How High Can IQ Go?

From Queera:

What is the maximum IQ a human can have?

I don’t mean the highest IQ a person has at the moment, but what is our IQ capacity?

The standard answer is something like 205, and you will never even see that in your lifetime.

There has been a lot of writing on this at genius.com from a different point of view. The man who writes that estimates that Goethe and a few others had IQ’s up to 220. That’s about the limit.

Sidis was estimated by a psychologist who examined him to have an IQ to 250–300, but I have no idea what that means.

The smartest man in the world, Christopher Langan, is said to have an IQ of 200. I don’t doubt that he’s that intelligent having seen his videos. Of course, Mr. Langan is a worthless fool in our silly society because he never “used” his IQ, right? But why did he have to? A human that intelligent ought to be fascinating merely by existing. I would love to spend some quality time with Langan although he would probably make me feel retarded. I could care less whether he “used” his talent or not. Why did he have to? Is it the law?

It gets very hard to measure very high IQ’s.

Children can have very high IQ’s because their IQ’s are measured in terms how smart they are for their age. Using that scale, childhood IQ’s of up to 400 have been calculated. Of course, once they hit 18, you start counting the scores the other way, and they can’t have much above 200.

10 Comments

Filed under Intelligence, Psychology

“I Don’t Care What Your IQ Is, I Want to Know What You Did with It”

How often have you heard this idiocy du jour? I’m getting really tired of it. I assume most people saying it aren’t very smart because I have a hard time believing anyone with an IQ above 140 would ever say something so idiotic.

Talented people are always interesting. There are plenty of fine athletes in high school and college who decided not to go into sports. They were still great athletes with excellent talent. There are people who can draw very well but don’t feel like using it. Likewise with music, writing, all sorts of things. All of this is interesting. I would love to hear about someone who had great artistic or musical talent who just decided they did not want to go that way and didn’t explore their talent.

There are many very good-looking people who never went into acting or modeling. Do we pummel them over the head with this for not using their good looks. Of course not. No one has to use their natural gifts in any particular way, and it’s no crime to be the handsomest man on Earth who never did anything with it but use to get women.

It is only when it comes to intelligence that a natural talent is scored and derided as being “worthless unless you use it.” We are singling out intelligence as a special case among talents to subject it to this sort of treatment. There can be only one reason for this.

Due to our hatred of intelligence and intellectuals, it is only intelligence that is attacked as “worthless unless you do something with it.” No other talent is attacked this way. People who do this are showing how much hate they feel towards intelligent people, especially highly intelligent ones.

High IQ people explore their talent every day by necessity. They never give it up like lapsed athletes, artists, writers, etc. These people are very interesting to meet. High IQ people are fascinating whether they are “using” their talent or not. And what does using it mean anyway? Making a pile of money off of it. Not everyone is so mercenary.

My mother has a 150 IQ, yet she never “did anything with it.” So what! Why did she have to? She’s one of the smartest women I’ve ever met. Are we that greedy and mercenary that all talents must be converted into sleazy dollar bills?

Christopher Langan is said the be the world’s smartest man with an IQ of 200. I’m sure it is probably that high or around there, having seen his videos.

Incidentally, he never “used it” and instead spent his life in working class occupations such as bar bouncer, logger, truck driver, etc. Believe it or not, this is a common trajectory for geniuses. In the first half of the 20th Century it was noted that some of the smartest men of all often took menial jobs such as custodian, trash collectors or factory worker. When asked why, they typically said, “This way I can think all the time.” In countries like Italy before 1950, it was quite common to find super-geniuses working as ditch-diggers and trash collectors.

Why must Langan “use” his IQ? What for? He’s a fascinating fellow simply by being so bright. And like the other men discussed, he probably took working class jobs so he could think all day.

Natural talents are interesting and praiseworthy no matter what use they are put to.

99 Comments

Filed under Intelligence, Labor, Psychology, Sociology

California: Not Really Trumpland

Madera

My city and my precinct. It’s hard to say, but it looks like most of the city voted Clinton. There’s a lot of red there, but not too many people live in those areas. The really built up urban area voted Clinton.

6 Comments

Filed under California, Democrats, Maps, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA, West

Typical Trump Supporter

17265012_1270655466383574_2281197224171872360_n

Shut up moran!

What’s up with Banjo Barbie here? Get a load of this stupid inbred skank. So did she go to school? Did illeagals ruin her school? Is that why she can’t spell?

Why do so many Trump supporters seem like they’re mentally retarded?

23 Comments

Filed under Idiots, Politics, Republicans, US Politics

Anatomy of a Lie: All Latin American Revolutions Came from Cuba and the USSR

Jason: Also, the left not only believes the other side will torture them like on Hostel, but they believe the US is aiding the right. I suppose at one time, the right thought the USSR was aiding the left, but I think the real facts were exaggerated.

They have good reasons to think that. Do you realize that hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans have in fact been tortured like in Hostel? All with the approval, coaching, cheerleading and assistance of the US?

The USSR was aiding the Left only in a sense. In only a very few countries had an armed revolutions had sprung up and Cuba was aiding them. Russia gave the Cubans lots of arms and the Cubans smuggled them to Nicaragua and then to the rebels in El Salvador. That was it as far as I can tell.

The revolutionaries in the following countries never got one bullet or one nickel from Cuba or the USSR:

Guatemala: URNG and others 1954-1994
Colombia: ELN, FARC 1964-present
Peru: focos in the 1960’s, Sendero Luminoso 1980-present, MRTA 1984-1996
Ecuador: Sendero Luminoso 1990
Venezuela: small focos in the 1960’s and 1970’s
Brazil: urban guerrillas in the 1960’s
Uruguay: Tupamaros 1970-1983
Bolivia: Sendero Luminoso 1990, MIR 1960’s
Paraguay: recent guerrillas supported by the FARC 2012-present
Argentina: Tupamaros 1970-1983
Nicaragua: Sandinistas 1964-1979
Honduras: small guerrilla bands in the 1980’s
Chile: Manuel Rodriguez Patriotic Front 1970-1989, Lautaro Front 1990’s

As you can see, armed revolutions started up in all of those countries at one time or another usually for very good reasons. The Right tried to blame all this revolutionary activity on the USSR bogeyman. But the USSR never gave any of those groups one bullet or one dime. The Right also claimed and still does that everything was peachy clean and hunky dory in all of those countries except for the evil Soviets coming in and stirring things up by giving those university students all those funny ideas. This is complete nonsense. The truth is that if you have a decent country, you never get Left guerrillas, rural, urban or otherwise.

You only get an armed Left when your country is a complete Hellhole. The way to defeat an armed Left is to create at least a semblance of a decent society. If you do that, the Left will lay down its arms and even join the government.

The US always wants to say that rebels have no agency.

Leave a comment

Filed under Americas, Argentina, Brazil, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Colombia, Conservatism, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Latin America, Left, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Political Science, Regional, Revolution, South America, USA, USSR, Venezuela

All Enemy Rebels Have No Agency

The US, NATO and our allies always insist that any anti-Western rebel group has no agency. They’re all just puppets being pulled by the evil Putin or the ayatollahs or whatever. They have minds of their own. They lack desire, needs, wants, goals and willpower. They are all silly pawns who obey their masters in some other country who push them around like chess pieces. They  have no more agency than a robot.

But the other side does it too. The Left claims that the Syrian rebels are mercenaries paid by the US. The truth is that radical Sunni Salafists have come from all over the Arab World to fight the Shia heretics ruling Syria. It’s all part of the Sunni-Shia Civil War breaking out all over the region. And 70% of the rebels are Syrian Sunni Muslims. Only 30% are from outside Syria, but those are not puppets either. They are anti-Shia fanatics who want to put in Islamic Law.

In the Ukraine, the US claims that everything was fine until the evil Russians came in and stirred things up. In other words, the Donbass rebels have no agency. They are just puppets pulled by Putin. But why would anyone agree to be a puppet for some other country. The truth is that the Donbass rebels rose up on their own due to a Nazi coup fomented by the CIA and the US State Department.  Russia opposed them rising up all the way. They wanted a federalized state instead.

For a long time, Russia refused to aid them and only stepped in when they were on the verge of defeat, and the native Russians in the area were getting massacred. Polls consistently show that 94% of Donbass people do not want to be part of Ukraine. Of course, anti-US polls are always inaccurate because fear and other spooks and bogeymen. All populations polling in a direction the US doesn’t like are literally living under Josef Stalin’s rule and they are terrified to poll against whatever the government tells them to. Cuz you know they might get sent to the gulags. And get a bullet from an NKVD firing squad. Because you know anti-US populations have no agency. They all love America, and they only reason they poll that way is fear and other spooky bogeymen.

Putin doesn’t have 87% support, he has 0% support. Russians are terrified of Putin and if you answer a poll question wrong, Putin’s friend Beria will put a bullet in your head. Or you go to Siberia. Or Putin starves you to death in a new fake terror famine like the last one. Because you know Putin is the spooky USSR. He’s really Stalin. Stalin never died, you know. He just reincarnated as Putin The Evil.

You realize things were much worse under Yeltsin and 20X more journalists were killed under Yeltsin? Russia was much more authoritarian under Yeltsin than it is under Putin. But Yeltsin had 6% support. Oh well, hand wave, but Putin’s a dictator. Yeltsin? That pickled liver was Our Man in Moscow. How could he be bad. Everyone  who is pro-US has a halo over their head, didn’t you know that? No really.

The Crimeans rose up on their own. The Crimeans were always a part of Russia or the USSR. There never was any country called Ukraine. It sprung up for the first time in 1991 and claimed it owned the Crimea. The Crimeans oppose being part of Ukraine from Day One and they even passed a number of resolutions saying that they were not a part of Ukraine.

Basically they never agreed to be part of Ukraine. When the US fomented a coup and the new Nazis came in and said they were joining NATO and throwing Russia out of their base in Crimea (presumably to turn it into a NATO base) Putin had to act. He had no alternative. There was no way he could lose his warm water port and allow NATO to set up a naval base right next door. Nor could he allow NATO to take Ukraine and set up an army right on his doorstep. Polls done by Western polling groups have consistently found that 87% of Crimeans support the annexation.

But see, the US and NATO claims that Crimeans and Donbass people have no agency. They have no minds of their own.

The Jews do this same garbage. Palestinians rising up on their own, maybe because Jews treat them worse than chattel. Well of course not! Zionism is wonderful! The Palestinians love it so much. They love Jews! They would never hurt one Jew, ever.

The Jews say that if it weren’t for Syria, Libya, and Iraq there would be no Palestinians. Before they said that about the USSR. The Palestinians were only rising up because the Soviets were whispering in their ear and telling them to. Hence we took down Libya, Iraq and now Syria on the orders of the Jews because in the US, we do whatever the Jews tell us to do. Iraq, Libya and now Syria were ordered to be taken down by the Israelis. First of all, they were all enemies of Israel, but second of all, if we got rid of all of those countries, the Palestinian revolution would end immediately.

Because, you know, the Palestinians are only shooting rockets and settlers because the Syrians, Iraqis, and Libyans tell them to and give them guns and stuff. This is also why Iran is on the list. Iran is the last of the Jews’ enemies to remain standing. All of the others have been taken out. Granted, Lebanon is an enemy of the Jews, but they have no military so no one cares much about them. Take out Iran and take out Israel’s last remaining enemy. And the Palestinians won’t fight anymore because they only fight because the evil Iranians tell them to. And they won’t get one more bullet because all the weaponry comes from Iran.

A similar thing is playing with Hezbollah. Does Hezbollah exist, maybe, because Israel repeatedly invaded Lebanon? Of course not! That has nothing to do with it! The Lebanese Shia love the Jews. They want to run up to Jews and kiss them on the lips! Nope, instead, Hezbollah only exists because of Iran. Every time a Jew mentions Hezbollah, they say Iran in the next sentence. Because you know Hezbollah are just puppets. Nasrallah is a man on a string.

They and he have no agency. They only take orders from Iran. They don’t. They don’t take orders from Iran. Hezbollah does whatever the Hell it wants and it is not unusual for them to have different goals and aims than the Iranians. The Iranians have no real control over them. Hezbollah is an independent entity with a strong anti-Israel position so Iran supports them, but Iran can’t tell them what to do. Hezbollah gets to do whatever the Hell it wants to. But as the interests of Iran and Hezbollah coincide it is unlikely that Hezbollah will do crazy things not approved of by Iran. On the other hand, Hezbollah is not some wing of the Iranian military taking direct orders from Iran like the Jews say.

Now if you want to say that Iran arms Hezbollah, you have a point. And part of the reason the Jews are trying to destroy Syria is because that way they can end the Iran – Syria – Hezbollah arms pipeline.

Another good case is Kashmir. If you think Indian Hindus are irrational and nuts in general, wait until you see how they feel about Kashmir. Want to see an Indian Hindu have a chimpout? Mention the word Kashmir. They will raise their voices, start yelling, pound the table and get threatening and menacing. And they will say one word over and over: “Pakistan! Pakistan! Pakistan! Pakistan! Pakistan! Pakistan! Pakistan! Pakistan!”

Because you see, Kashmiris have no agency. Kashmiris love India! They love Hindus! They want to kiss all the Hindus on the cheeks! They’re loyal Indian citizens! They have no beefs with India. Kashmiris have total love for India. They would never rebel. In fact, not one Kashmiri has ever taken up arms against India. Not one. Nope. Instead, 100% of the Kashmiri rebellion, armed and otherwise, is being caused by the evil bogeyman Pakistan.

Now Pakistan does aid some of the more radical armed Kashmiri groups, but most of the groups are actually headquartered outside of Kashmir in Pakistani Kashmir. They don’t have much of a presence in Kashmir itself. And now the resistance is mostly just constant rioting and stone throwing like in Palestine. But no matter. I’m sure every one of those stone throwers is a Pakistani in disguise. Those sneaky Pakistanis! They’re everywhere! Look out there’s one under your bed right now, Hindu! Boo! Pakistan! Boo! Boogeyman!

If you study the Kashmiri rebellion, it has internal roots. It never got going until about 1969 anyway because before that, the Kashmiris had tried to work peacefully within the system. Only when India blocked all efforts at peaceful change did the Kashmiris rise up. And in the worst of the armed conflict, 90% of the rebels were native Kashmiris.

India says, “Kashmiris are puppets cuz evil Pakistan bogeyman wants to steal our land hurr!” Actually, this is just more Indian lies. Only 6% of Kashmiris want to split off and join Pakistan. Most have traditionally only wanted an independent state in Kashmir. By the way, the UN has ordered international scofflaw India to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir to decide the fate of the region since 1949. India has always flatly refused. Because you know we can’t have people deciding their own destiny or anything like that.

Leave a comment

Filed under Africa, Arabs, Asia, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Hinduism, India, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Kashmir, Lebanon, Left, Libya, Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, Palestine, Palestinians, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Russia, Shiism, South Asia, Sunnism, Syria, Ukraine, USA, USSR, War

Dumbest Alt Left Phrase Ever: “The Regressive Left”

Calling the SJW Cultural Left Freakshow “regressive” is absolutely senseless. Originally it meant Leftists who supported reaction such as Political Islam. Political Islam or Islam in general is backwards, conservative if not reactionary, and a throwback to an older era that progressives have moved far beyond in the West. Full-throated Left support for reactionary Islam is indeed regressive.

But the Cultural Left Freakshow is anything but regressive. Really it is progressivism run amok.

Radical gay rights is regressive because it harkens back to the golden era of gay rights in the 1800’s when gays had far more rights than they even do now, right?

Radical feminism is regressive because back in the old days when my Mom was growing up, most women were ultra-radical man-hating dykes who pushed far beyond equal rights, correct?

Anti-racism is regressive because it recalls the the 1700’s when Blacks and Indians ruled society and the White man was a downtrodden minority, no?

Transsexual rights is regressive because back in the Ancien Regime in France, 1/200 men and women were transsexuals, there was a transsexual on every block, and French society cheered for genderbenders and called for gender to be abolished, n’est-ce pas?

The Regressive Left is a preposterous and idiotic slur that the Alt Left has made up for the SJW Cultural Left. It makes sense only in that the Cultural Left voices full support for radical Islam. Otherwise it utterly irrational.

The Cultural Left in general isn’t regressive at all. It’s not even reactionary, conservative or even rightwing. It’s not even Centrist, and it gave up liberalism long ago. No, the Cultural Left is nuts because this is an example of leftwing politics going completely off the deep end. Regressive means backwards, reactionary, conservative, primitive, a throwback to an older, ignorant era before modern progress and progressive politics. The Cultural Left is the opposite of regressive.

We just call them that because it sounds insulting, and it is. But it’s also a lie. I don’t see why the Alt Left should stoop to lying and sliming the opposition with sleazy and false slurs like all the rest of the dirty politics out there. We are beyond that; we are too good for that. We can do better. Let’s do it.

Get rid of the slogan “Regressive Left” once and for all. Resign it to the dustbin of recent history.

10 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Cultural Marxists, Homosexuality, Left, Politics, Radical Feminists, Radical Islam, Religion, Sex

Latin American Politics Finally Comes To America

I guess Chile has their version of the mighty keyboard warrior like the US. No shortage of white shit for brains running around say they’re going get rid of all the Jews and blacks.. then you have a fair number of blacks running around saying they’re going to get rid of their white oppressors.. etc. Totally delusional twats. Maybe rightists are a serious problem in Chile but I don’t consider YouTube comments a proper gauge of sentiment and support.

I have been engaged off and on in deep study of this region since 1989. 28 years.

You don’t understand Chile. You don’t understand Latin America.

Really the entire rightwing down there is exactly like this. The rich, elite Whites’ basic attitude in almost every country down there is “All Communists must be killed.” And Communist means anyone even slightly left of center. A huge % of the population in Chile is still pro-Pinochet, and this is precisely how they think.

The Left stages marches and protests all the time, often is support of Allende. Rightists, of whom there are many supporters still meet them and there is wild street fighting. Rightists then stage marches often in support of Pinochet. The Left shows up and there is wild street fighting.

Did some searches.. looks like the bigger demonstrations were over education and state (or lack of it) support. Seem to follow the US model – most of the protests are peaceful but then you have “the hooded ones” raising a ruckus. I couldn’t find anything that indicated there were large counter protests by rightists – not saying that didn’t happen but I just couldn’t find them If you have a link or links I’ll take a look.

Ok, well I think I may have read this some time ago. I do remember reading it, but it could have been a while back. It could well have been years ago, or a decade or more ago. But at one time in recent history, this is how it was.

Perhaps the Left vs. Right riots have quieted down in recent years, but that’s the way it was not long ago.

Protests in Chile have historically been far more riotous and violent than demos in the US. There’s not really any comparison. Anyway, violent riots on the US Left are a relatively new phenomenon. Trump is a corrupt, vicious, evil ultraright dictator ruling in a typical Latin American model. All of the Latin American Right is exactly like Donald Trump. That’s why the Left is so violent down there. Trump has succeeded in finally bringing Latin American ultraright fascism to America. So it follows that we are following the Latin American model in that the Left has grown militant, and Left demos now often turn riotous and violent just as they do in Latin America.

This sort of thing is so predictable that you can write near mathematical laws of political science predicting it. A nation can only go so far to the extreme right and it can only become unequal to a certain level. Once it passes that level, it has crossed some sort of Rubicon and now in most any nation you automatically get a militant, riotous and violent Left. It’s as close to a law as the sort you can get in mathematics and physics.

In Chile, the Indians are treated horribly and engage in continuous demonstrations which usually turn into riots.

I was following Latin American politics a lot on the Net a few years back, and most demos in Chile seemed to turn into the typical Latin American demonstration -> riot progression. Most demos in Latin America turn riotous from my observation, at least in Venezuela, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, and even Mexico. The conditions are so insanely unequal down there that any working class demo quickly turns into a riot.

Violence, riots, coups, extremes of Left and Right politics, lack of democracy and extreme instability are typical of the entire region and now we are importing precisely this model to the US.

I am leaving out Argentina, but the Argentine Right was recently calling for a military coup against Kirchner.

In Paraguay, a legislative coup threw out the leftwinger.

A legislative coup just threw out Rouseff, the left president of Brazil.

There have been many coup and quasi-coup attempts in Venezuela. You could well say there has been a continuous coup since 2002.

In Colombia, yes, left demos usually turn violent or riotous. On the other hand, if you are on the Left down there, you can be murdered by the government at any time.

There was a military coup in Honduras, and now anyone on the Left can be killed at any time. Death squads have killed over 1,000 people.

A US coup removed Aristide in Haiti. The new US installed government quickly murdered 3,000 people.

Why the commenter is trying to polish this Latin American turd is beyond me.

96 Comments

Filed under Americas, Amerindians, Argentina, Brazil, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Colombia, Conservatism, Fascism, Haiti, Hispanic Racism, Honduras, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Marxism, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, South America, US Politics, Venezuela

Death To All SJW’s

I am getting creamed over and over by Queera (Quora) moderation. It’s all on questions about homosexuality. I guess gay men are reporting my answers all over the place.

The following post violated a Queera rule called Be Nice, Be Respectful. I looked up the rule and tried to figure out how I violated it. Apparently I said things that were not 100% positive about homosexuals. You can’t do that on Queera. Any and all criticism of fags on Queera gets you a violation and a threat to get thrown off their website.

I wrote the below post when I was trying very hard to be nice to gay men.

I made the following statements which were “homophobic.”

  • All straight men are homophobes in the sense that they are averse to male homosexual behavior. This aversion is so extreme it has to be seen to be believed. FACT.
  • Gay men are not much liked in straight society. FACT.
  • Straight male society only works when 100% of the men are straight or at least fake it. FACT.
  • Any hint of bisexuality among straight men is a turd in the punchbowl that destroys any gathering of straight men. FACT.
  • I have met a number of straight men who told me they would rather eat a bullet than have gay sex. FACT.
  • The main reason straight men are uncomfortable around gay men is because they won’t stop trying to have sex with us. FACT.
  • Even if they don’t try to have sex with you, having another men look at you like you’re dinner is upsetting to most straight men. FACT.
  • An incredible % of homophobia among straight men is caused by gay men incessantly hitting on us. We are not just being bigoted. We are sick and tired of them trying to have sex with us! FACT.
  • After being hit on by gay men about 10,000 times, I decided I want a divorce from them. I just don’t want to be around them anymore. This is bad how?
  • I just want gay men to stay a bit away from me. This is bad how?
  • Gay men and straight men cannot be friends. FACT. 
  • Why do gay men even want to be friends with straight men anyway? GOOD QUESTION.

Gay politics is really starting to make me angry. I am about ready to join on the homophobic bandwagon and oppose gays. Give me one reason why I shouldn’t.

Here is the evil homophobic post.

All, I mean all straight men are homophobes in the sense of having a mild to extreme aversion to the thought of male homosexual behavior. They seriously hate it, and the aversion is so extreme that it has to be seen to believed.

Gay men are not much liked in straight society, but they generally have their own crowd to hang out in, so it’s not a problem.

Straight male society only works when the men are all 100% straight or at least act like it. Any hint of bisexuality among straight-leaning men is the turd in the punchbowl that ruins any party or gathering.

Straight male society only works because most of the men have agreed not to: a) kill each other b) beat each other up and c) fuck each other. Even preserving a and b is a tall order in straight male society, and tremendous energy is expended to simply keep straight males from murdering each other. Even fights are bad because such fighting can get serious and even deadly very quickly. Straight female society seems to be far more aggressive than straight male society, as verbal and psychological aggression is poorly controlled, while there are extreme controls on this in straight male culture.

Most straight men make exceptions for biologically gay men and support full rights for them. Now these same straight men have told me that if given a choice between death and gay sex, they would gladly eat a bullet. That’s how extreme the aversion is.

Probably the main reason a lot of straight men are also uncomfortable around gay men is because they won’t stop trying to have sex with us. Even when they do not do that, you typically get a strong sexual vibe off most any gay man that says he is sexually attracted to. The vibe is the same you get from a woman who is turned on by you. Having another men right in your face obviously thinking you’re a T-bone steak for dinner tonight is disconcerting for most straight men. On the other hand, gay men cannot be blamed for feeling any more than straight men can be blamed for feeling sexual around women.

But an unbelievable amount of (well-earned) homophobia is created by gay men coming after straight men sexually. It is probably happened to me over 1,000 times. About the 1,001′th time, I decided I had had it and wanted to avoid gay men from now on.

I don’t hate them. I just want them to stay a bit away from me.

I am on the mailing list for gay political causes which I participate in enthusiastically, as I strongly support gay rights. I do have a couple of gay men I am friends with, but this is on a professional or intellectual level. They keep their sexual feelings for me out it, and we get along like peaches and cream.

My general feeling is that gay men and straight men cannot be close friends. The few stories that I am familiar with were catastrophic, and my own experience has been mostly a total disaster. I don’t see how it works. Perhaps in the future we can become so relaxed and open that gay-straight male friendships are possible, but we are ages away from that.

Why do gay men even want to be friends with us anyway? They can hang around their gay and bi male friends and their straight women fag hag friends, which are legion. Most every straight women has a few fantastic gay male friends. They’ve got our women and their own kind for friendships, so what the Hell they want to hang around us for? I don’t get it.

13 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Politics, Scum, Sex

PUA/Game: What – Besides Money – Are the Secrets of Older Guys Who Successfully Date and Bed Younger, Beautiful Women?

Question from Quora

At my age of 59, it is sort of like doing the impossible. Or the near-impossible. It’s that hard. Like climbing Mt. Denali maybe. It can be done, but it is so difficult that  most guys will just give up and not bother.

Money: This is actually not necessary, but it sure helps. You can do it without a nickel, but it is extraordinarily hard, like climbing a mountain. I think most men without money my age could not do it. Even if they could, most would not bother, as you would have to wade through an avalanche of hundreds of often-angry flat out-rejections to get anything even slightly positive. Older man without money – attractive young woman is a very discouraging game, as defeating and ego-deflating as they come.

Power: This helps but is not necessary. Women are powerfuckers. Period. Get power, get women.

Status: This helps but is not necessary. I ran a Facebook group that was full of single women for a while. The women in the group were always coming after me, apparently because I was the owner of the group. Alpha. Top dog. Boss man. Guy in charge. Think powerfuckers. If I was not in that position, probably hardly any of those women would have come after me.

Fame: This helps a lot. Some big male bloggers actually have blogger groupies after them. There will be groupies in any line or work of play who will go after the top men in that line.

Looks: Lacking any of those, the older man should be very good-looking for his age group. Say top 20% in his age range. As a young man, he was probably very good-looking, even a male model type. I know a couple of former male models far into their 50’s who still date young women, even teenage girls. Sure, they’ve been beaten with the age stick, but they still great compared to other men their age.

Game: This is really the end-all of the whole thing. I know men in their 50’s who still get hot young women. I asked them how they did it, and over and over I heard strange words like Game, x-factor, magic, telepathy, psi skills, spell-casting, mindreading, brainwashing, hypnosis. Some described themselves as Warlocks. I was shocked at the number of men who told me that they used almost psi-like skills to get women. I do not know if there is anything to any of these things. Perhaps they all work on some known psychological mechanism. Perhaps there is something to this stuff beyond known psychological mechanisms. Who knows how it works? But at any rate, these men are working very hard at psychological manipulation of female minds in any way they can.

These men are also expert seducers. They have the best Game I have ever seen. Their Game is usually better than most young men’s Game because they have been at it for longer. A 25 year old man has been using Game for 10 years. A 55 year old man has been using Game for 40 years. Who do you think might have the better Game? These men almost a PhD in Game. Game is simply the style, skills, appearance, vibes, behavior, charisma, charm, manipulation, etc. that men use to get women. A number of these men told me that over and over women told them that they were irresistible. Women felt actually powerless in their presence, as if they were under some seduction spell, and there was literally no way these women could say no to these men.

Barring all of the first four, an older man under 60 with great Looks + great Game should be able to get women of any age. And really with Looks + Game, any male of any age can get females at the very least around his own age range. It’s the deadly duo. Females can’t resist it.

5 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sex