RULES
The Hub is moderated for decorum. Please follow these rules while participating in The Hub:
- Be courteous and friendly to new members.
- Do not attempt to scare off new users from using the platform.
- Do advertise your Tribes and invite users to join conversations in them.
- Always Follow Our Content Policy
These rules only apply to The Hub with the exception of the content policy which is site-wide. Please observe individual tribe rules when visiting other tribes.
Sick of Rules? Want to Shit-talk?
Join The Beer Hall
Want a FLAIR next to your name? Send a message to redpillschool. Reasonable requests will be granted.
Have questions? Ask away here!
Join our chatroom for live entertainment.
14h ago TheRedPill Forum
OG Content [Repost] | Cyralea: End Game [TRP Vanguard]
Original author | @Cyralea [TRP Vanguard]
Original Reddit post
Original post flair: [Red Pill Theory]
Cyralea:
“Women finally desire me after all this time, and I’ve had regular satisfying sex at last. But I’m not happy. What do I do now? What’s the point of all this?”
There’s been an ongoing but steadily increasing tempo in this vein among the average RP’er. Naturally this comes as no surprise given that TRP has been around for several years and many are well past the introductory areas of their learning. And while there is a lot of variety among the populace here you’ll soon see there are still universals to be drawn about RP endgame.
What makes a man happy? Is it women? Sex? Money? Freedom? In their absence their sudden acquisition brings about happiness, but the feeling is fleeting. A virgin has trouble understanding how someone could get bored fucking their girlfriend, a man in a long-lasting relationship wonders how someone could get bored fucking a new girl every week, and the man fucking sluts weekly wonders how anyone wouldn’t want to be in an enduring, loving long-term relationship. The fantasy in one’s head is always greater than the actualized reality.
What’s the true path for an aspiring Alpha already on his way?
You might be inclined to say “Anything he feels like”, but that’s far too simple and more importantly, unhelpful. The real answer is “Anything that positions him to actualize any future goals”. Goals that cannot, by necessity, include women. In short, power.
Every man should have a mission. And I don’t mean the lifting, the approaching, the bedding of women; these things you should be doing already. Every man needs a goal to aspire to to keep him on an ever improving path. This is standard knowledge here. What one needs to consider is that some actions lend themselves better towards future goal acquisition than others. And none are more effective than the combined elements of power: Money, fame and influence.
The most easily achieved of all these things is money, and it’s arguably the most important. Money begets money, and so has a non-linear growth so long as it’s continually re-invested. And most important of all, it makes your mission that much easier to accomplish.
Consider the case of the RP man who is tired of fucking vapid, empty-minded sluts. What’s his endgame? Maybe he wants a family, with lots of children. Of course, he’s smart enough to recognize that getting married is fucking stupid, so he’s at a dead end. With enough money, that’s less of a concern. You can afford to raise children as a single-father with the aid of nannies. If in an LTR, you can afford to jump state lines to somewhere more friendly towards men, namely a state without cohabitation laws. Or even to another country altogether. You can even afford to pay for an expensive wedding just to get her to comply – so long as she agrees that you won’t be signing any papers. And in the worst case scenario you have access to high-priced lawyers to get you out of a bind. You need money in this life.
The rest is up to you. Maybe you want to help a subsection of humanity with the time you have on earth. Maybe you want to see the capital of every country. Maybe you want to fundamentally change how the world works. Or maybe you just want to disappear and do fingerpainting. And when one goal is actualized you move onto the next. With the right amount of power any and all of these things become actual options rather than dreams in your head, which starts you on the path to real happiness. Start planning how you will develop this wealth, how you will train yourself to be disciplined with money, and how you will see frivolous spending of money as giving up your very real power, if you want to see yourself with a prospective future.
Every man must have a mission, but before he can see it through he needs to gather the right tools.
Read MoreHey folks, it was recently brought to my attention that Youtube basically doxes you if you share links from youtube now.
First of all, what the fuck youtube.
Secondly, we're revised our site software to strip all tracking codes from historical and future youtube links. It will automatically remove them if you post youtube links today, and if you accidentally did it previously, it has been fixed.
Continued...Cyralea's reply to this user comment:
What's the end game for a women ?
Enlighten me senpai
@Cyralea:
Now that's a good question.
Female happiness comes from actualization as well, but not in the same way that it does for men. Men derive satisfaction from building things, but it's not the same for women. For women, happiness comes from validation, attention, security, respect and having children.
A proper endgame for a woman requires her to position herself to be the most desirable prospect in the eyes of a cohort. The best bait, if you will. That cohort could be just a small social circle or the entire world. Differs between women, what what matters is that she is the most desirable, or most admirable. It's why princess fantasies are common.
To realistically do this, she needs to become a highly public figure (actress, model, famous youtuber, etc), or inherit that value from a man. The latter is far easier. She needs the association of a high-value man to feel completeness in her life, as she needs his provision, security and genetic material. Finding a man who offers all three, while also giving her the status needed for her to achieve her personal worth is her endgame. She needs to become so desirable as a woman that she gets a top-alpha to commit to her. Her intermediary game, her tool, is to develop the pieces of attraction that best draws in such men. Feminine charm, beauty, submissiveness, etc.
And she has to do all that before she is 30 or so. In some ways, it's much easier being a man.
Read MoreInteresting thing I have learn about tattoos on the European women forehead.
Apparently it was to protect female children from being abducted/assimilated by Islam Ottomans, or at least to remind females the roots till the end of their days.
Apparently there still is some old women in some regions of Europe that have this tattoos
www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/current/croatia-eurovisions-ottoman-atrocities/
Violence as the Collapse of Power: Arendt, Mao, and the Limits of the Gun
Taken, dir. Pierre Morel (EuropaCorp, 2008), promotional poster. The film encapsulates the assertion that coercive organizations mistake the capacity for violence for power, but a trained adversary fighting from genuine human connection — a father, a daughter, a relationship no threat can replicate — will dismantle them every time. As Arendt writes, “violence appears where power is in jeopardy.” The traffickers were always in jeopardy.
Why Kidnapping Your Enemy’s Daughter Is Almost Always a Bad Plan
There is a scene early in Taken, the 2008 action thriller starring Liam Neeson, that most viewers experience as pure setup: bad guys take the girl, good guy goes to get her back. Simple. Satisfying. Pass the popcorn.
But watch it again through the Arendtian lens, and something more interesting emerges. The Albanian trafficking network that abducts Kim Mills does not just make a moral error. It makes a structural one — a mistake so fundamental that their defeat is essentially guaranteed from the moment they take her. They confuse violence for power. And if Hannah Arendt, one of the twentieth century’s most important political thinkers, were watching from the couch beside you, she would nod slowly and say: of course they lost. Snub out her cigarette: They never had power to begin with.
This essay uses Taken (2008) as a window into one of the most important, and most consistently misunderstood, distinctions in political philosophy: the difference between power and violence. Along the way, we will reckon with Mao Zedong’s famous insistence that political power stems from the barrel of a gun, draw on what communication studies tells us about why threats only work until they don’t, and arrive at a conclusion that is both philosophically serious and, frankly, useful the next time someone tries to hold something over you.
What the Traffickers Actually Built
Let’s start with the villains, because Arendt would.
The Albanian trafficking network in Taken is, on the surface, formidable. It operates across international borders. It has corrupted French law enforcement. It moves human beings through layers of intermediaries , scouts at the airport, handlers in apartments, buyers at auctions, with apparent efficiency. It has money, reach, and a demonstrated willingness to kill. By any conventional measure, this looks like an organization with power.
But look more carefully at what holds it together. Every relationship within the network is coercive. The women it traffics are held by force. The low-level operatives comply out of fear or financial desperation. The corrupt police offer their cooperation because they have been bought or threatened. There is not a single person in the entire structure who is there because they believe in something, who would show up if the money stopped or the threat was removed, who has any genuine stake in the organization’s survival beyond their own immediate self-interest.
This is not a minor detail. It is the entire ballgame.
Hannah Arendt, in her 1970 work On Violence, draws a distinction that cuts right to the heart of what we are watching. Power, she argues, is not the ability to compel. It is the ability to act collectively, “the human ability not just to act but to act in concert.” Real power belongs to a group and exists only as long as that group genuinely coheres. It is built from shared belief, mutual investment, and willing participation. Violence, by contrast, is what you use when you do not have any of that. It can produce compliance. It cannot produce cohesion. And compliance without cohesion is a house of cards.
The trafficking network is a house of cards. Bryan Mills is the wind...
Article continues here: e-schomann.medium.com/violence-as-the-collapse-of-power-arendt-mao-and-the-limits-of-the-gun-3380c4c1f884
#2026 #Medium #ErikSchomann #Article #2008 #Film #Taken #LiamNeeson #LucBesson #World #US #America #Europe #Ireland #France #Military #Intelligence #History #Warfare #Vehicles #Transportation #Weapons #Crime #Trafficking #Firearms #PsychologicalWarfare #SpiritualWarfare #BiologicalWarfare #CultureWar #EconomicWar #BureaucraticWarfare #KineticWarfare #UnrestrictedWarfare
Read More
