Asian Immigrants and What No One Mentions Aloud

“often fail to embody the sterling academic credentials they include with their applications, and do not live up to the expectations these universities have for top tier students.
Less delicately put: They cheat.”

We know. We all know. They can’t speak full English, FFS. They can’t reason and inspire the way their personal statement does.

you, an intellectual, might ask: how is this fair to non-Asians?

It isn’t.

educationrealist

To continue my thoughts on college admissions and Asians:

Many people, reading of the clear discrimination against Asians, become all righteous, thinking of those poor, hardworking Asians. Come to America, work hard, and look how the system screws them.

But that reaction ignores the stereotype.

The stereotype, delicately put: first and second generation Chinese, Korean, and Indian Americans, as well as nationals from these countries, often fail to embody the sterling academic credentials they include with their applications, and do not live up to the expectations these universities have for top tier students.

Less delicately put: They cheat. And when they don’t cheat, they game tests in a way utterly incomprehensible to the Western mind, leading to test scores with absolutely zero link to underlying ability. Or both. Or maybe it’s all cheating, and we just don’t know it. Either way, the resumes are functional fraud.

Is it true for…

View original post 3,568 more words

Comic: Illegal immigration is theft

Theft of a future, too.

Not to mention the genocide angles of depriving natives. Tragedy of the commons, outgroup favoritism has a time limit.

I’d love to see an EU/Euro and a GB/£ version of this.

It’s r-selection in practice.

Are humans meant to be monogamous?

Articles like these are always PC, they’re trying to defend the ‘sex positive’ line.

At least it didn’t mention bonobos (red herring) on such a loaded question.

http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html

This comment is better than the article.

I disagree with the premise. If you look at Chimps… the females sleep around so that no one can be sure of paternity and they entire group will be invested in protecting the progeny. But in those societies males aren’t invested in parenting and they themselves sleep around.

However, human males have evolved to be invested in parenting. That’s why they develop biological changes such as increasing prolactin to help them bond with the child. The greater the paternal investment in rearing the offspring the greater the necessity to ensure paternity.

Any man irrationally terrified of cuckoldry in the age of DNA testing is flashing beta (anxious-avoidant attachment style) like a neon sign, why else would he think it’s possible that a woman would want to cheat on him?
[notable exception: rape]

Nature only has two options for that– either you become a lot bigger like male Gorillas so you can fight off other males to protect your harem or you invest in monogamy. If you compare humans to Gorillas we are lot less sexually dimorphic with only about a 10% difference compared to 50% difference. For monogamy, of course it makes sense that we have developed the biology to feel romantic love. When human males fall in love their testoterone actualy decreases and female testosterone increases. Making us more similar to each other. Both males and females feel jealousy at their mate with another person. Humans have actually evolved for monogamy compared to our closest relatives.

All true. Mate guarding is proof positive of monogamy in humans.

Bravo and good tidings

Why guard when you have others and don’t care?

Infidelity would lead to tribal ostracisation, the man would probably die a genetic death if he wasn’t bludgeoned to death by the genuine spouse (rightly, crime of passion) but the female would be left either with children and no provider or the children would remain behind without a carer and fall prey to a wolf or something, those remaining wouldn’t really care for the children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect

Women have more to lose from cheating and the current law corrects this. Anyone in a committed relationship who cheats is scum anyway, who cares what happens to them?

http://www.livescience.com/www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/2428-cheating-unsafe-sex-open-relationship-%20std-risk.html

Bring on antibiotic resistance.

OT: So-called ‘dread game’ actually attracts anxious women and makes them act out, not the secure ones who care. When you pull away, they let you. It keeps the crazies.

Link: The Fake Player or ‘Nice Guy’ Fuckboy

http://elitedaily.com/dating/fckboy-nice-guy-player/1318600/

These have always been around.

They’re trying to play both fields, good girls and bad.

The simplest filter is to refuse to sleep with them, hence the infamous Nice Guy meltdown.
If sex is all they want instead of that romantic buildup, they’ll leave.

See how they portray themselves on social media. If they don’t have social media or heavily filter it, run, because nowadays only two types of people don’t have it: serial killers/rapists and people trying to hide who they really are.

Note how quickly they’ve gone through women historically. If they get over women quickly they’re either a plain cheat or a serial monogamist (emotional infidelity, lining up the next before dropping the last, stone cold bastard).

Good girls are likelier to fall for it out of unwillingness to conceive that some men might fake romance to get a higher quality of woman into bed. Aka Casanova strategy.

When the romance reaches a peak, ask clearly “Is there anyone else?” Other than an immediate, clear, slightly-hurt No, there’s someone else. If there’s someone else when you’re in full romance mode, he’s worthless.

See, he doesn’t want you to throw his lie back in his face later on, his social group will shame him more than he feels himself (clue: none). He’s hoping you’ll never ask. However, either party has a right to ask when the connection is building.

Worse than the honest fuckboy who upfront says it’s only about sex.

Thankfully, they rarely pass on their genes, too infatuated with possibility and The Chase to settle on a single woman. What single woman could be Perfect enough to bear his child, after all? He has so many to compare her with!

Leave the boys to it.
Seek the men.

r-types want r-types

Study Claims To Reveal The Ideal Number Of Sex Partners You Should Have

If you ask cheating, adulterous sluts whether they want someone with sexual experience for a ONS, of course they’re going to pluck the first suspiciously round number that pops into their head. If you asked them whether cheating within marriage was moral, they would also lie. The MSM wouldn’t post the surveys result of a Christian dating website or an arranged marriage-minded one.

This ‘study’ has nothing to do with fidelity or relationships, they step out on their own spouse. They are incapable of that.

Adultery is the only grounds for divorce for good reason.

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-4.htm

The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

You don’t own your own bodies once you’ve made the marriage vow, the other person keeps guard over it, as they also belong to you, that’s the whole commitment! That’s literally the entire point.

http://www.onaverage.co.uk/sex-averages/35-average-sexual-partners

The mean average is skewed by the sluts, once accounted for the median drops like a rock. About 4-5. Maybe 7 would be pushing it. To make the sluts feel better, many studies count kissing as sexual activity. You know, the thing you do to your grandma probably.

Add to it that men lie through their teeth. Self-report bias.

A quarter of the men have had sex with over 10 different partners throughout their lifetime. For women the average is a lot lower with only 4.7 sexual partners.

Notice all the dodgy wording. A quarter – over 10 different, lifetime, lot lower, only. Weasel words. Comparing a quarter of men with the whole mean average of women is not scientific. Yet the demand is to report on it in a way that hurts nobody’s feelings.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/have-i-had-an-average-amount-of-sexual-partners-10297819.html

Relate’s  2014 The Way We Are Nowreport found that 31% of men and 21% of women had slept with more than ten people in their lifetime.

See the game theory of marriage post, those people deserve one another. Both are high divorce risk.

And men are the bigger sluts.

the largest gender differences were found among those who’d had sex with over 20 people (8% of women vs 16% of men).

Truth hurts, manwhores.

This is why you can’t find a wife. Even among r-types (see first study) they wanted someone less r-selected than themselves.

I know what a trite response to this will be, divorce risk.

I looked back into the manosphere’s and neoreaction’s most hyped finding: a study that looks at only half demographics. Just women, in a vacuum. As in, nobody has calculated in a study this divorce risk based on male promiscuity, so you cannot claim it isn’t a causal factor in marital dissolution.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

As one comment wisely pointed out;

The number of sex partners a man has is equally important, regardless of the individual impact on relationships. After all, WITH WHOM DO YOU THINK HETEROSEXUAL MEN ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX WITH IF NOT WITH WOMEN?

Men cannot have 20 partners each while women all remain virgins. Unless you are advocating abusing women via prostitution or prostitution-substitutes (the young women with low self-esteem, no family support and/or no healthy boundaries).

We either encourage both men and women to limit the number of sexual partners or we accept that for each man who “gets lucky” a woman who might one day marry is also having (and maybe even enjoying) sex with a non-husband. This is not a single gender issue.

If anybody wants to calculate the divorce risk for manwhores…

This is part of the dataset they used (2002). Oh look, data about men! Finally!

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm#numberlifetime

nsexualpartnerslifetime

Note the second chart that disproves the manosphere myth about women being more promiscuous in this century. Men are the sluts. For most of history, women were considered the slutty sex due to Eve and our short refractory period, so no, you don’t have the history excuse.

Ouch.

Education is also a factor (actually IQ, smart women don’t divorce, slow to marry, K).

http://freenortherner.com/2013/06/21/sexonomics-odds-of-divorce/

IQ is actually a bigger predictor of female divorce risk than sex.

A bachelor’s degree is a 40-point decrease in the odds of divorce over a high school graduate.

But sure, too many women in college, right?

Cheats are brain-damaged

Once a cheat, always a cheat = If someone makes that choice once, they’ll make it again.

Behavioural genetics is confirming what the traditionalists already knew.

As for the neurochemistry of vasopressin, low levels of any count as pathological (see depression, OCD etc).

If the K-types wanted a surer mating game in future, a simple genetics test to distinguish the short allele (K-selected, monogamous) types from the deceptive hedons with a long-form allele (r-selected, high infidelity risk) would cut the latter off at the heels. It isn’t an excuse, but again, if they make that choice once, they’re tainted and should be divorced.

Imagine short-listing the prospects for your daughter’s hand, and your grandchildren’s genetics, based on this, oh the wonders of technology! Simply cutting them out from social circles would be a genetic death. Why do you think slutty people congregate in urban areas, where nobody knows them and they’d have to be dismal to build a reputation among their own? Why do you think we collect alcoholism, drug and sexual information as a bundle?

This isn’t just a marital issue, it covers social deception, this is just one sexual application of it i.e. K-selected males would be unwise to accept an r-male into their group, because he’ll screw you over metaphorically. And you shouldn’t leave him with a free house (some stay-at-home fathers) because he’ll invite over your wife too.

Most sperm are destroyed by white blood cells. However, here’s a horrifying fact about where it can escape;

“Once sperm cells reach the end of the oviducts they are free to swim out of the end of the tube and into the body cavity, where they are eventually destroyed. So many women walking around today will have sperm cells swimming around the interstitial fluid that surrounds their body organs. The female reproductive tract does not finish in a dead end.”

err what wut wtf scared rdj

War and r/K

That’s the connection I see.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/nation-wimps/201510/the-mating-game-is-changing-and-you-wont-believe-how

A paucity of men would naturally recreate this condition post-war. The remaining men would be the fittest by Darwinian standards, connote status and unconsciously wish to repopulate. Yes, we called this the Baby Boom.

Women do not like sharing their resource, husband, as men do not like consolidating theirs (on one woman, if they are not in love). Men see women as a valuable resource when scarce (a society where most were married and time on the market ‘in society’ was short) but in modern times, most young people are on the shelf, and have advances from their elders to contend with too.

It won’t remain this way. Already I see this happening in real time.

As resources (economic) contract, women will find their voice and demand (marriage or nothing) what they wanted to ask to begin with. Women don’t want to date. It gets boring. Neither do men. Both want something else. What else do the men offer now? ‘Muh dick’ is going to be a sick reply, a base animal response, some women will no doubt become prostitutes to fill the demand when the economy tanks and continue to fund their lifestyle. This is the traditional way and it’s going to happen. Men are not entitled to sex (read: female fertility) but believe this because it’s been practically free for so long. They have forgotten its value and with it the value of women. Why grow up? Why be a real boy when they have all the ‘rights’ and none of the responsibilities? Women are not entitled to male resources either but many aren’t even being given the chance at marriage, and the divorce system can be understood as a form of social reparations from this. It encourages marital settling in women, because if it doesn’t work out with the manchild Mr Second Best, you get a cash bonus from his failure to be a fit husband and can try again, with a persuasive dowry.

The original fault lies with men. If they refuse to grow up and lead, the other issues usher forth.

Feminism has robbed women of the confidence to ask that ONE important question (you want to be a housewife???) and subsequently taken away many of the attributes a man would seek in a wife for good measure.

Further, at least some of what is being reported as rape stems from regret over drink-fueled encounters devoid of emotional connection.

Bingo. Alcohol makes people desperate. Women don’t want casual sex, feminism told them they did. It’s the man’s fault, men have the active role and refuse it (they won’t ‘man up’), then wonder why society is slowly collapsing around their ears. He deceives her, to get sex, then he wonders why she uses his lies against him in a trial.

I describe you, you hate me. Really, you hate yourself and everyone knows it.

Promises are verbal contracts, college students are mature enough to know this. Consent is based on verbal conditions, so promises become vitally important. The seduction laws will end up coming back in and that will be the end of PUA forever. Hallelujah.

A symptom of this manchild phenomena is that women have had to become more masculine to compensate, simply to survive in an atomized society alone. Certainly, there is a little more competition but it’s simply out in the open now. We’re told it’s empowering to be a bitch. Any man wishing to criticize women for doing what it takes to survive in a world without men is a male gamine, a manic pixie dream boy, yet to grow up.

They meet a guy, he calls every couple of months, they spend a night or two together each time, and then they’re miserable because they’re emotionally attached to him and want more from him—for which he might even call them “needy” or “greedy,” should they summon the courage to ask.

That level of entitled bullshit from men (love, affection, sex, cooking, company – the role of a wife, free) is going to fly straight out the window and clear into the Sun, never to be heard from again. She plays her poker chips too early and loses them. Women are beginning to see their fault and Millennials are beginning to reject feminism.

The imbalance is being corrected.

“Relationship preferences and sexual behavior of individuals are responsive to context,” Schacht says. “Men want fundamentally different things from relationships when males are rare than when they are abundant. The rare-male male is the stereotypical fling-seeking cad we expect him to be. However, the abundant-male male is the committed, devoted male from the age of Camelot.”

Patriarchy is coming back.

The manboys should be scared. A boy has a natural enemy – man.

p.s. This explains the entitled character of the stereotypical Baby Boomer.

p.p.s. The ‘alpha genes’ are the ones that get passed on in a Patriarchy. The genes of the titular Patriarch, the dad. Cads are scum in these societies, along with tarts, not fit to lick their work boots. The beta male in a Patriarchy is the man who cannot or will not become a responsible husband and father. Alpha genes build and reaffirm their own societal structure, they aren’t cucked out to the reckless hedons. Cad and tarts who cannot settle down (even settling with one another) will have an atrocious later life. Nobody will support them. There is no support network. Those who will not, for whatever reason, will not be given the opportunities by Patriarchs, created by Patriarchs, that should go to the other Patriarchs (this is why men only got hired in certain fields beyond requirement, because women weren’t Patriarchs either) in the hope of future reciprocal investment or family connection (by marriage). The old boy’s network has no room for bachelors. They cannot get on professionally, nor will any respectable family introduce them to their daughters. You’ve heard the idea of hiring a man preferentially because he had a family to support, right? The Patriarchs network at play. Just like voting rights being accorded by property ownership aka societal investment to support a family. Once rooted in a place for life, you’d better behave. It’s a check, it’s all a check. Pass or fail.

laughing rdj crack up

The ‘alpha female’ does exist, much to the hatred of cads because she shows them up. Feminists have tried to emulate this woman unsuccessfully. She is respected by these men, these Patriarchs, and allowed as an exception despite her sex because she fits the criteria and behaviour (character, honour, must support a family for practical reasons) and doesn’t cause trouble. She becomes a woman at home as a man ceases to be a professional upon leaving work, there is role flexibility, the family and its structure and support are important.  Alpha females are rare (the product of two alpha parents and their quality) but demonstrably exist. Weak men (virginTOW, many PUA) hate them the most for supplanting ‘their’ role they refuse to take up and further insult, out-competing them. They will imply they are promiscuous (in spite of contrary evidence) because they need to believe it would be possible for them to achieve it themselves (and reaffirm their ego) and so insult their lucky mate too (like saying he’s being cucked when he clearly isn’t and we live in a world of DNA testing). IF the barriers to entry aren’t one sex (m/f) like they mistakenly thought it was but the other sex (promiscuity/quality scale, r or K) their worldview collapses. They become ‘bad men’. They fail in life. It was entirely their choice, they cannot blame women for it. The music stops. Their reaction to this is a furious rush to Have it All (settle in the case of feminists and ‘players’) and convince themselves they’ve beat the system (sound familiar?). Predictably, they fail because people see them for what they are – desperate and faking it. They can’t stand happy monogamy. They hate it. Of course they can’t fake it. Of course no one in their right mind would take them after their ruin and shame. If they do manage to trick a poor sap (see the Simple decision game theory post), they will still cheat. If their spouse is Mr or Mrs Perfect they will cheat even more. They hate their spouse and they hate their marriage. They deserve divorce. The support network and opportunities dry up and they blame…. the system.

p.p.p.s. You know it’s bad when Roosh, of all people, suddenly wants to get married. He senses the window closing. He doesn’t get it – you can’t switch sides. You can’t change teams. As an adult, you choose by your actions and on those he will be judged. We don’t ask job applicants whether they think they should get it, we look at their CV. Self-respecting women will look at the way he’s treated women, the verbs he uses like bang as if we’re ketchup bottles and make up some excuse.