Self-Interest vs Emotion

 

Using X (twitter) for a long time made me see again and again countless people making countless argument for one or another cause. Most of the time such arguments fail to reach to their intended audience and convince them of anything. They were completely futile. After thinking of a reason why that is the case, I concluded that that is because of fundamental difference between how different people make their decisions. Some trust their thoughts and other their feelings instead.

This is not about things like education or IQ levels, but rather about fundamental decision-making process. There can be people who make their decisions based on emotions but able to think of complex strategies to achieve their emotional goals. At the same time there can be people who base their decision on calculated self-interest but fail to see bigger picture and end up being taken for a ride.

Take for example socialists (modern 21st century Bookchin socialists rather than original 19th century ideology). No matter how much conservatives and liberals point out that socialism failed and their ideology is but a path for misery and pain, socialists are not swayed. That is because they do not make their decisions with their logic and reason but with their feelings instead. Most such socialists probably like Avatar movie and dream of a similar society that is aligned with nature, and fights technology. No matter how much you tell them it's impossible, they will not listen.

Socialists like to tout their education and think they are smarter than MAGA crowd, but no matter how complex and smart arguments they make for their causes, these causes are fundamentally emotional. There is nothing for average American to gain from feeding Africans, helping refugees and migrants. Cold facts of self-interests are simply against this. The only reason socialists care is because their emotions compel them to care, because they feel pity for these people and wish to help them. Other people do not feel any pity for them, so no matter what socialists, say the right will not be swayed. They just can't feel any pity for these people.

The same goes to the opposite side of the divide. No matter how much right cites the problems, refugees and migrants cause, the left is not swayed. That is because lefts sympathize with refugees. So, no matter how much problem, they cause, left is willing to forgive them. Left will go to the end of their wits in rationalizing and justifying their views in order to disguise emotional decisions as rational ones. They are like women who no matter how much she gets burned from going for the wrong man, will still keep repeating the same mistake over and over again. Because they cannot control who they love.

It would be a mistake to call this left emotionalism a compassion. Compassion on an emotional whim rather than on principle is not a compassion but a favoritism. While there are examples like a founder of Anabaptism who helped out even his enemies in times of need, they are few in between. Average leftist is not like that. They think yelling Black Lives Matter means they care, but they immediately turn hostile when someone says White Lives Matter. Even neutral Everyone's Lives Matter will provoke lefty emotional irrational ire. In their world, black people deserve help and others simply do not. No matter how much a Confederate Flag waving Redneck needs and deserves help a lot more than a criminal migrant, a lefty will not help them. Their emotions make them hate Rednecks so no help for them. One can only lament unfairness of the world, irrational emotions of the left favor those who do not deserve it over those who actually do.

Fundamentally however, leftist concern for black people or the needy is not altruism or compassion but mere selfishness. It's their selfish emotional whims that decide who gets help and who does not. They try to justify it by saying the guys they help suffer more and thus deserve more help, but all this is merely hiding their true emotional intentions behind fancy and sophisticated sophistic arguments. What really drives them is an emotion that make them feel like helping one but not another. 

If they wished to eliminate all poverty and suffering, they would have given everyone in need, but they do not. What they really want is to create more misery and suffering, because struggling and suffering characters are more compelling and entertaining than those who are somewhat OK. That is why they give free food to starving overbreeding Africans that will use this food to breed more and there will be even more misery. 

If instead these money were spent on American poor, then a lot of trailer trash people as well as homeless could have been lifted out of their misery and given dignified life. African population would have declined to sustainable levels and those who are left would have lived with more free space and dignity too. The very fact that left refuses to support that shows they do not want people to live in dignity but rather suffer. For locals to suffer from poverty and homelessness and for Africans to suffer from overpopulation and fight for food handouts.

Rational self-interest rightists have their own problems, that ironically sometimes make them act against their best interests. Many rightists are too narrowminded to see a bigger picture. For example, when in chess a pawn attacks bishop, you instinctually want to use bishop to take a pawn. It gives you the advantage, pawn attacked first and it's only fair to fight back. So far so good. However sometimes when you look at the bigger picture, you can notice a queen or a rook at the far end of the board, protecting the pawn. With this information in hand the rational changes, now if bishop takes pawn, the queen will take bishop next turn, making it a loss rather than gain. However, queen is on the far end of the board, and many do not notice her until it's too late. Of course, taking a pawn and then get bishop taken by a queen is still better than let pawn take the bishop because you are impressed with pawn's bravery like a leftie would, but a smart move here is to move bishop away, no matter how much you want to take that pawn.

A real-life example of such a proverbial pawn, that always takes right for a ride is taxes that pay for welfare of the lazy. As much as it seems that welfare only helps lefties, that is far from the truth. Meet your local unfriendly neighbourhood Redneck, the one that drives a huge Chevy truck, lives in a trailer, and has confederate flags and KKK symbols all over the place. He looks like the last person to vote democrat, but that is misleading. Reality is that such people are the biggest welfare beneficiaries and if a right-wing candidate says something about taking these benefits away, these guys will not hesitate to vote Dems. When Romney lost to Obama, that was due to that simple fact. That is also why Donald Trump never says anything about taking any welfare benefits away.

Reason why otherwise right-wing redneck will vote for Dems is the same simple self-interest that drives the tax whiners, but in reverse. Just as much as they do not like to lose their hard-earned money in favor of someone who does not work, the redneck too does not want to lose his unearned money, no matter how immoral or unethical it is to live off others. Both making their decisions based on self-interest, difference is that from a different point of view what is this self-interest is changes. Like 6 can look like 9 if you look at it from the opposite side. For a taxpayer self-interest cutting taxes, for welfare recipient its increasing taxes and increasing their welfare benefits. All talk about ethics and moral will sway neither one, not the other. As much as taxpayer was not swayed by arguments that welfare helps those in need, the welfare recipient will not be swayed by arguments like they did not earn these money.

Fundamentally however, both rightist ethics and morals, as well as leftist compassion is not the bona fide good qualities, but mere disguise behind which right hides their self-interest and left hides their favoritism and emotions. Both are selfish in their own specific way; they just hide it under layers of some more benign substance to fool people around them into thinking they are better than what they claim to be.

However, back to original topic. Different methods of thinking. After all, why so many people can all agree on the same thing and band in groups to pursue their vision they all agree on? That is because they all think in fundamentally the same way. That is why they all arrived at the same conclusions and then united in pursuit of these aspirations.

However, why then there are rival groups who disagree with the first group and oppose them. That is because rival groups are formed by people with fundamentally different way of thinking. People who incapable of feeling or thinking the same way as the first group does, so from perspective of the second group, the first one is senseless, and both their arguments, premises and objectives are fundamentally wrong so should be opposed.

These fundamentally different ways of thinking, ability or inability to feel is what divides people into different groups. That is why we have different political parties, different hobbies, different music tastes, different everything. These differences are the reason why you either can talk people to your point of view or not. If their methods of thinking are the same as yours, they can be talked over to your point of view, if not then no matter what they say, it will all be for naught, for they will never agree to any of your arguments as you come from completely different assumptions and methods of thinking. 

[continue next]

On My Standards When It Comes to Choosing Women

 

In this section of my blog, I wrote many articles about things I like or do not like in women. Looking back at it, I feel like they lack a certain context that possibly prevents them from being understood properly.

To begin with choosing a woman is not just a simple scale between 1 to 10 or something like that. In my life I saw a number of 10/10 women and could even have one if I wanted her. She was very pretty and most guys around me were into her, even I would admit that beauty alone she was the prettiest around. However, even back then I felt that she is not my type, not because I thought that she was too hot and I did not deserve her, but rather because she lacked important qualities a simple beaty scale does not reflect. Instead, Instead I preferred a different kind of girl: smaller, quieter, humbler, demurer and more devoted to me personally.

Looking back at it now, I can say that this was wise of me. Prettiest girls in town always come with a drama, that make men lament trouble women bring and sometimes get disillusioned with them altogether. People complain about losing it all in divorce or joke how neither man, nor God ever rested after the latter created woman.

Think of it, a girl who has many men around her will always be a problem. People who choose such women are fools. Sure, people will praise you for being lucky, finding someone so hot, but behind the scenes they will think of cheating with her behind your back. You cannot be with her 24/7 and when you are not around, they will come to keep her company. Some of them might even convince her to divorce you and merry him instead. Even if by chance she is actually bona fide good natured and loyal, a shrewd guy might be able to talk her into it. However most likely a woman like that will be shrewd herself and will dump you the moment the finds better options, and she has these options, everyone likes her remember. 

Beauty is her power so she would always value it more than you are personally. She will always know that men will always come so long as she is pretty, so she will not think too much about dumping you in favour of someone else. At the same time, you will have to treat her like a museum piece, because she will not let you tarnish her beaty to have more fun fucking her. You will be not a husband, but a custodian and caretaker for the real star of the show. 

That is not a role I wanted in a relationship. I am a sun and center of my life and its systems. There cannot be two suns in a solar system, thus a woman I needed and a woman who can actually appeal to me, has to have a moonlike quality and reflect my light as a pale soft moonlight rather than shine in her own right. If a woman shines like a sun and you are attracted to it, then you will be nothing more than one of her orbiters, wrapped around her little finger and ultimately disposable. A role wise caution against. To have a good wife one has to shine oneself and attract lunar kind of girls, attracted to you and willing to orbit around you, wrapped around your little finger.

Good for me that I actually find lunar women more attractive than solar ones.

Such lunar women not necessarily have to be ugly. In fact, extreme ugliness makes them weirdly confident in their own way, especially if they have large tits. Even most heinous and morbidly obese woman will have pride in herself and think she is a catch if she has tits bigger than that of Pamella Andersen. That is not what we want.

If I had to rate looks of such lunar woman, she has to be something of a 5/10 bland average, nothing really ugly about her, but nothing standing out as beauty either. Medium to small tits, to avoid giving her excessive pride. Furthermore, its best if she is short but slim with a petite body, quiet and introverted. Many Asian girls match this description, that is why I like Asian girls a lot.

Personality wise, it's important that she is introverted. Extroverted girls are fundamentally always out there on the look for someone better than you, you cannot trust them. Introverted is the way, that way she will not be around looking to replace you, but stay at home.

Generally, home should be her focus. She has to work to make your (mine in this case) life better. I want to eat tasty food, sleep in comfy bed, live in a clean house and generally have a comfortable life. She needs hospitality skills a lot more than make up skills. He job is not to impress my friends or parents with her stellar beauty but to keep my home hospitable for me personally.

Aside from that, it's good if she has nerdy interests like videogames or anime. That will allow me talk about these things with her be entertained with conversation.

Finally, and rather importantly, she has to have kinks compatible with mine. I want to tie up, humiliate and spank her and I want her to love it when I do these things to her.

And that is what a good girl is like. It's not 10/10 beauty, but other much less noticeable but much more important traits.

Western Media Has Awful Women

 

Recently I was rewatching some of the old western cartoons I liked in the past. For the most part they hold well. Action is great, story is simple but engaging enough to follow on. Art is great too, especially in Alladin, its picture perfect, beautiful.

There is but one thing that does not hold, women. Back in the days I did not pay too much attention to them, they were just background of sorts. Nowadays however, after seeing how cute and likable women can be in anime, I can clearly state that women in western media are awful. Selfish, whimsical, acting like world revolves around them and expect men to put up with any crap they throw at them. Worse yet male characters are always made to run after them the moment she needs them for something. 

People grilled Disney princesses for this reason for quite some time, but women are no better in non-Disney Spiderman either. Felicia acts like her very existence are some sort of gift from God and men are privileged to even be around her. It's all the more baffing that there are no shortages of men who rush to date her. Mary-Jane is only better because she is not Felicia, but there is hardly anything going for her either.

If anything, they made even Disney princesses feel somewhat compelling as they at least have some problems: like Sultan tries to marry off Jasmine against her will. That said Jasmine is no sunshine either, she too is entitled and arrogant.

In fact, I can even say that Felicia Hardy from Spiderman is everything that is wrong with western women. Good women are someone who is unlike Felicia even every possible way. 

Some anime has very good and compelling stories that really move people. These are far and in between, however.

What most anime has however is much better women compare to western cartoons. That is why anime figurines and porn is selling out in their own right, while western heroines are nowhere to be found either as figurines or porn subjects. It's not that western cartoons are completely unlikable, superheroes themselves sell well as action figures, but not female heroines.

Ultimately Japanese did figures secrets of love and now cleverly exploiting them with their anime industry, hentai and action figurines. They are not even deliberately trying to take over west with it, far from it. However, their female characters are so good, men come after them all the way to Japan. That is how it is.

Implications are simple, anime is there to stay and if western women want to stay relevant, they have to learn from anime heroines.

Further Metaphysical Analysis of Theory of Evolution

 

In my previous article about Evolution, I described how life evolved from aquatic form that were only able to live in water, into something that instead lived entirely outside of water. This time I will not only explain how we came from roaming the surface to being humans, but also what this whole path can tell us about true human nature. Because its decisions that our ancestors made back then led to the outcome we are witnessing now.

So back when there were still no humans, but mammals already roamed the earth. They ate various insects and plants, bred like no tomorrow and eventually became very numerous, so numerous it became hard to actually find any uneaten blade of grass or a leaf and make it there before someone else makes there first and eat it right before one's very eyes. Would not you want a kill this cunt who stole that shrub from your very eyes? 

In this changing world, some animals came to just that conclusion, so they started fighting over ever dwindling resources. Some switched to alternative forms of food. For some of these animals, this alternative food became the very fellow animals, they used to compete for leaves with. From a happy world of abundance and roaming, it gradually became a deadly hell of struggle for food and survival.

So how did our ancestors survive all that. Rather smooth actually. In fact, in this rat race for survival, they were one of the chilliest animas out there, the Sloth. Yes, we evolved from Sloth and yes, he was chilling among all that hell down below. Why do you think that was the case? 

From first glance, slow, clumsy and lazy Sloth is antithesis of survivability, but that is rather shortsighted conclusion. Sloth prospered when others suffered, because figured a very big brain move to beat the system. It climbed up the tree and made itself comfortable up there. From safety of its height's sloth did not need to worry about being killed by predators, even if a tree climbing feline predator will manage to kill it, its claws will prevent its corpse from falling to the ground where a predator can actually eat it, making killing Sloth utterly pointless. Meanwhile its ability to climb trees allowed it access to leaves that were out of reach of surface roamers.

Already a brainy creature, Sloth and other arboreal creatures became even smarter up there in the tree crones. Unlike simple to roam surface, navigating tree crones are challenging, one should estimate if the branch is sturdy enough to support one's weight. To navigate the branches a palm that can grab and hold a branch, swing on it to propel one further. That required bigger brains and more dexterous arms. That is something we humans too even further later. That is also why monkeys are actually much more intelligent and capable compared to surface roaming animals, even if humans do not like to think of monkeys as that smart.

If you think of antithesis to Sloth, an animal that took polar opposite approach to life and evolved in the most unlike us way, then it has to be horse. Horse is all muscles and no brain. Instead of developing dexterous arms, horse went of endurance, its limbs now end with bony hoofs that are numb to pain and allow horse to roam around longer. Despite its size and strength, it failed to become a predator. Eventually humans ended up using horse in various capacities. 

Generally, animals we domesticate and use or eat are of the kind that not only most unlike us, but also typically most dumb and least adapted. A smarter animal will figure out how to throw away a yoke; a dumb one will pull it instead. That is why we are not using monkeys to type anything. Dog learns all these tricks not because its smart, but because its dumb, fails in life, but wants to survive. A dog that prefers freedom to survival is called wolf and one cannot find one in a circus for that very reason.

If you want a human example of those who take the horse's backward path of evolution, then you can find them in your local gym.

If you think about it, you can even find parallels between Sloth situation and that of the lungfish. In both cases, the path to success and further evolution was not to compete for dwindling resources with ever increasing competition, but to make big brain move towards new and untested outside of the box way of life. For doing that Lungfish and newt were rewarded with abundance of food on the surface. Sloth was similarly rewarded with safety of arboreal life and abundance of uncontested food up there. This is the big brain move.

Once Sloth made its way up there, it managed to eat a lot, multiplied and eventually branched out into multitude of various arboreal animals: lemurs, monkeys, tarsiers. This path eventually led towards great apes and finally to us humans.

Last step of the evolution is the most famous one, chimpanzee into human. Its best knows and gets mocked a lot too. How monkey became human? Why humans evolved, but monkeys are still there?

It happened much like the last time. At first arboreal life was chill and easy but eventually monkeys and other arboreal animals multiplied so much that even high crones of trees became too crowded and food too scarce. That again necessitated a yet another big brain moves, however this time there was nowhere else to climb. What did our ancestors do in such situation?

We learned to hunt. Precisely to hunt mammoth. Our bigger than average brains allowed us to figure out this rather outside of the box solution. Normally predators are bigger than their pray, otherwise they will not be able to kill their prey. Yet in this case mammoth is much larger than monkeys that managed to hunt them in extinction. In fact, mammoth was only able to survive this long despite being so slow and clumsy only because it was too large for any predator to hunt it.

What did our ancestors do to beat this problem? They build trap. It was simple trap but effective, nonetheless. A group of still monkeys will dig out a big pit on the path that mammoth typically takes to the water. Then disguise it with leaves. Next time mammoth walks this path it steps into a trap falls down. Unable to make out, it will starve, but monkeys will not let it, instead they surround the pit and throw rocks at mammoth until its dead. 

Just like that monkeys have their prey. It's not only very large and will keep them fed for a long time, but it's also meat. Before they learned to hunt, these arboreal animas sustained themselves on fruit and leaves. Now however they had meat. That alone will allow them to substantially change compared to their still vegetarian brethren. Why not all monkeys evolved, that is because not all of them hunted mammoth and ate meat. Those who did not are still monkeys. Meat made us humans; veganism is backward path back to monkeys.

Hunt gave us not only meat, but also other things that differentiate humans from animals, for example society. Yes, society only exist because of mammoth hunt. Digging a pit is a lot of work, that is too much effort for a single monkey, too much to bother. However, if a group works together, it becomes a much more feasible task. Thus, everyone can benefit if they work together on this one. The other reason for teamwork is the fact that mammoth is huge, there is too much meat for a single monkey, thus much can effectively be shared between many. Finally, to kill mammoth faster, a lot of rocks have to be thrown at it. The more monkeys doing it at the same time, the better the result is. All these factors favor teamwork over individual hunt.

Thus, to allow for a concerted and organised effort of hunting mammoth. Monkeys created society with things like collaboration, division of labor and more. All these things came to us from the mammoth hunt. A complex society with cohesive rules on work and spoils distribution was needed to keep the hunt party together.

Societies do not exist because we are naturally social and need companionship. Societies only exist because they serve our self-interest. That is why when people when people wonder why there was a crisis of the 3rd century BC when ancient societies collapsed, they overthink things. A simple reason is that society stopped benefiting their members and they simply moved on.

It's no different nowadays, society itself maybe endures but companies, friendships and families dissolve when they stop benefitting their members. That is the only way of life.

If in future a different organisation or solitary existence will be more beneficial than society, we will start living this way instead of how we do now.

Yet there is more. Since mammoth is not only meat, but also fur, we gradually learn to use it to fashion ourselves clothes. 

Hunt also contributed towards other craft. Sharper stones make killing faster, so we learned to sharpen them. Sharp edges and pointy ends could help cut fur and meat into pieces, so we learned to make blades as well. At first these were fashioned from chipped away stones, but later we started making them out of metal and other modern materials. Modern knives do not look like those of mammoth hunters, but we came up with very idea of a knife all the way back then. As well as with idea that someone should manufacture these things for a party.

As you know there are no mammoth currently left roaming the earth, a few frozen ones were found by archeologists. Proto humans eventually hunted them all down and ate them. Afterwards the bunch of starving proto humans began exterminating each other for meat. We invented war and cannibalism.

Nowadays we see war as evil and cannibalism is unthinkable crime against humanity. Back then however it was the only way we could think of that would allow us to survive. An emergency measure, we might come back to again if we find ourselves in a similar situation. Current uncontrollable population grows may end up leading to just that kind of situation.

With each new group, destroyed by winners of the cannibalistic wars, firing other humans was becoming harder and harder, because survivors now knew human warfare and will not go down easily. Eventually it became safer to instead hunt for other animals, like deer, who maybe nimble and will not let one too close, but at the very least it cannot fight back.

However, things did not stay this way forever, eventually we figured how to grow crops, husband animals and more. After all, why hunt adult animal that can run away, when you can simply take its infants, raise them and then slaughter them for food. Why look for edible plants in the forests, when you can take their seeds and plant them on a big field, wait for them to grow and then just go there and eat anytime you want. All the big brain moves that required thinking outside of the box. Scientific observation and ability to analyse the information. These are the things that made us humans, not ethics religion or such.

In this, like in every other turn of evolution, it's the big brain moves, that carried the day and moved us ahead and above towards higher forms of existence. A lot of modern humans look down on monkeys and refuse to acknowledge them as related to us in any way.

Now that we again are at a point where old ways no longer work, we are in need of a big brain solution to this issue that will elevate humanity to the next level of existence. If we fail to come up with a big brain move, we will devolve back into war and cannibalism.

However, lets home that worst case scenario will not come to pass and we instead will manage to solve our problems with technology. I do not fancy trying human meat.

Why We Should Rethink Age of Marriage and Relationship

 

In our modern world people marry less and less. People marry less and less; diverse rates are sky high. Number of singles and not looking for relationships are not only record high but already posed to overtake number of married people. And if you count only successful marriages, then these are almost non-existent. Even among those who are married only fraction are actually find happiness in this arrangement.

It's pretty clear, that marriage and relationships between genders are clearly not working in modern world. Current notions of how marriage supposed to work no longer work and a reform is direly needed.

Before I write about solutions, I will look back at history of marriage and relationship. 20th century idea that people should marry at around 18 years old to someone of the same age of themselves is more of an exception than a rule. Parents like the idea of such picture-perfect couple but this arrangement does not work for actual people in question.

Historically people married younger and there was often a significant age difference between man and woman. People like to bash Quran and Prophet Muhammad for marrying a 9-year-old girl, but Bible has plenty of similar examples. For modern person this looks like a paedophilia, but in the past, it was considered normal. 

However, it's not that morals or ethics have changed, but rather we as people have changed. Over the course of last 2000 years that passed since Bible and Quran we as humans have evolved and changed, so we are no longer the same species we once were. Yes, that's as radial as it sounds.

Back in times of Ancient Egypt, average life expectancy was merely 25 something years old, hardly anyone lived longer than 35 years old. Yes, Ramses II lived to 90 but he was an exception. That does not however mean that people died young. That will be extrapolation of modern notions on the times past. Instead, ancient Egyptians lived faster. They grew faster, reached maturity faster, aged faster and died faster. Ancient Egyptians were considered aged at 35, modern humans are at 65 to 70. What takes modern human 70 to 90 years to complete and ancient Egyptian completed in just 30 to 40 years.

One may call ancient Egyptians a fast growing or early maturing, but back in the days, life was simpler and standards of maturity and adulthood were proportionally easier and simpler.

Nonetheless in ancient Egypt a person was considered sexually mature legal adult at 12. They married and had kids at around 15. They lived just long enough to see their kids reach adulthood, marry and have kids of their own before dying.

Other communities such Jews, also observed the same age frames. For example, Bar mitzvah is performed at 13 and signify coming of age. Modern notions see it as merely cultural ceremony that does not confer legal adulthood, but for ancient Jews that was equivalent of reaching age of majority: 18 years old, or 21 years old in the US.

If one is concerned that it was far too long ago, to know for sure, then I can bring a more recent historical data.

For example, during Middle Ages average King lived to 50, maximum 55 years long, but dying at younger age was common too. Commoners probably lived even less than that. Proportionally age of majority at these times was 15 years old and people married around 20, around middle of their age.

Even as recent as 300 years old, 15 was considered old enough to rule country and command a military. Good example is famous Carolus Rex. A recency consul due to his minor age governed until he turned 15. Afterwards he took reigns, ruled his country as executive monarch and gave orders to his military officers. He scored his actual military victories at age that by modern standards considered too young to drink beer. Needless to say, at 15 they will not let to enlist as private, much less give orders to Chiefs of Staff. 

Carolus died in battle at 36 and his Great Northern War counterpart Peter the Great at 52, in his bed at perfectly normal age for a wealthy monarch with all the money for the best doctors there was back then.

In both Ancient Egyptian and Medieval examples short life expectancy meant, you need to marry and have kids earlier. However, people married not when they were adult enough to do it, but when they were close enough to death. Just enough to see them grow before you die. 

Chances that you may die at any time made people think that they should have kids earlier just to make sure there is a posterity. Modern long-life expectancy in contrast make one think you can always do it later. If your parents and people much older than yourself are still around, then surely you will still be alive 30 years later and can always have kids then. Nothing to rush for.

Fundamentally children are there to replace those who died of old age. If they are not dying, then there is no room for children. 

Since modern humans can sometimes live to 90 and even 100, all other milestones of life should proportionally extend further. After all it will not make sense that only retirement gets longer, meanwhile all others life milestones remain the same. Retirement by far the least important part of life so it will make no sense for it to get any longer.

If you take Ancient Egyptian timeframe and multiply it by 2 to 2.5 to match new life expectancy, then you get sexual maturity at 24 to 30, marriage at 40 to 45. However, that does not take into consideration how much time is needed to actually reach objectives of each segment of life. If anything, it's the middle part of life that gets longer and retirement remains roughly the same. Modern life is much more complex than what it was before, so more time is needed for a person to fully grow as adult and be able to have a family.

Parents should be obliged to support their children way into their 20s, 30s and even 40s. I guess social security is currently doing it for those parents who do not do so: pains of transitional arrangements to deal with double standard parents who research complex surgeries that could extend their lives another 5 years but want their kids to mature as early as possible so they have grandchildren. 

Legal age works fine as it is, so we do not need to change it. Marriage however clearly isn't, so it should happen later in life.

When it comes to marriage in particular, Jeffrey Epstein methods work surprisingly well. Yes, he is a convicted sex offender, but as the song sings "new ways come in sin". Certainly, a section of society hates and despises him, but people who were involved with him were very happy, both older men who use his Lolita express to find themselves little girls and little girls themselves. All the so-called victims came to him willingly and knew fully well what they were signing up for, Jeffrey Epstein did not need to promise them candy in an unmarked white van, hit them unconscious and drag them into the van. The only reason he was convicted is because women were of too young age to consent, not that they refuse to go with him.

However here I will not leave it at just trust the Epstein on that one. I will logically explain why Epstein way works and modern equal marriage isn't.

The reason lies in female psychology. Women are meant to be led and controlled by men. Their psychology resists the idea of equal partnership where decisions are shared, their psychology constantly seeks a man who is stronger than her, someone who can lead her, not please her, not care for her, not serve her, but lead her.

Because of that women want a man who is superior to her in every way imaginable. They want someone who is bigger, older, richer, more experienced. That naturally pushes women towards older men. 

Some men dismiss it as gold digging and say things like its only because he is rich, but that ignores the real psychological needs of a women. Even if 18 years old virgin had billions she would still pick 50 years old CEO. Even if 50 years old was poor, she would still go with him rather than with a young block of her age. That is how women are and ignoring this fact will cause even more unhappy marriages, bitter divorces, pain and misery.

It works the same way in reverse too. Men will always prefer young virgin 18 years old girl to an older and more mature women with experience, no matter how these lonely mature women lament this fact and call such men paedophiles. I will write about men later, now back to women.

Because of that she can never accept a man who is of the same age as her. Man, who knows only as much as she is and probably more childish and immature than she is can never command her respect. Because of that she will never be satisfied with him.

Sure, she may marry such a man of her age, but not because she loves him. She will marry him only because her dad or mom will tell her to. She will do it because she can acknowledge authority of her own parent. After all he is just that kind of older more experienced man, her psychology craves so she obliges and obeys his orders and marries a boy, daddy picked for her.

That does not result in a happy marriage however, just in happy dad. The girl in question will never be happy with the boy she married as her psychology demands a daddy, not a boy. A replacement to her actual dad in pretty much every way.

Thus, scandals and all sorts of marital drama ensure. She complains, throws fits, yells, cheats and goes completely hysterical all because she was paired with a someone who is not capable of being her husband all to please her parents who see them as picture perfect couple.

Other cultures, like Indians or Muslims do not do this to their daughters, they marry them up to men who are much older than themselves. As a result, their marriages are much more stable and fulfilled. Even with modern no-fault divorce available, they do not split up. Yet modern leftists persist with notion of marriage of the equals, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Now on man side of thing. An average 18-year-old guy is completely unprepared to be a husband for several important reasons.

To begin with, unlike woman whose role is to marry and have children, a man's role was to be a provider. A provider means being someone in a community, having a job. Man's status in a society determined not by who he is married to but rather by his job, education and circle of friends. Learning a profession, cultivating friends and getting ahead in society is a complex and difficult task that takes a lot of time. Nonetheless men cannot bypass it as it is a path to success in life. 

Alternative to it is a transient existence at the bottom of society with no money, status or connections. A typical dysfunctional family or alcoholic or drug addict dad and a prostitute mom. Most of them do not live long and those who do live do so with one leg in the grave.

Thus, an average 18-year-old man from a functional normal family is mentally geared not towards running a family but towards studying, socialising with friends and carving themselves a place in a society. Saddling them with a wife family will do them no good and will distract them from the objective that will actually determine their future success and failure.

Needless to say, a young man like that have neither time, nor the ability to actual be a husband. He has career to make, social ladders to climb, wealth to make and more. He has no time for a wife. Women instinctively feel it and repealed from them.

To make matters worse, an average 18-year-old does not even know what he even wants from woman. Sure, parents taught them something, but these things are fundamentally useless when it comes to real thing. Typical family raises boys to not be husbands and masters of the home, but footmen and servants to higher ups. Parents like image of a guy bending a knee to a "princess" and offering her "hand and heart" together with a wedding ring. However, this is but a silly and dangerous fiction that does not lay proper foundation for a successful marriage: remember that women are looking for a master, not a servant and men are never happy in a servant role.

Thus, young man has to spend quite some time in his adulthood to unlearn these things, his parents instilled in him, and reconnect with the actual role they were meant to play in a relationships and bedroom. All these things drive age, at which he is ready for marriage further and further away.

To make matters worse, bad economy, stagnant wages and stuck career progression only further push age of marriage for men. 

By the time a man fully matures, gets clear idea what he wants from a marriage and a woman, reaches a boss stage in his career and makes enough money to buy a home and is finally ready for the family state of his life, he will be long in his 50s or even 60s.

Women cannot have children after menopause that happen when they are 46-year-old. However, this is not the only issue here. Just as much as women prefer older men, men prefer younger women. More mature women lament it as much as young guys lament their "gold digging" female peers who prefer 50 years old billionaires, but male psychology is just a strong of a factor as a female one, and it's geared towards younger = better.  It's like brand new good are much more desired than secondhand ones and some used goods are too used to be desired at all.

Younger woman is fresher, more fertile and healthier compared to an old one. Each extra year of age and even each extra sexual intercourse takes away from her beauty, fertility, health and ability to nurture babies. A human body has limited lifespan and health. A baby in a young healthy women can drain more nutrients from her and thus grow bigger, stronger and better in every way. A baby, in an exhausted used and battered 40-year-old could not get nearly as many nutrients and thus will not be as healthy and successful. Thus, the younger the better is how men see and choose it. A simple biology. 

Women can complain that it's unfair that men do not have that problem and only get more desirable as they age, but each gender is different and lives by its own logic and rules. Men too find it unfair that a fresh healthy 18-year-old cannot get a girl, who instead goes to some fossil with a wad of cash, but women do not sympathize with us on that.

Fundamentally it's a reality of each gender biology that men grow more desirable with each year they live, while women grow less and less desirable with each year they live.

Because of all of the above we have to stop denying the obvious and face reality. Women want older men and men younger women. Relationships between older man and a younger woman work and every other format does not. Thus, we have to accept that this is the way forward for our species and civilization at our current level of development.

Women should be told to preserve virginity and marry someone much older than herself with money and status, whom she can respect.

Men should be told to not think of marriage until they are much older and spend their youth on hobbies, friendship, career and education. For relationship with a female there are porn, anime, sex dolls or brothels.

That way we can finally leave dysfunctional marriages with its suffering behind and move on to colonise space and build robots.

All Religions Are Forms of Devil Worship and Only Atheism is True to God and His Natural Order

 

That was somewhat inspired by Christian assertion that Devil will try to trick you and take you away from God by tricking you with lies and false promises. With enough critical thinking one can notice that they are the very devil they are talking about, and I can prove it using their own logic.

Even if we assume that there was a God that created life and everything on Earth. Since everything was created by him, it all works based on rules and principles that he created. All feelings all thoughts and so on are this way because God made it this way. If that is the case, then science that studies these rules and laws of nature (rules of God) is the only discipline that gets us closer to God. Meanwhile religion that contradicts many of the scientific laws by contrast takes us away from God.

Not only religion takes one away from God, but it's also actually a creation of Devil. Something in Bible said that devil envied God and rebelled against him because he wanted to be like him. Religion commits this very sin: it invents fake rules that contradict these of nature (of God). Things like 7 sins or 10 commandments perpetrated by established religions go against natural feelings and impulses of men. However, since God created everything than these impulses are will of God and religious rules that contradict them are then work of Devil.

Devil wants to corrupt people and religious rules do just that. They force people to go against their nature, do things that do not make them happy and give them suffering instead. Shrewd priests interpret that as suffering is meaning of life but it its false. Suffering is your body way of telling you that you are doing something wrong and should stop. If religion causes suffering, then it goes against God, not expresses God's will as its adherents claim.

All religions are created to defy natural order of things, that is defy God's will and creation. If you think about it, every religion bans various things that people normally do. That is because devils who created them did not like natural order that God created in one way or another and wanted to change it. That is why they created rules that are contrary to natural order of things and contrary to human nature. In order to compel people to follow these rules they invented religion, hell and other scary things to bully people into following their false rules. However, the real hell is in following the religious rules and quietly suffering as a result of doing so.

Christianity warns that Devil will be attractive and appealing, but it's also Christianity that promises people afterlife in Heaven in exchange for following its wicked rules. Sure, heaven is more attractive than uncertainly of life and dumb chance, but heaven is a lie and uncertainty is rule of life no matter whether you like it or not. 

Religion often promises various nefarious virtues to people. They claim that their rules and moral create better people or something. An appealing proposition to someone dissatisfied with people around them. However, these "virtues" religion promises are no virtues at all. Humans are greedy and selfish because these traits allow them to survive and function in the world better. Trying to remove these traits cripples people and condemns them to life of misery, life where other get ahead as they suffer, mislead by devilish priests and other religious figures. Religion never led anyone to success or prosperity. Only truth did.

One can verify all scientific rules and laws with experiments. This confirms that these scientific observations are indeed rules of our life, regardless of whether it is God that created it or it came together through chance, casual correlation and long series of cause-and-effect events started from a Big Bang. This proves that these things are real and relevant to our lives.

In contrast religion cannot prove anything, it always requires faith. The very fact that it cannot prove anything is a prove that all of it is false and none of it is truth.

And just like that Christian own logic allows us to arrive to a conclusion that any religion is, but a trick of a devil designed to lead people away from truth of this world and actual God.

I like Quiet People and Quiet Women

 

Somehow in modern world a lot of people try to be as noisy as possible. I do not like that. I like quiet people, quiet places, quiet women. 

To paraphrase a famous saying: "Women must be seen, not heard."

In fact, when it comes to women if she is not able to talk at all it might even be for the good. Though obviously its better if she can talk but does not talk unless really necessary, especially if her voice is not that pleasant. 

Quiet girls are the best.

Also enjoy the silence: