THE OMLY TIME YOU SEE THIS MANY BEAUTIFUL WOMEN IN SEATTLE…
… is when a group of visiting Russian women go slumming in Bellevue.
And here it’s just an average day in an average restaurant.
I was in that Asian place in Bellevue Square in September and about half a dozen pretty average Russian women showed up and the men came out of the woodwork like cockroaches.
Rubes. :).
It was demeaning.
For the men I mean. đ
Source date (UTC): 2012-12-08 17:04:00 UTC
http://iphone.france24.com/en/20121207-lagarde-says-fiscal-cliff-threatens-us-supremacyWHY DO WE CARE ABOUT U.S. “SUPREMACY”?
How about we worry about our country and spend less time worrying about others.
All LaGarde wants is for americans to continue their indirect subsidy of Europe.
Source date (UTC): 2012-12-08 09:58:00 UTC
ENGLISH SUPERIORITY
“Relative to other groups from Britain, Puritans were not outbred. Yet they are more idealistic and altruistic. That may have something to do with them being from the most Danish part of Britain. It certainly is to do with them being economically advanced. A market economy only works where there can be basic trust between unrelated people. And the British are the descendants of the economically successful. -(Clark)”
Source date (UTC): 2012-12-08 06:59:00 UTC
MONOGAMY
Let me put it this way: monogamy is not in a man’s interest at all. Or rather, it is only in the interest of the 30% of men who are undesirable. And many men are undesirable because men vary more than women, particularly at the extremes.
Monogamy creates artificial scarcity of men. It’s a bad deal for women in gene selection, but it’s a good deal for women in an agrarian economy in terms of support for her offspring. For the upper fifth of men, monogamy is a very high cost of opportunity. For the Tiger Woods’ of the world, its an absurdity.
The question we have to ask, is if we lose the family, and we lose monogamy, then what will a) those undesirable men do and b) how will men start to signal?
I look around the world and I look at history, and this is the stuff that heady murder is made of.
Source date (UTC): 2012-12-07 18:24:00 UTC
THE BEST WAY TO DISPROVE THE SUPERIORITY OF ANY IDEOLOGY IS TO SHOW THAT ALL IDEOLOGIES ARE NOTHING BUT REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGIES GIVEN VERBAL JUSTIFICATION IN AN ATTEMPT TO GAIN POLITICAL POWER TO DISTORT PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF FUNDING ONE GROUP’S REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS.
This means that the only ‘good’ ideology is one that produces the best biology.
Source date (UTC): 2012-12-07 18:15:00 UTC
THE CONSERVATIVE-LIBERAL BABY GAP
“…some of the key qualities that differ between the two ideological groups include the fact that liberals tend to get married later (or not at all), and that conservatives tend to live in more sparsely populated areas of the country (and population density appears to severely impact fertility).”
Population density DECREASES opportunity costs but INCREASES physical costs. Liberals (like libertarians) are more excited by new (cheap) experiences than conservatives. Urbanity makes experiences easier to find, more numerous, cheaper. But these experiences are obtained in exchange for higher geographic costs that come from density (rent and home ownership, taxes, and petty crime).
Source date (UTC): 2012-12-07 16:59:00 UTC
SINGLE WOMEN RULE AMERICA
“President Obama won women by a 55 to 44 percent margin and lost men by a 45 to 52 percent margin, leaving an 18-point gender gap, up from 12 points in 2008. But this difference is dwarfed by the marriage gapâthe margin between married and unmarried women. Married women supported the Republican candidate in 2012 by a comfortable six-point margin. It is Obamaâs huge victory among unmarried women that delivered the womenâs vote and with it, the White House. There is a 43-point difference in the margin between married women and unmarried women, a number which exceeds the gender gap by a factor of two. ” — Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (firm)
Women are marrying the state, and returning to their natural preference: to bear children at will and place the responsibility for raising them on the tribe.
(Now, as much as I argue that this will undermine the truce in reproductive strategies that we call monogamy, and by consequence I believe it will undermine the high trust society, I am also cognizant of the fact that we never had the technology before to make it possible to have BOTH a division of labor AND unregulated childbirth. The problem is that I just don’t know. I can’t see how it’s possible. But then, i’m not omniscient either.)
Source date (UTC): 2012-12-07 16:30:00 UTC
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808.htmlPETER SCHIFF ON THE MYTH OF THE 91% TAX RATE IN THE 50’S
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808.html
“…the top marginal income-tax rate in the 1950s was much higher than today’s top rate of 35%âbut the share of income paid by the wealthiest Americans has essentially remained flat since then.
In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.
So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolicâvery few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.
In 1958, an 81% marginal tax rate applied to incomes above $1.08 million, and the 91% rate kicked in at $3.08 million. These figures are in unadjusted 1958 dollars and correspond today to nominal income levels that are at least 10 times higher. That year, according to Internal Revenue Service records, just 236 of the nation’s 45.6 million tax filers had any income that was taxed at 81% or higher. (The published IRS data do not reveal how many of these were subject to the 91% rate.)
In 1958, approximately 28,600 filers (0.06% of all taxpayers) earned the $93,168 or more needed to face marginal rates as high as 30%. These Americansâgenuinely wealthy by the standards of the dayâpaid 5.9% of all income taxes. And now? In 2010, 3.9 million taxpayers (2.75% of all taxpayers) were subjected to rates that were 33% or higher. These Americansâmany of whom would hardly call themselves wealthyâreported an adjusted gross income of $209,000 or higher, and they paid 49.7% of all income taxes.”
Source date (UTC): 2012-12-07 08:34:00 UTC
CAN YOU HAVE CHIVALRY WITHOUT ARISTOCRACY?
The west is synonymous with Christendom. Christendom is synonymous with Aristocracy. Aristocracy with chivalry. Chivalry with the means by which males seek status by service. Aristocracy is synonymous with property ownership. Because aristocracy is private government. The unstated property of the western high trust society is the break with paternalistic familial-ism: universal-ism by outlawing cousin marriages and therefore outlawing tribal property, tribal inheritance, and tribal political power. Status in this environment can only be obtained by actions.
The high trust society is a product of chivalry, aristocracy, property, without which males have no means of status seeking.
(I’m still working on this. But the basic problem is that Ferguson’s six killer apps aren’t enough of the story.)
Source date (UTC): 2012-12-07 08:09:00 UTC
WHITE PEOPLE STAYED HOME. BUT WHY?
I said that this would happen ten years ago. If you look at white male voting patterns, they have been checking out of the electoral process for decades. They are checking out of the economy in droves. The question is why?
From Dick Morris:
“Now that all the data is in … It is not just that blacks, Latinos, and single women showed up in record numbers at the polls. It’s that whites didn’t.
The final numbers suggest that 91.6 million votes were cast by whites — seven million less than the 98.6 million that were cast in 2008! Meanwhile, 16.6 million blacks voted — 300,000 more than in 2008; 11 million Latinos voted — 1.7 million more votes than were cast by Hispanics in 2008.”
I know why. Do you?
Source date (UTC): 2012-12-07 08:01:00 UTC