Sunday, October 25, 2015

Game Location Tip: It's About Volume of Young Available Girls, Not Just Volume of People

Quick - if you had to decide to daygame at a busy mall or a sparse but large university, which would you pick?

Most guys I know seem to choose the busy mall over the sparse but large university. In fact, that was me - until today.

What was different about today was that I decided to try my luck and do some daygame at the sparse but large university instead of the busy mall. This was based on the fact that most of my leads are college students, even though most of my approaches - at the busy mall - are not.

What I found at the busy mall was what most of the daygame guys find: malls tend to attract taken girls, and/or older women. In the West, this tends to apply more to high-end malls, but here in Eastern Europe, it seems to apply to malls in general, and not just high-end ones. It may be that outside the West, any mall is high-end.

Distilling that lesson even more, the point is that when choosing a location to Game, it's about the volume of young available girls (preferably walking alone), not just the volume of people.

So don't be fooled when you see a busy mall or street into thinking, "This must be a good place to daygame." Look at the volume of young girls walking alone.

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Another Reason Why Men Should Go Where They Don't Look Like a Local

Much is made in the manosphere of paternity fraud, where a wife knowingly cheats on her husband, and presents the offspring of this cheating to her husband as his own genetic heritage.

I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in raising any more kids that aren't my own. I already do this through the American tax system anyway, in the form of welfare handouts.

So what's a man to do to stop paternity fraud? Paternity testing kits are one option, but as feminism continues to make inroads, one should expect more countries to follow in France's footsteps, where paternity testing is practically banned.

Here's another solution for men:
1) Go to a country where you don't look like a local.
2) Father children with a local woman.
3) If the children don't have any of your non-local features, you know the children aren't yours.

Obviously, this solution works best if you're practically the only non-local that the local woman has access to.

If the above was too cerebral for you, here's a reverse application of the above, in a trashy talk show. (TL;DV - fat white woman claims fat white man is the father of her half-black kids; DNA test proves the obvious, that she's wrong)

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Fairness, Or Might Makes Right?

Suppose your group of people came to another land and replaced the natives there, with some of them consenting, and some of them not consenting. Suppose the natives there were replaced due to a variety of factors, such as disease, or a culture that did not promote productivity as well as that of the replacing peoples. Is this fair? Or is this simply right by might, and possibly evolution?

In case you think I'm talking about the migrant crisis in Europe, I'm not. I'm actually thinking of the non-native settlement of the Americas and Australia.

Think about it: did the Native Americans and Australians deserve to be replaced? If not, should the Americas and Australia be given back to them, and the non-native descendants sent back to Europe, Africa, Asia, etc? Or was the replacement of the Native Americans and Australians simply part of the evolutionary process?

Could it then be said that legal and illegal migration into the US of Latinos, who as a group are genetically closer to the Native Americans than any other group, is justified by fairness, or right by might?

Does morality matter in any of these scenarios, or is it all just right by might?

In either case, consistency matters. Morality can't matter in select cases, only to be thrown out the window in other cases.

Thus, I fail to see how one can justify the replacement of Native Americans and Australians by non-natives, while disagreeing with the replacement of Europeans by non-natives, both in Europe and the US (where they aren't even native anyway). Either both scenarios are unfair, or both are justified by might making right (evolution).

And don't tell me one group is simply more deserving than another due to their past contributions or charity. There is no point in harping on about a glorious past. Only the present and the future matter.

Sunday, October 4, 2015

What If Governments Behaved Like Sports Teams?

It would be interesting if governments behaved more like sports teams, recruiting players they think would contribute, and letting go of players that aren't panning out. Imagine:

1) A citizen of a country commits a heinous crime. Instead of sending the criminal to jail to be supported or even executed on the taxpayer dime, the country simply strips the criminal of citizenship, and deports them at the nearest border.

2) A citizen of another country has a track record of exceptional and quantifiable contributions. The "sports team" country decides to "recruit" this person and people like this person, offering them generous citizenship packages, in exchange for ensuring future contributions are made to the "sports team" country.

One catch I can see is that "sports team" country has to have the right metrics to determine who gets recruited and who gets booted. It would have to be some sort of quantifiable metric that shows how "profitable" each citizen is to the country, like:

Tax Income Received - Cost of Government Services Used

Without quantifiable metrics, the "sports team" country at best would be hiring and firing on anecdotes, and at worst, would be hiring and firing for silly political or bureaucratic reasons.

At the end of the day, I think it'd take trial and error to get all the details of a "sports team" country right. But this mentality seems better than stocking your bench with an at-best unproven line-up, all in the name of sympathy.