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.

How long can they deny HBD?

Waiting to be a father is irresponsible, imagine my shock.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/31/babies-born-to-older-fathers-tend-to-have-more-medical-issues

“The records showed that children born to men aged 45 and over had a 14% greater risk of premature birth, low birth weight and being admitted to neonatal intensive care compared with babies born to younger fathers.”

Geriatric fathers, yes.
If you’re past middle-age (36-7 in men) and old enough to be a grandfather.

Infants born to men aged 45 and over also scored lower on the Apgar newborn health test, and were 18% more likely to have seizures compared with infants born to fathers aged 25 to 34 years, according to the study in the British Medical Journal.

Why not state all the findings, including compared with <25?

Boomer readership, that’s why. 60 is the new 40 though, sure.

For women, the risk of gestational diabetes was greater when they had children with older men.”

Paternal age as a medical risk factor is long known, I’ve posted on it.

Their study.

http://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4372

“This is something else to take into consideration,” he said. “There are potential risks with waiting. Men should not think that they have an unlimited runway.”

Why isn’t male fertility and issues like impotence mentioned in biology class? Men deserve to know, it’s important life planning. Modern men don’t realise their fertility is dropping steeply until they eventually go to conceive or get a random sperm count for other reasons.

I’d go so far as to call it a public health issue.

They are not fully informed, the information is withheld from them. Where’s the full consent for that wait, if they don’t understand what it might entail?

Obviously the man commenting on the study tries to downplay it but other studies I’ve posted didn’t find mild differences, in some cases extreme (such as psychiatric risk) and that’s without looking at whether the child is mixed-race, that includes the risk even further. Good luck getting that published.

“increases in health risks might have across populations as paternal age continues to rise.”

If it’s a risk across a population, it is also a risk for the individuals within it, showing up his earlier weasel words about ‘individuals’ to be a lie. You don’t have medical complications as a population, it’s personal.

“When I talk to couples about health risks, I use the lottery as an analogy,”

You use a con about people who can’t do maths to… lie to people who can’t do maths.

“Even if your risk for something goes up 10-20%, the absolute risk for an individual

doesn’t change

At all?

that much.”

Hear that gentlemen?


Who gives a shit about your individual risk going up by 20%? Not this guy! He’d rather not offend you but let you slowly become infertile because, by the time you figure it out, you’ll be powerless to do anything about it. White men need to have fewer children, as other Guardian articles have informed us.

You aren’t entitled to oppressive white male fertility.

The researchers calculating risk across the field (here a part of gerontology) know more maths than the doctors downplaying it.

“Eisenberg and his colleagues suggest changes in the DNA of older men’s sperm might explain their findings.”

Berg-berg-berg-berg et al.

“The concern is backed up by previous work, including a Harvard study last year that found births through IVF fell as the fathers’ age increased.”

Duh.

IVF isn’t magic.

“Studies have shown that advanced paternal age is associated with negative health behaviours such as smoking and frequent alcohol consumption, obesity, chronic disease, mental illness, and sub-fertility,” she writes, adding that all are linked to health problems in newborns.”

Sub-fertility, which many clueless men have and they don’t care to warn you about.

It’s almost like men evolved to have children while they were healthier.

From the BMJ article itself:

“Though the effects of advanced maternal age on perinatal outcomes have been extensively studied,

can’t blame women, credits on that excuse are maxed out

research on the impact of older fathers on the health of offspring has been limited mostly to the risk of congenital disease.345678

we’re scared of offending old guys with money

The high number of male germ cell divisions in aging fathers has been proposed to increase the risk of autism, genetic abnormalities, psychiatric morbidity, and neoplasia in offspring, but recent studies have also suggested a potential paternal effect on perinatal morbidity.691011121314

I didn’t call my article Old fathers, sick babies for nothing.
Can’t get sicker than dead or disabled.

This passes down the germline so one bad breeding decision will affect all their offspring’s fitness too (I think the children will eventually sue for epigenetic damages, on poor lifestyle choices prior to conception as well).

I’ve love to see a study comparing older fathers with younger and recording sexual history (partners and diseases) because you know that has an effect. A medical effect. They’re too chickenshit to do it (and record the same in women but paternal factors into their sperm donation are more likely modified by those behavioural factors, his baby-making factory is the testes area so its prior health and the delivery vehicle’s are especially important).

One common explanation arises from the epigenetic changes that occur within spermatocytes; specifically modifications to histone and DNA methylation in spermatozoa of older men. These alterations occur in regions of the genome that are responsible for several diseases in offspring.15 Disruption of histone methylation in developing male germ cells might be a precursor to aberrant embryonic and placental development, with studies suggesting that paternal imprinting of aging could affect both fetal growth and maternal health during pregnancy.”

Degenerate DNA gets so offended when people stop filtering about it.

No prizes why they didn’t quote this part.

I wonder if their boys (because paternal factors would be stronger to another male) are more or less effeminate than the average? Again, they don’t dare do that study.

Paternal imprinting, that’s a nice word for degeneration on a genetic level.

At least they’re acknowledging men age, I suppose.

Looking at non-Guardian approved science:

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-documents-paternal-transmission-epigenetic-memory.html

“Studies of human populations and animal models suggest that a father’s experiences such as diet or environmental stress can influence the health and development of his descendants. How these effects are transmitted across generations, however, remains mysterious.”

I’m guessing the sperm.

….

Just a random, wild guess.

“Epigenetic changes do not alter the DNA sequences of genes, but instead involve chemical modifications to either the DNA itself or the histone proteins with which DNA is packaged in the chromosomes. These modifications influence gene expression, turning genes on or off in different cells and at different stages of development. The idea that epigenetic modifications can cause changes in gene expression that are transmitted from one generation to the next, known as “transgenerational epigenetic inheritance,” is now the focus of intense scientific investigation.

For many years, it was thought that sperm do not retain any histone packaging and therefore could not transmit histone-based epigenetic information to offspring. Recent studies, however, have shown that about 10 percent of histone packaging is retained in both human and mouse sperm.”

So …more lying to men.
Get obese, it’s fine! Drink like a fish! Your kids will be fine!

Our ancestors never knew that vice… had a price.
https://biblehub.com/numbers/14-18.htm

They didn’t have iPhones, we’re so much wiser than them.

“The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.‘”

What does that even mean? Nature can’t see what you’re doing.

Trust the “experts” who profiteer from fertility treatments and hate white men!

“”Furthermore, where the chromosomes retain histone packaging of DNA is in developmentally important regions, so those findings raised awareness of the possibility that sperm may transmit important epigenetic information to embryos,” Strome said.”

Wait, could rednecks be even smarter if they drank less?

Was Prohibition, pro-white?

“These findings show that the DNA packaging in sperm is important, because offspring that did not inherit normal sperm epigenetic marks were sterile, and it is sufficient for normal germline development,” Strome said.”

Money shot?

Sinner father, no grandchildren?

That is a divinely calculated revenge, all their paternal investment wasted.

Detour:

https://thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/2011/01/childlessness-and-bible-2-defective.html

“The presumption of female defect is confirmed in a letter to the Ugarit king about a woman who failed to produce any children for her husband after an extended period of time. The letter relates how the husband used the infertility as an occasion to take a second wife. It was only when he failed to produce children with the second woman that he was then considered to be the defective one”

LOL

“While monogamy was probably the norm in antiquity,”

louder for cucks at the back

“childlessness was one of the most common reasons that a man would resort to a bigynous marriage”

But God is punishing them, going around that in favour of dysgenic reproduction is a sin.

Women could divorce infertile or impotent men under the Catholic church, it was so important.

“The goal is to analyze how the chromatin packaging changes in the parent,” she said. “Whatever gets passed on to the offspring has to go through the germ cells. We want to know which cells experience the environmental factors, how they transmit that information to the germ cells, what changes in the germ cells, and how that impacts the offspring.”

I doubt it’s for the greater good.

Could addiction be genetic?

Lawyers are celebrating just thinking of it.

By demonstrating the importance of epigenetic information carried by sperm, the current study establishes that if the environment experienced by the father changes the epigenetics of sperm chromosomes, it could affect the offspring.”

Could?

A few others, while I’m here.

Your genes affect your nose shape.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11616

Ya gotta have chutzpah to believe the science.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/16/scientists-discover-dozens-of-new-genes-for-hair-colour

“The colour of a person’s hair is one of the most heritable features of their appearance, with studies on twins suggesting that genetics explains up to 97% of hair colour.”

Race explains 100%. Subrace especially.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0100-5

They’re right that hair colour isn’t a matter of sexual preference …but race is.

““Pigments are far more than just cosmetic – they are important for the immune system and play a role in many diseases,” said Spector. “Understanding the genetics could lead to new therapies.”

They tried that with African heart medication, it was taken off the label.

They’d rather let black men keel over and die than admit they’re genetically different.

K-shift in mice:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jul/13/scientists-discover-brains-neural-switch-for-becoming-an-alpha-male

“Intriguingly, the experience of winning appeared to leave an imprint on the mice, making them more assertive, even when their brains’ were no longer being artificially controlled. They were found to be more combative in a second scenario in which they competed to occupy the warm corner in a cage with an ice-cold floor.”

So you see, they can’t let men grow up. There’d be no politically useful regression then.
Buy stock in pajamas.
They can knock out that part of the brain too. They don’t mention this. This makes me suspicious.

“The findings, they suggest, could have applications in understanding a variety of psychiatric conditions where people exhibit overly dominant behaviours, or lack motivation to compete socially.”

Psychopathy and depression (or r-selection, as a trait).
Psychopaths are immune to depression. What makes others sad, makes them mad.
The study itself has nothing to do with “alpha” as Americans consider it, an alpha is never single in biology but part of a breeding pair.

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/08/23/no-more-alpha-male/

The study is really about psychopathy in the extreme form (genetic engineering, useful for the military) and social dominance in prosocial, milder forms (K) which cannot be undone (even in GE mice) as a natural maturation process. Its absence of activation (say, from the amygala circuits) could explain effete males. Again, they gloss over that.

I noticed.

Genes influence subject choice.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jun/16/a-level-subject-choice-is-strongly-influenced-by-genes-scientists-say

Not IQ?
Isn’t that a huge confound that should be studied?
And why force children to study languages then? Isn’t that oppression when they could study something else?

“Birney warns that the findings do not imply that it is possible to predict a student’s subject choice, or achievement, from their genome.”

trans. Don’t look in the race box, please, don’t look in the race box. I don’t want to get the sack.

“As schooling and other factors vary greatly from person to person it is unlikely that genetics is the dominant factor in A-level choice.”

The likelihood was calculated.

“The scientists found that this was indeed the case, with 50-80% of subject choice down to genetic influences.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/23/genes-influence-academic-ability-across-all-subjects-latest-study-shows

Academic ability …. not IQ?

How is GPA not a reliable proxy for IQ, on that point?

GPA is basically just the PC term for IQ. Mathematically.

Video: What is a gentleman?

The beta thing is nice but no power. Nice is not a choice.

The cuck thing is power but no character. The wrong choice.

For a definition of coarse or boorish, picture an American rapper at a club. They are opposites. Birds of a feather flock together. However, cheap people will not let classy people alone, they constantly try to invade that space too.

The entitlement is a big reason they are vulgar.

This is not ambition aka the American Dream, it is a sense of being owed by other people for behaving decently or normally.

e.g. the beta expects everyone to like him because he pretends to like them, the creep expects a woman to sleep with him because he did her the honour of noticing her, the cuck expects social approval for selling you out with a smile.

These people are insufferable boors. All three of those have suppressed anger, rationalizing bad decisions.

This man in the video is more alpha than anyone insecure enough to write about it at length.
You do your own thing yes, but you needn’t be obnoxious about it.

Porn addict rationalization

The fact a man’s balls are so readily available during rape to twist or to crush with the fist and rupture, means that evolution gave women natural defenses against rape.

It’s just science, goys.

Postmodernism is stupid. Status signalling is for beta twats.
Yet everything modern I do is moral and natural, even the anal sex (but it’s gross to a man) and I am alpha, greatest status signal based in scientism of them all!

What naturalistic fallacy?

What is this, the naturalistic phallus?

https://old.reddit.com/r/NotHowGirlsWork/comments/8msf71/incel_gives_enlightening_biology_lesson_xpost/

According to Darwin, the antisocial rapists are prone to natural selection, not sexual. If it were sexual, that would be rejection… and damn, if that ain’t what we see.

Remember ladies, avoiding men with rape fantasies just makes you a bitch!
Displeasing any man, at any time, is proof you’re the problem!

Actually, women exist in archaeology prior to men. They didn’t bother to check?

Parthenogenesis. Men are the aberration, the mutants. Read a book?

Technically, humans are determined by woman. Women do not need men or their cells to reproduce themselves.

Ah, sweet, sweet womb envy.

All their shitty skyscrapers crumble but our bloodline is pure.

I hope artificial wombs come in because they’re so confident men would do better out of the situation where women are no longer vulnerable and therefore dependent on them. They really believe female dimorphism doesn’t reach the brain. Women are just like men but with a uterus. I guess neuroscience doesn’t exist, go home and be the best (opposite sex) you can be! Men would magically gain the mothering abilities of a female brain, which doesn’t exist. We’re all the same.

The fact you can grab a man’s beard means Mother Nature says he is meant to go down on you.

Next they’ll tell us pubes are a sign a woman is “too old”.

Pedo slavers waiting to happen. Ironically, they’ll get plenty of rape in prison, where they belong.

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

What PUAs get wrong about ‘alpha wolves’

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/pick-up-artists-dont-understand-what-alpha-even-meansas-evidenced-by-wolves

Everything?

Alpha means being a Patriarch – married, traditional, monogamous, loyal, fertile.

They’re trying desperately to signal K-selected traits with an r-sexuality.
That’s why it fails. No, you fail, you’re inferior socially, found wanting.
It’s easier to signal being a good father and run (cowards) than to actually become a man.
There is also the matter that Alpha is an animal aristocracy, not only are you born into it but high fitness isn’t limited to males, there are Alpha females obviously because the Alphas of the pack are K-selected aka the Alpha Male only lies with his female. This isn’t a lion/pride arrangement and in prides, the lionesses hunt (work).
Protean displays as mixed messages?
Protean displays are done by defensive cowards when faced with a predator…. actually yeah, PUA < most women.

‘But it’s the alpha/beta hierarchy that’s really having a renaissance online. And its current use completely ignores the science behind it. So I went to a wolf park to study their “on the prowl” behavior.
“[Alpha is] a term that was coined in biology, just the first Greek letter in the Greek alphabet, just a convenience thing,” says Monty Sloan, senior animal curator and staff photographer at Wolf Park. “And it’s been kind of undermined by public perception of what that might mean.” First of all, wolf packs have two alphas: a male and a female. “There’s always two alphas in a pack. That’s what defines a pack. The pack might be two wolves, but socially, they are dominant. They are alphas. If more wolves enter the pack, they’ll submit to those two. And what you’ll see is a linear hierarchy develop.”‘

Like a ….class system?

Alpha is a power couple.

If you’re not married to an alpha while being one yourself, you’re not Alpha with a capital ‘A’, at most potential.

I’ve been trying to correct them on the ethology for years.

‘These two alphas are usually a breeding pair, and in wolves found in the Midwest, wolf packs are usually a nuclear family. This is why some wolf researchers have abandoned the term alpha altogether, like David Mech, whose book The Wolf popularized the idea of an alpha wolf in the 1970s. “[T]hey are merely breeders, or parents, and that’s all we call them today,” he writes on his academic website. Rather than one alpha male having some harem of lady-wolves at his beck and call because he’s so strong and butch, the alpha male is daddy.
You don’t fight to get to the alpha position, you usually inherit it. You’re usually in the right place at the right time,” says Sloan. “All you have to do is have offspring, and the offspring are going to grow up submitting to their parents. That’s all it takes.”‘

K-SELECTION.
Genetic superiority, proven by wits.

Genetic suicides or deadbeats can NEVER, EVER BE ALPHA.

I’ve mentioned the Darwin of why on here, it’s the Parental Investment theory.

Do they listen? No. That would involve real self-improvement and the sunk cost fallacy of bullshit e-books has wormed into their brain. Love is not a game unless you’re crazy. Taylor Swift crazy.

‘According to To Be An Alpha, a website dedicated to helping men become the alphas of their pack, alpha males that take control are “vocal and loud” and “aren’t afraid to get physical.”‘

Obnoxious and boyishly immature? Entitled?
They’re trying to rebrand a gobby chav teen as the epitome of masculinity?

‘Dominant breeding wolves aren’t afraid to get physical, but they don’t start fights either. “You don’t typically see a dominant wolf going around, parading around acting tough and aggressively confronting the other wolves,” says Sloan. “When you do see that, it’s usually a sign of a lack of confidence. Ironically, the animal is not very confident if it’s doing that, and it’s not comfortable at all.”‘

Freud. Signalling masculinity, like talking about it, means you aren’t. You’re lying and hoping people won’t forget you exist. That’s narcissistic, that’s solipsistic (wait, no, just egocentric and selfish). The abuse of ‘solipsism’, which funny at first as intellectual posturing, now grates.

Any man who must say I am King, isn’t a King?

If you insist on picking a sex that leads the Alpha debate, it’s female.

Another major misconception is that alpha males are dominant over alpha females. “The dominance between the sexes is not that important to them,” says Sloan.
The wolves I visited at Wolf Park were a group of siblings: Kanti, Bicho, and Fiona. Kanti is the alpha male, Fiona is the alpha female. She is also dominant over Kanti. “If there is an altercation between the female and Kanti, Kanti is on his back submitting,” says Sloan. “Even though she is much smaller than him, she is the dominant wolf in the pack.” This is typical of the packs in Wolf Park.’

tfw literal animals are more socially intelligent than you, Roosh V
It’s Bateman’s Principle, the mother makes babies and in K-terms, that’s all that matters. Eggs > Sperm
Women are more selective, women need to be protected but this is from other males, sexual competition.
How many men would die for their woman/children? How many of those are men?
Yet they claim they want a Patriarchy. Surrrre. Patriarchy isn’t male liberty, it’s male enslavement to women. At least, in Darwinian terms but at least the good men survive biologically. Women’s lib was liberation for the sexuality of men to fuck and run. Sexual Revolution was terrible for women, great for men. If you take away our vote and retain your own, all the legs will be shutting. And then other men will take yours, based on history.

“It turns out, not even peacocks truly peacock. We may think their visual display is pretty enchanting, but peahens aren’t always looking at the display. They’re listening. Peacocks vibrate their tail feathers in two distinct patterns; they twerk, essentially.”

shh, I enjoyed letting them make fools of themselves and it makes them easier to avoid
God Bless Ed Hardy for that.

Peacocking is actually about male attractiveness, genetic beauty i.e. the gym does nothing, lookism is real.