Open Thread

Open Thread #52

Aaron "Sleazy" Elias

The Open Thread is a place for open discussion among my readers. Post anything you feel like sharing! From now on, the Open Thread will no longer be monthly. Instead, there will be a new Open Thread whenever it is adequate. The stage is yours. Go ahead!

The latest Open Thread is made ‘sticky’ to improve access.

Please consider throwing a few coins into the tip jar, and buy my books! They are great. Your support is greatly appreciated.

85 thoughts on “Open Thread #52”

  2. “Am Anfang war DatingCafe für alle Frauen kostenlos und nur Männer mussten zahlen. Auf diese Weise wollten die Betreiber einen Männerüberschuss vermeiden. Nach einigen Jahren hat sich herausgestellt, dass es – wie in anderen Datingportalen auch – einen Überschuss an Frauen über 45 Jahren gab. Um mehr ältere Männer anzulocken, änderte die Singlebörse das Preismodell und führte ab Dezember 2006 eine Zahlungspflicht für Frauen ab 45 Jahren ein. Gleichzeitig durften nicht zahlende Männer Frauen über 45 kostenlos anschreiben, sofern sie sich per Personalausweis registriert hatten. Diese Maßnahme zog heftige Diskussionen nach sich, manche Frauen fühlten sich wegen ihres Alters diskriminiert. Andere fanden es positiv, weil sich durch den erhöhten Männeranteil eine bessere Chance auf ein Liebesglück auch in ihrem Alter ergab. Denn durch diese Marktregulierung hatte Dating Cafe 50 % Männer und 50 % Frauen. Im Juni 2012 änderte Dating Cafe sein Preismodell so, dass alle Teilnehmer zahlen müssen. Seitdem sank der Männeranteil wieder auf 40 % zurück.[6] Das Verhältnis von männlichen zu weiblichen Teilnehmern liegt aktuell nach Eigenaussage bei 48 zu 52 Prozent.[4]”

    source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_Cafe#Kritik

    Reply

  4. I want to get your opinions on the myth that “good looking people are mean.” In an era when we’re not supposed to judge people this is the one hold out. If someone says this I point to the evidence of MANY ugly/fat people who are terrible people. A light bulb seems to go on in their brain. It’s almost as if they think good looking people aren’t humans and don’t have feelings. Like I alluded to in an era of “acceptance” this is a pretty bigoted thing to embrace. Especially something one had no control of genetically, and that is actually a good thing.

    Reply

    1. @lisbon – physiognomy is 100% legit. We judge people solely at-least initially based on how they look.

    2. There is a lot of truth to it. Edward Dutton wrote a book on this topic, summarizing the status quo in academic research.

    3. and my face look like what? in Physiognomy world?

      there has to be a reason why girls dont like me i will find why, there is something wrong about my face, its not just about scowl.

      i dont have a job, i dont need to work, i have money, i have free time, i need to find why.

    6. @Lisbon: Try booking a session with Aaron. It’s much more productive than spending money on Tinder boosts and complaining on the blog.

    1. This is unbelievable: four average to unattractive men orbiting and providing for one below-average woman.

  7. I definitely see how looks greatly influence how one is treated. But the treatment can very greatly depending on the security level of the observer as well as other factors. For instance, I have never met a truly confident man that I butted heads with. Insecure people treat me like shit even though my personality is pretty benign. I’m also not very economically successful so they have cannon fodder at their disposal.

    I remember a bumper sticker years ago that read “mean people suck.” I used to think it was stupid because it was too obvious and simplistic. Now I get it. I was just thinking to myself that the default position of most people in modern society is that the agressor (non-violent) is always right. Even if this person is wrong in every other aspect of life.

    Reply

  8. hi aaron is a book like
    7 effective people habits,
    how to win friend and influence people, awakening the giant, think and grow , rich dad poor dad rich is a scam ?

    Reply

    1. I haven’t read the first one, the second one has some pretty good advice but it is a bit dishonest as it does not highlight that you have to bring something to the table as well, i.e. what is your importance for the other person, the remaining three ones are self-help drivel.

    3. Let’s not blame the leftists. After all, nobody could have predicted that if you flood a country with people of low intelligence it would have any negative effects on society. Remember that the prevailing theory of human achievement in lefty circles is that success is merely due to “magic dirt”.

  10. Can any of my European friends enlighten me on the censorship laws in your respective nations? Last night I had a discussion with my Jewish friend and he actually thought that questioning the official story of WWII should be illegal (he’s from Russia).

    I tried to explain to him that political views are protected by the Constitution. That we should have an open dialogue, and let the best ideas win. But in the US there is still legal censorship. The media does it through political correctness (social Marxism). They intimidate people from speaking the truth.

    Having said that, there are plenty of liberals who promote free speech across the board. The ACLU has even defended Nazis. But their reasoning is sometimes strange. Like, “if they can do that, then imagine what a they can do to us.” Why not just defend an open dialogue and exchange of ideas? The principle of free speech is actually to defend UNPOPULAR speech. The popular stuff is easy. You need laws to defend unpopular speech.

    Reply

    1. Holocaust denial is illegal in many countries:

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

      The situation is different in the US as the Nazi atrocities actually took place here in Europe.

      Europe does not have the same free speech laws as the US. As an example, in the UK the government sent agents to the Guardian newspapers offices to destroy their Wikileaks files, something that did not happen to the NYT. There are also laws against hate speech in many countries here.

      That said “questioning the official story of WWII” is perfectly legal here as long as you are not denying the holocaust or trying to incite hatred (and why would you want to do either of those things anyway?). So apart from in maybe Germany I think the law is loose enough that it doesn’t really affect people’s rights to voice political opinions or ideas.

    2. You sound very naive. Both terms — “holocaust denial” and “incitement of hatred” do not mean what you think they do. According to the former, it is illegal to even research the topic. It’s not about whether the Nazis sent six billion, er, million up a chimney. Instead, you’re a holocaust denier if you question any part of the official Jew-endorsed holocaust liturgy. Point out that it’s odd that there are no mass graves even though six million were burnt (for the record: I, obviously, fully endorse the mainstream view and wouldn’t even dream of questioning the official narrative because when has the mainstream ever deceived anybody about anything?), and you’re a holocaust denier.

      Second, you “incite to hatred” by pointing out anything that offends anybody who enjoys authority. These days, this means that you can’t offend the left. There are entire branches of academic research that are off-limits if you want to keep your job. Furthermore, there are entire branches of bogus research, such as gender studies, which you can’t criticize if you want to keep your job. If you claim that this is not an issue, then your understanding of the term “freedom of speech/expression/research” is a bit odd. As it stands, you are free to think what the mainstream tells you to think.

    3. It’s bad. You’re at risk of losing your job if you object to the mainstream. If you’re a figure of some prominence, then the Antifa thugs may pay you a visit.

    4. Not sure if you speak German, but this is a pretty well written and easy to digest comparison of the 1st Amendment in the US and its joke of a counterpart in Germanistan.

      https://usaerklaert.wordpress.com/2006/11/22/free-speech-teil-1-warum-die-usa-holocaust-leugner-schutzen/

      I strongly recommend reading the entire series (it’s just 5 blog entries really).

      @Aaron – I trust you’ll enjoy many other of his articles. I find them to be a great read.

    6. on a side note:
      “shall make no law” and “shall not be infringed” are the type of strong negative wordings, which you will be hard pressed to find elsewhere.

      Contrast that with the bullshit you have in the German or the Swiss constitution where it’s a lot of fluffy feel-good bullshit.

      Here’s what the Swiss think about the aim of the Swiss Confederation:
      “It shall promote the common welfare, sustainable development, internal cohesion and cultural diversity of the country.”

      What the actual fuck is this shit? We’re talking 1848 here and they jerk off to social welfare and to diversity.

      Notabene, the Germans don’t even have a constitution, the just have a “general law”, so what does that tell you…

    7. The Swedes changed their equivalent of the constitution in the 1979s and added that they have to strive to become a multicultural society. This is what decades of leftist rule got them. It’s a country with a death wish, as can now be plainly seen. Of course, back then they’d probably have called you a “conspiracy theorist” or a “racist” if you objected to it or merely questioned if it makes any sense, or if there are any examples of successful multicultural societies.

    8. Aaron, “holocaust denial” is a separate thing to “holocaust revisionism” isn’t it? The former would be denying the holocaust actually happened at all whilst the latter would be questioning certain aspects of the official story. I was under the impression only the former was a criminal offence. Holocaust denial is not illegal in my country, so maybe I misunderstood. I did cite Germany as being a country where speech laws are probably too restrictive though.

      On your second point, I am aware that people can lose their job for saying things deemed to be offensive, that artists can have their work protested for covering controversial topics and that people can be no-platformed and hounded for questioning things like modern gender theory. I agree with you that this is an appalling restriction of free speech and freedom of expression. I was referring specifically to people receiving criminial prosecutions for incitement of hatred, which still has a much higher bar. For example, if someone were to say that transwomen were not really women, they could lose their job and be harassed by SJW activists but they would not arrested for inciting hate. I think we both agree that this reprisal is already too much for voicing an opinion and is a restriction on free speech, but is not (yet?) a legal restriction. However if someone distributed leaflets calling for transsexuals to be murdered that would be incitement and they would be arrested.

    9. In Germany, holocaust denial includes holocaust revisionism. There is even the fun fact that if you end up in court to defend yourself, you will re-offend as you again engage in holocaust denial.

      You make a very good point in your second paragraph. Now consider this: black people can make statements like “kill all cops”, SJWs can demand to “kill all white men”, feminists can shriek that “all men should be castrated”, and Jews may shout that “all Germans should die”. Neither of that is hate speech and none of the people making such statements got arrested. If the left does it, it’s either “irony” or “free speech”, but never hate speech.

  11. Unfortunately, the cold hard truth is that your genetics (as a man), do largely dictate your success in life, especially when it comes to women. It’s a statistically proven fact that good looking people get treated better in life, and are given more employment opportunities (eg. models, movie stars, pop stars, TV presenters etc), even if they have shitty personalities.

    You would think that women would find things like personality, good morals, honesty, loyalty etc as attractive attributes in men, but in reality being a man of good character means nothing to a woman if you’re an ugly looking or ethnic man, look at the way Women worshiped that convicted thug and criminal Jeremy Meeks, or alternatively, the way women sent love letters to that evil scumbag Ted Bundy (the notorious serial killer who raped and murdered 35 innocent women). The modern hypergamous woman is only attracted to three things, LOOKS, MONEY AND STATUS, personality, decency means nothing to women. LOOKS makes pussy wet, MONEY AND STATUS not.

    Reply

    1. “You would think that women would find things like personality, good morals, honesty, loyalty etc as attractive attributes in men, but in reality being a man of good character means nothing to a woman if you’re an ugly looking or ethnic man, ”

      Are you attracted to ugly women if they have good personalities, morals, loyalty etc?

    2. No, but society lie to men. It’s all about how you look.

      I’m 30 years old now, now i know this world operate. Its all scam and lies.

      this system is an occult system, we’ve always been under a 1 world government, in fact if u break down the etymology of the word “government” you come out with “mind control.” This “NWO” is all about coming clean, showing their teeth basically, they won’t have to keep this disneyland illusion going anymore. The world is a business, hell even the war industry is a business, same arms companies selling to both sides, all sides, because all they see is $$$$. It’s a stage show at the end of the day. With lots of useful idiots keeping it marching.

    3. You are a dumbass. How about you start focusing on a passion or a cause and spend your time productively rather than on why you can’t indulge in unlimited hedonism?

      I read you have enough money that you don’t have to work/be productive. An idle mind is the devil’s playground.

    4. @Whatthe

      ”You are a dumbass. How about you start focusing on a passion or a cause and spend your time productively rather than on why you can’t indulge in unlimited hedonism?”

      Black Pill cause.
      Joker cause.
      Incel cause.

      @Whatthe you are white sheep.
      @Whatthe you are agent Smith.

    5. @Lisbon:
      You can only get satisfaction and a sense of meaning from a cause if you are doing something constructive about the issue, something that helps solve the problems you see in the world.
      You claim to support:
      “Black Pill cause.
      Joker cause.
      Incel cause.”

      The constructive thing to do with the black pill and incel issue is to help inform people that LMS matters and how they can increase their LMS. Give them actionable advice on how to reach their goals.
      Whining about how “the is world operating on LMS and it’s UNFAIR!!!1” and “It’s OVER!! Time to ROPE!!!” is NOT constructive or helpful. Telling bluepill men why and how they should looksmax, moneymax and statusmax IS helpful.

      For example Aaron Sleazy gives men actionable advice to get laid by telling them to find their niche in women – what culture do you fit in with? What kind of women find you attractive? Where do you meet them?
      Many incels are african men living in the western world. They are automatically low status in the west because of their race. If they looksmaxed and went to Africa to find a bride their skin color would be normal, their money would be more impressive and they would automatically have high status because of their citizenship in a western country.
      The same applies to “currycels” – indian/pakistani incels living in the west. If they have their looks and finances in order they would be considered a catch in their ancestral country. They might even be able to get a brown east asian girl from Malaysia or Indonesia. If they have enough wealth it’s not unthinkable that a thai woman would accept them. That’s just an example of advice that actually helps men out of inceldom.

      As for the “Joker cause”, the movie character had mental issues and a shitty mom, so he behaved bizarrely and freaked people out. That’s why he was incel and couldn’t get his career on track. That’s not actually a controversial “black pill”. Mainstream society acknowledges that being insane makes it hard to succeed in life. Joaquin Phoenix isn’t ugly, Arthur Fleck was a mindcel.

    8. @Burt

      Lisbon only wants white Stacies. He has admitted that he could bang Indian women but he considers that beneath him.

      In a way he is no different than the Asian mom in the video he linked who said all Asian men are ugly.

    9. @Lisbon
      Yes, they all WANT white men, but there aren’t enough white men in Asia or Africa for all the women there to get one. So, they are willing to settle for non-white men, if those men have enough LMS. How many third world women are in a relationship with a white Chad? Think rationally for once!

      “Money and status doesnt make pussy wet. Money is good cope.”
      If you think there are no women that are turned on by status and power you are deluded. Also, a woman doesn’t have to love you to marry and fuck you so money isn’t just a cope, it can get you a long term sex partner.
      I though your issue was inceldom? Money is certainly a potential cure for that.
      Or is it really that you are looking for … love?

      @Old Anon
      Yeah, seems you’re right. He can’t be as desperate to have sex as he claims to be. I guess he just enjoys the victim role of the poor incel, wronged by a cruel universe.

  13. Lisbons’s last post mentioning Disneyland gave me an idea. How much influence do you guys think Disney films have had on female entitlement? The idea that they’re a special princess and everything ends well. The lack of development of the male characters etc. Early Disney films were actually about males coming of age (Dumbo, Pinocchio). When I was a kid liked those ones the best, but they actually didn’t do very well. Not until Cinderella did Disney really take off.

    In the movie “Tangled” I’ve actually read reviews that Disney was shamelessly pandering to the male demographic just because the main male character was likeable and not just some undeveloped handsome face from royalty. Talk about LMS!!!!

    Women in the US actually wake up at like 3:00 am to watch stupid royal weddings. I heard they care about the royals more than than the Brits do. American women love aristocracy. I’ve never heard a man say that he wishes that he were a prince. But all women want to be fucking pricesses. I told the women I work with that if they cared as much about American politics as they do about stupid royal weddings we’d have a revolution tomorrow.

    Reply

    1. Disney has a huge influence on shaping societal norms. It’s brainwashing targetting the most vulnerable, i.e. children.

  14. @Neutralrandomthoughts

    Unfortunately I don’t speak German. But in the US it is legal to write and promote revisionist history of WWII. When I researched revisionism I was floored at how weak the official doctrine is. I’m not sure if you guys know who Pat Buchanan is but he wrote an excellent book on WWII revisionism. There were also videos on YouTube of American talk shows (they probably took them down) of simple amateur revisionists destroying the opposition. The Simon Wiesenthal Center even refused to show up.

    It seems the system has no argument other than intimidating their opposition into compliance through simple name calling. This is the 21st fucking century we should have more openness for critical thought and be more advanced socially than this.

    On a related note, have you guys seen the movie American History X?

    Reply

    1. Banning free speech is a serious red flag as it implies that there are no counter-arguments. Nobody bans flat-earthers because physics can be used to show that they are wrong. Yet, we can’t discuss WWII because the Jews seem to have problems upholding their narrative. It’s similar to how the left currently pushes the man-made climate warning hoax story. The opposition simply gets intimidated and de-platformed.

      I watched American History X well over a decade ago. I didn’t find it very captivating and I don’t have much of a recollection of it. Then again, I’m quite saturated regarding the trope of the evil (Neo-)Nazi in Hollywood movies.

    2. I know who Pat is and I’ve seen the videos you refer to.
      I’m just going to say that with modern machinery a cremation takes two hours.
      Everybody can do the math now.

  15. Very good point about the flat earthers, Aaron. To put it another way, WTF ARE THEY AFFRAID OF? I want everyone’s opinions expressed. If your wrong, fine I’m not afraid of people who are wrong. When American media personality Lou Dobbs was on CNN he had illegal alien advocates protesting to get him off the air. Typical of Third Worlders. No concept of free speech. Just shut him up…I NEVER advocated my enemies to be silenced. I say BRING IT!

    About American History X, it’s cinematography and acting is effective. But it is pure politically correct propaganda. My sister even wondered if I would join a white power organization after watching it. Why? Simply because the main character repeated TRUE statistical evidence about illegal immigration. Fuck truth though right? An actor playing a Nazi said it so it must be bad. Like I said the only think they have are intimidation tactics.

    Or maybe I should call for that movie to be outlawed LMAO 😉

    Reply

    1. YOU don’t mind that others have an opinion. But check this out:
      John Mark (“mark my words” that youtube guy) is a bit nuts but I will borrow this excellent point from him:

      The left is low status, so this whole diversity/trans/feminism/yadda yadda agenda gives them status.
      That’s why they want to silence those who speak out the facts.
      Look at those soy-people…

      They don’t have the mental strenghth to live with free speach, because it would mean that their stuff is being shown to be right. It takes character to admit when you’re wrong and they don’t have that.

    2. “because it would mean that their stuff is being shown to be right”

      sorry, should’ve said “shown to be wrong”

  16. You know what’s much more criminal than what David Irving and Ernst Zundel did? The fact that our Chinese ally lost an estimated 20 million people during the war and nobody knows or gives a fuck.

    Reply

    1. And our Russian ally lost 27 million people. The Nazis wanted to genocide the Russian people too (look up Generalplan Ost) but nobody in the West really knows or cares.

  17. @Neutralranndomnthoughts

    Mel Gibson’s dad was on Howard’s Stern’s show in the early 2000’s and he made the very same point about the crematoriums. All Howard had to do for his audience was say, “this guy’s crazy.” Seriously, aren’t we better than this?

    I even worked with a Jewish girl that had some good things to say about (can I even say his name?). And she didn’t believe the “official story.” There are others too, they just don’t like to talk about it unless they trust you 100% . Even Jesse Owens (Black American track legend) had good better things to say about him than he said for FDR.

    Reply

    1. The “official narrative” about WW2 is very suspect, but Mr 18 is certainly not someone you should defend, whatever your political position. He caused the deaths of more Europeans than anyone else in recent history.

    2. Here is some food for thought: what would have happened to Europe had we not had Hitler? I find it very plausible that his attack on Russia was a defensive measure, based on the fact that the Russians had built up massive armaments behind the border, and the Germans attacked when the Russians were in the process of sending troops via train, i.e. they struck at the most opportune moment. This is commonly described as “luck”, but that just does not seem plausible.

      Also, Russian elites gave speeches of the necessity of attacking Germany. Remember that both countries used to be neighbors, before Poland got its corridor to the Baltic Sea. Russian wanted German industry and they fantasized about a global empire, built on the backs of their farmers and supported by the German worker.

      Russia got half of Germany after WWII, and the society they ran there was a complete disaster in economic terms. There is reason to suspect that if Russia had taken over Europe, the entire continent would have been economically ruined. Instead, thanks to the Western Allies, Germany was built up into an industrial powerhouse after WWII. The way I see it, Germany has never had a chance — all of Germany, ever since its unification in 1871. However, without Hitler we would all have been a lot worse off. Remember how many people Stalin had killed. Do you think he would suddenly have discovered his soft heart in an alternative scenario where he had conquered all of Europe? Thus, I find it very plausible to say that the Nazis saved more people than they have killed, even if you accept mainstream figures at face value.

  20. Jason Capital is a high income expert, an author, and an entrepreneur. He claims he can teach men how to pickup ANY girl they want AND how to make money. Hide your girl, because Jason Capital is coming for her.

    Reply

    1. Let’s wait for his collaboration with Jeff Money and Jim Pussy. Their upcoming 26-DVD set is surely worth the $5k they are asking for.

    2. ”Jason Capital’s real name is Alex Maroko. He originally began creating basketball training content and marketed heavily towards high school basketball players. He used to claim that he’s managed to turn genetically ungifted basketball players into superstars in over 54 countries and 6 continents. His words, not mine. If that doesn’t prove that this guy is an absolute scam and just jumps to whatever topic he can think of, then I don’t know what else proves it for you. From basketball training, to picking up girls, to teaching business? He claims to be an expert on just about everything.”

      Here is his old basketball stuff:

    3. This is crazy. I guess there is no niche where there isn’t anybody who will tell you that anybody can succeed in it. Just imagine it: become a basketball player with poor genes, slay tons of prime pussy despite being an ugly midget, becoming an A-list actor against all odds, and making thousands of bucks a day with viral YouTube videos! I often wonder who falls for that kind of material but then I remind myself that there are a lot of really gullible people out there.

    4. All you have to do is look at that guy and you can tell he’s a complete d-bag. I didn’t even watch it. The guy looks comical.

  21. Anyone recommend any good manly movies that aren’t full of sjw propaganda? Also movies that demonstrate masculinity. I don’t watch modern movies or shows due to propaganda.

    I heard a good on is the good, the bad and the ugly.

    Reply

    3. I enjoyed the first John Wick movie quite a bit. Also, Rambo: Last Blood was surprisingly good. However, it shoves wokeness in your face by having Rambo live with his deceased father’s wife, a Hispanic woman. Of course, the daughter is a mestizo. Stallone is the only non-Hispanic actor in the movie.

  22. Aaron/Alex,
    In one some of your previous “Open Threads” discussion, you guys have mention that girls who are of high caliber, for instances, 9’s and 10’s, are generally nicer and more pleasant relative to their counterparts, i.e. average/mediocre girls who tend to be more cynical and bitter.

    1. Does this mean that girls who are very attractive (8’s, 9’s, and 10’s) are “easier” to lay than average looking girls since they are less cynical and bitter about men, or would it be the opposite?

    2. I have often heard girls claim that the prettiest girls are the least likely to fuck casually while the average and ugly ones are the ones who fuck a lot casually. What is your experience with this scenario? Are 9’s and 10’s “more likely” to be promiscuous that average looking girls, or vice-versa, or would both average and attractive girls be “equally promiscuous?”

    Reply

    1. This wasn’t directed at me but I’m pretty sure that they would agree that hot women aren’t necessarily easier to get in bed. It all depends on the guy’s LMS. The girl having a good personality does not equate to an easy lay. Good looking girls are pickiery than their less attractive counterparts, and why shouldn’t they be? That likewise does not equate to a bad personality. They can be picky and still quality people. In my experience the girls with the worst personalities, bar none, are chunky girls with above average faces. Lazy, entitled, and plenty of guys thinking they have a chance, so they get tons of attention.

    2. Imagine a hot guy approaching a 10 versus a 7. They are both into him. However, the 7 may be a lot more eager to demonstrate that she indeed wants to fuck because she is more afraid that the guy will lose interest.

    3. 1) If you are a hot guy, then it can indeed be easier to bang a hot girl than an average looking one because the latter may want to go to great length to show you that you’re not “better than her.”

      2) This is hard to say. I have met some spectacularly good-looking skanks, but there are also plenty of mediocre-looking ones around. What I have observed, though, is that more average-looking women who want to be promiscuous can be a lot more aggressive, e.g. grabbing your crotch or grinding up against you on the dancefloor and then reaching down your pants and playing with your dick. A “fake hottie” in a tight skirt and a ton of makeup on is more likely to be in that category.

  24. @ Aaron

    Even my Russian friend says that the reason why the Soviets got routed early in the war was because they were offensive forces, not prepared for defensive purposes. He said that Stalin was going to wait for the Western powers to bleed each other dry, then mow right over all of them.

    Even official sources agree that he killed more than Hitler. And he controlled half the continent by the end of the war. I always shake my head when I think about the war in Europe started over Polish sovereignty, and they just handed Poland to the Soviets at the end of the war.

    Reply

    1. Actually, they had strong defensive positions inside the USSR. But once they deployed to forward positions while occupying their half of Poland (Ribbentrop-Molotov pact) they were left much more exposed.

      Stalin was expecting a war with Germany was coming, but he miscalculated the timing. Like everyone else, he was stunned at how quickly the french folded, everyone thought it would be a protracted war like WW1 or, at least, 1870. After, he thought Hitler would not attack him before he subdued the brits.
      In short, he was expecting the war to come to him in 1943 at the soonest.

    2. The last point is excellent as it illustrates British hypocrisy. They only wanted war with Germany and they didn’t care at all about Poland’s sovereignty.

    3. I beg to differ a little here. They did care about Polish sovereignty to an extent, but for pragmatic reasons. They had to put their foot down, after having already yielded to Hitler on the matters of the Rhineland remilitarization, the Sudeten and the Austrian Anschluss, thinking they could appease a Hitler into delaying war or foregoing it altogether (opinions varied in the british govt). But France was (correctly) convinced that payback time for ww1 was coming and pushed the brits for an alliance, with a formal security guarantee. This was something the brits had not been eager to give, they were even less eager than the french to go to war (their armaments were pretty far behind compared to Germany).

      Shortly before the wars outbreak they made a crucial mistake – together with the french, they did finally extend a security guarantee to Poland.

      Now, the thing is, both Hitler and Stalin wanted a chunk of Poland, and by comitting to defend it, London was inadvertently blocking Stalins ambitions as well as Hitlers. This is what briefly pushed them together long enough to sign Ribbentrop-Molotov, which the allies thought could never happen because of ideological enmity. Little did they know Stalin regarded them all (brits, germans, french, italians) as equivalent capitalistic swine and would be pragmatic in dealing with them.

      Both Hitler and Stalin knew the pact would be short lived, but Yossif miscalculated by how much. But it was an understandable mistake at the time.

  25. Aarron,
    “…If you are a hot guy, then it can indeed be easier to bang a hot girl than an average looking one because the latter may want to go to great length to show you that you’re not “better than her.” ”

    1. I have often heard from 9’s and 10’s that they sometimes don’t like hot guys cause they tend to be very cocky and full of themselves. That being said, does this mean its easier for average or above average looking guys to lay that hottie?

    2. Where does this leave the average guy or above average looking guy if he were to bed an average girl relative to a hottie (10) or vice-versa? Would it be more ideal for the guy to lay the average since it will be easier since 9’s and 10’s prefer hot guys?

    Reply

    1. 1) No.

      2) Chances for an average guy to lay a hottie are slim to none. Sure, if Joe Average gets the chance to bang a legit 10, he should go for it. Otherwise, he’d be a lot better off going for regular women.

  26. Again not to interject but this goes back to what I spoke about earlier. Saying that hot dudes (or women) are meaner than the rest of society is flat out bigoted. Hot women do like hot guys. But the odds of them cheating or leaving is higher because of their options. The sjw media used to always say “men are only as faithful as their options.” Forgettin that women cheat more than men. Most people are only as faithful as their options.

    Add to that, a girl puts more value on the hot guys, so if she gets turned down it stings more (and same goes for men). They don’t really care what average guys think. And in many cases the good looking guys didn’t even turn them down. They probably are just shy or don’t pick up on the signals, the women feel slighted and just assume they are assholes. I assume the 9’s and 10’s you are referring to are approaching 30 and are looking to settle down and have children. If they marry down in looks it’s almost guaranteed that the dude will never stray. So average looking dudes are a safe bet.

    Reply

  27. Hey Aaron/Alek,

    As a loyal follower of yours i have learnt that environment is essential when it comes to not only pick-up, but job opportunities and social opportunities as well. I have also realized that, if i want to create such an environment for myself, the quite small 140k citizen town i live in is not going to help much in that regard and is absolutely going to hold me back. I have thought about starting a new chapter for quite some time now and it has become quite clear that i’m going to have to move in the near of not-so-near future (i’m about to graduate). However, it’s hard for me to say how big a city has to be in order to be sufficient for this, the problem is that i live in a small european country as well (Holland) so the only viable option i’m seeing is my country’s capital town. I know that you have lived in London and Berlin and that this gave you access to enormous pools of women both quantitatively and qualitatively (and probably more professional opportunities as well), but i’m concerned that this small country pales in comparison to it.

    Reply

    1. If you live in a small country with a lack of opportunities, I’d seriously explore going abroad, even if it’s just for a few years. To explore this question in detail, think about booking a consultation session with me. This is one of the most common questions I get.

  28. I wanted to say another thing about the war. I’m positive that my European friends suffered much more than myself from its effects. But both my grandfathers fought in the war in the Pacific theater. One saw no action because he was in Japan during the occupation. The other was a Chief Petty Officer during the Battle of the Coral Sea. His ship was sunk and he was in a life raft listening to his men getting eaten alive by sharks. It fucked him up so bad, the last image my dad had of his father was my grandfather choking my grandmother. In turn my dad was fucked up and the last time I saw him I was 13.

    War.

    Sucks.

    It’s had long lasting impact on everyone and whole thing shouldn’t have happened. The whole fucking war was a holicaust. The worst part is that they used our best men and wasted them away for a cause that didn’t help ordinary people. Yet the US government keeps it up in multiple countries to this day.

    Reply

    1. Of course war sucks. WWI was the beginning of the end of the Western world. The stupidity of the best and brightest people the world had ever known slaughtering each other is absolutely mind-boggling.

  29. @ Aaron

    Pat Buchanan calls the 2 wars “The Civil War of Western Civilization.” The “war guarantee” the Brits gave to Poland sealed the fate of the Poles. The Brits knew there was nothing they could do for them. The stupid Polish government (not trying to be stereotypical here hehe) went along with it and wouldn’t negotiate with the Germans thereafter. And why didn’t the war guarantee cover a Soviet invasion for fucks sake??

    The Brits also said they would help Finland militarily when the Soviets nakedly invaded them. They never did, and near the end of the war they actually declared war on Finland. A nation that was ATTACKED UNPROVOKED. Good old Winston Churchill, fucking piece of shit!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.