Post-war population recovery genes

Men are literally replaceable and that makes them better as a sex.

Exhibit A in the scientific “Men ain’t shit” series.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081211121835.htm

In many of the countries that fought in the World Wars, there was a sudden increase in the number of boys born afterwards. The year after World War I ended, an extra two boys were born for every 100 girls in the UK, compared to the year before the war started. The gene, which Mr Gellatly has described in his research, could explain why this happened.

As the odds were in favour of men with more sons seeing a son return from the war, those sons were more likely to father boys themselves because they inherited that tendency from their fathers. In contrast, men with more daughters may have lost their only sons in the war and those sons would have been more likely to father girls. This would explain why the men that survived the war were more likely to have male children, which resulted in the boy-baby boom.

In most countries, for as long as records have been kept, more boys than girls have been born. In the UK and US, for example, there are currently about 105 males born for every 100 females.

It is well-documented that more males die in childhood and before they are old enough to have children.

That is prior to competition, crime, psychiatric issues including self-loathing and desire to never reproduce, as well as the sexual selection of women for a suitable man.

Externalities like the economy, racial wars, anti-natal culture notwithstanding.

The female genome is more stable, two Xs will do that. It contains more data too, the Y is smaller.

Women must be more stable biologically as the (genetic) carrier sex, another reason against female drafting. If some men die, they clearly recover (and as proven here, come back better) but when a race loses its women, it goes extinct.

So in the same way that the gene may cause more boys to be born after wars, it may also cause more boys to be born each year.

The fitter male lines are self-replacing.  This is why all adult men should have been drafted. The reward of winning a war should be reproducing into your society’s future, to reward the cowards who remained behind is an insult to the brave K-types of the sex.

This is the red-pill. Men evolved to be expendable to one another in the protection of their shared racial germline.

Cowards know they’re cannon fodder. They betray their fellow man (intra-racial Brotherhood is the only acceptable collectivism). It reminds me of the Little Red Hen, and what man would want a coward in their ranks, that’s treason waiting to happen?

Or as we call them, cucks.

Behold, the back-up genetic programme: the self-culling cannon fodder.
Remarkable that genetic dead-ends appreciate the importance of marriage enough to insult all married couples as inferior (rationalization).

Also, demographic decline virtue signalling (- you can’t out-breed Asia, war is inevitable).

Asia*: highest population density, territorial expansive, fastest growing religion (Islam).

Inevitable.

Trump could shit gold and it’s still inevitable.

Why?

More than r-selection, perhaps a feature of it.

If you’re stupid like Asians and murder your girls (glaring at India and China) then you cull the female-preferred genes among men, slowly killing your racial future because there won’t be enough carrier women to go around and the ‘problem’ will only get worse. There is no culling effect equivalent to war in women except socialist policy.

There’s your ‘war against women’. Affirmative Action for unfit male genes collapses both their group and the fit men of their race who were weak enough to allow it to happen. If every man is entitled to 1 waifu thanks to socialist compulsion (and all men, all women forced to marry by law**) but five infant boys survive due to medical technology…. 100-105=-5

Socialism’s birth policies are as dysgenic as their economics that punish effort.
This is why men shouldn’t decide who gets to breed with laws, women evolved for that task.

Socialism cannot replace sexual selection. What the internet considers it is not, reproduction is required.

A war will be mandatory if the leftover men have any hope of reproduction, by conquest and rape  …..and ‘immigration’. The neocolonialism as BPS explained, of buying up properties in another homeland (r-migration for resources).

*As previously covered, most money to purchase is loaned by the Chinese Communist government. They are the true buyers overseas. Ban foreigners from literally buying your country. It’s a matter of national security. That includes the Putin-banished Russians’ blood money in London keeping the gasping death rattle of a real estate bubble alive. I’d extend this to the compulsory purchase of properties made by shell corps overseas, with unexplained funds (anti-corruption law) or belonging to dual passport holders who refuse to drop the other one (loyalty to another nation).

The concrete used in protected property basements is doomed to collapse. Like the postmodern glass monstrosities, they all crumble eventually, that’s why huge basements aren’t built in English soil. Rainy, flood-prone soil. Next to the biggest river incoming to the landmass.

And we get frequent earthquakes, of the sort that causes cracks in… concrete.

It’s a capital city so traffic causes tremors too – including planes.

Every heinous skyscraper you ever see will be self-destructing. Rich tower or council estate.

https://www.cement.org/docs/default-source/fc_concrete_technology/durability/is536-types-and-causes-of-concrete-deterioration.pdf

I’m literally the first person to look this up. Engineers study ENTROPY.

This error is old as Babel. We don’t need to lift a finger, ugly postmodern structures are already crumbling.

They’ll go the way of wooden castles.

Shad viewers? Anyone?

If only the Nazis had simply purchased American land, we’d be speaking German.

They’re still going to shoot you by the way. They need to outnumber you, fill University places then government positions first. If they have the land, all that’s needed are executions.

**Reducing citizens to breeding sows for the government, thanks, socialism!

Socialism is hence r-select and among other issues, assumes all men can be provider husbands, all women are fertile and all citizens are heterosexual. Socialism is doomed to fail by virtue of mathematics and basic biology.

Human history was polyandry

Most women got their top choice. If a woman has her pick of the men, that’s polyandry.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dna-human-gene-pool

So, sure, genetically polygamy has a long history… most men would hate that system though.

But eggs (and the carrier) are expensive, sperm is worthless.

SEXUAL SELECTION IS EUGENIC.

That is not a bad thing. Selecting out the weak are the ones whose offspring wouldn’t have survived long anyway. Humanity would’ve died out if they didn’t choose the healthy and civilized.

By low IQ alone, a sizable number of men should be rejected.

Insufficient men existed genetically for so-called hypergamy, a marriage detail of the 20th century where rich men preferred beauty in women (regardless of background, given the finite supply in their own class, they had to marry down) which has NOT continued into this one (aka not how evolution works). The social phenomena of hypergamy is why male sexual selection fails, it’s dysgenic, they fuck down and over generations, ruin their bloodline because they don’t have any decent standards (dating studies reinforce this). They prefer a pair of marginally nicer tits over quality descendants (see IQ/class studies, regression to the mean) who actually continue to breed (so their investment was not wasted).

To this day, white women are least likely to miscegenate, and yet men, knowing the ruin that follows, are somehow more open (sexually desperate) to the prospect. This is why women are the prudent, selecting sex, the peahens assessing the tail feathers. It’s the only system that works intergenerationally.

Monogamy is still the best course in my opinion (or look at the Third Worlds with too many men and not enough war falling into sewer-exploding chaos), the way humans have evolved in civilization (not like other primates) and it’s definitely the best course for men.

You know, mathematically.

Men save time picking a good woman, impressing a vast sample size of ONE and then mate guarding. Their instincts arise from ancestors’ success with this. Parental attachment becomes secure and that leads to stable child development e.g. later menarche, and then improves odds of grandchildren, etc… etc.

[Being a sterile manwhore means nothing in evolution.]

This isn’t about man feelings, thank you. It’s as impersonal as genetics.

From here on out, no normie filter.

You have been warned.

Much is written by foolish men on the longer technical male fertility window, omitting quality studies, but what they fail to notice is how the vast majority of men would’ve been dead by middle age (mid-30s) thanks to rites of passage, crime, war and disease. The best quality men had to be rewarded for surviving somehow.

They bring up wolf packs (one, monogamous alpha pair) and lion prides (most males are dead) without the slightest glimmer of self-awareness.

EVOLUTION IS A HIERARCHY, IDJITS.

The cuck thing intrigued women because it seemed like quality men were getting their act together by refusing to support the weak ones any longer, letting the entitled leeches of society e.g. deadbeats, shrivel up without the taxpayer teat. It’s more a promise. Why did women vote for Trump? ACTION.

Hillary wanted to import weak, cowardly men to flood their already swelling domestic angry ranks of would-be rapists and murderers.

Women didn’t vote for her. Shocker.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/12/17/americas-stop-hitting-yourself/

“If I hated American men and wanted their legacy to die out, I’d convince them women are like the Jewish Lilith and never to marry or have kids (both of which extend male lifespan and joy).”

Anyone who falls for it deserves to die out.

Women didn’t talk about #killallmen because, well, we kill most of them by genetic suicide anyway. What’s there to say?

Why was this such a huge hit? Listen.

He didn’t think she was good enough, so she rejects him. Now he’s alone.

She wanted to invest, he didn’t. Now he can’t find equivalent offers.

What was she supposed to do, sit around and pine while her ovaries dried up? He had at least three years! That’s three decades in ovary time! Shit or get off the pot, man.

It’s like passing up on a Ferrari because it’s the wrong colour. Men are not passive.

[Also why fronting and negging do not work. Sir, there is a LINE. Please move over so the next guy can talk. You see this in clubs.]

Men get confused since women have options – it’s like offering BBQ to a vegan or a Prius to a Trump supporter, we don’t want those options.

We’d rather have NOTHING.

What’s worse for men – there’s no such thing as “alpha” or there is, and you aren’t one?

So why don’t women talk about it?

We do, you don’t hear it.

At no point did Jesus say “and thus every man is entitled to a waifu” but a lot of men heard it.

The perfect woman of proverbs 31 wears purple silks to make her husband look good but they point to the vain line in another section about pearl braids their husband can’t afford. The problem there isn’t jewelry and fashion, it’s keeping up with the Joneses instead of being a good wife. If you can be a good wife first, roll on the pearls.

Even under so-called polygyny, the women get to choose to marry – the best man, rejecting N-1 of males.

Again, basic maths.

However, this was in there:

I’m sure they forgot.

To be friendzoned, you must actually be friends.

Most people are acquaintances.

Hey guys, I am very smart for saying this but – water is wet?

Why are misogynists so common and misandrists so rare?

To this day, I haven’t seen a misandrist go on a murder spree.

Thousands of years and counting. They have cause, look at crime stats.

What are they doing in revenge? You don’t see a future together? Funny, so does she.

Imagine if women sent an influx of vag pics to Milo. It looks like an audition.

Why do we ‘slut shame’? Fine, I’ll humour you. They don’t choose good men, allow bad behaviour that inconveniences everyone and add shit to the gene pool. Nobody wants shit in their pool.

You let the men think they run everything while killing off the ones who disrespect you.

And that’s why you are here.

The top segment of men support this, by the way, roll on Patriarchy, time of oddly fatal male labour? Abortion only for rape babies? Lots and lots of ground war? Why did Marx point out class war as crushing men? Men are their own worst enemy.

Try to deny it to yourself with each passing year. Women win, just accept it and maybe you can share in it.

Why do “male feminists” turn out to be secretly misogynist the whole time?
Why do they have a reputation for rejection?

This is why weaker men wanted to prevent women from deciding for themselves who to marry.

Evolution is brutal and cannot abide weakness. Mother Nature.

Your ancestors were the least misogynistic of the bunch, it’s selective breeding like domesticating dogs. And you think, to keep women in line and producing for society, being the exception will help you? Ask Elliot how that went. Product of hypergamy Elliot. Angry, mongrel Elliot, who blamed women instead of his father who didn’t want a white son. Cannon fodder in saner times. Not heir material. Why did he preferentially stab Asian males?

Misogynists hate women – but they hate men even more. Most psychopaths are misogynists, most psychopaths are men, most homicide victims are….. ?

Did ya guess? It’s men. If only there were a clever way for nature to resolve this problem. To produce a… civilization?

They don’t become crazy because they’re bachelors, they are bachelors because they are crazy.

If women are crazy, why want them?

As mentioned here and elsewhere, misogyny is a known trait of the inferior male.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/link-inferiority-the-opposite-of-genius/

Good men don’t despise femininity. Rich people don’t hate the banks.

If you had to choose a man to invest in, would you choose a protector or abuser?

Good men use the death penalty to remove the scum from the gene pool, women use passivity with not a drop of blood spilled and each generation progressively more peaceful. Until the weak men imported more dregs out of spite. What do they salivate over? Men being killed in terror attacks, no valor and women being raped, no choice.

That is the omega.

Omega females want pretty women to have ugly, stupid or mud babies. You can’t be out-competed by a better bloodline that doesn’t exist. Again, spite is evil. Wrath is a deadly sin.

That picture needs two fewer dogs and two more children. Ban pets and the white birth rate would skyrocket.

Remember, Muslims hate dogs? Pattern recognition is a skill.

Why in times of war do women say of men in praise “he was a good man, he didn’t deserve to die”, what does that imply?

Sluts aren’t looking for better genes

People making things up from opinion on the internet

isn’t scientific.

Humans do dumb shit all the time. There isn’t a deep sciencey reason.

https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/16165

Evolved mate preferences define a central causal process in Darwin’s theory of sexual selection.

Their powerful influence has been documented in all well-studied sexually reproducing species, and is central to Sexual Strategies Theory (SST) as applied to humans.

Two sentences, totally different meanings.

This chapter takes stock of what is scientifically known about human mate preferences and their many behavioral manifestations. We discuss sex differences and sex similarities in the design features of human sexual psychology as they vary according to short-term and long-term mating temporal contexts. We review context-specific shifts in mating strategy depending on individual, social, and ecological qualities such as mate value, life history strategy, sex ratio, gender economic inequality, and cultural norms. For mate preferences to have evolved, they must be manifested in actual mating behavior in some individuals some of the time, such as those with high mate value in contexts where freedom of mate choice is permitted. We review the empirical evidence for the impact of mate preferences on actual mating decisions, as well as on tactics of mate attraction, tactics of mate retention, patterns of deception, causes of sexual regret, attraction to cues to sexual exploitability, attraction to cues to fertility, attraction to cues to resources and protection, derogation of competitors, causes of breakups, and patterns of remarriage.

The 60s was a mistake.

We conclude by articulating unresolved issues and offer a future agenda for the science of human mating. This agenda includes resolving key debates, such as competing evolutionary hypotheses about the functions of women’s short-term mating;

Why just women?
No wonder you don’t understand if you’re only studying half the equation.

The one time you can get away with that is if the topic is lesbians.

And it’s a cause/effect, chicken/egg issuue?

Are a group more likely to be r-types or can a group choose to act like r-types? Splitting it by sex rather than behaviour is a huge error.

how humans invent novel cultural technologies to better implement ancient sexual strategies;

There were never drug-resistant STDs before hookup apps.

and how cultural evolution may be dramatically influencing our evolved mating psychology.

Degeneration. The word you are looking for: degeneration.

Rolf Degen: “David Buss, pioneer of evolutionary psychology, acknowledges that women are probably not shopping for good genes when engaging in casual sex. He had been a co-founder of said hypothesis.”

Intellectual honesty, my stars.

The alpha genes thing is how male sluts try to rationalize superiority to female sluts.

“Somewhat mixed” no shit.

Small effect size in mating CHOICE = shit.

“no correlation” almost like women are loyal? Hormones don’t turn us into hookers?

The good study I saw was that women avoid strangers while ovulating aka the exact opposite of this BS.

“weak or mixed” with publication bias, non-existant

“questioned on theoretical grounds” it makes literally no sense, it’s an ego theory

“could be interpreted” should have been interpreted this entire time

Funnily, they’re hinting that women only behave badly when they think… like men.

But yes, women are the problem here.

also modern humans =/= ancient humans

“masculine and symmetrical features” those are opposites, symmetry is feminine

do a study on male beauty if you want to study …male beauty

Why would appearance = good genes? You’re so vain…. I bet you think these genes are about you. You’re so vain…

no evidence that slutty* women elevate the importance of intelligence at ovulation

Not the whole group. Words have meanings, what you mean is different than what you write. Assumptions make an ass.

I don’t get to say men are rapists…, it lacks clarity, I would begin the sentence, rapist men… that’s the smaller group I discuss.

“questionable theoretically” we know it’s shit but we need money and “not well supported empirically”

An appeal to please stop lying because it makes people link your studies on forums for confirmation bias.

A dudebro down the gym is not improving his genes. Basic biology.
They would value intelligence but they don’t have much.

Male beauty = good genes

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1690211/

Please, stop denying this. It isn’t very red pill of you.

There’s sufficient text there to see it’s a concrete connection – not limited to symmetry, not vanishing upon single-side presentation, please stop denying this. It’s getting difficult to watch.

Full paper because there’s always that one guy where you can tell what he looks like through the screen, like a fat acceptance activist.

https://scheib.faculty.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2015/05/1999_scheibetal.pdf

Just because they’re scared to use the word beauty in connection to men doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, insecure men are worse than SJWs sometimes.

These studies ain’t hard to find.

You manosphere types are just lyin’.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11487409

Symmetry is actually a misnomer, since symmetry is a feature of feminine beauty.

It was recently proposed that symmetry is not a primary cue to facial attractiveness, as symmetrical faces remain attractive even when presented as half faces (with no cues to symmetry).

This is the issue with treating the sexes as the same, especially in evo studies?!?!???

Here, we use real and computer graphic male faces in order to demonstrate that (i) symmetric faces are more attractive, but not reliably more masculine than less symmetric faces and (ii) that symmetric faces possess characteristics that are attractive independent of symmetry, but that these characteristics remain at present undefined.

I don’t see men arguing we must study this for equality’s sake. [but we should]

They seem to prefer ignorance.

Harder to lie about your alpha genes when it’s literally written on your face.*
Deep down, they know. That’s why so many ‘players’ get plastic surgery.

But women are fake, right, guys?

*again, alpha is a pair and a breeding couple, not an individual, it refers to a social rank

Death is genetic

Especially in the selfish, so the self-destructiveness of liberals (drugs, homosexuality, abortion, STDs) really is a feature, not a bug.

We already know sexual selection is genetic (r/K, HBD inheritance) so obviously natural is too.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/we-are-programmed-to-die-early-and-thats-a-good-thing

If death is gene-mediated, then who is programmed to live longer, r-types or Ks?

“Bar-Yam and his colleagues are arguing that natural selection actually favors traits that self-limit consumption and reproduction, not selfish maximalism, including lifespan limiting mortality. In other words, organisms may be able to have longer lifespans than they presently do, but natural selection has actually favored individuals that clock themselves out early.”

Unclear. Probably K but the variables are iffy.

They’re partially basing off the false idea that more reproduction is always good/favoured by evolution when actually it was responding to the selection pressure of high mortality. Now mortality is low, they should include quality, the alpha genes for the race between the sexes.
Fitness is not N children, that only applies when there is competition from r-types.

Sexual competition.

In a vacuum, K is superior for a society.

Empires rise with K, die with r.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/rk-is-timeless/

“Aside from August Weismann—who in 1882 did actually argue that death was programmed—it’s because when they considered the effect of evolutionary selection, they were taking averages across organisms and their environments instead of considering each individual organism in its local context. By removing the individual from its particular place or location within a given population, this average ignores the complex relationship between that individual and its environment.”

READ DARWIN.

“By looking at how an individual’s local context affects their fitness, Bar-Yam and his colleagues were able to show that traits which may be an advantage in the short-term (such as an individual’s longevity or ‘selfish’ resource consumption) can actually be a significant disadvantage in the long term, and vice versa.”

Implying it’s bad for the nation, the wider genetic kin group or thede.

Nature is nationalist.

“While this may work out well for the most selfish individuals in the short term, if Bar-Yam and his colleagues are correct it could be cataclysmic for our species in the long run.
“What people do affects their environment and that affects their ability to survive,” said Bar-Yam. “This is something we’re all well aware of today. If you overexploit your resources, you’re going to be in trouble.”‘

MALTHUS, she said, screaming into the void.

“As Bar-Yam points out, if death is genetically programmed, that also means it can probably be hacked.”

The problem with the autistic, they assume they know better than nature. They don’t even know what all these genes do in all conditions and they want to go chopping them out with CRISPR. You know why CF spread? It protects you from TB.

For those who know jack-shit about evolution: the vast majority of mutations are bad, not just bad but fatal (anti-fitness, dysgenic) and that’s why it’s good when nature throws away the genetic equivalent of a shitty doodle on scrunched-up paper. That’s why humans evolved to die quickly, to spread up the overall rate of mutation as a species but also to conserve gains quickly too with shorter generational duration (more breeding in same time).

How many people deserve to live that long? Will it include youth or the shit years, extended for centuries? Who wants to slave away for centuries, cos they can’t financially retire? Biohacking is fraught with technical issues.

Repost: ‘Alpha genes’, Patriarchy and the Alpha Female

Why? Easier to search for. The reddit trolls can do their worst (bitch). Slight edits made.

Yup gentiles are lesser beings

The ‘alpha genes’ are the ones that get passed on in a Patriarchy. The genes of the titular Patriarch, the dad. Cads are scum in these societies, along with tarts, not fit to lick their work boots. The beta male in a Patriarchy is the man who cannot or will not become a responsible husband and father. They’re the status level of the Japanese herbivores. Alpha genes build and reaffirm their own societal structure, they aren’t cucked out to the reckless hedons.

Cad and tarts who cannot settle down (even settling with one another) will have an atrocious later life. Nobody will support them. There is no support network. Those who will not, for whatever reason, will not be given the opportunities by Patriarchs, created by Patriarchs, that should go to the other Patriarchs (this is why men only got hired in certain fields beyond requirement, because women weren’t Patriarchs either) in the hope of future reciprocal investment or family connection (by marriage). The old boy’s network has no room for bachelors. They have no skin in the game, they have no social proof. They cannot get on professionally, nor will any respectable family introduce them to their daughters. You’ve heard the idea of hiring a man preferentially because he had a family to support, right? The Patriarchs’ network at play. Just like voting rights being accorded by property ownership aka societal investment required to support a family. This was also open to women once they could inherit prior to being open to all men (read: the nomads asking we end universal suffrage are retarded). Once rooted in a place for life, you’d better behave. It’s a check, it’s all a check. Pass or fail. Like the Church law. That’s why we have religion. And God is a literal father. God is also All-Father, Lord of the Universe.

laughing rdj crack up

I love it when (always male) atheists brag and you can almost see the religious people in the room shrinking from their lives and refusing to help them in future.

The ‘alpha female’ does exist, much to the hatred of cads because she shows them up. Feminists have tried to emulate this woman unsuccessfully by mimicking her external appearance (this doesn’t work with virile men either). She is respected by these men, these Patriarchs, and allowed as an exception despite her sex (which they graciously overlook) because she fits the criteria and behaviour (character, honour, must support a family for practical reasons) and doesn’t cause trouble. She deserves to be there. Powerful men aren’t misogynistic, that’s from a position of role insecurity like all sexism. They look forward to additional competition, in fact. She becomes a woman at home as a man ceases to be a professional upon leaving work, there is role flexibility, the family and its structure and support are important.  Alpha females are rare (the product of two alpha parents and their quality) but demonstrably exist.

Weak men (virginTOW, many PUA) hate them the most for supplanting ‘their’ role they refuse to take up and further insult, out-competing them. They will imply they are promiscuous (in spite of contrary evidence) because they need to believe it would be possible for them to achieve it themselves (and reaffirm their ego) and so insult their lucky mate too (like saying he’s being cucked when he clearly isn’t and we live in a world of DNA testing).

Why do they do this?

IF the barriers to entry aren’t one sex (m/f) like they mistakenly thought it was (told by feminists harhar) but the other sex (promiscuity/quality scale, r or K) their worldview collapses. They become ‘bad men’. They fail in life. It was entirely their choice, they cannot blame women for it. The music stops.

I fucked up, they know subconsciously. What do I do? I must fix this. What can I do? What are they doing?

Their reaction to this is a furious rush to Have it All (settle in the case of feminists and ‘players’) and convince themselves they’ve beat the system (sound familiar?). Predictably, they fail because people see them for what they are – desperate and faking it (we use various psychiatric terms nowadays).

They can’t stand happy monogamy. They hate it. Of course they can’t fake it. They burned out their pleasure circuits on meaningless drinking, drugs and one night stands. They are incapable of fully pair bonding anymore and until recently, saw this as a sign of their success as men (not being tied down) because they were lied to about the ideal nature of men (not sociopaths using people up like soul food), when it betrays a broken lack of human empathy and connection in the cold light of day. Of course no one in their right mind would take them after their ruin and shame. If they do manage to trick a poor sap (see the Simple decision game theory post), they will still cheat. If their spouse is Mr or Mrs Perfect they will cheat even more. They hate their spouse and they hate their marriage. They deserve divorce. Both sexes deserve to be divorce raped because they breached the contract and entered into it dishonestly. This is why society (Patriarchy) pressures marriage – K opportunity arises from it. These people are brats. The support network and opportunities dry up and they blame…. the system. Oh what a shock. It isn’t their fault again.

Myth: There are no successful Matriarchs (and by extension, Matriarchies).

Matriarch societies like Italy do pretty well. They’re at First World standard. Much of Europe is Matriarchal, the women run the house. If you disagree, you don’t know Europe. The men wanted to strike out because the home was secured. We all know about Tiger Moms by now. Genius women were allowed to play with the Big Boys – so long as they didn’t try to lower or alter the standards. Hello, Hypatia, anyone? Supreme BAMF. The beta males of that society thought she made such a disgrace of their manhood by existing they tore her apart. She’s the Patron Saint of the Alpha Female. Being an alpha female is more dangerous for this reason. Both women and weaker men are trying to take you down (this fed into the narrative of oppression). Many limit their influence to the privacy of the home for this reason (and we never hear about them in MSM because they’re happy).