aviet

You don't have to be an omega male, look at everything you can do to improve yourself: lift / workout up your wardrobe study how to deal with women get a hair cut The road to marriage is fraught, but this is where you're heading otherwise:

I don't think there are many better ways you could erode the power of the varying incarnations of redistributive and grievance politics than sinking $18B into such groups. I hope as many BLM, Hamas, PLO, Antifa, campus crazies get into the Democrat, Labour and similar parties as possible.

This is probably one of few themes here: Humans have survival strategies, which revolve around obtaining needs like food. If these needs are sated, which they typically are for many in the west, you then have the opportunity to indulge in luxuries. Collectively once humans and animals come into a favourable set of circumstances they tend to gorge until a point at which they can gorge no more. The luxuries can be physical: buying gold bars, cars, houses etc. or mental: virtue signaling, social validation, physical validation etc. One thing that many young, unphilosophical, directionless women find valuable is being excited by an (typical fake/temporary) alpha male. This is a luxury women in the developing world can't really afford as it will ruin their social reputation and marriage prospects and leave them with a kid to provide for with no welfare state. In countries (Africa) where this degeneracy pervades with no welfare state and low incomes, you get situations where development is virtually impossible. In other poor countries, the society engages in social-moral policing as they don't want to be stumped with the bill of illegitimate children, as used to be the practice in Europe before the nationalisation of welfare and the fall of moral policing. Conversely, you (as I suspect) as the temporary/fake alpha male value what you describe: violating women, dominating them, gaming them etc. And you say it yourself - it validates you and I imagine you draw a lot of your self professed low opinion of yourself from your ability to do what a lot of men would like to do, but can't - have sexual access to a lot of young women. I think that is probably the or one of the largest drivers behind both you and your victims behaviour: you are chasing something you value: excitement, status, validation. But this is all very temporary and not particularly deserved. It seems like a primary or the primary drive in your life is: - emotionally eviscerating women to manipulate your body chemistry to get a high (which you are likely addicted to) - validate yourself in the state of having high testosterone But as you note, once you blow your beans, this temporary validation turns into disgust. It's my belief that unless you are building something constructive and wholesome, you will be depressed or have a negative state of mind. You're not putting your efforts into building anything that lasts long and probably often ends in the destruction of relationships, girls' emotions and your own image of yourself. For you, what you do is probably relatively easy, thus the fruits aren't that great due to small investments. You will be more fulfilled if you put your efforts into the challange of building and sustaining a healthy marriage and raising smart, independent children. With this, you don't get the fast thrills and baubles of chasing big knorks and tight asses. You have to forego those short-term thrills and invest for the long-term. This relates to Stefan's regular statement about deferring gratification. If you build a stable family, it takes huge investment and will leave you with a genuine sense of accomplishment and positivity. If you invest your youth in honing your game, the only thing left on the other end is emotional wrecks, including yourself. As for why girls keep falling for guys like you: as above, they have the luxury to do so; but I think the key factor is that they are completely directionless; they've probably never analysed their behaviour or anyone elses; they don't question anything, people's motives, the world etc.; they just end up in situations and probably blame everything bad that happens to them on someone else. I don't agree with SnapSlav's assertion that evolutionary biology is the only reason and it's to do with selecting violent mates and passing on genes. Evolutionary biology plays a role in how we behave, but society has changed dramatically from the times when access to women and resources revolved around bashing heads together. If you behaved like that in a developed society today, you'll end up behind bars. The key difference between the societies, I outlined above - that we live in societies where many people have access to leisure and luxury. This is something that was only afforded to a very few in the past: alpha males and their women. In the past, you had to get resources before you could get the best women. Now because of widespread access to luxury it is no longer a necessity for men to seek resources to attract the most sought after women. Today access to women has a lot more to do with social status and being able to excite women who are driven by the desire to pleasure themselves. In the past you used to have to work hard to get resources to get in this position - to have both social and economic status. Now the two have been decoupled. There is a situation where young men gain social status largely by their ability to play social games, manipulate perceptions and emotions. Getting to the top of the pack will lead you to being an alpha male, or the leader of a group of men or dominant man in a group of men. For women who have the ability to pursue luxury and have zero self- or social knowledge, this is extremely desirable. But what is this alpha male leading his boys to? Is he going to improve their standard of living? Is he going to win a battle? Pass down plunder to them? Build a university? Make peace with a foe? No. The only thing he's likely to lead them to is the next pub or bar. In much else he is likely completely directionless. But once the late 20s and 30s come, things start to change. Deep evolutionary biological gear begin kicking in to high gear, his economic status is likely declining against his peers, his physique is likely crumbling under booze etc, some of his underlings may have torn off a bit got their head down and got their economic game together. As his 30s progress, he will become depressed as his socio-economic status is eroded and women begin to look more for a stable beta. By the time he is 40 he will be fat, bald, depressed and have a below average income. If he got married his wife will likely be dissatisfied with the deflation of her husband's SMV. He spent his life building temporary and irrelevant mirages of pleasure. Meanwhile there were other guys who got their heads down and rode promotions, worked hard, started businesses - deferred gratification. This is the pool from which alpha males will be chosen - those with economic and social status. He only ever had social status which was built on the flimsiest of gimmicks. And thus, we no longer live in a world where typical alpha males are actually the alpha males. Second point is I don't think the overarching drive for men to have sex is passing on genes, it's pleasure. If passing on genes is a factor it is largely subconscious and something most people are unaware of. Penultimately, you mention that you like to see girls cry. That is the main area in which I would seek to analyse yourself as it seems a very destructive and sinister motive to have. Recently I had the opportunity to play someone for the first time in my life. I could have extracted some pleasure from them and left them in an emotional wreck, but instead I pulled away, tried to give them some avenues for self-analysis and pushed them away. I find the idea that I would do what you do disgusting. I don't think most men are capable of rape. If most Western men encountered a beautiful passed out women, I don't think many would be able to go through with raping her. I don't think many can also do what you do. Finally, you mention you don't know where you got these drives from. One observation on this is that, particularly in the West, it's possible children are raised more by external sources than by their parents: teachers (state), media and peers. You also mention your family is Catholic. I find the problem is with religion is that the alleged values are only backed up by arguments like "because the Bible says so" or "I fear God" etc. This isn't really a sufficient backing for values as there is no reasoning.

I think the evolutionary biology arguments above are valid and operate on a deep, unconscious and primordial level that most people will never be aware of. But I think the largest theme at play is people's need or want to get things they value. Firstly people value their survival: food, water, shelter etc. The more of the hierarchy of needs that are sated the more people will opt to expend their time/resources on more abstract or luxury goals like being smoking hot, feeling good about one's self by virtue signaling, achieving goals in a hobby, being in the top 10 at Call of Duty etc. A woman extracts value from shaving her legs and otherwise looking beautiful because it gets her positive attention and likely better access to high-status males. If she struggled to provide herself food, she would likely care little about her legs. Shaving legs = feeling better about one's self + being seen better by others. This is confirmed by a study of women's attitudes after 12 weeks of not shaving their legs. The desire to feel good about one's self, I feel, is an underestimated want of humans with an excess of resources. A lot of people also find value in providing value to other people. As for men, I'd say it's similar they value access to a pair of legs that look feminine and not a pair of burly cankle-terminated thatches. This doesn't have anything to do with evolutionary biology, just a man's desire to have pleasurable things. Access to a good pair of legs will also serve as validation, just as women feel validated by the attention such legs will bring. If you don't care if a woman has hairy legs then I suspect you have some sort of philosophical override that makes you value, say, time saved in improving one's appearance or a negative view of the mental states behind physical self-improvement. Personally, I much prefer hair-free and if I was paired off I would look to pay for permanent removal to save them having to put in the time manually removing. The reason is I find it looks attractive (pleasure) and find hairy legs repulsive and masculine (evolutionary biology). I also like to stay in better than average physical condition myself. There are a few reasons: I don't like the feel of excess body-weight, the look of clumsy body curvature etc - this is a personal reason; I want to provide the value of being physically attractive to a mate - this is driven by a conscious desire to retain the physical sexual market value of my offspring and a desire to provide value to someone I value; I also find value in female interest; and lastly I have a philosophical drive for self-improvement across multiple areas - it's not difficult to have some physical self-respect: a bit of exercise, grooming and shopping. When I see fat slobs, I see people who don't have self respect and are probably in many cases unmotivated in any sphere. One article I have just come across discusses a club for women who don't shave their legs. I suspect the main theme behind their motives is the same as everything on the left: the desire to extract value from society by being a negative force and utilising negative emotional blackmail, particularly guilt to re-shape society around the celebration and value of weakness and being a cry baby. You may disrespect people into physical self improvement, but at least they try and extract value from society by providing people in it with something they value, beauty. As opposed to the left, who seek to extract value by demanding value for being a negative force: Fat is beautiful Free tuition, forgive student debt Feeling good about one's self by virtue signaling Unconditional state welfare Free abortions and contraceptives Economic success based on identity Nothing the left do ever works. It always ends up destroying itself, as they seek to build society around weakness and force in the pursuit of the fruits of strength and voluntary exchange. The left can be described by this equation: -1 != 1 In the case of virtue signaling, it is my strong belief that it is done for the sole purpose of trying to feel good about one's self and that virtue signalers don't actually care about the causes they break into a melodrama about. In fact I think they desire them as it gives them an excuse for their unconscious evolutionary biological survival method: extracting value from society for nothing; among other reasons. But as with all of the attempts of leftists, virtue signaling fails and causes depression, as it's the pursuit of something (feeling good) without providing the required value to be able to feel good about yourself. Just as anti-depressants don't cure the psycho-emotional causes of depression, virtue signaling doesn't cure being a selfish person pretending to be selfless.

The results from these tests are somewhat experimental and in development. I had one test done several years ago and as the company have updated their method for determining these results, the results changed quite dramatically. They were actually most accurate before their last update. I've also had both my father and his sister tested by different companies and here are the results: These, which I suspect will be similar to the 23AndMe results are meant to be deep ancestry (c. 5,000 years ago). So before any solid knowledge of population movements from historic records. For my maternal results, they changed my results from being Ashkenazi Jewish to Sephardic Jewish, even though all of the relatives I have matched with are from Eastern Europe (Ashkenazi). My quota of Indian (east) ancestry has also fluctuated between 6 and 25% as they change their method. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the specifics unless you have a paper trial to match it to. For that: https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Dominican_Republic_Online_Genealogy_Records Judging by your results I would describe you as blacker than Shaun King, fool.

IQ tests measure three categories: verbal intelligence, mathematical ability and spatial reasoning. High scores demonstrate an ability to learn and solve problems in the aforementioned categories. They don't test your ability to retain information (as per standard exams) though there is a requirement for some fairly rudimentary knowledge. From reading your posts on the board it's clear that you don't have a 85 IQ - such an IQ is glaringly obvious, and it's obvious your IQ is higher than 100. The lower an IQ goes the more glaringly obvious it is and the higher it goes the more difficult it is to guess how high without knowing someone for some time. I have a rough category of 115+ - this was the rough average IQ of graduates before higher education was opened up to the masses. Beyond this it's difficult to guess someone's rough IQ. From reading your posts I would provisionally guess you are likely 115+ as you have demonstrated a curiosity and questioning within multiple layers of complexity. An 85 IQ isn't likely to be able to compute more than one level of complexity and as you get into the 70s, you are talking about people who have trouble computing basic linear problems. However, IQ tests don't measure social intelligence, which I think is generally more complex, i.e. an ability to consider how groups, attitudes, countries, ideologies etc. interact with one another. But I don't think the intelligence would deviate much from the above three categories. A high IQ would mean you are smarts by most people's measure. It shows you can solve problems that other people can't get their heads round and these are the types of problems that you will encounter in most high paying jobs, though I think the IQ test would benefit from at least the addition of measuring social intelligence.

I think this situation is largely based on two things: procedure and circle jerking. Procedure as in it's one of the first hurdles companies tend to require before they will take you seriously. If analysed, it would likely be shown as ill advised and inefficient, but companies don't tend to be particularly innovative, particularly those stocked with those who have been conveyor-belted through higher education. Circle jerking as in the people who are employing you tend to have degrees and I have heard a lot of arrogance first and second hand regarding people who have degrees with their dealings with people who don't, e.g. - a relatively equally paid degree holder letting a non-degree holder that their degree puts them above the other - recent graduates talking down to their friends who did not get degrees, even though these degrees have all turned out to be negative forces - people being hired into jobs on virtue of having any irrelevant degree I've found that these attitudes of arrogance regarding degrees largely doesn't pervade in the world of programming. I don't have a degree and when I was much younger I got several good job offers based on reputation. I think this is for a number of reasons. But when I was looking at jobs in a related field I specialised in some time I came up against the degree wall. The route round this is typically going to be entrepreneurship. But if you have 15 years experience can't you use that to get a job through industry connections?

Consider yourself lucky that you have such a collection of states where you will find a much wider selection of women than here in Europe. For me states like WY, SD, ND, TX are the holy grail of maybe finding someone who is at least somewhat individualist, libertarian, or conservative. Pretty much all I've ever come across is women who have no direction, don't know what they're looking for, have no plans and no real morals. If they have any ideas they are always latently left and never been challenged.

I like Jos' clear arguments, but I would add to his point on the notion that a religious spouse would view you as someone who will go to hell as not true in all cases. A lot of religious people are virtually only culturally religious and their belief in theology is very close to zero and selective. I also think it's important to remind yourself that you're not going to get every single trait that you may desire. You will have to compromise and you no doubt have your own flaws that someone will have to overlook to consider you. For me if someone like a Lauren Southern or Faith Goldy came on my radar, I'm going to be interested as I've not met anyone in real life who even comes close to having such an array of traits I find desirable. That they are both mildly religious is something I'd have to accept. The crux of the issue is that the traits that FDR-types typically seek tend to be split between Christian conservatives and atheists (who tend to be leftists). Given the choice between the two I'd always go for Christian conservative. Given that I've barely encountered anyone from either group doesn't give me a lot of luxury to be ultra-picky. Women also tend to be a lot less philosophical then men. If that's something you're interested in and then you're looking for some quite specific and uncommon philosophical ideas, you're looking at a very small number of women.

I find that women who may claim to have an independent, thinking mind tend to be latent leftists - that is they have swallowed most of the ideas of the left, typically without hearing the ideas specifically formed as arguements and having heard virtually no counter-material. And as such it seems to be rare to find the mix of family values in an atheist package. One thing that will improve your chances is moving to a different country. Despite having a good mix of all society suggested women want, I had slim pickings in Northern Europe. I've recently moved to Asia and here all you have to do is turn up. I've written at length on the disparity between sexual market value (SMV) of Western European males elsewhere, but my thoughts can be condensed as: If women have an abundance of resources (or rather think they do), they will do what most animals and people do when they find themselves in favourable circumstances - gorge, indulge, seek luxury. In such circumstances, few women think for the long-term - they want instant pleasure and are not too fussed about long-term stability. When you venture out into poorer countries, few women have the luxury to expend their youth drinking and having sex, racking up debt and wasting whatever they can save on holidays. They have to be careful about who they select as their mate, as to choose poorly can ruin their life. They also have the wreckage of women who made poor decisions all around them, as they don't have welfare states to pick up the pieces. However, the women are only behaving in these ways due to their environment. You can't know how they may change if their environment changes. If you are in the West, my suggestion is to look for women who could indulge and make poor decisions due to apparent abundance, but don't because of thinking, which they will hopefully and more likely have developed individually or at least tested. As some people may profess certain beliefs, but their only reasoning is something like "because it's in the Bible". That would be my checklist. If they don't have other components you desire, you can probably instill them with that base. If you want to be around a lot of women who are looking for someone based more on your character and have family values, research Asia, Russia and South America. But if you want that in the athi-libertarian package, online is likely the only hope.

Interesting discussion. I think that OFD's suggestion is one of the most likely. But there are so many factors that could change the direction: war and depression among them. The UK currently has an influx of about 1 million Muslims per decade. If you pan that out, that is 8.5 million by 2100, plus the likely 4 million here and a + replacement fertility rate it's quite feasible that we could see 15-20 million Muslims in the UK by 2100, At the current rate the general population will be about 90 million. So you could be looking at about a 20% Muslim population by 2100; and on the same trajectory that will probably be a Muslim majority by 2200. I suspect the trend in other North European countries is similar. This will be a drastically changed society in any walk of life, particularly if you happen to live in an area where Muslims have become the majority. It's a question of if our politicians will do anything to change that immigration course. At current this seems unlikely. In the UK the biggest issue (polled at around 40% of people) is reducing immigration and it has been like that for some time. Yet no political party will seize the lead by quietly suggesting the roll out of a Japanese or Australian-style immigration program and not even go into all the topics Stef would. This suggests to me that the politicians are either spineless or serving an agenda, probably both. All the fake Conservatives would have had to do to win the election by a good margin was say they are bringing in a points-based immigration system and say they'll provide more money for the NHS. That's all they'd have to do. Polls have also shown that the most solid support for Labour is immigrants and for the Conservatives it's the old, followed by the young. If your the Conservative, you thus grow your base by encouraging citizens to have children, giving care to the old and limiting immigration. But I have no faith that corpse of a political party could shift for the current course. So if we continue to slowly economically deteriorate over the next few decades I think we will find little changes in terms of immigration and the political approach to Islamisisation. And that we will need a depression, a war or some other catastrophe to shake us from this course. Luckily a depression seems inevitable and I think that the EU political order will break down in the face of unpopular mass immigration and depression. So as OFD says, I would go with the creation of US-style ghettos, which are varyingly populated by Muslims, other third worlders and poor whitea, while the rich whites and non-white move away from whereever the ghettos encroach into and remain virtue signaling in their residential safe spaces. Following this course, the affects of economically unviable and culturally backwards immigrants will become more apparent: more welfare, more criticism of white privilege etc., more terrorism... This will continue until a major societal breakdown. Given that we have more than 100 years on the current trajectory, the likelihood of societal instability is high. Personally I am done with the West. I'm leaving in less than 48 hours and have no plans to return. I can no longer bare the pain of clearly seeing the insane, anti-fact, incoherent downwards spiral of Europe. Over the last few years, I've lost 'friends' I've known for half my life for daring to present factual information compiled by Western governments, the UN, academics and polling agencies on to the negative effects of mass immigration. These have all been thrown back in my face with hysterical hissing and spitting. I've been othered. I'm less than human. I'm basically a member of the National Front. That I'm of a non-white immigrant background hasn't granted me anything. So I cut these white-middle-class, virtue signalling cunts out of my life before they had the chance to. I don't know how this will pan out, but there is also an internal decay of Islam and it's difficult to know how profound it is as Islam has it's own political correctness. Islamic political correctness is the exact inversion of Western political correctness bar one facet they have in common - THOU SHALT NOT INSULT ISLAM. If you are an apostate in Islam, it's likely that you're going to need to shut up or face your life being ruined, being abandoned by friends and family and possibly being killed. But you can see quite considerable, largely anonymous apostate communities online. From studying the act my observation is that apostates tend to be above average intelligence, even by Western standards. If they are in the West it tends to happen when they go to university, which is when they are likely to first have any real considerable contact with non-Mulsims. Obviously low IQ individuals aren't going to get into this position. And another big factor behind them leaving Islam is the amount of violence that is attached to it; in the texts, cultural practices and terror. Since most Muslim countries have low sub-80 IQs, there is little chance of these people slipping out. When you live in a fascist society that presents a very narrow realm to live in and enforces it with considerable violence, ignorance and blind faith, you're not going to be able to understand that if you have an 85 IQ. Goodbye cruel West. Enjoy your enrichment.

x

Don't worry, I have it from high authority that this is just another one of Sadiq's parcels being delivered. Just don't make any criticisms of who carried out the attack.

This was a scandal: So was this: This scandal went on for days: While this hack wrote no fewer than three articles on why eating steak and ketchup (an arch-scandal) makes you ineligible:

For hyperinflation to occur requires large amounts more currency to enter into general circulation as to devalue the currency against the available resources. The vast amounts of money that have been printed by central banks for the last 8-9 years has gone to banks to sure up their untenable positions. If I remember correctly the Wiemar inflation happened because citizens had hoarded money for a few years during which there was printing. When a period of economic hardship passed that money came out of hiding and snowballed into hyperinflation. Something like this isn't possible now as only a small fraction of the money supply is physical. Hyperinflation in the US would require the banks to gush out their stored digital money by buying assets or making loans. Like seemingly everyone above I think an severe economic collapse is likely and desirable as I feel it will at least have a chance of ending a lot of the unsustainable themes currently playing out. Plus the shock of this will give people the medicine they need rather than missing the message as the heat is slowly turned up. In the West a lot of the nominal economic growth in 90s and 00s was fueled by a large increase in corporate and household debt, i.e. rather than saving and thus borrowing from past frugality people increasingly borrowed from the future. The latter has a lower bar to access as it requires no work, just a line to credit. This ease of access causes many people to make less than optimal decisions. It is this combination of debt and poor decisions that has caused the economic crashes of the last 100 years or so: 1 - The Great Depression - people use credit to overbuy stocks well over their value 2 - 2008 sub-prime crisis - people use credit to buy houses they can't afford 3 - Dot com boom and bust - people use credit to buy stocks that are in some cases worth nothing An event like a backlog of people unable to service their debts causes a combination of sells offs, rediscovery of price and wipe outs. This destablises the economy, which requires stable prices to be able to make profitable decisions. It can causes debts to pancake on top of each other and the same with businesses. Panic takes hold and people loose confidence in spending. However, one big difference with any financial crash that will happen in the current era is greatly increased communications over 1929 and even 1997. In 1929 it would have been impossible to collect all the relevant data and disseminate it to all the right people in a short enough time to be able to patch over the mess with some sort of restructuring. I think if there is another financial collapse in the West that it will be papered over again due to good communications. It will be quite painful and will increase disintegration. I see Greece defaulting and Italy, Spain and Portugal slipping into the position Italy now finds itself in. The Northern European nations will slip towards 130% govt. debt to GDP, but they have the ability to take on more than that. It will likely see attempts to take Italy out of the Euro/EU and take Catalonia out of Spain. It would also be good for La Pen in France and Wilders in The Netherlands, but this would all take time to pan out. If we are going to see a financial crash that will take us into a Greatest Depression Rest I think it will come from China. Due to poor links between China and other economies, there will be less opportunity to restructure bad debts that will beging piling on top of one another around the globe. China has also made some of the worst financial decisions in history: fueled with exuberance over their success and with a never before seen velocity of private debt accumulation China has built dozens of ghost cities and invested in unviable businesses. The growth of the West in the 90s and 00s was fueled by private debt. This ended in 2008, along with growth. It's only government stimulus and restructuring that has been able to turn the depression into a managed decline. Right now China is in the same position, but on steroids. If they can't control their debt when it is inevitably shaken, I feel it's the most likely source of a huge worldwide depression. And it will happen at a time when many countries are already in a depression, such as: On top of those you have countries in considerable states of collapse: Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan. And you have considerable amounts of political instability. Some countries in Africa are dependent on up to ~60% foreign aid for their government budget and many rely on food aid to avoid starvation. The Greatest Depression will be the messiest, most painful reset ever.