Don’t Antagonize the Best and Brightest

Posted by admin | Uncategorized | Friday 29 January 2010 9:36 pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by amanda11 View Post
The Jews at the Federal Reserve won’t let this happen.

Stop antagonizing the best and brightest or you ended up like German in world war 2. That being said, the German and Napoleon were pretty nice to Jews in previous war before that and lost anyway. So don’t give them too many special privilege either.

I think the Jews are pretty reasonable people. There was once upon a time I was accused of damaging my dorms’ washing machine. Many knows I didn’t do it. No body spoke up. One did. She is a Jew. A professor that went the extra mile so I can keep going to school is a Jew.

There was a class I got an AB in Math because when I asked the professor how to get a good grade the prof simply said to work hard and try to understand. In the next class, I easily got the highest score. I scored perfect. The next best score was like 75 or something. The professor in that next class, is a Jew and I bet the prof in the previous class isn’t.

“But you were taking honor classes. The other students are very smart there,” said a mediating professor. What’s his point anyway? I tearfully explained how my other friends all got A but me. Then I have to further explained that they got A on THE university. That is, the university he’s working for, the university I was taking the class, the relevant one.

At that time I should have known my whole academic career is over. If only I knew how to start a biz.

Latter I took graduate math course straight without prerequisite while I only have 2 days to learn before mid and final. I got A easily and the professor is once again a Jew. Hell I’ll vote for Jews to rule the world :D . Just kidding.

A psychiatrist that helped me understand life was a Jew. A forum owner where I hang around a lot is a Jew. There are nice reasonable normal people all over the world from many different race that are nice to me. Why is it when someone is “reasonable” there is a high chance he/she is a Jew?

Evolution and prosecution force them to be smart and it’s natural that the smart and diligence earn more money.

Hell, if we keep breeding the smartest chimpanzees and slaughtering those that don’t figure out how to avoid it eventually they’ll be pretty smart too.

However, most cultures like Chinese or Europe have dysgenic laws that prevent the best and brightest from reproducing. Monks don’t get married. There is virtually no way a rich smart male in US can mate with women without risking his WHOLE money.

Pretty women’s choice are either free sex or full blown life long monogamous marriage.

In free sex, the women got roses and chocolate that expire quickly and they have to keep coming back for more. Evolutionary psychologists say that’s what makes chocolate and roses romantic.

In marriage, government is the pimp that enforce some form of price control to protect most voters from adverse effect of free fair competition. In marriage, the bitch got full life long monogamous commitment with exclusive supplier contract, exorbitant severance pay, and a blank check to have all her kids provided irrelevant of who actually knocked her up.

Too many “couples” would consensually choose somewhere between if the choices were legal and that’s why somewhere between choices are usually illegal or legally impossible.

The Arab is actually quite reasonable because they allow polygamy and contract marriage. Like the rest, those are not getting any also use religion or other supernatural out of this world explanation as excuses to limit sexual selection’s choice often far more violently. Well, the lesser cocks are hungrier in Arab I suppose.

It’s simple. If we truly are free to choose, we often choose someone else. We may even prefer to choose something else as in case of most males preferences to watch porn rather than marrying an ugly woman.

Those that won’t get chosen are often capable and jerks enough to make rules limiting our choices. Under NO country in the world men and women have right to choose their mate under ANY REASONABLE CONSENSUAL terms. There are just too many limitation that SERIOUSLY AFFECT SEXUAL SELECTION in favor of those sexually UNCOMPETITIVE.

Guess what? People think I am a delusional idiot. As always. As usual. As if what I am explaining is too outrageous to be true.

If you’re the best and brightest you just have to be complete jerks to win gene pool survival war in most cultures and most best and brightest people choose to be nice because they think they’ll win anyway despite their niceness. Minority groups like Jews in Europe or Chinese in Indonesia don’t have power or the luxury of killing each other and hence pick being competitive path more.

Those norms are created by and for economic losers that know they can’t compete with the best and brightest in the gene pool if they were nice. If not because of globalization, the world would be full with more and more angry socialists and religious bigots that enforce more bigotic norms. No wonder people become Nazis. Exterminating the best and brightest is how those bigot stay in the gene pool in the first place. Like father like son.

And don’t bother trying to understand their prejudice. The limit is imagination and the proof is faith. What is there to understand?

Who Wants What?

Posted by admin | Uncategorized | Wednesday 6 January 2010 6:37 am

That is precisely correct

Want of freedom is universal among those who can give better offer, more competitive, and hence want consumers to be free to choose.

Just like want of meritocracy is universal, among the productive.

The same way, want of sacrifice is also universal among those who want to sacrifice others. Want of control is universal among those who want to enslave others. Want of socialism is universal, among parasites. Want of religion is universal among those who want to blame others based on nonsense.

Quote from: roguespammer on January 05, 2010, 09:51:33 pm
Quote from: perkiset on January 04, 2010, 02:04:51 pm
I do not think you understand the concept of a military objective.

LOL … perhaps you misunderstand what SHOULD be a military objective and what shouldn’t.

There is no reason Vietnamese could not live in a democracy.  Vietnam could have easily transitioned from an Authoritarian Developmental Regime to a Developmental Democracy. That’s like Jackie Chan saying Chinese people are not ready to live in a democracy and need to be controlled.

That’s about as stupidly Western as it gets. “There’s really no reason at all why you should not understand that this is wrong.” See how well that works?

The military does not choose the objective, and I have been talking strictly in a military perspective, so what should be a military objective is a good talking point, but not what we were discussing. The thought is not Western, want of Freedom is universal. We could go on forever like you said earlier.

Same Page on Non Consensual Sex

Posted by admin | Uncategorized | Friday 16 October 2009 1:23 pm
Quote
You know, at first I didn’t understand too why any women would oppose consensual sex. I mean I thought if monogamy are meant to ration females in equal share for everyone, then I can understand why males oppose sex outside life long monogamous relationship. But why would any women do? I discussed this in a british forum and most opposition comes from women, not males.

Because a portion of females use sex as a commodity. A commodity is less valuable when given away. That is why they despise girls who “give it away” since males don’t need to go to them for attention, males can go to these easy females for attention.

That is correct. Now we’re getting somewhere. Females despise girls that are giving it away.

So as I said, the problem is competition. People do not like competitors giving more attractive offers

I look at it a different angle. Not as much as other females giving it away more cheaply but giving something better. Ugly women hate prettier girls.

But our idea is essentially the same. The issue is competition.

Now, if a girl choose to “give it away”, it’s her right right? It’s her body. Maybe she get something out of it. Maybe not. But it’s her right. So why would some other females oppose that? Simple. They don’t want to compete with girls that are more capable and/or willing to give more attractive offers to males. We’re on the same page on that one.

Quote
Quote
The essence of libertarianism is self ownership, or so according to a libertarian website. Is it good? Well, how good your self is? If you’re pretty, rich, or smart, or capable, or whatever, then yea, self ownership is pretty cool. If you’re not, then no.

That is not a descriptor of good or bad. That is a descriptor of what benefits a person in their situation. Good or bad are always universals, good or bad are not relative. You’re confusing wants with good and bad. Yes poor people will vote to take money and property from rich people since it advantages them to do so. But that does not mean its good, it just means it benefits them at that moment. Another example is theft. Rich people don’t mug people for wallets, poor people do. That does not make theft good for poor people because theft benefits poor people more than it benefits rich people.

Ups. Language barrier. I forget that objectivitivist think that good or bad is objective. I used to think that way before. Let’s use less controversial language, like interests and benefits then.

As you said, “it benefits them at that moment”. So poorer people will want higher income tax, for the same reason ugly women would want criminalization of porn. “At that moment it benefits them”. No amount of proof, or reasoning, no matter how true it is, will make them vote differently.

Even if you can give them math and more math and statistic saying that you’re right, they’re just going to close their eyes, scream “does not” and quote religions, fairy tales, or whatever other nonsense to maintain their believe, that bigger government is good for everyone.

Quote
Quote
An ugly women are more likely to marry a poor male. So to her, rampant rape is probably a good thing. It’s the same reason why most liberals want more gun control. It’s because their kind will die if you own gun.

Errr… I won’t touch the rape comment with a 10 foot pole. There exists no condition in which rape is good for someone. As for gun control, liberals tend to want gun control due to their Hobbsean view of humanity. They usually think people are essentially evil and left unto themselves will destroy each other. Therefore only a state with guns can exist since the populace cannot be trusted to defend themselves. Also, if one governs themselves and has the power (gun) to back that up, they cannot easily be centrally controlled by the state. I doubt liberals are worried about being shot per say. More they are worried they cannot exert power through the state on others if others are armed.

Rape is of course good, ups I mean, benefit the rapist. If it doesn’t, no males would rape.

ANYTHING people do they do it because they believe that it “benefits them at that moment”. And their beliefs maybe way more correct than what you think. This is the essence of our difference. I think seeing that stealing is “good” for the thief can lead to many correct prediction, like that some people, if not most, would steal in absence of laws.

Here are some quotes to help us see reality

“The arrangement you describe would definitely be disadvantageous to men (even though us dumb guys would probably think it sounded like a great deal). The problem is, for every guy with two ladies, there’d be a guy with none. If you want a stable society, you don’t want too many unhappy guys with no partners.” – Michael Snyder http://cocksofthealphamales.com/

David Friedman and Steve Sailer have argued that polygamy tends to benefit most women and disadvantage most men, under the assumption that most men and women do not practice it. The idea is firstly that many women would prefer half or one third of someone especially appealing to being the single spouse of someone that doesn’t provide as much economic utility to them. Secondly, that the remaining women have a better market for finding a spouse themselves. Say that 20% of women are married to 10% of men, that leaves 90% of men to compete over the remaining 80% of women. Friedman uses this viewpoint to argue in favor of legalizing polygamy, while Sailer uses it to argue against legalizing it.

This same result of polygamy is used to justify it as a way to improve the genetic characteristics in a population. The logic being that women will generally tend to marry men of wealth and health. Wealth has a high corrolation with intelligence, thus polygamy has the effect of increasing the intelligence inside the population that practices it.

In the US, the Libertarian Party supports complete decriminalization of polygamy as part of a general belief that the government should not regulate marriages.

Individualist feminism and advocates such as Wendy McElroy also support the freedom for adults to voluntarily enter polygamous marriages.

In Uruguay the “Colorado Party” supports polygamy.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

Mmmmh… How the hell David Friedman, and Wendy go into wikipedia and I am not. Well, I am anonymous. So yea. Never mind then.