Steven Snider, Creating the Super Soldier |569|

Do you have explicit evidence for this?
Sorry, but I don't have a time machine, so I cannot take you back in time to interview people. However the article does have a citation. So you can follow the breadcrumbs. In addition to that, I ran across a number of other papers and articles by anthropologist — not that a person needs to do much more than to open their eyes and accept the obvious.

BTW: The reason I ended-up going down this particular rabbit hole involved a deep dive into something called polyamory. I ended-up creating a website dedicated to sorting out misconceptions about it and nonmonogamy in general. After sorting it all out to my satisfaction, I decided to move on to other things, and at about the same time, the whole COVID psyop hit. That has since taken priority and I'm working daily on that now instead.
 
The issue of the legal system is something I don't know much about, but your claim is contradicted by Wikipedia:

"Roman law is the legal system of ancient Rome, including the legal developments spanning over a thousand years of jurisprudence, from the Twelve Tables (c. 449 BC), to the Corpus Juris Civilis (AD 529) ordered by Eastern Roman emperor Justinian I. Roman law forms the basic framework for civil law, the most widely used legal system today" - Wikipedia

I once read a scholarly breakdown of why most of the current legal systems in the West are not based on Roman law. To me, it's probably the most dull subject. I forced myself to read such things, as it's still important. I don't have the texts with me any more, but it's to do with the structure of the laws and the legal processes themselves
 
We were writing our comments simultaneously... :)

As I wrote in my post, I'm only aware of what we're saying about this from evolutionary psychology. Do you have any explicit historical quotes on this though?

Like I was saying, I put a website together for it, and in the process reviewed hundreds of papers and followed the trails of just as many citations. At one point I did run across a translation from ancient Roman for one of the decrees. However I didn't post each and every little thing. I just don't have that kind of time. I just needed enough verification to be reasonably confident that the claim was valid. The only counterpoint I ran across was by highly biased individuals trying desperately to dismiss anything that contradicted their mononormative programming.
 
I once read a scholarly breakdown of why most of the current legal systems in the West are not based on Roman law. To me, it's probably the most dull subject. I forced myself to read such things, as it's still important. I don't have the texts with me any more, but it's to do with the structure of the laws and the legal processes themselves
Ya, I hear what you're saying. I'm sure there's lot's of nuances to consider, but in the overall scheme of things, it's just plain obvious that the influence of ancient Roman culture on Western civilization echoes on today in significant ways.
 
Ya, I hear what you're saying. I'm sure there's lot's of nuances to consider, but in the overall scheme of things, it's just plain obvious that the influence of Roman culture on Western civilization echoes on today in many significant ways.

Yes, they are more like just echoes. You used a good word there. Roman civilisation was destroyed. It's not the foundation of Western civilisation
 
BTW: The reason I ended-up going down this particular rabbit hole involved a deep dive into something called polyamory.

From what I've seen, most polyamory these days seems to be female-initiated.
It seems to be the hypergamous imperative, which has been given almost free reign, because Western societies have become so gynocentric
 
Yes, they are more like just echoes. You used a good word there. Roman civilisation was destroyed. It's not the foundation of Western civilisation
I guess that depends on how we define the words "foundation" and "Western". I think it's fair to say that Romans had a significant influence that was key in transforming pre-Roman European and Northern European religion, which in-turn formed the basis of the dominant belief systems and power structures of the West for hundreds of years. Of course we also have to acknowledge the Greeks — and then we can keep sliding back into the mists of time with the Egyptians and Mesopotamians.

Here's another good article:
THE IDEA OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
 
From what I've seen, most polyamory these days seems to be female-initiated.
It seems to be the hypergamous imperative, which has been given almost free reign, because Western societies have become so gynocentric
Yes. Contrary to the condemnation by many women that polyamory was devised by men as an excuse to cheat on their wives, in reality, the person who created the term "polyamory" was a woman named Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart. If anything, from a historical perspective, polyamory represents freedom from male dominated religion, culture and tradition where women were once considered men's property. Last but not least, there are more poly women than men.

A survey in 2012 of 4,062 poly-identified individuals between the ages of 16 and 92 found there are more poly women than men. Essentially half of the respondents (49.5 percent) identified as female, while only 35.4 percent identified as male. The remaining 15.1 percent either declined to choose between male and female or wrote in “third” genders. - The Advocate

According to evolutionary psychologist David M. Buss of the University of Texas at Austin, humans are in general innately inclined toward nonmonogamy. - Scientific American
 
A case in point: the other night I saw three people in their mid-20s in Poland when I was walking back to my place. Two beautiful girls and a guy. The guy and one of the girls were shouting at each other. I approached the other girl, asking if everything was alright. Next thing I knew the other girl was right beside me and started flirting. I asked who the guy was, how they knew each other. The two were recently married (just 4 months). She was openly flirting with me, saying she finds me attractive, etc. The husband repeatedly tried to say something and the girl turned around and told him to shut up(!).

I looked at him as if to say, "wtf man... are you going to put up with this?"

He just took the abuse. The girl then grabbed my hand and said she wanted to have shots with me.

In previous times I would have said no out of principle. But most men in the West have become so weak that they meekly accept such public abuse - even overt cuckoldry!

I still found it uncomfortable and the atmosphere obnoxious. It was the female friend who was saying that her friend shouldn't go off with me. The husband was passive though and was told to shut up each time

In the end we had a shot together, all four of us, at the female friend's suggestion, rather than just the married female friend going off alone with me

I said goodbye after one shot as it was getting too uncomfortable. But the married girl ran after me, flinging her arms around me, saying she wanted to see me another time. This was all in front of the husband(!), who was so brow-beaten and probably brainwashed into not being territorial, that he just allowed all of this

And this isn't an isolated incident btw. Unashamed female-initiated polyamory with say the 5% most attractive men is becoming rather normal, esp. with women under 25 in my experience
 
According to evolutionary psychologist David M. Buss of the University of Texas at Austin, humans are in general innately inclined toward nonmonogamy. - Scientific American

Yes, the work of David Buss is based.
A few years ago I found this topic so shocking. But since I'm single again, approaching and dating women, improving my smv, I see hypergamy all the time now

A woman who's happily with her man doesn't typically behave like this. But I still wouldn't trust a woman re hypergamy. E.g. I wouldn't accept her having male "friends" that she meets up with alone if she becomes my girlfriend
 
PS: a couple of years ago I saw an evolutionary psychology presentation which cited a little-known individual who since became the most searched man on the Internet: Andrew Tate.

Looking at it from a sociological perspective, Tate is in my opinion an archetypal representation of the warrior class:
4x Kickboxing world champion, extremely self-confident, polygamous, self-disciplined, great accumulated wealth, flexing, unscholarly but sees the immediate world and patterns of behaviour

I see his banning from much of the Internet as not just a reaction to him speaking against the nwo, jabs, etc. But because he represents the rebirth of the warrior class
 
That's true. The original latin is "divide et impera", which literally means divide and rule.
German and French get their translations correct
But in practice the Romans did both divide and conquer, and divide and rule
Even though it was horrifying what they did, they were such masters at it. E.g. Julius Caesar moving his army into Gaul in order (ostensibly) to protect one tribe against another (like a humanitarian mission). Or the system within Roman society itself, where there were hierarchies among the slaves, so the slaves would be squabbling with each other for position
good point... both.
 
Putin gave a chilling speech a couple days ago after the treaties where Russian people of Donetsk/Lugansk/Zaporozhye/Kherson voted to become citizens of Russia.
I read the speech 3 times so far which is 3 more times than I’ve read any presidents speech.
Not sure whatsoever what this means for the rest of the world but we’re definitely in some interesting times right now.
Erie. Like if the US was ever gonna try to false flag itself to into a full war with Russia… I just hope they they don’t try something stupid like that.. which is really hard to say after the destruction of the Nordstream pipelines.

here’s the speech
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69465
 
Last edited:
Putin gave a chilling speech a couple days ago after the treaties where Russian people of Donetsk/Lugansk/Zaporozhye/Kherson voted to become citizens of Russia.
I read the speech 3 times so far which is 3 more times than I’ve read any presidents speech.
Not sure whatsoever what this means for the rest of the world but we’re definitely in some interesting times right now.
Erie. Like if the US was ever gonna try to false flag itself to into a full war with Russia… I just hope they they don’t try something stupid like that.. which is really hard to say after the destruction of the Nordstream pipelines.

here’s the speech
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69465

Yes, Robbe, that speech was world historic. I find the whole war so tragic, because it didn't have to be this way.

I was in Ukraine when the war began. I saw it likely approaching many weeks ahead. I was warning people that if things kept escalating it was going to be a disaster for Ukraine. Of all the places I'd lived in the world, Ukraine and Poland are my favourite. It feels like I've lost a homeland.

Zelensky led Ukraine to this avoidable disaster. It sickens me to see him being held up as some sort of patriot. He's not. Rather a disgusting degenerate, an enemy of the Ukrainian people
 
The referendums are deemed by the United Nations to have been organized in violation of the United Nations Charter and to be illegal under international law. Here's the response from The White House:

Statement from President Biden on Russia’s Attempts to Annex Ukrainian Territory
Especially after reading Putins speech, Biden’s statement reads like it was written by someone in high school drama class. It’s like they’re not even attempting to make the appearance of taking themselves seriously, and just scrambling to squeeze whatever they can out of the laundering scheme. Which is kind of a good sign. Hopefully they’re gearing up to take their winnings and run.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top