Open Thread

Open Thread #68

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.

49 thoughts on “Open Thread #68

  1. I have to pick up on the topic of WWII, National Socialism etc from the last open thread. Lots of good points made. General Patton was not the only person of prestige who wondered if the allies fought on the right side. Winston Churchill himself reportedly said “we killed the wrong pig.”

    Even if he didn’t say that, he DEFINITELY said, here in the good ol’ USA that the Soviets were a bigger threat than the Nazis in the “Iron Curton” speech.

    1. Jesus, I was watching the Iron Curtain speech and just realised what an overrated orator Winston Churchill was. Just read the whole thing, head was down the whole time, I couldn’t even finish it without falling alseep. Hitler and Mussolini could deliver.

    2. Winston Churchill was one of the worst leaders the world has ever seen. He had achieved very little in his life and was itching for war so that he could prove that he was somebody, too. When it dawned on him that he had gotten in way over his head, he took money from the US. The final debt was only cleared in 2006! In the end, England lost its empire; the entire country was ruined, in fact. What a hero Churchill was! That was not even the end of it: In the 1960s and 1970s, England was called the “sick man of Europe”. England never fully recovered. If they didn’t have their domestic tax haven, they’d be a second-world country at best.

    3. To add to Aarons comment on the last thread. Ive been doing a lot of reading and it seems like Trump/Putin are on the right side of history right now. All the signs point to them overthrowing the elites as covid19 was their last attempt and trying to hold power.

      This is a good article nicely recapping everything:

      Its funny that Amazon recently banned Mien Kampf seems like they’re worried about people reading it. The jews are already complaining that people are blaming them for covid19. And its off that Israel, 1-2 month after the outbreak, mentioned they might already have a cure/ vaccine. It’s so painfully obvious but people are so blind to see who’s behind all of this.

    4. Christ Almighty. I used to brag about how the US doesn’t use censorship. Well, Amozan is international. Maybe I can pick up Mein Kampf at Barnes and Noble…….oh, wait……

    5. Pretty sure I’ve posted this quote before, but I’ll post it again:

      “What’s happening to the West right now is Adolf Hitler’s posthumous revenge.”

      – Pat Buchanan

      Running in the opposite direction of Nazism certainly didn’t work out so well, did it? Well, I guess it did for Zionists. But probably not in the long run.

    6. Even more interesting is that this “revenge” is due to comical war propaganda. Yet, the US elites fell for their own bullshit, believing that he was some kind of devil incarnate.

    7. Well the Soviet Union eventually collapsed and in the 90s Russians got a lot poorer whilst the Americans helped the oligarchs seize control of Russia’s economy. The situation didn’t improve until ex-KGB agent Putin came tk power and got a handle on things. So maybe the USA was a much bigger threat to the USSR than the other way round.

      During the Cold War the USSR supported the PLO and various secular Arab nationalist goverments in the middle east, whereas the USA was funding and supporting Israel, Saudi Arabia and various Islamic exrtemist jihadi groups. So geopolitically, I’m sceptical that the foreign policy of the US was any less “threatening” than Soviet Union’s.

      Hitler did achieve and economic miracle in Germany. Then he screwed up by invading Poland/Belgium/France and trying to genocide the Jews. If he hadn’t done those things he probably would have stayed in power for as long as Franco did in Spain. Instead he started WW2 and got more Germans killed than anyone else in history.

      Lastly, I have no idea why you guys think Trump is going to turn America in a different direction with regards to Israel. He’s a guy who supported his own daughter converting to Judaism so she could marry a Zionist hardliner and has been so aggressively pro-Israel in his foreign policy that it’s pissed off western Europe and Russia.

    8. Trump has been aggressively pushing an Israel-first policy. I don’t think there is a majority on this blog who believe the opposite.

    9. We agree Overdrive. I could say more. But Churchill was basically an elitist, war mongering, piece of shit, right?

    10. Churchill was a total piece of shit. That fucker wanted to turn Rome into ashes and stated that he didn’t see what historical significance that city had. He’s arguably the best example of the dangers of alcoholism.

    11. Holy shit, I didn’t even know Churchill said that about Rome. He was a war criminal in the field as an infantryman long before he was a war criminal in the worst war ever (best war ever for Zionists).

      Fun fact about Churchill: he was also a bigot. He hated Africans, Indians and, drum roll…………Jews! The only people he hated more were Germans. Burn in HELL Winston Curchill!!

    12. I remember hearing that Churchill was happy when Pearl Harbor was bombed. Because, well, he just loved when people died. And because he knew we would enter the war.

      American people wanted to stay OUT of that terrible war. Republicans used to be ANTI- interventionist (until they got taken over by Zionist neoconservatives).

      Winston was probably drunk when he decided to intentionally bomb and kill German civilians — breaking a centuries long tradition in Europe. Then everybody did it. God damn I hate that war.

    13. Some comments on this – Churchill is not the hero he is made out to be often, but he did see Hitler for what he was. He was itching for war because he had a hunch – which happened to be exactly right – about where things were going. If you wanted war with Nazi Germany, given its tremendous economic growth, picking a fight sooner rather than later was the logical thing, as your window of opportunity was closing fast.

      He was happy about Pearl Harbor because it meant that the US would finally enter the war on their side. He had tried to talk Roosevelt into it since pretty much the beginning, and getting desperate because the US were dragging their feet. Keep in mind the timing, Adolf is on a roll. The attack on the UK in 1940 (Battle of England) was a failure for Germany, but the brits had won it just barely.

      During the Battle of England, Churchill deliberately attacked german civilian targets (Berlin bombing raid is the better known example, but there were others) in order to bait Hitler to retaliate against London and relieve the pressure on the RAF airfields, which were close to the breaking point. You can call him a piece of shit for that, but it worked.

      Everywhere else, Hitler was winning. Until the end of 1942 Hitler was actually still winning the war. Its only after Stalingrad and after the failure of the Kursk counteroffensive that it becomes clear to everyone that the Reich will lose. Until then, the setbacks were still reversible.

      Before bashing him too much as anti-german, keep in mind that when Stalin suggested that after the war they exterminate the entire german officer corps and civilian intelligentsia (like they had done with the polish in soviet-occupied Poland. Look up Katyn massacre), Churchill adamantly refused to even consider it. After Hitler died, even before the war ended, he was actually willing to switch sides and ally with Germany against the USSR, but the US would have none of it. In retrospect, it looks like it would have been the right call.

    14. From what I gather, Britain firebombed German cities, with the aim of killing civilians, for several months before Germany retaliated. This was then spun into “The Blitz”, which is one of the biggest bullshit stories there is. To this day, you’ll find poorly educated Brits (who went to private schools and attended Oxbridge/LSE) en masse who believe that Germany attacked London for absolutely no reason at all. You also have to consider that Hitler was extremely magnanimous towards Britain. Not only did he offer peace to Churchill, but he also prophetically stated that the British Empire was necessary for the survival of the West. Then there is Dunkirk, which some historians frame as a major blunder of Hitler. Yet, he did not want a war with Britain, so why would he slaughter the stranded soldiers there?

      We’d undoubtedly live in a much better world had Germany won the war. Hitler wanted to save Western civilization. Allied leadership was opposed to this and dog-piled on Nazi Germany. Sure, the Allies won the war, but at what cost? There is no Western country left that is in good shape. The victors got what they wanted. This is merely the macro-scale equivalent of naive female refugees-welcome activists who get raped and murdered by Muslim immigrants. It’s hard to feel any empathy, in both cases.

    15. And not to be nitpicking, but when it comes to atrocities in wartime, there is plenty of blame to spread around – no one is clean.

      The brits put the Boers (South Africa) in concentration camps at the beginning of the century.
      The italians started their atrocities early too, in their war against the turks.
      The turks commited the armenian genocide (and a greek genocide, and an assyrian genocide, which people tend to forget). Hell, the ottomans had been commiting genocides of christian peoples on and off for about 5 centuries.
      Imperial germany did commit a fair share of atrocities during its march through Belgium in 1914
      On the other hand, belgians were still raping Congo. The french colonies were not much better.
      The spanish commited their share during the civil war, mostly against each other (and where the german air force famously leveled the town of Guernica for no good military reason).
      the USSR not only massacred their occupied poles, they also purged their own people extensively, and caused millions of deaths by famine in the Ukraine.
      The japanese raped and killed civilians everywhere from Korea to Indochina, with special attention to Nanking.
      USA firebombed civilians in Germany and Japan in the last phase of the war, when it was militarily entirely unnecessary (and put the nuclear cherry on that cake at the very last moment)

      I could go on for the rest of the century, but you get the point. No one is exactly covered in glory here. Arguing who did it first or who did it worst is a bit like arguing how many devils can dance on the head of a pin.

    16. @ Aaron

      I’ve read that Hitler intentionally let the Brits off the hook at Dunkirk as a peace offering. He repeatedly said in Mein Kamf that the two nation’s that he sought an alliance with were Italy and Great Britain. I read even in a mainstream book that near the end he wrote that he “never wanted another ear with England and America.” He even offered an alliance with Poland before the war directed against the Soviet Union. It was on very generous terms for the Poles. He just wanted Danzig back. But the British and French hollow “war guarantee” changed all of that as the Poles refused to negotiate. Then the Brits let them get conquered by the Germans, and the Soviets.

      After watching a revisionist documentary on YouTube (which I’m sure has been pulled) someone in the comment section said about the allies “they are in charge today.”

      What a waste.

    17. The british aim in firebombing german cities was to lure Hitler into doing something like the Blitz, and it worked indeed.

      Its true Hitler actually wanted an alliance with the UK, and a lesser known story is that the brits were actually warming up to the idea in the run up to the war, until Ribbentrop blundered it. France was seen as a bigger threat in London during much of the interwar years.

      The treaty with Poland was a ruse, the poles just accepted it in a last ditch effort to forestall the inevitable. Sandwiched between Germany and Russia, it was only a matter of time until one of them decided to run them over. Similarly they had signed an alliance with Prussia before the 2nd Partitioning in 1793, and it similarly counted for nothing when Russia and Prussia decided to divide them up again. It is extremely naive to think Hitlers offer to Poland had any actual value.

      The franco-british guarantee to Poland was ill advised because there was no viable way of militarily defending them, and it drove Stalin to accept the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement.

      I seriously doubt the world would be in a better shape today had nazi Germany won, a view of western culture that includes pogroms, killing fields and “untermenschen” is not precisely the pinnacle of western civilization. Its not like they were somehow defenders of rational inquiry and free thought. Dont let your dislike for our current cultural decadence blind you of that.

    18. Also, i should check my notes, but I seem to recall that Dunkirk was Goerings blunder – he convinced Hitler that airpower could be enough to impede the maritime evacuation and the allied troops would be starved into surrendering.

  2. Do any of you guys try to influence how your girlfriends dress? I haven’t always liked the way girls I’ve dated dressed but assumed their clothes were entirely their decision. I’ve seen Aaron mention before that you should pick a hot girl and get her to dress how you like rather than be too influenced by her style when choosing a parter. But how do you choose your girlfriends outfits without her seeing you as controlling?

    1. Well, the precondition is that the woman wants to submit to you. Also, it’s not necessarily that you tell her what to wear. Instead, you tell her what you like, and because she wants to please you, she’s changing the way she dresses. Good luck finding a Western woman who acts in such a manner, though.

    2. I like fashion (webdesigner myself) I do enjoy to go shopping with Hot Girls sometimes (Not gay) because they have way more posibillities. I basically dressed them up how I liked it and they went along with it. Just dont be the average boyfriend who is chasing her like a dog while being disinterested

    3. Dude, in this scenario are you buying her the clothes or does she buy the clothes you recommend?

  3. In the last Open Thread I compared Covid-19 to media and Hollywood trumped up fear tactics. However, I forgot to mention urban legends. Remember the things that used to scare the shit out of you when you heard those stories…….I don’t know if this is urban myth is international, but in the US we were even told that masturbation could make you go blind.

    First you learn Santa isn’t real as a young child (even that is based on abusive fear tactics).

    Then in teenage years you learn urban legends aren’t real.

    Then in adulthood you learn (hopefully) the media is full of shit. Its all a power grab based on fear tactics. I’m not religious but my favorite quote from the Bible is “The truth shall set you free.”

  4. Is the claim that minoxidil can help stimulate dormant facial hair follicles true? My ish is a little patchy and it would be cool to have a decent beard for dating.

  5. if a girl doesn’t fuck you on the first date does that mean she doesn’t perceive you as alpha?

    long story short, we hooked up except fucked. i know i’ll bang her on the second date but she wants to wait because she doesn’t know me. She was saying im hot etc but “isnt that kind of girl”. She had all the signs of high interest wet etc. Seems like she wants me to be more invested before we bang.

    I just feel like im corrupted because of this PUA bullshit of the past. I have this notion that if i dont bang on the first day then it must mean im not perceived as alpha or chad. is this bad thinking?

    1. My mind has been corrupted by PUA “logic” as well. I’ve posted similar things and was told by multiple posters that basically I was overthinking it. In fact, I think PUAs themselves are the ones that consider first night pulls “fools mate.” And you didn’t earn it with your “game” or some stupid shit like that.

      This girl definitely likes you. She probably just doesn’t want to look like a slut. Only downside IMO is if you don’t want anything serious with her. ‘Cause that’s what it sounds like she’s looking for.

    2. She perceives you as potentially sth more than just a fling at this moment, you’re in a boyfriend zone. In one way, she thinks this is a privilege for you, but on the other you think of yourself as being not alpha.

      Looking through PUA lens we think this is degrading and low-value, because she wants you to invest and wait for ‘the prize’. Also, because you probably don’t know her sexual history, and you ate the red pill, the investment phase is considered for losers-only.

      But non-PUA people (bluepillers) think completely different, waiting is a sign that she isn’t a slut (although not knowing her sexual history makes it hard to believe that), and that it’s a normal way how people start dating…. via getting to ‘know each other’.

      I never understood this dichotomy from women… we men want primarily her pus*y, not her longterm attention and time. But when women meet someone that they actually envision to be with longterm, they will leave guys to wait to show how they are ‘longterm’ oriented. Also, when looking longterm they give more emphasis on the ‘whole package’, which I find it totally hypocritical. If society as a whole would be more restrictive in terms of sexual access, then waiting for ‘the prize’ would make sense. But women still did not adapt to the new realities where their ‘prize’ became a mere commodity with low margin, and it’s obvious less and less guys are willing to make such a high investment while knowingly accept the risk of low ROI.

    3. It all depends on her timeline. If she is used to having sex quickly, she’ll likely still put up some token resistance. This is just for her so that she can excuse her sluttiness by telling herself that things “just happened” even though she clearly didn’t want to, hence the token resistance. Very few girls don’t put up any token resistance, even the biggest sluts tend to engage in some play-acting according to which they are “normally not like that”.

      In short, if your girl expects guys to bang her on the first night, you’re now in a bad spot. On the other hand, if she genuinely does not want to rush things, which implies that she is not as easy as some other girls are, then everything is fine. As has been remarked by some other guys in this thread, there is also the issue that her waiting indicates that she has put you on the provider track. For guys, this is not ideal because even if you’re looking for a girlfriend, having sex on the first date normally does not preclude that.

    4. Thanks guys for the response.

      Some more info. I do work with her but have never really been interested in her and I don’t really view her as gf material would only want to date casually and bang on the side to kill time.

      I did escalate and push for sex, was non need, a little aloof/ indifferent etc like not to brag but everything was done right imo. Not to cope or anything one thing I did notice is she is kind of nerdy and is always shy and timid at the office but I know this could just all be an act. In fact she basically picked me up I wasn’t even pursuing her and she basically invited me over, offered to cook dinner etc. Either way it’s odd as I’ve had ons and banged on the first date. I guess some women Jsut perceive you a bf material or a ons/ bang.

    5. Aaron,
      On a related note, there is no shortage of girls who will string a guy along for as long as possible to get a free meal ticket(s). In addition, they will also string a guy along by giving just enough sexual attention to keep them interested, though there is no intent to have sex.

      You go out on a date, and it’s met with a peck on the lips. Then you go out on another date, and it’s met with some brief sexual touching (breast). For the inexperience guy, they will think that the next date will lead to sex. Unfortunately, they will learn the hard way that she had no real intentions of having sex, but only to prolong the relationship to get as many free meal tickets. All this is amounts to manipulation – “push/pull” on her part.

      Once, they are confronted by there antics, there immediate response is always the default line of:
      1. “I’m not like that”
      2. “I’m not like other girls”
      3. “Sex is very special and intimate. I only have sex if I am in a relationship”
      4. And the list goes on…

      1. At what point should a guy cut off the girl if he encounters such behaviours that I referred to in the scenario?

      2. Are women more likely to employ such antics with men who are inexperience with women?

    6. The case you describe sounds as if she’s using sex to control you. She’s throwing you little morsels to keep you interested and emotionally invested. Note that the simps she uses for free meals do not get pecks on the lips or access to her breasts. You need to escalate harder and if she does not go along, drop her because you probably do not want to be with such a manipulative woman.

  6. I’m normally against tattoos. Lately over the last 6-8 years I’ve grown to become more proud of my culture and realized the clown world we have been living in.

    I’ve always been drawn to the black sun. I know (((they))) call it occult or evil when in reality it’s an ancient European symbol. It’s hard to find stuff on the internet about it. Does anyone have any knowledge about it.

    I’m thinking of getting a tattoo of it. At this point being white is basically a crime might as well get it to now hide my pride.

    1. Von der Leyen is an incredibly incompetent person. She was involved in a plethora of corruption scandals in Germany, when she serves as the minister of defence (lol), and as a reward for all of this she got to head the European Commission.

    2. This is it. I think politicians have overplayed their hand.
      All the splitting, all the special interest group politics, they destroyed it all by this blanket approach Covid19 measures.
      Now a EU court will decide that a German court’s decision (saying that the EU court anti-constitutional) is invalid. Okay…

      The trend is your friend. Until the end of the trend. And when the rate of change suddenly increases, the reversal is near.
      1847 famine, 1848 revolution.

  7. Some more celebrity delusion. Last year, at age 50, Jennifer Aniston said in an interview (

    “I’ve never in my life said I didn’t want to have children,” she added.

    Aniston went on to say that she was still planning to have kids in the future.

    She continued, “I did and I do and I will! The women that inspire me are the ones who have careers and children; why would I want to limit myself?

    “I’ve always wanted to have children, and I would never give up that experience for a career. I want to have it all,” Aniston said.

    1. She’s a deluded whore. Wanted her cake and wants to eat it too. She’s 50 years old! – how retarded are some women now to think that they can have kids at 50. Their kids will either be retarded or her hips will crack when she gives birth.

      You know it’s deluded women like this that younger women follow and emulate but they don’t realize that 99% of them won’t even be close to Jennifer in terms of money and how many dudes give her attention.

  8. I started to read minimal game. And it’s crazy how as I’ve aged more of what I’m reading makes sense. When I was younger I understood the book but it didn’t really click and I didn’t fully comprehend it. And it’s aged pretty well, the way it’s written is still relevant to what we are dealing with.

    1. It’s been nine years already. Time just goes by like nothing.

      There are very few parts of this book I would change. Minimal Game happened at an interesting time, by the way. I intended it to be the end of my online presence. I originally wanted to put out this book and then disappear from the scene as that was also the time when I started putting in a real effort turning my real life around. Instead, I ended up carving out a little niche online and I’m still around.

    2. Glad you stayed around.
      It was intersting to see you and your life change.
      That’s in a big contrast to online stars that appear out of nowhere, shine for three or so years and then disappear. People get the impression that they run their lives in this high-baller style forever. Obviously they don’t. Just like all the insta-models don’t really wake up with perfect make uo and get on a private jet every day of the week.

      Made you just more credible, if you ask me. It’s one of the very few sane places on the internet. Not that I agree with everything you say, but at least we can have a civilized discussion that is not intelectually dishonest and usually dirty argumentation tactics are being called out asap. Hard to find it elsewhere. Plus, your financial agenda is clear. No up-selling here.

    3. The point of this blog being a place for civilized discussion is a very good one. It’s pretty rare nowadays that content creators directly engage with their audience. Blogs are on the way out anyway, but while the YouTube and Twitter audiences may be bigger, there is not much discussion going on there. People tend to just write rudimentary comments because they feel they need to say something and that is normally the end of it. In contrast, we are keeping up extended conversations here, with changing participants that include a core group of readers who have been around for many years. It’s quite incredible and part of the reason why I keep maintaining an online presence.

  9. Hi Aaron,. Please let me introduce myself. I’m a 27 years old guy from Indonesia, South East Asia.
    I had been a silent reader of your blog for about two years.

    I just want to say that almost all you have said in your blog is true. Dating in my country nowadays is just a shit show. There is also turbo feminism in many live aspects; working life, school life, college life, etc.

    I, however, decide to go my own way since I found no benefit for in marriage for men despite there are plenty of men call me crazy for having such thought. I already have a decent job in my 20’s even tough I spent my college days and high school days as a virgin since driving a car and having a good looking appearance are a must to get a girlfriend even with average looking (like what you have said, even ugly girls want a high tier man), therefore I spent my college days reading books anyway. Realised that I could get the decent job in my early 20’s, I think there is no correlation between success and woman’s support in this life as many blue pill men always think. . This kind of ideology had already spread across the globe.

    1. Welcome. I find your phrasing that “almost everything I said on this blog is true”. I think it’s more correct to say that your experience confirms almost everything I write. Of course, we can disagree on some topics and we also most certainly have had different experiences.

      The correlation is the other way round: if you are not a top-tier man in terms of looks, you need to have economic success in order to attract women. The man will then support the woman, of course, instead of the other way round.

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.