true cucks

True cucks are alpha males. I will do a dissertation on Onison, the leader of the cucks.

Onison is a rapist and a woman abuser, even causing a miscarriage in his fiance after throwing her to the wall, yet goes on and on about how feminism is good. His avatar is The Joker, who is a murderer and raped batwoman before.

Basically, many "cucks" are just alpha males who want to oppress males in general so that they get all the females to themselves.

Feminism is a joke and cucks are a joke. Where do you hear feminists or cucks complaining about Muslims throwing gays off buildings? They don't because they just don't care. And if you want to ban muslims, you are a "racist", even though muslims are not actually a race.


You cannot ever win an argument against a cuck or a feminist, because they aren't arguing from a position of honesty, rather it is a propaganda campaign with their own dogma and set views, and there was never any intention of having an honest argument about it, they set from the get go to deceive you with their dogma campaign.

Onision doesn't seem like the type that could physically hurt most males, his "oppression" if you want to call it that, is purely noetic like Jews.

Ive mentioned that the two types of man that flourish today are either the "Chad" males who fuck around laying no seeds and the "Cuck" males who don't mind cleaning up the scraps by Chads and happily settle with women afterwards.

The only ones who challenge or dislike this dynamic are those who want a family of which the former two could care less about.

Check out this video I have been commenting on...


Incels are men who are ridiculed today despite them rejecting taking the "cuck" path in the modern world.
They are not ridiculed for their sexual inadequacy because many cucks also withhold sex until the woman decides they are "ready". In a sense there is nothing involuntary about it, as anyone can get access to a prostitute at any time. What is ridiculed is their desire for a family, as families are no longer conducive to the Modern State.

The guy in this video basically just tells Incels they haven't been "selfless" enough in their pursuit of women, and that for them to be successful, they need to have a truly mutual relationship.

Of course when I asked him why women aren't as "mutual" with regards to their interest in "positive" traits like confidence and appearance, he has yet to explain how this does not disprove his whole approach.

Also, he presents this approach as if it was something new, and not what is taught to all men today as the ideal means of acquiring a mate.
"Be as selfless and agreeable to women as you can be, and one day, maybe one day you will get the honor to copulate with her." But you have to not want to copulate with her as well."

This is insanity.

Hegel thinks that being powerful means being seen as powerful. Of course, we all want to be recognized, because being recognized has positive consequences, but not all of us think that recognition is the most important thing in the world. Some of us are picky when it comes to choosing the means by which we want to become recognized. (You can be popular by being a retard, you know.) We want to be powerful first and recognized as powerful second. Not the other way around.

Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy, p. 10 wrote:

[T]he relation of master and slave is not, in itself, dialectical. Who is the dialectician, who dialectises the relationship? It is the slave, the slave's perspective, the way of thinking belonging to the slave's perspective. The famous dialectical aspect of the master-slave relationship depends on the fact that power is conceived not as will to power but as representation of power, representation of superiority, recognition by "the one" of the superiority of "the other". What the wills in Hegel want is to have their power recognised, to represent their power. According to Nietzsche we have here a wholly erroneous conception of the will to power and its nature. This is the slave's conception, it is the image that the man of ressentiment has of power. The slave only conceives of power as the object of a recognition, the content of a representation, the stake in a competition, and therefore makes it depend, at the end of a fight, on a simple attribution of established values. If the master-slave relationship can easily take on the dialectical form, to the point where it has become an archetype or a schoolexercise for every young Hegelian, it is because the portrait of the master that Hegel offers us is, from the start, a portrait which represents the slave, at least as he is in his dreams, as at best a successful slave. Underneath the Hegelian image of the master we always find the slave.

In other words, there are people (who we refer to as "slaves" here) whose survival strategy consists pretty much in doing whatever is necessary in order to be accepted by the largest number of people. Such a strategy might be the most effective strategy in this day and age but I don't think it is available to everyone.

What's happening is that people are becoming more and more primitive (and that means dumber) in order to be able to survive. This tendency is then resisted (albeit unsuccessfully) by a minority of people who find it difficult to devolve and thereby adapt.

Becoming a cuck in order to survive might be the most viable strategy in the present day, but it's certainly not the most intelligent strategy. Cucks might be adaptable but they are not intelligent.

By the way, what kind of philosopher calls his philosophy "Cuck Philosophy"?

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Of course when I asked him why women aren't as "mutual" with regards to their interest in "positive" traits like confidence and appearance, he has yet to explain how this does not disprove his whole approach.

Could this be a response to one of your comments?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Cuck Philosophy wrote:

A right-winger who commented on my video 2 weeks ago accused Marxism of feminizing society and restricting masculinity. He commented on today's video complaining that women only like confident men. That's right-wing pathology in a nutshell I guess

I'd like to read the exchange between the two of you.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Also, he presents this approach as if it was something new, and not what is taught to all men today as the ideal means of acquiring a mate.
"Be as selfless and agreeable to women as you can be, and one day, maybe one day you will get the honor to copulate with her." But you have to not want to copulate with her as well."

Leftists are the the real cuckservatives now.
Or,
White shitlibs! Gather round and let's hold hands with your conservacuck brethren on the cuckboat.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

What's happening is that people are becoming more and more primitive (and that means dumber) in order to be able to survive. This tendency is then resisted (albeit unsuccessfully) by a minority of people who find it difficult to devolve and thereby adapt.

Becoming a cuck in order to survive might be the most viable strategy in the present day, but it's certainly not the most intelligent strategy. Cucks might be adaptable but they are not intelligent.

I wouldn't say they are completely dumb, as these cucks can manage to regurgitate the feminist talking points and even build upon them conceptually as many of them do in academia today.

Perhaps this is the result of an average to above average IQ and those on the far right of the spectrum are the ones who cant help but reject such ideas, there is also the theory that many intelligent men simply pretend to buy into these ideals and have "sold out" for personal gain.

Part of me thinks that deep down in their heart of hearts, they know its all bullshit but keep it going because they have invested too much into it and continue to cash out on it.

It could also be as Satyr mentioned, that their skitzophrenic behavior results in them thinking one thing, saying another, and doing a third thing, where they cant help but be like women with no control over their being.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

By the way, what kind of philosopher calls his philosophy "Cuck Philosophy"?

The same one who thinks himself brave by adopting a shamed label despite suffering none of the historical consequences such a word is linked to.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

I wouldn't say they are completely dumb, as these cucks can manage to regurgitate the feminist talking points and even build upon them conceptually as many of them do in academia today.

Perhaps this is the result of an average to above average IQ and those on the far right of the spectrum are the ones who cant help but reject such ideas, there is also the theory that many intelligent men simply pretend to buy into these ideals and have "sold out" for personal gain.

Part of me thinks that deep down in their heart of hearts, they know its all bullshit but keep it going because they have invested too much into it and continue to cash out on it.

It could also be as Satyr mentioned, that their skitzophrenic behavior results in them thinking one thing, saying another, and doing a third thing, where they cant help but be like women with no control over their being.

That's true. They are not literally dumb. Some of them are probably extremely intelligent. Noam Chomsky, for example, is a very intelligent person. The problem is not a lower IQ but a limited use of it. Modern people might be more intelligent than the ancient peoples but the number of ways they can use their intelligence is certainly lower.

If you use all of your intelligence to solve business problems and none to solve your family problems, you will be a boss at work but a cuck at home. That might be a necessity because solving business problems earns you money which allows you to survive whereas any attempt to solve your family problems leads to a certain death.

Once you get used to using intelligence one way (i.e. to study some smaller portion of reality) it becomes difficult to change the way you use it. Children might be in a better position to choose how they want to use their intelligence (thanks to their youthful flexibility) but if there is noone to guide them in the right direction they will simply continue to do it the old way.

I just saw this ad pop up on Youtube, how fitting that their name is "Bonobos" and they're attempting to undermine what it means to be masculine.

Masculine, patriarchal chimpanzees vs effeminate soyboy matriarchal bonobos







The only reason bonobos can even survive is that they exist in a portion of physical space that is free from predators and rich in resources, a sort of naturally occurring “good times” from the “good times create weak men” cycle.

Imagine if bonobos had to actually compete with chimpanzees for resources. They’d get wiped out immediately.

Just like in humans, matriarchy and feminism = factors which make groups weak and more vulnerable to conquest.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

I just saw this ad pop up on Youtube, how fitting that their name is "Bonobos" and they're attempting to undermine what it means to be masculine.

Targeted advertisment.

AutSider wrote:

Nice, didn't know TFM already responded to it.

"And cooperatively dominate males"

More like (((And cooperatively dominate males))), are Jews the most poignant human expression of the Bonobo animal? Some would argue that due to their religion they are "patriarchal" but I think that due to a lack of a physical alpha male, the abrahamic social dynamic mirrors that of a bonobo tribe where any masculine expression of rebellion or aggression is snuffed out. Despite their "monogamy" they reveal themselves through their shameless endorsement and engagement in profligate sexual activity. They think that by hiding behind a stoic and reserved face, this excuses what they do behind closed doors, just like women: show one thing, do another.

I have heard that the Desert was once green and plentiful which would explain the psychology that develops with an excess of resources and limited predators.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

Targeted advertisment.

I wonder what kind of impressionable mind would fall for it...

At least its gotten the negative reception it deserves in the dislikes and comments.

I didn't bother to check the comments. Now I see. It's a failure. I am not surprised. They started with a definition. How can they deceive anyone if they start by defining their words?

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Onision doesn't seem like the type that could physically hurt most males, his "oppression" if you want to call it that, is purely noetic like Jews.

Don't fall into the trap of confusing masculinity for body building. Masculinity is a mental trait not a physical one. Hence the show "Chuck" was not about body-building, but changing his thinking patterns to be more masculine. Onison has frequently posted violent comedy videos of him frequently murdering people with firearms. Hence in the Wild West, Billy the "Kid" (was probably not a body builder.)

Quote :

In a sense there is nothing involuntary about it, as anyone can get access to a prostitute at any time. What is ridiculed is their desire for a family, as families are no longer conducive to the Modern State.

It's not easy in America. With craigslist and backpage out of the picture, prostitution has all but dissappeared for the average american, unless you know the secret info of what streets to go to, most of the prostitutes on the streets will either be attractive trannies who you can only fuck from behind, or unnattractive crackhead females who you can fuck from the front, but probably wont want to. Then there are decent, fuckable escorts, but you have to pay higher fees for that, like 500 and up, most americans are too poor to afford.

Quote :

"Be as selfless and agreeable to women as you can be, and one day, maybe one day you will get the honor to copulate with her." But you have to not want to copulate with her as well."

This is insanity.

Yep it really is. I wish they would just come out and say it. That they hate the idea of men being viewed as sexual beings, because of their misandry of men due to their dislike of the male physical appearance, as men look visually more primitive on the evolutionary tree than females.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

In other words, there are people (who we refer to as "slaves" here) whose survival strategy consists pretty much in doing whatever is necessary in order to be accepted by the largest number of people. Such a strategy might be the most effective strategy in this day and age but I don't think it is available to everyone.

Yep and this is what you get with both emasculation and too much emphasis on corporate professionalism. Always trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Constant self-censorship of freedom of speech out of fear some random retard might take what you are saying the wrong way and go on some smear campaign against you.

Quote :

What's happening is that people are becoming more and more primitive (and that means dumber) in order to be able to survive. This tendency is then resisted (albeit unsuccessfully) by a minority of people who find it difficult to devolve and thereby adapt.

They are getting more emasculated, which is dumb in a sense because it restricts freedom of thought, because people are afraid to think certain things because if something doesn't make them feel good, it makes them abandon the thinking process.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

I just saw this ad pop up on Youtube, how fitting that their name is "Bonobos" and they're attempting to undermine what it means to be masculine.

Fag men and fag fonts.
What is with those boring fonts everyone uses nowadays? The fonts they use seem to tell a story of "Im so serious and I will suck the fun out of everything, because I want you to know I am "valid"."

And look. Im not against men having emotions or men having love. When did I say I was? I just hate how these pathetic emasculated men carry themselves, it just reeks of weakness and mental patheticism. It's like either get a sex-change and be my future slut for when I finally snap and go to prison, or grow some goddamn balls.

AutSider wrote:

Masculine, patriarchal chimpanzees vs effeminate soyboy matriarchal bonobos

The only reason bonobos can even survive is that they exist in a portion of physical space that is free from predators and rich in resources, a sort of naturally occurring “good times” from the “good times create weak men” cycle.

Imagine if bonobos had to actually compete with chimpanzees for resources. They’d get wiped out immediately.

Just like in humans, matriarchy and feminism = factors which make groups weak and more vulnerable to conquest.

I got nothing against bonobos, its just why do they have to be so goddamn ugly? Its fucking disgusting seeing them have sex like that. Look, if bonobos were a bunch of anime characters I'd find nothing wrong with it. Its just it would be boring, and would need some violence. Violence is objectively entertaining, because its mathematical, and thus complex. But I am against war and violence, but I like it on games and tv, and maybe some fisticuffs in real life here and there. I just dont think it needs to be removed from society completely.