J215

Fuck. Stef just said it in his latest call in show. r's get into K society by crook or by hook, random predation causes the native K's to breed less as a response to stress, while the r's breed like crazy... as a response to stress. He even mentioned feminism being a way to get K's to breed less because of the rational danger of relationships... THOSE are the women that I feel the video is talking about, and here in the west they are the majority... Nasty times ahead, but I welcome the challenge. (Why The Regressive Left Hates Everything, call in show)

Of course none of this would be possible without the state. This isn't hopeful if this guy is right. (and to the guy above, no where did I advocate rape in any way and I would be one the ones violently defending and not a part of the 'our', but a large part of intelligence is genetic and would impact a future where middle eastern Islam spreads unchecked) Welfare has to go asap and I don't know how best to help that, plus people need to disobey the gun laws that are coming

What do you think I am trying to use as a scapegoat, what do you believe I am trying to justify not trying harder at?

Ok then, so I ask for help with proving the author of the video incorrect and you come at me on a point that is pretty scientifically sound, and has been talked about in Stef's videos many times. The nature and origin of hypergamy would be something I would think would be understood here. This isn't the place I thought I would be told I had a lack of curiosity and integrity. If I am going to be told I am just making false dichotomies, and projecting and presuming... I just won't ask the community for help figuring things out.

If we were a naturally pair bonding species we wouldn't have the institution of marriage. Because we would already be pair bonding without having to resort to the threat of shaming, ostracism, and worse to keep a man and woman together for the sake of kids.

Ok not sure where you were going with that. My concern is that the video is right. The argument is simple. We are a dimorphic species, which means we don't pair bond unless something forces us to like marriage. We are naturally a tournament species. Western males lost the tournament and every other culture is treating us like a bitch because of it. Naturally our women don't want to fuck the males treated like shit by every other race/culture in the world. They are hypergamous. The top of the progressive stack, the culture that takes shit from no one is middle eastern Islamic patriarchy. Because of hypergamy our women will fuck them because they won the tournament. They passed the shit test. Someone show me how this argument is false please.

Well if the reasoning is solid then the end result is not a very good one. The only silver lining I can see is that when middle eastern races have raped enough east asians, whites and ashkenazi jews then their IQ will be boosted higher than the violence sweet spot. I guess the only hope is that the children of our women and their rapists will find the wisdom from channels like Stef's and not repeat the mistakes of the past. Chilling and I'm hoping someone can show me how we are not headed exactly where this video seems to show we are headed.

Thanks for the link and the help, doesn't matter much as she didn't show it to them and eventually went on to cheat on me with a neighbor because he is a business owner.

Thank you for that!! I will show this to her so that she can give it to them while I keep searching for the organization that Stef said he donates to (Linked below is the video that he said it in). My big hope is to have Rosy's organization reach out to them and partner in some way.

My girlfriend volunteers at an outreach group in the black community. Just tonight I heard Stef say that he donates to a black peaceful parenting organization and would love to use that as an example to introduce peaceful parenting to the group that my girlfriend works with. Does anyone know the name of that organization (ideally), or any peaceful parenting organizations that focus on the black community?

I honestly don't mean to irritate you with my questions, and it does make more sense to me now. As long as I have the ability to decline it and not be attacked then sure... Do whatever you and your group want to do. I still don't understand why anyone would organize in this way though (no idea what problem this is suppose to fix), but it is easy enough to say no to something voluntary that involves the taking of your money without an understanding of what it is suppose to be in exchange for. To answer your question - A tracked and staffed position overseeing this would be a cost to the community (overhead). Letting people act on their own beliefs and interests in regards to charity without a system like this would save the community the cost of compensating people for running, tracking, and enforcing the fund transfers (no overhead). I understand now that it is not a government ran program and purely consensual but how would it save the cost of running, overseeing, and enforcing this system? It might be easier for me to grasp and get behind if I knew what you were trying to solve with this way of organizing. (and again I am not trying to irritate you, I genuinely don't understand the need for this).

I am sorry, but I still don't understand. What does "the disincentive effect of means-based social security" mean, and how is it a problem? As for a government program that would effect every single member of the population being a solution to the problem of overhead... I am pretty sure that is not logically consistent. Government IS a giant overhead, and one without consent at that. The more reaching the program the higher the cost. For something to be ran by the state that effects the bank accounts of the entire population... That would be the largest kind of overhead, yet somehow would solve the problem of overheads? That is extraordinary and reality bending, how would it accomplish this? The main thing for me is I still don't know what this is slated to solve, I am sorry to sound dense but I didn't understand your explanation. (other than you claiming that it would get rid of the cost of overhead while simultaneously creating a government program that would need staffing, tracking, oversight, leadership, and large amounts of information from the population in the area of bank accounts, identity verification, etc.)

I am not even sure what the problem is that they are trying to fix with this. State plans most often achieve the opposite of the intended result. For examples of that just look at welfare to help the poor, wars to achieve peace, forced diversification in order to help race/gender relations. What is the goal of BIG? What problem are they trying to fix? Logistically taking money from the productive and then giving a set amount of money to everyone in a country would be a massive overhead and would be largely ignored by the middle to high income households (who logically would prefer less taxation in the first place). It would seem to most benefit the poor given that they would receive a large chunk of resources that they otherwise would not have earned, but wouldn't that in the long run only add to the enabling and encouragement of them to depend on hand outs and not learn how to take care of themselves?

Thank you! Nice to meet you Kevin, my name is Justin. That does sound very familiar. They usually help someone to avoid the personal stress and discomfort of telling an irresponsible person 'no' and then use it after the fact as something to point at as an example of how selfless they were, at the cost of their own family's resources and happiness (immediate and future). Understanding what an argument is and what it isn't was like a light switch for me; it went from completely unknown to feeling obvious (with the frustration of knowing that I had to rethink everything I held as true). If someone made a claim before but provided no reasons or evidence then I didn't know that anything further was needed. Now I know (especially with extraordinary claims) to ask how people know things are true, to look for logical consistency and then actual evidence before accepting that something is true. Appeals to authority, popularity, and ridicule don't work when you know that people actually have to prove what they are saying if it is a claim of truth. It does make things really awkward when the person you are talking to realizes (consciously or not) that they have nothing and I am working through how to have people not get hostile towards me when they reach that point.

I would like to introduce myself to you all with a quote from George Orwell, because that is very much how I feel while writing this, "To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone -- to a time when the truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: from the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink -- greetings!" Currently I am 27. I found FDR several months ago through Youtube's automated recommendation system; I am pretty sure I was watching videos by Larken Rose at the time. I have always been a practical philosopher thanks to the way my parents raised me, though mainly through my father exposing me to different schools of thought and religions and insisting that it was my choice and no one else's what I adopted. With that said I was only given some of the tools of thought and only recently have found how to verify truth (the all so comfy free market/anarchist/atheist cheese grater), what an argument actually is (good bye calm conversations with family, friends, and Facebook), and the all so important realization that empathy must be reciprocal. (shaming from hypocrites used to work on me like a charm, the question "what's in it for me?" was like controlled demolition in my life). My family has for multiple generations been pathologically altruistic towards irresponsible family members (and everyone else it feels like) at the expense of it's children (each generation), While I have not done it yet (we are saving up funds), I am going to break that pattern and make a foundational change in how my family functions, by focusing all of my resources into the next generation, as well as making sure they have the tools to defend their minds. While we have no children yet my girlfriend is fully on board with peaceful parenting and living a thrifty life in order to funnel funds into giving our children all that they need to thrive, be rational, and morally good (UPB). PS: I am a subscriber and am working on getting the genuine ones of my friends acquainted with FDR and subbing as well.