Sign into an existing account

I completely agree that vices are things that hold a person back from being the best person you could be. However, the vice itself may not be the most dangerous aspect. One person being a bum because they are a heroin addict isn't really dangerous to society as a whole. However, having an entire infrastructure of pharmaceutical companies disseminating opiate pills to people is far more dangerous. We have entered into a new era of threats where it isn't good enough to just be the best person you could be, but there are institutions above us that see us as animal husbandry products and they exploit our tendency towards vices to control us.

(Continued) Monogamy decreases excess male intrasexual competition, which is the source of most of what we call social problems. When males compete for the highest number of uteruses, rather than the highest quality uterus, then males will adopt an ‘r strategy’ of reproduction and try to eliminate other male competitors through violence or other cock blocking strategies like resource hoarding. This can be observed in almost any species of mammals or birds. Species with more male promiscuity have more violent male competition and lower male paternal care. Obviously its highly inefficient to kill off members of your own society and not take care of your kids. It disincentivizes male cooperativity which can obviously bring big economic dividends. Greater societal harmony can be achieved by minimizing male competition, sublimating it to productivity, not violence and theft and minimizing wealth disparity by eliminating the only real motive for wealth hoarding and corruption: female hoarding.

Now, individuals pursuing the opportunistic or ‘r strategy’ end of the spectrum exist in every population in variable frequencies. Even in Scandinavians and Japanese. A group of successful opportunists can flourish anywhere if they can make cheating pay, thereby increasing in frequency . Guys with traits for opportunistic behaviors, such as polygamous traits tend to accumulate at the top and bottom of the social hierarchy. Positions of power attract males with the polygamous trifecta of high greed, high violence, high libido. Groups of whites have succeeded through an opportunistic strategy by living off other whites through warlording (presumably the polygamous PIE/ aryans) and as nobles or bureacrats, living off the fat of empires. Bureacracies create a niche for opportunistic individuals to live off of the productivity of others. Wealthy aristocrats always want poor peasants to fight wars for them so they can gain more wealth. Because their greed knows no bounds.

My point is white elites (generally) want war, they want usury, they want drug use, gambling, promiscuity, slavery, big government / monopolies, vices— because it plays to the opportunistic traits that they use to get ahead. Their strategies are inherently inefficient to society— money lending produces no wealth! — but good for them personally. They hate meritocracy because it exposes the fact that they produce nothing.

Money lending and insurance don’t make houses and healthcare more affordable — they increase the price! Producing and selling alcohol, an addictive substance that makes whites sick and non-productive, is inherently opportunistic and inefficient. Terrible allocation of resources. Doesn’t stimulate the economy. Broken glass fallacy. Same with gambling. Whites who get rich this way are niggers with 140 IQs.

Extremely wealthy people all got that way through opportunistic strategies like pandering to vices. Easy money. Easy women. Easy pleasure. All destructive and inefficient. No billionaire got that way through high productivity. None. That kind of wealth is gained through economic and culltural deception.

Strict moral (monogamist) regimes are the most egalitarian and meritocratic. Strict polygynist regimes (islam) promote warlording which is inefficient and selects for shitty traits in males.

There’s always a push and pull between the two ends of the spectrum, because there’s always a tension between the good of the individual vs the good of the group. Mother nature gifted us an advantage over niggers— she weeded out the shittiest whites with cold winters. We have overcome the problem of cold winters, so now it is up to us to artificially weed out the shittiest whites, which are making a comeback by living off of corrupt bureacracies which are a black black of economic consequences .

Although this is demonstrably untrue and whites historically give more power to women than any other group, t doesn’t really matter to me if you don’t agree. The question is whether or not what I say is correct and true. And it is. I understand the relationship between sexual competition, morals and vices, economics, and genetics within the context of the mechanisms of evolution. You have probably not given this subject alot of thought. You should. It is the hidden reality of social change. @Dalai_llama

Your assertion that what I said was demonstrably untrue is false. You can easily demonstrate that what I said was true by pointing to the fact that women weren't allowed to vote. It's funny that you pointed to all this mating selection behavior yet fail to realize that a lot of the mate selection behavior has altered because of the incorporation of women into politics. Women, as a voting bloc, are the most useful idiots that ever existed. They could be whipped up into a frenzy over any stupid little bullshit from prohibition activism to jew funded women's marches against Trump. All the strategies have changed based on how easy it is to manipulate women who are essentially living in a perpetual state of childhood and yearn for a guardian role to be fulfilled by an eagerly awaiting government.