aviet

Example: hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRWJcrRO0GM Remove watch? Replace = with / Gives you: hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRWJcrRO0GM

Yes. It's frustrating. Particularly when you are presenting hard evidence. The way I would think of it is to control your mind and not let it run away in reactionary directions like excessive frustration. You can take positives from such circumstances, such as knowing which people to distance yourself from (anti-reality people) and knowing that your value at least in one regard is higher than those people. Topics in this ballpark have been discussed many times and I think the consensus is to not waste much time with such people. Though I do think it's still worth some level of engagement with people who resist hard data. There was one topic that in the past I heard bits and pieces on in the past and although I did not completely dismiss what I heard, I was skeptical. The pitter patter of information on this topic eventually made me look into it myself and I found out the assertions were true. This is common, particularly when changing deep-seated beliefs. Stay strong by keeping to the facts. Have enough belief in yourself that you won't be swayed by sophistry and emotional manipulation. View having your thread shut down as a victory. Them not being able to come back and delete your post probably means you won and you may have sown a few seeds of doubt deep in the recesses of some's congnative disonance. Adopt the mindset of a winner and warrior who doesn't back down: (skip to 1m45s if it dones't links properly)

Step it up a notch: All white men need to die White genocide is checking your privilege We need to ban pens and other phallic symbols of male dominance The top 100 contributors on StackOverflow are men

Shia LaBeouf's "He Will Not Divide Us" Installation Shut Down

Anti-EU 5 star movement tops the polls in Italy:

I'm skeptical of any statistics published in The Guardian. I've seen some really horrendously inaccurate, unsourced statistical assertions in that rag over the past year. US Census Historical Income Tables: Table P-8. Age—People by Median Income and Sex (2015) Male Female 15-24: 11,702 10,342 25-34: 37,225 28,825 35-44: 49,845 31,621 45-54: 51,067 31,846 55-64: 46,698 27,877 65+: 31,372 18,250 Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs: Distribution of median and mean income and tax by age range and gender (2014-2015) Anyway, I think it's fair to say that middle-class women and feminised middle-class men are having a disproportionate influence over society, which is more important than income. I think its possible that a growth in stay-at-home-dads could possibly be beneficial. There are lots of government and social injustice pressures on society that are forcing lives in unsustainable and damaging directions. Results and merit are cast away in favour of some people's emotions and concessions. Most males I know were raised by their mothers and their fathers had little input. In school most of the teachers were women, teaching straight-laced boredom in the most mind-numbing sterile manner possible. I'd also add the teachers tend not only to be women, but also middle-class. In fact the only working-class teachers were sports teachers. Not only does that have a negative impact on boys, but also the working-class, who tend to display more masculine characteristics, even the boys. I'd go as far to say that working-class girls are more masculine in their interactions with others than working-class boys. The result is that more masculine traits like exploration and enterprise are squashed. When I was young, there were several working-class people in my class that were several years ahead in maths. But now they all work remedial jobs, because the schools are catered for middle-class girls and feminised middle-class boys. But coincidentally, the feminisation of a masculine role society is producing a situation in which men are having more input in child rearing, which could start to tip the scales of m/f traits shown by young boys. However, it could also go the other way if children are raised by overly-feminised men. There are some interesting blurbs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay-at-home_dad#Advantages Interesting is the comment on self-assurance. I believe Stefan has mentioned this quite a lot. Most of my friends were raised in overly feminine home environments and the the result is they have little self-assurance and are either meandering round without direction or looking for someone else to cling on to. As the worst example, one guy I know, with zero self-awareness phoned several people up to tell them he is thinking about getting his girlfriend (first) pregnant, after six months of being together, i.e. the most scurrilously unhonourable feminine tactic, sperm-napping, turned against a woman, because of his insecurity, to tie her down for life. This guy's home was extremely feminised within a male role model. The worst example of the mother's behaviour was when she boasted to her sons friends that she is having loads of affairs and how she was going to run away with one of the blokes. The husband was embarrassed around town and accepted her back without hesitation. No wonder her son is looking to get the first girl he can pregnant and lock her down for life. He has zero self-assurance. His life has been a collection of feminine melodramas with crumpling endings. Another guy I know took a single-mother ten years his senior back five times before she cast him off for good. In the midst of that he took it on himself to learn her language, for no reason other than she spoke it. This what you get when men are raised almost solely by women - they take offence, they can't deal with hardship, they sympathise with anyone cast as a victim, they avoid challenges, they latch onto things and people... Maybe more men involved in child rearing is what we need. As a final note, these leftist systems such as feminism will be finite. Boiled down leftism is a forced redistribution of resources from people who can survive in the current climate and those who (largely, think) they can't. This is only possible via immense government force and was built on the back of a more meritocratic system. Leftism, which operates on the basis of weakening society to make some people feel better and have more stuff will eventually weaken society to a point where the resources aren't available to continue the vast use of government force. On top of that the proportions of leftists in society are going do decrease due to a decreasing birth rate as you go left, an aging population which goes right and fewer resources per capita for young adults which forces people right or into a Venezuela collapse. In all possible scenarios, leftists will destroy themselves and leave behind a society with fewer leftists.

Do you have a source for young women out-earning men? From what I've seen, although the gap between incomes reduces with a younger sample, men still out-earn women.

Talking hack, Thomas Friedman, has another word for this: Start: 11m8s

This just in: Under-25s in the UK more likely to vote 'Conservative', than 'Labour' (ICM 17-19 Mar 2017) Also shows the only demographic Labour has is immigrants. Imagine my shock. 49% of students plan to vote Conservative, compared to 20% Labour. Labour are primed to loose Wales, dropping ten percent of the vote share and handing it to the Conservatives. Labour are primed to get half of the vote in Scotland they got in 2015, when they lost about half of the seats in the country. Someone needs to update this graph. Little more than a year on, the loosing doesn't fit on it.

Hot off the press: http://www.westmonster.com/39-of-french-youngsters-backing-le-pen/

There is probably a lot more driving them to La Pen than the economy. As covered on the forum, due to the decline of people's access to resources (children are worse off than their parents) people are going to be forced to act conservatively, not due to philosophy, but circumstance. This happened before in the UK during the pre- and Victorian period, when the free-for-all-liberal attitudes of the 1700s combined with other factors led to a massive welfare burden and a population who had limited prospects due to a strain on resources. This produced tough people and inovation and tough people. The wealth they create produced soft, emotional slackers. Right now we are in the transition between the two again. We also have aging populations, which are more likely to shift to conservative positions and change political affiliation. According to a Gallup survey, 71% of teenagers said their political beliefs were close to those of their parents. The same survey suggests that in aggregate half of teenagers who identify as liberal will end up identifying as conservative in later life. It's a largely one-way street. Another factor is that leftists (who aren't liberal) have fewer children. In the UK if you look at fertility rates they are highest in the areas where UKIP gets a lot of votes, around 2.3, around replacement in fading Labout working class areas and becoming delightfully low in fake liberal areas. One of the lowest is Islington, the seat of Trotskyite Labout leader, Jez Corbyn and the epicenter of leftist thought at about 1.0 fertility rate. This is only by area, you can presume in these areas people who are conservative will be pushing above 2.3 and those who are leftists closer to 1.5. See here for a delve into fertility-rate by political affiliation. As touched on above, you also have the phenomena of the left being the most sterile, authoritarian and increasingly absured. This is attracting the young. And among the older, increasingly they are leaving the left on a single issue. It's insanity. The left's insanity is one of our biggest assets, because most people who consider themselves left are moderate or have mistaken the left as liberal. Then you have the increasingly obvious civilisation threatening problems of immigration, which becoming glaringly defined in government statistics from several countries that haven't banned them. The only thing the left has got for the next few decades is immigration. It's no surprise then that Marcon and Corbyn have essentially called for open borders, the socialists in Germany have suggested giving all immigrant the right to vote, which they already do in Sweden. As long as immigration is controlled, the left will have no option but to move towards more conservative positions. If its not, we'll be living in very different countries with the rich increasingly retreating into gated communities.

Have been doing some work with the income bell-curve for classification purposes. Below is a rough draft of brackets based on UK pre-tax income. The upper income threshold of the class bracket is listed after the bracket, e.g. 'Working class' (15k). Cmpared with class stricture in earlier times. http://pastebin.com/raw/2wkxPy8x

Dobry den commrade, My experience is that being in that part of the world your market value sky rockets. There you will get shown interest from the types of girls you'd have to approach several at home. You are an attractive, in shape guy, presumably from a country with 10X higher avg. income. In these circumstances you can get away with being a bit awkward. At home you might not be able to if you are shopping around your own attractiveness level. Attractive women at home are going to get approached by attractive guys, guys with money, confident guys and are likely filtering out for who has the best of all those. An attractive, unsure guy doesn't mean much to them. But in Russia you get a 10X for perceived wealth and +1 for out of the ordinary. Chances are you stand well out on here radar. You know what you want from her, from what you've described it seems she is interested in you. Personally, I would just ask her out somewhere and don't prefix it with anything like, "I don't know if you'd want to, but maybe..." type things. Just casual and friendly. If she says 'no', be daring and engage in the adventure of hanging round in the GYM in the presence of a girl who rejected you. I've been approached in the past and like yourself my doubt and unsurity as what to do has left me where you are. But over the last 1-2 years I've learnt a lot from various sources and think the best option is to just do it, you homo. It'll be fun, it'll be painful, which will also be fun and a learning expedience. You know what you want, pursue what you want.

I know several people from wealthy families (8 figures net worth) and its fairly easy to see how the luxury has affected them, in some cases to the point of being utterly useless and not able to work at all in any capacity. The worst case was sent to the best schools in the area, wanted for nothing, but was starved of any real relationship with his father. He never had to do anything his whole life and now in his mid-30s, his low point was being fired from washing dishes (probably has a 120+ IQ) and was (still is) on a monthly stipend which he used to live in a disgusting apartment, sleeping on a mattress balanced on some wooden pallets, surrounded in rubbish. His monthly stipend has been specifically described as a means to keep the family name out of the job center (benefits office). This description fits him perfectly: http://youtu.be/kPGofMn0ktI?t=17m00s Another has a Ph.d (state funded). After doing it he decided that he was no longer interested in the topic of his 7-year uni. education and decided to work in his father's business. He's now being bought a house to live in. Another is currently independently successful, though he's had many parental boosters and has a big network to fall back on which will ensure a continuing luxurious life. The most recent parental booster was having a house bought for him. What's made the difference here is although he was raised within material comfort his father was tough with him in a way and his father's general enterprising nature has rubbed off on him. Another has had a house bought for him and is currently having a breakdown because he can't deal with the ever day trials that many others don't have ways out of via parental bail-out. These people don't see the high-end value of all that has be hauled to and dumped at their feet. My personal preference is to have the children working at the house, cleaning etc. They'd probably be paid for this. But by the age of about 12 I'd expect them to be economically viable enough to be able to work for me making a decent adult wage. At this point someone else could be hired to do their former menial tasks. By the time they are about 18, I'd expect them to be able to buy a house outright and leave home. The key is to make sure your children are regularly challenged and earn what they receive. Stefan encapsulates this perfectly when he says, "resistance builds strength". Just as there is a few year speech-window that if you miss, you will never be able to speak, there is also in independence window. If someone is not challenged in that period, it's essentially impossible for them to be anything other than a dependent.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-4256288/Adrian-Solano-labelled-worst-skier-alive.html

Any form of government would likely not work in a low IQ country, in comparison to what we are accustomed to in relatively high IQ countries. Though the difference is with democracy is that it will have parties pandering for power by offering incentives to various groups.

I didn't think of that. I guess I would prefer EU autocrats to Stefan Löfven and his cadre of denialists. With Sweden Democrats just in the lead, hopefully it can begin to end; but it's likely them becoming the majority party would lead to a tumultuous power struggle like we are seeing with Brexit and Trump. It's become patently clear over the last 9 months that democracy and the free press were always a facade to the same agenda playing out indefinitely. Now the agenda is at risk masks have slipped as it has required guiding hands to become obtrusive. It's also clear that there will be a war against Trump and others until they are gone, but I don't think there is any chances of things going back to how they were. The system has broken and it's really heartening to see how things have changed.

Is there any data as to what castes have moved where? The IQ of British-Indian students is 97: http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Chisala-4.png But this includes Muslims, when you take that out it goes up to about 100, which is still two points below native British. Indians do perform better in exams though. Which I think is worth noting, as economic performance can be terrible among intelligent people for various reasons. In the UK, income for whites is slightly higher than Indians, who are both close to 100% on Pakistanis and Bangladesis (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/weekly-disposable-household-income-by-ethnicity-tax-years-19941995-to-20122013uk) According to a Wiki article, the source for which is a 404, East-Indian American incomes are the highest at about 30% above Anglo-Americans. This huge divergence from Indians in the UK is interesting. To test your theory on castes consider the following distribution of Indian surnames throughout the world: Gaekwad (Indian noble family): About 5% in the US, 5% in the UK, about 85% in India Bhonsle (Indian noble family): ~5% in the Us, about 2% in the UK, ~90% in India Pusapati (noble): >1% in the US, ~98% in India Chamar (low caste) 0.1% in the US, ~99.9% in India Bhange (toilet cleaner caste): <0.1% in the US, ~99% in India Pariya (low caste): <0.1% in the US, ~99% in India Kumar (generic): ~0.2% in the US, ~0.1% in the UK, ~98% in India Choudhary (*): ~1% in the US, ~1% in the UK, ~90% in India *Choudhary is a noble name, but it was overwhelmingly adopted by general people who wanted to make themselves seem more important. So at a glance, seems that high castes have left India at high levels, while low castes have overwhelmingly remained. With the brutality of the Indian caste system, it would make sense that smarter people originally formed the higher castes and closed off relatively small gene pools from the untouchable masses. But not sure why there is such a disparity with the UK in terms of income. A look at lists of British and American Indians on WIkipedia shows a lot more common names in the UK, and rare, likely high-caste surnames in the US.

I didn't know about the push back against big government by companies in Sweden. I would be more forthright and in particular unflinching in expressing your opinions, info. The aim of the regressive left is to use shame to remove opposition, leading to the fake conservative parties you mention. The people you have mentioned have probably never heard anything other that leftist positions and fed the "everyone who doesn't agree with me is a Nazi" line. By speaking more freely, you will attract more like-minded people to yourself and be the first micro-fractures in leftists' unchallenged worldviews. When more Swedes de-cuck themselves, like Peter Springare, from fear of being shamed, there will probably be some considerable and rapid changes, as has happened in the US and UK. Swedes are living in a fake construct created by being decoupled from responsibilities and reality by a giant, unsustainable government and had the wool pulled over their eyes by a complicit press. If you go out of your comfort zone and make your arguments without apology or reservation, that your opponents probably don't have any rebuttals beyond calling you names. This will chip away at their belief system.

That's part of the problem. They often can't be deported because they may have no documentation. Google up stories of Afghans raping people in Europe and Afghanistan refusing to accept them back. We're stuck with them for life. The guy who committed the Berlin truck attack was investigates in a previous terror plot, but couldn't be deported, because he had no papers. Common countries of origin like Nigeria and Pakistan have made it difficult to send such people back to them. So Germany just let this terrorist loose to commit and act of terrorist. There will always be problems, but currently immigration laws are barely enforced. If you illegally migrate to the EU, you'll be allowed to pretty much go wherever you want, collect welfare and be housed. If you're caught, you'll likely be logged and told where you can go for assistance, but let off to do whatever you want. In the case that you make an asylum application and it's rejected, you'll again likely be left to self-deport. In Britain, Germany and other countries there are schemes set up to pay people to self-deport. I saw one story of a gypsy who went to Germany from Kosovo, was rejected and paid 6,000 EUR to go back. That's about 3 years avg. salary there. In short, if you go to Europe, you're only likely to be sent back if you agree to it. If you're a known ISIS supporter, you'll be let loose to go anywhere in Europe. If you've returned from fighting in Syria, you'll be given welfare and counseling. The solution is doing what Hungary and Macedonia have done. Install a border defense and man it. For anyone that comes in put them in a detention center until they can be deported. Turn the boats back. This is what Australia, Japan and Singapore do. I've been in Serbia twice during the 'migrant crisis'. Plenty of them are going through, but virtually none stay. They are being drawn by massive welfare offered by the likes of Germany. Kill that and it will make no difference between being in Turkey and the EU. But the current political class is incapable of doing any of this. There was a report out today of the EU saying their needs to be a "Marshall Plan" of aid to Africa or 20 million more will come. This is their only response, pay other people to do the dirty of blocking migration (Turkey) or bribe people to leave/not to come in the first place. My answer: If our countries are so great. Close the borders and export our culture. We can only look at erasing borders when cultures harmonise. Right now first world cultures are being over-written by third world ones.

Flipped: Good point. Hadn't thought of it like that. Hooking up with an unattractive guy 20 years your age, who has four random kids, owes money all over town, multiple failed businesses, history of drug use, having to leave town and cry-for-help suicide attempts isn't exactly a high standard to start with. The only other point of reference I have for single mothers is a woman who has five kids. I think they have multiple fathers. She's unattractive and has nothing going for her. But she's happily married now ... to a perennial candidate for the Green Party. This isn't someone I hang around with. They just happened to be there. The other project/person you're referring to wasn't/isn't a prospect. But you did happen to be right about them. They've shown themselves to be manipulative, so they're gone.

What do you think the future holds for Sweden?

I guess we should ask all single-payer advocates if they disavow Richard Spencer now.

Just sent this to a member as a PM, pasting into the forum: When you can program, you can enter pretty much any market, particularly with content, ads, commissions, but also with your own products. But I'd be very wary with your own products due to saturation and stiff competition. If you are doing products it would be best to go for a new or growing market. A friend started selling products online in about 2007. At this point it was really easy to game pretty much anything to the top of Google and he did £1m in sales one year. But then Google made some changes and now heavily prefers big brands. I ran the deliveries for a week as it came to an end, by which time it would be about £35k/year revenue. Retail is certainly one to avoid. If you can't program, for a long time I've thought its best to go into an area that most people would never know existed and if they did would be instantly bored. For example, I used to own a company with another guy who ran a skip hire brokerage. This is a UK term. I think the US term is dumpster. This is when a truck brings in a skip/dumpster/big bin for you to put rubbish in and then take it away. He just amassed knowledge of the best companies and brokered skips via nationwide advertising.Taking a few £ off each one. Company was worth about $40m. All it is is a call center, adverts and an accounting department; and the backbone of the company is a 1-5 star rated database of a few hundred skip hire companies. A 15kb database that is literally worth millions a year. If the databases was to disappear, he'd loose serious revenue for a while. And most people are too disinterested in anything like this to ever discover such opportunities, realise it and execute it. They're too interested in becoming an artist, a musician, a professional demonstrator, or something else we have far too much of. Another example I heard on Joe Rogan. Some guy who is got rich from making burger patte machines. That's it. Who would ever know such a thing existed? There's all manner of industrial-type opportunities with very little competition. One of my parents' friends sold a company for about $25m. All it did was cut grass and hedges. I have a friend who is working on software to automate work/logistics rotas. Says there is big money there. My dad's cousin made a lot from making and installing cattle grids all over Wales. Spent most of his time in Barbados, where he drank himself to death. This is the niche sort of thing you want to get into, that practically no one else will ever encounter. You don't even have to be that smart. A 100 IQ person could run most of these businesses and be in the top 1%. Most people go for the same old ideas: open a shop, open a restaurant, open a hotel, become a lawyer, become an accountant, become a teacher, become a vet. Too formulaic, in most cases, if you want to hit the top 1%. You need to sniff out an opportunity. Then investigate whether you can pull it off. Then persist. When I started out on my current line of work, I was working 14 hours a day and the little money I got was spent on hiring someone in Serbia to help. Sacrifices have to be made. That leads back to the former. There are huge opportunities in countries like Serbia, Bulgaria. These are countries that people are flocking out of because of the lack of opportunity there, i.e. its a country brimming with people who can't make opportunities and markets, i.e. it's super low competition and cheap. Avg. wage is about $3,500 year. But the real opportunity is to base yourself there and target developed markets. I'd like to go down this route in the future. The real creme opportunity would be one in which the barrier to entry is too high to make anyone want to / be able to get in the market with you. Where you are leveraging skills, knowledge, assets that others can't assemble. This is the case in my market, where all the competition are in their 50s, 60s and 70s. Their knowledge and skills are so outdated and there is essentially no one around with the skills and knowledge to offer any real competition. So I overtook the biggest competitor, which has been around since about 1996 in about 3 years. Bottom line: look where everyone else is not looking. Not in London, New York, LA... These are largely dead-ends for zero-price point, childless, assetless husks who are going to leave the gene pool.