# The eerie Aryan aesthetic of Ralph ‘Lauren’

Honestly, this side-by-side is all I need to rest my case, it’s like they cloned him.

Right click and save for full size.

Qualities: sporty tan, facial symmetry, blonde hair, blue eyes, high cheekbones, strong jaw in men and full mouths in women, physically fit and shown to be active, affluent upwardly mobile poses.

Lots of blond, improbably….

ironically, California’s whole sporty blonde with a tan aesthetic was originally Nazi.

It’s American as Sauerkraut.

Note the deep tan. People think they wanted Nordic white-white but nope, they wanted golden tans, to accentuate the hair and eyes.

The facial proportions are distinct of the Nazi aesthetic for blood ‘superiority’, this was even in my school’s PC as hell textbooks.

This information is hardly hard to find.

You’d think a Jewish brand would promote anything BUT that…. logically.

Unless it’s been trading on white aesthetics (cultural appropriation) from the start.

I’m not saying it’s intentional. It’s sure as shit recognizable.
Especially white on women as the Roman code for purity.

The same hairstyle and colour.

The SJWs never touch this. Why?

I cannot be the only one seeing this. It’s actually creepy.

Same poses and everything.

Even mirroring.

It looks like the same guy. Sorry, is anyone else seeing this?

Pure white again, the only thing missing is the pigtails!

Again, it’s the SAME face.

Right???

It’s like you put Nazi propaganda into a photo AI and this was spat out.

You can even shop any white Lauren model into a Nazi uniform and it fits.

Source: Pinterest, obviously.

Why has nobody ever taken them to task on this?

I’d swear it’s the same guy.

Look in high-res, it’s more obvious.

it’s the same fucking face, C’MON, it’s like someone copy and pasted their homework

The haircut, colour and literally styling is the same.

I can do this all day. It’s like some advanced AI shit. I feel like I’m watching High Castle.

The hair slick may have been borrowed, that’s all I’m saying.

Again, all day. Statistically, what are the ODDS of this?

The hair swoop is even in the same fucking direction. That’s commitment.

How do they have the same faces? This is almost literally impossible.

Literally HOW.

It isn’t that all white men look the same, I wish you all looked like models.

And how do you explain the fact it works with the women too?

All those blonde women are different women. Look at the hairlines.

Posted without comment at this point.

The anti-fa hipsters knowingly sport Aryan hair too. Aryan hair, don’t care?

So it’s okay when THEY do it?

Clown world, truly.

https://thebolditalic.com/quiz-hitler-youth-or-hipster-with-an-undercut-78abfd96ac9e

Honk honk.

Looks like a Ralph Lauren ad.

http://machohairstyles.com/best-hitler-youth-haircut/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/11/30/does-this-haircut-make-me-look-like-a-nazi/

https://9gag.com/gag/aA1eKDE/one-of-the-most-popular-hairstyle-comes-from-mandatory-hairstyle-used-by-the-waffen-ss-hitlerjugend

To the guys acting like skirts above the knee are degenerate:

imagine thinking a buzz cut is LESS Nazi

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/thank-you-macklemore

Was this an excuse to stare at male models? Maybe. You can’t prove that.

The damn tilt is the same. EVEN THE TILT.

# Video: Cultural before Marxist

The snatch THEN the bait.

Making uprooting cool (hippies, Boomer gen) and by the time the tree is shaking in the wind (now) it just needs a little push….

And the origin of this premise? Das Frankfurt Schule.

Down with Western civ requires a multi-level pruning of influence, e.g. most famously anti-white gender war on both sides deter replacement birth rate.

the newfags will get it eventually, once their sperm turns autistic

They view us as a group, whether you bully half of it or not. They won’t go easier on you.

This also applies to pushing all forms of foreign culture as ‘superior’ (xenophilia, Boomers started it). Foodies and food trends (wtf) cannot push African culture on white men (Exc. music and ebonics) but they can push Asian due to a lowered guard (little dick stereotype they endure, while stealing your job) so Japanese was in then Chinese then Thai, anything non-white = good. This is sensory reprogramming of your brain. However many insects and how much MSG, it was pushed as superior because anything to boost white male colon cancer rates ist gut. This applies also to sexual behaviours (behavioural contagion and supernormal vectors) as well as clothing (“street fashion” permitting non-white societal/street/pavement dominance, no trend naturally lasts THIS long – decades- but making criminals look visibly obvious by comparison would prematurely end the game of pretending it’s about assimilation). If white men all wore top hats tomorrow, how would a hoodie rob you without being seen? They’d stick out like the outsider they are. There’s no urban stealth value if the honest signaller stops playing. The dishonest cannot imitate high-cost honesty e.g. exposed face, a white value. Much is discussed of androgynous fashion, but reject multicultural fashion too, it permits those who hate you to hide as One of you. Application is the distinction, nodding means nothing. If white people only went to white food restaurants, how many immigrants would go out of business, and go home? It isn’t just about the Netflix subscription, their system is local by design. You are responsible for your consumption choices, as a behaviour. Do you watch anti-white youtubers (this includes bashing white women, tarred with one irrational brush as ‘American’ and mysteriously leaving out the super-majority of women on the planet) and do you have the xenophilic ‘preference’ for ‘exotic’ food? That is a vote, with your feet. That is paying for your replacement.

Change your palette, stop with the politically correct ‘palette’ in home decor, ‘art’, music, clothing, ALL consumption. THAT is how you kill the Hydra, starvation. SHUN the degenerating forces.

They be CULTURAL.

We used to mock aristocrats for demanding foreign food, especially made by foreign chefs/slaves. How prissy, how effeminate! Now who’s the joke? Is curry really ‘British’? We haz the recipes, stop it already. If most of the culture you pay for is foreign, you are voting for the death of your patriotic traditions.

Don’t get me started on Boomer nomad ‘international’ hero James Bond and the slutty alkie death of the patriotic gentleman archetype.

I expect the manosphere to rip this off in a few years.

Patrick Bateman had a bland Ikea apartment before it was in Fight Club, and it only worked because as an American, there is no national identity anyway. There is no patriotic historical style. There is no unified aesthetic of all states. There is no hierarchy because there have never been ‘betters’ to imitate, no ‘upper crust’, no court system. There is no building with ancient-tier materials, the whole style is disposable. This is why trends emerge from America, trying too hard. Consider the cringe phrase ‘bachelor pad’. Groovy, baby.

You’re not WASPs and despite the public cope efforts of fug people like Jackie Kennedy, you never will be. Enjoy the pearls, famed from Scotland. Worn by the English monarchs to show dominance before and after we genocided some of their tribes. But an American taught the Chinks to forge them… Enjoy.

It’s like the PC boutonniere boys on Youtube wearing Brit hunting gear as a ‘suit’, as if it’s a business suit. That’s like turning up to a funeral only in bright red swimming trunks. WTF America. Another is wearing military-style clothing while slagging off the nation’s army and opposing the draft*. WTF. Clothes have meanings.

*Greece still has a mandatory military service, like Croatia and other white places, so you don’t get to call them cucks if you’re a pussy. Note – their men still look like it.
Americans are renowned in England for being such huge wimps they play rugby with child safe style padding and armour and changed the name (‘American’ football). I played rugger age 12 at school and none of the girls needed padding. Even disabled kids had a tendency to shun it.

Minimalism from the 1930s was invented by and pushed internationally by artsy Jews ‘fleeing’ Frankfurt and 1920s brothel Berlin. How many trends last almost a century, organically? Wake up. Ralph Lauren’s jumpers are Jewish like he is. The fake hollow WASP aesthetic was their entryism. The psychological punishment of solitary confinement is living in the same bland Ikea box some of you pay for!

# r-type feels entitled

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8776409/Donor-wins-legal-battle-clinic-used-sperm-father-13-children.html

You can’t half-ignore sexual selection when it’s convenient. Reminds me of the PUAs planning surrogacy – they’ve never spoken to a single father. You can’t be a little bit pregnant and donating sperm means anyone can have it.

An official donor consent form made clear the restrictions he wished to place on his donation.

The good eggs never go to a clinic, neither does the good sperm.

He’s right since there was paperwork but he’s also silly.

• He was told by the clinic he had ‘Superman-strength sperm’ and was asked to become a donor to help others;

not very brainy?

• A change in the law in 2005 means all the children have the right to receive information about their biological fathers – which means they can get in touch with Mr Gaskell when they turn 18;

Duh, laws always change. The child had no choice so their rights trump the ‘anonymity’ of the parent.

• The HFEA has confirmed the clinic should never have accepted Mr Gaskell as a donor because his views were contrary to the Equality Act, which states that donors and clinics cannot ‘discriminate against protected groups’.

But you can’t argue with biology. It takes a man and a woman to create a child, and it’s my view that if children are being born with my sperm they must have a mother and a father.

You ARE the father, moron.

The bitter irony is Mr Gaskell and his former partner spent 14 years trying to conceive before they had their first child, following IVF treatment in Australia, in 2008.

Expect to hear a lot of sob stories from r-select men.

Be careful what you wish for.

In exchange, he and his ex-partner were offered a discount on their next IVF cycle by the fertility clinic – a common practice.

conflict of interest

When filling out the HFEA consent form in the clinic in April 2010, Mr Gaskell said he was told he could place restrictions on his donation.

Then it isn’t a donation.

He should be able to but ‘equality’…..

‘The lady from the clinic, who filled in the form on my behalf, said some people want to put “Not for same sex-couples”. So I asked her to write that down.

idiot

Because the form also said that the donation would go to a maximum of ten families, I assumed that meant it would go to couples, not single women.

idiot

I wanted to protect the sanctity of my own family, my own children. If the donor-conceived children had a father figure, I thought it would reduce the chances of them making contact with me later on.;

so the r-type doesn’t want to be held responsible for his own actions

quelle surprise

if you cared for sanctity you’d never donate

wait until those 13 sprogs try to claim inheritance from his legitimate children after he’s dead

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

The fertility clinics need to be criminally punished for ‘mistakes’ though.

‘I’d gone 14 years believing I was never going to be a father only to eventually get three children of my own. Now I was being told I had 13 more.’

The strain destroyed his relationship and the couple separated.

Was it worth it? But they called you super-sperm, was it worth it?

comment

IVF should be illegal … some things in life are not meant to be.

Stop bailing out the shit genes.

comment

If he wants those rights he should be paying to raise those children like any father figure does. How do you get one-way rights to children as fathers have responsibilities and duties.

Exactly. r-Men expect to get a wife and kids without the marriage bit. It doesn’t work like that.

Altruistic motives and the laws of the day can’t protect you from malfeasance or subsequent law changes, so why take the risk? Once you donate, you lose all rights to the outcomes but keep all the risks it seems.

Duh?

It isn’t Christian to produce kids outside of wedlock. Caring about the genes of the future is silly if you’re Christian. It’s pure Darwin to care about that versus Revelations, although humanity will eventually go extinct.

There’s also the recognizable limit of “your” DNA in humanity to about 150 years (assuming recessive, within-race children), even if you had a thousand children. I think our moral and wider societal decline occurs now because the Victorian genes are finally dying out.

Men are naive to donate sperm. Don’t do it. There is nothing you can do if the law is changed and they come after the donor for child support at any time over the next 30 years.

Also duh.

Women aren’t generally dumb enough to donate eggs, are we?

They like white genes with blue eyes best, for donation.

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

They know their own, in all cases of adoption, suspect pedo.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/26/republicans-erupt-over-digs-left-amy-coney-barrett/

now Democratic activists are raising alarm about U.S. District Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s adoption of two children from Haiti.

Nowhere in the Bible does it support adoption of non-genetic children, it’s legalised child-snatching. The Bible says go forth and multiply if you want more kids. The CHINOs are an embarrassment.

Adoption of non-kin children is Satanic. It destroys the child’s legal right to their own heritage, culture and family. Celebrities could sponsor the child at home with the extended family but it’s all about pride. Looking at the child outcomes, like IQ and personality and such are even inherited from the real genetic parents. If you’re not blood, you are not their parent. Stop virtue signalling, children aren’t objects to be passed around like Pokemon cards to whoever has the most money.

The proportion of adopted kindergartners being raised by a mother of a different race or ethnic group rose by 50% between 1999 and 2011. The proportion of adoptees with Asian backgrounds nearly tripled over the same time period. Paradoxically, the fraction of adopted students who are African-American seems to have fallen. What has not changed is that a large majority of adoptive parents are white, older, well-educated, and relatively affluent.

I don’t think abuse of kids is justified if they’re another race, either. We must hold Christians to the correct standards. The Biblical one of if you want kids, make them.

It’s imperialistic. They treat the kid like a handbag, it’s sick.

How dare they call this Christian?

Their parents are generally well-educated and affluent. They receive more time and educational resources from those parents than the average child gets from theirs. Yet they get into more conflicts with their classmates at school, display relative little interest and enthusiasm about learning tasks, and register only middling academic performance. About whom are we talking? Adopted children. This is the paradox of adoption in America.

This is the first study of adopted children’s school behavior that is based on independent teacher reports and makes use of a representative national sample of students from adoptive families.

Yet my analysis shows that adoptees do not do as well in school as one would expect from their highly advantaged home environments. The results call into question the widely held assumption that larger investments of money and time in children can overcome the effects of early stress and deprivation and genetic risk factors.

DUH.

And the model minority thing is also propaganda, look at adolescent drinking/drug use/sexual promiscuity studies. There is no model minority, it’s just propaganda by the Boomers shaming the non-white kid into behaving. As you can see, when they’re not rigging the data by self-report, it doesn’t actually work.

Jayman used to blog about the non-existent parenting effect, even when they’re biologically yours.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4403216/

At best they claim 2-5 IQ point different with within-race adoption white to white, which isn’t significant. It’s never the upper number.

Our analysis showed that, among the biological parents, each additional unit on the parental education scale was associated with 2.7 IQ points in the child, whereas among the adoptive parents, each additional unit of education was associated with 1.7 IQ points.

Can we stop coddling their ego please? I don’t care about adult feefees and ego over any child.

The residual difference between the IQs of the two groups of children was reduced from 4.4 to 3.4 when the difference between the biological and rearing parents’ education was included in the model.

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/more-behavioral-genetic-facts/

Shared environment accounts for 0% of life outcome.

The high early shared environment influence shows that in youth, environmental factors can make a difference. These influences diminish and disappear with time, dashing hopes of lasting parental influence. Some voices – including preeminent behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin himself – often try to claim that the increasing heritability of IQ and other behavioral traits can be boiled down to “gene-environment correlations” (rGE). The idea being that people seek out environments to suit their genetic proclivities (which they do), and the influence of that environment leads to the final trait. This is a nice rosy idea, because it appears to leave the door open to environmental manipulation, if we could intervene in the “proper” ways. However, it is fantasy. We clearly saw in my earlier post that the “gene-environment co-variance” was often negative! One’s environment seemed to be “making” one the opposite of what one would expect. Our experiences don’t shape our political attitudes like we think they do. So is the case with IQ.

Indeed, a meta-analysis of longitudinal twin and adoption studies attempted to test this idea. It sought to determine whether the increasing heritability of IQ could be explained by on-going environmental influence or genetic “amplification”; that is, the compounding of genetic effects over time. This is likely because the effect of each additional gene becomes more and more relevant as children grow up. Indeed, amplification is what they found:

Proponents of the efficacy of nurture – especially parenting – often repeat a few erroneous arguments. Here I will address them. One of them is the idea that parenting, while ineffective for most, may make a difference for individuals with certain temperaments. For example, perhaps the low IQ/shiftless/delinquent/criminal or otherwise poorly dispositioned might benefit from more authoritative parenting, say. It’s a nice idea to think about, but it doesn’t happen. This is essentially “Stolen Generations” wisdom. As we’ve seen in my earlier post, a massive review of twin and adoption studies found no significant shared environment effect on criminality in adults (well, modeling found a shared environment contribution of 0.09, which can generally regard to be non-significant given the enormous measurement error expected). Even an effect that operated on some children but not others would contribute to the overall average shared environment, which was negligible.

Edit, 6/5/14: [I wanted to expand on the above mentioned review of criminality (by Rhee & Waldman, R&W), particularly the appearance of a small but nonzero (though non-significant) shared environment finding. As we saw, the age the subjects are assessed seems to make a difference. As well, as discussed in my analysis on adolescent psychopathology below, the particular measure used – such who is doing the ratings – affect the values found. For example, self-ratings or ratings by parents tend to attenuate the heritability estimate, and both appear to inflate the shared environment estimate, at least in youth. The Rhee & Waldman meta-analysis is no exception. Here are the ADCE (A, or a2 = additive genetic variance; D, or d2 = non-additive genetic variance; C, or c2 = shared environment; E, or e2 = remaining variance) components as computed based on information given by different raters:

 Rating method a2 d2 c2 e2 Total no. of pairs in category Self-report 0.39 – 0.06 0.55 13,329 Other report (usually parents) 0.53 – 0.22 0.25 6,851 Criminal records 0.33 0.42 – 0.25 34,122

The total, or broad-sense heritability, H, is the sum of the additive (the narrow-sense heritability) and the non-additive genetic components. As we can see, when actual criminal records (a semi-objective metric) are used, as we’ve seen, the heritability shoots up to the usual range, at 0.75, and the shared environment estimate vanishes. The criminal record analysis also captures the largest number of subjects, bolstering its reliability. Parent reports, as seen below, inflate the shared environment measure. The self-report gives a negligible shared environment estimate, but reports a lower heritability estimate – which is not surprising, given that we can expect self-reported criminal behavior to be poorly reliable. It is unfortunate that R&W don’t separate out parents from peers and other non-relative raters in “other report.” Additionally, the adoption studies found a negligible shared environment impact of 0.05 between adoptive parents and adoptees. It is also too bad that R&W don’t cross tabulate the results by rating and age. But, as discussed below, adolescent shared environment effects maybe an artifact of unreliable raters anyway.

(For the record, the countries spanned by the studies in the meta-analysis include the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Australia, Denmark, and Sweden.)

The bottom line, it’s clear that when it comes to anti-social behavior, the 75-0-25 rule holds perfectly firm. Parents and parenting do nothing to create upstanding citizens, and heredity is considerably important. ***End Edit***]

But the eugenicists were wrong about everything, ignore the historic era of prosperity exactly one generation after their American sterilizations in the 20s… which they predicted.

Indeed, also supporting this is another massive meta-analysis of behavioral genetic influences on adolescent psychopathology (personality disorders). These captures various types of child misbehavior and dysfunction, including convenient diagnoses such as “oppositional-defiant disorder.” A look and the breakdown of their results is far more interesting than their main reported results. Typically, shared environment effects are seen in children (<18 years old). The main study reported this, but fortunately, they decomposed the type of measurements used. In addition to self-report and parental report, they also had teacher report, peer reports, and clinical diagnoses. The self and parental reports showed lower heritabilities (0.3-0.5) and significant (though small) shared environment components. However, when teacher or peer reports were used, they found much higher heritabilities, in the 0.65-0.8 range. As well, the shared environment impact vanished. Using clinical diagnosis also produced a zero shared environment impact. Considering the sheer size of this review, it’s clear that parental behavior dosen’t contribute to this malaise, even at these ages.

Adoptive parents can lie? Why do that?

[ego]

The problem of somewhat unreliable measurements (noise), especially coming from self-report, was illustrated in my earlier posts. Averaged peer ratings serve to adjust for this problem to an extent both by providing more proper social context by which to make accurate comparative ratings and by cancelling out fluke readings. Indeed, one behavioral genetic study, which attempted to investigate the idea of a “general factor of personality” (GFP), akin to g for cognitive ability, found that when using the combined scores of self and peer ratings, the heritabilities of the Big Five personality traits shot through the roof, with the additive heritable component being:

• Extraversion:           0.86
• Openness:              0.92
• Neuroticism:            0.59
• Agreeableness:       0.85
• Conscientiousness: 0.81

This demonstrates that more accurate measurements consistently push up the heritability estimate (even pushing them towards 100%), giving us the basis of the 75-0-25 or something rule.

As for the sixth dimension of personality, “honesty-humility”, the H component of the six factor HEXACO, evidence of its high heritability is also established, as we saw previously. Indeed, a recent post by Peter Frost (Evo and Proud: Compliance with moral norms: a partly heritable trait?) discussed a twin study from Sweden that looked at various forms of dishonesty, such as fraudulently claiming sick benefits or evading taxes. And sure enough, these particular behaviors showed considerable heritability. There is a desperate need for cross cultural behavioral genetic analyses. Many dimensions of personality systems like the HEXACO (as imperfect as they are) are likely to systematically vary from culture to culture.

The usefulness of behavioral genetics – indeed, the single most powerful and solid area of all social science – is highly evident. But behavioral genetic methods can be used to address several long-standing questions. Here we see it’s clear that parents don’t leave much of an impact on our behavioral traits. But what about people who aren’t parents? Here I will look at two sets of important people, spouses and peers.

It is no secret that spouses correlate on behavioral traits. This, assortative mating, is a powerful force, as we’ve seen previously. There are two aspects where spouses are highly correlated – the things you don’t talk about in a bar: politics and religion. Some have assumed that a good bit of this is because spouses grow more similar with time. But is this the case?

This is where the “extended twin” design comes in handy. One large study (N > 20,000) in particular looked at precisely that. By including twins, their spouses, and parents, etc, they were able to directly measure assortative mating. What did they find? Spouses were correlated for several traits. But the traits they were most correlated in were political orientation and religiosity. Social “homogamy” (having the same background as your spouse) couldn’t explain this, as the correlation between MZ twins and their co-twin’s spouse were consistently higher than that of DZ twins, and so on. As well, spouses weren’t influencing each other, as the correlation between spouses was not affected by length of the marriage (even when only couples married <2 years were examined).

The neocons marrying lefties are kidding themselves.

And leagues clearly exist, assortative mating is genetic.

The study was also able to lay to rest another persistent myth. We’ve heard that we choose spouses like our opposite sex parent (like our mothers for men and like our fathers for women). Anyone who’s remotely genetically informed should be able to see that this could just be due to choosing mates like ourselves. And so is the case. As the authors put it:

there was no evidence for the sexual imprinting hypothesis. Twins’ partners were not significantly more similar in any trait to the twin’s opposite-sex parent than to the twin’s same-sex parent or a DZ co-twin of either sex, nor was there even a trend in this direction

These results were also consistent with the Peter Hatemi et al extended twin study on political attitudes featured previously.

The similarity between spouses has nothing to do with mutual influence, but assortment. At least this bit is common sense. I suspect few long married individuals will believe that they changed their spouse.

On that note, a key theory put forward by the woman who first elucidated the non effect of parents, Judith Rich Harris, was that the unique environment “influence” might be boiled down to peer influence. Staffan did a nice recap of Harris’s theory (see The Nurture Enigma – How Does the Environment Influence Human Nature? | Staffan’s Personality Blog). We all have heard of peer pressure. And indeed, peers seem to be an important force when it comes to language and behaviors like smoking initiation. But do peers really have this great influence, as Harris posits? Well, as I posted over at the Lion of the Blogosphere:

Most research into peer effects is confounded by the same thing that standard parenting studies are: inability to control for the effect of heredity.

And:

A behavioral genetic study (on the Add Health data) that looked specifically at GPA and found that 72% of the similarity between U.S. high school students and their peers could be explained by genetic factors. In other words, school performance and the apparent peer “influence” is really just kids choosing to associate with kids of similar intelligence and motivation:

A behavior genetic analysis of the tendency for youth to associate according to GPA

Peers seem like a fine avenue to get excited about, because it seemed like a vehicle through which parents could assert some influence. But, when you really consider it, peers can’t really be all that important in the long run, because if there were systematic effects of peers on adult outcomes, it’d turn up in the shared environment, which it doesn’t. One could posit that the effect of peers is completely random, but if that were true (aside from the major violation of Occam’s Razor that presents), why worry about it?

The “75-0-25 or something” rule is robust and reliable. This instructs that should we find some major deviation from this, it can be taken to be a sign something is seriously amiss. We saw that with male homosexuality (see Greg Cochran’s “Gay Germ” Hypothesis – An Exercise in the Power of Germs). Now I will discuss two curious exceptions to this pattern.

One rather astonishing example was the heritability of social trust.behavioral genetic study out of the Netherlands found that the heritability of trust in others, as measured by:

The trust-in-others and trust-in-self scales were designed to include three items that were central in existing scales … thereby capturing items with positive valence (“I completely trust most other people”) and negative valence (“When push comes to shove, I do not trust most other people”), both of which explicitly used the word “trust”, and an item that captured the broad behavioral implication of the trust: the intention to accept vulnerability, as explicated in one of the most widely-accepted definitions of trust … (“I dare to put my fate in the hands of most other people”)

…found no significant heritable influence on these. The extent that people trusted, at least as captured by these measures, was virtually entirely a function of the unique environment.

homogeneous environment > high trust

not hard

This was a puzzling result. The clear pattern of the high heritability of all behavioral traits was established, as I’ve discussed. So how could a propensity to trust not also be influenced by genetic factors? One explanation touted around was that trust is contingent on experience; if we found people trustworthy, we would trust. If we didn’t, we would not. While that might sound convincing, the trouble is that the same could be said for many other behavioral traits. Is general trust less socially contingent than say bigoted feelings against some groups, like homophobia (which is at least 54% heritable)? That seems rather unreasonable.

One key question: how do they assess “trust”? Just how good was their measurement? Measurements in social science need to meet three basic criteria: they need to be reliable (that is multiple testing instances of the same individual should give roughly the same results), they need to be “valid” (that is, be predictive of some real-world outcome), and they should be heritable. This trust measure clearly fails on the third criterion. However, the study authors claim the test-retest correlation was good, so it is reliable. But what about the second? Does this trust measure actually predict anything?

To find out, I looked at a study that sought to answer that very question. This study, done in Germany, looked in detail at the reliability and the validity of their measurement of trust, a measurement very similar to the Dutch study. The noted a key point, one HBD Chick will appreciate. That is, trust is multi-faceted. There is trust in institutions, which is distinct from trust in known others, which is distinct from trust in strangers (I’d imagine HBD Chick would break it down one more, and separate “known others” into family and non-family). But more importantly, to question of validity, they assessed this by the correlation between trust in strangers and trusting behavior in the “dictator game.” They found a correlation, but only with trust in strangers.

But their correlation was very small (Spearman’s $\rho$ = 0.17) – and this is with a game which itself has questionable relation to trust behavior in the real world. I suspect that their instrument is not predictive of any trusting behavior in the real world. It’s worth mentioning another (fairly small) study of the heritability of trust from Australia found a non-insignificant heritability, though a smallish one (0.14-0.31).

The situation with trust is unclear. But this brings me to another example of a feature for which the heritability estimate appears to be trivial. That is the female G-spot. A study on about 1,800 female twins from Britain found that the heritability of the reported presence of a G-spot wasn’t significant. The result was virtually entirely unshared environment. Debate has raged on as to whether or not the female G spot exists at all, but that is to be expected, since research into human sexual behavior is among the most difficult to conduct properly. But, the result from this study indicating that the G spot isn’t heritable is puzzling. If the G spot was a real anatomical feature, and one that wasn’t universal, then one would expect a rather significant heritable impact. The finding that it’s not heritable points to one of two conclusions. One, perhaps the G-spot is in fact universal, but only some women have “discovered” it. That seems rather implausible, given the rather significant variation in heritable morphological features of sex organs in women. The second possibility is that the G-spot in fact doesn’t exist at all, and women who claim to have one are mistaken. That seems more likely, but I wouldn’t want to completely dismiss the claims of women who state they have such a feature. The mystery remains.

The findings of behavioral genetics, particularly the highly significant impact of heredity and the absence of shared environment effects, in addition to the complete failure to find reliable environmental sources that contribute to the “unique environment” component of the variance, calls into question virtually every pet environmental theory that has been put forward. It guides one to be suspicious of most “environmental” explanations of behavior. Now, let me be clear, I am not saying that these environmental influences don’t exist. I am not saying that if they do exist, we won’t be able to ever find them. I am also not saying that development doesn’t require a complex interplay between genes and environment. Try going without food, water, air, or speaking to another person if you don’t believe me. I am also not saying that the secular changes in human traits that are brought about by gross environmental changes don’t happen. The increase in average height over the past century disproves that. But what I am saying is that you should be doubtful of most pet theories of how the environment influences us, especially those that promise we can control, or sometimes even predict it. For as we see, that’s far from an easy task.

# Double relaxed Darwinian selection

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251531226_The_decay_of_Western_civilization_Double_relaxed_Darwinian_Selection

nb

I’ve noticed a bizarre trend of solid 10-attractive specimen, high IQ spouses (even men!) adopting children over leaving their infertile ‘beloved’.

That shit’s got to stop.

The purpose of marriage is fertility. Not love. Love is good but fruitless lovemaking is God’s way of saying “move on”.

Stigma should exist for that sort of thing, plus adoption is connected to trafficking. I suspect pedo in all celebrity cases.

We should stigmatise married hot people with high IQs who don’t have their own kids. Divorce shouldn’t be a stigma if one party is fertile and seeks children.

# True

that’s why I ‘suddenly’ backed out of multiple ‘good’ career paths, including ‘academia’.

To this day, some people still laugh at me or call me crazy for it.

No regrets.

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-consequences-of-choice.html

The ticket isn’t always a one way non-stop ride that one is offered all at once. Sometimes it’s a lot of little connecting flights designed to get you to the same destination.

Henry Cavill’s pedo activities spring to mind. Most recently with the Millie ashtray currently being passed around.

And Emma Watson ‘hosting’ on a whore yacht ‘cruise’ acc. to CDAN.

They know how to tempt, anyone claiming they cannot be tempted is lying. It takes strength of character to repeatedly say No.

# DNA database collection

Oh, it’s real.

The condition is that the fingerprints or DNA profiles are retained in accordance with a national security determination that will (ignoring the effect of these Regulations) cease to have effect on a date during the period that starts with 1st October 2020 and ends with 24th March 2021.

(3) The retention of the fingerprints or DNA profiles under the national security determination may continue for a further period of six months starting with the date on which the national security determination would otherwise have ceased to have effect.

Tell me again how Boris is based.

It’s a database grab, the genetic database’s purpose is to engineer themselves (like the white HIV resistant gene) into superhumans, possibly plant at crime scenes (if you become a problem) and/or re-write history by messing with labels of the ‘ethnic’ groups….

You’ve paid to be a lab rat, you’ve handed them research materials.
This is the most important data you’ll ever have.
They can produce sperm from DNA now.”

2 and a half years ago. I try to warn you all.

But the dudebros don’t listen because cooties ewww.

# Was Ruth Bader Ginsburg a pedophile?

Well she wanted all the same things (legalized)….

Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg A Pedophile?

1. The age of consent for sexual acts must be lowered to 12 years old.

“Eliminate the phrase ‘carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years’ and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense… A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, . . . [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.” (p. 102)…

Prostitution must be legalized: it is not sufficient to change the law to sex-neutral language.

“Prostitution proscriptions are subject to several constitutional and policy objections. Prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (p. 97) “Retaining prostitution business as a crime in a criminal code is open to debate. Reliable studies indicate that prostitution is not a major factor in the spread of venereal disease, and that prostitution plays a small and declining role in organized crime operations.” (p. 99)

(reliable) studies

“Current provisions dealing with statutory rape, rape, and prostitution are discriminatory on their face… There is a growing national movement recommending unqualified decriminalization [of prostitution] as sound policy, implementing equal rights and individual privacy principles.” (pp. 215-216)

4. The Mann Act must be repealed; women should not be protected from “bad” men.

[coughs in Rotherham]

“The Mann Act . . . prohibits the transportation of women and girls for prostitution, debauchery, or any other immoral purpose. The act poses the invasion of privacy issue in an acute form. The Mann Act also is offensive because of the image of women it perpetuates. . . . It was meant to protect from the villainous interstate and international traffic in women and girls,’ *those women and girls who, if given a fair chance, would, in all human probability, have been good wives and mothers and useful citizens. . . . The act was meant to protect weak women from bad men.” (pp. 98-99)

anti-natal, anti-national

they’re trying to feed this Cultural Marxist push to MGTOW now “legalize enslaving white women by (((pimps))) because muh gynocentrism” it’s just the same anti-white push as before

I can’t believe they’re openly trying – muh fellow conservative supreme gentlemen, sell your genetic future to predatory Jews as a legal transaction! for the good of your reproductive future!

If they enslave white women it WON’T be for white men, and then with nobody to reproduce with we all die, no death camps for white men necessary. There is no end to the global slave demand for white women and children (boys too).

It’s a special kind of stupid. Single people shouldn’t get to Vote on children’s issues. No Vote unless married with kids.

You don’t just begin by chance happening to intellectually seek to turn back every law that makes sex trafficking of children illegal.

MGTOW is controlled ops now, it’s so obvious.

But muh did Epstein do anything wrong?

You begin thinking sex trafficking of children is a good thing you want legalized, (or you are told to defend it) and you then construct arguments for why each aspect of it is morally right, and should not be illegal.

Ginsburg’s problem may be she was a part of something which she now wants to legalize and make moral in her own mind for her own sanity. Or she has evidence out there that her positions were dictated to her by some conspiracy.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2019/01/12/sex-bias-in-the-us-code-1977/

Already covered this, Jan 12, 2019-

Oh look, I pre-dated Q…. again.

A year and 9 months ahead is probably a personal record. #goodhairdontcare

Cabal shill about me: “I’d rather piss off Satan than that woman“. #stillnotdead

re ‘consents’, pedos and other rapists know it’s impossible to prove a negative

LOGICALLY, CONSENT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT

meanwhile

I’ve heard of ‘care home’ experimentation in this country, wouldn’t surprise me.

# They’re opening up the flight logs, are they?

CDAN drop ‘guesses’, reposting from AC comments many months back.

https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/04/todays-blind-items-not-good-list.html

https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/04/blind-items-revealed-3_18.html

https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/04/blind-item-6-it-was-quick.html

Angelina Jolie Illuminati ‘Sex List’ Leaked Online

It never used to have a context box.

My ‘guess’ as to one of the men:

https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/ralph-fiennes

Causes supported include human trafficking.

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/life-style/2017/09/24/British-actor-Ralph-Fiennes-given-Serbian-passport.html

Age of consent in Serbia is 14.

https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/04/todays-blind-items-not-good-list.html

“I am not even including all the producers and directors who are making thousands of hours a year of child porn by filming it in countries where the age of consent is ridiculously low and doing so with the full consent of the film commission in the government.”

Remember this next time some pedo says “but it’s legal there!” who do you imagine writes the laws?

Nephew keeps trying to be famous and is pushed despite zero talent – and does one-eye poses e.g.

and just attended his first Met Gala.

The uncle was in one of “Jeffrey”‘s black books but nobody mentioned it.

Except for me of course.

A link to Meghan’s charity directed to Gold Digger.

Who would do that?

State grooming of children into r

I noticed “early” (forced, aka socially pressured by ‘Sex Ed’ teachers) masturbation triggers menarche from certain girls at school. We all noticed the connection in them. This is a dark reason to “abolish” consent age laws, the ‘if it bleeds’ way of pedo-spotting.

# ParliReach wall contribution

I’ve been told I have white privilege
and how often I would duck it…
I’ve been told I’m Satan* by Marxists
and to all you I say “fuck it?”

I’ve been forced to write on this wall
for the colour of my skin
which is many shades of wrong –
by the people who came in.

I know enough of history
from Robespierre to Mao
to know you’ll see another wall
with the turning of the crowd.

Do not bite the hand that feeds

that’s holding all the cards

do not piss off the productive

or we can let you starve.

I agree with the Marxists, you see
for all the “wrong” badthink reasons.
If you’d been less arrogant
you could have won, with one more season.

By all means, awaken the Saxon;
but he is a bloodthirsty madman.

Have you seen what we’ve done to our kin?
Our brothers, white as snow?
Have you seen the civil wars, the torture and gaol?

What do you imagine we’d do
to a wretch as base and low as you?
You’ve set up an illegitimate colony
and strut around like you built the place.
But we built it once, we can build it again
when we eject you in disgrace.

It didn’t work in Munster, the cages are still there.
If we deported the lot of you, we wonder how we’d fare…?
We never voted for this, we were never asked.
Genocide is illegal, still, your passport is a farce.

You come here and leech off our society.

We’ll tear it down to build another, happily.

We gave you all we had, the country we bled for
you spat in our face, attacked us, had contempt for
the guest right and its conditions, civility and merit
but as we gaze long at the outcomes, you can rightly shove it.
You are clothed in the purple of liars
of frauds and rejects spare
we see through you to your skin
your lies are just as bare.

And as you tell us not to look
behind the curtain tall
it makes us all have time to wonder
is the giant truly …small?
We never tried to push you
it was ‘mean’ to fight you back.
But back us into a corner
and you’ll see we never lacked.

We will never be slaves
it is not in our blood
we are kind and genteel

We groan quietly at first,
you think our tuts don’t matter,
but when we wake from slumber
I tell you, Marxists, scatter!

From the people of this country