Fun times with Mr. FS

If you look at the title of the thread presumably Mr. FS refers to 'fschmidt'. 'Shau' here has only ever written or replied to this particular thread and the very purpose of the thread seems to be to directly attack 'fschmidt'. It's unclear what 'Shau's motive is or what the purpose is? Presumably NZ refers to New Zealand where 'Shau' lives.

As a person who is not American there is an obvious lack of understanding of the term 'Liberal' as used in American politics and that's understandable as I had the same problem:

American Liberalism:
A Left Wing ideology.
A declining belief in God, and a greater belief in human reasoning.
Liberalism appears to be a form of religious thinking (but a different religious thinking).
Liberalism promotes feminism.
Liberalism embraces many ideas that are speculative and unproven.
Liberalism affirms the autonomy of the individual (egocentric liberal individualism).
Liberalism emphasizes right at the expense of good and self at the expense of society.

Liberalism encourages the excessive pursuit of the individual's private interests at the expense of the interests of others, the good of society, and the overall welfare of humanity. Liberalism is a selfish ideology.

So the conclusion here is that Liberalism is BAD. There are many people however who like this, but it's clear that the basic ideology has some serious flaws. I don't think that definitions are overrated and this is one occasion where there are good reasons to have a definition, as a foreign audience has difficulty understanding the American view of it.


'Shau' has quite a clear argument with respect to the idea that Liberalism is said to cause evolutionary decay, because this argument is generally a poor one. Evolution has existed for a long time where Liberalism has existed for a short time, but the basic underlying concepts have been put across by 'fschmidt' in a way that may not be correct? Let me try to explain.

As previously above the general concept is this:

The male must be clearly visible to the female, but must avoid contending with the world.

Now obviously I know what I mean but it's a concept that does not convey well as a single statement so let me give a modern example.

A performer stands on a stage and gives a performance to his audience. Now the performers name may be Elvis, or Adolf but in either case the audience is present to watch and listen to the performance. In some cases they have paid to watch the performance, so they would not want a heckler to interrupt the performance because they want their monies worth. As a result no one in the audience will 'contend' with the performer. The performer is therefore visible to the audience but does not have to contend with these people (thus achieving the concept). Of the 200 strong audience 100 females realise that the performer is the only man in the hall that they would want to sleep with. This is because the performer is temporarily in a position of POWER, and the females are attracted to this power. That leaves the 100 males in the hall as single rejected individuals. This concept is called 'The Dominant Male'.

The problem here is that 'fschmidt' is on the side of the 100 rejected decent men and not the performer who could easily be a Liberal politician. I'm sure that he will correct me on these points if I am mistaken. So his idea is to have a breakaway culture that will reject the basic evolutionary principle of the Dominant Male, and will instead avoid this type of 'Liberal' posturing. It's a problem because it's a rejection of thousands of years of evolution that has been accelerated by this selection process AND that's what 'Shau' is getting at.

The Amish community has largely achieved this goal. They shave their moustache because the shape reminds them of military and rank. They avoid contending with the world. They reject technology and the impression is that they don't want a situation where one man can seem better than another. They are very democratic in the way they create their rules. But for many people here they are seen as a very poor culture. So we have seen from them what would happen if 'fschmidt' was able to succeed and it would not be an ideal result.

The idea that Liberalism would cause the decay of the culture is the idea of bad genes, but evolution doesn't care about culture. Many cultures will rise and fall and if this didn't happen you would have stagnation. I suspect that prior to the Dominant Male there would have been a uniform breading by proximity where the only selection criteria was that the other sex was still alive and nearby, and the result of that is painfully slow evolution.

My example being a modern one shows that there are many ways of being the Dominant Male and performance is an artificial version where the commercial aspect results in the performer being supported by some kind of security. Elvis Presley was in 'contention' with male teenagers wherever he went, for obvious reasons. This is your Jerk, Asshole, Liberal, and the reason this works is because it achieves visibility while avoiding contention.

So if you guys really are right wing prairie voles, keeping your heads down as fschmidt has suggested then this is why your problems exist. You need to consider that unless you have the intension of becoming Amish you still need to find ways of achieving the 'visibility without contention' requirement (and not just the avoidance of contention). The modern world provides many ways that each person might become King For A Day and that's what is really needed.

So it is my view that instead of a CoAlpha Brotherhood it would be more practical to create a CoAlpha Elite. As there a few members and as these members are spread throughout the world shouldn't you strive to become the Dominant Male in your area and shouldn't this forum be teaching you how to do that? Isn't that a more practical approach. Isn't that what the Liberals are doing.

Elliot Rodger was avoiding contention with the world, but he was not achieving the visibility. As soon as he achieved the visibility, he found himself in contention and failed to handle that. There is visibility and then there is conflict. You have to overcome the conflict and remain visible and if you do that then you are seen as POWERFUL and therefore attractive to females. Try to grasp this concept.

Aw, man. This is a lot to read. I'd like to ask what on Earth is even going on in this thread. An argument of some sort?

Hi Indefatigable, yes it seems that 'Shau' joined just so he could have a go at 'fschmidt' for being against Liberals.

There are some obvious logical errors that do occur for example:

"Two of the issues mentioned in this video are drug laws and anti-prostitution laws.  These are usually not seen as Liberal laws, but in fact they are.  When America was primarily a Christian nation, neither of these were illegal.  They became illegal when America became more Liberal."

So time passes by and new facts are discovered. It was discovered that drugs were harmful and so they were made illegal. Likewise AIDS came along and it was already realised that prostitutes were spreading diseases, so when this was discovered prostitution was made illegal in an effort to prevent this trade and so prevent the diseases that were being spread (or at least limit the spread). But... at the same time America was becoming more Liberal, it could have been becoming more Conservative or it could have been becoming more Democrat. So when these new laws were made they were made by Liberals. So Liberals did this and Liberals get the blame. Unfortunately if America had become more Conservative then the Conservatives would have created these laws and then they would have got the blame, or if America had become more Democrat then the Democrats would have brought in these laws and then they would have got the blame. Cursory glance then shows that Liberals are BAD because they did these things, but logically these laws could have been brought in by anyone and therein lies the problem.

What you have is a correlation not a causation. The assumption is that these laws were caused by Liberals when clearly most people will recall that they occurred because the scientific facts indicated that these laws were necessary to protect people from being harmed by the hazards that were being caused (much like smoking).

Now these things may have been less harmful in the past as the diseases may be modern. Likewise religious practices that used drugs like Savia Divinorum have resulted in that drug, for example, continuing to be legal (as far as I know).

Shau then sees this hatred of Liberals as mere prejudice reached on the basis of assumption and he points to these kinds of errors. There are many errors of this kind that seem to occur here and the hope is that through argument and discussion some of these might be pointed out and corrected. Sadly people like what they believe and are often reluctant to consider the possibility of error.

So to clearly state this one more time:

Prostitution and Drugs were made illegal BECAUSE they caused harm. The fact that the people bringing in these laws were generally more Liberal is merely a coincidence.

To refute this argument you would need to show that prostitution and drugs do not cause harm, but as we all know, they do, and this why they are illegal.

"If it makes you feel any better, I was considering making that one my last post too. Good day, and enjoy being a hermit for the rest of your life. It's probably the only thing fate has in store for you."

I don't see how that fate would be bad per se, and how your fate would be better. I don't perceive you as nothing but THE loser. Just in case you haven't thought that people don't necessarely think you're cool, and if you think most see you as a good example of human being you're deluded.

You aren't lucky, you aren't to be envied - only pitied. You do not understand life, how is that something to be envied.

All that matters in life is getting it, and you don't. You're a loser by all standards except those where losing is winning and viceversa, which perhaps are yours. And they don't exist or matter, just like you. You don't matter and only an idiot takes you seriously.

being a hermit is not a problem. Being a social idiot like you is.

Reality prevails and the truth is the truth - as you know and have said.

Of course, purpleduck's response here was to Shau's final post in which he suggests that fschmidt is cursed to become a hermit - which didn't happen.