aviet

The upside to that is that women who do value a stable, reciprocal etc. relationship in the current climate are the best of the crop, while those that will only change their mind due to circumstances are likely reactionary chancers.

Keep 'em coming suspected anarcho-fascist. Hopefully these eggs and paint are not gateway projectiles, before they get on to the harder stuff.

I have come to the same conclusion with the demographics and think now would be a great time to start a new media site if you have the right skills and angle. A lot of people are chanting slogans like 'dinosaur media'. They are getting a bit ahead of themselves. Outlets like The Guardian, CNN, BBC, WaPo, NYT are still giants online. They did take a big hit in 2016 though: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/48777-breitbart-goes-stratospheric/?p=443896 The trends looks like it is heading towards a large number of smaller outlets.

This is my general conclusion also. Beyond a baseline of attractiveness - confidence, game, mannerism etc. tend to be what opens up romantic relationships with women. When I was much younger me and my friends (generally low in confidence with the opposite sex) had two groups of female friends. From time to time I would either hear or be told that X girl has said Y is cool and physically attractive, followed by a disparaging remark about Y's personality as the reason they don't have a girlfriend. Over a short period of time, the one group of girls started to pick up older, higher status males as boyfriends and within a short amount of time me and my friends essentially never heard from them again. We weren't even fit as a friend-zone shoulder to cry on as less attractive, less intelligent guys cycled through them. Myself and my friends, who are in attractiveness, family background and intelligence terms, better choices, were made useless by lower quality guys who had confidence, game, mannerism etc. Now about fourteen years later, quite a few of that group are single mums with degrees and yes ... pink hair. I saw one of them in 2015. She was probably the most attractive, but she's turning into a flaccid Guardian reader, with a daughter and student debt. Her face lit up as I walked into the room. A beta-cuck to pay off my student debt and raise my child? I didn't say anything. And of the guys they went for that I still know of, the one who was the bee's knees despite having a pair of ears like mug-handles - he's an alcoholic who had to write a begging letter to keep his job bringing screws and other bits of metal to people at a checkout after the booze conflicted too much with his working hours. Another lives in a camper van in London. He has nothing. I've found that when I am interested in a girl, I get nowhere, but when I am not interested in a girl, there is a good chance she will like me. I've only realised the reason for this recently: when I am not interested, I probably come across as confident, unattainable and probably the dark brooding type that some women like; but when I am interested I probably come across more as a cute guinea-pig or beta-phag. From what I have read the unattainable thing really works. However, I'd like to find someone who isn't interested in me because of a few primordial, reactionary, instant attractions based on things that have no value like winning their shit-tests, flirting and sticking my chest out. And I am realising more and more (this post has been good inspiration) that while women are driven by their primordial desires (as above), I have been too driven by female beauty. I am interested in someone who isn't interested in things that don't even matter in the present, but someone who is interested in things that will matter next year and after we are dead. I guess I should consider myself lucky that my romantic ineptitude has kept me away from all the Guardian-reading and single mum train-wrecks I would have otherwise ploughed into like a giant civilisation destroying twat.

Yesterday The Guardian memed out a video: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/jan/18/the-west-was-built-on-racism-its-time-we-faced-that-video in which a sociology professor asserts that the developments of The West were essentially only realised through the exploitation of non-whites, refutes the scientific classification of races while presumably having no problem with classification of flora an fauna, and suggests that the problems of the global south are the result of the deliberate machinations of The West. The Guardian has been increasingly pushing these types of narratives, including that 'white people are rather awful' and the need for immigration to be used to change the character of the United States. But if you scroll down to the comments and order by recommendations (most up votes), as is usually the case, you will find a slew of comments rejecting these various non-realities. Yet they continue to pump out this unpopular material. Question: Given that these memes are routinely rejected by The Guardians' predominantly leftist audience, do you think their projection actually serves more to discredit them and associated movements and ideologies? From what I have seen these memes are to a great extent confined to professors who are completely removed from market forces (and thus can live in a fantasy) and their hanger-on students. Do you see this anti-reality academic movement posing a real threat to the current level of civilisation? My take is that the dissemination of these fictional guilt-trips is a boon. For many years I was latently of the mind that Europeans were oppressors who were responsible for the current state of the third world. This was not a strongly held conviction, but rather the result of an amalgam of input from film, music, news, cartoons etc., creating the general smorgasbord of uniformed, loosely held opinions that most people never question. It was only in around 2011 when I started to see mentally unstable social justice warriors career around dispensing guilt that I looked into European colonisation and found that the reality was very different from what I had been led to believe.

Is that a true story? I don't understand what you mean here.

Interesting conversation. I had one in a similar vein with a woman in her mid-20s. I presented her with evidence that shows it will be much harder to attract a mate in her 30s. She didn't care. I think part of the issue is that these woman have never heard the arguments or been presented with statistics and studies that refute this default, latent position many women have of just living and enjoying themselves and then ten years down the line ending up in a similar position to this woman you mention.

Interesting trains of thought, particularly this last analogy. It seems the motivations for property and violent crime are: resources, control and status. Over time men evolved to create channels where these can be better attained through civilised means. Those who commit property crime appear to be those who can't access the resources they desire via the market and are prepared to take risks and violate other's acquired resources. Studies show women who wear makeup have much better access to men (resources, control and status by proxy) and that it also increases status among other women. Thus makeup will likely lead to confidence among both men and women and the same for wealth for men. Men with wealth and women who make themselves look much more attractive than they naturally are attract. There is a study that was widely published today that showed the millennial generation has 56% less wealth than the baby boomer generation, adjusted for inflation, during the same period of their lives. They also have much more debt. On top of that the wage gap between men and women below 30 has become much smaller. Young men increasingly don't have much that makes them attractive to women. Yet women are still attracted to men and apparently increasingly attracted to just confidence (at least in their 20s), which in increasingly a mimic of wealth. This appears to be borne out in CDC statistics which show men have more sexual partners than women, i.e. a smaller number of men servicing a larger number of women. This is one of a number of trends that I think can only begin to reverse with austerity, a return to living within our means. On your idea of locking makeup up in vaults. This would be a good premise for a TV series or film. Given that women weren't particularly violent in the days when there was no makeup, I doubt it would cause a crime wave. It would just reveal who is actually naturally attractive, realign the ridiculous beauty standards that makeup has created and realign confidence levels between men and women. There is a notion that women are more physically attractive than men, but I think this is just due to distortion from makeup and other beauty accessories. Personally I have become more adverse to makeup recently. As you can see from the above before and after, it can be used to make someone who has really bad fertility markers into a A-list goddess. Thus, you are liable to being duped into a relationship with a woman who is considerably below your sexual market value. As men, I feel it is incumbent upon ourselves to filter such people out. Just as women need to filter out PUA types etc.

Still a lower bar to entry to find out how to cake your face in makeup. I'm looking at financing for a £31,500 BMW, which has a £5,500 deposit with £299 / month repayments. Including myself, of my circle of friends, who were mostly privately educated and about 30 years old, only two could afford the deposit and the monthly repayment is roughly what they pay in rent. They don't really have any disposable income. Their earnings are roughly average for their age. To do this: will cost £5,500 + £299 monthly maintenance = £8,600 for first year and £3,600 / year thereafter; and still look like a fat waster; to make it look like you are in the top 20%, because you probably are in the top 20% But to do this: £250 one-off beauty consultancy + £50 monthly maintenance = £850 for the first year and £600 thereafter to make it look like you are in the top 5%, when you're actually in the bottom 33%. Less effort, present and future = better returns based on the above strategies. Though men also have 'game', which costs virtually no money to acquire. But like makeup its a facade designed to mimic desired characteristics: makeup (beauty) and game (resources).

Good level-headed video. In Gavin McInnes vs. Feminist (I think) he mentions a ~40 year old editor of Jezabel who cried herself to sleep every night because she had no children - the very world they are suggesting other women create for themselves. Might be better to just let them go extinct, rather than confront them. I'd also imagine that there are a lot of genes that predispose people to cultural Marxism that are becoming rarer in the gene pool.

There are fewer people in relationships: http://www.gallup.com/poll/183515/fewer-young-people-say-relationship.aspx From surveying the landscape I think that a lot of this has to do with different expectation between young men and women. I saw a survey (which I can't find) that shows that while men are generally happy with someone who is good looking, modern women are more increasingly wanting men who are better looking than them, have better jobs than them and are more confident. This is in conjunction with the trend of young men seemingly increasingly dropping out of society. That would be one explanation for the above Gallup findings - supply does not meet demand. Given that men are programmed and typically act on the drive to find an attractive mate combined with the relative ease in which fairly ugly and average looking women can transform themselves into 7s, 8s and 9s ( see https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=goar+avetisyan&biw=1680&bih=910&source=lnms&tbm=isch#imgrc=), yes, it is obvious that it's much easier for women to upgrade than men, as rising through pay grades is very time consuming and has various requirements that most people can't meet. But conversely there is probably a large pool of not particularly attractive women (who haven't figured out how to cake themselves in makeup in the right way etc.) in a similar position. These women are not that able to increase their sexual market value via confidence and jobs etc., as men are not so interested in such things. Though beyond a baseline of attractiveness, I think for men, particularly with younger women (which they prefer in general), that the air of status - a certain type of confidence - is what attracts the most women. My thoughts on this are that the confidence status would only have been held by people who had the best access to resources in society. But now young people are in an increasingly nihilistic, living in the moment world that is to a large extend decoupled from resources this status is earned partly from manipulating oneself up social hierarchies and partly by baseless exuberance. That is the reactionary world. There is, of course, people who are driven more by thought. I think this guy has fairly-well summed up what are good characteristics to look for: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/49014-recommended-dating-sites-for-pro-liberty-people/?p=445905 As there are so few women around that are aware of the sort of topics that are discussed here (especially outside of the United States) it is best to look for markers of things that could suggest a viable pasture for a relationship that contains the building blocks of civilization and not the wrecking ball of its destruction. And these types of women, although probably looking for a guy with good financials, are also looking for attributes which you are more likely to have.

For a libertarian, yes, for a Nazi, try Croatia. http://ethniko.net/blog/ustasha-chic-croatian-fascist-girls/ Addendum: Oh, I see you're already there. Zbogom.

If you are in the U.S. you could try a Google for: site:pof.com libertarian Or other subjects. Have seen women with 'peaceful parenting', SM, Ancap and others. I'm not sure if any other dating sites allow you to search profiles like that. But you'll find slim pickings in Europe.

Good point. I have seen these people posting a lot of memes, for example depicting Donald Trump as an SS officer, placing Bernie Sanders (Jew) in a gas chamber. They don't even/know care that all of Trump's eight grand-children are Jewish. Not very well informed or fact-based. Is there any evidence for this? When groups come into the west and they have significantly higher IQs than their native country it's cast as they are the best from that country, for example India: 82 to 97.x (UK students, it was higher among non-Muslim Indians). And in the case of East Asians it's because they were not smart enough for their home country.

Yes, collaborations, partnerships etc. can be very shaky. I've been involved in a couple which ended due to either lies or laziness and instead took the DIY route as a result. I imagine that if these are online collaborations that they will be even more prone to collapse. I advise picking out one idea and pursuing it and do it now, rather than spending years cogitating and worrying and doubting. Avoid getting bogged down in all of the other ideas you have. I have ideas for new projects all the time, but I don't have time for them. I don't even have time to do everything I have on my main project of nearly five years. You need to focus. Since it doesn't seem you have any skills that will lend to video game creation, I would look elsewhere, even if it's something that doesn't inspire you. You can spot gaps in the market everywhere and create new markets. In particular there are gaps in unorthodox areas where people have little knowledge and thus there will be little barrier to entry. For example I heard of a guy who was exceedingly rich who made burger pattee machines. I worked with a guy who brokered skips or dumpsters as they are called in the US; he made about $13m profit a year. The niche that I work in requires such a broad set of skills and knowledge that I happen to posses that could only likely be re-created with a team/freelancers, which would probably not be financially viable. In particular look for economic multipliers - things that will allow other people to do something with whatever you produce. These tend to be safer as they are closer to the core of the economy. Video games are an economic dead-end. The main things they produce is depression and thirty year olds looking around wondering, "What have I done for the last fifteen years?" If people were wondering, "What can I do economically that would allow someone else to do something economically." and not "How can we have more people on state subsidy each year." we would be in better shape. There's also far too many young people who want to go into economic dead-ends: video games, music, acting, academia... It's not sustainable.

From dipping into the corpus of literature on IQ, it does appear that 'black' people are genetically predisposed to lower IQs (Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, Eyferth study). There is an overview here: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/Race-differences-in-average-IQ-are-largely-genetic.aspx However, environmental factors are obviously a large contributor. The IQ of students in the main areas of China, Hong Kong and Singapore is about 110 (i.e. about 50% of people can pursue professional careers), but a study students from the UK found that people from the same region only have an IQ of about 101, while, if I remember correctly, native, white British people came top with about 102, at least out of any major group. I don't think there is any question that the reason for this ~9 point IQ gap (which is societally transformative) is due to the more strict and drilled education system in East Asia. Thus there is probably little genetic difference that drives white and East Asian IQ. The slight gap between East Asian and white IQ in the U.S. is likely due to the white, southern culture arsing from a large number of criminals who were transported to the colonies in the 1700s. As for blacks in the U.S., it is fairly obvious that the culture of guns, drugs, money, broken families etc. has a significant effect on IQ. The UK study referenced above found that the average IQ of people who received state subsidy for their school meals was 92, while the average IQ of private school pupils was 112. It's probably likely that the people who have state-paid meals are genetically predisposed to low IQs. My experience from being in school with these people is that they were more likely to be from single mother homes, victims of domestic violence etc. - the same things you find in higher proportions among U.S. blacks. If you consider Africa, where many countries have an average IQ of less than 70, it's not really a surprise considering the lack of or poor quality of education, high levels of domestic violence and so on. Sub-70 IQs are the mean where these people will regress to, it's the mean for their environment. My conclusion is that increases in IQ capacity probably happen slowly over time. If you look at reports on IQ by occupation, clergy come high up. If you were to test the IQs of people who are descendants of families that have a long history of being Church of England clergy, I imagine you would find they have abnormally high IQs as they have been receiving the best education for hundreds of years. The same theory has been applied to Ashkenazi Jews, though I am fairly sure that long-standing CoE families would excel above them. It seems clear that increasing the intelligence for all hinges on education and culture and its clear that left parties are incapable of results here and if anything have a responsibility for poor education and degenerative culture. I'm fairly sure that if you could take U.S. blacks out of a thug life setting and place them in the Singapore school system, IQs would increase dramatically. New methods need to be explored and methods that work spread, but the current state-dominated education system has killed innovation and led to decline. As for dealing with alt-right white supremacists, as with any mind-set with entrenched views it will be difficult to have any impact based on a few online exchanges. We can't know the sum of inputs that has led to people's conclusions. I don't think its useless to engage with them though, but nothing could be gained from escalating an insult match with them. If people such as yourself keep defying their expectations and presenting them with information and ways of looking at things which contradicts them, it could change them. Consider the bewilderment tactic:

MAWA! It's beautiful to watch. Creative destruction.

They've not released any evidence. As someone who knows the ropes, unless it was a complete 'tard who "hacked" these emails, they would have no idea who "hacked" them, as it is very simple to connect to the internet anonymously - the reason why there are so many online drugs markets and dealers who have been operating for several years with authorities all but helpless. So far all they have done is do what they have been doing for the past 2 years, say: With no evidence. If they had evidence it would be very easy to just release it after over a year of unsubstantiated claims and vaugeries, refuted by other intelligence officials. But as mentioned, such evidence is unlikely to exist. So the only likely evidence they could have is internal communications obtained by some means from Russian sources. But the best they have come up with is: All of a sudden the people who have a track record of making up actual conspiracy theories, lying and not wanting to share any data now think I don't know what happened and seems fairly clear neither do they. This smells of Iraq again, with made-up, complicated sounding words like "weapons of mass destruction", probably invented only to activate people's fear receptors and ignore the fact there wasn't any evidence. This time it's "multifaceted" and "unprecedented cyber war"! But in reality it was actually a simple phishing email, that I could fish passwords for ten a penny within a few hours and [probably] emails leaks to Wikileaks by DNC staffer Seth Rich who was subsequently murdered, prompting Wikileaks to offer a $20,000 bounty for information leading to the killer. And like Iraq, the presstitutes in the MSM are out howling "Proof!", "We're at war!", "Russian scum!", as they virtually daily have to retract their fake news articles that they accuse anyone who is not anointed of publishing nothing but. Consider an outlet that is actually liberal and fact-based: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of-julian-assanges-interview-went-viral-and-was-completely-false https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived The other meme that they have been putting out is that numerous alternative news sources are Russian fake news propaganda! Their first bible of what is fake Russian propaganda was a rough list scrawled up by a far-left, feminist academic. After the list was discredited as being based on nothing but her opinion, they quickly heralded the new authority on fake new, an anonymous quickly thrown up web-template (http://www.propornot.com/p/home.html) which is so inaccurate it lists the "father of Reaganomics" a major left-wing Russian propagandist. After being hit by lawsuits from genuine news outlets on the list, they've walked away again. This is now the mainstay of the MSM: Anonymous intelligence sources Anonymous, unsourced, new, low budget sites An inability to understand intermediate level computing And now actual presstitues. After those ploys failed, news on Facebook is going to be independently fact checked by exclusively left-wing fact checkers. The most notable of them being Snopes, which was founded by a guy and his wife. As she ballooned in weight, the guy began embezzling money from the company and spending it on "high class" prostitutes. He eventually dumped the wife and married one of the prostitutes. That not being enough, he bumped the fat ex-wife out of the fact checking business and replaced her with his new wife, the prostitute, who still operates. So now, the fountain, the bastion of officially approved news is a literal presstitute who has been paid to sleep with 1,000s of men. If people are so stupid that they need all of their news fact checked by prostitutes, why not take it to the next level and give all their ballots to prostitutes for them to proxy everyone's votes, drawing on their deep repositories of wisdom. The media is dying under its own lack of credibility, delusion, hysteria, slew of retractions, fake news and meltdown. Someone said the other day, "What will we do for fun the day the MSM ceases to exist." These are the global traffic ranks of MSM: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/48777-breitbart-goes-stratospheric/?p=443896 During the biggest news cycle ever. You would have expected considerable upticks, but instead you see parity at best. All the traffic went to other sources: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/breitbart.com

From the left, I was asked to opine on post-truth, a new meme put out by left academics and journalists that we are now in a 'post-truth' age in which facts are ignored by politicians appealing to people's emotions. More specifically only politicians that are not on the left or from the establishment and more than anyone else it refer to Donald Trump and Nigel Farage. Russian hacking Fake news Post-truth I'm going the miss the days of truth politics. The days when Tony Blair declared a war without any evidence, when Nick Clegg hoovered up a slumgullion of youngsters by saying he'd block tuition fee rises, when David Cameron offered a 'cast iron' deal on a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, or when the govt. said it would cost £350m to topple Qaddafi, which ended up being £1.75b, which BBC-Sky-News presented as if it was as inconsequential as a new hospital being built. Now everything is Russia, because of assessments and judgement from sources. The Director of National Intelligence released their damming 25 page report today. No evidence, mainly just stills from RT on how they are putting out stuff like anti-fracking content as an attack on the US fracking industry. Many commentators are frothing at the mouth based on their emotions, in complete lack of evidence. Post-truth. Yet a bunch of academics and journalist who have never had to provide anything of value as money is hauled to and dumped at their feet as the academic institutions they have all but taken over have become overvalued and increasingly useless and the journalists paid out of dwindling funds (The Guardian) or billionaires (WaPo - Jeff Bezos, NYT - Carlos Slim...), as they have to sell off assets and make huge layoffs just to make giant losses, as trust in them craters into single digits, as their comments sections turn against them leading to their annulment, and they loose double-digit percentages of their audience per year; now declare anything they don't like is some new word, because of their feelings, in lack of evidence. Post-truth. The biggest instance of post-truth latched onto is the claim "we send £350 million a week", which is 100% accurate. Yes, there is more to the story than that, that about £100m comes back, which was debated constantly during the run up to the referendum. If people weren't engaged enough to be informed of that, maybe they could have been filled in with likes of: Brexit will mean little England with no special relationship with US: http://tinyurl.com/z8qj4pp Brexit could trigger the end of western civilisation: http://tinyurl.com/zenlk4v Brexit could trigger war and genocide: http://tinyurl.com/zth5xke [From one of the few non-hysterical voices at TG] Or the multitude of dire imminent and long-term economic predictions. All based on feelings; no evidence was provided. Post-truth. And the same has been rolled out for Trump. Emotional hysteria pumped out by the fake news media has the disabled, blacks, Jews, Hispanics and gays running around worrying that they are about to be carted off to concentration camps at any minute, based on nothing grounded in reality. It doesn't matter that he has eight Jewish grand-children, ran on the most most pro-gay platform ever, did this: http://tinyurl.com/hkdvz4win the Republican Party in which doing so means lost votes, and has/had numerous high profile relations with the likes of Don King, Mike Tyson and Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr. It doesn't matter, because some site said someone who ran some site conceived of in Israel, founded by a Jew, disproportionately staffed by Jews, with an office in Israel and unapologetically pro-Israel is a white supremacist and anti-Semite. Post-truth. This post-truth meme has been pushed by the left (def: collectivist, favour certain identity groups over others). However, the largest study of personalities using one of the most lauded personality tests found that Democrats are considerably more prone to making decisions based on emotions, while Republicans are to smaller extent more likely to make decisions based on thinking, Libertarians are twice as likely to make decisions based on thinking as opposed to emotion, while Green Party supporters (the far left in many cases) are twice as likely to make decisions on emotion as opposed to thinking. https://www.16personalities.com/articles/the-us-political-personality-i-parties Study - Liberals are more emotional than conservatives: http://www.spsp.org/news-center/press-releases/liberals-are-more-emotion-driven-conservatives Women, who are more emotional, are more likely to be Democrat: http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/9b9rrrkhnei4nefacq2cgq.gif Yet we are now told it's all reactionary right-wing bigots that are frothing at the mouth acting on emotions. This is based on emotions, not evidence. Post-truth. This is why you will see Rand Paul (Libertarian-R, KY) give a ten hour speech in the senate, presenting facts; and Bernie Sanders (Socialist-I, VT) get up and say "White people don't know what it means to be poor in this county.", before a couple of thugs steal his mic and he shrinks into the background. And: - Immigration is a net-negative in immediate terms (ONS stats) + Racist! Divisive! + Fake news! + Post-truth! / We should have compassionate immigration even if people don't economically add to our country (emotional decision, gaining moral high ground without paying the price [tax] - narcissism) - We have no idea how we are going to pay pensions in thirty plus years (ONS report) + Fake news! / Don't worry about it - We can't afford to be the international health service (basic maths) + Racist! Divisive! Stigmatising people who are ill! Nothing can be considered with emotion. You can't look into the past, or future; you can't consider anything in the present. Emotions are subjective and relative only to yourself. This is why whatever the left (def. above) gets hold of is destroyed. - Once internationally acclaimed newspapers being ran into the ground, loss of trust - Higher education: decline; more government involvement in US has skyrocketed tuition fees, producing people who are increasingly mentally and practically less able to survive in the world; unemployment and low quality employment among degree holders up; useless professors who can't be fired and never have to react to any real-world forces - States schools: US- highest spent per capita in the world but slipping further down OECD education rankings, stagnation - Pensions: unsustainable - National health service: unsustainable - Twitter: stock sent into the toilet because of CEO's feelings You can't socialise nothing. And right now, we don't have much more to socialise. If there were actual austerity, it would take 30-60 years to pay off public and private debt. This is what we have been gifted by the emotions of the left - the bill for past consumption. Very moral.

I was introduced to NVC recently and although there area ideas that I thought were worth considering, I had two observations: 1) It's idealist and we're not living in an idea world. NVC would require both parties to communicate within its principles. Imagine you are the last non-Islamist in the world trying to negotiate at knife-point about the needs and feelings of both parties. Likewise for negotiating with a parent who violently abused you for 15 years. 2) It's passive. I just flicked through the above video and Stef crystalises this perfectly with the statement, "You can think the moral judgement, you just can't be honest about it." It also links into point 1). If you are being passive and holding back your communications using NVC principles and the other person is being "aggressive" your ideal for communication is negated. And at some point all the passively built up non-communication is going to spill out. Looking at it on a social level, for the past x years we've had a situation where people became passive in expressing ideas which would typically be considered conservative, i.e. immigration. Fact-based arguments were met with such aggression that people shut up. Jobs, friendships, reputations were used as weapons against communication. There was no room for NVC, never mind adversarial communication. The lack of adversarial communication has now exploded with a fringe of white supremacy juxtapositioning the socially acceptable epidemic of anti-white racism that was enabled though near utter passiveness. When you are passive, you risk being treated like a toilet. On a wider level you can see how Europe's passivity is abused as the continent is now treated as the global welfare state. Many on the board will have or will likely face situations where friendships will be strained either to or near the point of ending because of facts. You're presented with the situation: shut up or leave. That's the negotiating position. Not ideal. Be passive or walk away.

At around the age of 17-19, a friend forced a book called An Introduction to Socialism on me. I had no intention of reading it and lost it within hours of the bequest. On being informed of the loss, the owner immediately jumped on me to buy a new one. That was my introduction to socialism - you pay for your own mistakes. Did I slip into a parallel universe some time between then and now?

The problem is though, fewer women are interested in this, at least until they are about thirty, by which point they may be jaded with pink hair and a lifetime membership to the Green Party. This is born out by statistics on wage, by gender, by age group. The gender pay gap is getting smaller, because more women are becoming like men. Women are taking on the socio-biological role you are describing; at which point men become less valuable, as more women can provide for themselves what men used to provide. I saw a survey that showed while many men are still happy with a woman who is just attractive; many women are now demanding a man who is more intelligent, better paid, more confident and better looking. And since so many have probably become used to sleeping around with better looking men in their 20s, they don't see why that should not continue as their physical value declines, while men don't care much about their economic viability. What you outline is not particularly relevant to these women, nor these large number of girls who just want to have fun.

What sort of things can a man can do to provide value to a quality woman?

I've been thinking about similar topics a lot recently and spoke at length with a fellow traveler in chat. One conclusion that we both came to is pursuing Christian woman is seems a better tact, for reasons which Stefan has covered of late; and particularly 'cultural Christians' over 'theological Christians'. Within this group you will at least find people with family orientation, value commitment and are less given to indulgence and pleasure seeking. If you are looking for the whole package of general themes Stef covers it's going to be very difficult to find someone who cover all the bases. We're not living in an ideal world and have to compromise accordingly. Another thought I have had is pursuing women who are not particularly active thinkers, may or may not be particularly be intelligent, but have a mothering and commitment instinct. These tend to be given to more traditional gender roles and thus will be more receptive to your philosophical approach to relationships and parenting. For me, those are the two targets, because a rational, intelligent, beautiful, libertarian-type etc. is unlikely to come along. Some tips for your dating profile and what to look for: Religion: Christian or Jewish Family orientation: strong Profession: not a teacher Intent: looking to marry Wants children: yes Personality (POF): Animal lover, bookworm, free thinker, intellectual, professional State your philosophical outlook or the sorts of things you being and are looking for. Will turn away the chaf, but help make you stand out to diamonds in the rough. Red flags: cleavage, children, blank profiles, princess, diva, fashionista, tattoos, piercings, pink hair, feminist; among many others.

If you count Democrat voters among bad families: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/48765-on-a-long-enough-timeline-the-survival-rate-of-democrats-drops-to-zero/ Study from India, though at a glance I can't see what the conclusion is: http://www.academia.edu/7959171/Domestic_violence_and_its_impact_on_fertility_behavior_Evidence_from_Nationally_Representative_Household_Survey_Data_in_India Uzbekistan, ditto: http://paa2007.princeton.edu/papers/71957 Cameroon: "Regardless of a woman’s religious affiliation, the relation between number of children and first marital physical violence was statistically significant (P≤0.01; log-rank test). For all four religious categories considered here, data in Fig. 2.2 show that women who have 1–4 children were significantly more likely to experience physical violence sooner than other women. More than 75 % of women with 1–4 children experienced physical violence within the 10 years of marriage among Catholics and Protestants, and within 12 years of marriage for Muslims. Here again, physical violence was significantly lower among women who had no children" My guess is that families where there is physical and/or emotional violence would have more children. There are probably a lot of reasons, but one that comes to mind is that these people are probably closer to base human drives, as opposed to being driven by reason and evidence., and base human drives include making children.