreactionSafe 36 points37 points  (89 children)

             

            Africa has a long history of abundance followed by famine.

            One decade there might be abundance and the next drought.

            When it gets bad enough you get massive die offs where warfare as well as starvation dominates.

            This seems to explain the African mindset of exploiting the abundance (to an extreme) followed by a quick path towards violence when things turn to crap... which is inevitable. Long term planning was never valued because the environment did not require much thought.

             

            The European had a cold climate and scarce resources which required careful efforts to survive. So a more ordered system came about and IQ increased as a result. Average European IQ is by definition 100. In parts of Africa IQ is closer to 50.

             

            Edit:

            http://mbutipygmies.com/projects/mbuti-pygmy-iq/

            My mistake... pygmy IQ is 54 not 50.

             

            [–]king_james_bible 23 points24 points  (14 children)

            I dispute that anywhere has an average IQ of "closer to 50". I would imagine the largest average IQ difference between nations to be no more than 15 points, but I don't have any data to suggest that any part of the african continent is, on average, mentally retarded. Your claim resembles 1800s-style racism.

            Please provide evidence next time you want to make such a bold claim.

            [–]zephyrprime 14 points15 points  (0 children)

            Saying it's closer to 50 is an exaggeration but there is some truth to it. https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country Technical some of the nations are closer to 50 than 100 but they are still not in the 50's.

            [–]NeoreactionSafe 12 points13 points  (7 children)

            I'd have to find the reference.

            It was a specific pygmy tribe where testing showed an average of around 50 IQ.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples

            Overall average in Africa is as you say about 15 less or around 85.

            85 IQ is high enough for basic functional living, but not enough for high end thought.

             

            Chad Thundercock has an 85 IQ and fucks plenty of chicks.

             

            [–]ThePwnter 6 points7 points  (1 child)

            You would see this all day if you ever visit the ghetto.

            [–]KIaptrap 7 points8 points  (0 children)

            Middle East is pretty close to 70 homie.

            [–]wiseprogressivethink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            50 is wrong, but 70 is closer to the truth.

            [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (4 children)

            I would say the IQ disparity is mostly due to environmental factors. If you grow up in an environment where you never need to learn something that needs a certain level of intellect and comprehension of the abstract-like calculus.. You probably would not bother to learn it no matter what your intelligence capabilities are.

            But, if you are in an environment that for some reason, requires the usage of calculus. There's a motivating factor to cultivate your brain capabilities to reach the level where you understand calculus. Like in America, engineers and scientists are respected, and make a good living. So this motivates a lot of young Americans to learn calculus and cultivate their brains. But in a tribe in Papua New Guinea, there's no "jobs" and you don't need calculus to be a good hunter or build a well constructed shelter or boat (I mean it could come in handy but it's not needed)... So they don't.

            Now take a family from Papua New Guinea, bring them to America, and give them a generation or two to get used to the culture and how things work and a 2nd generation Papua New Guinean descended from tribes folk who grew up in an English speaking home can probably do calculus just as well as the average American kid given their motivation to learn the material is equal.

            As a closer-to-home example. You could even zone in on class stratification in America. A kid from a working class town grows up around working/middle class people. The idea dream in working-class suburbia is to simply make enough money to have a house and raise a family, send kids to college etc.. You can do this (although it's getting harder by the year it seems) by dedicating your life to a labor trade and climbing the ladder or white collar profession via a 4 year degree. In the suburbs, making $70k a year for an individual is a more-than-necessary living standard and probably considered "well off" in comparison to their neighbors making 40/30k a year.

            But in bigger cities like say.. New York.. 70k is peanuts and will barely get you a hole in the wall apartment. Top that with student loans and you're eating ramen. So in New York, there's more motivation to double down and fight to be the best of the best rather than having the option to settle for "average" in suburbia. This is why New York is loaded with intelligent/successful people. It's also probably why the city is super segregated.

            So while IQ is a good way to measure intelligence from our standards, intelligence is something that 100% correlates with the individual's environment and overall reality matrix. A guy in New York with parents who have phds is probably going to be smarter than some wannabe muslim warlord because the guy in New York is more culturally pushed and has the faculties to become smarter.. Whereas muslim warlord boy is told by his imam to go blow himself up and kill like 10 white people and he gets to fuck 9 year old virgins in paradise all day. The pygmy's IQ is 54 because all the pygmy man needs to do is learn how to build a weapon, fight, and delegate simple orders. Their low IQ is merely a reflection of their simplistic tribal culture, not their true brain potential.

            [–]NeoreactionSafe 1 point2 points  (3 children)

            That's certainly one theory.

            It doesn't explain how some peoples can live for generations in the modern world and still retain lower IQ scores.

             

            [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

            It doesn't explain how some peoples can live for generations in the modern world and still retain lower IQ scores.

            It's another thing that's simply environmental.

            For example:

            Billy grows up in the housing projects. His dad is in jail for selling dope and his mom works at a local burger king 50 hours a week so she can afford to feed him mac and cheese and hotdogs for dinner.

            Billy's mom gets him up for school in the morning and gets him out the door to the bus stop. She then goes off to work at BK from 9AM to 6PM. Billy gets out of school and goes to the Boys club to play basketball and (not) do his homework. Billy's mom picks him up from the boys club brings him home and cooks mac and cheese and hotdogs. Repeat.

            Billy's mom can only afford 1 day off a week. On that day she has to do food shopping and various other errands. Billy's mom doesn't hav time to bring Billy to the library, museums, etc..

            Billy's environment is the ghetto and all his friends and family are here. Despite being in poverty, this is his culture and where his moments of happiness and understanding derive from. While some people may have incentive to work hard and get out.. It's more common to not have that incentive and stay comfortable in their own bubble/reality matrix. The same way your townie friends from high school who never went to college or applied themselves hangout at the same bar every weekend for the rest of their lives. It's just your comfort zone. Leaving your comfort zone can suck and be really exhausting.

            As Billy gets older, he disobeys his mom and starts hanging with a local gang of hoodlums. Before you know it Billy has a hot gun and is selling cocaine just like dad did. Billy dropped out of school because he sees that he can flip a few bags of coke on the street and be able to buy a nice car in cash and all these other things he could never acquire while being poor.

            Billy didn't need to cultivate his mental faculties and learn any complex notions to do this other than a vague basic understanding supply and demand economics, just needed a set of cajones and to be around the right people (or wrong people I should say). Billy doesn't even know the difference between there their and they're because education was never reinforced on him by parental figures since his mom was working at BK all the time.

            Now let's look at Jimmy.

            Jimmy comes from a good family in suburbia. His parents are still together. His dad is a military engineer and his mom is a grade school teacher. Jimmy's mom brings him to school every day and knows all of his teachers through the school system. She makes sure to discipline Jimmy to do his homework and if he doesn't his dad is going to come home and give him a stern lecturing.

            Jimmy's mom has the time and energy to make sure her son isn't fucking up in school, so when she sees she has problems.. She talks to one of her teacher friends to help him out with a tutor. Jimmy also lives in a nice neighborhood where there are no drug dealers or thugs and everyone is either college educated or well invested in a trade career. So it just makes sense to push yourself to be smart and have a career because all your friends and neighbors are doing it and it's nice to have a two car garage and a swimming pool.

            Jimmy's parents have the luxury of not having to work on the weekend and make comfortable salaries so they can all do things together like go to museums, bookstores, the batting cages etc.. Jimmy's parents have books on the shelf, an internet connection, and healthcare as well.

            While it's totally possible for a kid in Billy's shoes to be highly intelligent, it might not ever actually manifest simply due to his environment and upbringing. Although there's the rare case of someone who's self-motivated and makes it work for them even from a very young age (hence the common hero story of the black man making it out of the projects and living a comfortable middle class lifestyle via gaining an education).

            Likewise, it's totally possible for a kid in Jimmy's shoes to become a fuck up despite having good parents.. But more unlikely than if he were to be raised in a shitty ghetto environment. But Jimmy had a certain amount of privilege that allowed him to cultivate his mental faculties, resulting in a higher IQ score.

            Then there is also another factor on top of it all.. Simply being born with genetics that inhibit you mentally. But even then, a person of middle/upper class background can usually seek out medical solutions to those issues where poor people can't.

            High intelligence isn't just something you're born with. There's so many ins and outs, different notions to factor in from general understanding of abstract theoretical concepts like math to whether there was lead paint in your childhood home.

            [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (49 children)

            Provide proof for these numbers.

            [–][deleted]  (25 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]LOST_TALE 6 points7 points  (11 children)

              always dissapointed this is the only source I could find and no sub sources

              [–]Reinvented_Myself 12 points13 points  (1 child)

              Watson, the guy who figured out the DNA double helix structure linked IQ to race and was swiftly let out to door of all popular circles for being too politically incorrect

              [–]Layback 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Political correctness is used to stop people from "noticing"

              [–]thro_way 4 points5 points  (1 child)

              Here's a meta-study of the topic. It cites hundreds of sources.

              [–][deleted]  (6 children)

              [deleted]

                [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (11 children)

                This has nothing to do with race or what continent You are from, and everything to do with the economics, quality of life, and access to education of said places.

                Also, this is not a true empirical study. There is no basic rule on human IQ. The people who ran this study did so in an underhanded manner. They manufactured these results.

                [–]Reinvented_Myself 8 points9 points  (0 children)

                There's studies that adjust for socioeconomic status. To know about the extensive phenotype differences (which also means there's genotype differences underlying them) and not suppose that IQ is one of them is naive.

                [–][deleted]  (7 children)

                [deleted]

                  [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (6 children)

                  You're speaking about the evolution of a species over millions of years. The development of civilizations and the ways and means in which they gained cultural and economic prominence.

                  Also, throughout the history of our species, different cultures and peoples/civilizations were dominant. Think Egyptians. Aztecs. Romans... The list could go on. Your bias is that you are judging as of now, why have the best economics, quality of life, access to education always been white countries and some east asian countries. They haven't been, these are just the ones you recall easily in most recent eras. Give it another 10,000 years and it will likely be way different.

                  Your statements are not intelligent. They are stupid and biased.

                  [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                  [deleted]

                    [–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                    I believe there was a book that proposed that cultural dominance throughout history was directly correlated with soil quality and climate of a region. It can predict the order of which region dominates when.

                    edit: found it

                    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    Yes I read this. The most successful civilizations are ones that understand and manage resources.

                    That said, there have been numerous disease outbreaks in Africa over the course of human history that seriously challenged those civilizations. It has a lot to do with environment.

                    [–]wiseprogressivethink 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    The first article you send, if you read an understand the analysis has everything to do with how well students can take tests.

                    The author goes on to not that this has nothing to do with actual intelligence nor how well people do in life.

                    The second study is basic and doesnt' control for a lot of other factors.

                    [–]wiseprogressivethink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    well put. 12 month growing seasons meant little scarcity, so little need for saving for the future. meanwhile, living through an ice age meant only those capable of long-term planning and delaying gratification survived. ant vs. grasshopper.

                    [–]a_human_male 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                    There's something called the Flynn effect the IQ in developed countries has increase rapidly and continuously and are now leveling off in developed countries. The average 100 has had to shift up continuously. Has man suddenly doubled in intelligence no it's that people moved out of farms started going to school for longer and longer, people became more acquainted with test taking and mathematical thinking. IQ tests test how well you take IQ tests which can give indication of intelligence.

                    Think of it this way there's someone who is not spectacularly intelligent but has been playing chess his whole life and for 12 years he's been forced to study chess manuals has been taught openings and strategies against someone more intelligent but who has only learned the the rules and played a couple of times who will win who is more likely to be a better chess player.

                    Also Africa is not some abundant Eden plucking plums off trees we're talking arid and grass it's the cradle of human intelligence. Endurance hunting is where you would run after your pray for hours but it would get out of sight you would literally need a mental map of all the spots of water and shade for a hundred square miles and think like the animal you were chasing. It's activities like these that bred intelligence of man.

                    On the cold and the intelligence. The most advanced civilizations were I'm spots that were essentially eden. Babylon, Egypt. The Greeks in warm Mediterranean were inventing Western civilization living cushioned lives, in abundance because while there slaves were rolling their land they had time to invent math while in northern Europe they were living like animals they would consider as barbarous if not more than sub Saharans. It wasn't until Rome expanded and set up infastructure that they saw a dirt road.

                    In conclusion I don't think 19th century social Darwinism holds up to logic.

                    [–]NeoreactionSafe 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                    My understanding of the Flynn Effect (if I'm recalling correctly as this was discussed deeply on the Red Pill several years ago) is that improvements in childhood nutrition had been the reason IQ increased for a time.

                     

                    However...

                     

                    In the last few decades IQ seems to have declined.

                    SAT scores are way down.

                    The processed foods are making people worse off again.

                     

                    [–]a_human_male 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                    The causes are speculative but even the proponents of the nutritional view only peg it a portion of the massive gains. Most speculators place the correlation in some way with education or up bringing. To put this into perspective studies show tall people score slightly higher IQs the cause is most unanimously guessed that taller people are more likely to have had better nutrition during body development and naturally brain development. This difference is an average of 3 points. The Flynn effect is that each generation gains 8-26 IQ points over ~ 100 years so the gains are negligible.

                    Theoretically someone's intelligence or if their brain isn't developed their potential intelligence is static. The issue is IQ tests ability to test intelligence something that isn't even well scientifically defined. (Ofcourse we all have some intuition but what is it really). The IQ test is testing skills closely related to modern schooling.

                    "The hypothesis that best fits the results is that IQ tests do not measure intelligence but rather correlate with a weak causal link to intelligence."--Flynn's hypothesis

                    [–]fakenate1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                    The Taino who inhabited the Caribbean were pretty much all murdered before people could get a chance to really analyze them at a socio-economic level. I would remove that part of your analysis.

                    [–]El_Duquee 2 points3 points  (2 children)

                    Well, I think your scientific point is wrong. I am not sure that tropical lands have better agriculture than Europe. Moreover they are full of rainforests that make the life there harsher to develop. Besides, you are using a ridiculous point, did those women of those societies control the benefits of their lands? Wouldn't they like to be with the chief of the tribe or the top men? Did they have right to property?

                    Of course you can have examples of many kind of prehistoric societies, but that is the point, they are prehistoric and they wouldn't have survived if it wasn't because they have been hiding in lost islands or rainforests and we are now so evolve that we don't destroy inferior tribes, we study them and they end up forgetting their old ways. You can have even matriarchal tribes, but they didn't survive.

                    If you had studied something in your life you would know that the important civilizations have achieved their culprit thanks to institutions like family or property. There could have been millions of kinds but they didn't survive or were absorbed by the ones based on family and property (the more advanced because it is the natural state of the individual, to have peace and a family and work, so it can be productive for the society).

                    I have been reading here a lot of bullshit, people try to go back to an estate of nature or a primitive one that no one really knows what happened but there are plenty of theories (I have taken 3 modules of prehistory at uni) and they try to build their arguments upon some hypothesis that no one really knows not even the experts.

                    We are living in a system called liberalism, which is based on property and family. I agree that the institution of family has been attacked many times. And that your conclusions are kind of right, people are more hedonistic now than before, at least when they are looking for a crush. But it is not because some tropical or primitive tribe, that is ridiculous,it makes me sick every time I read something like that because we barely know anything about primitive societies and the ones we know about are not virgin and they have been influenced by more advanced civilizations. Tropical tribes were the Incas, the South of India, some Malaysian civilizations and they all developed the family institution well before the Europeans arrived

                    [–]Endorsed ContributorPopeman79[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                    did those women of those societies control the benefits of their lands? Wouldn't they like to be with the chief of the tribe or the top men? Did they have right to property?

                    Fair points, I admit it should be analyzed with much more depth. You are pushing objections based on relativity, i.e. to say that there are certainly other reasons that explain the evolution of civilizations. And of course you're right. But it doesn't mean that women gathering daily food easily wasn't an important factor.

                    If you had studied something in your life

                    Ok big boy.

                    important civilizations have achieved their culprit thanks to institutions like family or property

                    Exactly. And why do you think they were developped in more adverse environments like Europe, and not in Africa with its nuclear families?

                    people try to go back to an estate of nature

                    How did you understand that from my post? Nobody wants that. TRP advocates that traditional, polarized gender roles provided a wider and more equal distribution of sexual and material resources among genders. It's just a fact. Personnaly, I'm high-status enough that I don't wanna come back to the old days, the new era favors me more.

                    [–]El_Duquee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    I am not saying that you want to go back literally, I am saying you use that to justify your points, which is ridiculous because nobody really knows how the primitive societies were

                    [–]traveldeedee 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                    Western culture is dying because of this. May god help us all.

                    [–]wiseprogressivethink 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                    solid post. we third world now.

                    [–]SmoothBeliever 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                    He chose a dvd for tonight

                    [–]Adreamdead 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                    Mates* women are whores and not loyal

                    [–]Mckallidon 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                    So true. Women don't sleep with me for the money that's for sure lol.

                    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                    hahahaha. Same. Even if I do have some to share. They quickly realize I'm no hedge fund manager. Thanks god for oxytocin

                    [–]circlhat 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                    Women should always mate with men they find sexually attractive, this creates a healthier society and much less drama in the long run.

                    Lets be honest who here wants to be with a women that isn't sexually attracted to him.

                    [–]Endorsed ContributorPopeman79[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                    Yes, but the problem is the following:

                    Men are attracted to healthy features which represent a good, nurturuing partner. Most women, if they take care of themselves, can display these features and be attractive.

                    Women are attracted to power and status. They are attracted to the men that dominates the others. So they all are attracted to a small percentage of men by definition. I figure that in past centuries, women weren't sexually attracted to their beta husbands but they would fuck them good by fear of losing them (and their husbands would work hard by fear of losing them as well). In today's societies, all these beta men are left alone to wank to porn while all women flock to the top 20% guys.

                    [–]ImHereAtLast 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                    I can't agree with the last part of this enough. If you don't believe fatherless childhoods will become the norm, just looks at countries like Iceland and Sweden.

                    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                    European women back then were still fucking Chad and Mehmet. Prostitution was rampant and if a peasant girl was attractive enough to fuck a noble and get him to notice her, don't you doubt it because she would.

                    The main problem was that these men were far from easy to access. They were either chilling in the castle or out pillaging towns, raping (foreign) women, and fucking shit up; no different than Chicago's South Side. And all the alpha peasant men were nowhere to be found either. Even if their locality refused to knight them, they could just join the Templars or the Teutonic Knights or even better, become a conquistador. This limited most women to only one option.

                    Often a beta farmer was the best a woman could do. And as you said it perfectly, having a man was better than not back then. Because survival.

                    [–]OmegaMan2 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                    What you say is true, and what it portends is the collapse of Western Civilization. Until relatively recent times, life in Africa was much easier and better than in the frozen north.

                    This being the case, why did civilization not arise in Africa? What was it about hardship that fostered this growth?

                    My belief is that to survive the hardships of the north required planning, and the making and building of structures to survive those months when nothing grows.

                    And of course, guess which sex was capable of such feats.

                    Sadly in the United States, construction workers are committing suicide at alarming rates. These are the men upon which the greatness of our society rests. That they are being cast aside as deplorables does not bode well for our survival. It also illustrates the absolute stupidity of our so called elites.

                    [–]mymonster8u 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                    Does this make you feel useless and angry? Im serious. The way you wrote this you sound like you are giving up hope. Like you are upset the women are makeing money enough to provide for themselves and their children and they aren't coming to you begging for fresh hunted meat. So... Where does that leave you and your place in the world? This world full of cubicles and working, contraception taking women. If only we could ban abortions and bar them from leaving the house. Then they would need you again. Beg you for food. Be forced to carry your children. And then you could leave them there as you wished starving. Begging you to come back so their children didnt starve. Then you would feel needed. And loved. And secure. But then it would haunt you. If she could get it herself. Would she still love me? No. No she wouldn't. Because for someone to love you. You must first love yourself. Thats all.

                    [–]Endorsed ContributorPopeman79[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                    Your message actually talks about a real feeling amongst men. I'll try to answer in all honesty.

                    I think a lot of men end up in TRP because they realize just what you said: that unless they develop some traits that are unique and require hard work, women won't love them for being just good little soldiers who do what they are told and bring a paycheck. When they realize that, they get really mad at women in general, shaming them for going after hot chads and leaving their options open instead of settling for their mild beta souls. We are very aware of this here in TRP and we call it the Anger Phase. We warn all newcomers against this.

                    Of course, they're wrong to be mad at women. The problem is education and social norms (still prevalent today) that teach that to boys: that's it's enough to be kind and considerate, and be hard-working, and a girl will love you. Movies, medias, our own mothers, all carry the same false message.

                    But what are the alternatives? To teach men that for a lot of them, no matter how hard they try, their girl can still leave them for a guy who's hotter, or more dominant? Because this is the truth, girls in the end get the tingles for the few men who are above other men, because it means genetic improvement.

                    Personnaly, and to answer your question, I don't feel useless or angry at all, and I'm actually ok with the way the world is, for two reasons. First, I'm lucky and resolved enough to be near the top of the men pyramid, and I do well with women. You know, when girls insist on being with me while they know we're not exclusive, but just because they value my company more than the one of guys who shower them with gifts, I feel really loved/appreciated for who I am, not for being a provider.

                    Second, because although I feel this is unfair, I think it's equally unfair for both genders: for girls, it must be terrible to know, from a very young age, that their youth and beauty are valued much more than anything else. That no matter how smart and special they can be, the guy they're after will get hard for the hot vapid chick with the fake boobs. Some girls are lucky enough to find a good man who learns to look into their soul and loves them for that, but most don't find that guy and have to learn to work with what they have. So in the end it's kind of equally unfair for both genders. As a man I believe I even have it easier because there is more I can do to change myself.

                    So yeah, I agree with everything you say.

                    Because for someone to love you. You must first love yourself.

                    This is actually one of the core tenets of what we preach here.

                    [–]aanarchist 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                    that's still a beta mindset there's plenty of dudes who don't look like models and are considered attractive by women. hell i know a dude who's practically obese and kind of a goober but he gets plenty of attention because he has the right attitude. sure a victorias secret model who coasts on her entire life using just her looks might not be into him, but she's a pump and dump anyway.

                    regardless i'm perfectly fine with women not needing a man's resources. i see a lot of women with complete dipshits because they need a provider. i have nothing against quality dudes who also make bank, i am on the other hand talking about the beta males whose only purpose and value in their life is their ability to generate income. there's a reason why they get used and discarded is because they have nothing to offer humanity besides their ability to crunch numbers, and as a person they tend to be shitty.

                    [–]havred 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                    What the fuck are you talking about? Agriculture has only been around for 10 thousand years.

                    [–]Endorsed ContributorPopeman79[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    My bad that was a hasty translation from the original post. Will fix it. The point still stands I believe.

                    [–]Jokengonzo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                    Yes women now have more free rein than ever to exercise their hypocritical stance on sex bashing males for wanting sex with beautiful women than turning around and letting Chad enter them after telling some simp he has to earn it. Thing is this plays to our advantage many of these empowered women will feel the strain of biology when they realize all that fucking and career chasing mean so shit all cause they don't have a family

                    [–]Bigmachiavelli 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                    Good post. I highly recommend you watch the documentary called "guns, germs and steel", it's on Netflix. It goes over the evolutionary basis for why some races developed more than others. It posits that in areas like Africa and Caribbean it was actually harder to maintain agricultural prosperity due to the climate e.g papayas go bad in a day. In European countries, grains and legumes lasted longer so they were able to focus on other things outside of having food for tomorrow.

                    Not exactly relevant to the theme of the post but I'd feel bad not correcting your anthropological assumption.

                    [–]Endorsed ContributorPopeman79[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    Didn't watch the documentary but read the book. It is indeed very interesting and much more complex than this theory about mate selection, but I don't think they are necesarily opposed. European agriculture turned out to be more complex and properous, bringing nutrients that could be stored, etc., fostering civilization. Tropical agriculture was probably more simple and not long-lasting, but it also meant that women could go out and grow or gather food at all times of year without the need for strong male effort.

                    [–]morallycorruptgirl 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                    This is laughable bullshit in so many ways.

                    [–]Mattcwu 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                    It's "boy-toy" not "toy-boy".

                    [–]Endorsed ContributorPopeman79[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                    True that. Thanks I'll correct it.

                    [–]Blind_Accountant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    It's a good argument. But how was this argument justified? I don't see any methods or scales to measure the change away from the bets and towards the alpha. Further, it is fairly obvious that a women without the necessary means or job to live comfortably is going to choose an alpha..... unless we are talking millions then beta wins every time

                    [–]tolerantman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    I hope you enjoy living in Africa

                    [–]CallMeHaseo 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                    So explain Asians what was their deal they're even more betafied than europeans

                    [–]EuropaTerra 2 points3 points  (2 children)

                    Not China or South Korea. Japan, yes.

                    [–]CallMeHaseo 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                    You think they'll end up fatherless?

                    [–]BargainBinBoyfriend 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                    You really think top 20% will cut it? Maybe a harem of fatties...

                    [–]Endorsed ContributorPopeman79[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                    I do actually. The best-looking dude in 10? Yeah. You'll stand out and get pussy on demand, getting all the average girls easily (the ones below your SMV).

                    Now, it's true that average girls are, in the US, unfortunately fatties. But that's another problem. For example in other places (Europe, Latin America), all the average girls (I'm talking statistics, not grading), are reasonably thin and good-looking.

                    In the US, you're right, it's harder.

                    [–]TheSlicemanCometh 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                    This entire premise is bullshit because attractiveness and ability to provide are one in the same.

                    Women find a strong jaw attractive because our ancestors who had strong jaws were more able to provide and therefore you exist.

                    Come on, man. 400 upvotes over something that can be rekt in two sentences? Step your game up TRP.

                    [–]Endorsed ContributorPopeman79[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

                    attractiveness and ability to provide are one in the same

                    It used to be directly linked. Hence the attraction women feel for good-looking guys, which is based on millions of years of evolution. We're attracted to strong jaws because it meant strength and deciseveness.

                    But it's not directly linked anymore. In the modern world a strong jaw is not literally indicative of a guy's ability to hunt and lead. Also, ability to provide and will to provide are two different things.

                    50 years ago, a mild-mannered, working man with little charisma and a good heart could find a wife more easily. The guy who worked hard enough not to get fired but never got big promotions, who got home every night and brougth groceries home.

                    This is the providing type. This guy used to be chosen over the bad boy, or at least the playing field was more even. Now he doesn't stand a chance, he's not sexy enough and the woman doesn't value a home and groceries anymore.

                    [–]TheSlicemanCometh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    First off, you are drawing a false equivalency. The best looking guys are actually more likely to be a ceo than a biker. It's fucking true.

                    Your premise is all based on silly inaccurate sitcom stereotypes.

                    Good looking people are smarter in general. It's a fact. There is no fair equality in life. Timid weak jawed men are the ones doing laps in a warehouse. Their boss is the former football player.

                    Secondly, about women post sexual revolution only going for the top smv guys.. That's anywhere that the sexual revolution happened, not just certain places as you alluded to.

                    Sorry but your thesis is incorrect, as I've outlined.

                    load more comments (2 replies)