Before you read my response, note that I grew up in the inner cities slums of New Orleans and Baton Rouge. My sister and I were once the only white kids in the entire elementary school, and our hair was always oily from all the kids touching our fine hair from behind. It was irritating.
Wow - sounds like you had it really rough - what with them black folk touching your hair and everything
You have no idea
how dangerous it was to grow up in inner city New Orleans.
My family was never rich until my father become West Coast Division Head attorney for Exxon during the 1980s (think Exxon Valdez since Prudhoe bay was under his sphere of responsibility).
I only experienced his wealth for a brief few years in my 20s, then I became destitute again, then I became middle class on my own when I released CoolPage in 1998. Since then my moderate wealth or lack thereof has vacillated.
- over here the PM's wife (aristocrat Samantha Cameron), used to make a big noise about when she used to hang around with
Tricky - back in the day, when she'd slum it as a student in the wrong part of Bristol. Tricky has to this day never heard of the woman - let alone played pool with her
I tried to have many friends who are black.
Yeah - and I tried to have some of my best friends as gay
I had a very handsome friend in high school who drove a fast car and I thought he was cool until one day he tried to touch my leg, then I amicably stopped being his friend.
Where I live now the ladyboys are very attracted to me (even more universally so than the ladies), but I refuse to befriend them (after some aborted trials to see if there was any symbiosis there) because I find them annoying and the thought of man-on-man sex is repulsive to me.
Since per what I wrote upthread, I am entirely against the concept of a state enforced marriage contract, then I have no problem if gays do what ever they want, as long as they don't try to mess with me.
As
George Carlin says, "
I'm tired of these rock stars dealing with their cocaine guilt by saving a forest somewhere", arrogant white people are dealing with their
socialism debt and colonialism guilt by saving nature (of races). It is just more irrational bullshit. What they are really saving is their socialism system that enables them to have their cake and eat it too (but this is coming to end with $150 trillion global debt). The socialism is going away folks, and you are too. Reality check.
You really need to educate yourself buddy. Have a look at
Adorno/the Frankfurt School and the "culture industry" - you might then have some understanding of why the patronising ramblings of egotistical rock stars have absolutely
fuck all to do with socialism
And massive debt doesn't enable massive collective misallocation of consumer expenditures much.
Myopic, Dunning-Kruger, charlatans don't impress me, so be gone from me.
And you ARE going away and I am going to do my technological part to make it so.
- and indeed, if you are able to make the connections, why in turn socialism has absolutely fuck all to do with the US driven debt problem.
Socialists blame debt on the effects of the
vested interests due to the power vacuum of democracy, then they try to put the blame on capitalism to deflect it away from its root cause which is democracy. You forgot the adjective "usury". I've explained in great detail which is discussed in the Economic Devastation thread, why large capital is inherently dumb (because smaller things grow faster and knowledge generation is not fungible) thus only can grow when that power vacuum in place.
We recently had floods in the UK due to a shift in the jet stream and exceptional levels of precipitation. I suppose this had something to do with "socialism" as well, right ?
You incorrect man-made global warming proponents try to claim socialism is responsible, because you claim only socialism can fix the problem. Kaplunk.
(and the entire hysteria is junk science which is another effect of socialism).
But no worries, you ARE going away soon.
And as I explained upthread, the D.E. will sneak up on you and it won't be announced on TV. By the time you realize what we have done to you, you will be swept away already.
I am not just a theorist, I am also a man of action.
A longer penis means the women were having sex with more men, as the longer penis would have a better chance of depositing the sperm deep and greater change of spreading the male's genetics.
Hold on a minute
Wouldn't this mean that the women would have had to have had sex with fewer men, not more.
Thanks for confirming for all to see
how low your IQ is.
Impregnating a woman is normally a function of repetition, as in about 1 in 11 attempts will result in a pregnancy. Thus the woman's evolutionary strategy is maximized in one vector by accepting as many mates as possible. Other vectors include hypergamy and enough support to raise the children.
The more mates depositing sperm the more evolutionary strategy advantage each male needs to get his sperm into a slightly better swimming position to maximize the odds of fertilization.
You put the cart before the horse. One vector of a feral woman's evolutionary strategy is competing predatory males to maximize her gene pool, so the penis must get longer in societies where the man doesn't marry, guard the woman, and maximize the other vectors in her evolutionary strategy. East Asians have even smaller penises than whites because they control the women even more than we whites do, but this comes at the expense of creating a docile population with reduced willpower, independent thought and creative output.
East Asian babies don't even fight when put in a position where they can't breathe. It seems the whites probably had the best balance when we weren't destroyed by the power vacuum of democracy, yet who is to say what is "best". The races adapted to what was best in their environs.
practicaldreamer is apparently too dumb, obstinate, or lazy to understand the linked math.
FWIW I read the article - you were, as indeed I was, educated to first degree level (to a greater or lesser extent) in Mathematics - nothing more than that. So I understand the
language, if you like. But all I can see is a disjointed rambling, without a clear or cited aim/intention - the majority merely describes what we already know, but attempts to link it altogether in a way that is clearly tenuous and over ambitious.
Your low IQ explains why you are unable to comprehend why the logic is
exclusionary of other possibilities.
In short, I'm not sure there's many here has the slightest idea WTF you are going on about.
Indeed at least 25% don't have the IQ to comprehend
a very simple case of my reductionist ability, so certainly they can't understand the more complex cases of reductionist logic I employ.
As William James said in the Unheresy link, “The essence of genius is to know what to overlook”.
Good to see you are trying to learn from my blog (that quote he saw
there), and the operative word there is "what".