...you do realize he is Voldemort? The one who acted to prevent, what he thought to be, the global catastrophic risk?

I have spent 9 years writing texts about x-risks prevention. I spent a lot of money on it and lost a lot of business opportunities. I have been cheated all the time, in business, relationship and even science field. I have been humiliated in sexual field many times. I thought about suicide even I consider it impossible because of quantum immortality.

I thought to stop doing it many times. Nobody reads my texts and even if some one is reading it has zero influence on total probability of extinction.

But... I just return to my computer and continue to work on the texts in mornings, and try to have parties in evening. In fact solving complex intellectual problems provides me with consistent many hours pleasure. Relationship thing do the opposite.

He was forced out of controlling PayPal...and his vision for PayPal was to make it a “full-service financial institution”. He wanted to “convert the financial system from a series of heterogeneous insecure databases to one database.” This is threatening to the global elite in a way that going to Mars is not. Thus, he was forced out.

Do you have actual evidence that this happened or is it just a hunch? I've read a bit about it, and my understanding is that there were other factors... e.g. Musk was pushing the team away from open source and towards using Windows Server for everything.

The Red Pill says is clearly: women want good genes and good resources. This means that men with good genes have the opportunity for lots of sex, and men with good resources get strung along in sexless relationships, and men with neither good genes (looks) nor good resources (money/power) get nothing except shame. Women want the best they can get, so the top 10% of men have sex with the top 80% of women. Below-average men get nothing. Traditional marriage is illegal (“until death do us part” is legally unenforceable). Many women try to copy the behavior of the most attractive men -- promiscuous casual sex that they lie about -- and then settle down with someone much less attractive than their casual sex partners once they reach their late 20s. And for men: most men are weak, emotionally-manipulated, directionless sheep.

I'm familiar with this school of thought, and I think it's a useful perspective to keep in mind. My impression is that its prominence online has more to do with it plugging in to the rage-generating part of a man's brain (helpful for virality) than it having a solid evidential base. (It seems similar to leftist SJW canard in this regard.) Note the lack of citations in the essay you link to. Here are some data points that cause me to think the Red Pill folks overstate their case:

• Cuckoldry seems relatively rare in non-self-selected populations.

• Data does not seem to support the notion of extreme sexual inequalities based on how good looking a man is.

• Only 3-5% of mammals pair bond. Humans are in that 3-5%. If women cheated with bad boys as consistently as the Red Pill types claim they do, pair bonding behaviors would have been selected against. (Note: I believe, though I have no evidence to prove it, that women use their relationship with their father as a cue re: whether to perform more of an r-selected or K-selected mating strategy. If their father is absent, that's evidence that r-selected mating is working out better in the current environment, and hence she feels low self-esteem, feels insecure that no man will ever love her, and assuages that insecurity by hooking up with high status men to prove to herself that she's worth something--or something like that, I don't know the exact psychological mechanism evolution has used to implement this. The takeaway is to date women who have good relationships with their fathers if you want a long-term monogamous partner, not women with "daddy issues".)

And for men: most men are weak, emotionally-manipulated, directionless sheep.

"Now it may be true that modern life leaves most men testosterone-deficient. But if that’s true, the culprit isn’t feminism. It’s bisphenol-A, low protein diets, fructose, alcoholism, vitamin A & D deficiency, and porn addiction." (JD Moyer) Men being weak and sheep-like seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon. Famed psychologist Philip Zimbardo has the story.

Notice the contradiction in the Red Pill worldview. The Red Pill crowd thinks that women ruthlessly choose to mate with assertive, dominant men due to their biological imperative. The Red Pill crowd also notes that the vast majority of guys are milquetoast, submissive "beta" men. But if women have a biological imperative to mate with assertive, dominant men, then why isn't the population of men already made up of 100% assertive, dominant men? You'd expect the submissive "betas" to have been selected out of the population by now.

Even if there's something about modern society that has unleashed hypergamy in women, wouldn't one expect to see a corresponding unleashment of assertiveness and dominance among men?

My answer: It's not so much that women are hypergamous as they seek a baseline level of competence and confidence. For an emotionally stable woman, a committed relationship with a respected brave is far better than a fling with the chief. And men of the past typically possessed this baseline level of competence and confidence:

I had dinner with Stefan Cavallo, a test pilot for NASA (“NACA” in those days) during World War II (interview). Cavallo intentionally flew a P-51 fighter into a thunderstorm to figure out why they were breaking up on the way back from bombing runs into Germany whereas the supposedly weaker B-17s were fine. It turned out that the stresses from turbulence caused the engine internals to come apart. Gaining this knowledge meant the loss of the airplane and Cavallo was forced to bail out of the test airplane.

Cavallo is also notable for being an inventor of the rigid flight helmet. His 1943 design was used by the federal government as prior art in a patent infringement lawsuit defense and subsequently donated to the Smithsonian. [look at that, he was a scientist]

What does this quiet widower hero, still flying light airplanes, think of the society that younger folks have created? “Somewhere along the way younger Americans squandered what we had built,” said Cavallo, though not with any bitterness. When he looks at us he sees timid paper shufflers, aggressive divorce lawsuit plaintiffs, and a general “can’t do” attitude: “By our mid-20s nearly all of us were in what would turn out to be lifelong marriages and we already had kids. The Empire State Building was built in a year.” I was pretty sure that this was an embellishment. They could not have actually built the world’s tallest building in 1/5th the time that we would today spend in the planning and approval process, could they have? Wikipedia shows that Cavallo’s 94-year-old brain is in fact working better than mine!

...

A bunch of us in our early 40’s were staying at the Sangre Froelicher hut (near Leadville, CO) in the late 90s (as I recall) – this hut is part of the 10th Mountain Division hut system in Colorado. There were several older men who it turns out served in the 10th Mountain Division in WWII, I believe they were in their 80’s. We all were humbled by their energy (up at 6am chopping wood, skiing all day, talking till late in the evening) and their camaraderie. It was remarkable, and I will never forget those people. I can only imagine the raw power, energy, and drive they possessed as 20 year olds.

Source. Do you think a man who intentionally flies a fighter jet in to a thunderstorm is a "weak, emotionally-manipulated, directionless sheep"? Do you think the men who built the Empire State Building in a year were also "weak, emotionally-manipulated, directionless"?

Younger British men are less likely to feel completely masculine than older men. Young women complain that men are afraid to initiate conversations with them in real life, preferring to arrange hookups via Tinder. And then there's this tidbit:

It’s a curious medical phenomenon, the increased erectile dysfunction in young males, which has been attributed to everything from chemicals in processed foods to the lack of intimacy in hookup sex.

How does the Red Pill crowd explain that? I'll give you some hints: I don't think there's been some kind of sudden evolutionary pressure for erectile dysfunction in young men, and I don't think it's a feminist conspiracy (both perpetual Red Pill bogeymen--analogous to "cishet white males" on the SJW side of things). It has to be something in the environment, like JD Moyer suggests. See also.

To be clear, the advice is to develop a ripped body that generates tingly feelings in women’s vaginas, not to “be a good person” or “make a positive difference” or even “have a job”. We deserve the coming global Apocalypse.

I'm suggesting this as a first step to fixing your issues with "weakness" and "directionlessness". To a first approximation, I think emotionally stable women (the sort who make good long term partners) are attracted to the product of how good a man is and how powerful he is. So it makes sense to address the area you're weaker in.

So it was OK for them to lie to me?

I did not say that.

I’m gonna go date 5 young women at the same time by telling them lies, then blame them for being insecure when the truth comes out.

If women were as terrible as you claim they are, it would not be necessary to tell them lies. Telling them about the other women you were seeing would increase their attraction to you.

Roosh (Red Pill thought leader) has written multiple times about how girls he's slept with have cried when they found his blog. This is also a data point that works against Red Pill ideology--if Roosh's online personality was actually one that women found attractive, they should want to fuck him even more after finding his blog. I suspect what is going on is that Roosh used disrespect for women as a crutch to overcome the fact that he used to be a weak, directionless man (as a result of unknown environmental factors--see my other comment) and overcome his fear of them. Then once he was reinforced for this behavioral strategy (with what is possible evolution's strongest reinforcer), he kept it up. Mark Manson wrote a good piece on this.

For example, I want to make it illegal to lie about one’s relationship status and sexual history. But, I can’t at my current power level. More specifically: I have met 3 different employees of a certain investment bank, who all were more sexually successful than me despite routinely lying to women to get sex. One tried to seduce my girlfriend at the time despite having one “girlfriend” and several “casual sex partners” who were unaware of each other, and who he implied possible long-term relationship potential with. Another tried to set me up with a woman he was tired of seeing (she wanted a relationship; he just wanted sex) without disclosing that he had had sex with them. A 3rd talked to me about startup projects while badly hiding the micro-expressions for “smugness/contempt” and “duping delight” and then predictably failed to follow up. I’m pretty sure at least 2 of these guys are into spreading genital herpes. But, I looked up the slander laws and it’s illegal for me to publicly shame these selfish men or their firm without recorded evidence (there’s a presumption of innocence), and it’s illegal for me to collect that evidence (two-party consent required for recording, and they avoid using email for their games). Thus, they win, and I lose, and their sex partners lose, and the people they do business with lose (their attitude carries over to their business dealings...it’s all about wealth extraction.).)

OK, so I think you are making a sort of classic geek mistake of believing that the stated rules are the actual rules. This is something most people figure out relatively early in life, but the same cognitive reallocation that makes geeks so good at analytical stuff, and the internal honesty that makes them good at building accurate world models, may mean they take a while to pick this hypocrisy stuff up. To fix this mistake, internalize the fact that the rules don't apply to you. The rules apply to people who follow the rules. Operate with more of a consequentialist mentality. Sometimes the world needs Chaotic Good agents of justice to use Tor through a proxy and talk trash about people online. It sounds like this issue is important to you--this is your opportunity to be a hero. Just keep in mind: "It's only illegal if you get caught". Wait a while after you have left the lives of these men to write about them, and distort your accusations so they won't think of you while you're reading them. Do thorough thinking/planning/research--this is your project, not mine.

BTW a quote from the Playboys blog you link to suggests that Graham's remarks about West Coast wealth may generalize surprisingly well to East Coast wealth:

Regular People Believe Rich People Are Mean: Another false assumption. Rich people are generally extremely logical. If you ask for a favor that you know he can easily do and he says “no” this does not imply that the person is mean. Instead? It implies that he has no reason to grant the favor.

From a consequentialist perspective, I would much rather see you seek revenge in order to get this off your mind and then join aturchin on the good guy team (a relatively high-trust group, by the way, with few bad actors) than stew in effective egoism. And research has found that giving back increases long term happiness, so selflessness may the selfish route in the long run.

Yup. Will do. To be clear, the advice is to develop a ripped body that generates tingly feelings in women’s vaginas, not to “be a good person” or “make a positive difference” or even “have a job”. We deserve the coming global Apocalypse.

Would you date a woman who is a good person and makes a positive difference and has a job but whom you don't find sexually attractive at all?

It's illegal to hurt the people who created the global catastrophic risks, so count me out. I don't work for free.

Do you consider hurting "the people who created the global catastrophic risks" payment?

For example, scientists "cooperate", while criminals and finance guys "defect" whenever they think it'll be profitable.

I think that's a picture of the world that's crude enough to be unusable.

I notice you are using shaming language.

Not quite, I don't shame people, but I do find your attutude unusual. What it maps to for me is the concept of a class enemy. A nice proletarian girl isn't supposed to sleep with a bourgeious man, that makes her worse than a slut -- that makes her a traitor. And the thing about class enemies, you don't care about who they personally are, you just label them by class (e.g. "an actual Owner"). I'm somewhat surprised to find this attitude on the 'net in 2016.

I refuse to sacrifice my life to protect billionaires who would not do the same for me.

Elon Musk has risked his entire fortune for you. "In my case, I think these things are important... I need to do it, I promised people I would do it, but I'm not doing it because this is the most fun way to live."

The world's wealthiest people (the "ownership class") is increasingly made up of scientists and engineers:

If you work your way down the Forbes 400 making an x next to the name of each person with an MBA, you'll learn something important about business school. After Warren Buffett, you don't hit another MBA till number 22, Phil Knight, the CEO of Nike. There are only 5 MBAs in the top 50. What you notice in the Forbes 400 are a lot of people with technical backgrounds. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, Jeff Bezos, Gordon Moore. The rulers of the technology business tend to come from technology, not business.

- Paul Graham

Paul has written 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 essays that touch on the topic of why cooperators tend to get rich in Silicon Valley rather than defectors. The Silicon Valley elite is giving their money away significantly earlier in life than previous generations of wealthy people, and there are indicators that they care more about having their philanthropic dollars actually do good--here's tech billionaire Sean Parker on his giving philosophy. (Not to say that other wealthy people are especially lacking in their philanthropy--check out the Giving Pledge signatories.)

Scientists get less sex than criminals.

High IQ people, regardless of gender, have less sex. But it's hard to tease out exactly why. I lean towards Paul Graham's explanation--highly intelligent people tend to be interested in things other than sex, whereas average people structure large amounts of their lives around it (for example, it's typical for every Friday and Saturday evening to be spent drinking carcinogens and searching for sexual partners). More evidence for this hypothesis: Intelligent people seem to be taller and better looking on average. And intelligent friends of mine who have chosen to optimize for having more sexual partners have done well, especially if they're willing to date down in intelligence (to avoid the problem that highly intelligent women are outnumbered by highly intelligent men and also relatively uninterested in sex) and live in an area with a favorable gender ratio. If you want more sexual partners, a good first step is to start working out--it will give you a masculine physique, help you live longer, improve sleep, improve immune system, improve willpower, etc. Once you've spent some time optimizing to increase your number of sexual partners, you'll likely feel less insecure about who your girlfriends have slept with. (And once you've conquered your insecurities, you can work on cool stuff like decreasing existential risk.)

(BTW note that there are more women graduating college nowadays than men, at least in the US, so being educated gives you a leg up.)

all of my ex-girlfriends had sex with someone who doesn't share my values

You're looking at a small number of data points. Psychological research, insofar as it relates to this topic, is more mixed. Research also seems to indicate that having lots of sexual partners is associated with decreased happiness. Those dominant "defector" types are often rejected by women for longer-term relationships, which sucks a lot more than you would think (speaking from personal experience as someone with a dominant/masculinized facial appearance).

It's illegal to punish people who always defect in prisoner's dilemmas.

If there's a particular sort of defection you are concerned about, you can work to change society in order to disincentivize it. This probably isn't the best example, but I've always wondered why we don't punish rapists (and maybe other criminals) with castration. It seems like something that both the far left and the far right could get behind--the far left is full of feminists who think rapists are unadulterated evil, and the far right can appreciate the eugenic benefits of sterilizing criminals. It's cheaper and more humane than locking someone in a hellish prison cell for years on end. It helps solve the root problem, given testosterone's role in facilitating aggression. And it sends the right message to other folks in society. "Here's a man who defected against the rest of us. He speaks in a high voice now because we literally chopped his balls off. He tried to rape a woman, but now he will never have sex again." I think castrated criminals who lived in lower class communities would inevitably get bullied and made fun of, which seems like exactly what we want to happen (as long as someone is going to get bullied and made fun of in lower class communities, which seems inevitable).

OP hasn't asked you to do anything; just presented some information that he hopes will help people trying to stop global catastrophic risks. If that's not a thing you want to do, it's just not addressed to you.

(You sound very angry and upset. This probably isn't a helpful thing to say right now, but I'll say it anyway: if you can get less angry that will probably help you be less upset.)

This doesn't seem to have much to do with the OP.

Fuck this; I'm out.

Out of what?