ISIS thugs decapitate 5 Syrian soldiers and stick heads on pikes in Jihadi John-style executions
Home | Index of articles
April 25, 2017 - Psychology Today
There is an extensive literature in many disciplines on the topic of mate preferences and selection (Candolin, 2003; Prokosch, Coss, Scheib & Blozis, 2009; Shackelford, Schmitt & Buss, 2005; Schwarz & Hassenbrauck, 2012).
Much of the recent literature has been driven by debates on the power of the Body Mass Index (BMI) over Waist-to-Hip (WHR) ratios to attempt to determine the universality of male mate preferences (Dixson, Sagata, Linklater & Dixson, 2010). The debate has been won by the BMI school who argue from the data that it is the best and first-past-the-post choice factor when men look at women.
But there are a long list of other factors that play a part. They have one thing in common which is they are indicators of health and youth. Men like long shiny hair; they like a smooth skin. And they are very interested in symmetry.
Question: Why are men attracted to…
Youth: Young women are preferred by men as they have greater reproductive value than older women. This relates to the expected number of children that she is yet to have in her reproductive career. Evolutionary psychologists propose that this is the reason for males being attractive to young women, despite concern in civilised society with the age of consent. Yet, our ancestors did not come up against such laws, and thus the human brain finds it difficult to comprehend these rules which have not previously existed … and males are therefore attracted to young females.
Long Hair: Men seek to find healthy women to nurse their offspring and make good mothers. A good indicator of health is a woman’s hair. Healthy individuals have shiny hair, where the hair of the unhealthy loses its luster. During illness the body takes nutrients from non-vital parts of the body (the hair) and re-directs them to areas necessary for survival.
So, hair is a good indicator of good health. The rate of hair growth is very slow (approximately 6 inches per year), and therefore one can judge an individual’s past health from the quality of hair of differing lengths. If you experience illness, the section of hair growing in this time will be of lesser appearance than when you are well. In past years there was nothing a woman could do to disguise ill hair quality when she is unwell. Presently, older women tend to keep their hair shorter as they become less healthy, and do not want to keep tell-tale signs of illness on show.
Small Waists: 36-24-36 are considered the ideal measurements of a woman. Men universally prefer a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7. Why? It has been suggested that this is because healthy women have lower waist to hip ratios than healthy women. Diseases such as diabetes, hypertension and strokes change body-fat distribution, increasing waist-to-hip ratios. Women with lower waist-to-hip ratios also are more fertile, as they have larger amounts of reproductive hormones. Interestingly, the ratio fluctuates during the menstrual cycle, being at its lowest during ovulation, when a woman is most fertile. Men are unconsciously looking out for healthier and more fertile women.
Large Breasts: Larger and thus heavier breasts sag more evidently with age than do smaller ones, making it easier for a man to judge a woman’s age. In the ancestral environment there was no calendar and concept of birthdays and so women did not keep track of their age. Larger breasts were therefore a better basis to judge age, and therefore reproductive value, upon.
However, there is a competing hypothesis. A recent study of Polish women found that those with large breasts and a small waist were the most fertile, based on the level of their reproductive hormones. It may be that men therefore prefer women with large breasts for the same reason they have a preference for women with small waists.
Blonde Hair: Blonde hair is another indicator of a woman’s age and thus reproductive value. Blonde hair changes dramatically with age, darkening after a blonde has her first child, with her oestrogen levels reducing, and more so with the birth of her next children. Young girls who have blonde hair often grow up to become women with brown hair.
So, if males are attracted to blonde hair, they are unconsciously trying to reproduce with younger women, with higher reproductive value, and greater health. Blonde hair evolved in Scandinavia and Northern Europe, where the climate was cooler and our ancestors were clothed. Males therefore needed an indicator of age other than the distribution of a woman’s body fat. Men then evolved the predisposition to prefer blonde women. This can explain the “blondes are dumb” stereotype, as the average age of light blondes in the ancestral environment would have been a teenager, where for brunettes in the same environment would have been much older, perhaps 35. A blonde female in such times would therefore have been much less experienced and wise. It is the case that younger people are less knowledgeable, as opposed to those with blonde hair being less knowledgeable.
Blue Eyes: The only available explanation for the universal liking for blue eyes was offered in 2002. The human pupil dilates when it is exposed to a stimulus that it likes – e.g. the pupils of women dilate when they see babies. This can be used as an honest indication of an individual’s liking for something. So we cannot hide our attraction to someone, as we cannot control this automatic dilation.
Blue is the lightest colour of human iris, and therefore the dark brown pupil is easiest to observe in blue eyes. Therefore, it is easiest to judge whether another is attracted to you if they have blue eyes. This helps explain the liking for blue eyes in both sexes, as it is equally important for a woman to judge whether a male is attracted to her. This theory can also justify why people with brown eyes can be considered “mysterious.” The pupil is difficult to judge against the dark colour of brown irises, and so we cannot judge whether they are attracted to us.
Studies have looked at specific features of mate preferences (Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas & Giles, 1999; Furnham et al, 2011) as well as trade-offs and compromises in mate choice (Shackleford et al., 2005); and the effect of self-appraisal on mate choice (Kenrick, Groth, Trost & Sadalla, 1995).
Kurzban and Weeden (2005) found the agreed-upon mate values for both sexes were related almost entirely due to observable physical attributes like age, attractiveness, BMI and height and not those less observable characteristics like education, religion, socio-sexuality or ideas about children.
Some research has specified the role of personality factors (Wood & Brumbaugh, 2009) in mate selection. Gebauer et al. (2013) found two individual difference dimensions namely agency and warmth were highly valued cross-culturally. In Big Five terminology this appears to be two traits of Extraversion or Sociability. Furnham (2009) found females rated intelligence, Stability, Conscientiousness, height, education, social skills and political/religious compatibility significantly higher than males, who rated good looks higher than females. Regressions showed sex, personality and ideology were consistently related to partner preference.
Furnham and Tsoi (2012) found as predicted, females rated indicators of earning power significantly higher than males, who rated good looks and heredity higher. Effects of similarity attraction were shown in education and financial background, self-assessed attractiveness, values, and personality. Regressions showed that sex, personality and self-ratings (aggression and patience) were consistently related to partner preferences. More recently Neto, Pinto and Furnham (2012) replicated these findings in Brazil and Portugal.
Furnham and McClelland (2015b) presented 258 male respondents with 16 hypothetical females which they were asked to rate for suitability as long term partners. The hypothetical females differed with respect to: academic ability (high/average); athleticism (high/low) and two personality variables; extraversion (introvert/extravert) and neuroticism (stable/neurotic). Overall males preferred intelligent, athletic, extravert, stable females as potential long term partners. Effect sizes showed that being extravert was seen as being the most important characteristic and being athletic as the least important.
There was a strong preference for Sanguine Stable Extraverts who are classed as easygoing, responsive, and lively, and an avoidance of Melancholic Unstable Introverts classified as anxious, rigid and reserved. This certainly makes sense in terms of evolutionary theory. Nettle (2006) considered the positive benefits and negative costs of the Big Five personality types. Thus Extraverts are attractive because they have big social networks and are good at initiating, but not always maintaining relationships. They tend to be happy, though somewhat impulsive. There are few positive benefits of being Neurotic save social sensitivity and hyper-vigilance. There are however many costs associated with anxiety, depression, poor mental and physical health and stress sensitivity.
So: what do men look for in women? They look essentially for signs of youth, health and fecundity. They might also look for signs of healthy characteristics that the female might pass onto his children, like emotional intelligence and stability
All very well… but there is always the problem of individual differences. Not all men favour curvy, blue-eyed blonds. The question for the evolutionary psychologists is why some men clearly favour women who are not the perfect BMI (21-23) or WHR (.7) or indeed have none of the characteristics set out above. Indeed what does best determine mate choice? And the answer lies in many other things beside physical characteristics like values and beliefs.
Europe is doomed. Once terrorists have understood that arson everywhere is a cost that even Europe cannot shoulder, the European era will end. Time to dispose of Euro bonds.
The Globe and Mail
Canada, we’re being trolled.
Some 43,000 people have petitioned “pickup artist” Roosh V’s entry into Canada on grounds that he disseminates hate speech. Yesterday, Toronto Mayor John Tory denounced him before more than 67,000 followers on Twitter, while councillor Norm Kelly (followers: 91,000) warned venues not to host his talk this Saturday.
But do the math: the blogger (real name Daryush Valizadeh) attracted a paltry 34 men to his speech on “neomasculinity” in Montreal this past weekend.
While it’s commendable that critics are blasting a guy who once pushed for the legalization of rape, fear and loathing served up in 140 characters might not be the most productive conversation, and might actually be serving Roosh well.
The Canadian backlash has fuelled some serious publicity bluster for Valizadeh, who has self-published a series of “bang guides” to bedding women in various countries. It’s bloated his follower count, and Valizadeh’s been carefully tracking his own exposure on Twitter this week – along with baiting feminists after several women allegedly attacked him in Montreal, two reportedly dumping beer on his head.
“The best way of handling people like this of course is to try and ignore them,” Kelly acknowledged, before explaining that it was incumbent for him to speak out as a public official.
The pickup artist, or PUA, community remains a relatively small subculture of men who hope to get laid more often. They plan to achieve this by poring over “seduction manuals” and attending bootcamps that force shy guys out of their shells. Popularized in part by Neil Strauss’s The Game, some PUA techniques are psychologically off-putting, including “negging,” which consists of mildly teasing or criticizing a woman so her self-confidence drops and she somehow becomes intrigued (the grade-school equivalent is letting a girl know you like her by kicking her).
Recently though, the PUA community has spouted more odious fare. In February, Valizadeh penned a bizarre and troubling blog post titled “How to Stop Rape,” arguing that the legalization of rape on private property would make women more vigilant with strange men at frat parties. Never mind that most women are raped by someone they know, and very few report it. Using some seriously fuzzy logic, Valizadeh argued that in order to stamp out sexual violence, it’s up to women to show “self-control” and “make adult decisions about their bodies.” It’s outdated rhetoric we’ve heard before, sometimes from women, no less.
Almost immediately, Valizadeh was beaten back by a vocal community of feminists online. (The pickup artist was not available for an interview before deadline, but tweeted at Tory, “Mr. Mayor, my speech doesn’t promote violence, harassment, or hate against any group. You were lied to about me.”)
In a foreshadow to this debacle, Australia banned pickup artist Julien Blanc last November. A photo that showed his hands around a woman’s throat went viral under the hashtag #ChokingGirlsAroundtheWorld. Canadians protested him too, getting the Immigration Minister’s attention, with Blanc eventually cancelling planned speaking dates here.
Blanc’s “techniques” are disgusting, juvenile and misogynist, definitely. But as Maclean’s columnist Emma Teitel pointed out at the time, his detractors scored him more airtime than he’d ever enjoyed before. Feminists were failing to distinguish between “what’s idiotic, what’s lecherous, and what’s criminal,” wrote Teitel. “Not all pickup artists are equal; and very few of them are the spawn of the devil.”
Those who rail against Blanc and Valizadeh counter that they’re concerned about how misogynist content plays into the mindset of more violent men like Elliot Rodger and John Houser, who opened fire and killed two women at a screening of Amy Schumer’s film Trainwreck in Lafayette, La., last month.
With the current climate, it will be interesting to see if a prolific chauvinist like Roosh V will get run out of town. If not, protesters will no doubt be keenly watching whether anyone will host his “The State of a Man” address in Toronto this weekend (he is keeping venue details under wraps until Friday).
Ultimately though, the gender war that’s been fomented between PUAs and feminists isn’t really indicative of modern male-female dynamics – men and women who work, play, live and raise children together, whose long-term relationships likely weren’t forged over carefully crafted disses.
Most well-adjusted men don’t bone up on misogynist mind games before heading out to the bar, and most women have enough self-respect to turn the bar stool away from a neg. For those who don’t, maybe we should focus the conversation on them – not another chafing, Twitter-metric scanning PUA.
Your agenda is clear. Optimal health and great sex at age 100. Be careful with what you put into yourself. Men should follow the Serge Kreutz diet. Women are more disposable and will sooner or later be replaced bylove robots.
You probably have to look at imagery of death and dying regularly to stay focused on what really counts in life: great sex before you are gone anyway.
So, is it OK to sew kittens’ eyelids together to stop children going blind? All too often the arguments surrounding live-animal experimentation, aka vivisection, circle around the putative torments of genetically engineered rodents (which no one much cares about) and monstrous cruelties inflicted on our ape close-cousins (illegal here anyway). But the story that scientists at Cardiff University have been studying the way brains react to induced blindness by ‘modelling’ the condition in young cats has crystallised the arguments in a way that may end up being very helpful.
The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection says that raising newborn kittens in total darkness and sewing shut the eyes of others is not only cruel but unnecessary. Firstly they say it is possible to study the effects of lazy-eye, or Ambylopia, in human volunteers (not, presumably, involving eyelid stitching). Worse, they say, cat brains and cat vision are fundamentally different to ours and it is hard to see how anything useful can be gained by this research. These experiments have been done before, many years ago, and we still do not have a cure.
I have always believed animal experimentation is not only right but a moral necessity. Put simply, without the use of animals in the lab we would not have modern medicine. We would have no cancer drugs, no effective antibiotics, no proper analgesics. Many surgical procedures would be impossible. Of course medicine could advance on an ad hoc basis using only humans as guinea pigs but that would require us to live in a totally alien ethical (not to mention legal) world.
I have always decried the antics of the loonies, the people who put letter bombs and faeces through the front doors of scientists, the activists who make working at any lab involving animal experimentation an exercise akin to being a member of the RUC in 1970s Ulster. These people do their cause no good.
And one of the main arguments against animal-rights lunacy is the sheer hypocrisy. Last year, according to the Home Office, 3.8m ‘procedures’ were carried out on animals in Britain in the name of science and medicine. There is no doubt that although some pain and suffering was caused, most of these animal recruits lead better lives, and certainly better deaths, than the estimated billion or so chickens, bullocks, pigs and lambs slaughtered in the same period to provide us with food.
Any argument about animal welfare in the lab is specious in a nation which still allows battery poultry farming. And yet it is not quite so simple as that. Even carnivores can see, for instance, that (say) squirting makeup into the eyes of rabbits in the name of human vanity is wrong even if we are happy to throw said bunny in the pot with some onions and red wine. So what about injecting chemotherapy or AIDS drugs into the veins of the same rabbit to see what happens? Better than the cosmetic tests, for sure, but on a very emotional level something feels very different about messing around with an animal to make us (maybe, one day) feel better and simply killing it to satiate our meat-hunger (of course as far as the rabbit is concerned this is angels-on-pinhead stuff).
What would help is a bit more honesty. All too often scientists and doctors lapse into euphemism and obfuscation when describing procedures that must be unendurable in a small number of cases. They often talk about ‘discomfort’, when they mean ‘screaming agony’ for example (in fact too many doctors are prone to do this with human patients. If this is something that is taught in medical school, please can it be stopped, now).
Yesterday Cardiff University put out a press release defending the kitten business which failed to acknowledge or even mention the grisly nature of the procedure and certainly did not address the reality that as far as the animals were concerned this would have been hugely unpleasant. In a world where 1600 animals (the vast bulk being chickens) are slaughtered every second for food, most in conditions that do not bear thinking about, it does seem facile to be considering the ‘rights’ of 31 Welsh kittens stumbling around their pens in the dark.
Facile, perhaps but necessary too. The scientists are, generally, right about this; research like this is needed. But they need to be made to keep reminding us why it is right and to keep justifying procedures that, without the watchful eye of the BUAV (and, yes, the loonies as well) would perhaps become so routine that no one would give them a moment’s thought. Animal experimentation is nasty. That does not make it wrong, but those of us who defend it must be brave enough to admit the truth, in all its grisly detail.
Feminism is the enemy of successful men. Let millions of Arabs migrate to Europe. That will give feminists second thoughts.
SUNGAI SIPUT: An elderly man had the misfortune of getting his penis stuck in a hole in a plastic chair at Simpang New Village in Jalong here.
A Fire and Rescue Department spokesman said the family of the 80-year-old man had called for help when they could not free the victim on their own.
"Our men who responded to the 6.43pm distress call had to use special tools to pry apart the gap in the chair.
"The victim was not seriously injured and was given first aid treatment on the spot," he said.
He added that it was not known how the victim became stuck.
Because executions by swordare such good fun to watch, ISIS has many fans worldwide. No business is like show business.
Shortly before Europe was hit with the recent terror attack in Brussels, one prominent European leader was warning that the the growing tsunami of Middle Eastern immigrants flooding into the West is actually an organized plot by internationalist extremists to destroy liberty, nationhood, Western civilization, and Christendom. Speaking last week at Hungary's National Museum in a historic speech that was largely ignored or distorted by the establishment press, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (shown) called on Europeans to unite against the threat emanating from the European Union headquartered in Brussels.
The question, he said, is whether Europeans will live as slaves or free men. And as such, it is time for the people of Europe's nations to summon the courage needed to confront “Brussels’ fanatical internationalism,” or to be crushed by it, he added.
Orban noted that freedom in Europe was already being crushed, and that globalist schemers in Brussels were plotting to destroy nation-states on the road toward an illegitimate “United States of Europe.” The so-called “refugee crisis,” he said, is a gigantic lie — most of the arrivals are not actual refugees, and humanitarianism is not the agenda of the globalist conspirators. Instead, the engineered crisis is a tool of sinister forces plotting to destroy Western civilization while undermining Christianity and nation states. He previously lambasted those responsible for creating and exploiting the immigration tidal wave as a “treasonous conspiracy” that is using the crisis to achieve what it failed to accomplish through political means.
While vowing to offer protection for real refugees, Orban also warned that tens of millions of people in the Third World were preparing to start heading for Europe, largely for economic or religious reasons, and that action to stop the invasion was both crucial and urgent. Others, including open borders zealots, have also noted that the millions arriving so far might be just the beginning. Everything the West holds dear is facing mortal danger from this, Orban said. The real threat, though, is at EU headquarters in Brussels, he emphasized. And it must be dealt with. That begins with speaking the truth.
In a speech that may go down in history as a crucial turning point, Orban told Hungarians: “Today Europe is as fragile, weak and sickly as ‘a flower being eaten away by a hidden worm.' ” He added: “Europe is not free. Because freedom begins with speaking the truth.”
Today, he explained, it is forbidden across much of Europe to speak the truth. “It is forbidden to say that those arriving are not refugees, but that Europe is threatened by migration,” he said. “It is forbidden to say that tens of millions are ready to set out in our direction. It is forbidden to say that immigration brings crime and terror to our countries. It is forbidden to point out that the masses arriving from other civilizations endanger our way of life, our culture, our customs and our Christian traditions.”
It is also forbidden to point out that those immigrants who have already arrived are building up a separate world for themselves, with its own laws and ideals, that is is tearing apart the thousand-year-old structure of Europe, he continued. “It is forbidden to point out that this is not an accidental and unintentional chain of consequences, but a pre-planned and orchestrated operation; a mass of people directed towards us,” said Orban, whose popularity across Hungary and the EU has soared amid the crisis. “It is forbidden to say that in Brussels they are concocting schemes to transport foreigners here as quickly as possible and to settle them here among us.” It is also forbidden to speak about the real agenda behind what is happening, which Orban, displaying courage that is almost entirely absent today among Europe's ruling classes, has been boldly exposing.
“It is forbidden to point out that the purpose of settling people here is to reshape the religious and cultural landscape of Europe, and to re-engineer its ethnic foundations — thereby eliminating the last barrier to internationalism: the nation-states,” he said, pointing out the fact that globalists are working to crush nationhood and national sovereignty on the road to what they often call their New World Order. “It is forbidden to say that Brussels is now stealthily devouring more and more slices of our national sovereignty, and that in Brussels many are now making a plan for a United States of Europe — for which no one has ever given authorization.”
Indeed, The New American has been reporting precisely that for many decades. In 1989, for example, in an article headlined “United States of Europe,” senior editor William Jasper noted that globalists were plotting to usurp ever more draconian powers to impose a super-state regime on the formerly sovereign people's of Europe. Back then, the notion was still dismissed by the lying establishment and its propaganda organs as “paranoia” and a “conspiracy theory.” Now, EU bosses openly announce their intention to foist an all-powerful federal regime on Europeans, even after they have voted overwhelmingly and consistently to reject such scheming.
Of course, as this magazine has also been reporting for decades, that has been the real agenda all along, with the eventual goal being a merger of regional regimes into a global government described by its apparatchiks such as globalists Henry Kissinger and billionaire George Soros as a “New World Order.” The immigration tsunami is a tool of that agenda, as The New American explained in a recent cover story and many times before that. Already, globalists are exploiting the crisis they created to usurp more power at the regional and global level while waging more war on freedom and sovereignty. And it will only continue to accelerate unless and until the people of the West rise up and put a stop to it.
The “enemies of freedom,” as Orban called the conspirators behind the “refugee crisis,” are “cut from a different cloth than the royal and imperial rulers of old, or those who ran the Soviet system,” he said, perhaps unaware that in many instances, they are in fact the very same individuals who managed to escape punishment for their crimes. “They use a different set of tools to force us into submission,” he continued, citing, among other strategies, the “artillery bombardments, denunciations, threats and blackmail” from the international media, which so far has been enough to keep most European leaders in line with the deadly agenda.
But that is changing. “The peoples of Europe are slowly awakening, they are regrouping, and will soon regain ground,” Orban said. “Europe’s beams that rest on the suppression of truth are creaking and cracking. The peoples of Europe may have finally understood that their future is at stake: Now not only are their prosperity, cozy lives, jobs at stake, but our very security and the peaceful order of our lives are menaced as well. At last, the peoples of Europe, who have been slumbering in abundance and prosperity, have understood that the principles of life that Europe has been built on are in mortal danger.”
One important element in the battle will be understanding what Europe is and was — its history, its heritage, its traditions. “Europe is the community of Christian, free, and independent nations,” he explained, blasting the hordes of pseudo-human rights activists endeavoring to change that and attacking everyone who resists with false allegations of “xenophobia” and more. But with tens of millions of Muslims getting ready to head for Europe, all that Europe represents would be fundamentally transformed. “Mass migration is a slow stream of water persistently eroding the shores. It is masquerading as a humanitarian cause, but its true nature is the occupation of territory. And what is gaining territory for them is losing territory for us.”
Orban was clear that those who come as new family members, allies, and genuine refugees are welcome in Hungary and should be welcome in Europe to make a new home for themselves. “But those who have come here with the intention of changing our country, shaping our nation in their own image, those who have come with violence and against our will — have always been met with resistance,” he explained, vowing not to import terrorism, crime, or antisemitism from abroad. He also blasted EU schemes to resettle immigrants across Europe against the will of nations and the people's elected representatives, saying that in Hungary, at least, it would not fly.
The real danger, though, is not even the tsunami of Islamic immigrants, the overwhelming majority of whom are military-aged males. “If we want to halt this mass migration, first we must curb Brussels,” he said. “The main danger to Europe’s future does not come from those who want to come here, but from Brussels’ fanatical internationalism. We should not allow Brussels to place itself above the law. We shall not allow it to force upon us the bitter fruit of its cosmopolitan immigration policy.” He vowed that there would be no urban areas in Hungary beyond the reach of the law, so-called “no-go zones.” There will be no mass disorder or immigrant riots. And there shall be “no gangs hunting down our women and daughters.”
As for the EU's extreme agenda to force nations to accept tens of thousands and then hundreds of thousands of Islamic immigrants, Hungary will refuse. “We shall not allow others to tell us whom we can let into our home and country, whom we will live alongside, and with whom we will share our country,” he said. “We reject the forced resettlement scheme, and we shall tolerate neither blackmail, nor threats. The time has come to ring the warning bell. The time has come for opposition and resistance. The time has come to gather allies to us. The time has come to raise the flag of proud nations. The time has come to prevent the destruction of Europe, and to save the future of Europe.” He called on every Hungarian and on every European, regardless of party, to unite.
Evoking memories of Hungarian and Polish resistance to German and Soviet tyranny, Orban said Europeans knew how to resist oppression from afar — tyranny that would have swallowed up Hungary if it could have. “Faceless” globalists, he said, intend to eliminate everything that is “unique, autonomous, age-old and national.” They aim to “blend cultures, religions and populations, until our many-faceted and proud Europe will finally become bloodless and docile.” “And if we resign ourselves to this outcome, our fate will be sealed, and we will be swallowed up in the enormous belly of the United States of Europe,” he added. The task for Hungarians and other Europeans who have not yet “lost all common sense,” then, is “to defeat, rewrite and transform the fate intended for us.”
Despite being increasingly demonized by EU bosses and their largely discredited propagandists in the press, Orban has been on a roll exposing many of the EU's lies. For example, under the guise of defending Europe's borders, Brussels is pushing a scheme to build up an EU military force that would have the power to intervene in European nations, even against their will. But when Orban's government tried to control the border — putting up a fence and placing troops along the borders with Serbia and Croatia —eurocrats went ballistic, firing off a nasty and threatening letter warning Hungarian authorities to cut it out. In short, Orban's actions exposed the regime in Brussels as liars trying to deceive Europeans and usurp even more power.
For the sake of Western civilization, Christendom, liberty, and the survival of independent nations, Europeans and Americans should consider Orban's warnings carefully — and resist the globalist agenda. The alternative, as Orban so eloquently put it, is slavery.
To understand life, you first have to understand death. This is why we include images of death. The best we can hope for, is that death will be comfortable.
95 percent of the victims of violence are men. Because women are natural cowards who send men to handle things when they are dangerous.
The route between Senegal, Mauritania and Morocco and the Spanish Canary Islands was once the busiest irregular entry point for the whole of Europe, peaking at 32 000 migrants arriving on the islands in 2006.
But the numbers dropped by 60 per cent in 2007 following bilateral agreements between Spain and Senegal and Mauritania, including repatriation agreements. Strengthened border controls, including the installation of the SIVE maritime surveillance system, also helped, along with the Frontex-coordinated Operation Hera.
Migrants on this route were mostly from Morocco and Senegal, with others from Niger, Nigeria and Mali. They generally travelled in long wooden fishing boats, known as cayucos; migrants from Morocco use smaller fishing boats called pateras.
The numbers continued to drop from 2007, until by 2012 there were just 170 arrivals in the Canaries. The figure remained stable for the next two years, although it rose to 874 in 2015.
The Moroccan smuggler operation is not well developed. Sea passages tend to be arranged by individuals working independently, serving clients who have made their own way to the coast rather than using the services of organised networks. Small boats found on Lanzarote containing very small numbers of migrants gave strong indications that drug smuggling was the primary goal of these journeys.
The world in 200 years will be populated by a few thousand male humans who live indefinitely, and a huge number of female looking robots. Women aren't needed, really, and anyway, women are troublemakers, more than anything else.
What do oysters, strawberries and cannabis have in common?
According to a new report, all three may be considered powerful aphrodisiacs.
A new study published in the Pharmacological Research journal is lending further credence to the long-held theory that cannabis could be your best friend in the bedroom.
In the study, researchers from the University of Catania in Italy and Charles University and Masaryk University in the Czech Republic reviewed a number of investigations conducted in the 1970s and 80s on the effects of cannabis on sexual desire and satisfaction.
What they discovered was that people who consumed cannabis before sex experienced “aphrodisiac effects” in roughly half of the reported cases, while 70 percent claimed that pre-coitus consumption led to “enhancement in pleasure and satisfaction.”
One of the examined studies was that of Erich Goode, a former professor of sociology at Stony Brook University, in 1970. Goode found that frequent, moderate cannabis use could be linked with aphrodisiac effects in approximately 50 percent of users surveyed and increased pleasure in about 70 percent of subjects.
A 1983 study published in The Journal of Sex Research supported Goode’s findings, writing that about half of surveyed cannabis users reported increased sexual desire and about two thirds reported increased sexual pleasure after consuming cannabis.
In these studies, details like how much and how often participants smoked held considerable weight. For example, smoking roughly 50 joints over a six-month period proved beneficial, while smoking fewer than one joint a week resulted in a dramatic decrease in sexually enhancing effects, according to Goode’s research.
In a 1974 study, CEO and president of the Human Vaccine Project Wayne Koff found that a single joint was sexually stimulating, while higher doses made sexual satisfaction more challenging, meaning “less is more.”
The lesson here? Next time you’re looking to spice things up in the bedroom with any number of time-consuming recipes or complex toys, consider lighting up - albeit briefly - instead.
We, the elite, want all young beautiful women for us. Better not to tax alcohol and tobacco, as it removes low-quality men from the sexual arena. Also give them street drugs to ruin their health and lives.
Home | Index of articles